The problem is Guido, once they introduce the extension to state funding, if people then sit on their hands as per your wishes, they'll just make voting compulsory, thus securing the filthy lucre and eroding our freedom even further.
Go to the ballot. Then spoil your paper with the words "NO STATE FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES"
They'll then see your message and see why you are pissed off.
Chad is right Guido - you ought to encourage people to go to vote and then spoil their paper with a suitable message - the beggars always look at the spoilt papers carefully. Staying at home risks being thought apathetic, thus encouraging the scumbags to spend more of our money on trying to get us to vote and, even worse, damaging the security of the ballot (postal vote rigging anyone?) so that any old fraudster or foreigner can vote as many times as they like.
"Government is the problem so vote for a smaller one. Not voting doesn't resolve anything. Hold these fcukers to account. "
Sadly the Libertarian Alliance isn't standing. UKIP call themselves libertarian which I will believe when they promise to destroy the welfare system.
Until then I'll have to stick with the Tories as the least worse option. Plus in my local area I don't like what the Lib Dems are doing regarding planning decisions and rubbish collection.
This is pretty meaningless stuff - can you imagine any mainstream politician who would disagree with this? It is what one might call The Ladybird Book of Political Philosophy. Now tell us what you really believe in, Mr Fawkes.
Sadly the Libertarian Alliance isn't standing. UKIP call themselves libertarian which I will believe when they promise to destroy the welfare system.
Until then I'll have to stick with the Tories as the least worse option
Huh? So you want a libertarian party, have identified the most libertarian party, but instead of voting them (not liking them not being libertarian enough even though they are the most libertarian on offer), you'll vote for the more nhs funding, pro state funding, remove one-member one vote from members, pro 'positive' discrimonation Tories?
So... behind all the hype, Guido is a 13-year-old beta-quality philosopher who'd happily hand his country over to whatever rabble can get their vote out best. Explains a lot
God that goes on forever. Did anyone make it to the end?
From the bit I could be bothered with, I would say the teenager who produced should be commended for thinking about politics and things but will obviously grow out of this silly phase once he finishes his A-levels.
Fucking Hell, Guido! Have you gone all New Age preachy on us?
It was truly dire presentation. I might agree with your basic premise, but really...
Anyway, in all honesty the only way to piss off the politicos is to speak their language and vote the bastards out. True, we'll get another set of bastards in, but I do like the bastards to be 'uncertain' about their possible re-election. It's so much better when their arrogance is tempered by fear.
As to the bastards actually believing in anything at all (short of their own immediate and direct benefit), let alone primacy of individual liberty, well come on, let's not be silly...
Well done Guido. That's been my approach for years. I was happy protest voting Lib Dem until they became pro the Euro. And actually they're still a bunch of w@nkers anyway.
But have you noticed the voting slip has had the bottom margin reduced to almost nothing so there's no space to add comments? I just put a line through all the boxes. Balls to them all.
I used to think my approach was a cop-out but actually I'm participating in the process, I'm just not voting for the losers in front of me. Put somebody decent up and I'll vote for them.
Gosh guid's, brings back memories of attending the ole agitprop lectures at Moscow State Uni back in the 70's. Ahh memories, the brain-washing, the dogma to be learnt by rote and the midnight razzia's and interrogations. Thanks for the memories ole boy.
Mr Fawkes's headline policy appears to have been the winner in recent years (although there may have been certain other contributory factors, some of which he occasionally refers to).
If you want to change "them" an option is to get involved.
Despite agreeing with most of the contents, some of it is an over simplification leading to an erroneous conclusion that not voting helps in any way. Had a "what the fuck was that" feeling at the end though. Down to shite presentation me thinks.
Agree Guido but more damage can be done from within ,get the Guido party going, get loads of votes to become the leading party then yor da man ,otherwise you can put pen to papet and moan for the rest of your life ,nobody will give a monkeys ,all mouth and no trousers my gran used to say about libertarians .
