Thetownend.com

Hannan is awesome in this.

It just shows Cameron up as the wet ineffective troughing "opposition leader" prick he really is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

would have been interesting to see browns reply do you not think?

Brown would have said his usual (not really give a) shit.

It would have involved stacks of statistics and a reference to how rubbish the Conservatives are, like every answer he gives.

mmmm maybe, just would have liked to see how he would have dealt with it.

Not sticking up for Brown but I'd have a lot more faith in Hannan's analysis if it didn't seem to rest largely on "Brown has failed - look the markets say so". Because "the market" has got so much right in the past few years and if only we'd listened to their rational analysis we wouldn't be in this mess ..... oh.

I would agree with Hannan myself.

The 'market' doesn't fuck anything up, it's the regulation imposed upon it that distorts and perverts. In UK plc's case that is McBust's Financial Service Authority (FSA).

Brown’s response would probably be along these lines: ‘Daniel Hannan’s anger is a global problem which requires a global solution.’ I think we’re all agreed his obvious anger problems started in America and now everyone across the world is angry. What I propose is British anger management for British people and in these angry times I will save the world and lead Daniel Hannan through to a new world order of inner calm.'

or some sort of similar bollocks

McBust also got a good slapping from Nigel Farage, the UKIP Leader.

Although I think that UKIP is a lost cause and I have no respect for Farage's methods, he is also a brilliant orator.

Between him and Hannan in one session they showed how toothless and theatrical the Commons has become.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDwQEEAZhWM

That was a very good populist speech from Daniel Hannan.  It's a shame for him that the only media outlets really talking about it are political weblogs.

http://newsnow.co.uk/h/?search=hannan

I agree with his central argument (that the UK government was profligate with taxpayers' money during the boom years), but his politics are very right wing even for a traditional Tory so I'm not sure I'd be voting Hannan given the chance.

I remember him as a political hack at university.  He was (and is) fiercely Eurosceptic and an arch-Thatcherite.  (To pick up on Paul D's point, he probably still DOES believe the market is always right.)  In his world, we would probably not have spent as much during the last decade...but neither would we have an NHS worth speaking of.  Be careful what you wish for.

I can't believe some people are still defending Labour.  To use a phrase once used by great man "we must be mad, quite literally mad"...

totally agree. They've failed and need to fuck off asap

I'm not defending them at all.  I think their handling of the economy has been poor and would even go so far as to agree with some of what Hannan said in his speech.

Don't think anyone is defending Labour - just pointing out that Hannan's speech is largely empty rhetoric based around a premise that has failed even more dramatically than New Labour. Which is also based around the same failed premise - that the "market knows best".

I'm intrigued what's your alternative to markets? Communism?

Why does everything have to be black or white?  I think the consensus is fast moving towards a model of regulated capitalism for the next few decades.  Communism has been discredited (as seen with the collapse of the Soviet Union).  Now we are seeing a similar collapse in the idealogy of unfettered, unregulated capitalism.

The solution lies somewhere in the middle.  Exactly where in the middle will be decided by political debate during the coming months and years.

What Ardiles said - it's not either/or.

And you know what, I don't have a big overriding political philosophy as a "Buy this, it'll solve all your problems in one sweet hit". I just thought Hannan's speech was vacuous rhetoric, and insofar as it actually contained a point of any substance, it was flawed as the man he was accusing. So I said so. I don't think that makes me a communist. The hammer and sickle T-shirt, Arthur is God mug and furry hat may do, but calling Hannan an empty self-publicist doesn't :)

General Discussion seems to have turned into General Politics lately. Not having a go, just an observation like.

Because you're not interested in politics Sam..?  ;)

I disagree. I don't think we have had ever had unfettered, unregulated capitalism in recent history. Certainly not since governments set up central banks and began to control the money supply, generally in the early years of the last century and have piled on more and more regulations ever since.

The truly free market hasn't had a chance since the pioneers who populated the mid-West of America last century and were surprisingly successful without regulation or a state.

I agree with that, I just get the impression, maybe wrongly, that Pauld just thinks markets are a bad thing full stop.

Yes banks have made mistakes and yes they got greedy, but that's what they do ('I can't help it I'm a scorpion'). The trick is to regulate to curb the excesses. And this credit crunch / recession is less a failure of markets but more a failure of regulation.

Brown was warned repeatedly while he was chancellor about the state of the UK economy by the EU and the IMF and he repeatedly ignored those warnings. The FSA, by it's own Chairman's admission, failed - the FSA set up by Brown himself at the time he made the Bank of England independent.

It's not the bank's or the market's recession, it's Brown's who couldn't help but gorge himself on the tax revenues that the city brought in.

Brown in 2005:


http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/ee59d1c32ce4ec12802570c70041152c?OpenDocument

Quite. Doesn't interest me in the slightest.

No I don't. I never said that - as I said above, I just think in the clip shown, Hannan is wafting cheap rhetoric around and has nothing of substance to say. As the thread was started so we could all admire his amazing political genius, I think it's reasonable to point that out.

But that is what politics is and has been in since princess Tony.

I am with Sam on this one

Markets are not perfect. They never will be. The efficient running of markets is based on ridiculous assumptions and are centred on nothing more than best-guess activities. They would work if people knew and understood them, but that simply isn't possible. The problem is that there is no perfect alternative. Communism arose with so many grand promises yet failed just as epically. If there was a perfect solution, it would be in use.

Then there's the problem of politics. Do we losen regulations? Look at the reaction to that. "They're taking our jobs"... "foreign imports are threatening our industries". Do we increase regulation? The obvious response to this would be to highlight the inefficiencies and numerous disadvantages incurred by preventing international trade in certain sectors.

Brown hasn't done a good job, Cameron has done bugger all to convince me he knows any better, and I've barely heard a peep from the Lib Dems (although I'm sure they've said plenty that's been less publicised). As long as there is an electorate to please, no government will take radical stances or make huge changes to the way our economic system works, and will continue to do whatever they can to maintain the status quo which the politically and economically uneducated see as being right simply because it is how they recognise Britian.

There's a much easier solution.

Get rid of government completely :D

Fair enough, was just saying really, based on your previous posts there seems to be (to me) a running theme that markets are bad - the fault of everything, i.e. if in doubt blame Thatcher or the markets; 'Grrr I have to mow the lawn, it keeps on growing - I blame Thatcher for that'  :)

As an aside I see the Hannan clip is on the front page of the widely read US site drudgereport

http://www.drudgereport.com/

No, I don't think markets per se are bad. I do think the extreme unquestioning "The market is king, all must bow to the mighty market" attitude Thatcherism introduced and adopted wholesale by New Labour is in large part to blame for the shit we're in now. There's a difference.

it's always easy to pick fault when you aint in charge.not so easy to put it right when you are

Line 'em all up and shoot the fucking lot of them... :nod:

and replace with what exactly ?

Sock snake puppets.

Well they would do a far better job. And be much more fun.

In answer to Fred - replace them with nothing. Society could function without the state and a government. It is just that we are so indoctrinated to think that we need it, it is difficult to think outside of the box.

Is that we've been indoctrinated or are people just acutely aware that anarchism would never work? I'd say the latter.

Who would enforce there not being a government without a government?

How do you know it would never work? Societies functioned before governments and tax came along.

I don't remember ever hearing the "all must bow to the mighty market" attitude, from either party. Whilst the market is king is still needs regulation and control by government. Ideally that control should normally be very limited, but when necessary it should be total.

Whilst the markets caused the current problems, its the lack of control that the real responsibility and blame lies with. Northern Rock could and should have been avoided. The sub-prime meltdown could and should have been avoided. The fact that they happened lies solely (in my opinion) with Gordon Brown's, as chancellor and then prime minister - him trying to blame it on the wider world markets just doesn't cut it.

He's just compounding it by not taking enough action. The two banks which the government now owns a major share of should have both been nationalised, then along with Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley they should have been sorted out and put on a sound financial footing. Then at some point, privatised again.

At the same time, all of the executives of the banks that went to the wall should have had their testicles surgically removed. How can you give a £15 million pension payoff to someone that fucked a company over to the tune of many, many billions. The fact that happened shows there are still major issues to be resolved.

