Have You Ever Actually Thought About Anarchism?

It's difficult to state that you favour a stateless society (or dare I even use the 'A' word) in regular company because you'll be instantly dismissed as being some kind of nutter, and funnily enough the people who call you a nutter are the very ones who have never actually thought about anarchism seriously. Believe me I know what that's like, I once was that person dismissing anarchism with almost no thought as to how it could work. So what I want to do in this blog is to spell out the basics of why I'm proud to call myself an Anarchist.

 

Anything You Like...Just Not That
 

It seems that in Britain in 2014 were allowed to theorize endlessly about what kind of political system we'd like to have. There are the mainstream political parties who are basically on the same page about the big things like EU membership and feeding the military-industrial complex with constant wars. In fact whether it's the Conservatives, Labour, The SNP or the Liberal Democrats, the only difference between their governments is how they manage and implement the agenda. Vote for who you like, the agenda will just keep rolling on.

But maybe you think you've stepped out of the mainstream world and maybe you gravitate to the Socialist Workers Party or UKIP or the British National Party. That's fine, you can have the debate about which system would work better. Just as long as you start your argument from the premise “We need a state, the state exists. Now, how big or small is that state and how do we manage it?” That's why you have no serious anarcho-capitalists on television. The mainstream media wants you to think that anarchy is compete Mad-Max style chaos and anarchists are those people at protests who cover their faces with scarves and lob stuff at the police. I dunno, maybe those people have a firm grasp of Austrian economics, although I doubt it.

So the reason that anarchy seems so exotic and crazy is because people don't stop for a while to seriously consider it. Let me tackle the most basic questions that people ask me.

Q- If there was anarchy then would people not be killing and raping each other in the streets?

A- That would be true if your personal morals are based on the diktats of a group of largely immoral people calling themselves government. I don't believe that people are fundamentally evil and without a scalding Daddy government telling them what's right and wrong they'll just go mental.

Q- But you must admit that some people will want to rape and kill.

A- Of course but there are people that do it now do it in spite of laws. They don't care that it's illegal, if people want to do something they'll do it anyway regardless of what the law says.

Q- You're only championing this anarchy stuff because you want to do whatever the hell you like aren't you?

A- Yes, but by “whatever the hell I like” I don't mean raping or killing. I tend to abide by the non-aggression principle which clearly states that it is wrong to initiate aggression towards another person for no reason. What I do mean by “whatever the hell I like” is being able to choose what I spend my money on, to enter into voluntary contracts with people in my day-to-day life and even to smoke a joint while walking my dog in the park on a nice sunny day if I choose without being arrested or harassed by the governments goons.

Why Government Doesn't Work
 

Deep down everyone knows that government is violent, tyrannical, wasteful and extremely inefficient. People complain endlessly about government but seem to believe Winston Churchill when he said in a House of Commons speech on November 11, 1947 "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." That really is the attitude I encounter from ordinary people, “It may be bad but it's the only way.” I feel that if I was in the House of Commons on that day (why would I be? But just play along at home for fun) I would have stood up and said “Could I suggest to the honourable gentleman that we just do away with government all together?” To which I'm sure I would have heard the thunderous laughter that some people still respond with when I advance that proposition. Ah, some things never change.

Okay, so let's use a silly example to show how inefficient government is at providing for the public. Suppose for example I want to buy a pair of shoes. Imagine that there exists a government entity called the NSC (National Shoe Company) who give out poor quality shoes for 'free' to the public. Maybe I don't want those shoes. Maybe I want to buy private shoes that are of a better quality but I can't afford it because there isn't much competition to the NSC because everyone has to pay for them anyway through their tax money. So we all have the same poor quality (but 'free') shoes. Now, it's a silly example but it does illustrate the fact that when government's provide things they are generally inferior to private goods. Why is this? Well, if you have a government monopoly then (we'll stick with the example) shoe's can be made however is cheapest really because there's no real competition or incentive to make high-quality footwear. But in a free market then you damn well better be sure that your footwear quality reflects your prices or people simply won't buy your shoes, they'll just buy better value for money shoes from someone else and you my friend will go right out of business (and you won't even get a bail-out).

