Would people oppose a system with no cronies or social elite?

hatrickpatrick

So many people are attacking my views on this in other debates I thought it might be interesting to get this out into the open completely.

Would people here genuinely oppose a system in which al citizens were equal under the law AND in the eyes of the government, where the government would do NO personal favours for friends at the expense of everyone else, where NO groups would a special level of influence over laws and government policy, where NO individuals would be exempt from the law, where white collar crime by those in that elite would be vigorously pursued and brutally stamped out, etc etc etc?

Is it a false impression I'm getting that some people here actually support the system we're using at the moment wherein the government picks favourites and they get special treatment? Or am I reading it wrong altogether?

Sorry if this post sounds over the top but I'm genuinely getting the impression from some posts here that a lot of people silently approve of the current status quo wherein vested interests come before the general population. I'd just like to get some opinions on that if anyone has the time.

Sleepy

I'd imagine the system would be opposed by the usual vested interests: public sector workers, publicans, the Catholic church, the elderly etc.

Unfortunately, these groups hold a lot of sway because they're sizeable groups and often influential e.g. a teacher can influence their class's politics, a publican holds sway in his bar (and would frequently be a big support to local sports clubs etc. particularly in rural areas) and the church while doing it's very best to lose all credibility still has sway with the elderly, the majority of Irish schoolchildren and those lacking in critical faculties...

Godge

Would people oppose motherhood and apple pie? Or blue skies and happy days?

You have given no details on your system just happy-clappy aspirations.

Defenders of democracy would say that their system delivers exactly what you are looking for when working properly. Defenders of fascism would say the same.

We can all sign up to the romantic ideal in your post, it is the rest that we would disagree on.

BTW, who are the favourites that have got special treatment from the current government?

PeadarCo

Is it even possible to generate such a system. There will always be some sort of elite in any system. And who are the elite?There was an entire thread about it and there was no agreement.

As for helping out friends at what level would this have to stop. If I was to help a friend out of a hole wouldn't that be unfair to a person in the same situation whose friends wouldn't/couldn't help.

At the moment I'd say people approve of the status quo because most people benefit/expect to benefit and a better alternative hasn't been proposed. It should be remembered that approx 86% of people are still in employment. I wouldn't say our current system is perfect by any means but its a good base to build from.

I wouldn't disagree with many of your views regarding say white collar crime but its your solutions I have a problem with.The solutions seem to be impossible to achieve, even at times undefineable like for example the elite. They also don't take account of the complexity of the issues involved. To sum it for me its your solutions I would disagree with but not nessessaily your views on what the problems are.

cavedave

hatrickpatrick

Would people here genuinely oppose a system in which al citizens were equal under the law AND in the eyes of the government, where the government would do NO personal favours for friends at the expense of everyone else, where NO groups would a special level of influence over laws and government policy,

Its an interesting question. One issue is people have different definitions of being treated exactly the same. Say we agree to spend the same on every citizens public service.

Would you treat a 90 year old in hospital the same way as a 20 year old? At the moment we are more willing to spend money on the 20 year old as they have more life left.

Does that mean the rural do not get to see a Garda ever as having Gardai in local areas with low population densities is expensive.

Would children going to private schools get the same level of sponsorship as children going to public schools?

Treating everyone the same and spending the same amount on them regardless of age or social class or where they live is not how we act now. Should it be?

Godge

cavedave wrote: »

Its an interesting question. One issue is people have different definitions of being treated exactly the same. Say we agree to spend the same on every citizens public service.

Would you treat a 90 year old in hospital the same way as a 20 year old? At the moment we are more willing to spend money on the 20 year old as they have more life left.

Does that mean the rural do not get to see a Garda ever as having Gardai in local areas with low population densities is expensive.

Would children going to private schools get the same level of sponsorship as children going to public schools?

Treating everyone the same and spending the same amount on them regardless of age or social class or where they live is not how we act now. Should it be?

Yes, I had forgotten that angle.

