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

[Ironside]

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.

[Lumps]

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

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).

[sheepshagger]

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'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 !

[herthab]

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).

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.

[Talk Talk]

Someone with the resources to outgun individuals would oppress individuals.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Talk Talk]

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

 

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

[herthab]

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

Sometimes you talk absolute bollocks.

(The rest of the time you just talk bollocks)

[Talk Talk]

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 !

Give us a cuddle then 

[Talk Talk]

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

Sometimes you talk absolute bollocks.

(The rest of the time you just talk bollocks)

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.

[herthab]

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.

[herthab]

Why aren't we 'allowed' guns for self defence? Because we are oppressed.

See. You did say it.

[Colin Todd]

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

It makes me think you look like mad max

*insert denim joke here*

[Talk Talk]

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.

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

[Talk Talk]

It makes me think you look like mad max

*insert denim joke here*

I would rather be Mad Max than Hannibal Lecter.

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

[Simon Pieman]

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