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

[Lumps]

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

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".

[Lumps]

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.

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

[Talk Talk]

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

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

'Clueless and completely laughable' right back at ya!

[Talk Talk]

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.

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.

[Talk Talk]

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".

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.

[Talk Talk]

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

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.

[yeo]

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?

 

[Simon Pieman]

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.

[Talk Talk]

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?

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

[Talk Talk]

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.

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.

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?

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.

Yes the current government is shite (in my opinion), yes the alternatives 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.

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?

[Arriba]

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

[Talk Talk]

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.

[Talk Talk]

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.

[chalkies_shorts]

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".

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.

[flammableBen]

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?

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.