I don't know why one person isn't allowed to be elected for more than one constituency. That way a popular figure could claim to represent us all! (And we could start getting rid of some of the more pernicious side-effects of the party system)
"Huh? So you want a libertarian party, have identified the most libertarian party, but instead of voting them (not liking them not being libertarian enough even though they are the most libertarian on offer), you'll vote for the more nhs funding, pro state funding, remove one-member one vote from members, pro 'positive' discrimonation Tories?"
A) UKIP aren't standing in my area B) The Tories are and have local policies I approve of C) Voting UKIP at a general election would risk letting in the pro-EU LibDems D)UKIP are a joke, especially after Farage's tank stunt
I'm standing for Westminster next time in a seat where my politics mean I'll probably get elected.
If I hear one more idiot mouthing off about how shit all politicians are and how they're all in it for themselves and all they care about is power I'll puke.
Of all the things I could be doing in life politics is about the last thing I would choose to bring me any such thing.
It just so happens that I think it's important that people get involved.
How many of you morons have actually put anything back? How many of you try and help maintain the commuinities around you which you rely on every moment of everyday.
If you all have such a problem with democracy, a stable society and the consequent politicians why don't you all fuck off to the Sudan or Darfur and see what it's like without it all.
iirc, there was some legislation to prohibit 'None Of The Above' appearing on the ballot paper not long before the last GE, the Bastards don't even want to allow you that satisfaction.
My my its seems to be rude to guido day on this thread all because he says voting is a shit idea. listen you thick fuckers what he means(I think) is that voting for any of this current crop of shite is as pointless as voting was in soviet era Albania . They all sing from the same sheet and offer you no choice, by voting for any of them you lend them undeserved credibility. As to changing a party from within? Fuck that , I would much rather put the fuckers up against a wall and shoot them.
this, guido, you have wrong. people should vote; if they think all the candidates are no good they should stand themselves; if they think all the parties are no good they should form their own. there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the democratic process, whatever you think of the politicians we have.
Only candidates where I am voting are from the big three parties so i'll be attending but writing none of the above. I did actually have a last minute urge to stand as an independent against the two ancient time servers who will no doubt be returned but I just missed the closing date. It would be useful if when they sent the annual electoral registration note they told us when the elections will be and closing dates instead of arrogantly assuming we don't want stand.
Abstaining in person is the most effective. Turn up, spoil the ballot paper, drop it in the box. They announce how many spoil papers. When they reach over 50% of the electorate the politicians' legitimacy is - let's say - questionable.
Now Guido ... I like the anarcho sentiments of that slogan, whatever the rest say. As is usually the case, the morons fail to distinguisgh between 'libertarian' and 'libertine' (mind you, if you hang-out with Stringfellow they may have a point). The purpose of the 'don't vote' concept is to remove the mandate to govern, suspect though such a policy might be in practice (though perhaps not as suspect as the concept of 'propaganda by deed'). I very much doubt if such sentiments were ever expressed in Moscow State or Moscow Central for that matter ... I doubt if any such thoughts had been openly expressed in that city since the funeral of Prince Peter Kropotkin. As for dismissing such political philosophy as 'beta', when the writers of such drivel have turned down the chair in geology at Oxford and the editorship of the National Geographic, since both required them to give up said political stance, perhaps they might just be worth listening to. The Rooskie communist party always maintained that one should 'change it from within'. Mind you, given that the juvenile nutters with the 'A' in the 'O' on their backs don't have the slightest idea what it means ('Anarchy is Order'), and care more about pussy cats than people (that's 'pussy cats' not 'pussies'), one can hardly be surprised that anarchy isn't seen as a serious political philosophy in this country, and given that it's such a wide church that it includes anarcho-capitalism as well as the more left-wing syndicalism, one can't really be surprised that few comprehend it. Me? I just like it because it scares the bloody lot of them.
