[Closed] Generation Right (Wing)

Play nicely children!

teamhurtmore - I must say I think there's a big gap between the way you'd like to perceive yourself and the actual impression you create on this site.

It's a shame to see potentially engaging topics such as this always marred by closed-minded bores.

Malvern Rider has a point.

Whats so ****ing laudable about HAVING to work hard for a living?

I wish moderrn technology could be used to give us all more quality free time instead of making us more "productive".

The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.'

Sounds like a good ambition to me.

Chill out - it's a cycling forum and a space for some banter. There are other forums for serious debate on these issues.

Perspective, gentlemen please!

Cha****ng, pls feel free to review page 2 to see exactly where the respectful comments changed in nature to less respectful versions. Funny where that started, but if people want to start that kind of stuff, they need to be able to live with the response.

Whats so ****ing laudable about HAVING to work hard for a living?

Generally better for you than having it handed on a plate.

Whats so ****ing laudable about HAVING to work hard for a living?

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money!

As I've said before we don't live in a communist country. You can choose to be dosser and surf bum all your life if you really want to. You just need to be able to fund the lifestyle that you want.

If you want a nice house, bike, car ...sorry but your going to have to earn it. Struggling to see the problem with this?

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money!

So whose money did the banks ran out of, causing the worst global economic crises since the 1930s ?

Or are you saying banks are a socialist concept ?

Or are you saying banks are a socialist concept ?

well...errr yes.

Really they should have been allowed to fail but for the greater good they were saved. In future with the new banking arrangements i'd like to think they would be alllowed to fail.

The 'work hard to purchase utterly facile and frankly demeaning status symbols' ethic is a myth constructed by the wealthy and perpetuated by the moronic..

Is it laudable to prioritise your ridiculous over stated little job over your children's social development?
Is it laudable to waste your life grafting to line some fat greedy bastards pockets whilst you scrape by..?

In an age of such technological advancement why are we all working more hours than ever for less money?
When you say that you want to work really hard to better yourself you have to maybe take a moment to wonder what 'bettering yourself' actually means..

I'm aware that the system prevents us from escaping this trap, with house prices and the cost of living etc.. and that the alternatives would present a quantum shift in our way of thinking that many people are too indoctrinated to contemplate, but that in no way makes the system right and correct and I find it almost impossible to respect anyone who defends it

Generally better for you than having it handed on a plate.

Why? What if it frees you up to write that symphony you've always wanted to write, or pursue that interesting line of research that might transform society?

Or even just give you time to appreciate the beauty of the world around you?

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money!

As I've said before we don't live in a communist country.

Why do you associate not having to work hard for a living with socialism? Look at the worlds most sucessfull communist state. Do you think all they do in China is practice Tai Chi all day?

Its nowt to do with outdated left wing v. right wing politics.

Banks as a socialist concept? Interesting question - how many industries put the interests of their employers so far above the interests of their clients and their shareholders. You should always work for a bank rather than own one - that's how the odds are stacked.

Whats so ****ing laudable about HAVING to work hard for a living?
Generally better for you than having it handed on a plate.

Lets ask someone who'd know, shall we......

[img] [/img]

I wish moderrn technology could be used to give us all more quality free time instead of making us more "productive".

It has. Do you really think your grandparents had time to fanny about with bicycles in the woods at the weekend? They had stuff to do.

not quite right 5Elefant - my granda was a sales rep for the co-op and him and my nan would regularly ride their bikes to the seaside on the weekend..

It has. Do you really think your grandparents had time to fanny about with bicycles in the woods at the weekend? They had stuff to do.

I have a box of slides somewhere of my grandparents fannying about on bikes, I can't remember if they were in the woods though.

The 'work hard to purchase utterly facile and frankly demeaning status symbols' ethic is a myth constructed by the wealthy and perpetuated by the moronic..

Some people want fast cars others want exotic holidays ...or just a nice bike. Who are YOU to decide what people spend their money on?

Is it laudable to prioritise your ridiculous over stated little job over your children's social development?

