« Inspired States | Main | Offshoring government »

April 15, 2006

Comments

dearieme

Come, come: a move towards equality of opportunity reqires the abolition of State Education.

Laurent GUERBY

dearieme, you meant 100% tax on inheritance, right?

Phil

Close reading is your friend, I'm afraid. The first sentence you quote is good and can reasonably support a radical reading, but the second?

"We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold."

This says that a) a 'liberal, pluralist democracy' is something a nation either has or hasn't got; b) the authors can tell which nations have got one and which nations haven't; and c) they value the established traditions and the existing institutions of the first group of nations. Nothing about direct democracy there.

I think you were half right - it is intended to appeal to libertarian leftists (I think there are more of us out there than you might think), but it doesn't really have any substance.

dearieme

Sorry, Laurent, you've lost me. But on the argument that a 100% tax would annihilate the income subject to it, the only 100% tax that I'd support would be one on pop music.

Fisking Central

I support a 100% tax on those buggers that charge £1.50 to use a cash point, and on any advert where the volume is louder than that of the programme it interrupts. Apart from that, nothing else...

Chris D, I think what Cameron thinks is neither here nor there. He is almost entirely lacking in any political philosophy whatsoever. Now if you asked the same question about say, Douglas Hurd, what do you think the answer would be?

CB

Re: Your point about democracy. No-one would choose out of *all* options a system that would elect someone with 20% of the population, but as a counterbalance to something that represses the choices of the majority of the population with violence and doesn't seek any kind of a mandate it's a *better* option. Your point wilfully misunderstands that crucial difference. Wishful thinking aside, it's about flawed and worse options, not about a fictional perfect against a real imperfect.

Phil

"it's about flawed and worse options, not about a fictional perfect against a real imperfect."

That's exactly why I wouldn't trust Euston with a bargepole: it demands adherence to a least-worst option as a matter of political principle.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad