Just an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff

Know your enemy.

I have been very concerned by the repeated platforms given in the media to people and organisations-such as Sp!ked online and the von Mises Institute-who espouse a libertarian philosophy.

This is a quote from prominent "anarcho-capitalist" Murray Rothbard about the "rights" of parents over their children:
"the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon... the parent and depriving the parent of his rights"
Also: "the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children".
In a fully libertarian society, he wrote, "the existence of a free baby market will bring such 'neglect' down to a minimum".

(from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard )

Views like these really ought not to be taken seriously but their representatives are quoted repeatedly by the BBC, the Times, Daily Mail, RT and others without ever being challenged or critiqued, particularly with regard to their opposition to campus "safe zones" and No Platform policies.

An ideology called "Objectivism" (basically a variant of rightist libertarianism espoused by nihilist-by-any-other-name novelist Ayn Rand) has even infected our foreign policy and given the United States, United Kingdom and Israel carte blanche as "free states" to intervene wherever they want regardless of the casualties and consequences. This is especially apt with regards to America's approach to Syria-despite supporting ISIS/daesh by default and risking a nuclear confontation with Russia-and its assumption of right to a worldwide monopoly on violence.

What libertarianism and Objectivism and their an-cap variants espouse is simple: zero democracy and 100% freedom, albeit entirely of the negative variety.

Or:
You can buy her, you can buy her
This one's here, this one's here, this one's here and this one's here
Ev'rything's for sale

For sale? dumb cunt's same dumb questions
Oh virgins? listen, all virgins are liars honey
And I don't know what I'm scared of or what I even enjoy
Dulling, get money, but nothing turns out like you want it to

And in these plagued streets of pity you can buy anything
For $200 anyone can conceive a God on video
He's a boy, you want a girl so tear off his cock
Tie his hair in bunches, fuck him, call him Rita if you want

I eat and I dress and I wash and I still can say thank you
Puking - shaking - sinking I still stand for old ladies
Can't shout, can't scream, hurt myself to get pain out

I 'T' them, 24:7, all year long
Purgatory's circle, drowning here, someone will always say yes
Funny place for the social, for the insects to start caring
Just an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff

In these plagued streets of pity you can buy anything
For $200 anyone can conceive a God on video
He's a boy, you want a girl so tear off his cock
Tie his hair in bunches, fuck him, call him Rita if you want, if you want

I eat and I dress and I wash and I can still say thank you
Puking - shaking - sinking I still stand for old ladies
Can't shout, can't scream, I hurt myself to get pain out

Power produces desire, the weak have none
There's no lust in this coma even for a fifty
Solitude, solitude, the 11th commandment

The only certain thing that is left about me
There is no part of my body that has not been used
Pity or pain, to show displeasure's shame
Everyone I've loved or hated always seems to leave

And in these plagued streets of pity you can buy anything
For $200 anyone can conceive a God on video
He's a boy, you want a girl so tear off his cock
Tie his hair in bunches, fuck him, call him Rita if you want, if you want

Power produces desire, the weak have none
There's no lust in this coma even for a fifty
Solitude, solitude, the 11th commandment

Don't hurt, just obey, lie down, do as they say
May as well be heaven this hell, smells the same
These sunless afternoons I can't find myself
Yes-Manic Street Preachers

(Another) critique of libertarianism or

The Mentality of Born-Again Ideologues

A critique of the mentality of "born again" zealots, particularly rightlibs or libertarians.

Whether religious or political, these are always people who have not long come into contact with the beliefs they pretend to espouse but have had little time to consider if they might be wrong or any other point of view.

 

They've not long read a book about the Bible or Marx or Rand or who/whatever (never the source material, at least in the case of the Bible) liked what they read, took it to heart, had an epiphany and told themselves "Oh my God this is so right how could I not have seen that things are this way". This then leads to "why don't other people see things this way?" which then leads to "how can they have the gall to even think differently?" and a total refusal to consider for a second that other people may be right.
 