Or provide for your familey?

Is it laudable to waste your life grafting to line some fat greedy bastards pockets whilst you scrape by..?

The get a different job or better become your own boss, that is just childish whinging.

In an age of such technological advancement why are we all working more hours than ever for less money?

Depends on your job. I work long hours but it is challenging, fun and rewarding. Some days I would rather go home early - some I do others I have to get through. Its called responsibility. The more you have the more you are likely to be rewarded (note reward is not just monetary).

When you say that you want to work really hard to better yourself you have to maybe take a moment to wonder what 'bettering yourself' actually means..

Depends what and who you are and what you want out of life? Again who are YOU to decide ...you can either choose to work hard and accept responsibility or not to. No one makes you but there are consequences.

I'm aware that the system prevents us from escaping this trap, with house prices and the cost of living etc.. and that the alternatives would present such a quantum shift in our way of thinking that many people are too indoctrinated to contemplate, but that in no way makes the system right and correct and I find it almost impossible to respect anyone who defends it

You are clearly a childish intolerant cave man.

but I love you... and that's the main thing you grumpy little halfwit (seeing as we're name-calling now) 😀

🙂

It has. Do you really think your grandparents had time to fanny about with bicycles in the woods at the weekend? They had stuff to do.

Well one set of grandparents spent their summers in their second home in Cornwall. The other set was forced to subsistence farm somewhere in Siberia.

If given the choice, I think the ones in Siberia might have preferred to live a life of luxury in a technological utopia .

There's no nobility to HAVING to work HARD for a living if all you get is grinding poverty and an early death.

Or are you saying banks are a socialist concept ?

well...errr yes.

So the greedy banks which eventually ran out of other people's money, causing the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s, were publicly/government owned ?

[i]That's[/i] why they eventually ran out of other people's money, and we ended up with the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s ?

Had they not been publicly/government owned they would not have eventually ran out of other people's money, and we would not have had the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s ?

Interesting, but I'm not convinced that you fully understand the problem.

It has. Do you really think your grandparents had time to fanny about with bicycles in the woods at the weekend? They had stuff to do.

I work six or seven days a week. My grandparents did five.

Did you mean great-great grandparents?

Really they should have been allowed to fail but for the greater good they were saved. In future with the new banking arrangements i'd like to think they would be alllowed to fail.

Could you just run through how the problem of the banks being 'too big to fail' has been addresse,d to prevent it happening again? Its just that I was under the impression that the banks took all our money, and are now lending it all out again as suicidally overstretched mortgages, and inflating another massive housing bubble in the South East.

So they're recreating perfectly, exactly the conditions that caused the last crash, and we as taxpayers are still acting as guarantors. In fact, more so, as its our money thats been directly pump priming the bubble with Help to Buy, Funding for Lending, and round after round of QA

Still... capitalist cheerleader, and sage that you are,myou'll be about to explain to me why I'm wrong, and this isn't the case at all.

Go.....

There's no nobility to HAVING to work HARD for a living if all you get is grinding poverty and an early death.

Unfortunately expectations are at an even higher level.

Did you mean great-great grandparents?

Actually, I know a few people who through talent, hard work and quite a bit of luck are in the situation where they don't need to work a full week in order to maintain a (to them) acceptable material lifestyle.

They use the free time to purse other things which don’t give any monetary reward.

Are they happy and fulfilled even though they dont have to work hard for a living? I think so, but I'm just jealous.

Interesting all this talk about the work ethic, how much we should work etc. There's a superb book about just this subject written by a guy called Peter Kropotkin (one of the world's forgotten heroes). Can't remember the details but from what I remember the gist of it was that if we were to cut out all the capitalist 'non-work' from society and organise ourselves in a more collaborative and collectivist manor then we could all work about half the time without massively impacting our material way of life.

