[sarcastic pratchett fan]

A month or so ago I noticed a huge demand for a beginner's guide to politics. So I decided to write one. I have been very busy over the last month. Unfortunately, I had to neglect TSR. This is a plea for help.

I collected all the necessary body parts and bolted them together. When this mammoth task was finally completed wheeled out the good old lightning rod. Now my creation is lurching down the corridor.

What do I do? Do I decapitate it, put a stake through where the heart should be and burn it (ie, destroy it)? Do I run away as fast as I can (ie, leave it)? Or do I continue to tinker with it in the hope that one day it shall become a fully functioning member of society (ie, continue the project)?

The file is in the attachment.

It was longer than I planned. I really want some feedback. I did not write it in order and I shuffled some sections. I also deleted some bits. It may be a bit disjointed. I might refer to something as above when in this version it is actually below.

Feedback is very welcome.If you spot bias, or soemthing you believe to be bias, please get back to me asap. If you spot grammatical or factual errors, please tell me. If you think something should be reword please tell me. If you see something that can be cut out, definitely tell me. If you want something to be added in, tell me if you must. If you care about rep, I will give it out for constructive feedback. Sadly, I am one of those who cares about rep, so if you are dazzled by my brilliance and astounded by my genius why not?

Seriously, I would really like some help with this as I think it is about as far as I can take it by myself. If it's basic stuff (lie pointing out grammatical errors etc), perhaps you could PM me so we can keep the board free for any debate where people think I have been biased etc. I really need some help with this now, so thanks for any time you can give.

To those who want to help, I am also making a table which outlines every party's position on each issue. I have not put it in as I am still finishing at and am finding it difficult to find some of the fringe parties' stances on issues like GM crops etc.

To any mods: althouh this is not a real political debate, I feel this is the most appropriate topic to put this in, especially as there are so many threads here wanting an intro to politics. If you disagree, can we please discuss this first before moving the thread?

PS: On one of my last projects I actually had a teacher email me to tell me that one of her pupils had plagiarised my project. Please do not plagiarise the attached work. You will be caught. I will find you. There will be red hot pokers

[~|Shock|~]

Thank you

I certainly found it useful for UK politics and the explanation of the terms used in different forms of government.

[tis_me_lord]

"Extreme capitalism is based upon the principle of a completely free market – there is no safety net for those who fail and industry and commerce is very loosely regulated, allowing people to deceive you. In this society, anything in the world of business goes – there are no laws or regulations prohibiting false marketing, faulty manufacturing etc."

Stopped reading there - that is simply NOT true. Any free market thinker accepts the necessity of government to get involved in economic matters.

As Friedman says think of capitialism as a game which all individuals take part in. The role of government is to create rules to the game and enforce them fairly. The rules have to be kept to a minimum of course because each rule acts as a restrictive force on the individuals and avoiding coercion is what free market capitialism is all about.

Here are some areas where government is necessary in an extreme free market economy:

- Producing money
- Making sure contracts are dealt with properly and fairly
- That there are mutually agreed trades, and force is not used
- To take measures in protecting against monopolies (in reality the government often ENCOURAGES monopolies but it shouldn't.)

There are maybe more I have missed. But you can/should be a free market capitialist without being an anarchist. There is not "loose regulation" as you say - that defies the very point of capitialism, that people should be PROTECTED from being FORCED into a choice, as they are with nationalisation.

[sarcastic pratchett fan]

May have misused the term 'free market' there, but I can't think of another way to say it. What would you call a market with no regulation whatsoever? Remember that I am only talking about the extreme here.

And I suppose 'no regulation' is better for the extreme.

That's no reason to stop reading though. You were nearly finished.

Perhaps it is better to merely refer to this as extreme capitalist?

[tis_me_lord]

(Original post by sarcastic pratchett fan)
May have misused the term 'free market' there, but I can't think of another way to say it. What would you call a market with no regulation whatsoever? Remember that I am only talking about the extreme here.

And I suppose 'no regulation' is better for the extreme.

Capitialism without regulation does not exist. You're correct to name the extreme free market - it has NEVER been the case that the said free market did not involve regulation from the state. It's a part of the ideology itself that it is protected.

The whole reason people choose capitalism over socialism is for freedom: freedom to choose, to not be exploited etc ... hence we need the government to make sure this actually happens.

[sarcastic pratchett fan]

Although it is not something of recent times, there were many ancient cultures where the governemnt only legislated against physical harm or direct theft - if someone tricked, they believed, you deserved it for being too stupid. Admittedly this system would never support a developed commercial system - it would tear itself apart - but I am talking about the theoreticalk extremes here not what actually works.

If you can give me my separate definitions, I'd be very grateful.

[im so academic]

Needs a bit more work the editing and revising of some of your statements, but overall it is a great guide for someone who has no knowledge of politics.

You should do a "sequel" to it - "A Beginner's Guide to Economics in the UK". I recommend doing it.

[sarcastic pratchett fan]

No way. I have no interest in economics whatsoever.

I did not say I had no knowledge of politics: I said i had no academic or professional knowledge of politics.

[_jackofdiamonds]

(Original post by tis_me_lord)
Here are some areas where government is necessary in an extreme free market economy:

- Producing money.