You. Me. Everybody.

By refusing to pay taxes to anybody.

I think I'll go with a government. I think we're all better off, even the super rich, by pooling our resources to get certain things done.

There has always been some form of government, as far back as you want to go. Even animals have some form of government, or structure of power. Might not have always been called government but its always been there and is inherent in any kind of social animal.

By societies you mean the very basic definition of the term, very different to todays globalised society. Present-day society is too complex to function without governance - take what happen with the markets, unregulation there caused the problem and whose to say that similar wouldn't happen on a grander scale at all levels of society through anarchism. It's not indoctrination that makes me think that, I just believe it wouldn't work. Historically, differing societies at different times have progressed within the confines of authority - going back as far as Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc.

But there is no reason why you need a 'government' or a state to do that. Governments fuck up everything they touch - of course they do - because they are a monopoly. They just get bigger and bigger and take more and more tax, get more and more into debt until they collapse. History tells us this over and over again. Don't believe me? Then see what happens to us in the next ten years or so.

Why can't private concerns that are subscribed to be the vehicles for pooled resources? At the very least it induces efficiency through competition. That could apply to anything that governments are currently 'running' (sic). Health, roads, schools, you name it.

I think you are confusing government with leadership.

Yes, until all of those collapsed for pretty much the same reason.

Fantastic, let's do it all over again.  :D

Maybe they were the wrong examples to use, but society could equally collapse for the reasons they did if there wasn't a government. I get the feeling you'd never be convinced otherwise though  ;D

Can anyone find Brown's rebuttals to the two speeches on the first page?



Surely the implosion of the private finance sector is proof that the market most certainly does fuck up? Big style. And lack of regulation allowed them to do so


Farage was on Question Time a month or so back and came accross badly. At least in the video posted here he pinpoints specific decision-making errors by Brown, and makes objective assessments of his downfalls. Hannan is more sensationalist, vague and sweeping, but his point about extrapolation of debt during the boom is spot on.



What's the alternative? Do you fancy giving the blues another shot? I'd rather stick.

Well yes, why not. Despite eventually collapsing they still managed several hundred years each of varying degrees of success.

Everything ends eventually, doesn't mean you don't bother to start off with.

Nope!  :D

I think there is an opportunity for a stateless society that could exist permanently for the benefit of all, in freedom, wealth and stability.

who would decide on every subject which effects the nation under your idea?

And what about national defense, police, healthcare etc?

There's no point in me writing pages and pages on this when someone else has done it much more eloquently. If you have a few minutes, have a read of the following:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html)

So all that happens is that every citizen throughout their entire life needs to be a full active, engaged and highly intelligent individual capable of using these new non-state courts or DROs every day to ensure that their rights are protected at all times?

Where does it say any of that? It doesn't.

And why is the current membership of (e.g.) trade unions any different? You don't need to be Einstein or read their monthly meeting minutes to be a member and benefit from it.

DROs would be optional like everything else, but you wouldn't get very far in life without subscribing to one.

TalkTalk, have you ever met any actual people? ;)

No, not really. I'm completely virtual  ;D

That is possibly the single most laughable post I've ever seen on this site. Absolutely clueless......

Most people know where my vote is going for the time being. Some say they'd be a disaster.  I say they certainly couldn't do any worse than the current mob, or the ones before that.  They may even make some changes that will improve many things.

TT seem's to think that getting rid of govenment compeletely would be a solution and have them replaced by "private concerns"  That thought scares the shit out of me completely.  Who regulates and controls these "private concerns"?  At least with democracy we can vote them out...eventually.  With "private concerns" running the show, or as prefer to call it "Corporate Government" we would all be well and truly fucked to the eyeballs with no way out whatsoever.

Here comes another fucking Righteous rant from the resident goon....

I guess if you can live with the murder, theft general lawlessness, and that ugly genocide thing you'd count that as successful yes......

Societies functioned without a state prior to the development of private property. Since then the state has been necessary in order to protect private proporty rights. Fuck me you lot talk as if you'd all never read Engels' seminal work "Origin of the family, private property and the state".

Oddly I'm with you on this again. That's twice in less than a month. That's not right is it?

...and you think that socialism is the answer?  :D

'Clueless and completely laughable' right back at ya!

So we're not completely fucked by the government we have, right? I must have missed something as they don't seem to be doing a very good job at all. The 'democracy' we 'enjoy' is just an illusion. We have no ability to get rid of the ruling elite (of whatever colour) at the ballot box.

The truly free market is implicitly self regulating. Consider what competition does. If a business is bad, or ruthless, or evil, what happens? You use another supplier. You don't get that option with a government. Of any party. Anybody can start and run a business if they think they can do it better than the opposition. You've got absolutely zero chance of doing that with the services that the government fails to provide.

The state does not protect private property rights. It abuses them absolutely. Taking 70% of my hard earned income in taxes under threat of imprisonment is THEFT that I have no recourse against.

And all of the wars that governments have subjected their populations to are successful are they? The millions and millions of people that have been slaughtered in the name of the state in the last century isn't genocide and murder? What is the difference? None.

Hitler murdered the Jews because he had the apparatus of a state and taxation to achieve it.

The soldiers currently dying in Iraq and Afghanistan were put there by governments.

TT I dont think I really get the concept that you seem to favour,it seems a bit survival of the fittest, Mad Max esque to me,am I totally missing the point?

 

Without a government we'll become a failed communist state or leave a massive opportunity for a dictatorship, so basically very left or right wing and it NEVER works.

If people don't give enough of a crap to vote or stand for themselves and their own political views then how the fuck will they run a country?

Yes the current government is shite (in my opinion), yes the alternsatives are shite (in my opinion) but I'd rather not have a group of Talk Talks telling me what to do. No offence, your views are too black and white or extreme for me to often agree with the major points of your arguments. Equally I'm sure you'd be baffled for some of the stuff I would want.

Erm, probably. It isn't about survival of the fittest.

If you've got the time, have a read of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)

Indeed. Liberal democracies can never stay balanced because there are always corrupt cunts who seek power, i.e. politicians. Why you want such people telling you what to do rather than doing what you want to do with your life is beyond me, but that's your decision. Personally I don't like it one iota and I will strive to remove it.


Because the general population has become disaffected, disinterested and generally feel helpless. Look at the turnout at the last GE. And for the people who run the country, that's great news. They can carry on troughing away and increasing their power to our detriment. Super.


I'm not telling you what to do, Si. I'm putting forward a suggestion for an alternative to going to hell in a handcart which is where we are headed now. And will again. And again as the cycle repeats itself. Looking at a different approach to break out of that has to be worth objective, rational consideration?

are things really that bad? is britain really in such a state?

[url width=500 height=377]http://thethunderdragon.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/darling-national-debt.jpg[/url]

We're going bankrupt fast, my friend.

Anyway, people will get sick of me banging on about this stuff, so I will shut the fuck up now.

But I will leave you with this as food for thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

Well fuck me, I haven't so I must be a peasant. My thoughts therefore are completely worthless as I am incapable of independent thought. Engels, Engels, ra ,ra ,ra.

But you're alternative is just a short-cut there.  The idealism of a completely market-based society might seem nice to someone who'd not badly off and thinks they're paying too much tax, but your utopian (I think it's flawed, but I'll leave that) realm is impossible to reach.

You've already claimed that the majority of people directly or indirectly work for the government. In your ideal they've all been unemployed. I guess that in this market utopia they'll probably be employed again by the large companies heading into to replace the formally public services with their own market based enterprises.

Who do you think will win out? Small local 'private concerns', or a few large efforts which eventually end up monopolising huge amounts of what were formally public services. Government might inevitably be self-serving, but I'd prefer self-serving politicians which I have the ability to remove (however much that ability is exaggerated) than to be at the whim of a lot of self-serving business men.

Markets work on the basis that by everybody fulfilling their own direct self-interests, it not only gives them the incentive to be able to fulfil those interests, but also that everybody becomes better off. This breaks down when what might be in your own best interest is only in your best interest if not everybody else does the same thing.

The current financial situation is a good example. We're constantly being told how bad things are, a lot of you aren't certain about your jobs. For an individual it definitely makes sense to save money and cut down spending. However if as a nation we all stop spending then things will get worse.

