Finally...a man who stands up and says what a lot of people really think

[Ironside]

There's a much easier solution.

Get rid of government completely

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

[Fred Elliot]

There's a much easier solution.

Get rid of government completely

and replace with what exactly ?

[pauld]

and replace with what exactly ?

Sock snake puppets.

[Talk Talk]

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.

[cib]

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.

[flammableBen]

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

[Talk Talk]

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

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

[jonny72]

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.

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.

[Talk Talk]

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

You. Me. Everybody.

By refusing to pay taxes to anybody.

[flammableBen]

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.

[jonny72]

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

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.

[cib]

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

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.

[Talk Talk]

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.

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.

[Talk Talk]

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.

I think you are confusing government with leadership.

[Talk Talk]

Historically, differing societies at different times have progressed within the confines of authority - going back as far as Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc.

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

Fantastic, let's do it all over again.