In a extreme free market the government has no need "producing money" since gold and silver would displace everything else as a means of exchange.

[tis_me_lord]

(Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
In a extreme free market the government has no need "producing money" since gold and silver would displace everything else as a means of exchange.

I disagree. I feel any society using this sort of system you describe is destined to evolve into a system where the government produces currency because its much easier and cheaper to get hold of the resources this way. Plus its inherant in our belief system that it should be in the hands of the government.

No instance in history with a gold standard has stayed that way - as desirable as it may be, it's not attainable. In the early 20th Century in America the negative effects of the gold standard were revealed when banks were unable to pay back deposits. Hence the government intervened with the idea being that in times of need they could supply banks with more money so they can pay back deposits which stops people panicing and prevents any vicious cycles happening. (This was its job in theory: in reality during the wall street crash the government was giving the banks LESS money than usual.) Bloody governments.

[glassheart]

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I have saved it, and will check it out.

[_jackofdiamonds]

I'm not talking about a gold standard, which still involves a government. I'm talking about the extreme free market example given.

The only way the government can force us to use their money is to demand we pay tax, and only accept the tax in what they deem legal tender. In an extreme free market there would be no tax, and therefore no reason for people to accept the government's money.

[tis_me_lord]

(Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
I'm not talking about a gold standard, which still involves a government. I'm talking about the extreme free market example given.

The only way the government can force us to use their money is to demand we pay tax, and only accept the tax in what they deem legal tender. In an extreme free market there would be no tax, and therefore no reason for people to accept the government's money.

There is always going to be police, army etc etc - so there is always going to be SOME tax. Even the most extreme free market economy incorporates some need for the state to get involved; it simply wants to keep the involvement to a minimum.

My original point anyway was that free market capitialism does not encourage deceit etc - that was a biased term from the OP imo who is clearly some kind of socialist or something.

[Captain Crash]

I think you've the left/right axis thing is a bit confused. The political compass you refer to has social component (you've referred to this as Lib/Auth) and the economic component (you've referred as left/right). In reality the left/right scale originated from the French Revolution where the newly deputies were asked to seat themselves according to their political view on a narrowly defined scale from those more sympathetic to the ancien regieme (supporting royalty, the church and being anti-collectivist - thus being 'Authortarian' and 'right' on your scale) to the radicals who wanted to break away from the ancien regieme (supporting the liberal policies of the enlightenment and policies of collectivism thus being Liberal and 'left' on your scale). As a result the left wing of the seats in the assembly represented the Liberals whilst the right wing of the assembly had those of a more authortarian bent.

The terms left and right have thus been stuck in this illogical diachotomy ever since resulting in Hitler and Thatcher being labelled right wing and Stalin and Ghandi as left wing correctly but for different reasons. Obviously politics has moved beyond this simple scale but left/right still has the original defintion of Liberal/collectivist vs authortarian/individualist(which can be equated to capitalism)

In short it may be better to refer to the political compass as liberal/conservative on an economic and social axis' and perhaps explain what right and left wing means and how confusion can thus arise.

Obviously when you say the BNP and the Nazi party aren't right wing, this too is incorrect.

[_jackofdiamonds]

(Original post by tis_me_lord)
Even the most extreme free market economy incorporates some need for the state to get involved

The most extreme free market has no state.

[tis_me_lord]

(Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
The most extreme free market has no state.

I don't think you can be free without a state - so I disagree. A free market without any state would involve a breakdown in law an order, selling to people through force etc etc - not really FREE then, is it?

[_jackofdiamonds]

(Original post by tis_me_lord)
I don't think you can be free without a state - so I disagree. A free market without any state would involve a breakdown in law an order, selling to people through force etc etc - not really FREE then, is it?

If someone is appropriating wealth from you using force, even if it is only to pay for police, courts and the army, it's not an extreme free market, it might be a very very very relatively free market but not at its extreme. I'm not saying I support this, but the fact remains.

[tis_me_lord]

(Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
If someone is appropriating wealth from you using force, even if it is only to pay for police, courts and the army, it's not an extreme free market, it might be a very very very relatively free market but not at its extreme. I'm not saying I support this, but the fact remains.

That's like defining socialism as ABSOLUTE control over peoples lives, job allocation, 100% taxes etc etc

Why give the ultimate extreme definition of one and a moderate account of the other? That's not objective, and seeing as NOBODY would justify TOTAL free market it doesn't even warrant discussion. I think its simply misleading people as to the real principles of capitialism.

To me anarchy (what you are talking about) shouldn't even be called a free market, because as I have tried to say, its not actually free at all. There should be a new definition of it, and free market should begin at libertarianism. "Uncontrolled market" or something could be anarchy.

[_jackofdiamonds]

I didn't give an account of socialism.

I was talking about an "extreme free market". If there is tax, which means state force, no matter how small, it no longer is an extreme free market. It precludes the extreme part of the definition. This is reality and cannot be changed by opinion.

[ma2k5]

(Original post by tis_me_lord)
That's like defining socialism as ABSOLUTE control over peoples lives, job allocation, 100% taxes etc etc

Taking the analogy, no it won't - maybe the term very extreme socialism - but not socialism by itself.