What this example - silly as it is - shows is that when a monopoly that everyone has to pay for through tax exists then quality will suffer greatly. Now just think about this, the example I have given is about shoes but that's how our socialised health-care works. Something so unbelievably important compared to shoes. But people defend the line as it's fed to them by the government they proudly state that it as a “progressive step in the right direction.”

 

Taxation Is Theft
 

In my current job we get our wage slips on a Thursday and there's the usual moaning and groaning about the mythical tax man who's stolen a large chunk of everyone's hard-earned wages. Or when there's a bonus to be paid like at Christmas colleagues of mine will say things like “Yeah, it's meant to be £200 but it'll be much less once they tax the shit out of it.”

This attitude I agree with completely. But with the people I know who will bitch about tax, as soon as you suggest that we don't need to pay it at all they begin to say things like “Well, it's necessary isn't it? You have to pay for your services.” So, we're led into this Jekyll and Hyde thinking. It's like walking down a dark street at night and a mugger jumps out and demands all your money at knife-point. You rummage around in your pockets and find a £20 note. So you hand it over and the mugger runs off. A while later while passing a 24-hour garage you see the mugger inside and he sees you. He then walks out of the door and straight up to you and extending a hand says “Here, I bought you a train ticket home.” He took way more than the price of said train ticket, but at least you got something out of it, right? Wouldn't you love to know where the rest went?

Taxation is theft and violence because it is not voluntary. We are forced against our will to pay a gang of thugs money (sound like the Mafia extorting shopkeepers?) or else they'll show up at our door and haul us into a court room and if we still refuse they will imprison us against our will – an act of violence.

You, dear reader may be happy paying a chunk of your wages to pay for a crumbling health service, or the military so they can continue the murder of people in wars in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, or paying for MP's expense accounts and lavish lifestyles, or bailing out banks who can use whatever ridiculous business models they like as long as they line their own pockets before going cap-in-hand to daddy government or even a police force who will waste time and money arresting people for victimless crimes such as smoking a joint. Your tax money at work ladies and gentlemen!

Conclusion

Obviously theorizing about how a stateless society could function in minute detail is far, far beyond the scope of this blog but I hope you may be a little closer to peering behind the veil and seeing past the state's lies and propaganda. All I'm asking is that you give anarchist idea's some real thought instead of dismissing them straight away. You never know, the 'A' word might become one you use more often.

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News
http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk
 

A Spectre Is Haunting Europe...

Once again the people of Europe are sleepwalking ever deeper into an dangerous collectivist bureaucracy and they don't want to see it. Indeed the EU elections are coming round again – the equivalent of me asking you to write down a suggestion on a piece of paper for me and then handing you my suggestion box to place it in – the nearest bin. But is the EU really as dangerous as I'm making out? Yes, here's why.

As I have argued time and time again all governments do is grow and grow until they're out of control, it is the nature of government and it is why Minarchism cannot work long term. Take the United States, it didn't take long for their limited government to become an imperial power now did it? The same is true of the EU. What started as a common market between France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands has now become a vast bureaucratic nightmare encompassing twenty-eight countries not to mention a disastrous currency and an unelected president. Welcome to the Soviet Union for the twenty-first century.

The parliament is so muddled that MEP's regularly vote on bills that they haven't had time to read, they're simply told what to vote for and when. We're kept in the dark about it's true workings to such an extent that if you search (as I have) for how much UK law comes from Brussels the estimates vary vastly from 10% to 70% with fullfact.org putting the figure between 15% and 50% depending on which definition of “UK Law” that you look at. Even at 5% that figure is too high. It's ridiculous to get such proportions of our laws from bureaucrats in another country!

Then there's the issue of border controls. I constantly hear scaremongering from people who are anti-Scottish independence saying things like “Well, I don't want to have to show my passport at the border to go to England.” Well I can re-assure them all now the England-Scotland border will be as open as every other border in the EU – WIDE OPEN. Now this isn't about racism, it's about common sense. I have no problem with genuine immigration to any country by people who want to work hard and get on, however with EU migration to the UK at it's highest level since 1964 and the Office For National Statistics predicting that the UK population with increase by 3 million in 2020 as people jump ship from countries (some of which economically destroyed by the Euro) and flood the UK job market driving down wages and driving up government welfare spending, it doesn't take a genius to see how this is going to end.

