Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Excerpt from The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy:

Young people today seem to be coming round to the idea it really doesn’t matter which politician or political party you vote for; and they’re catching on that it doesn’t even matter if you don’t vote because they have realized modern elections are just a way for the 1% to appease the 99% – a way to keep the masses in line by making them believe they’ve had their say, thereby perpetuating the lie that democracy continues.

More and more young people have twigged that modern politics is all a big game. Perhaps this is because they’re more likely to source their information from the Internet, social media, alternative media and citizen journalists. They sense that leaders in power – be they presidents or prime ministers – are simply caretakers who serve a term or two before the next caretaker steps in to carry on with the charade.

The question is, are today’s youth enlightened people or cynics who don’t respect the democracy their forefathers fought for?

Perhaps authors Dan Cassino and Yasemin Besen-Cassino answer that question in a roundabout way in their 2009 book Consuming Politics: Jon Stewart, Branding, and the Youth Vote in America. They say, “The political apathy of today’s youth can be seen largely as a result of this disengagement from the parties”.

The Cassino’s continue, “Different groups within the general category of young people are looking for different things within the political world, and won’t become engaged in politics until they see those things”.

Politicians would be well advised not to hold their breath for youth to engage in politics any time soon. Today’s youth are the first generation to have realized for real change to occur, it must happen on an individual level rather than at an administrative level.

As Hollywood star Mark Ruffalo told Luke Rudkowski, a young American social activist and founder of grassroots media organization We Are Change, in a 2011 interview, “It’s not going to happen from above. We are the change that we’re waiting for”.

Ruffalo continued, “Anything worth a damn that’s ever happened on behalf of the people has always come up from the people and forced itself onto the power above. And that’s the way it always is and that’s the way it’s always going to be”.

Hear, hear, Mr. Ruffalo.

Down here in Godzone (New Zealand) as Kiwis gear up for their next general election, I reminded how little real difference there is between the major parties.

There doesn't seem to be any real choice and it all seems like one big charade.

So maybe the political apathy of today’s youth around the world is a good sign.

What does everyone else think about this matter?

I was recently invited to join a discussion panel that had some well-respected and intelligent contributors and appeared to be all about freedom. However, it was essentially a thinly veiled disguise for Tea Party politics and Republican party supporters.

I had to decline the offer and here is part of my reply to them:

I am staunchly apolitical and believe right wing vs left wing, conservatives vs liberals, republicans vs democrats are all 20th Century definitions that are no longer valid in our "brave new world". Unfortunately, it's now all the same party with different hats (i.e. it's all corporations bankrolling spineless individuals such as Bush, Obama, Clinton etc into power) and this is why people are caring less and less about politics.

The public has woken up to the charade of so-called democracy and therefore I'm now much more into people power.

Agree with all you say, Krishna.
I believe in future most change will be created outside of the political system.

Until there is a party worth voting for, I then there will continue to be apathy. At the moment it doesn't matter who you vote for, both sides just have actors reading a script and doing things you don't want.

At this point, I agree that it's useless to vote, with R&D being owned by the same Cabal, and people using Cabal controlled voting machines. Work on your good and happy future, with positive vibration. Do what you can to control your own neighborhood, while all systems fail. The most important thing is to keep your children out of the hands of the Cabal. Run them out of your school district. Eliminate fluoride in water and GMO or processed food.

I want to add that these discussion are along the lines of one of major mistakes. Even in this discussion, the focus is on the criminal national corporate government. People are even criticized for reading or listening to local news, especially good, positive news.

We stopped paying attention to our own communities. Agenda 21, dumbed down schools, poisoned water..., anything can be happening around us while we watch the faux news on Cable put out by our faux government's controllers. Get the nose out of the TV and move the ass from couch to city council and school board meetings.

Rosalie wrote: "Eliminate fluoride in water ..."

I 2nd that!

Edward, it's your city water. Vote fluoride out. I don't mean for you to sit like a bump on a log. Be prepared to participate. It's up to the people to take control. That's essential for Freedom. If you don't want to take responsibility, you get what you're getting already.

Here's the video where Mark Ruffalo makes the aforementioned statement: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8069...

Ruffalo's a pretty cool cat, I say.

Wow, so much to respond to here. All make good points. Fluoride? Can't we put purification units on our drinking taps? Don't they also remove fluoride? If not, why not? Maybe the spring water in plastic bottle companies would've like it? Just asking. Of course, some people may not be able to afford purification units. There would be a way around that I would think. For those who it is important to, it would save money on so called pure bottled water, or get a rain tank.