The roll of government in relation to the markets is always going to be one of balance. Markets rely on demand based on self interest, as governments around the world have made more and more consessions to the markets over the last 25 years, it's not hard to see why people are disillusioned with it's corrective measures. It's a bit like rationing crack to an addict when he's on a free supply.

Are you saying you'd empower the Conservatives then? There are only two choices so I assume that's what you mean.

With regards to them not doing any worse: I think it is entirely possible. I have no doubt that they would improve a few things, and worsen many others. It wouldn't be markedly different whatever the case.

The whole ethos of top-end politics seems to be increasingly tit-for-tat; far too much finger pointing and not enough solutions or alternatives on offer.

I was going to shut up Benjamin  8)

We do not have many free markets. Most are distorted by government interference, corporate cronyism and preferential regulation. How many MPs in this country have seats on the boards of companies? Loads.

If you remove those factors then why fear large monopolies? It doesn't happen. Even with the restriction on the licences for mobile phone operations in the UK, you still have five or six to choose from who fight tooth and nail with each other for your business. Even with state interference in most countries, you can still buy a car from a huge range of manufacturers around the world. You can do the same with motorcycles, there are even four different manufacturers in Japan. There are a huge range of private sector service suppliers - take accountants or solicitors - from one man bands to the big nationals.

The current financial mess in the States (and the knock on effects elsewhere) was caused by their government forcing the financial sector to take on risky sub-prime mortgage business which they would never have done on their own in a million years. It was far too risky. We have stock markets based on speculation (i.e short term gambling) fuelled by governments diverting funds into shares through deliberate methods, rather than free market investors who are in it for the long term who provide stability and interested capital to viable businesses.

Don't tell me that governments have 'made concessions' in recent years. It is blatantly not true. They have got deeper and deeper into every sphere of business and private life. Including logging all of your Facebook activity from next week on the pretext of terrorism prevention.

Sheesh.

Now I really will shut up and go to bed :-p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k&feature=related

Corporations are greedy, and monopolies are dangerous enough with government let alone without.

You seem to be blaming the current economic crisis solely on governance, when in reality the burden must be shared surely?

AIG weren't forced to enter the subprime business, were they?

Don't be fucking stupid.  Democracy IS the best system we have. Democracy IS the only system that has any pedigree of sucess. Wed DO have the opportunity of removing the "ruling elite". You vote for the other alternatives. None of them are perfect but if every person out there continues to vote for the three main parties, nothing will change, in that you are correct.  The beautiful thing about democracy and the reason why it can effect change is that that people can and will, continue to present alternatives (Unless Labour get voted in again and ban all opposition).

No. I currently vote Nationalist.

You forget that every Labour government throughout history has brought us to the edge of the abyss.

I agree with your point about the ethos. That's why anyone who who votes for any of the three main establishmentg parties is lacking in the ability to think. They genrally go baah baah baah a lot.

Edit: I think a broad coalition government for at least one term could not only be beneficial to breath new life into the political scene in the Uk, but might also prove to be a realistic proposition next year. I just home that if that does happen, a significant part of the coalition is made up of the non-mainstream parties.

Oh yeah, may have already been posted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDwQEEAZhWM

I think we've already established elsewhere that your lack of knowledge of what that word actually means doesn't really leave you in a position to judge

Can you give me one example of a truly socialist state, that exists today, independently?

I think the point I was trying to make is that apathy will lead to some even more corrupt individuals taking over. You don't like politician x? Well it could be him/her and without Democracy there would be no way to overthrow that leader. My argument is that if I don't like party x or the party, I can vote for party y instead. However, with no democratic system you'd be oppressed and unable to express the very opinions we're writing now.

In fact, there would be no defenses either, so we'd be open to a takeover.

Anyway as has already been mentioned:

Who would run the schools, health and transport services?
Who would police the nation?
How would we function with  worthless currency? A barter or gift society?
How would society sort out the chaos? Riots? Civil war?

It honestly reads like something from a novel or something you'd see in a film.

Why would we be oppressed? Do you not think that we are incredibly repressed at the moment? If there was no state, who would oppress us? It is morally wrong for me to come round your house and use force to take money or property from you and likewise for you to do that to me. In a stateless society self defence would be the usual state of affairs. If you came to my house to oppress me I would that right to shoot, stab or beat you to death with a cricket bat.


From who? As above, everybody has a common law right to self defence. If you mean in a national sense, why not adopt the Swiss approach and we all agree to keep a sub machine gun in our houses. It works for them.


I've already answered that in an earlier reference. Why do you think that the state has a god-given right to be a monopoly on those things and as such to do them all so terribly, terribly badly? It is because you have been indoctrinated to think that way.


Indeed it does. Listen, this is difficult stuff to put forward as an alternative because most people have an existing position to defend. As the end of that 'Statism Is Dead' video says, "If slavery is a choice then I choose NOT to be a slave. This is THE most frightening statement for the ruling classes, which is why they train their slaves to attack anyone who dares speak it". I can vouch for that.

I bought a ticket to go to that BCG event in Stoke in January where John Harris gave that talk, but some family matters precluded me from going.

The man is right though. It is all an illusion. Good spot.

I disagree. You may change the party in Government but that doesn't mean that the other parties or MPs evaporate. They are still collectively the ruling elite and will steal as much from you and I as they can, in government or not (how come Tony Blair is now worth a fortune - perhaps millions on a lowly MP and then a PM's salary? Or Gorbachov who sucked the USSR dry before it went tits up and now has property all around the world?). There are too many vested interests in the big three for the BNP, Libertarian Party, UKIP or any other party to get a foothold in Westminster. Or the EU for that matter. It just won't happen. They will use underhand methods and dirty tricks if it comes to it.

Wake up!

Someone with the resources to outgun individuals would oppress individuals.

The point about using force to defend yourself and attack others is indeed the point I'm trying to make. There would be total anarchy. The over publicised gang culture would become a reality - it would be everywhere. A large group of people with machine guns would more than likely kill you, rape your family and kill them too. What if you were instead rounded up and enslaved? Without any sort of policing it could ad would happen.

There is a lot wrong with this country but there would be even more without anyone to run or organise it. It would definitely be like Mad Max.

this thread is massively entertaining and more than a little bit mental

So TT the choices are:

Anarchy.
Democracy.
Corporate Government.
Communism.

I know what I choose.

As for the underhand tricks from the establishment, you only have to look at the disgsuting way in which they treat the BNP for example.  That's why a coalition government would be the best option in the short term.

I'm boroed of this now.

No. I'd go as far as to say there's never been one. Russia, immediately after the October Revolution set off with some decent principles:

elected local committees running things
workplace committees running workplaces
all elected officials salaries tied to those of the people they represent
all elected officials subject to immediate recall

But was just not economically or socially advanced enough to avoid slowly ossifying into a terrifying bureaucratic nightmare (when only 3% of your population can read and the bulk of them are employed by the imperialist state that your looking to sweep away that can seriously hamstring any attempts to run society by means of a participative democracy).

I'm sorry TT - but you are talking total and absolute utter bollocks !

There is NO WAY for your "vision" to work - none at all....

Man is greedy - this is an established FACT.  The stronger would enslave the weaker....

The bigger would oppress the smaller....

It is as simple as that - you are living in pure fantasy land where everyone would give each other a cuddle and get along just swimmingly - it simply is a stupid suggestion with SO many flaws I don't even know where to begin !

There's never been a successful socialist-run state that has managed to last for any length of time?
That's staggering. The best way to govern isn't be used by anyone, anywhere?

Maybe, just maybe, it's because what in theory sounds like an ideal way to govern can't, in reality, exist. Add human nature to the socialist ideal and you end up with corruption and quite often a totalitarian state.

Exactly. The state employs individuals who have guns, such as the police and the army who can oppress us and are regularly used to do exactly that. Why aren't we 'allowed' guns for self defence? Because we are oppressed.


So what would be wrong with private police forces operating under common law? As in you do not harm others or take their property? I am also sure that communities would be more than happy to voluntarily band together to stop this happening. There are many different ways of handling this type of question that don't rely on the coercive theft of wealth by the state.


See, you poor thing - the state has you. You can't envisage a situation where nanny doesn't look after your well being.

 :D

Good! If it makes people think then it's worth the effort.

We're oppressed because we're not allowed guns?

Sometimes you talk absolute bollocks.

(The rest of the time you just talk bollocks)

Give us a cuddle then  :)

No - I said that the state can oppress us because the state has guns and we don't.

I'm happy to take abuse by the way, it comes with the territory, but doesn't further the discussion.

You know I love you really Alan.

It's not a feasible alternative though, is it? As with Lumps socialist utopia, where has it ever been successful on a large scale?

You mention earlier in the thread how, before people took ownership of land, it was the norm. but that was tribal, not 100'00s or millions of people.

It wouldn't work. It's a nice idea but totally impractical.

See. You did say it.

It makes me think you look like mad max

*insert denim joke here*

I love you too Steve.

Unlike socialism, which has been tried and proven not to work (along with communism, fascism, Nazism etc) this stuff has never been tried on a large scale, you are right. So to say it wouldn't work is not true as it hasn't been tested.

What is true though is that for thousands of years societies have gone round and round the same loop and ultimately self destruct. The common factor to all of them is the state.

What got my interest in all this is because it has the potential to stop that cycle. And yes, I am under no illusions that anything like this will happen in my lifetime. But that doesn't preclude talking about the ideas and spreading a germ that there could be alternative. Who knows, in 100 years time after another couple of collapses of societies around the world and innumerable state driven wars with more millions dead and government induced suffering, there might be a consensus amongst people that this is worth a try.

Oh and for Arriba with his question about 'are things really that bad in this country', I see that the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King (aka the Financial Director of United Kingdom Corporation Ltd) has effectively said that we have run out of money http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5971296.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5971296.ece)

I would rather be Mad Max than Hannibal Lecter.

Mel Gibson is just so much more attractive than Anthony Hopkins, don't you think?

This dicussion isn't going anywhere apart from people trying to preach to the already converted, whichever side of the fence they're on. It's gone around in circles for far too long already and I am more than ashamed I'm willing to bite at every post.

Maybe the fact that everyone disagrees with TT's view is because we're all sheep that need to be nannied, or maybe it's because TT is a crap shepherd. I wish you luck on your one man crusade and you can be the first to rob me if you succeed Alan :)

Fair enough Si.

I might be a one man crusade on here, but I am definitely not alone in the big world with this. There is a fast growing global movement in the libertarian direction and it is mainly young people who are picking this stuff up (for example over 80% of the UK Libertarian Party members are under 30 and most under 25).

The anarcho-capital wing of libertarianism is a lot for people to swallow and I agree with that - it's pretty radical - but it's what I believe in as a rational moral philosophy. Other forms such as minarchism (a very limited state that is only there to provide law and order and national defence), e.g. LPUK, are definitely more palatable.

Hey ho.

THe Libertarian party isn't about having no state at all, it's about having the bare minimum needed to function. That I'm all for.

That's what I said  :)

I think it's more to do with the fact that transitions from one stage of economic development, and one method of organising society to another tend to be fairly difficult to carry off. The ruling class always has a vested in the maintenance of the status quo, and being the ruling class it tends to wield a fair amount of power.

For some reason the people who between them own and control the commanding heights of the world economy, seem quite keen to hang onto them. I said earlier that, as any fan of the Manic Street Preachers knows, the state operates to defend the interests of private property. By which I mean that it operates to defend the principle and practice of the private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. EVERY aspect of the state contributes to this, including, to refer back to another debate with TT on another thread, the welfare state, and the media, education the lot.

The current capitalist state has been incredibly effective in acheiving an almost total hegemony, to the extent that most people seem to believe that free market capitalism, with a parliamentary democracy and universal sufferage is some kind of "natural state of being" which has persisted for hundreds of years and will last forever.

In fact we've had a fully democratic government in Britain for 80 years.  Ignore the little bits of detail about who's allowed to vote and just look at the modes of production and the balance of political and economic power and still we're only really looking at something that could be described as capitalism for a couple of hundred years. In fact arbitarily take the French revolution as the signifying date and you've still got less than 250 years. It's not a huge amount of time out of the tens of thousands of years man's been on the planet is it?

Economic and social systems come and go, and the new forms that replace have to be tried first somewhere. A couple of hundred years ago you could have sneered are Thomas Paine for his ludicrous ideas about free democratic society where everyone got a vote, and asked him where had it been tried successfully.

As for your comment about human nature, I think you've got the argument twisted somewhat. Human nature doesn't prevent socialism working, it prevents capitalism working. If man wasn't selfish, if he considered the needs of others and the general good, then capitalism would work fine. So what it a handful of people owned and controlled all the factories and shops and service providers, if they could be trusted to act in the best interests of all of us. But they can't so owning and controlling those assets collectively and democratically, with the sort of controls I talked about earlier is needed to prevent people acting in their own selfish interests.

Now Marx and Lenin and Trotsky saw that sort of socialist state as being a stage in the progress towards a communist society, which is more the sort of impossible dream that you seem to be referring to. A society with no social classes and so without the need for a state. People just running things collectively between them for the common good. Whilst TT seems to think we could just all decide that's how we are going to run things and get on with it, the commie's at least grasped that there would need to be a bit of a change in the man's nature before it could work. But they believed that it is man's material conditions that determine his conciousness; that man is selfish and self serving because of the competitive nature of the society in which we live, and so thought that a socialist state was required to eliminate class society and retrain us all in how to work and live for the collective good.

Word.

Fuck the collective good.

Large numbers of people are fucking idiots and I have no desire to make my life worse in order to make theirs better, when in reality they'd just manage to fuck themselves up again due to the aforementioned idiocy.

Why do you and socialist ideology insist that 'people' are selfish? This is patently not true in real life.

If some old lady fell over in the street, would you not help her? Do people not give millions of pounds a year to charities? If someone rattles a bucket for breast cancer research in front of you, do you not put your hand in your pocket? If your wife or child was ill would you not nurse them? Does Bill Gates (supposedly a true selfish filthy capitalist) not give millions of his own dollars to AIDS charities? People throw themselves into rivers and hang off cliffs unprompted to help others in distress.

I think people are inherently good. If we didn't have taxation and you had all of your income in your pocket to do with what you wished, then we wouldn't need a welfare state. 'People' would be generous given the opportunity and capitalism would work fine.

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick: Two words: Mike Diamandis

No I don't. How presumptuous.

Given that there are only two parties who can gain power, I opt to vote for what I believe to be the lesser of the two evils.

I don't vote Lab/Con because I "lack the ability to think", I do it because no party on offer represents my views and I still want my vote to make a different in deciding who gets elected and I'm worried that one of them will fuck it up worse than the other.

To be fair some good has come from you posting on here. I may even actually vote at the next general election.

Well obviously it doesn't apply to all people  :P

I think the vast majority of people are decent and helpful. I can't think of one person I have met personally through STFC that wouldn't buy me a beer when I am short of a few bob. So I expect to see you all queued up at the bar in the CGH before the Crewe match  :D

I was lined up to be the LPUK candidate for South Swindon at the next General Election but I have withdrawn my nomination. Perhaps you would like to put yourself forward instead?

haha no chance. I'll just snipe away from over here in the safe seats! :D

Fair comment.

You've just proven, by that statement, that you still think that the current establishment can set us out of the pit of shit, they've contrived to get us into, and that you are fucking retarded.

Good show three feet.

Good shout. You've proven yourself to be a fucking nutter who is better of being confined to a small room with an even smaller window made of sherbert which you can lick at until your hearts content.

Only joking... you make some fir points about the situation that we face, I just dont't agree with the the majority of solutions that you present as alterntatives. ( I err more towards the Devil's point of view on that sort of thing).

No, that's fine. What I am advocating is the next society after minarchism (which is what DK is campaigning for). Quite a few LPUK members feel the same, they are closet Murray Rothbard readers and see it as a stepping stone.

Sorry Alan, who or what is DK?

Donkey Kong

Devil's Kitchen, aka Chris Mounsey (http://lpuk.org/pages/libertarian-party/leadership.php (http://lpuk.org/pages/libertarian-party/leadership.php)) - a very sweary blogger who is on the National Co-ordinating Committee of LPUK.