It's difficult to take libertarians seriously when they all seem to believe the same thing, or at least those who subscribe to a version of capitalism that both never existed and is more in line with the thinking of mutualist/market anarchists like Proudhon; specifically one that envisages a petit-bourgeois society of small tradesmen, small hold farmers and shop keepers, sort of like Napoleon's description of the English.

If they subscribed to such a reordering of capitalism I could take them more seriously but this would in reality involve such a large re-allocation of land and capital that they would consider to be violence-except people aren't immortal; libertarians could (and it would be consistent) support the abolishment of inheritance as a way of raising revenue without taxing wealth or productivity and as a way of heading towards a mutualist small holder version of society by allocating land and wealth as it becomes available. Similarly, the idea that any kind of welfare state is both immoral and represents only a form of violence is both misguided and only explained by the espousal of so-called free market capitalism.

Which isn't an explanation.

The Elizabethan poor laws established the welfare state, this didn't lead to socialism or make people lazy. Besides, if libertarians were right than the perfect society would have been Victorian England.
Or pick any third world nation.

Also, why is it immoral to receive money to live off if you don't work? It's not theft. To allow people to starve is a form of violence by society, plus: why should people be forced to work in the first place? If one only has the option of work or starvation one is really no better than a slave.

 

There's nothing virtuous about being rich and out of work just as there is nothing virtuous about being poor and out of work or being poor and in work (most poor people do in fact work as do most people receiving some form of welfare in advanced countries), so should Mr or Miss Trust Fund be sent to a re-education camp to teach them the virtues of hard work?

Why should the poor remain in both poverty and endless drudgery? Or are the rich automatically morally (and hey why not genetically?) superior to the rest of us? The attitude libertarians have towards most of Humanity borders on racism and like racism it is totally disproved.

  

More Trekonomics

The Economics of Star Trek part 3 / Further Trekonomics

To add a few things:
1. Tom Paris (Star Trek: Voyager) refers to the New World Economy being established in the twenty-second century

2. Gold apparently can be replicated, certainly radioactive gold can be produced in the twenty-first century by bombarding mercury with alpha particles, and it is theoretically possible to extract gold from seawater-perhaps a process of both is performed by the never seen but mentioned in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine "industrial replicators"

3. Granted, Paris does replicate a necklace for Kes , but maybe it just looks like gold or is only gold-plated; or Fools Gold, iron pyrites

4. The form of credit I have conceived precludes the concepts of banking, taxation, and rent in the usual concept

5. Of course all I've done really is create a post-scarcity economy that relies on a "World State" while endorsing private property, sort of an Objectivist version of the European Union (!)

6. Although, as far as I know, they still use money on Earth and other Federation planets, they just don't pay Starfleet personnel-joining Starfleet could then be a free way to both see the universe and escape the rat race?

Anarchy or Liberty, part three. Or, Why I am not a Leftist?

Hello again. I feel like I'm on a roll with this one.

Been starting to realise just how right-wing libertarianism is. Perhaps I should say "economic authoritarianism" to refer to it or Objectivism, assuming the two are the same. The opposite ought to be a form of "cooperativism", perhaps socialism is a misleading term. The left-right divide can be replaced by individualism and cooperativism on the one hand and political and economic authoritarianism on the other.

It is right to use these terms when one extreme opposes any form of non-state or independent cooperation (Objectivism), political parties/activism and the forming of trade unions while the other end can encompass most forms of socialism and forms of political activity, including anarcho-syndicalism and "Lifestylism". I'm not quite sure where to put Fascism on a purely left-right scale so political authoritarianism definitely fits-Objectivists oppose any political activity, putting any other philosophy and ideology to its Left.

Of course, if one disagrees fundamentally with freedom of association then one really ought to oppose all prisons, assuming society doesn't have the right to choose who it associates with. Think about it.

