If I could vote for them, they would have my vote.
We also have a pirate party: https://pirateparty.org.au/
Politics Discussion
- Thread starter trajing
- Start date
You can say that, and it certainly isn't illegal. If it was, the tabloids would go out of business overnight. However, teachers are meant to be politically neutral when teaching, which is probably why that teacher was suspended.
Well it isn't ILLEGAL, but it isn't a good idea, as it can land you in court.
And tabloids are supposed to be neutral, but are allowed a politcal leaning. For example The Daily Mail, it is a conservative newspaper, but it sill cannot say only bad things about labour
You and I clearly live in two alternate dimensions, since the Mail's favourite article type in my universe is 'WILL RED ED <NEGATIVE VERB> BRITISH <NOUNS>'.
I only read online, not the actual papers. And I avoid most news sources, but they shouldn't be doing that, as it may influence a vote...
http://www.electoralcommission.org....le/0005/149729/List-of-electoral-offences.pdf
Just found that.
So yes, influencing how a person votes is an electoral offence.
I found that far funnier than I should have.
Just have to say, while this is well intentioned, if people do start talking about MC politics here rather than the RED thread this likely will become the most moderated thread, but only for a brief period, until it is locked. Like with IRL politics, people will make this personal and it will devolve. I hope that doesn't happen, but political arguments of any kind rarely end well.
Honestly, I think a lot of boards could do with a dedicated topic for...less than savoury things. Helps keep things centralized and acts as a pressure relief valve for the community. A board I'm on had a thread where you could bitch about the moderators openly. It got closed and, lo and behold, tensions between the users and the old regime exploded, a lot of people left, and we nearly lost the forum to the resigning admin's overinflated ego.
Trying to have a discussion about politics ...
Over on the Xkcd forums, there was a section for political discussion. In order to keep the signal level high and the noise level down, the moderator in charge had a fairly strict policy. You had to completely catch up on a conversation before posting, and you had to respond to everything you were responding to at once; no piecemeal adding as you go.
While that seemed reasonable, it kept the noise down in the wrong way. It wound up keeping all the posting volume down. For example, if it took me several hours to half-a-day to write up a set of responses, I then had to re-read everything new to try to catch up with what had come in while writing.
With people trying to argue against me with one-two line posts, and my having to write paragraphs in response to explain, there was no way for me to keep up.
===
It's interesting to see this turn into a discussion about discussing politics.
Over on the Xkcd forums, there was a section for political discussion. In order to keep the signal level high and the noise level down, the moderator in charge had a fairly strict policy. You had to completely catch up on a conversation before posting, and you had to respond to everything you were responding to at once; no piecemeal adding as you go.
While that seemed reasonable, it kept the noise down in the wrong way. It wound up keeping all the posting volume down. For example, if it took me several hours to half-a-day to write up a set of responses, I then had to re-read everything new to try to catch up with what had come in while writing.
With people trying to argue against me with one-two line posts, and my having to write paragraphs in response to explain, there was no way for me to keep up.
===
It's interesting to see this turn into a discussion about discussing politics.
There is an actual, for-real communist party candidate standing in my ward in the upcoming election.
I had a bit of a chuckle.
Looking around at the people in the area, they could do with some Stalinist purging.
I had a bit of a chuckle.
Looking around at the people in the area, they could do with some Stalinist purging.
There's nothing wrong with communism, it's just never been done properly, which sucks, because the principle behind it is really appealing.
Everyone is perfectly equal. What's not to like?
We are not all perfectly equal.
Not in terms of capability or work ethic. A system that enforces "equality" essentially punishes the most innovative and industrious in order to artificially elevate the feckless and stupid.
Personally, I like the idea that the quality of the life I can make for myself is proportional to the energy I put into the economic system.
The primary issue is that its unnatural; it squashes competition which is the primary contributor to virtually every aspect of evolution (in both the scientific and sociological sense).
Its the right of every lifeform to try to succeed as much as possible. And while you can argue that everyone could strive their utmost without expectation of special gain, you can't argue that everyone should or will do that.
You've been reading either Ayn Rand, or the distilled version via Terry Goodkind, or both.
I am not saying equality that brings down the best to shit, i.e. the inventors of medical wonders being treated like crap, but I know a lot of people who do a lot for the place they work at, and barely get enough to live on.
How about we go for a different system to the classical communism system, we will call it a Socialisitic-Capitalism.
Those who work earn. Those who work hard earn well.
Those who don't work don't earn. But those who can't work get help.
What I mean by this could be done with a simple set of questions:
Are you unable to work?
Yes: Is this due to: old age/disability/pregnancy/homelessness or extreme poverty*?
*this is because those in this situation are probably unlikely to get an interview/be able to work until they can afford a house
Yes: Ok, we as a government, will aid you into getting a job, making your last few years livable (not lavish, but not a cardboard box), help you get the treatment you need, help you bring the child into this world.
No: We will give you 3 months (maximum) of help. Nothing more (this is just as a quick boost, as it may be someone has moved to country, and is waiting to get citizenship, or something)
No: Are you working?
No: We will give you 3 months of help. (This is to stop people living off of benefits) - If you are a recently finished student, we will get you into work! (nothing fancy, it would maybe be give them 2 months to see if they can find somewhere they WANT to work, that will hire them, if not, shelf-stacker at WallMart, or something)
Yes: Are you a "skilled" worker?
No: You are entitled to NMW, nothing less, and if you are earning less than (NMW*36)*52 (National Minimum Wage for 36 hours a week, a year) per anum, if you earn less (e.g. work 20 hours, not 36) then we will give you the difference between what you earn, and that figure.
