The "Legal Tender" myth

[Bruce Tuncks]

I like both sides of this discussion and find myself convinced one way and then the other...I have one big question....  would a cashless society be able to get rid of illegal drugs and corruption?

[facthunter]

Only the little guys get affected by such changes. Rich people want the GST increased. I'd like it abolished because of the effort to collect it  and it affects the poor the most. as it doesn't consider ability to pay. Inflation erodes your money and you pay TAX on the NEW inflated price where you $ has less value. Nev

[old man emu]

The fear that people born before, say 1975, have of a cashless society is that they can remember the problems that some people suffered when "plastic' first became universally available. So very many people got into tremendous debt through credit because the act of purchasing did not result in the reduction of the size of your wad of notes or the jingle in your jeans. I suppose almost everyone who checks their bank statements gets annoyed at the 'fee for service' involved in using 'plastic'.

 

3 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

would a cashless society be able to get rid of illegal drugs and corruption?

It would certainly make street level drug distribution difficult. Would it stamp out corruption? I'm sure that the Mint would love to see less of its output being collected and stacked away by drug dealers. When I see images of currency confiscated during drug busts, and learn of the total seized, I wonder how many $50 notes the Mint has produced. $1M in $50 notes requires 20,000 individual notes. That's why you see the haul packed in bundles about the size of house bricks,

 

No, because those who engage in corruption are smart enough to plan how to hide assets before they engage in it, and it is only at the lowest levels that currency is used in corrupt dealings. 

[facthunter]

Crypto Currency will cover more crime than truckloads of paper ever could. The "Little Guys" deal in peanuts relatively. There will be glitches and fraud with Digital as there IS now, forever.. It was not that long ago when an employer who paid by cheque had to make easily available a cash facility to the employees should they ASK for it.  Nev

[spacesailor]

When the " Cash " is gone .

My friendly people, will have no choice! .

But  ,to use the ,

BARTER SYSTEM 

I taught my neighbour how to ' weld ' his old trailer making it road worthy. 

He provides ' electronic ' bits & pieces. 

No taxes involved here.

And it Is legal . I don't put prices on " barter "  help for a neighbour  .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 22/08/2023 at 1:05 AM, facthunter said:

They used to say XXXX Bank with "Branches" everywhere.

 

   Spacey how can UK be a democracy with LORDS appointed to part of the Parliament and a KING Reigning all over you that you pledge ALLEGIANCE to?    Nev

To suggest the UK doesn't have a democracy is no less absurd than suggesting Australia doesn't have one. The head of state in Australia, which has, and has used the power to dismiss the elected government is a monarch's representative - not even the monarch itself! I can't recall the monarch in the UK dismissing a government, yet. Yes, the House of Lords is not elected, but mostly appointed by parliament; there are a few peers left, but I am not sure hereditary peerages are allowed anymore.

 

But, unlike the senate in Australia, they are a house of review, which the house of commons (elected representatives) can bypass. The Parliament Acts of 1947 and 1949 can be used to still pass an act of parliament despite the Lords voting it down. Therefore, the UK is more a unicameral system of parliament, like NZ, but with a house of review. And, while the House is not elected, historically life peerages were awarded based on party lines in equal proportion of the representation in parliament, they were also considered to be experts in various areas. Therefore, traditionally (up until the Johnston years and since), the house of review, as it is known, would have some expert analysis of different bills.

 

Peerages are life long and they "only" draw expenses for the days they are in parliament. As they are guaranteed, it has been observed that the house of review is not as wedded to the party line as the house of commons and there have been many rearguard actions to preposterous commons proposals. This would contrast to Australia, as the senate is elected and generally senators will tow the party line regardless. [Edit] Oh, and I forgot.. seems senators in Australia can get elected with around 10 primary votes - hardly representation of the people, I would suggest.

 

And what about Joh and his long tenure thanks to his gerrymandering of the electorate? Even that bastion of democracy, elected an orange pouting baby with the lesser of the votes in 2016 - before he attacked democracy. Or, the over-use of moving "The member no longer be heard" by the previous Aussie government, etc. And last time I did work for the ADF, like the British forces, their allegiance was to the monarch (queen at the time), not the elected government.

 

No democracy is perfect and they do contain anachronisms of their past. But to suggest the UK is not one, well is as absurd as suggesting Australia is not one.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

I still disagree.  UK has King/Queen Princes and princesses etc  What Australia is, is another question.  Corruption can exist in any system.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I would suggest the facts say otheerwise.

[facthunter]

Likewise, dear chap.  Nev

[nomadpete]

OK guys.

I think I can see both sides.