"C) Voting UKIP at a general election would risk letting in the pro-EU LibDems"
LOL. If Cameron had got his way, voting Tory for London Mayor would have resulted in a Labour man winning on a LibDem/Tory ticket.
It seems that voting Tory is now exactly the way to get the LibDems in.
Why not just stop voting for 'parties' all together? Look at the candidates, blind to their rosette, see how close they *personally* come to your core values/button issues (and whether they have the backbone to vote for what they believe in even if against the party line) and vote for them.
can't hang around to watch Gordon's car crash
said...
Whats this about Blair doing a runner after the election? Obviously representing the people of Sedgefield isn't good enough for him. I wonder what they think of that?
Still, I suppose he has to pay the mortgage somehow.
You Muppets just dont get it do you? NULAB/LIBDEM/NUCON are ALL the same now! crooked perverts one and all! Oh how they are pissing themselves laughing right now! If "call me Dave" is elected he will be a clone of Tony Bliar! You have been sold down the river to the EUSSR by them all! VOTE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!
I have voted for my cat.Just write "MY CAT" on the ballot paper.it is that easy. You could vote for "WOOLLY BULLY" He runs in the 615 at Hereford tonight if you haven't got a cat.
"there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the democratic process, whatever you think of the politicians we have."
Any process that allows 51% of the population to control the lives and wallets of 49% of the population is flawed. A libertarian constitutional monarchy that leaves people alone would be far superior.
Ok so the flash movie supports private property rights. But says nothing about the current status quo of large land owning families who got given their land from kings who nabbed it off others, or through enclosing common land.
It was so abstract idealogically as to be meaningless.
Not voting doesn't seem to work. viz America where turn out is so low, but I don't see their politicians in piques of self doubt over not having a true mandate.
But then voting doesn't seem to work either :P The party system is daft as there is an inherent conflict of interest between MPs representing their constituents' views and towing the party line to receive ministerial positions.
My approach is to vote for independent candidates where I can.
Not voting is certainly not the way to go. If nothing pleases, spoil the paper with the various suggestions. I'd rather vote for my cat than a Labour politician and I haven't even got a cat.
The outline of the presentation is sound and one I agree with. Of course people can pick holes over land-owners etc, but a good start is to say in general, this is how it will be from now on.
What I like about it is that very rapidly you will realise that taxation for anthing much beyond a defensive army, police, courts, prisons is pretty difficult to justify as most is taken without consent.
A gold star for Chris. I class myself as a libertarian, and love the way Guide sticks it to politicians, but I suspect him of being one of those libertarians that thinks that total free-market anarchy would be capitalism on speed. If so, he is wrong. True freedom won't be socialist, but it won't be capitalist either (in any meaningful sense). In a total free market there will be no state to enforce corporate patents, put down unions, recognise corporate copyrights, protect the vast swathes of land "owned" by absentee landlords, regulate markets in favour of large corporations, drive subsistence farmers off land into capitalist-owned sweatshops, create limited liability laws, etc, etc.
Capitalism is not the free market.
For more along these lines see:
http://mutualist.blogspot.com (especially the "Vulgar Libertarianism" posts).
Guido: Libertarianism only takes you so far philosophically. Mutualism is the logical next step to total freedom. Join us!
Actually Guido (when he had UK bank accounts) banked with the Co-op. Cobdenites don't do patents or corporate welfare. We do out-compete subsistence farmers and own sweat shops etc.
But you wouldn't stop us doing that and we wouldn't stop you running co-ops.
My humour may be vulgar, but my libertarianism is not.
Hmmm... whilst voting might be choosing the best of a bad lot, there is the quote of George Jean Nathan's: "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who don't vote". Not voting simply adds to the weight of the votes of others (the other votes become a greater fraction of the whole) - including sadly, the BNP.