Yes, anyone reading my blog will tell I have an obsession with prisons and criticising a crazed obscure "rightist" ideology.
And I do.
The reason for this is twofold and connected: the right-wing media in the United Kingdom and how often people on the traditional "left" and "right" ends of the political spectrum use the same arguments to support different positions .
I often find myself reading between the lines and it is very clear to me that the poisonous, insidious half-philosophy known as "Objectivism" or libertarianism is a present influence in the editorial content specifically of the Times newspaper, the modern Conservative party and the online magazine "Spiked Online". The latter is generally quite obscure but is often quoted by the BBC, RT, The Times and the Daily Mail.
Even though they support legalising all forms of pornography, including examples of which are too obscene to describe and involve no reasonable measure of consent.
This is not exaggeration, Spiked are fanatically committed to the most extreme forms of free speech while opposing any and all forms of political activism ("Activism equals Anarchy", to quote their God Ayn Rand). Finding objective information on Spiked is difficult, but they actually grew out of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain. Presumably they decided capitalism will only be overthrown after it has reached its worst excesses and so have to argue fervently for any conservative cause while keeping to a libertarian agenda.
The newspapers mentioned are typical of right-wing newspapers in the United Kingdom, which are highly critical of campaigns on behalf of the Palestinians for example. All journals seem to harbour particular ire towards the campaigns in favour of organising economic and academic boycotts of Israel in order to pressure and isolate their government. Which to The Times is basically against free trade, although surely people have a choice of who and where to by goods from and who they associate or do not with?
This is where contradictions are raised, or ought to be.
I can just about forgive the Hate Mail when it criticises capitalism on moral grounds. This is a very sound argument in fact, as is opposition to capitalism on environmental grounds.
The issue of association and choice is fundamental to the issue of establishing or not trade unions and prisons, I shouldn't make that point further? However I would clarify that a very big problem with prisons is how they are organised and the insatiable reliance on them when there is no clear empirical evidence that they actually reform criminals and deter crime. I think, without contradicting myself, prison is one of those problems that are not easily solved and that there is no clear answer to the situation.
But it is obscenely hypocritical concerning the existence of the state: being that if the state is defined by the legal use of violence that effectively means that murder, in a very real sense, is legal. As is theft or extortion as the state is effectively a huge self-sustaining protection racket. It is important considering the above points to consider this when mainstream conservative and Conservative commentators criticise Social Anarchists for not agreeing with their concept of a minimal state. But: short argument-who builds and maintains the roads? Private individuals could not afford to. Towns and villages could be linked by private railways but many would be unprofitable and the owners would go bankrupt.
So, what happens if the government can tax people, but people can't form trade unions or political parties? Also, no-one is responsible for roads, hospitals and schools because these should all be privately run. And there'd be no prisons because practically everything would be legal.
Like infanticide.
In other words, why listen to the arguments of morons?

Another dickhead is Friedrich Hayek. Thatcher was a massive fan (no surprise there) due to his book "The Road To Serfdom" (not read at present but do I need to?) which basically argues that welfare systems are wrong and interfere with individual freedom because there is no fool proof way of objectively determining how much money an individual would need to live off or proving if they have other sources of income. But how can one decide, similarly, if a criminal is guilty or even, say philosophically, if a crime has even been committed, so the argument goes round in circles? All it proves really is that the arguments against communism or socialism used by Hayek, Rand and Thatcher are the same for opposing any kind of centralised coordinating authority one could think of.
Besides, a welfare state is not the same as socialism.
Also, surely any idiot could give a reasonable guess on how much an individual's living costs would be? Say, by estimating or working out by statistical means the total cost of a loaf of bread, two bus tickets and a pint of milk then multiplying that amount by seven to give a low but reasonable cost of living. Money or vouchers or credit could also be supplied to cover the cost of clothes, heating and rent over a certain period. Welfare costs hardly make up a large amount of government spending and most forms like pensions and child support are provided to people who do or used to work. Welfare is not paying people not to work and abolishing unemployment benefits while maintaining a prison system is effectively rewarding criminal behaviour as desperate individuals would be forced to commit crimes simply in order to receive healthcare or a roof over their head.

