Alternative Governments, From earlier 4chan thread

Hello Forum,
I am the OP from the 4chan thread.
If you have not already received the email, let me post it here, with additions.

Hello, people.

I'm writing a manifesto to showcase that there are alternatives to the current corporate greed driven system.
I'm also putting in there all the policies that are pretty common sense, yet do not get though due to lobbying from big business, religious dogma or plain old conservative fear mongering.

I think it is well overdue for a sensible, secular, science based manifesto that transcends religion, capitalism and party politics and focuses on making life better for everyone.

I'll briefly outline my views on a few issues:

Drugs: See Portugal's policy on drugs. It works. Google "Portugal drug policy success".

Politics: Political funding should not come from corporations. This creates a HUGE conflict of interest for politicians. Democracy is the way to go here. 1 man 1 vote, nothing should influence this. Politicians should not be beholden to anyone except the public. Transparency in all areas of government - sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Economy: An alternative to the current system of greed. The current system champions the pursuit of the dollar above all else. This conflicts with public interest far more than is acceptable, think of the countless told and untold examples of corporate crime, think ENRON, Pharmaceutical companies, Big Oil, Big Tobacco. They will do anything for their profit margins, anything. Focus should not be on profit, but improving lives of all company workers through providing a product which is useful to the public. Reduction in the 'corporate classes' the big CEO's with huge salaries.

Religion: I am an atheist and believe the state should be secular. Religion should be discouraged but not outlawed. Policy should aim to slowly faze out religion through education, science and placing peoples hope and focus in what they can achieve for humanity on earth, not in heaven.

I'm still writing a lot of these policies up and I'll get round to sending you a copy as it is at the moment. I'm sure some of you could write it better, if you can please lend me a hand, some of you may have great ideas that I've not thought about, in which case tell me! Discussion is key to all this, but please, let's not try to get bogged down in semantics or ideological battles, they have been raging for centuries and they don't change anything. Rally under the banner that there are alternatives to the current system and that they need to be taken seriously and explored.

Thanks for your interest guys, let me know what you think and your positions on these things.

Nathan

Welcome NathanSanders. As you have probably already realised some of what is discussed here overlaps with what you are addressing. So there is some prospect of finding stuff out, I think

I am interested in most of the areas of policy you have set out: but there are not many people who will not agree with hurrah words: the trouble arises when we come to discuss how to get those things.

I like to start with basic questions. In the thread which opened this section I asked what we could agree on and started with the most fundamental thing I could think of: which is what kind of government an alternative should be. The things which you list could be implemented by any number of political systems. So do you have a view about which should be adopted? I wonder if your reference to one man one vote when talking about funding means that you are wedded to a democracy? Or have you other options in mind? If a democracy, then why that?

Yes, firstly thanks to Vincent for donating board space to this topic.
I am hoping to create a website dedicated to this movement in the future with a dedicated forum.

I agree, there will be a lot of disagreement on how these things are achieved and although, while this is good, it could easily become bogged down in idealogical battles. That is why it is even more important to outline that this movement is first and foremost about finding an alternative to the current system within the framework of democratic, secular (to the point of being very suspicious of religion), humanistic, scientific principles, with focuses on drug decriminalisation, free, government provided health care and education and the drastic reduction of economic inequality. The details of how this is implemented policy wise I can offer my thoughts on, but does, in many ways not matter as much just yet.

At this time I am very much in favour of democracy in some form, but this is a very wide label and the democracy that we forge can be very different to the ones (corporate puppet democracies) already in place.
As for why democracy, It allows sufficient counterbalance to government power if implemented correctly, the individual has power where groups do not and it is the most widely accepted and triumphed form of government and so would be the one most people who follow us on our other policies would support too.

It so happens that I am also a democrat: though perhaps for rather different reasons than those you give. Maybe that needs further exploration as well because I think that there are perhaps quite different perceptions underlying that. In particular I do not accept that democracy works to give power to the individual: it is, I think, most often seen as an expression of group power. Whether that is inevitable or desirable I do not know: but I do know that if you wish to avoid that outcome you have to think very carefully about how to achieve your aim

But leaving that aside for now: this seems to be a version of the "what works" argument and to me it is that approach which has led to the current ideological hegemony which I consider to be at the root of most of the ills you identify. In short I believe that it is essential to have an ideology: it is not an optional extra.

In fact you have already taken an ideological position: because the pursuit of greater economic equality is certainly that. There is no logical reason to pursue that: nothng scientific about it really. It rests on your conception of what a "good"society looks like. You cannot be unaware that there are others who consider that a vision of hell.