Blog at http://devilskitchen.me.uk/ (http://devilskitchen.me.uk/).

Isn't "quite a few" of "not very many" = "even less". So that's four of them, then?

Sorry TT - your theories are all very well but it is still bollocks !

Yes, I stick my hand in my pocket for various charities - but ONLY because I can afford to.  I have the abaility to give something to people a lot worse off than me - but as someone else pointed out I am fucked if I would give everything up just to help a bunch of lazy bastards out who refuse to get off their own arses and do something !

And thats the nub of the problem with your suggestion.

By my own nature I am ambitious - never really satisfied with what I have (work and financial I mean by that).  So I strive to do better and earn more, to have a more comfortable lifestyle and ultimately to be able to retire early and do fuck all.

Others are VERY happy with what they currently have, and are prepared to do bugger all apart from the bare minimum.  I personally do not have a problem with that, and I personally am not greedy enough to try and take advantage of that situation.

However there are hundreds if not thousands of people that would be willing to do just that - and that is where your theories all break down....

No, it's only two in reality.

Two points here:

1) That's fine, then only help people who are truly destitute and unable to look after themselves and don't contribute to any organisation that supports 'lazy bastards'. You have a choice in that.
2) In our current society, if you feel so strongly about not supporting the idle wasters (presumably you mean the ones on benefits) then I suggest that you stop paying tax and national insurance. Oh - you can't can you? Because the state demands it from you under threat of violence and has control of who gets your money. That's a bitch isn't it? And you're 'giving nearly everything up' for them.

(Well actually there is a lawful way to not pay tax and NI but I won't go into that here).

The point is TT I don't mean people on benefits as a whole.

There are VERY good reasons to tax and NI - I have a police service that stop me and everyone else (on the whole) from being attacked and stop my home from being invaded etc...

I have access to a health service that will "mend" me if I am broken

The state does NOT demand it off me under threat of violence at all ! How ridiculous!! Without taxes I would not have access to these things as they would not exist - what else am I going to do ?  Barter a couple of cows for some quack doctor in the village and hope for the best ?

I agree that money could and should be spent better - but to leave it all to the individuals would simply not be an option that would or could ever work.....

No and that is the problem with blanket taxes. You have no choice on how the money is spent. If you had all of your income in your pay packet you could decide which health service to use, which police forces to engage to protect you and you could decide if you want to give money to 'lazy bastards' or not. You have no options at all under the current system.


See above.


Well try that one out then. See what happens if you don't pay your taxes. You will get summonsed. If you don't attend (because you don't want to pay), you will find some bailiffs turning up on your doorstep. If you ignore them, eventually the police will come and arrest you and take you off for trial. If you still don't pay, they will put you in prison. Or try the same thing with your council tax. That is VIOLENCE. It is using force against you to coerce money out of you.


With a full pay packet you would be free to buy those services on the open market. Why do you insist that the state is the only method of providing any services? They aren't. And they do it all very badly. Schools, healthcare, education. You name it. Everything they touch turns to crap.


You can't say it isn't an option without factual proof.

This has now gone completely viral.


I guess that it hasn't struck a chord then eh, Lumpy and PD?

(as you've gone full circle talktalk, I think I will too)

You cannot this... We can't do this... This is nonsense...

He's not a man to offer any alternatives with his criticism is he? You're right with your criticism of Cameron, but he's in the situation that he has to come up with something that his party will do differently, something he's struggled with throughout the recession.

From an individuals point of view, when you can't rely on investments and might lose your job, it makes sense to bury your money somewhere that it's definitely safe. Like under your mattress. But if everybody does that, then there's no money moving about the economy, and we're all fucked.

As my worked out in my head understanding goes (correction needed if necessary), money sat doing nothing is useless to the economy. With the banks not willing to do much at the moment, money sat in a current account probably falls into this category. Money invested in businesses and stuff has seen a bit of a hit, so people aren't willing to invest much more at the moment, so that's off the cards.

That leaves two things: Our day to day essential spending (which is down) and the government 'initiatives'.

Let's leave the argument on whether the government is neccesary for this, it's here at the moment and it's not going to vanish, plus I enjoyed my education and health care.

The only role the government can play is to encourage spending. The movement of money is the important thing. £10 living under my mattress does nothing, £10 spent in a shop helps pay the wages of staff, any tax helps pay for public services, there's some reinvestment in stock which helps do the same again, and there's a slight drain where the owner stores some under his mattress because times are hard.

So encourage spending they must do. The top, complicated, slightly illusionary, scary, messed up end of the economy is the big city stagnant part. But that would change if you build from the bottom up.

Don't moan about jobless scroungers having life too easy, give those cunts who spend all their money without thinking even more money to spend! It's doing more good than the middle classes who want to wall themselves in from darkies and gypsies, hiding their money behind a chest of drawers.

Birdy Song. Agadoo. Doesn't make them any less of a waste of space either.

I'm going to start voting for Ironside's mob if it shuts you cunts up, fuck me you're all worse than he is. Bloody lefties! And I err left of centre ffs!

That is complete and utter total bollocks, and I can talk from experience.

Spouting so much crap really doesn't do your argument any good, in fact it totally negates it.

Bullshit! Like I said, its a choice of the lesser of two evils. Engage your brain and stop presuming.

Really? How do you respond to the following then, which is factual:


http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/search/4047381.Window_cleaner_jailed_over_tax/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/search/4047381.Window_cleaner_jailed_over_tax/)


http://62.254.234.164/ehdc/newsandvacancies.nsf/0/4810CC2EE27696E28025739C003450C8?OpenDocument (http://62.254.234.164/ehdc/newsandvacancies.nsf/0/4810CC2EE27696E28025739C003450C8?OpenDocument)


http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/d_income_tax_arrears.pdf (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/d_income_tax_arrears.pdf)

I'm spouting crap, eh?

I wonder how many would contribute as much towards an alternative service, if it was run well and was run on a purely a voluntary donation basis?

I thought you were not playing any more?  :P

The amounts outstanding for these people are huge though, would some of them not have paid council tax for a couple of years? even then they are offered installment plans to help and they still don't pay it.  Its hard to argue against punnishment for people who don't even pay when there is help given to them.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

But that is irrelevant to the argument. The thesis was that is you refuse to pay your taxes then the state will use force against you and you will end up in prison. Which those quotes prove is the truth.

Instalment plans, suspended sentences/second chances are neither here nor there - they are second chances that you are given to cough up. The bottom line is if you don't then you end up in gaol. Which yes, is punishment.

Don't think I ever stated that. Besides, I think my last point was quite poignant and valid. There will always be people unhappy with whatever system is in place and unwilling to fund it. The taxation system, however unfair it is at least ensures people pay.

Then don't have 'a system'.

You don't really understand this anarchy stuff yet...  ;D

But funnily enough Violence was NEVER mentioned in those articles......

And the fact is that these people chose not to pay.  They went to "prison" for a couple of weeks, and are then set free. 

Therefore your argument is wrong.  They CHOSE not to pay, there was no violence, they didn't pay.

Hmmmm......

so lets take your arguement in regards to the health service. closest to your libetarian utopia would be usa. health care is so expensive that even with my substantial wage packet i would now be dead as i couldnt afford $600 a week to pay for dialysis treatment.

so where does that fit in within your state? people with long term illnesses die?

Violence as in the use of force against the person. Being forcibly detained and having your freedom removed is violence.

The USA is not definitely not libertarian and nowhere near 'utopia'. There is huge government intervention in the health care system that skews the market enormously. Not surprisingly. The Medicare and Medicaid programs ensure that the private medicine overcharges the state and can get away with it and increases the health care costs (and insurance) for everybody.

So how do you propose people like Mex pay for their dialysis?

Speaking as someone who's family has previously been affected by the postcode lottery (what a fucking joke that is) and knows how expensive some medical treatment (well all of it actually) can be, I just can't imagine how much worse off things would be without an organised heath structure. And before it is mentioned, I'm not happy with the NHS but compared to the alternatives I think it is a marvelous thing.

Enjoyed the debate talktalk. Anarchy, in general, is to me is a scary ideal which we are not ready to try, if ever. "Ordinary people" , simplistically, are firstly looking for the basics in their lives.For example, security against crime and violence, a good place to live and possibly bring up a family, health care, and adequate food and drink. Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes to mind.
Money is needed for all these, so you need a paid job, or be self-employed. Some of us are not suited to be self-employed, which needs various qualities which I liken to survival of the fittest in a way. I am not capable of  earning enough from setting up my own business to pay for protection against other businessmen engaged in what was once known as "crime", a home, illness treatment which might still be ruinously expensive, and all the other essentials. There are many like me IMO.
Therefore, I need to work for someone else. No Government, no Local Council, no Civil Service, no Quangos. Sounds idyllic, but they provided about 50% of jobs. Would private individuals or groups replicate these services/jobs? Or would they all be swept away with "x" replacements?
Private firms have recently often tended to provide worse salaries benefits and pensions, they rip people off, thet can take over and monopolise what would stop them? One example. My  water supply is owned by a German company. I have no choice to change to another. Theoretically, if there were no controls, they could charge what they liked, unless "someone" organised a violent takeover of the facility, when we are back to "rulers" again. A rambling argument perhaps, I look forward to you demolishing it!  :)

Hannan shows his true colours, pimping himself on 'fair & balanced' Fox News.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiSPRkq28iU

Presumably he would prefer the US system of healthcare provision which leaves a whopping 15% of the population without cover.  Cock.

I think my favourite part of the lunatic coverage of the NHS was an article saying how Steven Hawking would have been forced to die if he'd been born in Britain under the NHS

For those who don't know, Hawking was born in Britain and treated, repeatedly, on the NHS. Never let the truth get in the away of a good bit of sensationalism eh lads.

The American system is a sham, the NHS is a mess but the American system would be devastating to the country if ever adopted. As soon as you start going down the money versus life route then your asking for trouble.

What worries me most is that this MEP is supposed to represent us in some form or other and he doesn't seem to have a clue...... typical MP.

This blog is a good read, an American view based on experience of the NHS vs the American system

http://potentialandexpectations.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/this-americans-experience-of-britains-healthcare-system/

She concludes:

"given a choice between the two systems, I’d choose the NHS in a heartbeat."

As someone whose wife has primary progressive MS, I agree, we have to visit the NHS on a regular basis and the care we receive is nothing short of excellent.

Thanks for posting that link.  I hope it goes viral and brings home a few truths about the US system.

I heard Hannan on the radio last night and some of his untruths and misinformation showed
that he's a man who never uses or has used the NHS.In the above video,his ignorance is
shown up time and again.I laughed when i heard the interviewer mention the Daily Mail - an icon
of rationable debate  ;)

Here's another video of Hannan on Fox News in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcWlHTRcTE

The American system seems terrifying. Not to have that safety net, that whatever happens you've got access to healthcare, is wrong.

Apperently  medical bills are their biggest cause of bankruptcy.

Edit: The crazy thing is that their healthcare system ends up being more expensive than ours anyway. So much for inefficiency of a nationalised system.

If people want private healthcare then they can pay for it as private health insurance. If everyone opted out of the NHS contributions I reckon the government would just hike up tax so you'd get the same net wage.

Oops! I saw the title and thought this was a thread about Richard Littlejohn...

On a vaguely related medical/political/reporting note, I just found it rather amusing that today's Mail and Telegraph have managed to end up with complete opposite headlines.

One's "Babies to get Swine Flu Jab" and the other is "No Swine Flu Jab for Children" (quotes might be a bit off.). I wonder which one is right.

This U.S. conservative attack on the NHS is nuts... What are they afraid of? I suppose it's all money related.

I think your forgetting how right wing middle america is

I don't think the American way is right but I also don't think that the NHS is right either!  Some sort of middle ground needs to be found!

 Oh really ! Wasn't it Middle America that shifted to the Left ? Hence the appointment of Obama.

As Tony Benn said, the NHS is like a free Buffet and the trouble with free buffets is that you always take more than you need. Or words to that effect. And he's right, but i'd be the last person to call for more regulation to be added to a country already sucked dry and flaccid by over regulation. Maybe we could have a couple of new quangos to look into it?

Not sure the Republicans are afraid of anything, they're just fighting it for the sake of it.

They actually spend more on health care in the US than pretty much any other country in the world. The problem is who the money is spent on, some people get too much treatment and some people get none (unsurprisingly, there is a disproportionate number of non-whites in this group). In 1996, 5% of their population accounted for 50% of health care spending.

The big question though is why the fuck are our politicians getting involved in this?

I could not knock the NHS, from my dealings over the last three years I can only be full of praise for them. When there is something seriously wrong they are fantastic. Some do not know how lucky they are to be British.

 Lucky ? Please explain that one to the relatives of the hundreds who died due to lack of care at Stafford General in the 2 year period ending March 2008. It was not just an allegation, they were found culpable. I'm sure it was not an isolated case.

Hammer, go and live in any other country outside of western europe and then repeat what you just said.

I don't think anyone would suggest the NHS is perfect. But its better than in a lot of other countries.

Shit me ! Does that mean you think the USA is left wing now ? Or for that matter New Labour is too !!!?

If we got rid of the NHS chaos would follow.

Excuse my lack of knowledge but what does anyone who dislikes the NHS see as a realistic (emphasis on realistic) alternative because I can't think of one.

My missus' gran became very ill in the U.S. while on holiday a couple of years back... She had cover but the bill would have been $20,000! She had good care but I'd expect that for that money.

I can only speak from my own personal experience, the Royal Berks Hospital (NHS) were superb when my wife was seriously ill, if my comments offended you because of a personal experience from Stafford for yourself  or a member of your close family or friends then I can only apologise. I can only voice an opinion from what I have personally experienced.

The NHS is not perfect. What is ?

Personally, there is too many administration managers, when the money could be used to reduce the postcode lottery scenario, and get the service people need. Also, hospitals needs to be cleaned PROPERLY and not getting cheap labour doing half the job. This will reduce MRSA.

I know this from a family experience. A couple of years ago, my dad,who is a diabetic, went into hospital with an infection on his foot. They sent him home a couple of weeks later, they sent him home.

Within a week, he was feeling sick, so he was taken back in. He had MRSA, and they had to amputate his leg below the knee. The hospital reaction ' You didn't catch MRSA from us!!'

But if you think the American system is better, people need their heads testing. Just watch a few episodes of ER and see the political games go on, as quite a number of hospitals won't start treating you unless they are sure that you've got insurance.

Having spent three years living in the USA (and the other 37 being exposed to the NHS) I think I'm fairly well qualified to have an objective view on both systems.

There is no doubt that the NHS has its faults. I've had several bad experiences with the NHS which I'd rather not delve into in detail, but also several really good experiences. The problems arise due to a lack of resources. One of my biggest gripes was having to wait, on average, a month for a routine appointment to see my GP. Now if I was really sick, and needed an emergency appointment, I could get one, but always with a locum, never my GP. That's clearly unacceptable as a general rule, and the kind of example that the right-of-centre yankees seem to be picking up on.

My experiences of health care, with one exception, in the US were nothing short of exemplary. I guess I was fortunate, my employer covered the majority of my basic health care needs, however you always needed to be aware to check out whether the health care provider took your health plan. The major problem health care wise was related to a trip to ER, where my wife waited several hours, with severe abdominal pains, to see a doctor - we were sent there by our GP equivalent; turns out she had a miscarriage.

What really took the piss about the US was the bureaucracy, and the impact it has when it fails. My wife was admitted on another occasion with an ectopic pregnancy. The direct care she received - admitted immediately, operated on within an hour of diagnosis and an overnight stay - was first class. What wasn't was one month later when I received a bill for $13500 because the health care provider couldn't electronically submit the bill to the insurance company due to 'computer problems'.

And that sums up the crux of their problem. Those who can afford to pay, or have appropriate coverage through company medical plans, are fine. Those who can't are seriously fucked. Fair play to Mr Obama for trying to change the system.

Surely there are too many American citizens that can't afford to pay though? Especially if the cons in the U.S. want to suggest it's better than the NHS.

