What is the best way to run a country?

There are two major schools of thought on how to run a country: left-wing and right-wing. First I will explain the advantages and disadvantages of each, then I will try to explain what I think is the best way to run a country.

One way is left-wing. In this ideology, egalitarianism is very important: the idea that everyone is equal. One major left-wing movement is socialism, where everyone works for the good of the State, and in return the State helps them.

Advantages of socialism are that people work together for the good of everyone else, and the poor are often helped. Also, one rich person does not get all the money while workers toil away in factories for them, as the community as a whole is supposed to own the means of production.

Disadvantages are that if everyone is equal, you could reason everyone should have equal pay. Then someone who has worked really hard might complain about how he received the same wages as someone who hardly worked at all. The theology can also to extremes, like in Communist Russia, where one-party politics and totalitarianism prevailed.

At the other side of the political spectrum is the right-wing movement. The British Conservative Party and the American Republican Party are examples of more right-wing parties. The right-wing ideals are more concerned with the individual than the left. They believe in the free market economy, and less tighter controls over business.

Advantages are that, in theory, the hard-working are payed more than those who work less. Some people may also like the less egalitarian society (especially the people in power).

Disadvantages are that right-wing policies often don’t help the poor as much as left-wing policies. Right-wing polices that are too extreme can lead to nationalism and dictatorship. For example, the Nazi Party in the Third Reich was on the extreme-right (ironically, ‘Nazi’ was short for ‘National Socialism’, even though the Party were on the opposite side of the political spectrum!).

I think the best to run a country would be to use ideas from both. The hard-working should be rewarded, the poor and unemployed should be helped to get jobs. There should also be a minimum wage to make sure employees do not exploit workers. Businesses should not all be owned buy [sic] the community however, but they should be regulated: not aloud [sic] to do whatever they want. I also believe in the idea of egalitarianism: everyone should have a say in how the country is run, and everyone should be equal before the law.

In the British General Election, I would have voted either for Labour or for the Liberal Democrats, and in the American Election, I would have voted Democrat.


Page 1 of 1

Alex Wright


8 Sep 2001

Did you know there are American leftist activists and academics who don’t just want to “defund the police” – the worst political slogan ever that for most proponents apparently doesn’t mean want it sounds like.

Some of them profess to want the abolition of prisons. And some of them literally mean they don’t think confinement should be a punishment for any crime at all, even serial killers and child rapists. Or, presumably, George Floyd’s murderer Derek Chauvin.

This hilarious take-down by socialist Ben Burgis really demonstrates a lot of my issues with this utterly insane policy proposal:


Particularly love this part:

P[rison] A[bolitionist]: “Well, it’s not just about that long-term hope. I also want to do things now to get us closer to the horizon of abolition. So I also support reforming the system in ways X, Y, and Z.”

Me: “So do I! All of those reforms sound great to me. Let’s work towards them together and not use a slogan that makes it sounds like you’re saying that rapists and murderers shouldn’t continue to be involuntarily confined, and which thus alienates like 99.9% of working-class people of all backgrounds.”

PA: “To hell with that. You and I are totally different.”

Personally I would perhaps go further than Burgis, and question the very notion of how a functioning modern society could exist without prisons.

For instance, without the threat of either imprisonment or execution, what exactly would deter families from launching  vigilante attacks to avenge their murdered or sexually assaulted kin? Or – indeed – a cycle of vendettas?

Prison abolitionists may argue that many murderers and rapists aren’t jailed under the present system. I fail to see how that’s an argument not to imprison any of them, but regardless there is still a chance they will be caught and serve long prison sentences. If prison abolitionists had their way they’d know the odds were zero.

If prison is replaced by community service – ie forced labour, fines or blood money or whatever, how would the punishment enforced on individuals who refuse to comply without the threat of imprisonment or some use of force?

What about failed suicide bombers?

Or indeed, if insurgents who surrender can’t be detained, what would prevent an armed overthrow of the prison abolitionists’ utopian regime by those who disagree with it?