Other parts of what you have mentioned so far are also ideological and must be defended in those (essentially moral) terms. But not all. Drug decriminalisation appears to be an oddity in the list you provide: it appears to be at a different level of discourse, to me. I wonder why it is in there with all the big words?

The discussion about democracy is perhaps as you say, a more technical discussion than an idealogical one, for the purposes of this movement.

Of course I could write essay upon essay justifying every little asset of the positions I have put forward, but I believe that would only alienate people from the movement, at least until it gains momentum. What I feel is important is that we showcase the broader goals of the movement I mentioned above.
From other threads on other boards these main points have hit a chord with many people and I want to organise this into a coherent movement. It seems to me that these set of principles, whether truly 'logical' or from a moral standpoint resonate with a lot of the disgruntled youth today, who have seen bank bailouts, bankers bonuses, high unemployment, the failed war on drugs, religious fundamentalism and conservatism promoting policies from the standpoint of their bronze age religious dogma. These are the people that are fed up with the way things are and want to change them for the better. These people perhaps do not realise that there are many others like them out there, with very similar views and that there are alternatives to the current situation. This is what I want to get across to people, that you are not alone, and that together, we can make these things a reality.

What I will go into though is my policy on drugs, perhaps to clarify. I see this as just as important issue as secularism in society and economic alternatives. What we see today is a failed 'war on drugs'. To very many people, especially those in the scientific community, I feel, the policy of major western powers on drugs is extremely misguided and is well overdue for an alternative evidence based approach. The UK government commissioned scientific advisory commission for drug policy has repeatedly called for a change in drug laws, often ignored by the government, The UN's report into the war on drugs and many many others have deeply criticised the war on drugs as an approach to drug use. My background is in Pharmacology and I have studied this subject extensively. My conclusion is that drug use needs to be treated as a social health issue, not as a criminal issue. Portugal's enlightened policy showcases what this approach can achieve.
I also believe that there are many people out there that use recreational soft drugs (such as cannabis) responsibly or have done so in the past, and feel that a criminal sentence is just not appropriate for that kind of use. Over a fifth of Europeans have taken cannabis at some point in their lives, according to a report on illegal drug use from the EMCDDA, the EU's drug-monitoring arm. Under current laws, all of these people should be charged with committing a crime, often including a prison sentence. For very many people this is not a sensible situation to be in. People should have the right to use these softer substances in a similar way that they have a right to use alcohol or tobacco, with nearly all soft drugs being shown to cause significantly less risk of harm than that of alcohol or tobacco. There has always been a desire to experiment with conciousness throughout human history and I, and many others believe that we should be able to do this safely and without fear of imprisonment.

Edited by NathanSanders - 2/8/2011, 12:34

Glad you posted this, it really is an interesting discussion. I agree with Fiona about the need for an ideology, however, and being Scandinavian, to me there really is nothing all that revolutionary in what you are suggesting; not that we are in any way perfect in these respects, far from it, but most people here would say that they share those ideas, I think. Apart from the drug policy. I think perhaps I agree with you on that, but possibly for different reasons...

I would like to hear your thoughts on how democracy works to give power to the individual, our history seems to suggest that the opposite is true - democracy gave power to groups that had been left out because the individuals of the group were powerless before. Are we moving in a different direction now, do you think?

The word sensible is a tricky one, but I am sure you are aware of that

For sure. Changing the nonsensical policy on drugs is a no-brainer. But if follows that the reasons for the adherence to the current position in face of all evidence, logic, common sense, or any other approach you care to mention, have to be covert: because they sure as hell are not what is claimed on the surface.

My point is not that I disagree: it is rather that this seems to be a different order of discourse from the other things you have mentioned. I suppose that the way it strikes me is that there is a moral/ideological content which forms the basis for any alternative approach: and then there is the practical policy which follows from that content. The drugs issue seems to me to be in the latter grouping, and so it sits ill with the rest.

Perhaps that will be clearer if I try it backwards. What are the policy implications of the current hegemony if we consider them in the terms you are proposing? You have presumably chosen these particular points because you consider them to be fundamental to building an alternative. It follows that they are also fundamental to the stance you seek to oppose, I think? Would you agree with that? If you would then it looks like this to me on the issu of drugs. Current policy is predicated on drug use as part of criminality rather than as a health problem. It was not always so: at least not in the UK. Heroin was perfectly legal until 1956, for example. At that time heroin addiction was a vanishingly small problem in the UK: but in America it was by then a "major social problem". It is therefore interesting to note that heroin had been criminalised in America in 1925. During the first half of the last century, in the UK, heroin was an integral part of family medicine and was an ingredient in many prescription remedies for things like diarrhoea and the common cold. It was, in fact, the successor to laudanum which was widely used in the 19th century. This widespread use did not lead to much addiction at all, and it was not seen as a problem by anyone, really. The records show that there were never more than 500 addicts at any one time throughout the period up to and including the second world war: and addicts were treated by precription heroin. This policy worked very well, and it was strongly defended by the medical profession and by "establishment" media, when it came under attack through pressure from america towards the end of the 1950's. Eventually America succeeded in getting their own approach to this issue enshrined in international law, and from then on UK policy changed in the direction of criminalisation: with the absolutely predictable and disastrous results we see today.