15%

I don't really know % wise Rich, but I'd imagine its significant. Particularly given their national unemployment rate is close to 10% countrywide.

My mate in Dayton OH (who is very anti-Obama) has basic medical coverage through the military (being ex USAF) and though his current employer. He did tell me that he had extra coverage through a separate, or top up, health plan which covers his whole family, which cost him $500 per month. I'm sure he also said that was deducted at source from his salary. A lot of standard health plans don't cover things like dental care (if you think that's expensive here, you ain't seen nothing......)

  I have done Mex, including USA. Our emergency cover is comparably good. From thereon it goes downhill. I wasn't really comparing our system to that of Third World countries, but then again, what proportion of their tax revenue is allocated to health care !

The problem with this country is that it is filled with dinosaurs...me dad voted labour blah blah blah...this government has fucked the working man,Brown..we didnt vote him in...Mandleson is poncing around like fucking Danny La Rue.........theres no incentive in this country no more...the more you earn the more they take...so the incentive really is not to work.

I mean middle america in a geographical, rather than a social sense

       
 
 Something of a naive comment I feel. It is Middle Britain or Middle America which determines the future political administration. Many Americans may be conservative in their views with regard to some issues but are susceptible towards taking a socialist view on other matters. Perhaps you've been eating some dodgy ants.

Hmmm. What do you think it was like before the NHS? Did people die in the streets in 1946? Or 1930? Or 1910? No they didn't. There were charities and friendly societies and conscientious doctors and hospitals who honourably gave their time and service to help the disadvantaged. It is completely delusional to think that the NHS as a system is in any way a success. The health professionals involved, well yes of course, that is their calling and they do the best they can. The bureaucracy, the cost, the waste and the general shiteness of the whole overbloated edifice? Definitely not.

For a well informed opinion on the state of US medicine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0tKl0J-S4

For a parallel of the NHS as it is in Canada (yes, they have fucked up their healthcare just as we have) see the following. Swap Canada/1961 for UK/1947 and you have the same thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD2UUH4E2Xs

Oh and with reference to the second video and proof that our lords and masters don't use the shit that they have created: http://order-order.com/2007/03/08/gordons-grin/ (http://order-order.com/2007/03/08/gordons-grin/)

There are countless other examples of ministers and MPs and so on using private services in preference to the public horrors we have to endure. Blair sending his children to private schools comes to mind. Fucking hypocritical cunts.

Well yes they fucking did. Its lovelly and iddylic to think that friendly Mr Jones would donate time and money to treat the poor and the sick, and whilst it did happen nowhere near to the extent that would make it a viable form of healthcare. The charity hospitals ( i forget their correct name) were dumps. To think people in Britain were living in slums and dying of cholera less than 100 years ago is awful - and thanks to the NHS, and the government taking a pro-active role in their health we can be proud to have had one of the greatest public health systems in the world. I'm sure theirs better example out there at the moment, but ours was the first in the civilised world - anyone who considers scrapping it needs a long hard look at themselves.

Do you think anyone would use a public school if they had the money? Do you think people would use the NHS if they could afford private?

Fucking hell. Get a grip. I'm quite glad your not a doctor - you'd go along with the NHS and then scribble on peoples prescriptions "to get back at the man".

I would scrap it tomorrow, you patronising cunt.

I'm glad I'm not a doctor.

Too right I would go completely private if I could afford it.

Hey, I've got a better idea. Let's all go private and scrap the NHS  :D

Why?

What if you fell on hard times and couldn't afford private treatment. Or worse - your kids couldn't afford private treatment? Then fell sick, needing treatment? Why should they not be entitled to free treatment?

...and you call Dave a patronising cunt!

I wasn't on the streets in 1910 were you?

I maybe only 25 years old blah blah blah but I've experienced of the NHS enough (good and bad) to know that it's not worth scrapping.

Very well put.

If I could save the equivalent of £340 a month by not paying the fat pig that is the NHS I would happily donate £160 to a medical charity to look after the disadvantaged (or a family of three for a year). I would still be £180 a month better off. I am sure that a lot of other employed people would feel the same way.

Why do you assume that the status quo is the best way to do things? It obviously isn't - there are alternatives.

I admire your faith in mankind Talk Talk, i really do. But Human beings do not tend to work like that.

I hope the cunt who is moaning ends up bankrupt and has to rely on the nhs.

How much do people give to charity in this country? That is after they have been taxed on their income.

I will tell you - £12bn a year.

I think it does work.

And he would say that he has been forced to contribute to the NHS against his will all of his life and is entitled to receive NHS treatment. He has paid for it  ::)

Ok.

So if all charitable donations went to fund a health system for the poor, all other charitys would wither and die. Have you thought this through?


Again, have you thought this through? If someone proposes scrapping 'Free' Healthcare, there will be no fall back option, no second chances. Thats it man. They finished. Its over. Over man.

Yes, I have. You did not understand what the implication was. If I did not have to pay 10% of my gross income to the NHS I would be free to contribute more to other charities, say a medical one. Well actually as a contractor I also have to pay the employer's 12% as well so nearly a quarter of my income goes on propping up that creaking bureaucracy.


See previous post about charity.

If he does not like the healthcare system and does not want to pay the tax then he should fuck off. Bet he is ok with my tax paying for his house and private healthcare though isn't he.

And just to emphasise this, from my gross income I pay 22% to the NHS and 40% in income tax. So that's 62% gone before I even start to pay VAT, petrol, alcohol and tobacco duty, council tax, road tax, tax tax, tax tax tax.

And you think I get good value for money from any of this rip off that I am forced to pay under threat of imprisonment?

Nope.

Well of course he is.

There are two sets of rules in play, but the majority of us only get the shitty end of the stick because we are 'cattle' in the great tax livestock farming empire that is the United Kingdom.

Cue Paul D and wanky comment about tin foil hats and conspiracies.


Nighty night.

Nah, you're doing just fine by yourself

Oh sheesh.

I do hope he sleeps well.

See i just don't get people like you Alan. You hate this country you hate everything about it from the goverment to new football stadiums.You have a choice mate if it bugs you that much then live elsewhere but you wont and i will tell you why,it is because as much as this country is shit in your eyes you know damn well we have it much better than most

Interesting that you feel Middle exists ! OK in my naivety I suppose I should remain happy after my dodgy ants that I visit the Vets and not the NHS then ?

Life isn't fair. Move on.

I sort of get the idea of removing central government, and don't deny private healthcare is an option that has previously been used and could work.  However, just to show there are cunts in the world, I would not pay a charity (laziness not nastiness) and would probably even end up not paying for healthcare (laziness, won't happen to me attitude).

I already "risk" on car insurance by always selecting the cheapest fully comp on offer, regardless of all the bits it may not cover me for.  I buy it because I am forced to.  Clearly is I had a choice and took this attitude, I could seriously fuck up someone else's life if the worst happened and I caused a crash.

I think people are not inherently nice, quite the opposite, and that's why I also think Socialism always fails.  The good samaritan story exists for a reason, plenty of people would and do walk on by.  So long as that exists, absolutle free market and no government (in whatever form) approaches can't work.

Oh, and I actually don't mind paying tax at source - would rather that than VAT, because my general lazy approach to things means I don't have to worry about all the things that get paid for.  My bins get taken away and dealt with and I don't have to arrange it privately with a company.  My healthcare is sorted without me having to set-up a policy and check it's coverage.  My car can use tarmac to drive on without having to choose the route based on cost (I fucking hate toll roads).  My daughter is schooled without me needing to budget for her attendance.  Somebody else worries about whether the Nuclear Power Plants are up to scratch so I can buy my power from the cheapest supplier without worrying too much about whether it might blow up.

Where did you get that quote that Bupa is a third of the cost of the NHS?

Does the Bupa health care include; a gp, an ambulance service, an a&e service and everything else that you get under the NHS? I doubt it very much. Bupa is nothing more than an expensive way for people with money to get treated quicker, it has got fuck all to do with whether the NHS is doing a good job or not.