It's here if anyone wants to read it (you should): [url= https://libcom.org/library/the-conquest-of-bread-peter-kropotkin ]The Conquest of Bread - Peter Kropotkin[/url]

Interesting all this talk about the work ethic, how much we should work etc. There's a superb book about just this subject written by a guy called Peter Kropotkin (one of the world's forgotten heroes). Can't remember the details but from what I remember the gist of it was that if we were to cut out all the capitalist 'non-work' from society and organise ourselves in a more collaborative and collectivist manor then we could all work about half the time without massively impacting our material way of life.

I heard this expressed once as:

"We work long hours to get the money together to buy things which we think will make us happy to make up for the fact that working long hours is making us unhappy"

Which I can see. But on the other hand, every society which experiences subsistence farming (where all your work goes directly into providing the basics of survival) seems to want to escape that existence as soon as they can e.g. Western World in previous centuries, China over the last 20 years...

Actually, I know a few people who through [b]talent[/b], [b]hard work[/b] and quite a bit of luck are in the situation where they don't need to work a full week in order to maintain a (to them) acceptable material lifestyle.

Yep sounds goo to me.

all work about half the time without massively impacting our material way of life.

Yep your probably right but there would also be consequences, many of these unforseen...would we be the same technologically advanced society that we are today without driven people to be leaders for whom their job is their life. I think not.

We need society but also individualism. Not all people are the same, want the same or deserve the same.

would we be the same technologically advanced society that we are today without driven people to be leaders for whom their job is their life. I think not.

That's a huge assumption. I think it's a myth that technological/scientific advancement and capitalism go hand in hand. Just about every scientist, researcher, inventor, engineer etc I've ever met do it because they have a love for their work, and not for the money. Yes they expect to earn a comfortable living, but they could all make much more doing other less useful things. Yes capitalism often accelerates some technological advances, but it also hinders others. Climate change and green energy is a perfect example.

We need society but also individualism. Not all people are the same, want the same or deserve the same.

You should read that book I posted a link to. It addresses this point directly. It could be possible to have both.

It's interesting that, as I see it at least, "discussions" like the ones above are the very things that are making people lose faith in modern politics and perhaps pushing people to be more self-sufficient.

Politicians need to stop pushing ideals, stop gearing policy to older voters and engage the younger populous. They also need to stop referencing figures from the past that have little or no relevance to modern voters. Give people opportunity and choice, let them be successful through there own work and not be stifled by a system. Let them not be constantly told they can't achieve because they can achieve, though some will choose not to, accept that to be the case.

Could you just run through how the problem of the banks being 'too big to fail' has been addresse,d to prevent it happening again? Its just that I was under the impression that the banks took all our money, and are now lending it all out again as suicidally overstretched mortgages, and inflating another massive housing bubble in the South East.

So they're recreating perfectly, exactly the conditions that caused the last crash, and we as taxpayers are still acting as guarantors. In fact, more so, as its our money thats been directly pump priming the bubble with Help to Buy, Funding for Lending, and round after round of QA

Still... capitalist cheerleader, and sage that you are,myou'll be about to explain to me why I'm wrong, and this isn't the case at all.

Can you explain to me where bailing out failing banks fit into the capitalist or free market ethos?

Lets make the evil free market and capitalist cheerleaders position perfectly clear:

*the banks should have been allowed to fail, and everyone who invested in them should have lost their money because they lent to people who could not pay it back*

simples

Now, why did the government that you voted for not let that happen? Is it because the government were in the pockets of a small number of very rich people, or is it because the government was afraid of the ramifications for themselves of millions of voters losing their savings on their watch?

A capitalist society requires workers within it/ society who do the shitty jobs for limited rewards [ generate the wealth] whilst the rich [ owners of the capital] enjoy in the fruits of their labour. In this system what I would want is for them to think that a work ethic was noble , something to aim for , aspire to and be admired.

I think Doug Stanhope sums it up quite nicely....

ninfan decent points and you are one of the few capitalists who would accept the consequences of capitalism.
I dont disagree and, like you, I would have sat back and watched them burn, but, for very different reasons 😉

You are a man of principles ...just not good one 😛

Weird definitions here.

There are factors of production eg land, labour, capital, entrepreneurship etc from which we earn factor incomes such as rent, dividends, wages etc. They all fit together in the circular flow of income within an economy and via Exports and Imports outside the domestic economy. There is not pre-determined formula that states that certain factor incomes will exceed others, that depends on lots of other issues eg, the scarcity of that particular factor.

In the case of banks that are often (incorrectly IMO) perceived as being core to/defined synonymously with a capitalist model, the factor returns are skewed very heavily towards the suppliers of labour ie, the staff. The providers of capital get measly returns in contrast.

So which is it? Do we define banks as being synonymous with capitalism or something different? And if we do the former, can we therefore reject the idea that capitalism (as defined here) is synonymous with workers being shafted while owners of capital get rewarded? We cannot do both.

Politicians have no idea of how to engage with Gen Y - how do you win the support of a generation that will have their aspirations generally unfulfilled thanks to profligate excess consumption of the generations that preceded them? They will pay for our previous follies and we (the older generations) will become increasingly unpopular as a result. The contempt with which they hold us and our elected representatives will be well deserved.

We gorged, they pay......

Cheers Junkyard

prime example this week

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/16/greenpeace-loses-3m-pounds-currency-speculation

Whose fault? who was responsible for this? the banks, or their own greed?

whoah, strange double tap...

So the lesson is then, that gorgers are bad news?

Indeed the are. The crisis was not caused by the banks (at least not in isolation). It was caused by massive accumulation of debt by governments, companies, banks and individuals. By definition, debt allows you to bring consumption forward while delaying payment until a further date. And boy, didn't we all love that formula. Now, the balance has to be struck, or should I say re-balancing. The payment has to be bought forward and consumption delayed.

Of course, not even those capitalist (yea, right ) Tories are prepared to do or even admit this. Why would they? Going cold turkey is not a pleasant experience however necessary it may be in the long run.

Generation Cold Turkey - there's a new one!

heh heh.. we agree on something then *chuckles*

Yep sounds goo to me.

You missed the bit about needing good luck.

Its a myth that you can achieve anything you want through just throuhg hard work. And its this myth that is sold to generation right wing every since they were in nursery school.

Now, the balance has to be struck, or should I say re-balancing. The payment has to be bought forward and consumption delayed.

Now I'm no economist, but even I know that debt never gets truly repaid, they just print more money and inflate it away. A cynic might say that the current austerity drive is simply the capitalists/tories using the current situation to further enrich themselves and consolidate their power by using silly metaphors like 'national credit cards' to fool the public into thinking its for their own good.

Its a myth that you can achieve anything you want through just throuhg hard work. And its this myth that is sold to generation right wing every since they were in nursery school.

But whats the alternative to tell our children?

Que Sera Sera kids, don't bother trying, don't strive for knowledge because you're probably doomed to a life of drudgery in a dead end boring job shuffling paper like the rest of us, don't work hard because its not worth it, in fact fukit, you might as well go and kill yourself now rather than just adding to the burden!

How beneficial would that be for (the abstract concept we call) our society? Without the strive for a better life we'd still be living in a cave, smashing bones with rocks and cowering at the angry thunder gods!

I suppose we should tell the kids that santa doesn't exist either, he's just a capitalist trick to make your parents buy you consumerist goods in lieu of spending time with you. That would do them a load of good, wouldn't it? I suppose Christmases in your house must be a bundle of fun!

Yes, you are right, we don't really pay it back. We either run away (default - yes even us) or we steal it back. At the moment the perceived wisdom is that it is better to steal it. The technical term/smokescreen is financial repression but don't let that fool you. It is theft. The powers that be will artificially hold IR lower than inflation/GDP to erode the debt. Those of us who are savers will not be rewarded for the risk that we take - and we live in a capitalist free market? Now of course, this could go horribly wrong and the inflation monster will return. The result is the same. We will have lost the value of our money. Either way the state will have stolen it directly or indirectly.

