Well grum, I was thinking about your comment (and my meaningless contribution to democracy) while cutting grass this afternoon and more of what Brand was arguing against and for.
As I was in danger of coming up with some misconceptions especially about his choice of the word revolution (cutting grass I thought that was a completely inappropriate choice and one only befitting a drunk adolescent) I thought I had better adopt that classic THM tactic of reading what he actually said!! So I take the revolution criticism back – in the article, he is talking about a revolution of consciousness. Ok thats BS but at least harmless BS, Not sure that came across in the Paxman interview (…talks like a drunk?).
Then your comments, which made me think. Ok grum what you are proposing is basically apathy or perhaps at the more extreme level anarchy. Funnily enough Brand picks up on this in the NS article and defends apathy for much the same reason as you do (the legitimacy argument). Interesting, even if I dont agree.
But ultimately, my thoughts turned to the idea that Brand should look hard at his own life and be careful what he wished for. Hats off to him for recovering from a lousy early life. But equally, how many societies would ultimately tolerate, indulge and reward his chosen lifestyle to the degree that ours has? As he puts it, he has benefitted from the crass (my word) culture of celebrity that (in his words), “has just banjoed the arse of another sacred cow and a Halloween-haired, Sachsgate-enacting, estuary-whining, glitter-lacquered, priapic berk…who has been undeservedly hoisted upon another cultural plinth.”
Did I say he wrote like a don? Anyway with that self-description (tongue-in-cheek or not) he should perhaps be grateful for our tolerance and indulgence. Not many societies would!