We could easily trade with the EU without being a part of it's massive collectivist machine. It has worked for Norway and Switzerland. You'll hear mainstream politicians scaremongering about all the jobs we'll lose if we leave the EU well what about all the jobs we have lost because of the EU's disastrous Common Fisheries policy? What about the economies decimated by the Euro? What about throwing the borders wide open so that jobs for people already living in the UK are becoming fewer and fewer?

 

As I mentioned earlier, we have had a massive collectivist, bureaucratic nightmare in Europe and it was called the Soviet Union. While the USSR was a hard tyranny visible to the naked eye I would argue that the EU's softer iron-fist-inside-a-velvet-glove tyranny is much more dangerous because it is harder to see but very, very real and any power the UK parliament once had is slowly trickling to Brussels so that the member countries will have no say over their own affairs at all eventually. This process is well under way with the UK court system being constantly undermined by the real judicial power – The European Court of Human Rights.

The Soviet Union collapsed in the end when people woke up and stopped complying with the system and I think that the EU will also, I just hope the UK is far enough out of it when it all comes crashing down.

Links

http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

Collectivism

Fullfact.org on EU Laws

EU Immigration Jumps 30%

No2EU

How The Mainstream Media Stole Your Compassion

I suppose I first thought of this subject years ago when I was working for ASDA (owned by Wal-Mart) and I happened to see the documentary “Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices.” I recall going into work the next day and asking people if they thought that it was morally okay to work there. People looked at me as if I was mental to even be seriously considering such nonsense. Even thoroughly religious and moral people didn't seem to feel that they were in any kind of ethical dilemma by working for a company who exploits their factory workers in places like Bangladesh and China. Then it hit me that we were all being exploited (obviously us not as much as the factory workers). However, we were working for low pay in poor conditions and a lot of the people who shopped there would like to go somewhere else but simply couldn't afford to. But all my colleagues through engagement with the system through the farce of voting were happy keeping things the way they were.

Fast forward a few years and this topic resurfaced when having a chat with someone I asked if it bothered them that the government forcibly takes tax money from us and uses a portion of it to murder innocent people in places like Afghanistan and Iraq not to mention wounding and killing idealistic young British and American men and women who go there for no good reason. This person turned to me and said that it didn't bother him at all, he said he was against the war “in principle” but in fact he rarely even thought about it. It is personally a great source of frustration to me that I'm partially responsible for funding murder abroad but I still couldn't figure out why this didn't bother more people. Even when I asked very moral and ethical people it didn't fuss them one bit, it just “what happens”.

What both of the examples have in common is that human rights abuses are taking place in other part of the world and ordinary people in the UK are being dragged into it, the ASDA employees I knew didn't want to be a part of the Wal-Mart empire, they were simply forced to because of an economy where big corporations lobby governments for tax breaks and favourable legislation to give themselves monopolistic control of the market which leads to psychotic and frankly out of control business practices -the system that the people continue to vote for.  And, of course the UK and US governments in particular are also totally out of control and causing their own far worse human rights abuses abroad (which many of the tax payers don't want to be involved in either) so Wal-Mart has good company.

But the fact that many people who make it to these high positions in government or large corporations are clearly psychopathic and crave power is no great revelation, but the question still remains why we as the people are so apathetic. I've been tossing this problem over in my mind. Have we just evolved this way naturally? Or is it by design?

If I may point out that much of what passes for mainstream entertainment these days is horrendous. Whether is be the Social Darwinism promoted in programs like The Apprentice where it is painted as desirable and a mark of someone who's going to be successful by being ruthless and stamping on whoever they like to get ahead. Or the many TV talent shows where the untalented (and in some cases also obviously mentally ill) who were originally mocked in small room by like four people are now paraded out to face the laughter of thousands of people who seem to think that they're twelve years old and in some school playground. And that's just two examples, there is a slew of popular reality shows where ignorance, stupidity, vanity and greed are being advertised as desirable traits in a human being and from what I've seen it's taking effect in a terrifying way in society. And it's this very dangerous “entertainment” that's filling the impressionable minds of our young people. Add to that the indoctrination of the state-run public schools where critical thinking is not taught in the first place and is actively discouraged and it starts to get rather scary.