Just for starters -I have to get to work.

Kelly wrote: "Until there is a party worth voting for, I then there will continue to be apathy. At the moment it doesn't matter who you vote for, both sides just have actors reading a script and doing things you..."

More and more voters (or would-be voters) share your viewpoint, Kelly.

Here's a comic book I plan to read - a comic book that Robert F. Kennedy wrote the foreword to.
I like the catchy title which implies our votes have been stolen...but that we (the people) can steal it back!

Steal Back Your Vote!

Everybody seems so pessimistic about politics. I think the main problem could be in toeing the party line. Maybe we should have, in our parliament, a conscience vote on every issue so that our representatives can, in fact, represent their constituents. After all, Governments of all persuasions in democratic countries are supposed to be the voice of the people.

Laureen wrote: "Everybody seems so pessimistic about politics. I think the main problem could be in toeing the party line. Maybe we should have, in our parliament, a conscience vote on every issue so that our re..."

I think what you say and imply is true to a certain extent, Laureen. But overall, I feel expecting politicians to not look for a sly way to look after themselves (and more importantly the elite they really represent and who in most cases bankrolled them into power) is naïve and more of a 20th Century approach...And therefore the extreme pessimism most of us in the 21st Century now feel toward politics is perfectly valid and not a negative assessment but rather a realistic one.

For me, the entire political structure is democratic only on the surface and is in reality set up to keep the ruling classes or elite in their positions of power. So we either need to wait for a new political system to emerge (don't hold your breath!) or WE (the people) must create change outside of politics. The advantage of the latter option is it can be done right now ;)

I agree 100% with what Mark Ruffalo said in the original post of this discussion thread...and to repeat: “It’s not going to happen from above. We are the change that we’re waiting for. Anything worth a damn that’s ever happened on behalf of the people has always come up from the people and forced itself onto the power above. And that’s the way it always is and that’s the way it’s always going to be”.

Some of those changes can, admittedly, be created by working within politics and forcing politicians to do what is right, but so much more can be created beyond politics I believe.

Therefore, I see the political apathy of today's youth as being an extremely positive thing. They've spotted the charade that's being played over and over within "democracy". The game is over!

I think Russell Brand (who is not someone I always agree with) summarized these ideas reasonably well in this interview with Jeremy Paxman: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/6998...

James Morcan wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Everybody seems so pessimistic about politics. I think the main problem could be in toeing the party line. Maybe we should have, in our parliament, a conscience vote on every issu..."

I can't agree with you on this occasion James. I think the youth of today are more subject to a belief in what they hear on twitter and Facebook than listening to Parliament or reading the history of politics. I am not dismissing opinions of the young but I have to say they have mostly been brought up in an age of freedom and privilege without understanding what true responsibility means. My apologies to anyone who thinks they have been slighted or, indeed, have become beacons of light for the youth of today. It was not my intention to slight anyone. Seeking truth is all I know.

Let us look at the political system of democracy. Granted it it not perfect by any means. Imagine being put in the position of any of our politicians today. Imagine you are pure of heart. Now imagine you have people coming at you from all sides of an argument and being told you must make the changes that they say are right. What is right about any specific person's opinion. What is right about yours, what is right about mine? Right is subjective.

This means that Politicians are put in an invidious position. Do they do what the majority want or do they follow what their own conscience tells them is right for the whole country of which they are in charge of Governing. I know that the majority is not always right and are often swayed by selfish concerns. I bet everybody engaged in discussions on this site believe their opinions are correct while others are misinformed.

It is one thing to claim "being right" after an election but when the polices they voted for stuff-up after an election, we happily blame the politicians. Not our doing! We would rather say all politicians are bad and we shouldn't vote for any of them. Well I think we are very lucky we live in a democracy and have "some" control, even if it is only the ability to vote or for some ability to speak freely our opinion without being drawn and quartered.

Ask anybody if they would choose to be a politician and I think few would want to.

Laureen wrote: "I can't agree with you on this occasion James. I think the youth of today are more subject to a belief in what they hear on twitter and Facebook than listening to Parliament or reading the history of politics. I am not dismissing opinions of the young but I have to say they have mostly been brought up in an age of freedom and privilege without understanding what true responsibility means. My apologies to anyone who thinks they have been slighted or, indeed, have become beacons of light for the youth of today. It was not my intention to slight anyone. Seeking truth is all I know...."