Assuming this utopia even has a police force or army to rebel against of course and hasn’t abolished them too.

Looks like in covid times Jehovah’s Witnesses are using handwritten letters for evangelism? Just received a letter in my Black Country flat.

I won’t pretend to be any kind of expert on New Testament Greek but pretty sure the God’s name “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” – often written as the LORD* in English translations of the Old Testament – isn’t in the New Testament.

Unless the JWs consider St Paul’s use of “kyriou” (Lord) – referring to Jesus – to represent Jehovah?

(The letter below references Ephesians 3:14-15)


*A translation of the Hebrew “Adonai”

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Just started reading this 2017 American book When Grit Isn’t Enough by Linda F Nathan after it was mentioned on a podcast.

The system isn’t quite as bad as America here in England.

But – particularly since in 2011 funding for post Master’s was perhaps fairly similar to the US system for Bachelor’s – those chapter titles certainly remind of what some of my more either deluded or filthy rich class mates said in the final year of my degree.


“Are you doing a Master’s?”

“What do you mean you can’t afford it, just ask your parents.”

“You don’t have to do a job you don’t like”

“Rent? Can’t you just live in a squat or something.”

(I’m barely even exaggerating those quotes too.)

A year ago our Karma Houdini ruler – who a few weeks earlier had boasted about shaking hands in a covid ward – experienced serious consequences as a result of his immorality and incompetence, possibly for the first time in his miserable life.

Sadly this may well be the only punishment he ever receives for a response to a deadly plague that’s has so far resulted in 126,000+ deaths and counting – very nearly including his own death.


Not sure why “Defund the Police” is now trending on UK Twitter when the police and courts have already been savagely cut for a decade by the “party of law and order” to the extent there was a backlog of years for Crown Court cases even before the pandemic.

Seen the argument that the police are useless at stopping or punishing rape, and obviously a copper is presently a murder suspect.

Don’t see how it follows that “defunding” or “abolishing” the police wld improve things, and not exacerbate the impunity for violence against women. Indeed a total collapse of law and order is usually a horrific situation for women and girls.

if anything activist groups against male violence in the press seem to want more policing, prosecutions & imprisonment of violent men, not less.

Some of those who want to “defund” or even “abolish” the police actually want to reform it or replace it with a new police force when you read what they mean.

I still can’t fathom what the hell it is prison abolitionists actually want or what they’d do with murderers and the few rapists that do get caught.

A year ago today Silicon Valley entrepreneur Tomas Pueyo tore epidemiologist John Edmunds apart on Channel 4 News, arguing his herd immunity plan would kill 200,000 Britons

Published a year ago. Thanks to @YearCovid

I guess now we know the Western world was last lucky during the SARS, Ebola, swine flu and other outbreaks of recent years.

And that if covid or a worse plague (eg the flu in the film Contagion with a 25% fatality rate) had broken out in Britain or the United States there’s basically no chance in hell we’d have reacted fast enough to prevent the rest of the world getting infected. It would have spread even faster than it did from Wuhan.

4 days later the whole of Italy was under lockdown.

‘The Council of Europe’s health committee chairman described the hyping of the 2009 [swine flu] pandemic as “one of the great medical scandals of the century”.

These scenarios could have all come to pass of course – but they represent the direr end of the scale of predictions. Should public life really be conducted on a worst-case basis?’


Looking back on this 13 March interview, it now surely seems inconceivable just how wrong the supposed expert John Edmunds was.

Italy had already locked down at this point, and I remember myself somehow not thinking this was that big a deal, even watching Book of Mormon in the Birmingham Hippodrome the following day.

Now can’t really fathom why I thought that.

“The most memorable parts came with Pueyo’s reactions as Edmunds was speaking, shaking his head vigorously and, as Edmunds talked about herd immunity, placing his hands over his face in horror”


https://youtu.be/ZcmHsxz6y00 (clip)

https://youtu.be/C98FmoZVbjs (from 09:50)

%d bloggers like this: