# Suffragettes



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

A really good programme on BBC2 right now about what women went through - worth watching if you're a woman and don't feel a need to vote. I will always vote, my husband's great great auntie was a suffragette and was force fed under the most awful circumstances. 

I'm appalled that women were sold at cattlemarkets in wife sales as the woman was the property of the husband, so men saw no reason to sell her like a piece of meat


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Well there's a plan in Russia to ban childbearing age women from smoking, just incase they are pregnant 

Russian parliament may ban all women under 40 from smoking to protect Russia's genes | World | News | Daily Express

Course. I don't know if that's just press spin


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

While I understand the struggle and always vote I will admit to sometimes finding it a difficult choice..

Instead of spoiling a ballot paper I would like to see a 'none of the above' or a 'no confidence' box for those who wish to vote but express no confidence in the candidates .


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

dorrit said:


> While I understand the struggle and always vote I will admit to sometimes finding it a difficult choice..
> 
> Instead of spoiling a ballot paper I would like to see a 'none of the above' or a 'no confidence' box for those who wish to vote but express no confidence in the candidates .


^^^this^^^

My thoughts exactly.


----------



## redroses2106 (Aug 21, 2011)

I haven't ever voted so far - doesn't mean I don't understand what others went through to try get women the vote, but also being forced to vote would defeat the purpose of equal rights - also I have to say I feel the acts of some of the suffragettes where probably not as helpful as we think they were from what I remember quite violent and destructive at times, I'm glad they got what they wanted in the end but don't fully agree with their methods, but I certainly feel no guilt over not voting just because I am a woman.


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

> Any girl who wants to chain herself to my railings and suffer a jet movement gets my vote!


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

dorrit said:


> While I understand the struggle and always vote I will admit to sometimes finding it a difficult choice..
> 
> Instead of spoiling a ballot paper I would like to see a 'none of the above' or a 'no confidence' box for those who wish to vote but express no confidence in the candidates .


Finding it a difficult choice is exactly why you should vote - only a numbskull would find it easy! 😉


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

myshkin said:


> Finding it a difficult choice is exactly why you should vote - only a numbskull would find it easy! &#55357;&#56841;


When I said difficult I didnt mean its because Im too stupid to understand the issues .. Its more the fact that I understand that no single MP can deliver what he/she promises because they have to toe the party line.. They can make suggestions and put forward ideas but there is no way they can 100% deliver what they promise.
I also understand that issues decided within a country also have reprecussions on an international scale.

Similarly each party has pros and cons , and understanding the fact that voting for a particular party will only help fulfill part of your wish list for the country's future is a tricky balancing act.

Looking around its easy to see how many people didnt consider that!rrr:


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

negative creep said:


>


OK. I admit this is always the first thing I think of when I hear the word.

WOOF

As a woman and a feminist I am ashamed, but god-damnit I love Flash-heart.

As an aside, I have the right of choice; and dislike being told what I ought to do because of the fight for equal rights. I do vote, but I choose to vote for my own reasons (to cancel out my equivalent skin head nutjob).


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

dorrit said:


> While I understand the struggle and always vote I will admit to sometimes finding it a difficult choice..
> 
> Instead of spoiling a ballot paper I would like to see a 'none of the above' or a 'no confidence' box for those who wish to vote but express no confidence in the candidates .


Same here.

I haven't voted for ages now & don't feel guilty about it, it's my choice. I don't believe any of the parties & have no confidence in any politician tbh.

I think alot of people feel the same, I don't think it's just apathy.

People always seem to be very judgemental when I tell them I don't vote yet they rarely seem to have a full understanding of who they are voting for.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

dorrit said:


> While I understand the struggle and always vote I will admit to sometimes finding it a difficult choice..
> 
> Instead of spoiling a ballot paper I would like to see a 'none of the above' or a 'no confidence' box for those who wish to vote but express no confidence in the candidates .


Agree - especially this election.

Though I do go through each party manifesto, I do want to know what I'm voting for. In the last election I was working with several women who had no idea what they were voting for apparently - all voted Tory and then objected about a possible hunting repeal...uhmmmm!


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

dorrit said:


> When I said difficult I didnt mean its because Im too stupid to understand the issues .. Its more the fact that I understand that no single MP can deliver what he/she promises because they have to toe the party line.. They can make suggestions and put forward ideas but there is no way they can 100% deliver what they promise.
> I also understand that issues decided within a country also have reprecussions on an international scale.
> 
> Similarly each party has pros and cons , and understanding the fact that voting for a particular party will only help fulfill part of your wish list for the country's future is a tricky balancing act.
> ...


Oh lord, I worded that badly!
What I was trying to get across is that if you find it difficult, it means you have a greater understanding of the issues - so people like you should be voting (in my view).
It was meant to be more complimentary than it sounded....I'll get me coat!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

redroses2106 said:


> I haven't ever voted so far - doesn't mean I don't understand what others went through to try get women the vote, but also being forced to vote would defeat the purpose of equal rights - also I have to say I feel the acts of some of the suffragettes where probably not as helpful as we think they were from what I remember quite violent and destructive at times, I'm glad they got what they wanted in the end but don't fully agree with their methods, but I certainly feel no guilt over not voting just because I am a woman.


*Like you i have never voted, and i don't feel guilty either. I was tempted to vote LIB. in the last election because i thought NC sounded genuine. lol
I'm glad i didn't follow through. Come this years election i am very tempted to vote GREEN.*


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Like you i have never voted, and i don't feel guilty either. I was tempted to vote LIB. in the last election because i thought NC sounded genuine. lol
> I'm glad i didn't follow through. Come this years election i am very tempted to vote GREEN.*


Same here. Nick Clegg gave some great speeches .... I almost believed him!!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Like you i have never voted, and i don't feel guilty either. I was tempted to vote LIB. in the last election because i thought NC sounded genuine. lol
> I'm glad i didn't follow through. Come this years election i am very tempted to vote GREEN.*





Cleo38 said:


> Same here. Nick Clegg gave some great speeches .... I almost believed him!!


Same here! I was on the verge of voting for these clowns as well:yikes: It was only by chance I read an ex members post on another forum who warned the libdems supported the badger cull. So that immediately changed my mind.,

I'm much more careful these days - I do my own research, read manifesto's and everything lol

.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

The monster raving looney party are promoting themselves here as the party to vote for if you want to 'waste' the vote in a really rather good tactical move. I may do that.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Like you i have never voted, and i don't feel guilty either. I was tempted to vote LIB. in the last election because i thought NC sounded genuine. lol
> I'm glad i didn't follow through. Come this years election i am very tempted to vote GREEN.*


Have you seen the website called i'll vote green if you do?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I am very grateful for the sacrifices they went through but it also meant we had the right not to vote should we choose. The days of forced block votes are thankfully over. Not that many of the options here are good anyway no matter how many have suddenly gone "moderate" 

I considered the green party but if it was based on environmentalism I would agree. But they're veering too far into communism for me.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

I always vote. It's a privilege; many countries don't give you the option, especially if you have a vagina (and thus your opinion is not valid).


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

The suffragettes gave us the choice to vote or not. Had they not done this, maybe we would still be being sold as our husband's property.

My little old granny was about 30 before women were given the vote and she saw it as a point of honour and no matter what she went and cast her vote til she was 91. She was staunch labour all her life...she remembered a time when her voice counted for nothing


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I shall look forward to seeing absolutely no complaints from the non-voters about the next government


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> I shall look forward to seeing absolutely no complaints from the non-voters about the next government


Someone I used to work with was a passionate non-voter. Whenever she bitched about the government, I used to remind her that she had exercised her right not to vote and therefore had chosen not to have a say.

TBF she did always shut up when I pointed this out.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

I will vote and always have but it is really hard to drag myself in to the booth these days. But seeing as the only way I will agree 100% with a candidate is if I stand myself, I guess I will have to make do with the best of the options rathen than my ideal candidate. 

Doesn't mean it is the only way I am engaged politically. It just means that I think the person who gets elected will have real power in a small area of focus and therefore I will have my say.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> The suffragettes gave us the choice to vote or not. Had they not done this, maybe we would still be being sold as our husband's property.
> 
> My little old granny was about 30 before women were given the vote and she saw it as a point of honour and no matter what she went and cast her vote til she was 91. She was staunch labour all her life...she remembered a time when her voice counted for nothing


Likewise for my granny. I think it's a bit like measles - because people have no memory of how bad it could be, they perhaps don't have any fear of the consequences of inaction.
It worries me somewhat that I'm developing Granny's habit of having huge stocks of flour in reserve though....no danger of rationing, surely, yet?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

MollySmith said:


> I shall look forward to seeing absolutely no complaints from the non-voters about the next government


*
Oh i see it totally different. If i don't vote i have every right to complain. *


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

But as parties change certain policies or back track when they are in power, you can still end up complaining about the government you actually voted in


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> Oh i see it totally different. If i don't vote i have every right to complain. *


Why? Genuinely interested.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> I shall look forward to seeing absolutely no complaints from the non-voters about the next government


why on earth would that be? If you vote you are basically saying "i consent to being governed, and accept the decisions the government will make for me". If you dont vote you are not expressly giving your consent to be governed. If anyone has no right to complain its the people who DO vote.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

MollySmith said:


> Why? Genuinely interested.


*Because if i had no part in voting somebody in, i feel i have every right to complain. If i voted labour in but the tories got in, i would complain, same thimg in my opinion.*


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

GoldenShadow said:


> Have you seen the website called i'll vote green if you do?


Interesting thanks 
It has a fair bit of interest for the ward I vote in.
But not enough yet.....
(and if there was a website out there where people admitted they were voting for UKIP, the numbers would probably be a lot higher )

What makes me wonder though, is if these people who say they will vote Green will actually do so on the day....?

Good idea nevertheless


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

porps said:


> why on earth would that be? If you vote you are basically saying "i consent to being governed, and accept the decisions the government will make for me". If you dont vote you are not expressly giving your consent to be governed. If anyone has no right to complain its the people who DO vote.


Is choosing to live in the governed country not giving your consent to be governed?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Shoshannah said:


> Is choosing to live in the governed country not giving your consent to be governed?


Yes exactly! I simply don't get the logic, I really am a bit confused!


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

It's a bit like saying that you vote not to put the heating on and complain it's cold.



JANICE199 said:


> *Because if i had no part in voting somebody in, i feel i have every right to complain. If i voted labour in but the tories got in, i would complain, same thimg in my opinion.*


But how can you then play a part in democracy on any level - even locally- and how far do you extend that attitude too?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

MollySmith said:


> It's a bit like saying that you vote not to put the heating on and complain it's cold.
> 
> But how can you then play a part in democracy on any level - even locally- and how far do you extend that attitude too?


*Quite easily. Is it not my democratic right to choose? And if the answer is yes, then you have the answer.
Let's not forget, some men don't vote either, and aren't us women supposed to be equal to men?
I rest my case.*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> Is choosing to live in the governed country not giving your consent to be governed?


Being born into a governed country isn't giving your consent to be governed


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

rona said:


> Being born into a governed country isn't giving your consent to be governed


Well an awful lot of people seem to say they're not happy to be governed but do naff all about it (except moan).


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> Well an awful lot of people seem to say they're not happy to be governed but do naff all about it (except moan).


What do you suggest as action that could be taken?


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

MollySmith said:


> The monster raving looney party are promoting themselves here as the party to vote for if you want to 'waste' the vote in a really rather good tactical move. I may do that.


The worry is what if enough people make this tactical move and the monster raving looney party end up winning the election?

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that lots of people voted UKIP as a 'wasted' vote and they won for the area.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Animallover26 said:


> The worry is what if enough people make this tactical move and the monster raving looney party end up winning the election?
> 
> I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that lots of people voted UKIP as a 'wasted' vote and they won for the area.


Oh I dunno - can the Monster Raving Looney party be any worse than the monstrous raving loonies in charge now?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

rona said:


> What do you suggest as action that could be taken?


My suggestion has always been the same.

If EVERYONE eligible voted - even if it's just to spoil the paper and write 'no confidence' over it - it might get them all to sit up and take notice. Of course, we all know that spoiled papers are not included in the vote. But they are counted.

If everyone who has no confidence in any of the options was counted as a spoiled vote, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the total number across the country came close to the number that DO vote - if not exceeded it.

The press (love them or hate them) would love that. And it would certainly send a strong message to Whitehall.

Let me turn the question around now. What are those who choose not to vote doing to try and make a difference instead? The onus to make suggestions for change should not just be on those who advocate the vote.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

I am definitely voting for The Monster Raving Loony Party, because we like minded people need to stick together.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Quite easily. Is it not my democratic right to choose? And if the answer is yes, then you have the answer.
> Let's not forget, some men don't vote either, and aren't us women supposed to be equal to men?
> I rest my case.*


Hmmmm I'm with Shosannah on this. Yes you have a democratic right but the right to vote is to make a contribution to change though to be able to say 'no confidence' should be a valid reason. Apathy is not.

At the moment I'm pinning my hopes on a party to make animal welfare better. Even if I don't do it for humans, I might make a difference for them. You began the hunting act thread barely a fortnight ago saying that you hoped it was a step in the right direction by Labour, yet not voting might let the Tories in who have indicated that they would bring back hunting.

We beg to differ. I'm confused


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> Is choosing to live in the governed country not giving your consent to be governed?


i didn't choose to be born, nor did i choose where to be born


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> Hmmmm I'm with Shosannah on this. Yes you have a democratic right but the right to vote is to make a contribution to change though to be able to say 'no confidence' should be a valid reason. Apathy is not.
> 
> At the moment I'm pinning my hopes on a party to make animal welfare better. Even if I don't do it for humans, I might make a difference for them. You began the hunting act thread barely a fortnight ago saying that you hoped it was a step in the right direction by Labour, yet not voting might let the Tories in who have indicated that they would bring back hunting.
> 
> We beg to differ. I'm confused


choosing not to vote is not apathy. many people who choose not to vote care a great deal but have noone to vote for. i see no evidence to support the idea that spoiling ballots is any more effective than not voting when it comes to affecting change. both are ineffective, as is voting. democracy doesnt work.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

porps said:


> choosing not to vote is not apathy. many people who choose not to vote care a great deal but have noone to vote for. i see no evidence to support the idea that spoiling ballots is any more effective than not voting when it comes to affecting change. both are ineffective, as is voting. democracy doesnt work.


What do you suggest then?


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

I guess it depends what change you want to see. The idea of democracy is that the majority prevails so there will always be people who are not represented. 

You can keep anarchy though. For weak people to have a half-way liveable life, all the strong people have to behave in a reasonable way. Not seen anything recently to suggest that will happen.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Jonescat said:


> I guess it depends what change you want to see. The idea of democracy is that the majority prevails so there will always be people who are not represented.


thats the IDEA yeah. its not what actually happens tho is it. democracy withoiut choice is not democracy.. so maybe i was too hasty.. maybe democracy would work.. maybe we should give that a try.. but what we have atm is not democracy. because we have no actual choice. and sadly millions of people are content with this so they turn out and add their little x which means "i consent to being enslaved"

it isnt the non-voter who is apathetic, far from it. it's the voter.



Jonescat said:


> You can keep anarchy though. For weak people to have a half-way liveable life, all the strong people have to behave in a reasonable way. Not seen anything recently to suggest that will happen.


in a system built upon coercion and force and threats, such as our current system, then yes, of course coercion and force becomes a dominant factor. anarchy is about cooperation, not coercion.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

porps said:


> thats the IDEA yeah. its not what actually happens tho is it. democracy withoiut choice is not democracy.. so maybe i was too hasty.. maybe democracy would work.. maybe we should give that a try.. but what we have atm is not democracy. because we have no actual choice. and sadly millions of people are content with this so they turn out and add their little x which means "i consent to being enslaved"
> 
> *it isnt the non-voter who is apathetic, far from it. it's the voter.*




How do you work that one out?

I just do not understand the logic behind abstaining, I understand the reasons as to why turn out is often so low, but it stands to reason that if you don't say anything, no one is going to listen.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

bearcub said:


> [/B]
> 
> How do you work that one out?
> 
> I just do not understand the logic behind abstaining, I understand the reasons as to why turn out is often so low, but it stands to reason that if you don't say anything, no one is going to listen.


have i not already explained?

Your vote is akin to saying "i am happy for things to remain the same, for the same people to remain in charge (doesnt matter if u vote red tory or blue tory or yellow tory, they're all the same). Please make my decisions for me. i am content to be governed in a system of coercion and force.i do not seek change, and here is my vote to prove it. let us keep on keeping on"

You're saying "i trust in this system and with this vote i support it. if the eventual winner decides to wage unjust wars then this X signifies my consent. This X signifies that i wish to be governed and dictated to and threatened by whoever wins this ridiculous facade of choice"


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

porps said:


> have i not already explained?
> 
> Your vote is akin to saying "i am happy for things to remain the same, for the same people to remain in charge (doesnt matter if u vote red tory or blue tory or yellow tory, they're all the same). Please make my decisions for me. i am content to be governed in a system of coercion and force.i do not seek change, and here is my vote to prove it. let us keep on keeping on"


But assuming that a large majority of the non voters from the 2010 general election abstained for political reasons, it's not unreasonable to imagine that the Greens for instance, could have received a far higher percentage had those non voters voted, throwing the spotlight on them and in turn making them a party people start paying attention to.... and voting for. It's kind of happenedwith UKIP which is a shame because they, as you would put it, are just the purple Tories


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> thats the IDEA yeah. its not what actually happens tho is it. democracy withoiut choice is not democracy.. so maybe i was too hasty.. maybe democracy would work.. maybe we should give that a try.. but what we have atm is not democracy. because we have no actual choice. and sadly millions of people are content with this so they turn out and add their little x which means "i consent to being enslaved"
> 
> it isnt the non-voter who is apathetic, far from it. it's the voter.
> 
> in a system built upon coercion and force and threats, such as our current system, then yes, of course coercion and force becomes a dominant factor. anarchy is about cooperation, not coercion.


No.

We live in a Country that has Government, that's a fact.

By voting, you're not saying "I consent to being enslaved". You're not consenting to being governed, that's a given, doesn't matter whether you consent or not.

By voting, what you're saying is "I choose to have a say in who the Government is".


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

but we dont have a say do we. because a choice between an apple and an apple isnt actually choice at all.



bearcub said:


> But assuming that a large majority of the non voters from the 2010 general election abstained for political reasons, it's not unreasonable to imagine that the Greens for instance, could have received a far higher percentage had those non voters voted, throwing the spotlight on them and in turn making them a party people start paying attention to.... and voting for. It's kind of happenedwith UKIP which is a shame because they, as you would put it, are just the purple Tories


so what if the greens would have got more votes? should i care? politicians are politicians are politicians. green blue yellow, purple they are all the same. All puppets, all the same.

the only good government is no government.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

porps said:


> have i not already explained?
> 
> Your vote is akin to saying "i am happy for things to remain the same, for the same people to remain in charge (doesnt matter if u vote red tory or blue tory or yellow tory, they're all the same). Please make my decisions for me. i am content to be governed in a system of coercion and force.i do not seek change, and here is my vote to prove it. let us keep on keeping on"
> 
> You're saying "i trust in this system and with this vote i support it. if the eventual winner decides to wage unjust wars then this X signifies my consent. This X signifies that i wish to be governed and dictated to and threatened by whoever wins this ridiculous facade of choice"


Yes.
I agree that the system we call 'Democracy' works that way.

We are given a 'choice' of candidates to vote for and whoever gets the most votes becomes our 'representative' and thus gets 'our' mandate to support whatever measures they (or their party whip) decides are correct.

It is a flawed system without a doubt.

Over the last few years many people have felt that none of the candidates standing in their political wards would speak on their behalf. And many of those who have voted for someone who they think would do their bidding have been severely disappointed (the Lib-Dems joining the Tories being a case in point).

I didn't vote in the last election because there was no one I could have voted for whose politics I agreed with and who would also have stood a chance of winning. I could have voted Lib-Dem in the hopes of keeping the Tories out (and the Lib-Dem did get in), but couldn't bring myself to do it. Just as well as it turns out...

I will vote this time, as the Labour candidate might just stand a chance (only a small chance but worth a try). But that is despite my feelings that Labour does not represent everything I believe in. It's close enough, however, and the alternative of another 5 years of the Tories doesn't bear thinking about.

The problem is, that even though Democracy is flawed, it would take many, many brave people to stand against it, because the only alternative they would see is martial law .


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Good luck with the no government concept. The Western Sahara, Thailand and Somalia, wonderful examples.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

i've said it before - if there was an option to simply use your vote to vote AGAINST a party rather than for a party, then i think more of the non voters would use their vote.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> i've said it before - if there was an option to simply use your vote to vote AGAINST a party rather than for a party, then i think more of the non voters would use their vote.


Isn't a no vote or a vote for another party a vote against a party?

E. G. If you vote Conservative, it's a vote against Labour, UKIP and the others.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> Good luck with the no government concept. The Western Sahara, Thailand and Somalia, wonderful examples.


you say that, but if you actually bother to do some research rather than pulling your arguments directly from your backside, you will find that in somalia for example, the average lifespan, infant mortality rates, access to healthcare etc etc have all improved since the government fell. While i wouldnt argue that it's suddenly become a desirable place to live, it is certainly better now than it was when it was governed.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Isn't a no vote or a vote for another party a vote against a party?
> 
> E. G. If you vote Conservative, it's a vote against Labour, UKIP and the others.


No it isnt.

or.. do you mean like the way all those liberal voters voted against the tories int he last election? u mean that kind of vote "against"? dont make me laugh.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

porps said:


> you say that, but if you actually bother to do some research rather than pulling your arguments directly from your backside, you will find that in somalia for example, the average lifespan, infant mortality rates, access to healthcare etc etc have all improved since the government fell. While i wouldnt argue that it's suddenly become a desirable place to live, it is certainly better now than it was when it was governed.


Not true of all these states though. As I understand it, the Western Sahrawis hold their own local elections,, and they vote for their own representatives in the Moroccan capital.

And anyway, if you're meant to be getting some poor sod paying all your energy bills through some means or another, are you even on any electoral register anyway?


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

porps said:


> but we dont have a say do we. because a choice between an apple and an apple isnt actually choice at all.
> 
> so what if the greens would have got more votes? should i care? politicians are politicians are politicians. green blue yellow, purple they are all the same. All puppets, all the same.
> 
> the only good government is no government.


They're not all the same.

Ultimately, we are all always going to have an issue with how our country is run and how our governments will be elected. No system will ever be ideal and that includes a 'no government' system too. But we have it so, so much better in the UK than a vast number of other nations that I can't see that there's a better alternative than the current system, personally.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

What might be throwing off your Somalia stats Porps is that it's actually three countries in a very loose confederation. One of which has a working government, currency, fairly stable society etc. I imagine if anything has improved it's there.
Somaliland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there's the other two which are still total wrecks sadly. I can't imagine there's much health care outside of charities etc.

I don't personally think some kind of anarchist utopia is possible, it did exist they think millennia ago but that was without all the modern luxuries and resources to fight for control over. Besides utopias work when everyone wants the same thing. What do you do about people who speak against it? Because most of the time the answer has been oppression or murder.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> And anyway, if you're meant to be getting some poor sod paying all your energy bills through some means or another, are you even on any electoral register anyway?


i dont even know what you mean by the first part of this, and nor do i think the second part is any of your business.



bearcub said:


> They're not all the same.


Yes they are.



bearcub said:


> Ultimately, we are all always going to have an issue with how our country is run and how our governments will be elected. No system will ever be ideal and that includes a 'no government' system too. But we have it so, so much better in the UK than a vast number of other nations that I can't see that there's a better alternative than the current system, personally.


I can.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> i dont even know what you mean by the first part of this, and nor do i think the second part is any of your business.
> 
> Yes they are.
> 
> I can.


Oh, I think I know what the first part means.

It's probably a reference to when you bragged on another thread that you steal electricity and deliberately confuse bus drivers so that you don't pay your fare.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Oh, I think I know what the first part means.
> 
> It's probably a reference to when you bragged on another thread that you steal electricity and deliberately confuse bus drivers so that you don't pay your fare.


brag may be your interpretation of it. i personally dont think that having no other way to survive than to steal is anything to brag about, but whatever, what do i care how YOU decide to read it? it's clear from your many posts on many threads that you actually enjoy this system that feeds the richest from the mouths of the poorest.

it's not something i will ever be able to embrace. and i'll gladly take from people who think its a good thing.. people like you.

PS - i dont recall ever saying i steal electric though i do recall admitting to taking free public transport as my only means of getting anywhere. screenshot (quote) or it didnt happen.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

porps said:


> i dont even know what you mean by the first part of this, and nor do i think the second part is any of your business.
> 
> Yes they are.
> 
> I can.


Ok, well I suppose it's what is ultimately important in an individual's life as to whether there would be a better alternative. But to me, the fact that my OH and I have had the opportunity to build a successful business from the ground up with very little money and him with no GCSEs, have a warm and fairly safe place to live, food on our table and no worries about paying for life saving operations means that living in this country, on the whole, works for me and I'm grateful to be a member of our society. I know it's not the same for all but there are many places where none of the above would be possible. And there's no society or country where the above would be handed to you on a plate.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> brag may be your interpretation of it. i personally dont think that having no other way to survive than to steal is anything to brag about, but whatever, what do i care how YOU decide to read it? it's clear from your many posts on many threads that you actually enjoy this system that feeds the richest from the mouths of the poorest.
> 
> it's not something i will ever be able to embrace.


And thieving is not something I will ever be able to embrace.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> brag may be your interpretation of it. i personally dont think that having no other way to survive than to steal is anything to brag about, but whatever, what do i care how YOU decide to read it? it's clear from your many posts on many threads that you actually enjoy this system that feeds the richest from the mouths of the poorest.
> 
> it's not something i will ever be able to embrace.


No you choose to fantasise about being some awesome revolutionary and will use that to justify theft. I assume any society with you at the head would involve people just taking what they needed because I need it honest :aureola:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Thank god some of you don't have to Walk a Mile in Their Shoes.

Have you not noticed more and more homeless helpless people around your areas? 

There's certainly more around this affluent area 

How would you survive?


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2015)

Okay, I don't know how well I'm understanding all the conversations going on, but I'm feeling masochistic enough to jump in the fray 

I think there is an argument to be made that you don't need taxes to support infrastructure. For example, in central america, much of the infrastructure was originally build by big businesses that needed the roads and the power to support their operations. Granted, they also destroyed much of the land and the animal habitat in the process, never mind raping the people, influencing government etc. Not the most ideal way to provide infrastructure without taxation, but it does show that it is possible.

The idea being, we have to think outside the box as far as solving the current issues. Who was it, Einstein? Who said "we cannot solve problems with the same thinking that created them." I agree with that, and we have to stop being afraid of crazy ideas, uncomfortable ideas, and see what we can glean from them.

By the same token though, just because a system is broken, doesn't mean there aren't pieces of it that aren't worth fixing up and saving. 

I for one don't want to live where there is no care provided somehow to those who need it, the elderly, the infirm, the young, the disabled... Primates care for each other, there is no reason why we can't incorporate that in to our culture/society in some way.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

rona said:


> Thank god some of you don't have to Walk a Mile in Their Shoes.
> 
> Have you not noticed more and more homeless helpless people around your areas?
> 
> ...


It's somewhat foolish to assume that those who are in a relatively comfortable situation themselves are unaware that there are people who have less. Or those who 'have' now have never been in a 'have not' situation. Or those that don't mention it aren't aware and aren't contributing in some way.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I have been through some very difficult financial times in my life.

I'm now retired and I donate to several charities every month for those less well off than me.

Because I strongly abhor stealing doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to those in genuine need.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

porps said:


> i dont even know what you mean by the first part of this, and nor do i think the second part is any of your business.


Neither was my arse yours.

You chose to speak about Somalia and ignored the fact that in other ungoverned states situations are not as good. Western Sahara have tried to vote but those who claim to be in power appealed to the UN to stop this, one could say that they are overpowering the common will. And is life really better in Somalia, we have media evidence but I don't think anyone on here can give primary evidence, indeed your selective use of Somalia was much like a politician.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

re democracy - I think the unit is too big - as in I don't think that 60 million people can have a meaningful discussion about how to run the country because it's all about details but on my town council, all those who want a say have a say (we are a very small town) and our town councils can be a lot of fun. No idea how India manages, but I assume that people only vote on really really big issues in general elections.



porps said:


> in a system built upon coercion and force and threats, such as our current system, then yes, of course coercion and force becomes a dominant factor. anarchy is about cooperation, not coercion.


I used to think that. Now I think that there are too many damaged people who will not treat others well, and I can't see a way to fix them all, so I can't see how anarchy can work.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

rona said:


> Thank god some of you don't have to Walk a Mile in Their Shoes.
> 
> Have you not noticed more and more homeless helpless people around your areas?
> 
> ...


With the help of a woman's refuge and some very good friends.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

bearcub said:


> It's somewhat foolish to assume that those who are in a relatively comfortable situation themselves are unaware that there are people who have less. Or those who 'have' now have never been in a 'have not' situation. Or those that don't mention it aren't aware and aren't contributing in some way.


I did say some 

I've never been well off, I live on what most would spend on luxuries, but I still couldn't understand or imagine living how some have to do.

I just find it odd that even people (that's not here but in real life that I know) who have incomes far exceeding mine think they are hard up


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> No you choose to fantasise about being some awesome revolutionary and will use that to justify theft. I assume any society with you at the head would involve people just taking what they needed because I need it honest :aureola:


im not interested in being a head of society nor in a society which has heads. do you really understand me so little that you think thats what i desire?

As for fantasising about being an awesome revolutionary... quote the part where i said that.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2015)

porps said:


> brag may be your interpretation of it. i personally dont think that having no other way to survive than to steal is anything to brag about, but whatever, what do i care how YOU decide to read it? it's clear from your many posts on many threads that you actually enjoy this system that feeds the richest from the mouths of the poorest.
> 
> it's not something i will ever be able to embrace. *and i'll gladly take from people who think its a good thing.. people like you.*
> 
> PS - i dont recall ever saying i steal electric though i do recall admitting to taking free public transport as my only means of getting anywhere. screenshot (quote) or it didnt happen.


So if someone thinks differently than you, has different values than you, that entitles you to take from them?
How is this line of thinking any different than the politicians you so despise? The ones who screw us at every turn? Who take just because they can, and who don't care one flip about anyone other than those who are just like them?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

I wonder how many fail to vote in a general election then spend 5 years moaning about the government?....


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> brag may be your interpretation of it. i personally dont think that having no other way to survive than to steal is anything to brag about, but whatever, what do i care how YOU decide to read it? it's clear from your many posts on many threads that you actually enjoy this system that feeds the richest from the mouths of the poorest.
> 
> it's not something i will ever be able to embrace. and i'll gladly take from people who think its a good thing.. people like you.
> 
> PS - i dont recall ever saying i steal electric though i do recall admitting to taking free public transport as my only means of getting anywhere. screenshot (quote) or it didnt happen.


The thread was called The I'm Alright 'Union' Jack, in December.

You bragged about stealing electricity, confusing bus drivers to get out of paying your fare and even described how to do it.

You also admitted to stealing rice and cat food from a shop and said you felt no guilt whatsoever about it.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Colliebarmy said:


> I wonder how many fail to vote in a general election then spend 5 years moaning about the government?....


Or how many voted, didn't get the result they wanted and therefore spent 5 years moaning about the goverment. When you don't trust or believe any of them how are you supposed to decide which one to vote for. I quite like Porps idea of voting against that way perhaps some of the independents would stand more chance.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

rona said:


> Thank god some of you don't have to Walk a Mile in Their Shoes.
> 
> Have you not noticed more and more homeless helpless people around your areas?
> 
> ...


I think when we are truly on the bones of our backsides most of us would be surprised at just what we would do to survive. I'm not talking to pay the mortgage or the bills but just to get enough food and warmth. Its easy to say what we "think" we would do and would never do but sometimes needs override our principles.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Funnily enough, I don't think this country is that bad. In fact, I feel pretty privileged to have been born and live here.

I don't see myself as enslaved by the government. I can do a lot of things I would not be able to do in some countries. I can go shopping or go for a drive on my own. I chose to marry my husband, and if we chose to get divorced then I would not be some sort of social pariah, as in the past or in some other places today. Fortunately, I am able to earn money, pay taxes and spend the rest on what I see fit. I have received a good education (which was paid for entirely by the state - more than one different government); I now make donations to several education institutions to help other children and young adults get the help I had. I am an atheist and free to be one.

I'm not rich, not even close. Contrary to what many like to think about my profession, I am not paid a £100K salary. Hell, I don't even make close to half that. But I am lucky enough to have a roof over my head (rented, not my own) and have enough money to keep my car on the road and put a bit in savings each month. Not that it's anyone business, I also donate my money to various causes of human and animal interest, and I also help my sister, who is raising a child and cannot afford to buy toilet roll once the money runs out each week.

I don't blame the government for that, either. It's because of the government that people like her are able to keep their heads above water (she receives child benefits), and my mother was able to keep the roof over our heads when we were growing up (she received child benefits, and yes she worked full time).

Living in the UK has worked for me, and, as I said previously, I feel privileged to have been born here. And I don't feel like a prisoner of the government.

No, I'm not saying there aren't countries out there with better systems, but I take issue with the assertion that we live in some sort of 60-million strong concentration camp.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Or how many voted, didn't get the result they wanted and therefore spent 5 years moaning about the goverment. When you don't trust or believe any of them how are you supposed to decide which one to vote for. I quite like Porps idea of voting against that way perhaps some of the independents would stand more chance.


I'd be up for that - a honed version of my idea about spoiling votes.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Personally, my vote this year will be to keep UKIP OUT.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Shoshannah said:


> I'd be up for that - a honed version of my idea about spoiling votes.


A more rational way than Monster Ravers. Or as I suggested in - no confidence. No voting, for whatever reasons. Despite asking on here, a few haven't really given a logical reason so credit to porps for coming back to debate. It's utterly impossible to judge under the current system who can't be bothered and who has no confidence. An option gives a better portrait of the electorate.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> A more rational way than Monster Ravers. Or as I suggested in - no confidence. No voting, for whatever reasons. Despite asking on here, a few haven't really given a logical reason so credit to porps for coming back to debate. It's utterly impossible to judge under the current system who can't be bothered and who has no confidence. An option gives a better portrait of the electorate.


Of course, I disagree with a lot of his views on this particularly subject, but will always respect someone for engaging in reasoned discussion.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Millions of ordinary people (suffragettes and servicemen and woman) have fought for the right to freedom including our democratic voting system (however bad some may see it), not voting descrates thier effort, loss and memory...










I believe anyone who doesnt vote (properly) should lose the vote


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Vote for who we want you to vote for or lose your say? Well that's one way to create a dictatorship I suppose.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2015)

Colliebarmy said:


> Millions of ordinary people (suffragettes and servicemen and woman) have fought for the right to freedom including our democratic voting system (however bad some may see it), not voting descrates thier effort, loss and memory...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Freedom to vote also includes the freedom to *not* vote. 
So by saying that you believe those who do not vote should lose the right to vote, you're actually speaking against freedom. A forced vote would not be a free vote now would it?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> Vote for who we want you to vote for or lose your say? Well that's one way to create a dictatorship I suppose.


Use it or lose it, after all if you dont vote you cant want it can you

its not a dictatorship if you have the choice

if no candidate suits you why not stand yourself?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Freedom to vote also includes the freedom to *not* vote.
> So by saying that you believe those who do not vote should lose the right to vote, you're actually speaking against freedom. A forced vote would not be a free vote now would it?


Is the right to a free vote, freedom is not free

dont vote then you wont miss the walk to the ballot box will you


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Australia has compulsory voting, which I support in principle AS LONG AS THERE IS THE CHOICE TO TICK 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' or similar. 

Does anyone know if such an option exists, or whether you have to vote for someone?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> Use it or lose it, after all if you dont vote you cant want it can you
> 
> its not a dictatorship if you have the choice
> 
> if no candidate suits you why not stand yourself?


Just speaking for the area I'm in now.

Majority Catholic with the usual victory going to Sinn Fein. I'm not religious but live in one of the few Protestant areas within the constituency. We've gotten better, but not that much.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> Use it or lose it, after all if you dont vote you cant want it can you
> 
> its not a dictatorship if you have the choice
> 
> if no candidate suits you why not stand yourself?


Purely hypothetically, I wonder if introducing this would suddenly result in an increase in turnout, or whether it would make no difference?

Genuinely wondering.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Colliebarmy said:


> Is the right to a free vote, freedom is not free
> 
> dont vote then you wont miss the walk to the ballot box will you


Is it not feasible to you that whilst some of us may vote at some elections because we think a certain party is in line with our beliefs we may then choose not to vote at another election because said party did not keep its promises or are no longer a true reflection of our beliefs. That doesn't mean that at a future election there won't be a suitable choice but just that at this one we don't feel there is.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2015)

Shoshannah said:


> Funnily enough, I don't think this country is that bad. In fact, I feel pretty privileged to have been born and live here.
> 
> I don't see myself as enslaved by the government. I can do a lot of things I would not be able to do in some countries. I can go shopping or go for a drive on my own. I chose to marry my husband, and if we chose to get divorced then I would not be some sort of social pariah, as in the past or in some other places today. Fortunately, I am able to earn money, pay taxes and spend the rest on what I see fit. I have received a good education (which was paid for entirely by the state - more than one different government); I now make donations to several education institutions to help other children and young adults get the help I had. I am an atheist and free to be one.
> 
> ...


No kidding huh?

The fact that we are discussing this in writing over the internet means that we are a) literate, b) have access to technology, c) have access to electricity, d) have access to the internet. Where exactly does anyont think these luxuries come from?  And yes, literacy alone is a huge luxury. Being able to read and write in your native language already puts you ahead of over half the population in the entire continent of Africa.

In the UK I suspect if you fall out on the side of the road, there is an ambulance that will come take you to a medical facility. You're not likely to lay there until the vultures pick you to bones.

There are many places on this earth where there is no ambulance, there is no medical facility, and even if there is a medically trained person available, there may not be any supplies for that person to use to help you.

So yeah, a little perspective isn't a bad thing


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Reminds me of all those Republicans openly calling Obama a communist dictator. If you can openly call your leader a communist dictator and not get killed/thrown in an internment camp then chances are they aren't one. 

We do have it very good in the west for the most part. Maybe if Porps think Somalia is so great they could try living in Mogadishu for a while?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> Reminds me of all those Republicans openly calling Obama a communist dictator. If you can openly call your leader a communist dictator and not get killed/thrown in an internment camp then chances are they aren't one.
> 
> We do have it very good in the west for the most part. Maybe if Porps think Somalia is so great they could try living in Mogadishu for a while?


Absolutely - the fact we're not all going to get tracked down by the Gestapo and murdered for even contributing to this thread has to count for something, surely?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Shoshannah said:


> Absolutely - the fact we're not all going to get tracked down by the Gestapo and murdered for even contributing to this thread has to count for something, surely?


Or have our heads chopped off by an oversexed Tudor King for not applauding his outrageous behaviour or for not being a virgin when we got married.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2015)

Slowly but surely the tide is changing.

Thanks to the internet and the information age, people are slowly wising up to how big business is running the world. The word is getting out, and it won't be able to continue as is. I think we will see a very different world in the next several decades.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Or have our heads chopped off by an oversexed Tudor King for not applauding his outrageous behaviour or for not being a virgin when we got married.


Wasn't he crazed with syphillis?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Wasn't he crazed with syphillis?


No just had a tenuous claim to the throne, seized on the field of battle by his father, and fixated on having a male heir. Ironic given Elizabeth was one of the best monarchs we ever had.

I thought Catherine Howard was executed more for the fact that they had lied to him and told him she was a virgin than anything else.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Sweety said:


> Or have our heads chopped off by an oversexed Tudor King for not applauding his outrageous behaviour or for not being a virgin when we got married.


Whatever happened to that guy who threw eggs at John Prescott? As I recall he did get punched by old 'Two Jabs' himself, but no further action was taken against him by the police or the state.

In another place or time he probably would have been put to death for such minor disrespect to a person in power. I think we have it pretty good in many ways, TBH, and it's easy to take it for granted.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

All Hail our great leaders............


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> Neither was my arse yours.
> 
> You chose to speak about Somalia and ignored the fact that in other ungoverned states situations are not as good. Western Sahara have tried to vote but those who claim to be in power appealed to the UN to stop this, one could say that they are overpowering the common will. And is life really better in Somalia, we have media evidence but I don't think anyone on here can give primary evidence, indeed your selective use of Somalia was much like a politician.


I spoke about the one i knew about. I may read about the other states you mentioned at some point, but until i have i'm not gonna pass comment on them. Is that a bad thing somehow?



Nicky10 said:


> Maybe if Porps think Somalia is so great they could try living in Mogadishu for a while?


And maybe if you were as literate as you think you are you would have been able to comprehend the part of my post where i said:



> While i wouldnt argue that it's suddenly become a desirable place to live,


Or maybe you did comprehend it.. in which case, you are deliberately misrepresenting what i said.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> I spoke about the one i knew about. I may read about the other states you mentioned at some point, but until i have i'm not gonna pass comment on them. Is that a bad thing somehow?
> 
> And maybe if you were as literate as you think you are you would have been able to comprehend the part of my post where i said:


You are the one putting it out as a great model of anarchy when the stats are more like skewed for the better by Somaliland, the one bit of it with a functioning government.

Every social species has some kind of social structure and rules, chimpanzees even have something approaching a voting system so why should humans be any different? Given how destructive we are towards each other as well as other species why would a system with no government work?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Wasn't he crazed with syphillis?


He did have syphillis in later life, but I think he was driven by the need for a male heir.

The irony is that Mary Boleyn, (sister of Anne), gave birth to a healthy baby boy by Henry, but he had become besotted by Anne and rejected Mary and her Son.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> You are the one putting it out as a great model of anarchy when the stats are more like skewed for the better by Somaliland, the one bit of it with a functioning government.
> 
> Every social species has some kind of social structure and rules, chimpanzees even have something approaching a voting system so why should humans be any different? Given how destructive we are towards each other as well as other species why would a system with no government work?


if you wanna know, google it. i aint here to copy and paste stuff that you cant be bothered to read cos you've already made your mind about it.

and no, i didnt put it out as a "great model of an anarchy", again you are twisting my words, manipulating what i say the same way the evil scumbags you love so much twist and manipulate words. if you can quote where i said that, please quote it.

but you wont be able to cos you are talking out of your arse, as usual. You could probably have quite a career in politics ahead of you if you choose to pursue it.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> if you wanna know, google it. i aint here to copy and paste stuff that you cant be bothered to read cos you've already made your mind about it.
> 
> and no, i didnt put it out as a "great model of an anarchy", again you are twisting my words, manipulating what i say the same way the evil scumbags you love so much twist and manipulate words. if you can quote where i said that, please quote it.
> 
> but you wont be able to cos you are talking out of your arse, as usual. You could probably have quite a career in politics ahead of you if you choose to pursue it.


As usual. Resort to personal insults when you're not just winning the argument.

Why can you never debate anything without becoming offensive?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

porps said:


> manipulating what i say the same way the evil scumbags you love so much twist and manipulate words.


Now come on, she's not said anywhere that she loves them, so now we're all twisting words.

Let's not resort to name calling, everyone. The thread will only get closed, and I'm finding these posts very interesting - including yours, porps.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2015)

rona said:


> All Hail our great leaders............


It is possible to appreciate the freedom to discuss these things without worry of being disappeared, without jumping to the other extreme and loving every thing one's government does.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Just out of interest Porps, what gives you the impression that Nicky, or anyone else on this thread 'loves' the government/'evil scumbags'? It's a serious question btw, not a dig.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> As usual. Resort to personal insults when you're not just winning the argument.
> 
> Why can you never debate anything without becoming offensive?


i dont become offensive, i am offensive. ocassionally i might become inoffensive. Dont like it? use the block button, whining about it aint gonna change me.



Shoshannah said:


> Now come on, she's not said anywhere that she loves them, so now we're all twisting words.


Fair point.



Shoshannah said:


> Let's not resort to name calling, everyone. The thread will only get closed, and I'm finding these posts very interesting - including yours, porps.


What name did i supposedly call him/her ?



bearcub said:


> Just out of interest Porps, what gives you the impression that Nicky, or anyone else on this thread 'loves' the government/evil scumbags?


Their posts on the subject in this and other threads.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Nicky for the record certainly doesn't love them. Just appreciates that we live in a fairly free society compared to others where there is a low threat to our lives and freedom. Even having this debate in some countries or in Britain at times would have gotten you arrested.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

porps said:


> What name did i supposedly call him/her ?


You didn't; I just don't want the thread to go that way.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> Nicky for the record certainly doesn't love them. Just appreciates that we live in a fairly free society compared to others where there is a low threat to our lives and freedom. Even having this debate in some countries or in Britain at times would have gotten you arrested.


I feel the same.

I do not love, and never have, 'loved' the government. I am just grateful that the system of government we have in this country at this time allows me to live a life without what I consider unreasonable restrictions.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Ditto, I don't 'love' any government either (what a mad assumption that is!) and yes, some rules are restrictive and I disagree with many of them but I know it could be worse. A lot worse. And I don't buy any argument that says a place without a government is better unless it was primary evidence. After all dictators can claim the same.

I love that I can speak on here, have (legal) electricity and freedom as a woman to live my life. I travelled to the Middle East a lot in my previous job and you start to respect those small things.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

porps said:


> Their posts on the subject in this and other threads.


Ok, I hadn't seen anything on this or any other thread that suggested such a thing but I kind of wondered whether you believe that those who pay taxes, vote etc all 'love' the government. I think in actual fact most feel to a slight extent like you do but perhaps just have different priorities.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

bearcub said:


> Ok, I hadn't seen anything on this or any other thread that suggested such a thing but I kind of wondered whether you believe that those who pay taxes, vote etc all 'love' the government. I think in actual fact most feel to a slight extent like you do but perhaps just have different priorities.


My stepfather is an anarchist as well. Full-on. He has that Circle-A symbol up in his house. :blink:

But he does listen to reasoned debate, and can appreciate my points when we have such discussions - even if he does not agree with them. I can appreciate some of his, even if I don't agree with them.

Threads like this - we don't have to agree, but everyone should be able to make their points without being insulted or accused of extreme views they just don't possess.

Sorry, bearcub, this wasn't aimed at you! I did sort of have a response to your quote in mind when I started the post but went off on a weird tangent.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I doubt anyone agrees fully with their government, whatever it is. More freedom would be great yes and I do think we'd get there. I just think an anarchy model would descend into rule of the strong and then we'd be back to warlords. It took nearly 1000 years from the magna carta to what we have now I'd rather just skip all that.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

bearcub said:


> Ok, I hadn't seen anything on this or any other thread that suggested such a thing but I kind of wondered whether you believe that those who pay taxes, vote etc all 'love' the government. I think in actual fact most feel to a slight extent like you do but perhaps just have different priorities.


no, i dont think that everyone who votes or pays taxes loves the goverment. Many people vote because they actually think it will make some kind of difference, and while i think they are naive in this kind of thinking, i respect them for it still. And it's damn hard to avoid taxes.

But some people here seem prepared to defend every single thing the goverment do no matter how despicable it is.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> no, i dont think that everyone who votes or pays taxes loves the goverment. Many people vote because they actually think it will make some kind of difference, and while i think they are naive in this kind of thinking, i respect them for it still. And it's damn hard to avoid taxes.
> 
> But some people here seem prepared to defend every single thing the goverment do no matter how despicable it is.


Well if I've given that impression then it's wrong.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

porps said:


> no, i dont think that everyone who votes or pays taxes loves the goverment. Many people vote because they actually think it will make some kind of difference, and while i think they are naive in this kind of thinking, i respect them for it still. And it's damn hard to avoid taxes.
> 
> *But some people here seem prepared to defend every single thing the goverment do no matter how despicable it is.*


Who? I've not seen any evidence, I don't think that anyone has specifically mentioned a party apart from the odd mention of UKIP. Defending the right to freedom and comparing to other countries is just that. Nobody is getting into bed with Cameron or Clegg that I can see.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

porps said:


> no, i dont think that everyone who votes or pays taxes loves the goverment. Many people vote because they actually think it will make some kind of difference, and while i think they are naive in this kind of thinking, i respect them for it still. And it's damn hard to avoid taxes.
> 
> But some people here seem prepared to defend every single thing the goverment do no matter how despicable it is.


Not me. They do some pretty asshatted things - some serious and some less serious.

While I do vote, I don't personally consider that the government represents me to the extent that I have given my consent for everything they do and say by voting. There is no party with which I agree 100%, so I try to vote for the one who speaks to me the most.

It varies each time, and I'm not so naive as to believe they won't go back on their word, but I have to go on something.

And this year, as I said in an earlier post, I will be casting my vote to try and kick UKIP to the kerb.

The voting system is flawed anyway, but that's a whole other debate! :blink:


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Mods can you lock this thread or remove it, I'm heartily sick and tired of the arguments on here.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

porps said:


> *I love that guy. He talks a lot of sense.*


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Closing to edit. There seems to be a lot of unnecessary, rude and personal argument on here.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Opened.
I know that political debate is always going to get heated but there is no reason to descend to the level of personal insults.
Sorry for any relatively innocent posts that got caught up in the cull and for others more offensive that might have been left behind.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

We need to appreciate the freedoms that we have in this country, and at this point in history. If someone wants to say the monarchy or government are morons they may get argument but they won't get locked up or killed. My grandmother left Hitler's Germany before war broke out (to teach in Argentina, where she fell in love with and married my Grandfather, who was English, also a schoolteacher). They returned to England when my mother was 9, again narrowly missing troubled times. She would always say how lucky we were in this country, that if you heard footsteps on the path at 6 in the morning you could go back to sleep knowing it was only the milkman.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2015)

lymorelynn said:


> Opened.
> I know that political debate is always going to get heated but there is no reason to descend to the level of personal insults.
> *Sorry for any relatively innocent posts that got caught up in the cull *and for others more offensive that might have been left behind.


Then I'm un-culling mine, 
Because it was innocuous, on topic, and I put some thought and effort in to my posts instead of just C&Ping memes (mostly because I'm not smart enough to figure out how to post memes easily ).

What I said was:
We are all products of our experiences and we have to allow for that in these discussions. Just because a person thinks differently than someone else, doesn't mean that person is not thinking, or is less intelligent, or is less informed, or whatever.

To expand on that....
Two people might look at the exact same information, put the same amount of thought in to it, and come to entirely different conclusions. Doesn't mean one is an idiot and the other isn't, just means they reached different conclusions.

The point of these discussions (IMHO) should not be about proving one conclusion right and all others wrong, but rather, use our chance to connect with diverse people to expand our knowledge base and learn from the experiences of others.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Something rotten/corrupt/bad isn't made better because there's something worse.

It's like saying I appreciate having a broken leg because someone else has two


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

rona said:


> Something rotten/corrupt/bad isn't made better because there's something worse.
> 
> It's like saying I appreciate having a broken leg because someone else has two


But I'm sure having the one broken leg would help you appreciate use of the working one and how hard it would be to to not have use of either - it's about perspective.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

bearcub said:


> But I'm sure having the one broken leg would help you appreciate use of the working one and how hard it would be to to not have use of either - it's about perspective.


Yes I can see that others coming in from certain other parts of the world would be very appreciative of our way of life. Still doesn't mean we should put up with the thieving, the lieing and the peados


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

rona said:


> Yes I can see that others coming in from certain other parts of the world would be very appreciative of our way of life. Still doesn't mean we should put up with the thieving, the lieing and the peados


Well, no. But we have less of the thieving and the paedos than many places in the world.

In South Africa, for example, it used to be that most people knew someone who knew someone who had been carjacked. Then it graduated to most people knew someone who had been carjacked. NOW it's pretty much if you haven't been carjacked, you know someone who has.

In India, there are around 1.5 million street children, most of them boys and many runaways from abusive homes. And of those 1.5 million, it is estimated that 90% have been sexually abused, many on a regular basis. Of those who are abused, around 10% are thought to lose their lives at the hands of their abusers. And if that weren't enough, surveys reveal that not only do a lot of people not see it as a crime, but about a third of them _don't even see raping a young boy as a bad thing to do_ - in fact, many view the abused boy as the guilty party who should be punished for being that kind of wicked boy.

Somehow, despite all its faults, I think I'd rather live here in the UK than there...


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

i really dont agree with that kind of logic.

just cos it's more common somewhere else doesnt mean we should accept peadophilia in this country.

I really dont know how you can think like that.

also, if as u say it is more accepted in india then its more likey to be seen rather than hidden. what we actually see over here is just the tip of the kiddy fiddling iceberg.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> i really dont agree with that kind of logic.
> 
> just cos it's more common somewhere else doesnt mean we should accept peadophilia in this country.
> 
> ...


Just as well, because I *don't* think like that!  _When_, exactly, did I say that I _accepted_ either paedophilia or the level of it that exists in the UK as being OK? 

I was _trying_ to express the sentiment that although things are far from perfect in the UK, other countries have it lot worse in many aspects. And that as a result, I am grateful I live here where such things are not socially accepted and are much less prevalent as a result, and not there.

I'm also glad, for example, that I live in a country where women are no longer routinely treated as the property of either their husband or their father (depending on whether they are married or unmarried), allowed to have as much of an education as they wish, can walk down the street and generally expect not to be raped, and legally have numerous other levels of safety and freedoms which would not be available to them in many other countries.

Does that mean I think the UK is perfect the way it is? Um, nope - indeed, it would be utterly illogical to draw that conclusion.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

i actually meant the you in the more general sense (meaning anyone) than directed at you, but i can see how i didnt make that clear.

Yes you are right... some places have it worse. That doesnt excuse anything. if you follow that logic you could say things like "well he only raped her, some other people get raped AND stabbed, so she cant complain about only being raped"...

a worse atrocity doesnt justify an atrocity.

in the same way, you dont justify tyranny be saying some countries are even more tyrannical


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

And you say we twist words :hand: but I suppose it's ok. After all if you do it anything is justified right


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> i actually meant the you in the more general sense (meaning anyone) than directed at you, but i can see how i didnt make that clear.
> 
> Yes you are right... some places have it worse. That doesnt excuse anything. if you follow that logic you could say things like "well he only raped her, some other people get raped AND stabbed, so she cant complain about only being raped"...
> 
> ...


Well, no, of course it doesn't. And again, that _*isn't*_ what is being said.

If me being grateful I live in a country where I am statistically less likely to be raped, stabbed or otherwise be a victim of assault is indefensible to you, there's not much I can do about that. But it is not logical (or fair) to assume that saying 'it could be worse' = 'therefore what happened is OK.'

For the record, I personally know survivors of both paedophila and rape, so defending the horrible _<insert *exceptionally* negative descriptive word(s) of your choice here>_ who do that kind of thing is the last thing on my mind.

But if you genuinely think the UK as country is tyrannical, then you have a rather watered down definition of the word 'tyranny' , I think.

Incidentayyl, if I read some of your other posts correctly, you suggest that in an Anarchical society, things like paedophila etc. wouldn't exist. Could you elaborate on your reasoning behind that?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I think they mean it wouldn't happen on the level it did and been covered up? Of course without a functioning, well somewhat, justice system how would you know?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> Incidentayyl, if I read some of your other posts correctly, you suggest that in an Anarchical society, things like paedophila etc. wouldn't exist. Could you elaborate on your reasoning behind that?


never have i said such a thing


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> I think they mean it wouldn't happen on the level it did and been covered up? Of course without a functioning, well somewhat, justice system how would you know?


anarchy does not mean lawless, it means no ruling class.That doesnt mean there are no rules. i means there are no rulers.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> never have i said such a thing


Hmm. I am working from memory, so I will have to go hunting.



porps said:


> anarchy does not mean lawless, it means no ruling class.That doesnt mean there are no rules. i means there are no rulers.


But, then, who defines and enforces the rules? Whoever has the biggest fists?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Well, if there's no Police Force or Government, then everyone can make up their own rules and that's never going to end well.


----------



## sarybeagle (Nov 4, 2009)

porps said:


> never have i said such a thing


You did imply on the thread about tax if no police there's no more peados. I queried you on this as I said without the police how would the amount of paedos decrease.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> Hmm. I am working from memory, so I will have to go hunting.
> 
> But, then, who defines and enforces the rules? Whoever has the biggest fists?





Sweety said:


> Well, if there's no Police Force or Government, then everyone can make up their own rules and that's never going to end well.


if you want to learn about the counter aurguments to these common objections use google.






heres a debate you could watch if you want to learn about it. i suspect you have no interest in actually learning anything though.



sarybeagle said:


> You did imply on the thread about tax if no police there's no more peados. I queried you on this as I said without the police how would the amount of paedos decrease.


I said there would be less peados. And i explained why. LESS is not the same things as NONE. do i really need to explain the difference between less and none?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> if you want to learn about the counter aurguments to these common objections use google.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm more interested in *your* viewpoint, understanding and reasoning of the issues, porps. I'm not after War and Peace, just a short summary


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

i thought i'd already given that repeatedly.

i may give it again later when i have more time


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Sweety said:


> Well, if there's no Police Force or Government, then everyone can make up their own rules and that's never going to end well.


I don't know, what about places like communes? they seem to get along OK by consensus. Not that I have ever lived in one


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> i thought i'd already given that repeatedly.
> 
> i may give it again later when i have more time


Viewpoint, yes. Understanding and reasoning - well, feel free to quote if you have


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

I must be slipping

someone suggested id suggested a dictatorship via forced voting

since when did you get a vote in a dictatorship?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

So...

Is this thread still about voting, or is it about paedophilia?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Shoshannah said:


> So...
> 
> Is this thread still about voting, or is it about paedophilia?


"Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?" (Frankenstein)

Shall we do a few pages on Gary Glitter, benefit thieves, who is poorer that whom and a bit on beastiality to round it off and have a lock down before midnight?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> "Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?" (Frankenstein)
> 
> Shall we do a few pages on Gary Glitter, benefit thieves, who is poorer that whom and a bit on beastiality to round it off and have a lock down before midnight?


Don't forget immigrants. They are the source of all evil, supposedly.

At least someone likes this country! :lol:


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't know, what about places like communes? they seem to get along OK by consensus. Not that I have ever lived in one


Still comes down to size for me. Communes are ok if there is somewhere for people to go when they disagree - exile if you like, but if there is nowhere to go (say because the commune doesn't own enough land or the country is deemed "full") then you have to work out how to get along.

I do think it would be could to reduce the government to the administration - we don't need people in charge of (most of) us but I think we do need people in charge of sewers.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Shoshannah said:


> Don't forget immigrants. They are the source of all evil, supposedly.
> 
> At least someone likes this country! :lol:


Oh yes, sorry forgot the ruddy imigrants coming over in search of a better life.... oh :w00t:

And goats, I forgot goats. And Cesear Millan.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

A commune works because everyone has the same basic principles. Just look at this thread even and see how well that would work.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

*Okay so there is a really good programme that is appropriate to what I wanted to say at the start of this thread.
*
*Please watch this*, so many people on here who are talking about history and activism including people who took part in the battle of Cable Street, and their view on people who do not vote. Really make an effort to see this, it's on right now on BBC 1, then come back and contribute to this thread.

BBC One - Panorama, What Britain Wants - Someone to Love


----------



## Roger Downes (Sep 17, 2013)

Although i consider myself lucky in that i have a home and can afford to keep warm and eat relatively well, I do wonder what views of our society i would have if i was homeless,cold and hungry. So although i think talk of a Anarchistic society is too radical a solution for all the massive difference in wealth, my view could well be different if i was forced to live on the streets.
After saying that, as others have said, I find it hard to see how a Anarchism can work on a large scale, in my opinion much of mankind suffers from greed for wealth and power.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

MollySmith said:


> Oh yes, sorry forgot the ruddy imigrants coming over in search of a better life.... oh :w00t:
> 
> And goats, I forgot goats. And Cesear Millan.


you missed the most important things in life...purple anteaters and marmite.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

And square great danes 

Also Diana and Madeline McCann I'm sure we can get something out of those. If we can link them together somehow all the better.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> And square great danes
> 
> Also Diana and Madeline McCann I'm sure we can get something out of those. If we can link them together somehow all the better.


Chuck in Lord Lucan and it's just one big conspiracy.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

The Royal Family too. Buncha tax stealing immigrants :hand:


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Now I'm going to bed, if I dream about marmite, I'm blaming it on you lilythepink :001_tongue:

Good night.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Vaccines/big pharm vs natural/homeopathy 

Clearly a link to the purple anteaters there.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

MollySmith said:


> The Royal Family too. Buncha tax stealing immigrants :hand:


Tax stealing _reptilian_ immigrants.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

That's it, it's gone weird.

I'm out.

:blink:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Just because other systems are worse doesn't mean we shouldn't be fighting for something better here. The new changes to the welfare system are killing people! we have more homelessness, a million people using food banks, more children suffering from malnutrition, the NHS is crumbling as the government dishes out private contracts to all & sundry - and all this while the wealthiest get richer than ever before, while corrupt bankers, the ones who caused the crisis!, get billions in bonuses, get made unelected ministers!. 

Corrupt capitalist economies like our own create gross inequality & this gross inequality is the reason people are suffering, not only in our own country but across the globe. The neoliberal ideology of unrestrained greed not only destroys human lives but its destroying our very life support system - the most vulnerable might be suffering now but eventually it will affect everyone. The super rich, will, of course, be the last to suffer! 

Is it any wonder people are so desperate & so disillusioned with OUR system?

.


----------



## Mr Gizmo (Jul 1, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Is it any wonder people are so desperate & so disillusioned with OUR system?
> 
> .


And yet all and sundry still flood in from abroad. 
How bad must their life be to want to come to this country ?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Mr Gizmo said:


> And yet all and sundry still flood in from abroad.
> How bad must their life be to want to come to this country ?


yes...and even thought we moan about our system, the fact is we can moan and not face persecution for it...and our country is still a beautiful and relatively safe place to be.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Mr Gizmo said:


> And yet all and sundry still flood in from abroad.
> How bad must their life be to want to come to this country ?


For a lot, extremely bad - displaced through our warmongering a lot of them.

And nothing alters the fact that the neoliberal agenda is killing the planet & stealing public assets. Nor the fact that we are one of the richest nations on the planet yet we have more poverty today - inequality is rocketing as the elite coin it in.

Welcome to modern Britain ~


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

But we do have a welfare state that picks up the pieces, I'm not saying its perfect by any means and it needs a kick up the backside to deal with these sort of emergency situations faster. I'd also like to see the food banks extended greatly so that they can help more people for longer without the need for referrals. I think the big supermarkets should be forced to have donation bins in their stores and offer the option when you shop online to donate to those collections. However as a society most of us are guilty of great greed and waste so have to take our part of the blame for those who have so little. For instance how many of us can say we don't throw out any food or have the heating on when we don't really need it etc etc. I'd also like to see non profit charity shops in every town where food and clothing can be donated to be given to those who need it rather than sold.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I think its a step backwards that more and more people are struggling to feed their family and cases where this kid from Gloucester should be a very rare incident and dealt with faster.....which it probably would/could be if there weren't so many people struggling and becoming dependent on more benefits.

This is still a very wealthy country....no need for such poverty in 21st century.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But we do have a welfare state that picks up the pieces, I'm not saying its perfect by any means and it needs a kick up the backside to deal with these sort of emergency situations faster. I'd also like to see the food banks extended greatly so that they can help more people for longer without the need for referrals. I think the big supermarkets should be forced to have donation bins in their stores and offer the option when you shop online to donate to those collections. However as a society most of us are guilty of great greed and waste so have to take our part of the blame for those who have so little. For instance how many of us can say we don't throw out any food or have the heating on when we don't really need it etc etc. I'd also like to see non profit charity shops in every town where food and clothing can be donated to be given to those who need it rather than sold.


The reason for these shocking statistics for the rise in foodbanks, homelessness, poverty, welfare deaths is because of the new 'reforms' to the welfare system. In reality these 'reforms' are the beginning of the dismantling of our welfare state and our NHS. Under the cloak of austerity we are seeing the biggest transfer of wealth from the public purse into private hands.

The wealth of the top 1000 has doubled over the last 5 years, whilst working people have seen the longest fall in wages since Disraeli was Prime Minister in the 1860s. Over 1 million people have been driven into poverty wages. It isn't ordinary people who are to blame, its greed from those at the very top of society.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Okay, I watched Panorama last night and the concept was politics needs a bit of love. The argument from several community leaders in large estates where they were trying to get betterment programmes started up was that places require love and attention. Without a love for the environment then you cant begin to feel like you can make it better. Beatty make an interesting point here as someone who marched in Cable Street which in itself needs to be studied to make an educated comment. She says that we need to pay attention to history. I agree, we forget that much of what weve said here has been debated and fought over in the past.

I dont think anyone is wrong or right btw  like any good debate though it need to be backed up by evidence. Ive seen very little of that in this thread, plenty of conjecture from porps and evasiveness from Janice, worthy of any politician  I also find it interesting that  and assuming Im correct  that porps is a man and the most vocal on here. I think gender has a lot to to do with my opening post and of course suffragettes.

Here is a link to the essay that goes with the series and its really is worth a read if youre taking this thread reasonably seriously.
BBC News - Election essay: What's love got to do with politics?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> The reason for these shocking statistics for the rise in foodbanks, homelessness, poverty, welfare deaths is because of the new 'reforms' to the welfare system. In reality these 'reforms' are the beginning of the dismantling of our welfare state and our NHS. Under the cloak of austerity we are seeing the biggest transfer of wealth from the public purse into private hands.
> 
> The wealth of the top 1000 has doubled over the last 5 years, whilst working people have seen the longest fall in wages since Disraeli was Prime Minister in the 1860s. Over 1 million people have been driven into poverty wages. It isn't ordinary people who are to blame, its greed from those at the very top of society.


A step backwards......


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

lilythepink said:


> A step backwards......


A massive one : (. If they get in again Osborne has vowed to make £60 billion more cuts taking us back to 1930's levels - before we had the NHS & welfare state.

Osborne moves to cut spending to 1930s levels in dramatic autumn statement | UK news | The Guardian


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

It was before my time, I grew up being able to go to the doctor and getting a free prescription but I remember tales my granny used to tell of the doctor coming and having to have his half crown ready for him....back street abortions and kids having rickets...I would really hope it will never go that way again but I do think lots of resources are wasted within the NHS. Maybe we need some more practically minded people to have some input instead of politicians who are just into everything for themselves.

I think the welfare and benefits system is so complicated nobody can make head or tails of it.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Welcome to modern Britain ~



Upsetting - but in some countries would no help have come at all?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> I also find it interesting that - and assuming I'm correct - that porps is a man and the most vocal on here. I think gender has a lot to to do with my opening post and of course suffragettes.


er what? i would argue that i'm not the most vocal.. i may be the most radical, thats not the same thing as most vocal... and yeah, i'm a man...so what? what does that have to do with the price of fish? are you saying being a man is what makes me vocal?

Would it therefore be ok for me to imply that the only reason a woman doesnt speak out is because she is a woman?

/confused


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

as for a welfare state that "picks up the pieces".. that's a good joke, but not a funny one.

last nights dispatches might give you some idea of what our welfare system is doing f&#822;o&#822;r&#822; to people.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

lilythepink said:


> It was before my time, I grew up being able to go to the doctor and getting a free prescription but I remember tales my granny used to tell of the doctor coming and having to have his half crown ready for him....back street abortions and kids having rickets...I would really hope it will never go that way again but I do think lots of resources are wasted within the NHS. Maybe we need some more practically minded people to have some input instead of politicians who are just into everything for themselves.
> 
> I think the welfare and benefits system is so complicated nobody can make head or tails of it.


Two of my Nans brothers died of measles when they were little & my Grandads sister died of TB. I always remember my Nan telling about my Grandads brother Joe, he died of stomach cancer, there was no NHS to help him in those days, no welfare state to help support his little children. He died at home in his bed, probably in agony. Do we really want to go back to that?

In 2010 Osborne made cuts of £80 billion - £81 billion has been spent on bankers bonuses   - the very same bunch who caused the crisis in the first place!

The words of marvellous 92 year old Harry Leslie Smith. Fighting with all his might to save our welfare state & NHS for future generations.







Shoshannah said:


> Welcome to modern Britain ~
> 
> 
> 
> Upsetting - but in some countries would no help have come at all?


I really don't understand this logic. A few years ago we had a society that helped vulnerable people, not many slipped through the safety net of our amazing welfare state. Today we have millions of children, like my example, living in poverty, theres been a shocking 74% rise in malnutrition. This in one of the richest countries in the world is absolutely shameful imo. Either one of us, or a loved one, might need that safety net one day, might need the NHS. Do we really want Maximus a US profit making company running our welfare state? Because that's where our taxes are going now - into their greedy bottomless pockets.

.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

porps said:


> as for a welfare state that "picks up the pieces".. that's a good joke, but not a funny one.
> 
> last nights dispatches might give you some idea of what our welfare system is doing f̶o̶r̶ to people.


Thinking aloud about this and an earlier post in which you likened someone to a Tory, as a disparaging term.....

If someone forced you personally to vote, wouldn't Tory be closest to your philosophy? (I am assuming you would hold that 'government' is intrinsically / conceptually flawed regardless of model or flavour). The Tories, however, give you less taxation, smaller central government, devolution of power, less intervention in non-state capitalism, further transfer of state institutions into the hands of citizens, less interference in individual economic affairs, plus a leader who believes in the 'big society' / volunteerism and mutual support networks at the community level. Serious question, wouldn't Tories be the least bad option for you?

The dispatches program showed some distressing cases where people unable to support themselves were left in hardship because of the current government's policies. But, you wouldn't want state interference from the ruling classes into the lives of those people, right? In the absence of government what would be their plight? How would they be supported and what's to stop that happening right now?

Sorry, lot's of questions.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Satori said:


> Thinking aloud about this and an earlier post in which you likened someone to a Tory, as a disparaging term.....
> 
> If someone forced you personally to vote, wouldn't Tory be closest to your philosophy? (I am assuming you would hold that 'government' is intrinsically / conceptually flawed regardless of model or flavour). The Tories, however, give you less taxation, smaller central government, devolution of power, less intervention in non-state capitalism, further transfer of state institutions into the hands of citizens, less interference in individual economic affairs, plus a leader who believes in the 'big society' / volunteerism and mutual support networks at the community level. Serious question, wouldn't Tories be the least bad option for you?
> 
> ...


no i wouldnt vote tory, im not evil, im just an anarchist. And i'm poor. and i like animals. obviously i wouldnt vote for those evil bloodthirsty toffs. 
no matter how you may wanna twist things around, nothing changes those facts. You seem to have failed to mention the main tory policy (f*** the poor) when you were trying to make it look as though they fit in with my viewpoint. it's besides the point anyway, cos theyre *all* scum. by definition politician = scum. and voting is pointless. If someone FORCED me to vote i would throw my vote away on something liek the bez party or monster raving losing party or green party or something.

To ask a question like "But, you wouldn't want state interference from the ruling classes into the lives of those people, right?" seems ridiculous. you know my answer, my answer is that i wouldnt want there to be a state at all. obviously no state at all means no state interferrence. since theres no state to interfere. simple logic.

i'm not a fan of lies, so im not really into politics. I dont know why im expected to know all the answers... all i know is that goverment is NOT the answer, we've tried it, it doesnt work, except for the 1%... so time to try something else. Theres loads of anarchists information online by more well read and well practiced people than myself, if you want to find out about it go read about it.

Just because i may not be able to answer a question off the top of my head doesnt mean u have disproved the validity of anarchy. it means you're asking the wrong person.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

porps said:


> To ask a question like "But, you wouldn't want state interference from the ruling classes into the lives of those people, right?" seems ridiculous. you know my answer, my answer is that *i wouldnt want there to be a state at all.* obviously no state at all means no state interferrence. since theres no state to interfere. simple logic.[/IMG]


Then it seems churlish to complain about the state welfare system not handing out money more freely to folk such as those shown on dispatches. No state = no handouts, no?

(Not trying to invalidate Anarchy. Trying to understand a bit more.)


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

When I lived in Spain, I had a bad accident and spent some time in the Spanish version of an NHS hospital.

The treatment of my injuries was excellent and on a par (if not better) than that found in the UK, but actual on-ward care and after-care was very different and more inline with Porp's idea of the community working together to care for each other.

In a Spanish hospital, you are expected to have a relative (or group of relatives) on hand 24/7. They are expected to do things like helping you wash, taking you to the toilet if you can't manage on your own, fetching your meals, and even making sure you take your medication (although of course this is dispensed by nurses). They do have our equivalent of Health Care Support Workers on the wards, and they will help with these basic needs if you have no one there to help you (as in my case - my husband had to be at home with our daughters), but they object to doing this (and will make sure you know it) as they see it as a family affair.

There are flyers all over the hospitals - people advertising to be employed as your 'carer' for those with no close family. Because the problem is, as families move further apart, more and more people are unable to call upon family and friends to help out at short notice.

I would say that in the UK, this type of 'family-centred caring' would struggle to work at all. Much more than in Spain, UK citizens are spread all over the country (or the World) and for those that still do live close together, most of us would be unable to afford to give up our jobs to go and care 24/7 for a relative.

It is in situations like this, that most of us are glad to have what some would call 'state intervention' in our lives. We need the professional staff of the NHS to help us in our hour of need and, for anyone who has been in a situation where this didn't apply in the 'care' sense, I can tell you now it is a pretty scary experience.

I think we need to differentiate between state 'interference' in the form of care and state interference in the form of spying and telling us what to do.
The previous 'New' Labour Government got it wrong - some of their measures for care took things too far and tried to tell us what we should and shouldn't do, but the heart of those changes was, I think, in the right place.
Miliband et all have hopefully learned the lesson that state care is good but there are times when you have to take a step back....Let's hope so.

And I say let's hope so because the Tory alternative is to leave us to flounder and sink, with 'care' being cost-effective, at a cost set from the top, while the wealthy 1% float on top of us, getting fatter while we get sicker.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Satori said:


> Then it seems churlish to complain about the state welfare system not handing out money more freely to folk such as those shown on dispatches. No state = no handouts, no?
> 
> (Not trying to invalidate Anarchy. Trying to understand a bit more.)


then may i suggest opening up google and typing in the words "anarchy" and "welfare" as a good place to start?

short version - welfare and support = good, state welfare = bad.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

porps said:


> then may i suggest opening up google and typing in the words "anarchy" and "welfare" as a good place to start?
> 
> short version - welfare and support = good, state welfare = bad.


Did that. After an enjoyable afternoon watching the (brilliant) Larken Rose debate you linked to on YouTube, I jumped straight to googling, infrastructure and anarchism / banking and anarchism / and welfare system and and anarchism. I read some dross and some good stuff too. I could get my head around most issues, but not welfare. Welfare seems intractable to me. A welfare system with no state seems incompatible with human nature but maybe I am just projecting.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> *then may i suggest opening up google and typing in the words "anarchy" and "welfare" as a good place to start?*
> short version - welfare and support = good, state welfare = bad.


I did. Across the several sites I looked at, the only coherent answer I found was 'Everyone starts helping each other instead.'

Well, it's a nice pipe dream, I suppose. No chance of it ever working on a large scale in reality, though. Human nature does not, on the whole, that way tend.

I know Animal Farm was written about Communism, not Anarchy, but as far as I can see the observations it makes hold true for the latter too.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> *I know Animal Farm was written about Communism*, not Anarchy, but as far as I can see the observations it makes hold true for the latter too.


Correction. Animal Farm was written as a critique of the Bolshevik Revolution and the following era of Stalinism. Not the same thing at all.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

silvi said:


> Correction. Animal Farm was written as a critique of the Bolshevik Revolution and the following era of Stalinism. Not the same thing at all.


Pedant!  It's been a LONG time since GCSE English, sadly! 

Only reason it's so uppermost in my mind at the moment is I've been doing doing an upcycling weaving course at a local church the last few weeks, and there is a theater group practicing an Animal Farm musical in the big hall next to the room we're in. I suspect I know the 'Sugarcandy Mountain' song better than half the cast at this point...


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Satori said:


> Did that. After an enjoyable afternoon watching the (brilliant) Larken Rose debate you linked to on YouTube, I jumped straight to googling, infrastructure and anarchism / banking and anarchism / and welfare system and and anarchism. I read some dross and some good stuff too. I could get my head around most issues, but not welfare. Welfare seems intractable to me. A welfare system with no state seems incompatible with human nature but maybe I am just projecting.


Ok great, i'm glad it's led you to look into a bit more. I apologise for assuming that you hadnt bothered. I'm sure larkin rose would be able to answer your question but im no larkin rose, thats what i mean when i say why do u expect me to be able to answer?

but **** it, i'll try... Not everything has to be a system. Do other social animals not take care of their sick, or their elderely? or is it impossible for them to do so because they dont have a state?? We're just animals too. We can do the same.



Jesthar said:


> I did. Across the several sites I looked at, the only coherent answer I found was 'Everyone starts helping each other instead.'
> 
> Well, it's a nice pipe dream, I suppose. No chance of it ever working on a large scale in reality, though. Human nature does not, on the whole, that way tend.


If 1% of the world didnt own so much of the wealth (although its not actual wealth, its just currency, and the moment people stop beleiving _that_ lie they lose much of their power) then people helping each other wouldnt seem like such a strange idea.

And even if it is a dream, it's one much more worthy of chasing than "the ruling few have almost everything and everyone else should just obey".. which is the current system.

I get it.. YOU dont understand the concept of cooperation. Thats not a failing of anarchy, thats a result of the current system brainwashing people to beleive that the only way anything can ever get done is if someone is telling you what to do.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> Pedant!  It's been a LONG time since GCSE English, sadly!
> 
> Only reason it's so uppermost in my mind at the moment is I've been doing doing an upcycling weaving course at a local church the last few weeks, and there is a theater group practicing an Animal Farm musical in the big hall next to the room we're in. I suspect I know the 'Sugarcandy Mountain' song better than half the cast at this point...


It's okay 
I will always leap in and argue that one, same as I will if I see Stalinism compared to Socialism. I just can never let it go unanswered.

An Animal Farm musical......(Like _The Producers_ only set on a farm? )
Wonder what George would have thought....?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> Ok great, i'm glad it's led you to look into a bit more. I apologise for assuming that you hadnt bothered. I'm sure larkin rose would be able to answer your question but im no larkin rose, thats what i mean when i say why do u expect me to be able to answer?
> 
> but **** it, i'll try... Not everything has to be a system. Do other social animals not take care of their sick, or their elderely? or is it impossible for them to do so because they dont have a state?? We're just animals too. We can do the same.


Depends what you define as a state, I suppose. Bees, for example, routinely evict sick or useless bees (such as drones once they are no longer required for mating), or even execute them. The colony comes first. In many other cases, the sick and elderly are the ones picked off by predators, and you won't usually see the rest of the herd hanging around to try and protect them. The may well try and protect the young, though. But on a whole, the animal world is not a sentimental place.



porps said:


> If 1% of the world didnt own so much of the wealth (although its not actual wealth, its just currency, and the moment people stop beleiving _that_ lie they lose much of their power) then people helping each other wouldnt seem like such a strange idea.
> 
> And even if it is a dream, it's one much more worthy of chasing than "the ruling few have almost everything and everyone else should just obey".. which is the current system.
> 
> *I get it.. YOU dont understand the concept of cooperation. Thats not a failing of anarchy, thats a result of the current system brainwashing people to beleive that the only way anything can ever get done is if someone is telling you what to do*.


Ahem. That's a lot of assumptions to be making about someone - falsely, as it happens. Just because I understand that human nature means most people look after themselves first and others in varying degrees of second (from 'anything I don't need others can have' to 'what's your is mine, what's mine's my own'), doesn't mean I don't understand the concept of co-operation. It simply means I know that there will always be those who are willing to use any means they see fit to gain power, and that those kind of people are difficult to stop. Which is why any co-operative system is very fragile once it grows beyond a moderate size.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if everyone was nice and helped whoever else who needed it (it would be a great reality  ), just that in reality it's not psychologically viable. Re-education is one thing, but you can't re-educate basic human selfishness - well, unless you work out a way to re-program humans from the ground up, but then we are back to brainwashing...


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> Ahem. That's a lot of assumptions to be making about someone - falsely, as it happens. Just because I understand that human nature means most people look after themselves first and others in varying degrees of second (from 'anything I don't need others can have' to 'what's your is mine, what's mine's my own'), doesn't mean I don't understand the concept of co-operation. *It simply means I know that there will always be those who are willing to use any means they see fit to gain power, and that those kind of people are difficult to stop. * Which is why any co-operative system is very fragile once it grows beyond a moderate size.


The thing is, you talk like this kind of thing is a bad thing... but thats exactly what we have atm, and you seem to be defending it, you seem to wish to keep things the way they are.. these people have already gained power, and yes they are difficult to stop, even more so if we dont try.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

MollySmith said:


> Okay, I watched Panorama last night and the concept was politics needs a bit of love. The argument from several community leaders in large estates where they were trying to get betterment programmes started up was that places require love and attention. Without a love for the environment then you cant begin to feel like you can make it better. Beatty make an interesting point here as someone who marched in Cable Street which in itself needs to be studied to make an educated comment. She says that we need to pay attention to history. I agree, we forget that much of what weve said here has been debated and fought over in the past.
> 
> I dont think anyone is wrong or right btw  like any good debate though it need to be backed up by evidence. Ive seen very little of that in this thread, plenty of conjecture from porps and evasiveness from Janice, worthy of any politician  I also find it interesting that  and assuming Im correct  that porps is a man and the most vocal on here. I think gender has a lot to to do with my opening post and of course suffragettes.
> 
> ...


So did anyone read/watch this?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Yes ofc mafias and the like will spring up. But much rather a mafia than the goverment. the major difference between governments and mafias is that people arent brainwashed into believing that the mafia has some kind of RIGHT to extort them, to steal from them or to threaten them.



> What literally happens is that one group of people issues a command, and the:r enforcers impose it upon the masses, by punishing disobedience. This is what the Mafia does, what street gangs do, what schoolyard bullies do, and what all governments do. The difference is that when government does it, it uses not only threats but also indoctrination, of both the enforcers and the general public Where the message of most thugs is usually direct and honest (Do what I say or I hurt you), the government
> message involves a great deal of psychology and mind control, which is essential to making the state mercenaries feel righteous about inflicting oppression on others. The controllers in government portray themselves as lawmakers who have the right to govern society, portray their commands as laws, and portray any who disobey as criminals. And, unlike Mafia heavies, those who administer retribution against any who disobey the politicians are portrayed, not merely as hired thugs, but as noble law
> enforcers, who are righteously protecting society from all the uncivilized, contemptuous law-breakers. -Larken Rose


also check this out...

https://my2commoncents.wordpress.co...-is-better-than-the-state-by-emily-sandblade/


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> So did anyone read/watch this?


i tried but it was too boring. And i hate panaroma / the BBC anyway--- their agenda is quite clear - protect the state.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> The thing is, you talk like this kind of thing is a bad thing... but thats exactly what we have atm, and you seem to be defending it, you seem to wish to keep things the way they are.. these people have already gained power, and yes they are difficult to stop, even more so if we dont try.


I'm not saying it's good or bad, as it could be either. Some would say the best form of governance would be a benign, benevolent, fair-handed dictatorship. Others would say each should be allowed to do as they please without rules or restraint, and if that means that the bullies and the violent implement a reign of terror over everyone else, so be it.

All I am saying is that there will always be more people that will twist all situations to their personal advantage that it will ever be possible to stop. And it's isn't necessarily because the other people won't try, but for reasons varying from that whatever system is in place is OK by them, to that they don't want to _die_ (or worse).


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> I'm not saying it's good or bad, as it could be either. Some would say the best form of governance would be a benign, benevolent, fair-handed dictatorship. Others would say each should be allowed to do as they please without rules or restraint, and if that means that the bullies and the violent implement a reign of terror over everyone else, so be it.
> 
> All I am saying is that there will always be more people that will twist all situations to their personal advantage that it will ever be possible to stop. And it's isn't necessarily because the other people won't try, but for reasons varying from that whatever system is in place is OK by them, to that they don't want to _die_ (or worse).


well if you dont think it's necessarily a bad thing than i dont understand your aurgument really.

I personally would prefer to live in a society with the _possiblity_ that someone might try to seize power, than live in the current situation where power has already been seized.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

MollySmith said:


> So did anyone read/watch this?


Yes I did and I was not impressed to be honest.

The program showed a few disparate people talking about their lives and tried to say that 'Love' (whether for community or family or a particular cause) was the concept that bound them all.

But really, I don't think it showed that at all.

What it showed was that society, communities and close family groups have been decimated since Thatcherism and, although everyone in that program was doing their bit, it all appeared a little hopeless to me .

And I didn't think it helped by trying to chuck them all into a mix and call their actions 'Love' just to fit into a short series looking at different concepts (next week's is 'family' I believe).

Altogether, I found it a bit of a disappointment I'm afraid.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> well if you dont think it's necessarily a bad thing than i dont understand your aurgument really.
> 
> *I personally would prefer to live in a society with the possiblity that someone might try to seize power,* than live in the current situation where power has already been seized.


All I'm saying is that this is, in reality, impossible - someone will ALWAYS step forward take power. Whether that is for better or worse depends on the person.

And that, of course, is why we currently live in a situation where power has been taken. And why if you get rid of them, someone will take their place -maybe not in an identical way, but usually close enough to be 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss.'


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> All I'm saying is that this is, in reality, impossible - someone will ALWAYS step forward take power. Whether that is for better or worse depends on the person.
> 
> And that, of course, is why we currently live in a situation where power has been taken. And why if you get rid of them, someone will take their place -maybe not in an identical way, but usually close enough to be 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss.'


This aurgument you keep using, this appeal to human nature... I could just as easily say cooperation is human nature.

it is dealt with quite well in this article : This Human Nature | A Division by Zer0

some other choice bits from that site... (since you accuse me of pipe dreams)


> who is really the ideologue here? Who is assuming an expertise of human nature in order to have some kind of unshakable base? Who is ignoring the historical forms of human societies (hint: communal) and the considerable amount of coercion required by the state in order to jump-start Capitalism? Who is absolutely oblivious the true role of the state and the real impotence of elections and government to change life for the better through normal channels, even when there is considerable popular request for social reform?
> 
> Worst of all, it's the more than ironic result of this superior system, Capitalism, that the vast majority of people live in worse situations than they lived in pre-capitalist societies. One only has to look at the situation in the lost continent, Africa, and compare it with the pre-capitalist tribal societies, which while not great by any measure of the word, were never as bad as today. One only has to look at the current environmental obliteration, the sheer scale of unending conflict and even the relative worsening conditions of people in all nations to ask: Who is really the ideologue here?





> In the end, who is the ideologue? The one who looks at how humans currently and historically acted and interacted and makes a revolutionary theory to describe and lead to something better, or one who makes a theory which proves to be a failure in practice and then refuse to discard it?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

come on people keep going, you've nearly completed the full set


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Yes capitalism is only a few centuries old but hierarchies existed in just about every society that evolved to the point where there was a surplus of resources for a ruling elite to be able to not work for it and complex societies do then require a system of organisation annoying as it is. I've no doubt tribes in the Amazon are happy but I can't see a anarchic system working now.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> This aurgument you keep using, this appeal to human nature... *I could just as easily say cooperation is human nature*.
> 
> it is dealt with quite well in this article : This Human Nature | A Division by Zer0
> 
> some other choice bits from that site... (since you accuse me of pipe dreams)


With like-minded people you know and trust, and when you yourself are getting what you need out of the arrangement (doesn't have to be material, could just a sense of satisfaction), perhaps. Small scale in a scenario where there is enough to go round, it can work, yes.

On a wider scale, especially when faced with competition for limited resources or a warlord in the ascendancy, history shows us that instances of benevolent civilisations rapidly decline. You mention tribal systems; how many of those were constantly fighting/raiding other tribes anyway long before any non-tribal governing methodology intervened? Didn't they have tribal leaders and matriarch anyway, and their own individual 'class' systems? Or is that OK under your personal definition of anarchy?

Perhaps you think I am too cynical. Perhaps you think I should be more generous in my opinion of my fellow man. I just call it as I, personally, see it. I've not been advocating capitalism, or any other form of government, just observing _why_ a non-power based society model has a habit of breaking down quickly. If you know of somewhere where it IS working on a large scale (or has in the past), I'm definitely interested in hearing about it, but it would be helpful if you could actually just say what it is/was as my available Googling time does have both limits and other demands on it. 

And yes, the Bingo card is amusing - rather Politician's Polka, but amusing.  I prefer Boycott Bingo, personally - "My Granny", "Stick of rhubarb"


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Jesthar said:


> With like-minded people you know and trust, and when you yourself are getting what you need out of the arrangement (doesn't have to be material, could just a sense of satisfaction), perhaps. Small scale in a scenario where there is enough to go round, it can work, yes.
> 
> On a wider scale, especially when faced with competition for limited resources or a warlord in the ascendancy, history shows us that instances of benevolent civilisations rapidly decline. You mention tribal systems; how many of those were constantly fighting/raiding other tribes anyway long before any non-tribal governing methodology intervened? Didn't they have tribal leaders and matriarch anyway, and their own individual 'class' systems? Or is that OK under your personal definition of anarchy?
> 
> ...


Don't destroy his noble savage image of a beautiful egalitarian world where no one fights and everyone lives happily ever after


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2015)

Call me a hopeless idealist, but I think we are begining to move towards a more cooperative society. 

In many parenting communities there is a movement towards non-punitive parenting based on raising children who have *self* control, not children who have had control imposed on them from the outside (the basis of punishment - control).

In education there is a movement towards self-directed education, getting rid of segregation based on age, and putting students in charge of their learning goals, and basically doing away with the traditional school design.

Both of these movements are young enough that many people think they can't possibly work, but they are also old enough that we are seeing that they can. But it is like pulling teeth to get people to let go of old ways. The familiar is way too secure, and change - even good change, is incredibly hard.

What does this have to do with a cooperative society? Same idea, letting go of old paradigms, and believing that something one has never seen in practice, something one has no experience with, can work just as well, and often better. 

But also, raising a generation of kids who are not indoctrinated in a punishment based hierarchical family and education paradigm, opens the door for them to create massive change in our current society.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

porps said:


> This aurgument you keep using, this appeal to human nature... I could just as easily say cooperation is human nature.
> 
> it is dealt with quite well in this article : This Human Nature | A Division by Zer0
> 
> some other choice bits from that site... (since you accuse me of pipe dreams)


Nice to see you using Marxist theory (particularly Engel's The Family Private Property And The State') as an example 

I myself much prefer that theory to Hobbes' view on human nature, particularly the 'state of nature' before developed society:
The State Of Nature Is A State Of War
But having said that, he did see women as equal to men.....

The problem is, that we can all bring examples to this (many-sided) argument, examples written, posted online, or from our own personal experiences.
And our views on this will vary accordingly.

But I can't see anyone on this thread admiring the present government and their policies - just people trying to get to grips with how we can make changes for the better.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

yeah i knew it wouldnt be a popular comment, i aint here to be popular. if someone talks down to me like that i'll F em up. might be different where you come from,but where i come from you dont let people talk to you like that.

And where did i say that was my vision for society? go on, go back and find the quote where i said "my vision is A society where smashing skulls is expected and accepted behaviour".. go find it..... i'll wait... no? no quote? didnt think so.

Thats ME reacting to some mouthy little moron on a personal level. Thats not the same as an ideology, or a vision for society or anything liek that.. have you never got annoyed in your life? If yes, did the way you reacted sum up your vision for society? If not, why do you assume that my reaction does? except to use it as another ridiculous strawman aurgument against any kind of change.



Jesthar said:


> In my experience, people who have very little are often some of the most generous.


yes, agreed. but they dont have much to give since the 1% have it all.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2015)

Jesthar said:


> In my experience, people who have very little are often some of the most generous.


In my experience too 

I've also noticed that sometimes those with the best ideas, the brightest minds, are also the quietest. They're too busy *doing* to bother with talking about what they're doing


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2015)

porps said:


> yeah i knew it wouldnt be a popular comment, i aint here to be popular. if someone talks down to me like that i'll F em up. might be different where you come from,but where i come from you dont let people talk to you like that.


For someone who argues for cooperation and humans looking out for each other, you sure don't walk the walk...

Your perception of how people are speaking to you is exactly that, YOUR perception. Perception =/= reality.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

This is why a world-wide commune wouldn't work. Too many people react to ideas they don't like with violence. At least in a commune you can leave.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Oh Porps is banned :/ hope its not for long.

Well anyway, I hope im ok to post about tomorrows climate march in London tomorrow on this thread - it is kind of relevant in that its an act of civil disobedience, plus its our current political system that is driving climate change. So if we don't find an immediate alternative to this unrestrained capitalism we have, there is no hope - its game over, and we destroy our life support system.

Time to act -

Time To Act


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Edited: We're not allowed to talk about banned members are we? But to be clear I didn't ask for him to be banned or report the post even.

Something absolutely needs to be done about climate change, but even from this thread it's clear anarchy wouldn't work.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Oh Porps is banned :/ hope its not for long.
> 
> Well anyway, I hope im ok to post about tomorrows climate march in London tomorrow on this thread - it is kind of relevant in that its an act of civil disobedience, plus its our current political system that is driving climate change. So if we don't find an immediate alternative to this unrestrained capitalism we have, there is no hope - its game over, and we destroy our life support system.
> 
> ...


Post away. 

I'm sure the rest of us can debate a subject without death threats and vile language.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> Edited: We're not allowed to talk about banned members are we? But to be clear I didn't ask for him to be banned or report th post even.
> 
> Something absolutely needs to be done about climate change, but even from this thread it's clear anarchy wouldn't work.


No we're not Nicky.:/

Sorry, I disagree this thread is irrelevant imo. Experts like Naom Chomsky have great alternatives to the current systems. Communities that govern themselves such as Anarcho-syndicalism.

Noam Chomsky_:Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can't justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times.
Anarcho-syndicalism is a particular variety of anarchism which was concerned primarily, though not solely, but primarily with control over work, over the work place, over production. It took for granted that working people ought to control their own work, its conditions, [that] they ought to control the enterprises in which they work, along with communities, so they should be associated with one another in free associations, and … democracy of that kind should be the foundational elements of a more general free society. And then, you know, ideas are worked out about how exactly that should manifest itself, but I think that is the core of anarcho-syndicalist thinking. I mean it's not at all the general image that you described - people running around the streets, you know, breaking store windows - but [anarcho-syndicalism] is a conception of a very organized society, but organized from below by direct participation at every level, with as little control and domination as is feasible, maybe none_


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

So an extension of the unions to actual control? Then those working together to govern society?


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2015)

LOL we can't even convince people that dogs don't operate under a linear hierarchy, it's a long row to hoe to convince people that humans can. 

I do think it's possible, but it's going to take generations for the paradigm to shift, and it's going to take starting from the get-go with raising our children entirely differently too. Then those kids will grow up knowing it *can* work, and be able to implement meaningful change. 

In the meantime, all we're doing is putting a band-aid on a hemorrhage.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Exactly people are obssessed with finding that their pets are trying to be dominant whatever the species and finding ways to dominating them, alpha rolling dogs and horses, dabbing pee on rats that bite . It would take a long time for even the idea that the dominant animal including humans isn't the biggest bully.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

We don't have generations - we are the last generation that can stop runaway climate change.

.


.


----------