Incidentally the video is deliberately simple and abstract. If you want a more complex explanation read a book like Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
There's a lot of angry political activists here! Clearly, the presentation touched a sore point. It does clearly outline the basic human rights of life, liberty and property, and where these are being denied, indicates who is responsible. I did see one problem with it. After it was stated that governments are responsible for initiating force against others throughout the world (and thus denying them life, liberty and property), it was stated that the solution was for people to not ask them to do it. In reality, people don't ask them now. Governments do as they (and their Illuminati master) please and use fear to keep public opposition at bay. They use the main-stream media to put across a message such as, "Support us getting extra powers to remove your liberty and property (and the lives of others), or al-Qaeda will come and blow up your house!".
The basic rights were described by John Locke in the 17th century. At that time, the things that gave the elite power over others were wealth and knowledge. The industrial revolution, which started in the 18th century and continues to this day, gave everyone wealth, and gave most people alive today the opportunity of life. The information revolution, which started at the end of the last century, is going to give everyone knowledge. The desire to know is innate, but a combination of intimidation and misinformation by State education and the main-stream media, has led to a population that is unable to think for themselves or question authority. Throughout this century, the population will change. The young will never give up the desire to know, and they will know where to get answers their questions. It won't be the teacher or the BBC, it will be the internet. The elite would sorely like to control this, but they are unable to. The internet is piggy-backed onto the telephone system, which we all depend on to stay alive, including the elite. In the coming years, all they will be able to do is watch on helplessly as their control mechanisms and their power wither away. Are any of you activists wannabe prime ministers? Best not to bother. The executive (and their Illuminati master) won't have the power it has today.
Frankly bullshit Guido, I don't just own myself, I have the power to make my servants do as I say. And if I am not happy, I have the power to fuck off elsewhere. Trust me, I will if neccesary.
I'm sure that you will too...
The right to a free vote does not give you liberty, but taking a chained vote does not take it away.
If we're so into self ownership, why the fuck am I faced with surrendering control of my life, liberty and happiness to the control of my employer, on terms he chooses an I must accept, or face starvation, thus depriving me of my life?
Those parts of nature which I may mix with my labour in order to survive have already been appropriated by others, many generations ago.
We have an equal right to self ownership, which generations of unbalanced exchanges has made impossible for the innocent births of today. Self ownership requires socialism.
61 comments:
Not Funny. At All.
Oh, was it meant to be, anon? There was me thinking it as about ones philosophy in life. But there you go, silly old me.
The thing is, Guido - in the immortal words of CJ Cregg - decisions are made by those who show up.
The problem is Guido, once they introduce the extension to state funding, if people then sit on their hands as per your wishes, they'll just make voting compulsory, thus securing the filthy lucre and eroding our freedom even further.
Go to the ballot. Then spoil your paper with the words "NO STATE FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES"
They'll then see your message and see why you are pissed off.
God I wished CJ Cregg would blog. OK it may be a sweaty little puss ball like guido who is actually doing the work but I can dream
I thought you were a Libertarian, not an anarchist Guido.
Government is the problem so vote for a smaller one. Not voting doesn't resolve anything. Hold these fcukers to account.
God I wish we could have an election to get rid of guido. Fucking ECHR.
Guido is a pragmatic libertarian in practise, having adopted a personal policy of self-defence in terms of life, liberty and property.
Am anarcho-capitalist after a few drinks. Alas it just doesn't work in a world of nation states, but in principle that would be ideal.
So am a self-liberating neo-Nozickian when sober. There aren't many of us about.
Enough of your philosopho-babble!
Dish some dirt.
So Guido & Le Pen take the same line?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6611539.stm
In Dagenham Guido's advice will mean a BNP council. I hate New Labour, but unlike Guido I cannot fuck-off to Ireland if the nazis win.
Ideology is a wonderful thing - look what blind adherence to an outdated idea did for Marxism.