 

On the one hand, we have democratic procedures and mechanisms in place.

 

On the other hand, we have motivated people using these procedures  to get into positions of power, then working around these procedures, to achieve  their non democratic goals.

 

Government  of the people by the  people,  for the  people,  becomes corrupted by greed.

 

Is that it?

Edited August 23, 2023 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

Your bottom line is the usual definition of democracy. "people" means ALL people equally   The corruption thing is another matter. It's a risk in any structure of management..   Human Rights come into it as well if you want a FAIR system..  Nev

[nomadpete]

Getting back to the thread 'Legal tender'....

 

Jerry's main point is that, by definition, we have democracy. There are still processes in place for redress (punish electeds?) when we feel that our elected government is not acting 'for the people'.

 

The way democracy operates is flawed, due mainly  to greed, but that is a different point entirely.

 

As a governing system, it remains the least worst when compared to autocracy, dictatorships, etc.

 

It's Legal, but there is nothing Tender about it.

[facthunter]

USA's example is not a good one to go by thanks to Donny's involvement aided by those useless republican NONGS who can't see past their noses. Nev

[red750]

Winston Churchill once said that: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” 

[facthunter]

Freedom requires eternal Vigilance. There's no shortage of those wanting to take it from you.  Nev

[Marty_d]

Which freedom, is the question.

 

Those who talk about "freedom" the most seem to want freedom from gun control, taxes and law.  Strangely enough they don't want women to have freedom over their own bodies, or freedom FROM religion.

[old man emu]

 

Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck o' five
Who will?

 

"Buck o' five":  “A buck o’ five” is a play on the phrase “A buck or two”

The meaning is that instead of freedom costing only a buck or two, which would be reasonably cheap, it’s actually going to cost a hell of a lot more.

Another analogy to illustrate the play on the phrase would be if your friend was bragging about his weekend drinking, and instead of saying , “ we had a beer or two.” which would generally mean we had a few, which is reasonable; your friend would say, “we had a beer or six” to emphasize that he drank a hell of a lot more than he should have.

 

In other words, the US tax payer is going to pay through the nose in order for America to be the world police.

[facthunter]

In the past they have gotten a lot back in return, like the US $ being the trading currency. This makes everything cheaper for them but the Corporations are so big THEY control everything in the name of a free market  where the trade deals give them Power over other countries Governments IF they impede their profits in any way. Monopolies remove competition. Where are the ANTI TRUST Laws these days?  You never hear of them.

  It was always said "What's good for General Motors is GOOD for America" , but when they went insolvent the US Gov't bailed them out.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

Your bottom line is the usual definition of democracy. "people" means ALL people equally   The corruption thing is another matter. It's a risk in any structure of management..   Human Rights come into it as well if you want a FAIR system..  Nev

We use the usual definition of democracy, because, well we use definitions. In short, a democracy is where the eligible people, i.e., those with citizenship, of adult age, etc are able to either exercise power directly or elect a representative body to govern/administer them. And of course, the people have the power to remove them as well (i.e., holding them accountable). Too many people and too much of the press assume democracy starts and ends with the ballot box - of course that is not true. Equality and freedom, in this context, refer to one (eligible) person, one vote, and that exercise of that vote is free. and administration of democracy is fair.

 

There are inequalities and unfairness in a society in general - sometimes sadly intentional, and sometimes unavoidable in trying to strike the right balance in competing interests. So, with that background, looking at the assertions that the UK is somehow not, or materially less of a democracy than Australia:

 

House of Lords: This is an unelected chamber of parliament and on the surface, is undemocratic. This is true, but as with virtually everything there is more than meets the eye. The house of lords is a review chamber. They can make it difficult for the house of commons (elected representatives) to pass laws, but they cannot stop them. The parliaments acts have been used to push through legislation that the Lords have not wanted to go ahead. And yes, the House of Lords can initiate bills, and do, sometimes at the request of the government is technical bills where their expertise is invaluable, the house of commons can stop any bill presented by the Lords without recourse of the Lords to push it through. So, while the House of Lords is technically a chamber of parliament, and an afforded, for example, parliamentary privilege to act as a review of the house of commons, they do not wield absolute power to prevent the house of commons from pursuing its agenda. This is why they are known as the house (or chamber) of review. The power to pursue a governing agenda rest with the house of commons - elected representatives alone.  [edit[] A bicameral system does not guarantee a democracy, either: http://council.gov.ru/en/structure/council/,  And how many primary votes did the like of Fraser Anning and the young bloke living in Bali get to become elected representatives in the senate?