Yes: Is what you do an "important" job (important being doctors, scientists, not CEOs, etc.)
No: You have a wage ceiling of (2(NMW*40))*54 (this gives them 2 weeks of paid holiday, and double what an unskilled worker would get, working 40 hours), and after that your Tax goes higher (well, money needs to come from somewhere, and when you earn more, you can afford more)
Yes: Is your job publicly important? (If this job was not done, then EVERYONE could be affected, e.g. doctors and morticians, police, teachers, etc)
No: you get 1.5* what people who don't do important jobs do, and a little higher wage ceiling, apart from holidays.
Yes: 4x previous. A wage ceiling doesn't mean you can't earn above that, but for a job which benefits everyone, and wants to always have a supply of people to take those jobs. Incentives are needed.
Yes, it sounds complex, and it probably wouldn't work without cutting out spending on other things, raising VAT, and stuff like that. BUT you get where I am coming from?
If someone is working, no matter what job they do, they should be able to afford to make sure themselves, and their family, can at least afford 2 meals a day (as I said, I know a guy who eats lunch, monday-friday, and breakfast and dinner on sat+sun, because he can't afford more than that. He is a hard, honest worker, who doesn't deserve that, but his boss cannot afford to give him a raise/more hours, and he isn't very qualified, so he struggles to get anything decent)
Yes, I understand people get fired, and it can take a while to get a new job, hence the 3 months no questions asked. As long as you weren't fired for something that would prevent you from working again, why should they not get help just while they look for something new? If they where on NMW+2, they wouldn't get that much, but it wouldn't be something where they are finding it impossible to live while they look for a job (maybe NMW*0.75).
I have all these ideas that I rarely get to talk about. I like this thread
How about we go for a different system to the classical communism system, we will call it a Socialisitic-Capitalism.
Those who work earn. Those who work hard earn well.
Those who don't work don't earn. But those who can't work get help.
What I mean by this could be done with a simple set of questions:
Are you unable to work?
Yes: Is this due to: old age/disability/pregnancy/homelessness or extreme poverty*?
*this is because those in this situation are probably unlikely to get an interview/be able to work until they can afford a house
Yes: Ok, we as a government, will aid you into getting a job, making your last few years livable (not lavish, but not a cardboard box), help you get the treatment you need, help you bring the child into this world.
No: We will give you 3 months (maximum) of help. Nothing more (this is just as a quick boost, as it may be someone has moved to country, and is waiting to get citizenship, or something)
No: Are you working?
No: We will give you 3 months of help. (This is to stop people living off of benefits) - If you are a recently finished student, we will get you into work! (nothing fancy, it would maybe be give them 2 months to see if they can find somewhere they WANT to work, that will hire them, if not, shelf-stacker at WallMart, or something)
Yes: Are you a "skilled" worker?
No: You are entitled to NMW, nothing less, and if you are earning less than (NMW*36)*52 (National Minimum Wage for 36 hours a week, a year) per anum, if you earn less (e.g. work 20 hours, not 36) then we will give you the difference between what you earn, and that figure.
Yes: Is what you do an "important" job (important being doctors, scientists, not CEOs, etc.)
No: You have a wage ceiling of (2(NMW*40))*54 (this gives them 2 weeks of paid holiday, and double what an unskilled worker would get, working 40 hours), and after that your Tax goes higher (well, money needs to come from somewhere, and when you earn more, you can afford more)
Yes: Is your job publicly important? (If this job was not done, then EVERYONE could be affected, e.g. doctors and morticians, police, teachers, etc)
No: you get 1.5* what people who don't do important jobs do, and a little higher wage ceiling, apart from holidays.
Yes: 4x previous. A wage ceiling doesn't mean you can't earn above that, but for a job which benefits everyone, and wants to always have a supply of people to take those jobs. Incentives are needed.
Yes, it sounds complex, and it probably wouldn't work without cutting out spending on other things, raising VAT, and stuff like that. BUT you get where I am coming from?
If someone is working, no matter what job they do, they should be able to afford to make sure themselves, and their family, can at least afford 2 meals a day (as I said, I know a guy who eats lunch, monday-friday, and breakfast and dinner on sat+sun, because he can't afford more than that. He is a hard, honest worker, who doesn't deserve that, but his boss cannot afford to give him a raise/more hours, and he isn't very qualified, so he struggles to get anything decent)
Yes, I understand people get fired, and it can take a while to get a new job, hence the 3 months no questions asked. As long as you weren't fired for something that would prevent you from working again, why should they not get help just while they look for something new? If they where on NMW+2, they wouldn't get that much, but it wouldn't be something where they are finding it impossible to live while they look for a job (maybe NMW*0.75).
I have all these ideas that I rarely get to talk about. I like this thread
Virtually every non-communist state uses this system already. If you have subsidized healthcare or welfare, you're using your socialistic capitalism.
For the rest, you're trying to assign an artificial value to work, when a better system already exists: everything is worth what the buyer is willing to pay. That means if there's a billion doctors, and half are without work, then they'll get 0 cents a week. Whereas if there's a shortage of those annoying CEOs who make 1 million dollars a week, they'll instead make 2 million dollars a week.
The hard truth above, where a doctor suffers and a richboy CEO collects bank, is critical: any softhearted attempt to screw the rich man and reward the person who saves lives is perpetuating an underlying problem (poorly distributed workforce) and simply penalizing future generations. Eventually the bill is gonna come due.
But CEOs don't do anything to help anyone but themselves, and their company (sometimes)