Once you point out that treating everyone equally and favouring no group, means abolishing social welfare (or reducing it to a level that can be paid to everyone), paying a consultant doctor the same as a cleaner*, and introducing a flat-rate non-progressive tax whereby the richer pay less than now and the poorer pay more than now (why should those on 100,000 pay 41% while those on 30,000 pay 20%, you are treating the second group better?), you suddenly get the howls of outrage from those who propose such a system. Like in 1984, the pigs that propose the new arrangements want to become human.


*Actually it wouldn't matter because why would you hire any public servants?

Ultimately, the only system as described by the OP is one that has a small equal flat tax on everyone to raise money for justice and defence as all other tax and expenditure measures mean you favour one group or another. Unless of course the OP means that all groups should be treated equally except those that he supports?

cavedave

In fairness to the OP I'm taking what seems like a reasonable proposal "lets treat everyone equally" and showing how under one definition of equal, spend the same regardless of age or location, some nasty results could happen. As pointed out above communism and many other nasty isms are based on treating equally they just use some nasty definitions of equal

HARRISON BERGERON: THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General

antoobrien

hatrickpatrick

Wasn't that the aim of this social & economic system?

andrew

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So many people are attacking my views on this in other debates I thought it might be interesting to get this out into the open completely.

Would people here genuinely oppose a system in which al citizens were equal under the law AND in the eyes of the government, where the government would do NO personal favours for friends at the expense of everyone else, where NO groups would a special level of influence over laws and government policy, where NO individuals would be exempt from the law, where white collar crime by those in that elite would be vigorously pursued and brutally stamped out, etc etc etc?

Is it a false impression I'm getting that some people here actually support the system we're using at the moment wherein the government picks favourites and they get special treatment? Or am I reading it wrong altogether?

Sorry if this post sounds over the top but I'm genuinely getting the impression from some posts here that a lot of people silently approve of the current status quo wherein vested interests come before the general population. I'd just like to get some opinions on that if anyone has the time.

That's all well and good until you realise that it includes all the groups which you thing are really good and worthwhile in addition to including the vested interests and nutters.

hmmm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry if this post sounds over the top but I'm genuinely getting the impression from some posts here that a lot of people silently approve of the current status quo wherein vested interests come before the general population.

I think it's really insulting the way you keep repeating this line. You want this utopian perfect world of unicorns and angels, where everyone is one big family, we all selflessly work for everyone else and politicians are perfect individuals who are both flawless in character and make perfect decisions on every occasion. Grow up and stop casting aspersions on those of us with a few years of living in the real world under our belt.

ixtlan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry if this post sounds over the top but I'm genuinely getting the impression from some posts here that a lot of people silently approve of the current status quo wherein vested interests come before the general population. I'd just like to get some opinions on that if anyone has the time.

I think your mistake comes from assuming that vested interests are separate from the general population. I was listening to Charlie Bird in Mullingar today where it was mentioned several times that since Willie Penrose was now a minister, they expected that he would treat them favourably. That's no surprise. That's a common view and expectation from the Irish public.

So, if you are in a segment of the population that happens to be at that moment in time a vested interest you want the status quo to continue.

I would rather ban TDs from getting involved in any local issues, though it's hard to do that of course.

ix.

CDfm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So many people are attacking my views on this in other debates I thought it might be interesting to get this out into the open completely.

Bang on hatrickpatrick, I have started a few threads asking similar questions .

Like this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056427512

The politico's who support these interest groups dont want to discuss it with me and you ,but, the interest groups are not elected.

Cookie_Monster

Demarchy

Everyone is entitled (required) to vote on every aspect of law and societal change, no central government required, no vested interests, no corruption. Needs a much higher level of technology to be able to do it however.

Alastair Reynold refers to it frequently in some of his sci-fi novels

In Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series of novels the concept of demarchy has been used to flatten hierarchies. Here, in one of the human factions—the demarchists—everyone is theoretically equal in the realm of government and all major political related issues are voted upon by everyone via neural implant. The "demarchy" in this society is actually more of a direct democracy.

the_syco

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Would people here genuinely oppose a system in which al citizens were equal under the law AND in the eyes of the government, where the government would do NO personal favours for friends at the expense of everyone else, where NO groups would a special level of influence over laws and government policy, where NO individuals would be exempt from the law, where white collar crime by those in that elite would be vigorously pursued and brutally stamped out, etc etc etc?