 

The Monarch (aka Head of State): The head of state in the UK is the current King of England - the monarch - that is it. It is not the queen; it is not the princes/princesses, etc. Only the Monarch is the head of state. The rest are a succession plan. The monarch is prohibited from entering the house of commons - the elected house; the sergeant at arms has the power to apprehend the monarch on an attempt to do so. The King's speech opens a parliamentary session and is made in the House of Lords. It outlines the elected government's regulatory agenda of that session and that is about it. The other powers are providing royal assent and the monarch is the ceremonial head of the armed forces. While the monarch is the fount of all justice, as the monarch does not have power to enter the commons, the monarch cannot dismiss the government. The Prime Minister has an audience with the monarch every Tuesday - I think for an hour, and the other official duties with respect to government are to receive resignations of the prime minister, requests to suspend parliament (e.g., BoJo famously lied to the queen to prorogue parliament during the Brexit debate), and request to dissolve parliament. A majority of the commons can render any such agreed action as invalid.

 

The constitutional head of Australia, albeit this is that very same monarch and has very similar powers. Through the representative, the governor general, the same, with the exception of prorogation can be done. And the GG/monarch of Australia are not elected by the people. The princes/princesses provide the same succession plan in the Australian head of state as they do the British. Famously, the unelected monarch of Australia has the power to dismiss the government, whereas the monarch does not, and in modern history the Aussie monarch has used it. So, in reality, that is less democratic than Britain.

 

The Oath of Allegiance: Not sure what the point is, but as far as I can find out, both country's military, pollies and other high-ranking officials swear allegiance to the monarch:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Australia)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)

 

On equality - in terms of a democracy, I am assuming this means equality to participate in the democratic process - one person, one vote. Is anyone asserting that a prince or princess has more voting rights than a commoner, as I don't know of any law that allows this. The elections here are run much the same as they are in Australia. It is one's right not to vote (or more accurately have your name marked off an electoral roll), and the model of voting is different, but these can be changed in a free and fair election, so I am not sure what the equality issue is. Are you saying Australia is an equal society in general? Yes, princes/princesses do have a privileged life (generally) thanks to their hereditary lines, but they are basically heirs to wealth amassed many years ago. in the same way kids of Aussie billionaires are, too.

 

Also, the UK is a signatory the European Convention of Human Rights and it is enacted in UK law. Many people (usually the bottom feeders who read Murdoch press) are, for some strange reason, campaigning against it, as if voting against your human rights is a smart thing. Of course, this is about immigration, where the Supreme Court (no longer the House of Lords) found sending refugees to Rwanda, where the UK government negotiated refugee camps similar to Manus Island et al, was against the European Convention of Human Rights. I seem to recall Australia still sends its refugees to suspect camps and that corruption is becoming a bit of an issue.

 

There are many facets of a democracy beyond the above - some make the UK a worse implementation of a democracy than Australia; some make it a better one. But remind me, how is the UK less of a democracy?

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

England is a little less , as was born from a Republic,  ( Cromwell) .

Australia was Never any other than a Democracy. 

Even pre-European .

EMPTY ,  of political rule .

Thus , ' unique '  .

spacesailor

Edited August 24, 2023 by spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

England in its current self was borne from a monarchy efectively established from William the Conqueror. Cromwell was but a mere blip in that road, and even he is attributed to have said he intends to restore the monarchy (although lined up his son to be his successor) is what I have read. Nor was the republic democratic - parliament was elected only by the gentry and ruled for the gentry  - peasants initially and for some time had no rights.

 

In addition,  Australia, in its current self was born from England that had already transitioned to a  democracy - albeit fledgling. So, Australia, too, is born from the same history - with the lessons learned from England at the time, applied. But, it was (and still is, if you think of Australia's head of state) still linked by the umbilical chord to England (well, Britain by first landing and the UK by federation).

 

I am not sure what you mean by empty of political rule - the monarch and the Curia Regis (court of the monarch) were the political rulers until parliament was formed (I can't recall when). It was suspended but was reformed in the 1600s after William of Orange and has, as I understand though memory is fading a bit form when I studied it, stood ever since.

 

Be that as it may.. in referring to whether or not there is a democracy, I am referring to the present and more modern history

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon that there is no way that the poms or Australia would have elected donald trump or put up with him for long,  and for this reason I reckon that we are a better democracy. I must admit to being ambivalent when he ( trump) was first elected....  I thought his "drain the swamp" stuff meant that he would take on corruption in a big way. Alas he was  a liar.

 

 

[facthunter]

Boris Johnston is not a lot better. nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Nope.. neither is SFM, nor Dutton

[facthunter]

I'm in Furious agreement there, all aided by SKY and Merde ock.  Nev