Actually I agree with what you say, Laureen, about many of today's youth not realizing how hard democracy was fought for and also many kids in the West not understanding that having (a degree of) equality and having a voice or a say is not granted to others in less democratic countries.

So I'm fully with you on that.
I even know a black South African youth who doesn't care about or respect what the older generations went thru to overcome Apartheid! It happened before his time so he just doesn't care, even though he enjoys the fruits of his elders' efforts...
So sometimes the freedoms we have are definitely taken for granted by those who are too young to remember when we had lesser rights.

But conversely, I think today's youth also recognize that corporate interests generally and often completely own our present-era politicians. Some of the stuff Michael Moore exposed in his documentaries (e.g. the film Sicko which showed virtually every member of US Congress has been paid vast sums from Big Pharma to push thru policies that suit their interests) was mind blowing stuff for many Baby Boomers who probably still had a slightly naive 20th Century understanding of politics...But to today's youths, who perhaps receive and process such info very fast and readily on social media, this kind of info was common knowledge to them and most barely raised an eyebrow. They understand the entire political system has became a complete farce and is heavily monetized and has little to do with the wellbeing of the average person on the street. They also fully comprehend ideas like elitist groups and/or financial empires placing people in positions of power or surreptitiously bankrolling their political efforts - a view which remains by and large an obscure concept (or "conspiracy theory") for the older generations.

So whilst I agree we should never forget the struggles that were waged to keep democracy alive, I also think it's finally time to be brutally honest and acknowledge we now have in the West a semi-democracy at best or a fiat democracy at worst.

You're no doubt right being a politician in this era is likely a very difficult task. And I certainly wouldn't pretend to know how best to approach it. I would however begin (were I a politician) by saying I would not accept ANY corporate donations as this is anti-democratic and forces politicians to represent "interests" besides voters' interests. True democracy is only possible if voters' interests are represented 100% of the time by every politician (again, don't hold your breath on that one happening anytime soon!).

Interestingly, Governer Jesse Ventura won the state election in Minnesota without any monies received by corporations - as he stated this is the only way to be an honest politician. 100% of his campaign donations were from individual voters - and he only raised $300,000 vs. the millions in company donations his competitors raised. Perhaps tellingly, Ventura was soon investigated by the FBI and CIA who didn't seem to like the fact that he'd bucked the system and had gotten voted into office via ordinary people power...

p.s. Of course I'm generalizing a lot in this post as there are some really smart Baby Boomers (including many in this group) leading the charge in bringing information to light about political corruption - and there are also some young voters who think the political system is basically without corruption and is very fair.

I think maybe you have misinterpreted my main point which was not that youth doesn't know how fortunate we are to live in a democracy (although there is that) but that many are not interested in or receiving worthwhile information (as in unbiased) because they are inclined to listen or watch the type of media that is classified as "in" which then gets discussed with like-minded friends on Facebook & Twitter.

Now, I would never put all young and not so young people in that category but many socialize with like minds where, of course, they feel comfortable but, in fact, I think we learn more about our society, politics and religion by talking to people of a different point of view. Of course, it is not so comfortable especially if anger raises it's ugly head. We need to be able to debate alternative viewpoints in a sensible and respectful way.

Of course, the poor in our society, who really need to know what goes on in politics don't seem to have access to much news/interviews on media as those in a higher socio-economic environment and unfortunately many will say "My parents and our families going way back have always voted X". This is not a good enough reason to vote X.

Laureen wrote: "We need to be able to debate alternative viewpoints in a sensible and respectful way. ..."

Hopefully, we are doing that in this humble little group...And many others are doing it in online forums, which of course expand out into real world interactions and create real changes in our communities and society at large.

I got your main point about the downside of social media and the "cool" type of alternative media today's youth like to get their news and information from. Those are all astute observations.
I sense however that you might be overlooking that many arguments and lively debates also occur on social media and it doesn't just involve like-minded people interacting.

And I think overall knowledge is being spread at a faster and faster rate - that's not always a good thing but mostly it is as there's never been such a free flow of info as now. Each new generation is therefore seeing through the political charade and the tactics of the elite more and more...until finally, "the people" will say enough is enough!

Personally I view political systems as merely one way to create change in society.

Here's a question: were all voters to stop voting and boycott elections, what would occur?

Yes, many don't know how lucky they are to live in a democracy, but plenty of us know (unfortunately) that democracy is a sham.

It's time for a True Democracy. And as long as two similar main parties will always be pretty much 50/50 divided amongst the population, the country can never be united.

Turn the pyramid structure upside down and start from there.

Harry wrote: "Turn the pyramid structure upside down and start from there. ..."

You've just potentially inspired a good follow up phrase to the 99% catch phrase: TURN THE PYRAMID ON ITS HEAD!

I can picture this phrase being supported with an image of an upsidedown pyramid.

Cool. Seems obvious though. Start from the bottom. Localise don't globalise.

Harry wrote: "Cool. Seems obvious though. Start from the bottom. Localise don't globalise."

Very good. Except that I hope some don't misread localise for labotamise...Unless we can spin that to our advantage? I'm thinking of another catch phrase like "Time to labotamise world leaders!"

Yeah, localisation can be misunderstood. For me, energy and crops should be local, but I'm not suggesting we don't trade, though that should be FairTrade and beyond of course. Political decisions should also be local. Cities and towns tend to attract like minded people. All Western countries have got their 'hippy towns' and 'conservative towns' for instance, so why the hell don't we just let everyone get on with it in their own chosen way? If towns became countries, the world would change.

James Morcan wrote: "Laureen wrote: "We need to be able to debate alternative viewpoints in a sensible and respectful way. ..."

Hopefully, we are doing that in this humble little group...And many others are doing it i..."

I can't answer that James, if the question is serious. Not because I don't have a vision but because it doesn't compute. Yes, I think our little group is very humble and respectful but then that comes from having a questioning mind, not just believing what we are told. It is people that are set in their belief that seem to take offence at the suggestion of an alternative point of view.

Harry, How can a world that is growing very fast in population not have infrastructure behind it; laws, hospitals (yes, there are instances where they are absolutely necessary), roads, do hippies manufacture cars?; I can only see total anarchy. But then, you were probably being funny.

Kibbutz work in small communities. Even a Kibbutz must have structure and rules. Someone or group must be responsible for making those decisions. Do hippy communities get any financial support from Government? I have this terrible vision in my mind of a whole lot of hippies in a community sitting around in a circle (much like ministers of the government do) discussing the next "plan" for the good of their community. Except, instead of alcohol, some pot and a bong and anything else that happens to be around to calm the problems of the mind - I don't think I could trust the outcome.

I have been too busy earning a living to re-engage with our hippy friends of the past so I'm sorry if I don't know how they operate today. Bartering, I suppose, but do they travel? In this day & age I would be surprised if they didn't.

I don't think many people in the world would vote for your idea Harry. :)

P.S. Harry. If there was no voting then the "bottom" would have to have a dictator for a leader. You could do it Harry (at least I can't see you murdering anybody) but I wonder how long you could keep that sharp sense of humour you have.

Ha, cheers for your response Laureen. I was being serious, but I merely mentioned the tip of the iceberg of course, and there are many more people and groups who have much more solid ideas than me.

For me, localisation and globalisation can easily go hand in hand. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I still think a whole re-organisation of structure is needed if we are to ever really benefit the many and not the few, which is how current Capitalism works in a democratic world. I hate the fact that people these days (the apathy of youth!) don't even realise Democracy and Capitalism aren't our only choices!

Why not have local governments inter-connected? Most people care about the issues in their own areas. What do governments do these days other than just choose what money's going where anyway?

I simply want fairness for all as much as is possible, and current systems do not work.

Take money from X and give it to Y. Put people above profits. Pay taxes to healthcare and local green energy rather than on military prowess, and it'd be a start. Base our money system on actual reserves and write off global debt. Oh, there's so much that could be done. Localisation's just one idea, and it would have to be applied to things that could only work locally.
Ah, so much to say though...

Laureen wrote: "P.S. Harry. If there was no voting then the "bottom" would have to have a dictator for a leader. You could do it Harry (at least I can't see you murdering anybody) but I wonder how long you could..."

Mind you, Dictator Harry has a ring to it...

Harry wrote: "I hate the fact that people these days (the apathy of youth!) don't even realise Democracy and Capitalism aren't our only choices!
...."

Actually, I personally think they are our ONLY (decent) choices.
I wouldn't want to live in any country that is not democratic or Capitalistic.

The problem is not democracy or Capitalism, in my opinion. The real problem is that greedy politicians and their associated puppet masters who pull the strings are currently usurping democracy and multinational corporations & banks are running amuck in an environment of "unregulated Capitalism".

So what's needed is more honest governments and social justice watchdog groups to uphold democratic values and also refine Capitalism (by implementing social measures and punishing corrupt financial institutions).

