The Tories are sorting out the wealthy tax-avoidant

[LittleFrieda]

members of our society. Why on earth did Labour fail to act during their long term in office? Eh? Eh?

I can't believe people are complaining about George Osborne doing something about it.

How will China deal with its elderly population, MrPants, as it survives into unproductive old age without as many young to support it? Perhaps it will start importing cheap labour from Africa, thus increasing the size of its population again through immigration? Or will it just exterminate the elderly?

rabbitstew "The 2nd World War involved lots of mass murder and lots of states around the world, big and small, were involved in that."

So a dictator who has bent the will of his people to endorse such ideas as racial superiority and lebensraum uses an agent of his state (the German armed forces) to subjugate surrounding countries and wage war with those that dare to challenge him. Meanwhile, another agent of the state (the S.S.) round up a sizeable ethnic minority and kill and destroy them without a trial and for no reason other than the whim of the ruling elite?

If you are trying to suggest that the Second World War was caused in any way by small state government, or followed the rule of law, you CLEARLY don't understand what you are talking about. The very definition of small government is that it doesn't have the power to mount an offensive war. The very definition of rule of law is that you don't gas innocent people to death in an industrialised slaughter.

"How will China deal with its elderly population"

I suspect it won't be a state mandated solution which is ironic seeing as it was a state mandated solution which caused the problem in the first place. The Chinese are very keen to save for their old age - this is where a lot of our credit has come from and why the Chinese 'own' so much of the west.

You don't have to like it, but you can't deny it is happening. Back in 1959 the original Mini car needed a shift of around 10,000 men to run the production line. Today, the far more complex, better specced, and by just about any quantifiable factor you car to name 'better' modern mini requires 3,800 people to build more cars at a faster rate and all to a higher standard. The difference is robotics - the chance of seeing mass employers in this country again is zero

All very well but if there are fewer people in work there will be less demand for the super spech mini.

The Chinese are very keen to save for their old age - this is where a lot of our credit has come from and why the Chinese 'own' so much of the west

Brilliant point, yes we owe a lot of money to china. However we also have huge levels of personal debt from having borrowed to buy their cheap products. Ordinary British workers have managed to maintain a semblance of

prosperity by being fed credit as their wages have declined. This has allowed china to boom.

So do we, cut are necks and start manufacturing goods cheaper? do we make more people unemployed and employ robots? who will keep the masses of unemployed and the sick and the elderly? oh that would be the state, that small state you keep dreaming of.

I wasn't talking about the Nazis, MrPants, I was talking about war. War is mass murder, as is dropping an atomic bomb on another country or bombing cathedral cities, or getting involved in Vietnam for ideological reasons. If you are claiming that the small state won't get involved in wars or play dirty when it is, then clearly there is and never will be such a thing as a small state. What most people mean by a small state is a state that provides little in the way of social security but a lot in the way of the military and the police in order to protect itself from aggressors (or, in the case of some "small states" getting in there first, before the aggressors have actually done anything). I'm interested that your idea of a small state doesn't encompass militarism of any sort. Very laudable. Positively hippyish in outlook. If only such a place could exist and we weren't all caught up in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan etc, etc. Of course, it's always the other side that started it, whichever side you are on.

So - has there ever been such a thing as a small state? What does MrPants actually think a small state is?

Are you thinking of Switzerland?

Is compulsory military service acceptable in a small state?

I'm still struggling with what a small state actually is. Is there an official definition anywhere (except for the obvious, that a small state is one that is small geographically and in terms of population).

I'm thinking this small state might not have to think too much about raising taxes, MR PANTS mentioned security, obviously the elite would still need a police force to protect it from the mass of misery and the huge levels of poverty and unemployment, the disease and the anger.

But taxes, does a small state need to raise so much in tax, who would it tax? would it tax corporations? could they afford to pay taxes if they didn't actually have anyone to sell their products to? workers, well who needs them to pay taxes, perhaps the robots can do that as well.

Maybe a small state is one governed by a large corporation? A sort of East India Company state?

Switzerland isn't a small state government. I admire their regular referendums (although this can lead to the tyranny of the masses - there's nothing Liberal about their ban on mosques) which may well make them one of the more republican democracies out there. But, as rabbitstew points out, conscription is not something a small state would do.

An example of a small state is obviously one with low taxation and minimal interference from government in business and private lives. Classical libertarian states include Singapore and Hong Kong although, at their current rate of progress, one could certainly include New Zealand if they maintain the trend of recent years.

Other countries following the right path include Australia, Chile, Namibia and, surprisingly enough, Sweden. Most people don't realise that government spending has significantly reduced as a percentage of GDP over the last few years in Sweden which kind of makes it ironic that, when lefties argue that we should be more like Sweden, I tend to agree.

Incidentally, none of the states I've mentioned above are notorious for starting wars, creating genocides within their own country (Namibia's genocide was inflicted upon it by Germany prior to WWI, Chile's problems were caused by a fascist regime that was disposed over twenty years ago), or ignoring the rule of law.