Other forms of anarchy face the same arguments against them as well as hostility from other Leftists.
Anarcho-primitivism and green anarchy support a return to a pastoral or even hunter-gather society. In so many obvious ways this is evidently backward and counterproductive but does hit a chord with conservative arguments, especially conservatives critical of relentless progress at a Human cost. It also supports a non-hierarchical alternative to industrial capitalism while consistently keeping to the traditional arguments against socialism. In terms of bringing it about, many Primitivists consider it inevitable considering recent historical developments, the suicidal reluctance of governments and corporations to work towards a sustainable future for Humanity (a heinous crime of non-action in itself) and the obvious absence of "The Revolution", alongside the perpetual bickering, splintering and infighting that plagues left-wing organisations.

Agorism is sometimes called "anarcho-capitalism" even though "anarcho-capitalism" is non-anarchic and Agorism is not exactly capitalism in the traditional sense. However, like Mutualism (another branch of political anarchism) it defines what Objectivists confuse capitalism to be, being straight-forward equal trade between consenting, rational individuals. Do I need to explain why this isn't really capitalism?

Lifestylism is pretty self-explanatory in itself, based on the belief that the life choices of individuals can bring about real social change. This, perhaps again, is (probably) what people often limit or confuse anarchism with. Murray Bookchin, among many others, was a critic.
But what is the alternative? "Getting a Job like a Good Communist"? Isn't this Lifestylism? Or is it just surrendering one's autonomy to the state or an employer who lives off your labour. Another subject that just goes round and round and never gets satisfactorily resolved.

Anarchy or Liberty, part two

Hello again.
By the way thank you for taking the time to read my half-baked crazed ranting.

An important concept that many liberals/moderates and conservatives miss is that of justice. Perhaps on first hand this seems strange for me to say. Of course these people believe in justice. But are we talking about justice in a legal or economic sense? I think the point is to think about both.

A conservative would conclude that some form of centralised authority is needed for legal justice. They would also conclude that any attempt to create economic justice i.e. equality would create a disincentive for capital to invest in the economy, the richest and most creative people would leave the country, the economy would collapse and so tax revenues would decrease. The decrease in state coffers would affect it's ability to maintain law and order and so justice would be denied.

Liberals would generally agree with this statement but would be critical of some of the laws that conservatives would support and would more likely to favour a progressive income and/or wealth tax. Making less laws and raising more taxes makes more sense economically as the state could focus on, for example, imprisoning murderers and sex offenders as opposed to banning women and homosexuals from serving in the armed forces and handing out lengthy prison sentences for petty or non-violent offences.  

I think both arguments have merit. However the argument about capital flight and also inflation (which conservatives and libertarians bring up to justify lowering wages and benefits) isn't entirely convincing. If anything, governments are deliberately causing inflation by providing massive direct benefits and state subsidies to the rich.

The amounts of money spent rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq and bailing out the banks could easily be directly distributed to the very poor and low paid workers. In fact this basically makes a mockery of the argument that government cannot achieve equality, at least in highly developed nations. Perhaps this is a point for another blog post, but wages could be capped at say £250 per annum ditto corporate profits. Empty houses could be made available to buy at say £5000 and the government could even give people £25K over a year if they just don't feel like working for a year, or if they need to complete a further year at university, raise a child or care for an elderly relative.

I think the real point about justice is how easy it is to evade prison for certain offences. I'm thinking rape, which is incredibly hard to prove and convict and also tax evasion. Moreover, it is obvious to probably most people how the very rich and particularly current or ex politicians, policemen and military personnel and also celebrities seem to be able to mostly avoid the consequences of their actions that most ordinary people would never get away with. Without getting into this too much I think much of this, certainly in the UK, is the fault of the right-wing press and media. Abroad, one can think of the cases of OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorious.

Anarchy or Liberty, or why I am an anarchist

Weird point, but what if the US gun lobby are right?
I mean they are not, but perhaps it's fair to point out that of all the things you can and can't do in the United States, there are a lot of things which are a lot harder to do than obtaining a firearm. In many cases there are freedoms that most people in the world enjoy that are affectively forbidden in the USA.
Like having a drink on your 18th birthday.
Not being shot by the police or being a victim of a mass shooting.
Obtaining an abortion or healthcare.
Driving while black.
Crossing the road (it's called "jaywalking").
Crossing the road while black.
Public drinking.

