RE: Imagine America if Trump declared himself King forever! Now think about Britain...

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Imagine America if Trump declared himself King forever! Now think about Britain...

in freedom •  6 years ago 

You make a good point, by saying that the politics of both Tories and Labour PMs have barely differed from each other over the last few decades. I'd say the reason for that is that corporations have immense influence in the world, even without directly bribing politicians. When a corporation tells a Tory or Labour MP "I'll move such and such many jobs to yoir constituency if you vote for that bill I want", then that will be a factor the MP will have to deal with. And on the national level, corporations can do tons of stuff to extort the government, as well of course

How do I know that? It's not much different in countries that don't have a monarch. In Germany, the two major "opposing people's parties" actually regularly form coalitions together, that's how close they are politicy-wise. In the US Democrats and Republicans repeatedly come together for "bipartisan" legislation to boost military spending, start wars, give corporations tax breaks, give wall street bailouts and then allow them to gamble even more.

That's all things that corporations and other powerful economic players want. And in the current version of capitalism in those countries, they have enormeous influence over politicians, and thus over policy

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

These systems have been designed virtually since the beginning to be entirely fake - it's amazing how many observers haven't realised yet. I strongly suggest checking out the post i linked to in the first paragraph of the OP.

I read that article now, and to some degree I agree with the concept, as I already mentioned, but I don't think the group of powerful people is quite as tiny.

What this article envisions is basically a "politburo" of like half a dozen people, who secretely control the world, mostly beause they already control it, like a dictator who's in charge because he's in charge.

That's not how I think it works. I think it's a conspiracy without a conspiracy. Meaning powerful individuals everywhere, usually because they're wealthy, can influence politics through donating to elections, or by directly bribing politicians by promising to "employ" them afterwards for lots of money. Those powerful billionaires and corporations don't have to get into a smokefilled room and make evil plans, they already get more than they demand just by bribing those politicians separately.

Alright, now that we basically agree on the issue: How can we fix it?

My plan is that every politicians can only own 1 million dollars when he enters politics, all else either has to be given to charity or is seized by the state. In office he can't take any money from anyone but the state, which also funds all elections (through democracy vouchers), and once he leaves office he can only make up to 50'000$ a year, all above that is taxed at 100%. What do you think?

I think the eivdence is substantial and written right through history of the specific aims of numerous of these wealthy families and their agents - including the raping of Africa and much more besides. In any case, setting aside the structure of it all - the financial changes you suggest are flawed in that the entire financial system and the property system attached to it is just as corrupt - meaning that there are hundreds of ways around any inspections of finances and on top of that, the power magnates already have all the money they can need or ever use - so unless there is a total reset I don't see any such limits being as effective as needed.

There is also the huge issue of blackmail of politicians (which is the norm now).

Beyond all of this though, the core issue remains, which is that democracy is fundmantally unfair and unbalanced since it is a group of people getting together to decide who should tell them what to do and more than that to specifically tell a percentage of people who don't agree too.. This is a huge issue and not one that can be fixed by control since it is a form of control in itself. Only the absence of control can solve such issues.