Australia's record with the aborigines isn't too hot, even now. I would hate to live in Hong Kong, unless I was one of the hugely wealthy minority. I would also hate to live in Singapore, unless one of the hugely wealthy minority - and I think it has an uncomfortable relationship with its neighbours (as opposed to Hong Kong which has an interesting relationship with the rest of China...). I think you are picking on small states in the literal sense - too small geographically and in terms of numbers of people to be outwardly aggressive and inclined to having been picked on and used by the rest of the world and bigger neighbours. Not at all a comfortable position to be in. Interesting, also, how you describe Singapore as libertarian, when it is more popularly perceived, including by many of its own people, as quite restrictive and authoritarian. A sort of freedom, but only on terms that suit your personality and with a constant sense of fear as a result of your geographical location in the world.

(ps by Hong Kong's "interesting" relationship, I mean an uneasy one, not a positive one).

Chile, you are kidding. Pinochet was helped by the American CIA, he had economists that had been trained by Friedman at American universities. This wasn't a liberation of the people this was WAR backed up by the big corporate powers in the states, the ARMs companies.

August: Augusto Pinochet is appointed by Allende as commander-in-chief of the army.
September: In a violent coup, the presidential palace is bombed. Allende is among the first of 1,213 people who die or disappear between September 11 and the end of 1973. Pinochet dissolves Congress, suspends the constitution, bans opposition, arrests trade unionists and imposes controls on the media. Thousands are forced into exile. Four hundred US CIA experts assist Pinochet. The regime embarks on a radical programme of denationalisation, closely assisted by economists from the University of Chicago

1976
Orlando Letelier, Chile's former foreign minister and Socialist Party leader in exile, is killed by a car bomb in the centre of Washington DC The Pinochet regime is widely implicated.

1978
Pinochet declares an amnesty to cover all human rights abuses since the coup.

1980
Pinochet launches a new, dictatorial, constitution, which is ratified by a controversial plebiscite. Britain lifts its arms embargo on Pinochet's regime

1982
Chile assists Britain during the Falklands war with Chilean bases and intelligence. Britain opposes UN investigations of human rights abuses in Chile

1991
Chile's National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation publishes a lengthy indictment of Pinochet's dictatorship, officially counting 2,279 deaths (later revised to 3,172) in "political violence

It might be a small "state" now but it is armed to the teeth, Britain and Uncle Sam locked Chile into a huge amount of debt by peddling it's arms contracts.

Namibia, similar set of circs, Nigeria, don't even go there, another small state which collects very little in tax. The tax that was raised went into Swiss bank accounts (no wonder the Swiss are laughing) Virtually no money was spent by the government on roads, welfare, education. In 1995 Saro-Wiwa was killed and the people set about attacking Shell which was seen as an imperial force rather than just a business because its interest in the country was so huge. For 5 days they lost $2.6bn and eventually they decided to take over the "job of the state" they now provide schools, welfare for their employees, health, roads, housing. That may sound good, but they are an unelected super power, what happens when the oil runs out, or shell decide to move to pastures new. Everything will collapse again.

So no I don't think a "small state" is more democratic, it creates a vacume in which the monoliths can operate, they often have very questionable human rights, and we can not just stand by whilst huge numbers of people suffer to make a few shareholders happy.

Well, the recent past history of colonialism or dictatorship of the majority of countries/special regions MrPants mentions is very interesting as a showcase of the brilliance of non-intervention by the state! Almost all are places that have had considerable murderous, racist, ideological, war-like, violent, and/or imperial interventions for most of their long or short histories.

minimathsmouse I stated that Chile is heading in the right direction as a small state SINCE ABANDONING FACSISM OVER 20 YEARS AGO. I then read a post from you about the fascist history of Chile up to 1991, after which you wrote "It might be a small "state" now..."

Secondly, where did I mention Nigeria as being a small state??? I said Namibia, a totally different country approximately 3,000 miles to the south.

So, after looking at fascist Chile and the wrong country, you conclude that "I don't think a "small state" is more democratic..., they often have very questionable human rights, and we can not just stand by whilst huge numbers of people suffer to make a few shareholders happy."

I have a few issues with your conclusion

I would hate to live in Hong Kong, unless I was one of the hugely wealthy minority.

May I ask why? I have a lot of family from there and they love it. Interestingly after Tienanmen, a lot of people emigrated to UK/Canada/US/wherever but many moved back as soon as they got their citizenship.

Petty crime is incredibly low. Police are seen regularly and often. Taxes are low with a high tax free minimum. Despite the low income tax rate and 0% sales tax, the government of Hong Kong have so much money that they seriously don't know what to do with it. So they're giving every citizen $6000 back (£500ish). I'm eligible even though I live in the UK. So I thank them for my new camera lens! .

The welfare system is incredibly basic by western standards but that is also in part because people still have a family first mentality. Years ago my gran asked my uncle to sign a form to say he would not financially support my gran which would enable her to claim state benefits. He point blank refused as a matter of principle and he would not counter the notion that someone else should look after his mother. Such an attitude is alien to western society now where state care is the first stop rather than last.

