You

[Gazza's Fat Mate]

I have been reading a lot of books of late about social change etc ie George Orwells 1984, Brave new world, Mein Mampf, books about lein etc etc

Alot of them although written by different people, all seem to suggest that in order for there to be happines, stabilty etc we must give our freedoms to the state so that they the state, leader whatever, can decide whats what for the greater good.

So my question to you is: Would you be prepered to give up your freedoms for complete happines, no worries, no lack fo food etc all you have to do is go to work at your assigned job, do it then go home and do what ever within reasson. (some of the books talk about free drugs, free sex etc).

There is alot more to it than the above but thats the basic idea.

I for one wouldn't really mind. I am not important enough to probably even notice a change. I go to work, I come home, I go out and I more or less do what ever I want within the law. So if all that could be asured brilliant! So what if I don't get to decide somethings, or who's in charge nothing much really ever changes for the average bloke. If the Hilter came to power tomarrow my life would hardly change same if lennin came to power nothing would change. I'd still go to work, I'd still watch footy, I'd still have to pay tax.

[axs]

in a word no. life without freedom of choice is not one I would want to persue. This is just a way of absolving responsibility from those who won't take charge of their own lives and social repsonsibility. I am perfectly capable of doing both and I would wish to carry on doing so.

[DMR]

Fuck that, you can be happy and keep your freedom, and I'd hate to have an assigned job or task for life - I want to go as far as I can and I believe one day I'll be in charge of something big, otherwise what's the point?

[Gazza's Fat Mate]

in a word no. life without freedom of choice is not one I would want to persue. This is just a way of absolving responsibility from those who won't take charge of their own lives and social repsonsibility. I am perfectly capable of doing both and I would wish to carry on doing so.

I have and do take charge of my life. But in realtiy what can I do to change the biggetr picture. For expample take state benfits. No elected goverment is ever going to do anything radical because they no they will piss loads of people off therefore will not get elected again. Where as say a Dictor wouldn't really care so might actully sort a problem. Lets be honest the current systm is hardly working for example paying 40% tax to fund chavs and the underclass to breed going to war on a lie is not what I call progress.

[DMR]

GFM, are you inferring we'd be better off under a dictator?

[axs]

what can you do to change the bigger picture?

depends on what kind of person you want to be. The 'bigger picture' is made up of millions of people, sounds cliched but start small and work up. If you wanted to help change things you could. Just depends how much you want it to change and how much effort you are willing to put in.

No need to embrace communism - just a different attitude.

[Gazza's Fat Mate]

GFM, are you inferring we'd be better off under a dictator?

based on the ones from history and the present day probably not although Hilter had some good ideas as did sterlin and lennin even the chinse chap mow had soem ideas that were okay like getting rid of religion!!!!. But my point is still valid, as I am trying to discuss the failfure of decomracy but the alternative is a unknow to me??

[suttonred]

I didnt know stirling moss was a dictator, christ thats opened my eyes

[Barry Scott]

Just look at Cuba. No thanks.

Mind you with the potential for us to have these cunty I.D cards, we're going that way. Our potential "I.D. card" system, if it goes ahead, will be more invasive of one's personal right to privacy than that of China's, and we all know where they stand on the political spectrum.

[herthab]

I think you missed the whole point with a couple of those books GFM.

Brave New World and 1984 were both scathing attacks on Totalitarianism, be it the communist type, or Fascism. The message in both those books is that individual freedom is worth more than State control.

Communism doesn't work, as proved by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the increasing shift in China to a free market economy. Even Cuba only survives on Western  holidaymakers!

Fascism only survived in Spain due to the will of one man, as soon Franco died the country returned to a Democracy.

Democracy isn't perfect, but given the alternatives I'd rather it.................

[Colin Todd]

Under Labour we have headed further into Nanny State territory.  I fucking hate it.  Dont eat this, do that, drink this, dont smoke that, its bad for you - now give us all your money and we will redistribute it as we see fit. FUCK OFF!  At least old School labour were honest about their socialist principles and went after the aristocracy and mega rich, nu-labour have just gone after the reletivly ordinary working man, as seen by the huge increase in the tax burden since they came to power. This money given to dossers & single mums on the basis of "eradicating child poverty"or pissed up a giant NHS shaped wall.

Government should be small and non-interventionalist unless absolutley necessary, as opposed to the control freak social engineering bollocks that we currently have to tolerate.

[ghanimah]

Just look at Cuba. No thanks.

Just for the sake of balance, Cuba does have an all encompassing trade embargo i.e. blockade, imposed on it by our 'friends' the USA, which is bound to affect its economy, despite it probably being self-sufficient by means of sugar exports if allowed.

[herthab]

Just look at Cuba. No thanks.

Just for the sake of balance, Cuba does have an all encompassing trade embargo i.e. blockade, imposed on it by our 'friends' the USA, which is bound to affect its economy, despite it probably being self-sufficient by means of sugar exports if allowed.

That's rubbish. It was propped up by The Soviet Union until its demise and is now propped up by tourism, in much the same way it was before Castro seized power.

They'd have never been self sufficient with regards to exports, even when they were exporting to the Eastern Bloc.

[ghanimah]

Just look at Cuba. No thanks.

Just for the sake of balance, Cuba does have an all encompassing trade embargo i.e. blockade, imposed on it by our 'friends' the USA, which is bound to affect its economy, despite it probably being self-sufficient by means of sugar exports if allowed.

That's rubbish. It was propped up by The Soviet Union until its demise and is now propped up by tourism, in much the same way it was before Castro seized power.

They'd have never been self sufficient with regards to exports, even when they were exporting to the Eastern Bloc.

Er it's not rubbish, the trade embargo was imposed 2 years before the Soviet's propped up the economy (mainly to persuade the Cuban's to allow missiles on their island)

Are you saying that one of the longest trade embargos in history is not going to have a detrimental effect on a country's economy?

I'm not defending Communism here, just saying you have to look at Cuba's economy in context

[sheepshagger]

Just look at Cuba. No thanks.

Mind you with the potential for us to have these cunty I.D cards, we're going that way. Our potential "I.D. card" system, if it goes ahead, will be more invasive of one's personal right to privacy than that of China's, and we all know where they stand on the political spectrum.

What is actually the problem with ID cards then ?

I have heard many many people talk about how ID cards are an Invasion of Privacy etc.etc.etc. - but how ?

What is so wrong with carrying something that "proves" who you are ?

Surely it is only a problem if you have something to hide ?