Chad is right Guido - you ought to encourage people to go to vote and then spoil their paper with a suitable message - the beggars always look at the spoilt papers carefully. Staying at home risks being thought apathetic, thus encouraging the scumbags to spend more of our money on trying to get us to vote and, even worse, damaging the security of the ballot (postal vote rigging anyone?) so that any old fraudster or foreigner can vote as many times as they like.
"Government is the problem so vote for a smaller one. Not voting doesn't resolve anything. Hold these fcukers to account. "
Sadly the Libertarian Alliance isn't standing. UKIP call themselves libertarian which I will believe when they promise to destroy the welfare system.
Until then I'll have to stick with the Tories as the least worse option. Plus in my local area I don't like what the Lib Dems are doing regarding planning decisions and rubbish collection.
Bah, you'd cry like a bubba if your supposed "libertarian" world view came to pass.
"personal policy of self-defence in terms of life, liberty and property."
And having watched your performance on Newsnight, I bet you fight like a girl.
This is pretty meaningless stuff - can you imagine any mainstream politician who would disagree with this? It is what one might call The Ladybird Book of Political Philosophy. Now tell us what you really believe in, Mr Fawkes.
If only mainstream politicians did believe in the primacy of individual liberty.
Sadly the Libertarian Alliance isn't standing. UKIP call themselves libertarian which I will believe when they promise to destroy the welfare system.
Until then I'll have to stick with the Tories as the least worse option
Huh? So you want a libertarian party, have identified the most libertarian party, but instead of voting them (not liking them not being libertarian enough even though they are the most libertarian on offer), you'll vote for the more nhs funding, pro state funding, remove one-member one vote from members, pro 'positive' discrimonation Tories?
Are you fucking serious?
So... behind all the hype, Guido is a 13-year-old beta-quality philosopher who'd happily hand his country over to whatever rabble can get their vote out best. Explains a lot
Well said, hillhunt.
God that goes on forever. Did anyone make it to the end?
From the bit I could be bothered with, I would say the teenager who produced should be commended for thinking about politics and things but will obviously grow out of this silly phase once he finishes his A-levels.
Fucking Hell, Guido! Have you gone all New Age preachy on us?
It was truly dire presentation. I might agree with your basic premise, but really...
Anyway, in all honesty the only way to piss off the politicos is to speak their language and vote the bastards out. True, we'll get another set of bastards in, but I do like the bastards to be 'uncertain' about their possible re-election. It's so much better when their arrogance is tempered by fear.
As to the bastards actually believing in anything at all (short of their own immediate and direct benefit), let alone primacy of individual liberty, well come on, let's not be silly...
Well done Guido. That's been my approach for years. I was happy protest voting Lib Dem until they became pro the Euro. And actually they're still a bunch of w@nkers anyway.
But have you noticed the voting slip has had the bottom margin reduced to almost nothing so there's no space to add comments? I just put a line through all the boxes. Balls to them all.
I used to think my approach was a cop-out but actually I'm participating in the process, I'm just not voting for the losers in front of me. Put somebody decent up and I'll vote for them.
Gosh guid's, brings back memories of attending the ole agitprop lectures at Moscow State Uni back in the 70's.
Ahh memories, the brain-washing, the dogma to be learnt by rote and the midnight razzia's and interrogations.
Thanks for the memories ole boy.
Mr Fawkes's headline policy appears to have been the winner in recent years (although there may have been certain other contributory factors, some of which he occasionally refers to).
If you want to change "them" an option is to get involved.
Despite agreeing with most of the contents, some of it is an over simplification leading to an erroneous conclusion that not voting helps in any way. Had a "what the fuck was that" feeling at the end though. Down to shite presentation me thinks.
Agree Guido but more damage can be done from within ,get the Guido party going, get loads of votes to become the leading party then yor da man ,otherwise you can put pen to papet and moan for the rest of your life ,nobody will give a monkeys ,all mouth and no trousers my gran used to say about libertarians .