Along with the fact that they can select their patients. Good luck getting Bupa cover if there's something wrong with you. Or even worse, "Oh you've been with us for a while now but things aren't looking good, here you go, we'll pay a premium and you can go back on the NHS because if you die on our watch it makes our numbers looks bad"

Also talkytalktalk, you never got back to me here...

http://thetownend.com/index.php/topic,34566.msg705960.html#msg705960

If the NHS was scrapped then there would obviously be a hell of a lot more private patients and in order to make that private system cope the costs would go up. Private health plans may well be cheaper at the moment but if the NHS could run itself on that money currently then it already would.

Obviously there are many inefficiencies and poorly managed aspects to the NHS. I don't agree with cosmetic surgery provided to those who don't need it or post code lotteries for example. In my opinion the NHS needs to be reformed for such aspects rather than scrapped in favour of private health care.

Perhaps we should simply pay more. Why does there need to be privatisation in order to make that happen? With private health care you don't really have a choice but to pay for a health plan unless you want to gamble with your health, have enough money stashed to cover a large medical bill or you can't afford to pay for it, in which case you receive inferior health care.

And for what it's worth I don't hold too high regard for the NHS after experiencing some incompetencies first and second hand. My point of view is that the system doesn't need change but the way the system is run needs change.

Alan, You talk about paying tax tax tax, well the reason we pay tax tax tax is so everybody can recieve a sufficient level of healthcare. Its all well and good moaning about paying all this money, I sincerly hope you never become ill. I paid my tax for 15 years, then I became seriously ill, it costs the NHS £87,500 to keep me alive every single year, thank fuck we have universal health care because if I was american I would have died 3 and a half years ago. There is a bigger picture out there Alan, as  a sane humane person how can you begrudge universal health care for your fellow human beings?

 :nod:

I'm no socialist and despite how people like to think we're in the majority good, we're not. Two of the most powerful and common emotions a human has, which govern almost everything, are fear and greed and they're not nice emotions.

And that reminds me of one of the reasons why I believe socialism has a not insignificant following, it's not to make everything better for everyone, it's to make sure "they" don't have more than "me", "because it's unfair".

An interesting experiment done by a professor (it could have been Robert Cialdini phd) into social perceptions of money, sat 2 people at a table along with $100 and asked them to share it.

One was a person off the street and one was an actor. They then assigned each a role. The Actor got to decide how the $100 was shared between them, then the person off the street got to decide whether they got that amount or they got nothing.

After performing this test many, many times, it turned out that if the actor said he wanted $70 or more, then the member of the public said he'd rather have nothing. Amusingly, rather than leave the room with $30 more than they entered with, they'd rather leave with nothing, than let the other take the loins share.

To see if this was because $100 was not enough, I believe the same experiment was repeated with a greater sum producing the same results. Then to see if the results were because we're greedy, already have enough and it might be down to the western perception of money, they tried the same experiments in third world countries where the sum of $100 was more than most earn in a month. Crazily, nothing changed. These people with barely a penny, would rather have nothing, than see someone else have more. 

I'm getting out of here as soon as I can - plans laid. It's been turned into a shit hole. There are far better places to live in the world, even over the channel is better.

A commentary on Hannan's NHS comments.

http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/08/criticising-nhs-is-not-treason.html (http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/08/criticising-nhs-is-not-treason.html)

Surely you don't mean France?! It's full of French people... FRENCH PEOPLE!

I don't begrudge it at all. In fact I would have been more than happy to personally contribute to the health care costs for your unfortunate ailment if I had the choice of doing so.

You see the laughable 'what about the poor without the NHS?' argument goes like this:

Alan: "So you care about the poor then"
TEF Poster: "oh yes, yes I do"
Alan: "Ok. How much money do you give to poor people at the moment?"
TEF Poster: "Erm, well nothing actually"
Alan: "Then you don't really care about the poor anyway, do you?"
TEF Poster: "Bugger"

I take Rob's point that he is lazy and wants to be mollycoddled and looked after by the state, which is fine. But IMO he pays through the nose for it. I would like the option of deciding where and how I spend my money. Let me opt out of the NHS, state schooling and so on. But it won't happen because one size fits all which can never work. Government monopolies are shit. What do governments do well at? Nothing, they fuck up everything they touch and that is the nature of the beast.

Now we are getting somewhere, I think the option to Opt out of some things is an idea I can buy into, provided the basic concept of universal free at point of use Health Care is retained (so private preimums should cover a % contribution to the NHS).  In fact, I would not be averse to paying a defined amount from my wage (so it's clear what it is for an ringfenced) towards a National health scheme that funded a privately run system - so all healthcare institutions were actually private.  The one thing I do agree on is that publicly run "companies" are stupidly inefficient.  I would be happy with that but would still want my laziness looked after by knowing a central or local government existed to collect the premiums for everyone and also regulated the level of healthcare provided.

But then it wouldn't fucking work would it? Why not just use a bit of common dog.

I reckon that if people like talk talk came out here, then they would complain about the lack of health service and the high prices in private hospitals.

You're damned if you do, and you're damned if ya don't, some people just seem to bitch for the sake of it.

What have the romans ever done for us?

And this one:


An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. 

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. 
The second test average was a D!   No one was happy.


When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. 

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

judging a society on a bunch of american college bums is somewhat flawed me thinks.

So what you're saying dell is that none of us achieve anything at all in this country because we won't be left to die if we can't afford health care?

No, I dont think so. I just found  the article of interest.
I'm nowhere near clever enough to argue my case in words against a lot of those involved in this debate.

I will pick up on a point TalkTalk made about going across the channel, and knowing his desire to live in Greece, when you eventually get there which I hope you do, you are going to have one almighty shock about their health care. It makes our A&E look like an express service.

When I as in Greece, the treatment of choice for motorbike accidents was a generous helping of Iodine, maybe with a couple of bandages for good measure.

Do I understand you correctly Alan? You regularly rail against big Government, high taxes and state interference and then suggest that France is a better place to live. (Whispers quietly) You do know that France is historically more socialist than the UK don't you?

They have a word for it: dirigiste (ie directed from the centre).

I'd modify that statement slightly - public "companies" run by politicians are stupidly inefficient.

My main argument is the BBC. Whilst it is publicly funded the involvement of politicians is minimal and I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that the BBC is inefficient or does anything other than an incredible job for the money. Plus it is widely regarded as one of, if not, the best broadcaster in the world.

Remove politicians from the NHS and I reckon things would improve exponentially.

Clearly you've been lucky enough never to have opened a copy of the Daily Mail or Telegraph.

Bullshit.

You pay 22% to the National Insurance Fund, of which only 2.05% goes towards NHS costs.

The rest pays incapacity benefit, widows’ benefits, maternity allowance, guardian’s allowance and jobseeker’s allowance.

No No No. Don't let facts get in the way

Facts ruin all good arguments.

but the subjects raised are still debateable

I think that the NHS is a great model. It's not a socilaist ideal as such. (An idea thought up by the Tories & hijacked by Labour)..
The problem is that it is now as in common witrh the benefits system is that it is much more than a safety net.
The NHS is in my view the right vehicle for life saving treatments but not for "lifestyle treatments" such as IVF, Cosmetic Surgery etc.
The pensions tax credits system is a perfect illustration of Dell's story. It's now nit worth contributing say £20 a month to a private pension as any benefits it would bring would reduce the pensions credits payable so why bother ?!
The whole tax & benefits system is a mess. My son was unemployed, but got a few days work through an agency as a labourer. He signed off did the work, & got paid £100. He had been subjected to emergency tax, & his comment was "I shouldn't have bothered".

I would hardly call IVF a lifestyle choice. You can't compare the gift of life with a new nose.

The BBC was brilliant until about 10 years ago. Now it is completely biased and just a mouthpiece for the government.

Remove politicians from the NHS and it wouldn't be socialised medicine, would it? Now there's an idea - privatise the thing or even better break it up and encourage more new private providers.

I was referring to the way of life, the ethos, values and so on.

Politicians are shits and governments are evil wherever you go.

Anyway, I'm off to San Tropez in jolly old France for a long weekend. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Please explain your rationale behind deciding that IVF is a 'lifestyle choice'?

It just isn't Coxy.

Arguably it might be for a small minority, but for the vast majority it certainly isn't.

It certainly wasn't for my wife and I, and I'll argue the toss for hours for anyone who thinks otherwise.