The point I am making is that the policy on drugs which is currently mainstream is not based on any evidence at all. But that is not something we have learned through experience: it was known before the criminalisation was imposed. As a society we chose to embrace the consequences in full knowledge of what they would be. This was driven very largely from America: I am not american and so I cannot really speak to why that country adopted and propagated that policy in the way that it did. I suspect it was part of a fit of indignant morality which also seems to have underpinned the prohibition of alcohol. What is certainly true is that a fanatic can drive through legislation if the majority do not care: and, precisely because it was NOT a problem in the UK, there was no really strong resistance when international law changed. While it had been an internal matter it was resisted: but compliance with international law was held to be more important, and so this country fell in line.

If it is true that the basis of the prohibition was founded on moral indignation rather than any more coherent analysis, it follows that there is no centrality to the issue in terms of the kind of society we wish to build. It might just as well have happened that drugs were treated in the same way as alcohol: with a period of prohibition to appease the "moral majority" (another of the "holy roman empire" labels: distinguished by the fact that it is neither moral nor a majority) and then swift recognition of the harm and insanity of the programme, leading to reversal. In that case the trade would be legal and regulated: it would be taxed: and it would probably match the drinks trade in terms of its importance to the economy ( mmm: single estate french heroin (appelation controlee): single malted scottish heroin: taste the peat of the pure scottish water used in the manufacture). What that would NOT do is change anything important in terms of our political system. It would fit right in. And that is why I say it is not a fundmental issue in the way the others are.

Contrast that with another issue you raise: a policy aimed at greater equality of wealth. One cannot introduce that into the current hegemony without making fundamental changes, because the present policy absolutely depends on promoting inequality. Again it was not always so. The period between the second world war and about 1980 saw the pursuit of increased equality as an unashamed aim of public policy: and it worked. The shift to a different agenda by the radical right was conscious, and it was promoted on the basis of a particular conception of human nature and what the "good society" comprises. I happen to think that the hurrah narrative which is necessary to justify this is false: and I happen to think that at least some of those who promote it know that it is false: but there are also true believers. The point here is that one could not change the actual policy, as you could with drugs, without displacing the basics premises. You cannot have the free market and strong government regulation: you cannot have globalisation and equalisation of wealth. They are mutually incompatible.

That is why I think that some of the things you propose are basic: and some are icing. And this is what I think we need to clarify

I've actually started another thread for naming this movement. I agree that we need one quite soon, it will help immensely with gaining support and will make the whole thing a lot easier, rather than just calling it a movement.

The 'Citizens of the Internet' think Tank is a good idea, I like it. I hadn't thought about using haktivism/ internet based names for it but it could work well.
Although it may alienate people that don't use the internet very much and some people may not take it seriously if it involves the internet (stupid I know.)

"Citizens for Change,
The Change Movement,
The Coalition for a fairer/different/new World

People before Profit - I like this one

Science in Society,
The Coalition For A New Approach - like this too"

There's plenty to be had, but it just needs to encompass our main objectives and sound right!

P.S. Yes, I've played civ since I was 6.

To Helenagain,
I understand that Scandinavian countries are further along the route with respect to some of the policies I have mentioned and that is great, we should be championing that fact.
I agree, these ideas are NOT revolutionary, far from it, but they are largely ignored everywhere apart from Scandinavia.

My point is that there is a lot of people that think like this but do not have an organised outlet to promote their views, or think that they are alone or in the minority.

It is my aim to start a movement that promotes these views and actively encourages people to work towards them and organises these people together.

FionaK, I understand what you are saying in respect to drug policy not fitting in with the other things mentioned. It's not on the same level as some of the more profound statements but I think it is important nonetheless. I have tried to include things that I feel strongly about and think that others do too. If I were to leave out the drug policy I think it would betray my views and ultimately cause confusion. I see no harm in keeping it in the main policy statements. I am thinking of including my views on copyright law into it as well.
I'm not sure what real difference that makes to the movement at its start up.