In this so-called free market economy of ours we have the state machine deliberately mispricing risk in order to make people do things that they would not otherwise do with the prospect of returns that are well below those that they should be achieving. And politicians expect to be popular in the process!?!. Good luck to them. Lousy bloody job, sorting this mess out.

Without the strive for a better life we'd still be living in a cave, smashing bones with rocks and cowering at the angry thunder gods!

Don't think anyone's arguing that we shouldn't strive for a better life, just that it's a conscious decision on the party of 'society' as to whether we strive for a better life for everyone, or just a few. 'Striving for a better life' is not synonymous with 'capitalism'.

Whose fault? who was responsible for this? the banks, or their own greed?

The crisis was not caused by the banks (at least not in isolation). It was caused by massive accumulation of debt by governments, companies, banks and individuals

True but you cannot blame folk [ well you can but they are the least to blame IMHO] for taking money when offered it- NINJA loans for income. The banks were the professionals they should have behaved professionally. If someone offer people things they cannot afford many folk are too daft to realise this. i was offered a 5 x salary mortgage and 3 x an obviously pregnant wifes salary [ so the salary would clearly stop/reduce] for example. i took less than 50% of what I could get!!!!

Either way the state will have stolen it directly or indirectly

Perhaps what we should learn that we all get shafted with capitalism ?

Seems to me it's not the ideologies which shaft people, but governments. Whether you're talking capitalism, socialism, communism or whatever the one common trait is that you have a small number of people and institutions who hold disproportionate power over the rest of the population. Yet the failings in society are rarely apportioned to the state, and instead are laid at the door of the system it is trying to implement. It's the main reason I've always been attracted to anarchism, despite the obvious difficulties with it.

Perhaps what we should learn that we all get shafted with capitalism

I think I'd argue that we don't 'all' get shafted

You gave a perfect example above of taking personal responsibility for your own risk mitigation - [u]this[/u] is the thing that meant you didn't get shafted

You could have borrowed more but you didn't, if you had borrowed all that money and interest rates changed, so you were stuck in negative equity and unable to repay the mortgage then I (and I'm sure you) would hae no problem with the idea that you *should* lose your house, at the same time the bank (and subsequently the people who invested in it) *should* lose their money too.

But who's going to vote for the political party that says ' tough shit, its your fault', when theres an alternative political concept out there that says 'its all the banks fault, not yours, and the rest of the taxpayers can dig you out of your the hole you dug for yourself if you vote for us'

Perhaps the biggest weakness of democracy is its over reliance on populism?

you have a small number of people and institutions who hold disproportionate power over the rest of the population

Perhaps the biggest weakness of democracy is its over reliance on populism?

Depends what you mean by populism? If you mean tabloid inspired ignorant bandwagon jumping, then yes I'd agree. Or you could have a well informed and educated population fully engaged in politics at a local and grassroots level, which would be a very good thing.

Seems to me it's not the ideologies which shaft people, but governments.

But they don't do they, not necessarily anyway.

Governments help to educate people, administer justice for them, provide them with health care, build roads for them, look after them in old age, regulate the food they eat and how it's prepared, secure energy supplies for them, protect them from crime, invest in sports facilities for them, the list is endless.

Governments take care and help people, they make a society civilized. In countries where there is no functioning government and where they have reverted to the law of the jungle the people are truly shafted.

We are right to demand much of our governments and right to criticize when they fail.

Governments take care and help people, they make a society civilized. In countries where there is no functioning government and where they have reverted to the law of the jungle the people are truly shafted.

Some very bold claims there. I think if you looked across the world throughout history you'd almost certainly find that the governments which 'took care and helped people' were in a tiny minority. Same goes for making society 'civilised', which is again debatable when you consider that in only the last 100 years governments have been responsible for wars which have killed and maimed billions of people.

And there are plenty of examples of people living perfectly harmonious lives with no functioning central government.

So, summary of ^^:

The economy is utterly screwed
The 'recovery' is a myth
The causes of the crisis have not been dealt with
The ordinary man will be picking up the pieces for the rest of their lives and government are just looking after themselves

I suspect, at least, this is the conclusion the populace at large have come to...