To ensure this would happen, someone would need total power. And as total power corrupts, those that do the checks would become the new elite.

Communist Russia was communist to the peasants, and not communist to the leaders.

CDfm

We are in a constitutional democracy where the constitutional checks are bypassed and the system ain't working.

Icepick

CDfm wrote: »

We are in a constitutional democracy where the constitutional checks are bypassed and the system ain't working.

examples?

Godge

CDfm wrote: »

We are in a constitutional democracy where the constitutional checks are bypassed and the system ain't working.

Can we have a few clear examples please?

I already asked hatrickpatrick who are the favourites of the current government but he has disappeared without answering?

To be explicit, I want to know, what has occurred that is corrupt, favourite etc. that wasn't a direct result or a consequence of the actions of the previous government?

wiseguy

@OP people have a problem with your apparent naivety, you appear to have good intentions but you like the communists before you make the very same mistake
Live a few years more and you would become more of a realist and a bit more cynical, also read Animal Farm and 1984 for answers to your question

-Chris-

We have a government who requires being voted in, therefore they have to pander to certain classes in order to garner the support to achieve the number of votes required.

Running these political campaigns, election campaigns and political parties/organisations requires money and volunteers. In order to get people to donate large enough amounts of money, time or influence, you're going to have to show them they'll get something in return.

i.e. you can't get elected (or even contest an election) without being beholden to someone.

Before you ask the question "who here supports my ideal?", would you mind taking the time to outline how you would actually expect this ideal to operate?

johnnyskeleton

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So many people are attacking my views on this in other debates I thought it might be interesting to get this out into the open completely.

Would people here genuinely oppose a system in which al citizens were equal under the law AND in the eyes of the government, where the government would do NO personal favours for friends at the expense of everyone else, where NO groups would a special level of influence over laws and government policy, where NO individuals would be exempt from the law, where white collar crime by those in that elite would be vigorously pursued and brutally stamped out, etc etc etc?

Is it a false impression I'm getting that some people here actually support the system we're using at the moment wherein the government picks favourites and they get special treatment? Or am I reading it wrong altogether?

Sorry if this post sounds over the top but I'm genuinely getting the impression from some posts here that a lot of people silently approve of the current status quo wherein ves
ted interests come before the general population. I'd just like to get some opinions on that if anyone has the time.

Great idea in theory, but difficult to implement in reality. All we can hope for is a slow but constant increase in accountability. Generally speaking, whenever the government tries a radical overhaul it ends in a worse situation thanbefore. Take the legal professions which are slowly showing the results of increased and functionung regulation and investigation which is now seeing a few prosecutions of solicitors. But because it is not evolving fast enough, a new system is being brought in which sounds better but which it is difficult to see how it will actually be better and could be worse.

Similarly, with the politicians trying to have unfettered powers of investigation. Likewise with how the former government dealt with the banks.

If you think of every scheme to fix the health service, welfare etc, none of these seem to have any discernable effect other than to make it more expensive.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Replace "Boards posters" with "most people everywhere" and you have a solid point.

antoobrien

OP should familiarise with the works of Thomas Hobbes and have a read of a few books on Game Theory, especially zero sum games.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Icepick

It's actually funny to see socialists/communists complaining about this government. The ridiculous welfare and public service budgets must be every socialist's/communist's dream.

binxeo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So many people are attacking my views on this in other debates I thought it might be interesting to get this out into the open completely.

Would people here genuinely oppose a system in which al citizens were equal under the law AND in the eyes of the government, where the government would do NO personal favours for friends at the expense of everyone else, where NO groups would a special level of influence over laws and government policy, where NO individuals would be exempt from the law, where white collar crime by those in that elite would be vigorously pursued and brutally stamped out, etc etc etc?

Is it a false impression I'm getting that some people here actually support the system we're using at the moment wherein the government picks favourites and they get special treatment? Or am I reading it wrong altogether?

Sorry if this post sounds over the top but I'm genuinely getting the impression from some posts here that a lot of people silently approve of the current status quo wherein vested interests come before the general population. I'd just like to get some opinions on that if anyone has the time.

