This week’s Question Time got me thinking. The issue of Switzerland’s referendum over free movement was raised and much applauded by the older, more reactionary members of the audience. Of course, I’m not saying it was just them, there were some short sighted members of the yoof too, but generally, this is a pattern followed by the older members of the society; aka the ones who will dies off much sooner.
Sooner or later, we will be having a referendum on our membership of Europe. I must say, this worries me. Not because I’m against democracy, far from it, but rather because this, much like most referendum, doesn’t seem incredibly democratic.
It’s very easy to see a referendum as the highest form of democracy, giving a decision to the people of the country, as opposed to allowing those suit wearing manikins in parliament all the power. But is it really?
A liberal democracy should, in its highest form, allow any member of that society to live to the best of their ability, free to do as they please, so long as they do not directly harm another. In a democratic society, so one person should not control another, nor should the majority oppress the minority. Via referendum, we allow just that.
When the anti-Europe camp tries to drum up mass vitriol towards the institution, they call about all the red tape the Continent creates for us; all the freedoms they take away. But on closer inspection, the parts of Europe they seem to hate most of all are exactly those parts that extend to us our basic rights and freedoms; such as the working time directive that prevents us from being abused by our employers, or the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards so many of our basic freedoms it’s impossible to list them here. Somehow, some of our politicians have twisted the issue, successfully turning us against our own basic freedoms. It shouldn’t be so easily achieved, but they’ve done it by citing plenty of the few detriments of the convention, like deporting terror suspects while casually ignoring all the benefits. It doesn’t help that the right-wing press pedal the same swill that so many people happy lap up from the troughs.
What the referendum seekers wish to do is extend to people the ability to make a decision that will essentially take away fundamental freedoms of everyone else, based on carefully selective information and propaganda. The main aims seem to be to take away people’s ability to travel freely around Europe, to work where they like, and to start relationships and families with who they like without state interference. In the void that will follow, the government will be able to rewrite our freedoms, and pick and choose what fundamental rights we deserve – something I am not comfortable to hand over to our political overlords of today for a quick brainstorming session. I say this especially during an economic downturn, where giving a business the freedom to squeeze you dry, since it’s best for the economy, must seem mighty attractive. And quality of life be damned, because we have to compete with emerging economies like China and India.
When UKIP, the self-professed libertarian society talks about libertarianism, above is what they mean. A completely unmolested free market that does away with worker rights and human rights, as it’s those that get in the way of the unnatural system of market capitalism. It opens the playing field, sure, but on the playground, the biggest and meanest are sure to come out on top. And that’s the problem, in the world of material greed on such a diabolical scale, we live in a world where you are taught to be big and mean or you fall. To make it in the business world, we are taught to be ruthless.
Red tape, for the most part, is to protect us. Taxes, the welfare state, free healthcare are there to ensure that we can get on in the world, yet still have a safety net when we fall, no matter our background, upbringing or wealth. Some of us, when we fall, we are picked up financially by our parents, relatives or friends. Some people cannot, and need the rest of us to help; the welfare state is a collective kitty for our fellow being, which essential for simple common decency.
And the red tape, for the most part, involves keeping workers safe, ensuring they cannot be unfairly dismissed, ensuring they have enough time for leisure activities and a life, and enough pay. It ensures humans are not looked upon as mules or donkeys.
Socially, I do consider myself a libertarian, or at least an extreme liberal. I believe no one should interfere in my business, so long as I do not DIRECTLY harm another. It is not the business of the government, for instance, to threaten me with jail because I do drugs, which may harm me – already a contradiction in itself by countering a catastrophe with a catastrophe, a policy of guaranteed destruction, like the use of nukes. My health is my business. It is also, not the business of the government to blame me for the larger woes of the drug trade, which are brought about solely by their policy of prohibition. That arm of the government must be shortened, for it is not their duty to micromanage my life or anybody else’s.
On the other hand, it is their duty to keep the potential bullies in line. The rich, the powerful, the businesses we rely on for a living and for the goods and services that not just make life possible, but enjoyable too. Because if left to their own devices, the hunger and quest for increased profit can be catastrophic for those little people, of which 99% of us are.
If you want to climb to the top of that ladder, you can. But you cannot create a world where you have unequivocal power over everybody else, and that includes government and big business. Everyone deserves the same freedom, the same free time, for their own pursuits, wherever on the ladder they reach, because, believe it or not, not everyone sees their life as simply working in a job.
I know to the heavily regimented, this might seem absurd and idealistic, but we all only have one life, and we really should have the ability to enjoy it, not working every hour God sends. Responsibility in capitalism, as history has shown us, can only be brought about by political intervention, such as with the eight hour working day and child labour laws, and political intervention must always be for the people. Politics should only safeguard us from potential tyrants, and by that also never become the tyrant itself.