Personally I do worry that Gideon pulled the housing market trick. It suggests a significant lack of confidence in the strength of the underlying economy. If the recovery is really there, why did he need to use the illusion of higher house prices to boost consumer confidence?

Nope ernie is correct

governments are the response to the lawlessness that develops without rules where force wins the day- the antidote to the Wild West

Where you find weak govt - Sudan/Somalia for example you dont find brotherly love and harmonious relations.

there are no examples of large numbers of people [ millions as in a countries] living harmonious lives without governments, courts, police etc.

yes they sometimes do bad stuff but the alternative always does bad stuff as it is the case of might is right.

Some very bold claims there.

I would rather describe it as self-evident claims ..... all the examples I give are functions carried out on a day to day basis by governments throughout the world, there's nothing particularly bold about saying that.

And while there are of course examples of people living perfectly harmonious lives with no functioning central government, there are no example of countries operating as such.

I accept what ernie and junkyard are saying, but then what are the various anarchist intellectuals throughout history basing their ideologies on?

They must have thought it through

....but then what are the various anarchist intellectuals throughout history basing their ideologies on?

On exactly the same thing as me - an aspiration. They are not basing it on an analysis of historical or existing conditions, well apart from analyzing what they don't want.

I too aspire that human society will develop and evolve into autonomous societies without states or state structures. And I think it probably will.

You're confusing no government with no commonly accepted limits of behaviour. Even in places like Sudan/Somalia, the majority of people are peaceable. It's only a minority which opts for violence. People don't suddenly become killers if the government ceases to exist.

As for example, some quick googling reveals....

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory ]Free Territory of Ukraine[/url]

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Korea ]Autonomous Shinmin Region Korea[/url]

and perhaps the best example.....

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia ]Revolutionary Catalonia[/url]

Admittedly these were all short-lived but it could be argued that their disappearance was more to do with outside forces than an inherent failure of the system itself.

I would rather describe it as self-evident claims ..... all the examples I give are functions carried out on a day to day basis by governments throughout the world, there's nothing particularly bold about saying that.

Yes these are things that governments do, but it's not exclusively the domain of governments to provide these things. If you read further about the example above, you'll see that society didn't suddenly collapse on the removal of centralised government. Quite the opposite in fact.

Even in places like Sudan/Somalia, the majority of people are peaceable. It's only a minority which opts for violence.

I'm not sure why you think it's all down to just violence, although Somalia is quite a violent place.

I said that governments educate people, administer justice for them, provide them with health care, build roads for them, look after them in old age, regulate the food they eat and how it's prepared, secure energy supplies for them, protect them from crime, and invest in sports facilities for them, I didn't mention violence.

Do the people of Somalia, or any other areas with no functioning government, enjoy all those benefits which I've listed ?

"but then what are the various anarchist intellectuals throughout history basing their ideologies on?"

Getting some one else to wipe their collective bottoms.

Good debate ladies and gents. Thanks.

I said that governments educate people, administer justice for them, provide them with health care, build roads for them, look after them in old age, regulate the food they eat and how it's prepared, secure energy supplies for them, protect them from crime, and invest in sports facilities for them,

I put it to you that in its time the church has fulfilled all of those roles in (the abstract concept that we call) society too, it doesn't make it a universal force for good though, does it?

I didn't mention violence.

Yeah I know that's why I was replying to JY 😉

To repeat the above point though, all the things you list are not the exclusive preserve of centralised government. Are you really trying to use the failed and chaotic state of Somalia as the prime example of how centralised government is the only answer to all our problems?

Daz i would support what you want but the reality is a lack of government does nor lead to brotherly love....have you read Lord of the Flies 😉

Of course most folk are decent but we need protection form the least decent for they are the ones who will come for us.

Lack of regulation and /or the lack of an ability to enforce it, be it in the amazon rain forest or internet behaviour, rarely leads to the pinnacle of humanity.

Yeah I know that's why I was replying to JY

Fair point.

And I thought it was you not me that brought Somalia into the argument.

But anyway we've got two different points of view and I need to go to the timber merchants, so I'll let you slog it out with JY. Good luck to the pair of you and please fight clean.

Of course most folk are decent but we need protection form the least decent for they are the ones who will come for us.

Well funnily enough I agree here. This is one of the areas where I have most trouble with anarchism, the idea of local vigilante justice to deal with those who wish to cause harm to others. Growing up on a council estate I've seen vigilante justice in action and it's not particularly palatable.

There are many problems with anarchism, but the idea of organising society from the bottom up where people are directly involved in politics at a grassroots level seems more attractive than the current shambles where we have an ill-informed and ignorant electorate, voting for largely unknown 'representatives' who routinely fail to deliver on their promises with little or no accountability or transparency.

"ill-informed and ignorant electorate" only one of those applies to me.

dazh, being as you is from a council estate have you got an England flag on your car?

dazh, being as you is from a council estate have you got an England flag on your car?

What do you think? 😆

where you get it from? 😀

but the idea of organising society from the bottom up where people are directly involved in politics at a grassroots level seems more attractive than the current shambles where we have an ill-informed and ignorant electorate

That is exactly what anarchism is - an autonomous society where people govern themselves instead of being governed by others.

Normal people can't be arsed. They just want to get on with lives.

It's only the people who you really wouldn't want in charge of anything that get involved in politics.

Normal people can't be arsed. They just want to get on with lives.

I'd disagree on that. Normal people can't be arsed engaging with a system which gives them no power, which dismisses their concerns and promises them the earth every 5 years only to then renege on the promises. Add to that the blatant corruption and fiddling of those who claim to be representatives and it's not surprising people can't be arsed.

However, if you give people direct influence over interests they're concerned about, whether that's pot-holes in the road, dangerous driving, a new development being built near their house, local kids causing a nuisance etc, I'm pretty sure they would exercise that power. They'd be stupid not to. The difference with an anarchist approach is that everyone would be directly engaged with decisions and policies at a local level (if they want to be), rather than just relying on a councillor or MP and hoping that they do something about it if they can be bothered.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518

So are labour now out- torying the Tories now on welfare?

Rachel Reeves must have choked on her morning cuppa!

The difference with an anarchist approach is that everyone would be directly engaged with decisions and policies at a local level (if they want to be), rather than just relying on a councillor or MP and hoping that they do something about it if they can be bothered.

Cough <localism> cough.

Yeah, I know it was just a sop to the proles...

So are labour now out- torying the Tories now on welfare?

🙄 You say as if it's something new. Labour have been raking the gutter for Daily Mail votes since the launching of New Labour.

I'd disagree on that. Normal people can't be arsed engaging with a system which gives them no power, which dismisses their concerns and promises them the earth every 5 years only to then renege on the promises. Add to that the blatant corruption and fiddling of those who claim to be representatives and it's not surprising people can't be arsed.

However, if you give people direct influence over interests they're concerned about, whether that's pot-holes in the road, dangerous driving, a new development being built near their house, local kids causing a nuisance etc, I'm pretty sure they would exercise that power. They'd be stupid not to. The difference with an anarchist approach is that everyone would be directly engaged with decisions and policies at a local level (if they want to be), rather than just relying on a councillor or MP and hoping that they do something about it if they can be bothered.

If you want to know what people power and small government looks like go to the Phillipines.

You'll love it. The shanty towns, people with guns everywhere, corrupt local mayors/drug lords with too much power, jeeps turned into buses, makeshift roads, makeshift everything, homeless children running out in front of cars, fly tipping.

If you want to know what people power and small government looks like go to the Phillipines....

If you think that's what I'm talking about then you haven't understood (or are choosing not to). Don't think I ever said you could simply switch systems. It would take years (probably decades) of careful planning, progression and evolution. It's pretty obvious that if you simply remove centralised government without replacing it with something else then the more nefarious types in society would use it as an opportunity to help themselves.