The point is, there are often two sides to an argument and in specific circumstances the "liberal" and "conservative" sides to an argument are actually both right and wrong. Being:
guns
abortions
hard drugs
soft drugs
euthanasia
marriage (in general)
killing in defence of self or property
smoking/drinking/having sex/injecting drugs in public
I think it is for society itself to deal with these issues not any government, no matter how democratic or otherwise it claims to be, simply because legalising in effect means official endorsement by the state while there are obvious problems with prohibition which anyone can find arguments for  (They all boil down to the same thing anyway).

Alternately, they could be dealt with on a case by case basis or localities can decide consensus on which is appropriate. This is basically anarcho-communism, summed up by Emma Goldman's phrase

"Society gets the crime it deserves"

It is interesting if one goes back to the issue of firearms how it is somehow considered acceptable in some parts of America, particularly Texas, to openly carry firearms in public while drinking and even smoking in public can result in a fine or imprisonment, let alone open drug use or fornication! Yet, surely being openly armed is a threat while none of the other offences would actually harm anyone directly?

Censorship is another issue.
Libertarians would contend that banning a film is wrong as is putting an age certificate. But what if one simply cannot afford to "go to the movies"? Isn't that basically the same as censorship because poverty, especially extreme poverty, prevents one participating in society and, to be honest and using films again as an example, having an opinion about society?
Which we are all part of.

But, guns.
If people can carry guns in public they could justify that using freedom of speech or even freedom of association. So, banning people from openly carrying firearms is restricting freedom of speech.....
...but by that argument ALL forms of pornography should be legal, while blackmail and even threats to kill are legitimate.
But, all this proves is that libertarianism is basically bollocks. It just gives one the right to intimidate and even be an outright threat to society.

Are libertarian ideas totally wrong or can one be selective?
Maybe.
"Democracy is when three sheep and one wolf argue over what to have for dinner"-an anonymous (well not because it's Facebook) poster on a Facebook libertarian group.
This comment probably sums up Objectivism, which is basically a reactionary, anti-democratic, anti-debate anti-liberal non-ideology. Just like libertarianism! Hah!

However, if one ignores the "justification" for capitalism and looks at the arguments for treating human beings equally because they are rational beings than Objectivism can start to make sense.
But.
What is the difference between being forced to eat grass because one cannot afford to eat or pay rent/mortgage on the land they occupy and, say, the state murdering you because you are rich or Jewish? We are humans, not wolves or sheep. We are animals and that is a good thing. Denying one is an animal with feelings, the ability to feel pain and pleasure and the need and desire to survive is illogical and denying reality.
So if we take these ideas seriously one should be free to work or not as one desires and all products and services available to any should be available to all.
Or at least rational people who give a good reason.
But.
A libertarian would say this is communism and an Objectivist would say communism is evil.

I would say that poverty is itself a form of violence AND censorship. I would also say that there is no objective way to allocate a value to labour so the most reasonable way to value it is to think of it in terms of time spent and hours worked.
Another way to put this would be to ask this question: You have two people. they are both on a very low income, say £100 a week. However, the first person only works for two hours a week while the other works for 112 hours a week. So, who is poorer?
I think it is obvious.
The poor worker is the one who barely has time to eat and sleep while the "rich" worker has time to educate themselves, have hobbies, practice their religion, spend time with their family or just sleep in from time to time, get wasted and end up with a hangover in the morning or just look for another job.
Objectivism basically states neither is rich or poor although Ayn Rand would almost certainly state that the second worker is somehow more virtuous.
The ridiculous hours spend by the second example are not used to make a spurious or extreme point but is a direct reference to the "heroes" of 'Atlas Shrugged'. Don't bother reading it, just trust me.

