Civil War, Part II

[kandrathe]

In neither a free system nor a welfare state do you sell your free choice. You pick whether and where to work, you pick where you're going to live and where you're going to move, and even if you let someone take over those rights in exchange for money, you cannot permanently surrender them. Whatever the tax burdens may be, labour is (in the main) free.

What you say here is true, however, the systems in the US and Europe allow for a meager existence for those who cannot, or will not work. And, on the top end, it may be impossible to work enough, or save enough to ever climb out of "vassalage". Also, the system might be rigged whereby those positions in the top 10% are reserved for the elite few who happen to inherit the ability to attend the best schools. Yes, there are exceptions which cast that glimmer of hope for the 90% trapped in generational servitude, just like the occasional jackpot at the casino. For every "Bill Gates", there are thousands of "Philo T Farnsworths", and hundreds of thousands not smart enough to do what he or Gary Kildall did. Kildall at least got to be rich for a few years before he died in a freak accident.:shuriken:

Vassalage, indenture, slavery, peonage, serfdom, thralldom, corvee, etc... do not have these qualities. In those systems, you have lost your free choice. You do not get to pick your job, you cannot quit, you cannot stop working. Someone else makes these choices for you; you are unfree labour.

True again. So, almost like servitude, but you get to choose the nature of your service. You get to choose whether you live in government supplied housing (usually in a crime ridden area), jump through the governments hoops to collect your subsistence money, and as far as choices, it is up to the government to decide what you get. I don't see that escape from this system is possible. Where can you go? Seriously, what would happen to a family of four in your nation if both parents are out of work for a year or two? Here in the US, first they would tap all their savings, then destroy their retirement savings to continue make their monthly payments. Eventually, they would default on their mortgage, and the bank would foreclose. They might be able, depending on circumstances to delay eviction if they declare bankruptcy. The result of this brief interruption in their servitude is that they slide to the bottom and start over trying to climb out of the bowl again. For most working people in the US, the ultimate goal is to reach age 65 or 70 so that they can begin to receive Social Security income, which will essentially allow them to live at just a subsistence level. If they haven't paid off their house, or debts, then good luck trying to retire. Most seniors with no retirement income beyond SSI have a pretty tough retirement.

The other point, of course, is democracy. In Europe as in America, you can vote for change if you don't like the tax regime, or leave the country if you can't put up with it. The government is by, of, and for the people. Whether taxes are high or low, they are not that way because an arbitrary Monarch is expropriating your wealth, but because the elected government has decided it that way. Some countries may choose to tax themselves heavily, but they choose it freely.

Again, on the face of it, appears to be true. I'm not sure what the perceptions of the people towards their government are in the UK, Canada, or the rest of Europe, but here in the US, it seems that the career track for serving in national public office begins with an Ivy League law school education, then establishing yourself with the party elite within your state, usually by serving in some appointed government jobs for a few years to establish your party credibility.

Or, as it is in my state, money speaks loudest. If you have enough money, you can finance your own campaign and eventually buy the position. I would say in the US, the system is again rigged for the ruling class (e.g. Bush, Kennedy, Daley, Long, etc.).

It would take an amazing wake up call to jolt the populace from their apathy and complacency to participate at the level needed at the state caucuses, at the primaries, and within the national parties to effect an "of the people" level of control to shake things up, and even then, the commoners might not be able to generate the mountain of cash needed to wrest power from our ruling elite. It is in the interest of both political parties to maintain the status quo, make false promises to the people, and do what they need to do to remain in their elected seat for as long as possible.

Also, the 4th estate, the media, are used by both parties creating negative campaigns which are specifically designed to "turn off" participation. Since they are owned by the ruling class, they might not be objective in their reporting of the interests of the common person to re-establish a truly representative democracy.

Finally, there is the education system itself, which barely teaches an understanding of civics, including "rights", "voting", "citizenship", "bills" or the basic fundamentals of how government works. It may be by design, or by ineptitude, but the result is obvious. We have an electorate that is barely able to understand the process, let alone make rational decisions about candidates. Look at who we elect! Jesse Ventura? Al Franken? Mark Dayton? I could go on and on...

It can be done, but it might be easier to establish a colony on Mars and start all over.