Don't really know why I'm posting this. Just pissed me off a bit I guess, and wanted to know if anyone else thought this guy was being a dick or not. We were just talking about him trying to do a PHD and then this happened:
Me: yeah not a lot of money for grants in academia at the moment i hear
Him: depends where you go
if i go here, i get €1,508 per month
problem is, that comes from the SLC to whom i owe about 18k
They don't agree with my policy of not repaying the state
because I don't believe in the satte
Me: well then you shouldn't take money from it!
Him: i don't take
it is for their own good!
i need to be educated in order for (a) it to collapse and (b) to know how to replace it with better governance
Me: alright Lenin
Him: i am not a communist
the nation-state as a system, in my opinion is decrepit
Me: oh yeah you dont believe in the state, how silly of me
anyway this isn't the greatest forum for philosphical discussions
Him: The soviet union was one of the most intrusive states in history
i do not want a repeat of that
Me: amen sister
Him: well, anyway...it won't last
Me: the soviet union?
Him: no, the state
we will see the break up of the USA within our lifetimes
and other states
precisely because they do not function and/or meet the needs of the general population
Me: sorry i'm half working in one window half chatting to you in the other. can we keep it light?
Him: haha ok
lets just say: why don't you think about it
i am just being realistic
Me: not paying tax/ repaying debts because it's all going to collapse anyway?
is that what i should think about?
or you just mean future history in general?
i don't think you can realistically predict which states will continue to flourish and which will collapse with any degree of certainty and even less can you predict how and when whole systems of governance will collapse and what will replace them
that was my Lenin reference, wasn't calling you a communist
Him: I am not predicting what will replace them
Also, I don't say don't pay tax because of inevitabilities. I say don't pay it to a corrupt governing entity, which undemocratically uses powers to manipulate those taxes, which people have paid
Who knows where their taxes go?
It is entirely untransparent
Who is elected?
I don't know the figures, but successive goverments have recieved less than 20% of the vote of the population
it cannot continue
I think the game is up, but it will be messy
Me: you might be right. or, capitalist democarcies as they exist might adapt themselves to cope with the changes in the world.
while i agree government should be more transparent, and I understand the argument that you might not like what your taxes are spent on, i don't think that necessarily justifies anyone not paying their tax.
Him: i am not calling for that
Me: is it right that Starbucks should get away with managing their books so that the UK arm always makes a loss and they never pay corporation tax?
Him: what I certainly would call for would be a run on the banks
what is not right, is teh manipulation of interest rates by central banks forcing small and medium sized companies to go into liquidation so huge corporations can reap the rewards
Me: yeah of course
Him: it is the central banks, which 'run' governments
all major political parties in the West are almost identical
Me: well i guess that's where we differ, i think it's much more nuanced than banks running governments
just seems far too easy an analysis
Him: well, it isn't
it is factual
the elitist system will not allow for differentiations
otherwise, they will cease to be elite
Me: what about in Scandanavian countries?
Him: what about them?
they're all connected to the same central bank
Me: well they have a much more balanced society in terms of distribution of wealth, a much more regulated banking system, more social equality, better healthcare etc etc. they still have elites, of course, but these elites have been reigned in somewhat by the expression of the people's will. all based on parliamentary democracy and regulated capitalism.
Him: You'd have to define 'reigned in'
i'd say that'd be hard to do
they have very, very small populations
the income gap increases in all societies
Me: well i did define it: much more balanced society in terms of distribution of wealth, a much more regulated banking system, more social equality, better healthcare etc etc
Him: we must work with facts, not media rhetoric
how do you know that?
Me: sorry, the income gap increases in all societies?
Him: yes, it does
the gap in income between the top earners and the lowest increases
that is a fact
Me: you should read this
Him: it has done so since the 1970s in most countries
what is that?
Me: i thought you said all countries?
Him: some data is not available
Me: ok so not a fact then
Him: well, yes it is a fact
Me: anyway, i wouldnt disagree with the essence of what you're saying. since the 1970s wealth gaps have become generally bigger in the west.
Him: Scandinavia might seem nice(r), but there are acute social problems there too, brought on by banking
Me: but i think (and i'd have to check) that if you looked at data for the post war period in western europe during the building of the welfare state etc then you would see the opposite trend/
Him: well, you may see that during the 1950s and 1960s
but not after
from the early 1970s, after the rejection of gold as a back-up currency, things became squeezed
the dollar as a reserve just allows for currency manipulation and financial terrorism
like QE1, 2 and 3 for example
making populations suffer
Me: i'm not disagreeing with that. i'm saying that management of capitalism and banking does not have to, and in fact has in some circumstances, resulted in the reduction of the wealth gap
Me: ie you don't have to dissolve the whole system in order to achieve better equality
you just said: well, you may see that during the 1950s and 1960s
Him: i am aware of that
yes, i did
Me: there and then
Him: but then, elites realised what was happening
it is meaningless if it has been reversed?
Me: so you're looking for a final and non-negotiable solution to the distribution of wealth?
Him: why non-negotiable?
it is not a diatribe
it is my concern
but i'm saying of course there will be to-and-fros
and of course we need a better system to manage that
but i don't really buy into this unmovable elites running the world by conspiracy stuff. it doesn't stand up to a long view
and i'm sorry to duck out, but now i really must go and work.
but seriously you should read that book. it's really good data based research on how more equal societies are more healthy societies
based on your favourite, facts! not just opinion and conjecture like most political science books
Him: But it is not a theory. It is a fact
facts are everything
opinion can only be formed from them
what's your point there spaceman?
what's not a theory?
Him: that sadly, too many people don't know what they're talking about, but still talk.
elites running the show
is not a theory
Me: ok fine we're just going to have to agree to disagree buster. you can't just tell me i'm wrong and expect me to bow down
Him: power accumulation through the instrument of debt has been crippling populations for centuries
Me: gotta go now seriously
Him: but you cannot disagree if you don't know, surely
Me: well you haven't convinced me otherwise. i think you're talking about how money moves around and who controls that process. i don;t think that is wide enough of a scope to say that banks control society
Him: i haven't even begun to try to convince you
Me: please don't!
Him: i won't
i have better things to do!
Me: none even slightly taken
Him: but you will see what i'm talking about soon
i'll just say that