HK isn't perfect. It is incredibly urban and humid. But those are problems of geography rather than economic policies. Economically it has been a stonking success by any stretch of the imagination.

rabbitstew I don't see your point. Having a different history lends a different perspective to any political outlook. However, not all former British Empire colonies are libertarian in their outlook, not all ex-fascist countries are becoming more libertarian, and not all Scandinavian countries are moving towards libertarianism.

"Almost all are places that have had considerable murderous, racist, ideological, war-like, violent, and/or imperial interventions for most of their long or short histories."

I mentioned seven countries. Of these Singapore, Hong-Kong, New Zealand and Australia are all former British colonies and to my knowledge (historically poor treatment of Australian Aborigines accepted), none of these countries fit your descriptions. Neither does Sweden which, second only to Switzerland, is one of the most neutral countries on the planet (unless you particularly abhor Abba, Volvos and IKEA).

Namibia had genocide brought upon it by Imperial Germany - this has now passed from living memory. Similarly, Chile has turned its back on fascism as comprehensively as Germany, Austria and Italy has done. They cannot really be categorised as similar countries except for their desire for smaller government.

niceguy2 Brilliant. You've hit the nail on the head - in the west, when you get into trouble you expect the state to bail you out. In large swathes of the rest of the world it's family first.

Anyone care to hazzard a guess as to which society is the most broken?

I agree a lot about British society is broken, but then I've never claimed to be a fan of British policies or the deficit of family values. I would hate to live in Hong Kong because I've seen both ends of the spectrum of living standards there and didn't like how the bottom end have to live at all. Yes, of course the climate and lack of space has something to do with it - it is a highly claustrophobic place. It is also an exciting, vibrant place for those with enough money to enjoy that side of things (and to be able to get their visas to elsewhere in the world if they think it's getting a bit uncomfortable where they are....) and is an absolutely fascinating place to visit and is extremely well run according to its own terms. But an emphasis on looking after the family against a nasty outside world, whilst having many benefits, also has a darker side, as it can easily extend to putting others down to ensure the supremacy of your own clan in ways that go beyond fair competition, and to having very little interest to the fate of anyone or anything outside your immediate family.

minimathsmouse I stated that Chile is heading in the right direction as a small state SINCE ABANDONING FACSISM OVER 20 YEARS AGO
Yes and I am making the point that it is only a liberalised economy because the corporate forces of capitalism KILLED thousands of people, took on huge debt to buy military hardware and the reason the Socialist government was toppled is because America can not abide any opposition to it's free market/imperialistic agenda. It also clearly illustrates how the forces of free market countries and economics wage war on socialism. Whilst I would be the first to say that in the USSR, a huge state mentality led to the supression of democracy, I am also keen to point out that a world led by the dictates of companies and profit before people isn't any better.

I made the point about Nigeria because it illustrates what happens when corporates take on the business of government. Something that tends to happen under a liberal economic system. A system that will never meet the needs of those most vulnerable and neither will it be accountable when things go wrong.

Family first, is very noble but it is usually women who are left with the tough economic consequences of taking on the role of carer. Women are severely disadvantaged in this respect.

I've also seen how the average family in Singapore live and would also hate their lack of space and privacy. I stayed with a family who considered themselves well off in their minute flat, with the only washing facility being a shower head over the toilet, and a tiny kitchen space in the main living area where the grandmother and the children also slept (given that there was only one other room in the flat). I'm used to a bit more space and luxury than that, I have to admit. And to fund this luxurious lifestyle, needless to say, anyone of working age living in the flat worked exceptionally long hours. And at school, I remember having to parade up and down in the playground and salute the flag, so even if it is a small state, it does like to stamp its authority on its people as though it is a big state. Again, a country with things to admire about it, but not somewhere I would like to live.

their lack of space and privacy......... minute flat, with the only washing facility being a shower head over the toilet, and a tiny kitchen space in the main living area where the grandmother and the children also slept

In Moscow they moved the rich into one room of their homes and moved others in to occupy the rest of the house. Facilities were shared and people lacked privacy. SO now it would seen that a libertarian economy can cause the same "social living" conditions as a communist regime.

Why is it, that rather than take the very best of any political or economic philosophical idea we instead creatt systems that suppress real fairness and democracy, social equality and freedom.

"But an emphasis on looking after the family against a nasty outside world, whilst having many benefits, also has a darker side, as it can easily extend to... having very little interest to the fate of anyone or anything outside your immediate family."

But I freely admit it; I have very little interest in the fate of anyone or anything outside my immediate family, friends and neighbours.

I don't think it needs saying but whenever we care for other people, we care most for those closest to us - those we don't know aren't as high a priority for us. You can define that anyway you like but family, friends, neighbours and then everybody else - specifically in that order - seems a good start to me. Socialism compels us to care for unknown persons at the cost of those we care about, whilst those we do help, see that help as coming from the state and not their fellow countryman. It's hardly surprising our society is so to cock, socialism is actively corrupting our herd instincts!

It is also a state of affairs which allows anyone who is a net contributor to the state to regard those that aren't with resentment - "Little darling Anunciatta can't have polo lessons because Daddy pays too much tax to support the local bike and her ten kids by ten different blokes." style of argument.