It perhaps relegates the government to the role of gigantic accountants. Of course, that’s not what I want. In an ideal world, we’d need no interference and we’d all work together toward a world that works for all, but that’s not what we have and that’s not what we’re taught. If wealth can’t be better distributed by business, doing away with the sneering upturned nose at the natural occurrence lower ability levels, then outside interference must occur. If business schools continue to teach the same models, then a humanising effort must poke around under the bonnet. I’m not saying that all tiers be done away with, which inevitably will affect striving in some way or another, but that the tiers do not need be so obscenely pronounced and far away from each other that someone at the top can earn thousands and thousands times what someone at the bottom of the ladder earns.
It may not be good business practice, but I don’t care, the world as it is is bad logic.
It’s not certain of course that the reactionary right outnumber the moderates; we may see a better outcome when the referendum comes. But they are definitely more vocal. By calling for democracy, what they really call for is their ability to stamp their view on everyone else. Their calls for more freedom are just call to stifle freedoms through protection that exist today. And they may succeed in doing it, not because there are more of them, but because they have nothing better to do in their twilight years than vote, leaving us with the mess after they’re gone (something I of course find sad being both young and obsessed by politics).
Saturday, 15 February 2014
Something I wrote to a friend on Facebook
I'm sorry man, I have to say all this. What exactly is revolutionary about you position? Your position is as revolutionary as a Whig, only taken out of context and placed in the modern day. Because at least then, there was a power structure above the emerging business class that they could work to usurp as a first step toward social mobility, albeit, very small. Now, that class DO rule. Your revolutionary ideal is to give the people with all the power, more power.
We already live in a corporatist society. We have lived in a corporatist society for a long, long time. We DO NOT live in a socialist society. We, in Britain, do NOT live in a socialist society. You, in America, CERTAINLY do noy live in a socialist society. The rich rule. The rich permiate government; they influence policy and they influence policy in their favour. Only sometimes, it doesn't quite go their way. They have to make the odd concession due to some social campaign, or some research brought to the public consciousness by the 'liberal media' or something else. These AREN'T CONSPIRACIES. They are NO MORE conspiracies than influence of your business people for what they see as 'the better way' for them and those they represent. When it doesn't always go their way, the toys come out the pram and they demand more concessions. Freedom to do what they want.
Business is simply there to make a profit. It has no desire to better the world. This has been continually displayed throughout history, from the cotton mills in Britain in the 1700's to now, with Apple in China and Primark in India. The ONLY thing that has changed this has been regulation. Governments are NOT totally representative and they DO NOT always get it right. In fact, they get it wrong a lot. Drugs, being one and a minor one in a long list. However, they are supposed to represent us, as in humanity, and they do a better job of it than a bunch CEO. By this, I mean the interests of morality as opposed to the fowarding of a simple economic goal, or even the simple prevailing, hegemony. The one's that mainly fail in this task are those that fight for more freedom for massive corporations.
So, governments have overturned child labour in Britian, back in the 1800's. They overturned poor houses and other exploitative institutions that big business used to profit immorally. These would not have vanished in a Libertarian system, because the people, the class of people, it represented had no power. They were merely the workforce pool. It was philosophical developments, quite apart from the economic system, that pushed certain people into action which caused a ban to be enforced. Now, could that have happened by consumer pressure? Probably not. Because, to be honest, I expect the majority of the British middle classes would have prefered cheaper stocking to a fairly treated underclass. There is surely no way you could argue that this regulation of business was not right. Sometimes, within the system of greed we live in, there needs to be push. People have not stopped buying from Apple, despite their poor treatment of staff. In fact, some people almost worship them.
You see, your revolutionary thinking never thinks outside of the box that we built. You seem to treat the constucted world as the world in of itself. You believe that governments should be minimalised and muzzled as a power structure, yet you believe that ever other power structure must be allowed to flourish further. Business is pushing for ever more leeway, using the financial crisis as an excuse. Amongst other things, the rights granted to workers to be stripped bare. The ability to fire to be much easier and much more fluid. This doesn't bother me, I'm a contractor, I'm used to that shit and live very much on my own on the fringe. But others, for others, this is terrifying. This allows businesses to push their workforce to work all the hours that they, THE BUSINESS, deem necessary. For a simple, unchanging, non-overtime paying wage, you must work longer or face dismissal. Those at the top do not face that fear.
What's more, those at the top have prospered ever more since the financial crisis while the rest of us have floundered. By freeing up the market indefinitely, we are feeding this. The freedom to further exploit, to control workers by unfair rates of pay, and by setting their prices accordingly. Business groups can plan strategies to, economically, control behaviour if they so wish.
We need, currently, a government to act as a counter balance. REMEMBER, we live in a world, with people. Real people, real lives, real experiences. We are NOT disposable, regardless of whether market capitalism deems it so or not. It's this that needs to be defended, not a precious little system that was dreamt up by some farmers who like the look of someone's shiny nugget, that's gone completely out of control.
Ideally, we shouldn't have governments. Nor should we need taxes. We should have councils that run business on a democratic basis, syndicalist style, where the workforce has a say. Where all are represented and all work together toward success and a common goal. Where competition does exist, but in a far more friendly manner than it does now where you want to out do your peer simply for the braghing rights over a beer. Those in need are taken care of by their society, who are no longer chasing the goal of greed.
