No-one should profit from death

This article has been edited for brevity.

The original was just my inane thoughts about public ownership of services. The inspiration behind the post was the paragraph below.

Defence

How can a modern progressive society condone the profiteering from human destruction and murder It cannot be right that a private company makes profit from the manufacture of machines used to kill people.

Almost everyone would agree that nations have the right to self defence, however, by manufacturing and selling weapons to other nations, and thus profiting for their use, we create a profit motive for war and political instability. It is my firm belief that if every nation signed up to a pact agreeing to keep all its weapons within its own borders, political instability, war, and terrorism would diminish almost overnight. This is a globalisation of the no-profiting-from-death idea. No country or private company/individual should be allowed to make profit from the death and murder of other people. 

Politics without the (career) politicians

I've been thinking about electoral reform lately and an idea just came to me that I thought I should jot down, maybe someone already thought of it and there is a name for it. If you know what it is, please leave a comment.

So what's wrong with the current political system?

Well I don't have time or space to fit it all, but a lot of the problems come from
1) A party-based system (with its issues presented by the FPTP system) making a mockery of democracy.
2) Career politicians who are subject to the risks of bribery biasing votes and encouraging corruption.
3) Lack of attendance to the chambers when debating/voting on issues exacerbating the above issues.

As an example, on the recent debates and votes on fracking regulations, (a subject I am very interested in), half the chamber was empty, and of those in attendance many MPs had shares in companies applying for fracking permits presenting a clear conflict of interest between their personal interests and the interests of their constituents.

So, what if we did away with political parties altogether? What issues would that solve and how would it work?

Firstly it would completely remove the first issue and all the complexities that other solutions then bring up. (Other possibilities such as proportional representation have their own downsides too, although they are definitely a lot better than FPTP). With no parties, no party leaders and no whips people would be free to vote how they really felt. This would make voting actually democratic.

But how would it work?

This is my initial thoughts, they are open to refinement.

1) Being a politician is more like jury duty than a career. It is a public service that is imposed on people pretty much against their will (with exceptions just like jury duty). It should last for a fixed fairly short period of time (a few years, more than one but less than 5) and each person can only serve at most once. Once selected all immediate family members will not be eligible for selection. The politicians job whilst in office is to consider bills, research their likely effects and decide on if he agrees with the bill or not and debate the bill in parliament. (Pretty much like the current job of politicians is). He is off work(his previous job) whilst an MP as it is a full time job that he is required by law to take seriously. It would be illegal to refuse an MP their old job back once their service is completed.

2) Every person on the electoral role has to fill in a short questionnaire about their political views. (This is instead of voting). This DOES NOT ask about policies, just life view points. So not, "would you approve the HS2" but more "which do you value most, preserving personal wealth or ensuring a decent standard of living to all?". Each question would then have a scale of importance from "very dogmatic" to "very pragmatic" on how flexible that person views the subject. This kind of survey is now very common, and well researched by academia. It should be very easy to build a profile of a persons opinions with minimal amounts of questions. The questionnaire is circulated every 5 years like the current system but can be updated by people at any time of their choosing should they change their minds.

3) A computer selects at random politicians to take office using an algorithm that takes into account their opinions and location to ensure that parliament is filled at all times as equally as possible with people that accurately reflect the opinions of the population, and represents proportionally all demographics such as race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc. The profiles of selected MPs is made open to public scrutiny.

4) A constitution is enacted to ensure (amongst other things) that no parliament can bring in new laws that would be discriminatory to minorities that may be under represented by the MPs.

5) Most of the politicizing then falls on non-profits and other groups. e.g. Raising awareness of issues. Thinking of potential solutions.

6) Whilst in office and for a period of time thereafter the MP has his and his family finances open to public scrutiny.

7) A body exists to ensure democratic legitimacy (DLB). Its primary job is to ensure that no-one is attempting to subvert the system. In addition it provides training and assistance to new MPs so they are not thrown in at the deep end.

8) Should an MP appear to be voting against their publicly visible profile additional scrutiny will be applied by the DLB/public to see if any financial irregularities could be influencing the MPs vote. All data is always public. Interviews may be done to obtain reasons for the apparent voting irregularity.

9) All MPs are required to vote on every bill. They can do this remotely if needed. The vote will be witnessed by several people if done remotely and then later verified. (This rule could be applied to the current system too.)

10) Bills can be tabled by MPs but also and probably more commonly, by the public by utilising a system similar to the current petition system.

11) New MPs would only vote on bills that they have had sufficient time to consider. This may mean a transition period where an exiting MP will still vote on issues already tabled whilst the new MP is picking up the new position/researching bills.

So would this system solve issues 2 and 3?

I think it would because it would be much harder to bribe a constantly changing body of MPs than a single politician that will likely have power and influence his entire career. Especially as the finances of said politicians are under scrutiny whilst they are in office. In addition it would be harder to hide your attempts to bribe as there will be so many more people to blow the whistle.

The third issue could be solved now in the current system with answer 9 so that definitely gets into the new system too.

Let me know what you think.

If you're anti-immigration you're not an environmentalist.

I recently met up with some nice chaps from http://www.populationmatters.org at this years Vegan Festival. My wife and I were already of the opinion that population does matter *(see below) however I found something they said most distasteful. It seems they believe in greater immigration controls. This is a shame as it makes them sound like the BNP #2. (Which detracts from their otherwise important message). Its also a shame because they're wrong.

Their argument #3 is that poorer people migrating to a wealthier land-area will start to consume at the rate of the native inhabitants vs the rate of the inhabitants of their land-area of origin (which due to being poorer will probably be lower) and thus increase net planetary consumption.

On the face of it, this argument whilst being incredibly bigoted, makes some sense, however I believe it is missing the bigger picture for a number of reasons.