Is that not democracy lol

I for one would like what you describe. I think though it is idealistic. We will never have that, some will always have more and others less and some will always bend the rules to help a friend. Wouldn't you. Social capital is a vital part of the social system we have also and is I would think a motivator for self improvement, not just to gain financial security but also gain social capital. In an ideal world things would be fair but we live in a world far from an ideal world.

johnnyskeleton

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Forgetting about the "social partnership" era, the difference between unions and corporate lobbyists is that the Unions are engaged by the employees to deal with the employer. They are not lobbying, they are doing what unions everywhere do. Someone has to negotiate those contracts. In much the same way, there is nothing wrong with the government engaging with private companies to do a deal e.g. PPP so long, obviously, as it is a fair process and there is no bribery etc.

It is a different thing altogether where, for example, the banks or the vintners or the farmers can dictate government policy, there being no direct business or contractual relationship between those bodies and the government.

Godge

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Forgetting about the "social partnership" era, the difference between unions and corporate lobbyists is that the Unions are engaged by the employees to deal with the employer. They are not lobbying, they are doing what unions everywhere do. Someone has to negotiate those contracts. In much the same way, there is nothing wrong with the government engaging with private companies to do a deal e.g. PPP so long, obviously, as it is a fair process and there is no bribery etc.

It is a different thing altogether where, for example, the banks or the vintners or the farmers can dictate government policy, there being no direct business or contractual relationship between those bodies and the government.

so there are good lobbyists and bad lobbyists.

Employees engage unions to negotiate on their behalf with the Department of Finance who regulates the pay of public servants.

Banks engage the Irish Banking Federation to negotiate on their behalf with the Department of Finance who regulates their business.

Publicans engage the vinters association to negotiate on their behalf with whatever Department (Justice?) which regulates their business.

Farmers engage the IFA to negotiate on their behalf with the Department of Agriculture which decides on who receives how much of an agricultural grants.

The unemployed engage the INOU to negotiate with the Department of Social Protection about the level and form of payments and supports to the unemployed.

I don't see much difference between any of them. If you want to ban them all, fair enough but don't cherrypick and claim you are getting rid of cronyism.

PeadarCo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Forgetting about the "social partnership" era, the difference between unions and corporate lobbyists is that the Unions are engaged by the employees to deal with the employer. They are not lobbying, they are doing what unions everywhere do. Someone has to negotiate those contracts. In much the same way, there is nothing wrong with the government engaging with private companies to do a deal e.g. PPP so long, obviously, as it is a fair process and there is no bribery etc.

It is a different thing altogether where, for example, the banks or the vintners or the farmers can dictate government policy, there being no direct business or contractual relationship between those bodies and the government.

Union members have a contract with the government which affects them but government can pass laws that have on all types of industries. It would only be fair if their representative bodies had some sort of say on the development of those laws similar to how unions can influence the contracts of there members.

mcmoustache

I like the OP's idea but I'd like exceptions to be made for me, my area, my family and also for a newly created Software Developers' Representative Organisation.

I think that most voters feel the same and this is why we are where we are.

thebman

I don't think there should be any organised lobby groups allowed to lobby govenrment. Individuals lobbying their local representatives fair enough but not an organisation.

That government engage so readily with lobby groups show how absent of ideas they are themselves and reveals a lot about the standard of our political parties.

It also says a lot about the government departments that the government has to resort to listening to lobby groups to try to work out what it is supposed to be doing.

PeadarCo

thebman wrote: »

I don't think there should be any organised lobby groups allowed to lobby govenrment. Individuals lobbying their local representatives fair enough but not an organisation.

That government engage so readily with lobby groups show how absent of ideas they are themselves and reveals a lot about the standard of our political parties.

It also says a lot about the government departments that the government has to resort to listening to lobby groups to try to work out what it is supposed to be doing.

How else would the government develop good law? Talking to concerened parties about how a law would affect them isn't a bad idea as they would know their area better than the government. Providing the government keeps in mind and engages with other interested parties and strikes a balance lobbying isn't bad. When lobby groups dictate policy to the detriment of other concerns thats where the issue is but how do you decide that tipping point has been hit?