As an addendum to comments on libertarianism and Objectivism; what if one is irrational? For example a child or a very elderly person.
Or someone who is uneducated because all the public schools were closed when they were young and their parents didn't have time to teach them how to read.
Or they are angry because they are unemployed or homeless.
I think people should be allowed to fulfil their potential and all are of equal value. Libertarians (if we conflate the philosophy with Objectivism) would disagree. These people have no value and are practically considered animals along with homeless people, the developmentally disabled, drug addicts, religious people (presumably) and trade unionists. It is that extreme.
It is also hypocritical as it claims to be based on non-violence but effectively justifies if not violence at least neglect.
What we have to remember is that being asked for small change by a beggar is considered equal to asking one to rip both one's arms off and that being "on welfare" is effectively the same as murdering someone. For most rational people this is ridiculous but there is no such thing as moral relativism in Objectivism and no room in Ayn Rand's "philosophy" for compromise.
"A equals A" apparently.
But.
A socialist system based on voluntary association is not inherently violent. Communism is a good idea and need not require central planning or state co-ordination as I hope I have explained.

But what is wrong with government?
It is not all-powerful. In fact I would say it is incredibly weak, feeble and ineffective at solving especially global problems. Or at least without mass deprivation of personal freedoms.

What is the difference between anarchism and libertarianism?
Anarchists are against all forms of authority while libertarians just focus on the government. Libertarians also treat the government like some supernatural agency with wide-ranging powers when, objectively, the state, like money and perhaps God, DOES NOT EXIST. It exists in our minds only. If we ignored it, like perhaps obnoxious people and criminals, it would go away.
The only reality is survival, pleasure, pain and one's ego.
However, some government functions are perhaps necessary and it is not going to just go away because some people want it to. It survives because we allow it to survive. It is also true that necessary social functions like road maintenance and the fire brigade can be performed without need for taxes, coercion or state planning. Especially if they are functions that everybody agrees with or needs.

What about the left-right divide?
Obviously socialists and liberals are more or less on the left while conservatives and reactionaries are on the right. There is also the divide between authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism. But Objectivism is certainly a reactionary ideology despite its pretentions of liberalism and many on the Left have just as much contempt for liberalism, democracy and, more than often, students and the unemployed. For evidence just use the internet, there are plenty of intolerant morons on there.

Psychologically there is the Left, which focuses on the ego. Leftists often agree on many things but detest each other's organisations and fall out due to differences in personality. For example Murray Bookchin in the late twentieth century (his conflict with Lifestylism) and the refusal of the Second International to allow Errico Malatesta (an anarchist) membership. But Mussolini was a member.

In many ways the Reactionary Left is the same as that of the Revolutionary Right.
Oh..
.......I meant....hah!

Rightists disagree about a lot of things and are often most vocal and critical about "The Government" or "The Liberal Agenda", but still maintain loyalty to the main conservative party in their home country. They also have a collective psychology e.g. racists, homophobes, Islamophobes all treat individuals as part of a collective and consider any idea they disagree with as part of some conspiracy by a tiny but somehow all pervasive and all powerful cabal e.g. "The Jews" or "Hippies".

Atlas didn't Shrug

Been trying mostly successfully to read Atlas Shrugged this last week or so.
I would absolutely with no shadow of a doubt say that Ayn Rand is the worse person who has ever lived. Yes, worse than Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Fritzl.
No-one quotes Idi Amin to justify being a pimp for child prostitutes.

Reading AS is like reading Palpatine's diary or Lex Luthor's biography. Repeat: The. Worst.

Seriously, read Red Son by Mark Millar. Yes, it's a Superman comic but basically it's about Kennedy surviving to old age and Milton Friedman being president of the United States of America.

Or read Look To Windward.
It's about a society with only one real law and no taboos to speak of but it's main characters (three aliens and an Avatar of an AI war veteran) have so much more Humanity than the sexually-weird non-characters Rand came up with and people are allowed to live by their own moral code.
The problem with Rand's philosophical justification for unrestrained capitalism is that one could use the same or similar arguments to justify child slavery, murder or political autocracies. In fact if anything a dictatorship would be the only form of government logically acceptable to Rand if one goes by her justification for allowing capitalist monopolies.

A Libertarian Manifesto for the UK?