The first is practical the second idealogical.
Lets start with the practical.

1. Immigrants (from poorer land-areas) do not always start to (or ever) consume at the rate of their host land-area citizens.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is true. Often times we see houses overcrowded with people, sharing beds, possibly undernourished, and definitely with much less disposable income to spend on "consuming".  It is common to see immigrants from poor land-areas walking or cycling to work, even long distances, or being shuttled in overcrowded minibuses. In many cases any disposable income they may have will be sent "home" (to friends/family that still live in the poorer land-area).

2. Immigrants send money home. and this helps reduce birth rates in their "home" land-area.
It is well documented #4 that birth rate and education are deeply linked. By increasing the wealth of their birth land-area they are helping to reduce the birth rate in that area. People living their may then have sufficient means to worry less about how they can eat and may get to send their children to school, or to a better school. These are precisely the types of places that need greater wealth and education to assist with reducing the worlds population. (The 'native' population of wealthy land-areas is generally fairly stable#5). These same figures are used by right-wingers to justify their anti-immigration policies. This is because there is a slight lag from people moving to a greater wealth area, and the effect this has on reducing their birth rate. (possibly due to the poverty they may initially experience whilst there). I don't have the figures to prove this but it seem to me logical and reasonable to deduce from the facts presented above that overall and over time policies of increased immigration most likely lead to lowered planetary birth rates. (In addition to not being bigoted).


Idealogical.
Lets assume a fairy tale scenario for the population apocalypse preacher. Everyone in this and other wealthy land-areas decides to not have any children and the birth rate of those areas drops to zero. These land-areas are the biggest consumers of the world so this is going to have the greatest positive impact on the planet.

It wouldn't take long before that land-area suddenly had economic problems #6. Specifically, young people are needed to fill jobs, and to pay taxes and NI so that elderly people can have their pensions. The short sighted response to low birth rate is to encourage more babies #7. Of course, this is pouring petrol on the fire of the global ecological crisis so we can't recommend that.

The other option, less politically palatable would be to increase immigration. It is sad but probably true that there will always be plenty of people worse off that would be willing to move to improve their lot. (I would rejoice if that situation ended. It would probably mean the world had figured out all of its economic and ecological problems and we were thus already in a utopia and wouldn't care any more about immigration anyway).



In short, if you think that the population is a cause for concern, you should not be advocating increased immigration controls.






* Population matters?
There is some debate  #1 on whether population is as big a deal as Sir David Attenborough makes in his film however it seems to me that it is basic reason to assume that the world cannot sustain an ever increasing population. I believe the counter arguments in articles like the one linked is that population will self correct. This is undoubtedly true, however it also seems likely to me that this self-correcting is likely to be less pleasant for all involved than a well thought out self-imposed population policy. When I say less pleasant I'm imagining famines and wars vs some personal self sacrifice on the part of people wealthy enough to not need children.




#1 http://www.newscientist.com/special/population
#2 http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/population-growth-unsustainable
#3 http://populationmatters.org/solutions/sustainable-population/sustainable-migration/
#4 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm
see also the references found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox
#5 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-birth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html
#6 Google low birth rate worry
#7 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301490.html

If you're anti immigration you're not a socialist.

I recently heard that one of my in-laws who has always voted Green has decided to vote UKIP. For me this puts a face on the many in our country who have started recently voting for UKIP, despite perhaps internally seeing themselves as socialists/left wing. #1

The thing is, immigration is the ultimate form of socialism, so if you dislike the growing wealth gap #2 then you should not be voting for a party that is anti-immigration.

I should qualify that I'm using the term socialist in the sense of "believing in fair distribution of wealth" such as that no margin of society should be left to struggle with poverty whilst there are others with an excess. For the Christians reading think 2 Corinthians 8:14.

Being anti-immigration means that you would rather people living within the invisible boundary line that defines 'your' landmass stay wealthier at the detriment of people from outside that invisible line that would dare to try to reduce their poverty by crossing that invisible line.

To me this the same as someone wealthy getting upset about increased taxation in order to provide more for those who are less well off.

If you think that you're left wing, or your in a union, or you believe that the wealthy should pay more tax vs more austerity, if you're any of these and also anti immigration, then you are a hypocrite.



#1 http://leftunity.org/labour-loses-election-in-its-heartland-to-ukip/

#2 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/15/wealth-inequality-uk-ticking-timebomb-credit-suisse-crash

If you are anti immigration you're a bigot.

The reasons people emigrate are many, but the type of immigration you usually see being disparaged by all sides of the political spectrum is when its for economic reasons.

Even UKIP and other right wing parties seem keen on getting more doctors and other professionals, but when have you heard a politician say they want to encourage more immigrant strawberry pickers or factory workers?

I personally haven't heard any political party say this, and its easy to see why. More economic migrants moving from a poorer economic area to 'our' country will 'dilute our wealth' and 'take our jobs'. At least, that is the fear, spoken or not.

Leaving aside the almost undoubted fact that neither of the above is true #1, this is what people are worried about

So lets assume that it is true, what does this say about us if we want to restrict these peoples movement into the country?

Its so obvious that I barely need to write it.

"We feel that the people who were lucky enough to have been born on this side of the imaginary invisible line that is our border are more entitled to be wealthy than people who were born on the other side".

In what other context is it OK to say that someone is more or less entitled to a decent life based on an accident of their birth, or something that is entirely out of their control? Apart from in extreme right wing media, have you ever heard anyone say or print:

"We think people who are gay/black/female should be less entitled to wealth than straight/white/male people"?

 All of those are also accidents of birth. There really is no difference between the first statement and the second.







#1 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26605-opening-the-door-to-immigrants-is-good-for-the-economy.html#.VKkqpSusWpU