In my view, free market Capitalism is the only way to go. Without that, I believe the American dream (which is really any nations dream where any citizen no matter what their background is can rise up and become somebody and achieve their goals), is impossible.

Much of America's phenomenal success throughout the 20th Century (which is easy to forget in all our current criticisms of the USA) is down to America fully embracing Capitalism (even with all its faults).

Certainly in countries who employ communism, and also to a slightly lesser extent socialism, it has been shown time and again that individuals who do well are not rewarded for their efforts. When you drastically reduce (deserved) financial rewards, then people become demotivated e.g. a man who is a manual labourer will give up on his dream to become an entrepreneur as he realizes under a socialistic system he'll earn no more once self-employed as the tax rates are soooo high and restrictive. So people eventually think to themselves "why bother?" which obviously doesn't happen under Capitalism.

I note often those touting socialism (and I'm not saying you were Harry!) have never actually lived in a fully socialistic country and experienced what it is really like to live in a "Nanny state" where the government micromanages individuals and curtails their freedoms.

The paradox in all this argument is that communism and socialism are not all bad and I think there are some aspects (e.g. social welfare, healthcare, education) that democratic Capitalistic countries can actually learn to incorporate to some degree.

As someone else in this group once said, we need "Capitalism AFTER the people have been looked after".

Bravo James, well said and written. So many people like the "idea" of socialism because it relieves them of responsibilities. They can't improve themselves so why try. Which makes perfect sense until the powers that be insist on improvements to productivity with no hope of reward. Few seem to realise it is an even worse form of capitalism. The ruling bureaucracy holds ALL the wealth taken from the workers. It is not only successful capitalists that are in a wealthy position but at least some money flows back into the economy (and yes, our taxes are not always wisely spent) but people in socialist communities merely work for a loaf of bread and little else.

Yeah, I actually agree with all you're both saying, and I'm not articulating the vast subject very well. But I don't want to be misunderstood: because we live in a world of systems, as soon as someone mentions using something other than Democracy, someone will say, "Ah! You're a Socialist then!" (And I'm not saying you were James). I don't believe in any isms. I hope for that idealistic utopian world, but things don't change without a proper plan in place (that can benefit all/most)- and that, of course, is where we always fall down in such revolutionary ideas.

Democracy in its truest and fairest form is absolutely the best system. But Democracy has been hijacked in my opinion. Fair Choice Democracy, or some such thing, should be implemented, because at the moment the party who spends the most money, has the media on their side and the bankers in their pockets win the election.

Take a small part of the English system, where you vote both locally and nationally- a hell of a lot of the time people will vote for different parties because they are on familiar terms with their local politicians and what they've done for the area, so they'll vote Labour locally, whilst voting Conservative nationally- now obviously that's only the start, but the way our parliament is made up seems an unfair representation of the people. Not to even start on our damn Lords that we have over here bending political decisions. Until Democracy has true, unbiased representation and allows people to vote without any tactics, in a simple head count type way, we can't ever get a fair system- in my humble opinion.
So it's all good and well saying Democracy is brilliant- and in its idealistic form it is- but I'm afraid I just don't ever see a fair election win in any country, myself.

Capitalism: if people want to make money, fine. But not at the expense of others. Take care of necessities first and then play whatever materialistic games you want.

As I've said before in this group though, I find it hard to support such organisations as Occupy because it does absolutely no good being anti something if you don't know what you're gonna replace it with.

By the way, I think the Australian voting system_ (where you put candidates in order of preference) is much fairer than the U.K.

Sound points, Harry.
I am as critical as you of what currently passes for Democracy or Capitalism - what we have at present in my opinion is a fiat democracy and a Ponzi scheme in place of a free market.

Ah, the House of Lords...you guys call that democracy?! And what about the Royal influence?

In many ways it strikes me that the UK has more external (non-voter) influences quietly usurping democracy than any other developed nation...

The voting system here in Australia is fairer in some ways, but at the end of the day (like all 16 Commonwealth Realm nations) the little known "underground knowledge" truth is that the Queen has final say as the Head of State. The Queen’s powers extend over and above elected prime ministers.
Maybe this is acceptable for other small Commonwealth Realm countries like Jamaica or New Zealand even, but for major nations like Australia or Canada (two countries that are very much the equal to the UK these days in many ways) this situation is utterly ridiculous.