So am a self-liberating neo-Nozickian when sober. There aren't many of us about.
more than you think. Thanks to the current shower Minarchism is on the rise.
Nozick tunred into a bit of a lefty, mind. As was Wolff. Oh well.
I don't know why one person isn't allowed to be elected for more than one constituency. That way a popular figure could claim to represent us all! (And we could start getting rid of some of the more pernicious side-effects of the party system)
"Huh? So you want a libertarian party, have identified the most libertarian party, but instead of voting them (not liking them not being libertarian enough even though they are the most libertarian on offer), you'll vote for the more nhs funding, pro state funding, remove one-member one vote from members, pro 'positive' discrimonation Tories?"
A) UKIP aren't standing in my area
B) The Tories are and have local policies I approve of
C) Voting UKIP at a general election would risk letting in the pro-EU LibDems
D)UKIP are a joke, especially after Farage's tank stunt
Yesterday you wanted Peter Stringfellow to stand for London Mayor - an elected post.
Today you say don't vote.
You're a dick.
nothing would make them happier if no-one turned out to vote.
current voter apathy is not an accident, it's by design.
I'm standing for Westminster next time in a seat where my politics mean I'll probably get elected.
If I hear one more idiot mouthing off about how shit all politicians are and how they're all in it for themselves and all they care about is power I'll puke.
Of all the things I could be doing in life politics is about the last thing I would choose to bring me any such thing.
It just so happens that I think it's important that people get involved.
How many of you morons have actually put anything back? How many of you try and help maintain the commuinities around you which you rely on every moment of everyday.
If you all have such a problem with democracy, a stable society and the consequent politicians why don't you all fuck off to the Sudan or Darfur and see what it's like without it all.
iirc, there was some legislation to prohibit 'None Of The Above' appearing on the ballot paper not long before the last GE, the Bastards don't even want to allow you that satisfaction.
Do you think Political Betting would be interested in offering odds on how long any of Tim Ireland's tedious postings last on your blog, Guido?
My my its seems to be rude to guido day on this thread all because he says voting is a shit idea.
listen you thick fuckers what he means(I think) is that voting for any of this current crop of shite is as pointless as voting was in soviet era Albania .
They all sing from the same sheet and offer you no choice, by voting for any of them you lend them undeserved credibility.
As to changing a party from within?
Fuck that , I would much rather put the fuckers up against a wall and shoot them.
11:43 AM, May 03, 2007
Do you mean we live in communities ,well that's a nice idea ,shame the politicians have destroyed the communities , I do hope that helps you to puke.
anon 11.43
Why dont YOU do us all a favour and fuck off to Darfur instead of saddling us with yet another self important cunt in parliament.
lets have your real name if you have something to offer
Wanker!
"Of all the things I could be doing in life politics is about the last thing I would choose to bring me any such thing."
What are you talking about? If incoherent imbeciles like you can get into parliament this country really is in a bad way.
this, guido, you have wrong. people should vote; if they think all the candidates are no good they should stand themselves; if they think all the parties are no good they should form their own. there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the democratic process, whatever you think of the politicians we have.
Only candidates where I am voting are from the big three parties so i'll be attending but writing none of the above. I did actually have a last minute urge to stand as an independent against the two ancient time servers who will no doubt be returned but I just missed the closing date. It would be useful if when they sent the annual electoral registration note they told us when the elections will be and closing dates instead of arrogantly assuming we don't want stand.
Abstaining in person is the most effective. Turn up, spoil the ballot paper, drop it in the box. They announce how many spoil papers. When they reach over 50% of the electorate the politicians' legitimacy is - let's say - questionable.
Surely we don't need local elections. Councils are only meant carry out Central Government's policy anyway.
Now Guido ... I like the anarcho sentiments of that slogan, whatever the rest say. As is usually the case, the morons fail to distinguisgh between 'libertarian' and 'libertine' (mind you, if you hang-out with Stringfellow they may have a point). The purpose of the 'don't vote' concept is to remove the mandate to govern, suspect though such a policy might be in practice (though perhaps not as suspect as the concept of 'propaganda by deed'). I very much doubt if such sentiments were ever expressed in Moscow State or Moscow Central for that matter ... I doubt if any such thoughts had been openly expressed in that city since the funeral of Prince Peter Kropotkin. As for dismissing such political philosophy as 'beta', when the writers of such drivel have turned down the chair in geology at Oxford and the editorship of the National Geographic, since both required them to give up said political stance, perhaps they might just be worth listening to. The Rooskie communist party always maintained that one should 'change it from within'. Mind you, given that the juvenile nutters with the 'A' in the 'O' on their backs don't have the slightest idea what it means ('Anarchy is Order'), and care more about pussy cats than people (that's 'pussy cats' not 'pussies'), one can hardly be surprised that anarchy isn't seen as a serious political philosophy in this country, and given that it's such a wide church that it includes anarcho-capitalism as well as the more left-wing syndicalism, one can't really be surprised that few comprehend it. Me? I just like it because it scares the bloody lot of them.
"C) Voting UKIP at a general election would risk letting in the pro-EU LibDems"
LOL. If Cameron had got his way, voting Tory for London Mayor would have resulted in a Labour man winning on a LibDem/Tory ticket.
It seems that voting Tory is now exactly the way to get the LibDems in.
Why not just stop voting for 'parties' all together? Look at the candidates, blind to their rosette, see how close they *personally* come to your core values/button issues (and whether they have the backbone to vote for what they believe in even if against the party line) and vote for them.
People politics not party politics.
Whats this about Blair doing a runner after the election? Obviously representing the people of Sedgefield isn't good enough for him. I wonder what they think of that?
Still, I suppose he has to pay the mortgage somehow.
You Muppets just dont get it do you? NULAB/LIBDEM/NUCON are ALL the same now! crooked perverts one and all! Oh how they are pissing themselves laughing right now! If "call me Dave" is elected he will be a clone of Tony Bliar! You have been sold down the river to the EUSSR by them all!
VOTE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!
VOTE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!
I've just looked at your website. de Tocqueville is currently drilling his way to the earth's core.
I have voted for my cat.Just write "MY CAT" on the ballot paper.it is that easy.
You could vote for "WOOLLY BULLY" He runs in the 615 at Hereford tonight if you haven't got a cat.
"there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the democratic process, whatever you think of the politicians we have."
Any process that allows 51% of the population to control the lives and wallets of 49% of the population is flawed. A libertarian constitutional monarchy that leaves people alone would be far superior.
Patronizing tripe, what I saw of it - I didn't get to the end. It reminded me of Tessa Jowell (with whom you dealt very fairly).
Ok so the flash movie supports private property rights. But says nothing about the current status quo of large land owning families who got given their land from kings who nabbed it off others, or through enclosing common land.
It was so abstract idealogically as to be meaningless.
Not voting doesn't seem to work. viz America where turn out is so low, but I don't see their politicians in piques of self doubt over not having a true mandate.
But then voting doesn't seem to work either :P The party system is daft as there is an inherent conflict of interest between MPs representing their constituents' views and towing the party line to receive ministerial positions.
My approach is to vote for independent candidates where I can.
Not voting is certainly not the way to go. If nothing pleases, spoil the paper with the various suggestions. I'd rather vote for my cat than a Labour politician and I haven't even got a cat.
The outline of the presentation is sound and one I agree with. Of course people can pick holes over land-owners etc, but a good start is to say in general, this is how it will be from now on.
What I like about it is that very rapidly you will realise that taxation for anthing much beyond a defensive army, police, courts, prisons is pretty difficult to justify as most is taken without consent.