Currently, competition is ruthless and is cut throat. And the market will not right and the market will not reflect morality, not when no one has any money and people desperately clamber for the cheapest products and services in order to survive. Low prices are brought around by the suffering of others, and ethics are expensive in our system.
I agree on your socially Libertarian stance, but not the extreme nature of your right-wing economics. Unfortunately, the use of Libertarian here reminds me a lot of parties here in Europe. There are many parties that use the word Freedom in their name when they want nothing of the kind. Under your free market economy, Libertarianism extends to a few.
(Written on the fly, when I was supposed to be filling in a spreadsheet)
We already live in a corporatist society. We have lived in a corporatist society for a long, long time. We DO NOT live in a socialist society. We, in Britain, do NOT live in a socialist society. You, in America, CERTAINLY do noy live in a socialist society. The rich rule. The rich permiate government; they influence policy and they influence policy in their favour. Only sometimes, it doesn't quite go their way. They have to make the odd concession due to some social campaign, or some research brought to the public consciousness by the 'liberal media' or something else. These AREN'T CONSPIRACIES. They are NO MORE conspiracies than influence of your business people for what they see as 'the better way' for them and those they represent. When it doesn't always go their way, the toys come out the pram and they demand more concessions. Freedom to do what they want.
Business is simply there to make a profit. It has no desire to better the world. This has been continually displayed throughout history, from the cotton mills in Britain in the 1700's to now, with Apple in China and Primark in India. The ONLY thing that has changed this has been regulation. Governments are NOT totally representative and they DO NOT always get it right. In fact, they get it wrong a lot. Drugs, being one and a minor one in a long list. However, they are supposed to represent us, as in humanity, and they do a better job of it than a bunch CEO. By this, I mean the interests of morality as opposed to the fowarding of a simple economic goal, or even the simple prevailing, hegemony. The one's that mainly fail in this task are those that fight for more freedom for massive corporations.
So, governments have overturned child labour in Britian, back in the 1800's. They overturned poor houses and other exploitative institutions that big business used to profit immorally. These would not have vanished in a Libertarian system, because the people, the class of people, it represented had no power. They were merely the workforce pool. It was philosophical developments, quite apart from the economic system, that pushed certain people into action which caused a ban to be enforced. Now, could that have happened by consumer pressure? Probably not. Because, to be honest, I expect the majority of the British middle classes would have prefered cheaper stocking to a fairly treated underclass. There is surely no way you could argue that this regulation of business was not right. Sometimes, within the system of greed we live in, there needs to be push. People have not stopped buying from Apple, despite their poor treatment of staff. In fact, some people almost worship them.
You see, your revolutionary thinking never thinks outside of the box that we built. You seem to treat the constucted world as the world in of itself. You believe that governments should be minimalised and muzzled as a power structure, yet you believe that ever other power structure must be allowed to flourish further. Business is pushing for ever more leeway, using the financial crisis as an excuse. Amongst other things, the rights granted to workers to be stripped bare. The ability to fire to be much easier and much more fluid. This doesn't bother me, I'm a contractor, I'm used to that shit and live very much on my own on the fringe. But others, for others, this is terrifying. This allows businesses to push their workforce to work all the hours that they, THE BUSINESS, deem necessary. For a simple, unchanging, non-overtime paying wage, you must work longer or face dismissal. Those at the top do not face that fear.
What's more, those at the top have prospered ever more since the financial crisis while the rest of us have floundered. By freeing up the market indefinitely, we are feeding this. The freedom to further exploit, to control workers by unfair rates of pay, and by setting their prices accordingly. Business groups can plan strategies to, economically, control behaviour if they so wish.
We need, currently, a government to act as a counter balance. REMEMBER, we live in a world, with people. Real people, real lives, real experiences. We are NOT disposable, regardless of whether market capitalism deems it so or not. It's this that needs to be defended, not a precious little system that was dreamt up by some farmers who like the look of someone's shiny nugget, that's gone completely out of control.
Ideally, we shouldn't have governments. Nor should we need taxes. We should have councils that run business on a democratic basis, syndicalist style, where the workforce has a say. Where all are represented and all work together toward success and a common goal. Where competition does exist, but in a far more friendly manner than it does now where you want to out do your peer simply for the braghing rights over a beer. Those in need are taken care of by their society, who are no longer chasing the goal of greed.
Currently, competition is ruthless and is cut throat. And the market will not right and the market will not reflect morality, not when no one has any money and people desperately clamber for the cheapest products and services in order to survive. Low prices are brought around by the suffering of others, and ethics are expensive in our system.
I agree on your socially Libertarian stance, but not the extreme nature of your right-wing economics. Unfortunately, the use of Libertarian here reminds me a lot of parties here in Europe. There are many parties that use the word Freedom in their name when they want nothing of the kind. Under your free market economy, Libertarianism extends to a few.
(Written on the fly, when I was supposed to be filling in a spreadsheet)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)