Fortunately the Queen rarely carries out her powers in these Commonwealth Realms, at least not officially, but it's still not right. And there was the case in 1975 of Australia’s elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam being sacked by the Governor-General (who acted on the Queen's orders). Check it out in this post here if you aren't aware of this history:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I also happen to believe the more recently removed Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had something to do with the Queen also. Rudd, just like Whitlam, was attempting to increase taxes on international mining companies in Australia in order to keep more of Australia's wealth for the Australian people. Mining is huge business and I sense Rudd's plans would have curtailed international mining companies. And who owns the biggest mining operation in Australia: Rio Tinto (owned primarily by the Queen).

You raise some interesting things James.

And I simply think that Capitalism isn't good because it creates competition. Competition in trade is obviously a good thing to allow anyone to run their own business and compete, but they can never compete with the major companies. Eliminate the bigger companies, and bingo!
But the essence of competition: i.e- because we live in a Capitalist world, we are always competing in Life- I don't think is a sound idea. Life should be about helping one another and not unhealthy competition in my opinion. I hope I've expressed that well enough...

With your mention of the queen- what about the latest news that letters sent by Prince Charles to Tony Blair have now been published. It is illegal to have contact in such a way over anything pertaining to policy. Now, these letters are all pretty much about fish, so no one's really that bothered about the damn story. The letters are duller than episode of Two And A Half Men.
And yet, I may be the only one who's reading these letters with this in mind: they read very much like coded correspondence.

Seems as though I'm in a ranty mood! :)

Harry wrote: "With your mention of the queen- what about the latest news that letters sent by Prince Charles to Tony Blair have now been published. It is illegal to have contact in such a way over anything pertaining to policy. Now, these letters are all pretty much about fish, so no one's really that bothered about the damn story. The letters are duller than episode of Two And A Half Men.
And yet, I may be the only one who's reading these letters with this in mind: they read very much like coded correspondence.
..."

Yeah, no doubt Prince Charles' correspondence with Blair was coded. I'd like to see/learn what the Queen wrote or otherwise said to Blair as I still believe elected British Prime Ministers are all (secretly) working for the Royals on some level at least.

And spinning this Royal interference subject back on topic: given that today's youth know many more of these "underground" pieces of info regarding British politics, is it any wonder most couldn't give a flying F (to quote K.P.!) about politics and care much less than previous generations? Today's youth are not disengaged from politics because they are dumb...They are not interested because they understand democracy is not happening most of the time.

PatEye wrote: "Harry wrote: "You raise some interesting things James.

And I simply think that Capitalism isn't good because it creates competition. Competition in trade is obviously a good thing to allow anyone..."

I don't know Pateye. The Queen is my Mum's age, 89. Has to be something else going on! HaHa.

PatEye wrote: "Harry wrote: "You raise some interesting things James.

And I simply think that Capitalism isn't good because it creates competition. Competition in trade is obviously a good thing to allow anyone..."

Can't say I know the film. Presumably the love was meant Platonically (for the Queen Lizard Beth she is; according to some conspiracy writers of course!) rather than physical attraction... or maybe the queen's a 'cougar' as I believe the term to be these days.

Glad my rants are appreciated even if disagreed with!

@ Harry. I love your rants Harry even when I disagree as I do on this occasion. "Isms" by the way can't be done away with just by refusing to use such terminology.
It is now a part of our language even though we can disagree with slotting opinion into categories.

Now, regarding Capitalism. We have to have systems in place to have dome form of order in a world that is heavily populated. We seem to agree that Socialism is not an answer but neither is turning a democracy into fake capitalism/socialism. There is a reason why we can't have every Tom, Dick and Harry running the country. We are human and flawed. We can't even agree here on this panel. I don't believe it is possible, Harry, to have an idealistic outcome in saving the world from big business by changing the system in the way you seem to be suggesting.

I think we can make changes to our current system that may address your concerns. Big business has an unhealthy power over Governments. Could we eliminate that power by removing the current method of donations to political parties. There should be a cut off point. For instance: tax payer funds could be used to run elections. An equal amount could be provided to each side of politics, with a much smaller amount being provided to minor parties whose politics usually fall closely to one of the major parties. Maybe their contribution from taxpayers could be deemed from how many votes they received in the last election. New parties could be nominated a minimum amount.

This way would make it hard for Government interference by vested interests to be deployed. If a political party wanted to get a leg-up on the other major party, let them do the hard yards in selling their message by door knocking or engaging with the people in another way.

Also, Governments should be treated like they are running a business. If they can't balance the books with the taxes they are hauling in, then they should be bankrupted so to speak. Why should the members of a party that has caused "our national business" to become debt ridden to an absurd level, be allowed a huge pension for life plus free flights and office accommodation. If an ordinary business gets bankrupted, people often lose their homes and they are not allowed to run a business for a number of years or even borrow money.