A gold star for Chris. I class myself as a libertarian, and love the way Guide sticks it to politicians, but I suspect him of being one of those libertarians that thinks that total free-market anarchy would be capitalism on speed. If so, he is wrong. True freedom won't be socialist, but it won't be capitalist either (in any meaningful sense). In a total free market there will be no state to enforce corporate patents, put down unions, recognise corporate copyrights, protect the vast swathes of land "owned" by absentee landlords, regulate markets in favour of large corporations, drive subsistence farmers off land into capitalist-owned sweatshops, create limited liability laws, etc, etc.
Capitalism is not the free market.
For more along these lines see:
http://mutualist.blogspot.com (especially the "Vulgar Libertarianism" posts).
Guido: Libertarianism only takes you so far philosophically. Mutualism is the logical next step to total freedom. Join us!
Pooter,
Actually Guido (when he had UK bank accounts) banked with the Co-op. Cobdenites don't do patents or corporate welfare. We do out-compete subsistence farmers and own sweat shops etc.
But you wouldn't stop us doing that and we wouldn't stop you running co-ops.
My humour may be vulgar, but my libertarianism is not.
Hmmm... whilst voting might be choosing the best of a bad lot, there is the quote of George Jean Nathan's: "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who don't vote". Not voting simply adds to the weight of the votes of others (the other votes become a greater fraction of the whole) - including sadly, the BNP.
Incidentally the video is deliberately simple and abstract. If you want a more complex explanation read a book like Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
I vote to ban postal voting.
Its Nulabour and its corrupt.
If you want a more complex explanation read a book like Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
Then read The Examined Life. Then give up ;-)
There's only ONE way to get a smaller government.
That way is to give them less to spend.
"fiddle" your tax, keep what YOU earned, don't let the state enslave and extort you.
There's a lot of angry political activists here! Clearly, the presentation touched a sore point. It does clearly outline the basic human rights of life, liberty and property, and where these are being denied, indicates who is responsible. I did see one problem with it. After it was stated that governments are responsible for initiating force against others throughout the world (and thus denying them life, liberty and property), it was stated that the solution was for people to not ask them to do it. In reality, people don't ask them now. Governments do as they (and their Illuminati master) please and use fear to keep public opposition at bay. They use the main-stream media to put across a message such as, "Support us getting extra powers to remove your liberty and property (and the lives of others), or al-Qaeda will come and blow up your house!".
The basic rights were described by John Locke in the 17th century. At that time, the things that gave the elite power over others were wealth and knowledge. The industrial revolution, which started in the 18th century and continues to this day, gave everyone wealth, and gave most people alive today the opportunity of life. The information revolution, which started at the end of the last century, is going to give everyone knowledge. The desire to know is innate, but a combination of intimidation and misinformation by State education and the main-stream media, has led to a population that is unable to think for themselves or question authority. Throughout this century, the population will change. The young will never give up the desire to know, and they will know where to get answers their questions. It won't be the teacher or the BBC, it will be the internet. The elite would sorely like to control this, but they are unable to. The internet is piggy-backed onto the telephone system, which we all depend on to stay alive, including the elite. In the coming years, all they will be able to do is watch on helplessly as their control mechanisms and their power wither away. Are any of you activists wannabe prime ministers? Best not to bother. The executive (and their Illuminati master) won't have the power it has today.
Frankly bullshit Guido, I don't just own myself, I have the power to make my servants do as I say. And if I am not happy, I have the power to fuck off elsewhere. Trust me, I will if neccesary.
I'm sure that you will too...
The right to a free vote does not give you liberty, but taking a chained vote does not take it away.
If we're so into self ownership, why the fuck am I faced with surrendering control of my life, liberty and happiness to the control of my employer, on terms he chooses an I must accept, or face starvation, thus depriving me of my life?
Those parts of nature which I may mix with my labour in order to survive have already been appropriated by others, many generations ago.
We have an equal right to self ownership, which generations of unbalanced exchanges has made impossible for the innocent births of today. Self ownership requires socialism.
You knows it.
Post a Comment