A Libertarian Manifesto for the UK


1. The age of sexual consent to be lowered to 14, so long as both partners are under 18 and unrelated other than by marriage. *


2. The Army is to be disbanded. Up to a point. The SAS would remain for hostage rescues, but the main Army would only exist as Reserve Forces, with full-time membership limited to three years (after age 21). **


3. Britain would disarm its Nuclear Capability.


* 4. The Age of Consent is otherwise 17.


5. The Age of Criminal Responsibility is 14 (at the moment it's at aged ten).


6. 15 year olds will get the vote.


7. The Royal Navy and Air Force would remain, but no personnel is to earn more than £50,000 a year.


8. Members of Parliament, as well as being unpaid, would serve terms totalling no longer than Ten Years.


9. Young Persons not living with Legal Guardian/Parent (defined as aged Between and Including 14 and 21) are allowed a Subsistence Allowance of £210 per week.


10. Formal Education is only Compulsory between the Ages of Seven and Fourteen years of age.


11. Education below University level is to be free regardless of age and fee paying schools will be abolished.


12. University Education is Free for those aged below 22.


** 13. Any Citizen between the ages of 22 and 55 can apply to receive a Subsistence and Maintenance Grant of £12,000 each year for three years if they a) Undergo voluntary activities; b) Study Full Time or c) Join the Reserve or Police Forces.


14. The various Police Forces and Railway systems are to be run as Charitable Organisations.


15. Citizens in the Reserve Forces after their three-year period has expired, or if they served any period between aged 17 and 21, will receive £100 per week on continuing and a further £100 for every day spent training or on active duty.


16. Holders of Estates worth more than £2 million are to pay the Community Rent, possibly in the form of increased Council Tax.


17. Council Tax will only be paid by owners of second or multiple properties and citizens with yearly earnings totalling greater than £55,000.


18. Income Tax is at 100%, with all earners with an annual salary below £150,000 receiving a 90% rebate.


19. Serving MPs and Full-Time students aged 22 and above may apply for Housing Benefit plus Grants and Loans to aid Living Expenses and Tuition Fees.


20. Hard Drugs will become Freely Available in on-premise "Shooting Galleries" for Proven Problem Addicts.


21. Selling hard drugs that are contaminated with non-advertised substances or are otherwise of deficient purity will result in fines or imprisonment.


22. Otherwise, drugs are legal.


23. 18 year olds are allowed to visit licenced premises in order to consume Soft Drugs.


24. 21 year olds can grow cannabis for their own consumption on application and payment of a licence.


25. Prison sentences of Five Years or Longer will be abolished unless the perpetrator committed pre-meditated offences and/or has been proven to be a danger to the Public.


26. If appropriate, Sentences of One Year or less are to be commuted to House Arrest and/or Community Service.


27. There is to be a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy and the House of Lords-alternatives are appointed, directly elected or positions chosen by Lottery of Citizens aged 21 and above for a Head of State and Senate Members.


28. VAT will be reduced, except for Legal Highs and Cannabis/Soft Drugs.


29. Children aged 14 and above can legally divorce from their parents/guardians without question.


30. National Insurance contributions are to be abolished.


Ending Poverty?


Within the European Union:
A Minimum Wage of £6 per hour;
A Citizen's Income of £35 per week;
a Maximum Working Week of 30 hours
and Free Green Electricity.


Globally:
Free electrical goods for every household;
Child's Allowance of £30 per month (under 18);
Minimum Wage of two pounds per hour;
Free energy from various sources;
A Pensioner's/Widower's Allowance of £40 per month
(everyone over 40);
A Stateless/Displaced Persons/Refugee's Allowance
of £100 per week


Perhaps Paid For By:
Abolishing Inheritance;
All Nations agreeing to a Corporation Tax of 35%
with no Rebates or Subsidies;
Using money from unclaimed bank accounts


UK:
Perhaps JSA and DLA (paid separately and together)
at £100 per week, with deductions for earnings or
missing interviews.
e.g. No State Pension, instead CI, P/WA and DLA
alongside Housing Benefit to cover Rent.