Another thing that worries me is our Judicial system. People being people, why are our Judges not open to scrutiny like any other position of power should be.

What do you think?

Hey Laureen,

Y'see, we all want the same things, we just differ as to how to get there!

Your idea for how elections are funded is interesting, and there seems to be a global movement in that SOMETHING of the structure needs to be changed. Personally, although I can see what you suggest would be a step in the right direction, I believe more that we shouldn't have any funding at all for election campaigns. In this internet age, you could simply line up the candidates online and leave it at that (I say rather flippantly). And I'm afraid I must disagree with your attitude towards the smaller parties- as I think it's the opposite in the main, that the really small parties have got it a lot more right and don't reflect the larger ones, but because they have no infrastructure they obviously won't get the support. Let's give everyone a free and balanced say and we might get somewhere. There are so many out there, to get this topic more on thread, that are on the 'system needs changing' side, which is why they don't vote. But if the Occupy movement, for one example, had a political party with a plan and infrastructure in place, all those people that believe in democracy but who refuse to vote for solid reasons, would suddenly have Their Party and you'd be amazed at the numbers just waiting to be democratic! I'm simply saying we need to restructure democracy to get a fair outcome.

I'm just an idealist who likes things simple. Big Business: Bad for the everyman. So stop shopping and change the world.

“How many more of these stinking, double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote FOR something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?”

― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

Oh I love "simple" Harry. If only! But the world has become a complex place. In Australia, we have compulsory voting and you get fined if you don't vote. Some people object by casting a "donkey" vote. At least they are honest enough to say they don't like either major party.

What happens with the smaller parties? Well disenfranchised people (mostly those who didn't get enough taxpayer funds for their "needs") decide to give the Government of the day and the opposition a message by voting for a small party often one that couldn't run a chook raffle far less the economics of the country.

The smaller parties often don't get a member elected to our lower house but do get represented in the Senate (our upper house) which has the power to veto anything the Government of the day wants to pass in legislation.

All good so far? Then we have Opposition members and Government members of the senate harassing the minor party members for their vote in the Senate. One wishing to pass legislation and one wanting to block legislation. The blocking of legislation is just the oppositions way of expressing the wishes of the disenfranchised people and hoping to get their votes in the next election. This in effect leaves the Government of the day powerless to pass the legislation they had planned in their election promises to get a country back on track financially, creating new real jobs not false jobs in the Government to decrease the unemployment figures and paid for by the taxpayer. Sorry, I am probably being boring.

All this is real"ism" not an idealistic fantasy. We have to remove the power to corrupt the good will of which ever side of politics is in power, whether left thinking or right thinking. Minor parties may have very high principles but little experience in the tough worlds of business, unions and politics.

Anyone who think everything is a 'government conspiracy' should perhaps take more note of lobbying.

In today's Guardian: "Microsoft faces claims it threatened MPs with job cuts in constituencies" (http://www.theguardian.com/technology...)

Apparently what MS object to is the government adopting Open Source software. So much from 'market forces'. We are just soooo doomed! :-)

Laureen wrote: "Oh I love "simple" Harry. If only! But the world has become a complex place. In Australia, we have compulsory voting and you get fined if you don't vote. Some people object by casting a "donkey..."

Yep- that's exactly the sort of thing that needs to be changed!

I agree with your earlier comment that government should operate like a good business, in which case: why can't we all set our objectives for things we really care about but seem irrelevant to government- first and foremost (I believe): How do we get a Living Wage for everyone? We set this out as our number one business goal and adapt to meet the target.

The issues that are at the top of my political beef- the above being one major one (I find it insulting that Minimum Wage is seen as a good thing when it's so low)- just don't get talked about seriously by any party, hence the disinterest in PARTY politics.

But, yes, we need a plan. This is the real world, with all of its isms. So let's all figure out what that plan should be.

Above and beyond that, I am one of those 'conspiracies happen in blackened rooms' type of guys, so it doesn't really matter anyway!

Diz- you raise a very important point. Big Business lobbying is a blatant fact and not in the realms of conspiracy. Good article.

Are we all doomed? Should I give up naïve optimism?