NathanSanders, I really do agree that these are very good ideas, but I think what I am trying to say is that these ideas exist as political parties, as far as I can see; socialists, social democrats, labour (?). I think I am wondering if you feel that more people will now be interested in these ideas than has been the case for a while?

They all exist in political parties, yes. But not all together I don't think, especially opposition to the 'War on Drugs', Open opposition to 'corporate capitalism and the profit before people' motive and discouragement of religion.

I can't find one major political party which espouses those three policies as main points. It is often necessary for large parties to court the religious or big business in order to gain votes or campaign money, even if they are in essence against them. In that sense, their policies concerning those issues are often missed off the manifesto completely or are watered down so as not to cause 'offence'. This creates stale politics which this movement is totally against.

I definitely think that more people will be interested in these ideas given the current climate and it is entirely appropriate to capitalise (pardon the irony) on this and transform it into something good. Use the current climate to spur more calls to action.

Democracy has its flaws, since it is a popularity contest what I've found in Britian is that they'll do anything to get the vote without sticking to their princibles. There is also a tendency for there not being any strong leaders, just charismatic ones I find with no real backbone because of this system (or at least in this point in time).

This happened in ancient greese as well in Athens. The popular vote was not nessisarily the wisest, that's why Plato suggested that we be rulled by Philosophical rulers, but as we know this has its flaws. Of course, all systems of goverment are bad but some are better then others, I'm not saying that you should have a dictator or something like that. I think churchil said that 'Democracy is the worst system after all the others' (correct me if I'm wrong, I can't remeber how all the quote went).

My point being that you'd have to sort out this problem if you were going to make this work, can't tell you how.

Ok: you are wedded to the particular content of this manifesto as so far expressed. I would make a different list, but since you say this is based on the things that are important to you, that is no suprise. I dislike skipping about between intrinsic necessities and detailed prescriptions: but we can fix that

You have a detailed prescription for the approach to drugs using the current portuguese policy. So let is talk about the rest

1. Poliitical funding should not come from corporations. That is fine by me. How do you propose to enforce that? How should it be funded? You say one man one vote: do you suggest that there should be a fixed pot of money allocated to political parties on the basis of a separate vote held for that purpose? Or do you suggest that political parties should be funded from direct taxation? Or something else?

2. Nobody could disagree that the abuses of power by corporations is a bad thing: even the very far right agree with that. From my point of view the elevation of profit above all else is systemic: from a right winger's point of view the importance of profit is obvious and its association with greed and abuse is aberrant. So who is to decide what is in the public interest? The right wing assert that the the operation of the free market is precisily tuned to that end: because they consider that that market is made up of the individual decisions of every player in that market, with the consumer sovereign. They further assert that a corporation which ignores the wishes and the values of those individuals will fail in the market place. I do not see that this is other than warm words: so let us put some flesh on it: how do you propose to achieve this end? Would you, for example, put a cap on the amount a corporate executive could earn vis a vis the lowest paid worker in that corporation? Or vis-a-vis the minimum wage? Or the lowest rate of benefit paid in that society to the disabled or the unemployed? I see that you have missed out those who are on benefits in your description of what corporations should do. Was that deliberate? Or were you just less than precise in your description?

3. I see you note your location as United Kingdom. It therefore surprises me that you elevate religion to the status of a central problem: because it isn't , here. Playing to the american audience perhaps? Nothing wrong with that if you are. But I profoundly disagree that there should be a focus on what people believe for this reason: America is one of very few states in the industrialised world which makes a meal of separation of church and state. As it happens it is also an outlier in terms of the influence of religion. There are a million things which might be said about that: but one of them is that the strong separation may be, in fac,t one reason for that difference: and if that is true then what should happen is that America should follow the rest of the industrialised world: not the other way around. This is one area where I recognise the attraction of what you are saying but I think it is at odds with the facts. I do not think policy should "aim" to phase out religion: because religion does no harm at all. I happen to believe that religion withers in the presence of a welfare state and it follows that if your programme includes a robust safety net then there is no need to do anything about religion at all. I assume you do not agree with that: so what do you propose to do with those teachers and parents who hold sincere religious belief and who will go to any lengths to inculcate those in their children. Would you allow home schooling, for example? It is relatively common among the religious right in America I believe, partly because of the determinedly secular nature of American schools. What about faith schools? Would they continue to be legal? How would they be funded?

4. Although it is not in the OP I think I read elsewhere that your manifesto includes UHC and universal education. Do you have anything to say on other elements of a welfare state? What about the unemployed and the disabled? What about immigrants? Do you have anything to say on child care? Maternity benefits. Other specific elements which are crucially important to certain groups in our society?