Harry wrote: "government should operate like a good business" I really don't agree. There's a lot of that about - balance the books, can't spend money you don't have etc. Governments and countries are not businesses. Governments can do one thing that businesses cannot do - print money. That's one of the reasons Greece is so up the creek - they cannot control their own money supply as it is controlled from Frankfurt. Otherwise, the country could do what most countries do when faced with the kind of problems it faces - devalue (print more money). Basically, that makes exports cheaper and imports more expensive, puts money into people's pockets that they then go and spend, starting a virtuous circle. A bit of inflation, it turns out, is actually a GOOD thing. Although it is often quoted that the Germans have a pathological fear of inflation, given their experience of hyper-inflation in the 1920s, it's important to remember that that inflation was created by the German government as a deliberate attempt at reducing the cost of post-WW1 reparations - which is also why the French and Belgians then took over the Ruhr - to get their hands on the firmly fixed assets in that industrial zone. What we have here in the UK is the opposite of that, despite QE. The UK is now in a deflationary phase and, if it is not very careful, will enter the slow demise seen in Japan for the last (the Lost) decade.

Yes, it is a conspiracy - a conspiracy by the 0.1% To Have and To Hold and, as we have seen, Grab More.
:-)

I would dearly love to answer both yours and Diz,s comments here Harry but for privacy reasons can't. Just envisage this. Running a small business for over 30yrs, paying staff more than you can afford to pay yourself, working 7 days a week, no holidays for 33yrs apart from between Xmas and new year. Pay superannuation to staff but not yourself. Collecting GST for the Government and being responsible for paying it to the Government on time or getting fined. Why do it? Funny thing is one feels responsible for those they employ so it is a bit like having a large family where the children don't appreciate how much you do for them. However, you must appreciate your children's efforts in every respect and not show disapproval but give guidance not only in their work but emotionally too. However, we love the industry we are in and feel that we do the best for our clients.

And you know all the government hand-outs that happen? Guess what, they don't come our way and we don't look for them. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves. The world is not your oyster. Everybody has to contribute and do the best they can. And I stand by my comments about changing the system so the Government isn't beholden to big business or unions. Take the power away from those using their power to leverage governments.

Sorry - running away with the mouth again. I'll probably regret this.

I'm sure most people can sympathise with you Laureen. I believe in hard work, taking responsibility and taking action- but I hope we as a human race can do that to create peace one day, 'cos all we gotta do is unite.

After I'd posted about a Living Wage, I had actually been contemplating the conundrum, because in our current system of business, alongside my call for small businesses to take over big ones, it does seem like a contradictory Lewis Carroll riddle that can't be solved: How do you give a Living Wage when self employers mostly couldn't anywhere near afford it, seeing as many can't even afford to pay Minimum Wage?

I'm not saying I have any answers, but one suggestion would be: abolish big business. (We then have the question of how do we do that, of course.)

What I do think is important is that such questions are addressed. If Capitalism and Democracy in their current forms are so good, then why do we have extreme poverty and homelessness in every country? Isn't everyone entitled to a Living Wage? Shouldn't someone work out how to do that? I'm sure there are many economists who could propose ideas.

We're a clever bunch, us human beings. Why, in just the last century we've seen how public demands (or shifts in consciousness) have brought about great changes: safety for children, equality for women, equality for minority races, equality for LBGT people... the list goes on.

It's time for equality for the poor in my book.

Harry - very well said.

Laureen - Whilst I have agreed with some of your comments in this thread, I believe you're now starting to mix apples and oranges by infusing your personal experiences in SMALL business with the corrupting influence at hand: BIG business. I note many of us in this group are small business entrepreneurs while others are employees - we are all on the same side here and more importantly we are all being screwed to varying degrees by seriously corrupt politics...

Thanks for your response Harry. Much appreciated. England must be different to Australia. By law, we have to pay the minimum based on age and experience. We have always paid above the "award" to get good people and we have the best.

However, sometimes we have had to advertise for new employees and we get people applying that have no experience and are looking for something entirely different. They most certainly don't want to come in for an interview. They and their families have existed on the welfare system for many years and know how to tweet it. You see, a recent government here gave long-term recipients of welfare the choice to receive welfare which they had to prove was warranted by having to apply for X amounts of jobs per month. This they can easily do by proof of email. The alternative was to upgrade their employment skills which was paid by the government whilst also receiving welfare, of course.

It just really gets up my nose when I see teenagers filmed surfing on one of our many beaches and asked how they live, they laugh and say they rent some cheap house with a number of other welfare recipients to pool resources and live a thoroughly wonderful free life of doing just what they want. When asked if they would take a job if offered it, they say with a grin "no way".