Now, if I may put on my tinfoil hat for a moment. May I suggest that this is all on purpose? I talk to devout Christians (I'm only picking on them because they're the kind of religious people I speak to most) who don't care about buying products that have been tested on animals or the mass murder of people in the Middle-East or laughing at mentally ill people making fools of themselves in front of millions of people or businesses acting psychopathically to make money. Is it because the these things always happen somewhere else so they feel detached from it all? Or is it because their real religion is in fact Statism? They feel like the state has the authority to steal some of their money and kill people to “protect” them so it must be okay. The state regulates what you can and can't show on TV so those exploitative programs must be okay. The state allows Wal-Mart to do business so it must be okay. The state allows animal testing (which it 'regulates') so that also must be fine.

The people I have met who think like this (and I'm sure you know some too) only care about their holy books for like an hour on a Sunday and the rest of the time the state is their god and as long as they obey that one statist commandment “Shut up and consume what we feed you because what's moral is what we tell you is moral.” It's a sad fact that when you fill your mind with shit every day then that's what your thoughts and actions turn to.

Dan @ http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

Notes

Wal-Mart's 'Invisible Army' of Lobbyists
Wal-Mart DID Lobby Tony Blair Over ASDA
Animal Experimentation - The Facts

The Facts About The British Monarchy

Why is there no real opposition to the monarchy in the UK? The majority of the British people seem to have an extreme case of Stockholm Syndrome. Let's get some things straight about the British monarchy:

First off,  they steal your money through taxation. The British people pay for the ridiculously lavish lifestyle of these super-rich people. The Queen's official expenditure increased by £900,000 from £32.4 million during the 2011/12 financial year to £33.3 million in 2012/13, according to the royal public finances annual report. So at a time when the Trussel Trust have seen the largest rise in the use of food banks since the charity began in 2000.346,992 people received a minimum of three days emergency food from Trussell Trust food banks in 2012-13, compared to 128,697 in 2011-12 and up from 26,000 in 2008-09.This is a seriously shocking statistic especially when you think that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's diamond jubilee tour of South East Asia and the South Pacific cost £370,000 alone it is clearly an excess that cannot be tolerated longer.
But have some of this. At a time when homelessness is on the rise in the UK and with charity Shelter in England saying that families living in B&B's is at a ten-year high there is at least eleven royal residences. So families on low wages, unable even to rent a proper home are paying for these palaces.
So what about this? How about giving people an option to pay for the royals excessive and ridiculous lifestyle. I wonder how many ardent royals and "pearly kings" would decide that that money is better off in their pockets and not in the claws of an out-of-touch throwback to the feudal age.
You could make the argument that we'll have to pay as much for a President. Firstly, we don't need to take care of a President's entire extended family and at least we'll have chosen to pay for that institution through our taxes and we'll have chose the particular person. We won't be forced to prop up a snobbish elitist family purely because of an accident of birth.

 They also count racists among their number. Prince Harry was filmed by the News of the World calling someone a 'Paki' and saying "You look like a 'raghead'" to another. And this is before we even get to the Duke of Edinburgh. Anyone could write a novel with the amount of vile rubbish that has come out of his mouth over the years. Including:
Peering at a fuse box in a Scottish factory, he said: “It looks as though it was put in by an Indian.” He later backtracked: “I meant to say cowboys.” 
At a WF meeting in 1986: “If it has four legs and it’s not a chair, if it’s got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane and if it swims and it’s not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.”

To Aboriginal leader William Brin, Queensland, 2002: “Do you still throw spears at each each other?”

And that's just what they've said in  public! And these are often described as simply "gaffes" oh, look at the mistake the bumbling old man made, it's just a gaffe!

But it goes further than that. Elizabeth Burgess who worked as Prince Charles' personal secretary at Highgrove told an employment tribunal that she was subjected to years of racial abuse because she was black. She said the Prince's valet Michael Fawcett once called her 'a fucking nigger typist'. Although it must be stressed that it was never the prince himself she was accusing but the royal staff.

What about the issue of Catholics? Recent changes made it possible for a monarch to marry a Catholic but not for a Catholic to be monarch. Now I'm no cheerleader for the Catholic church, far, far from it but I don't think it's right to limit someone's power to be head of state based on what they choose to believe. I am against the Catholic church personally but not against their right to exist, people must be allowed absolute freedom to believe in whatever they want. Now, I've heard the classic "But the monarch is the head of the church of England. So they can't be a Catholic." Fair enough, let's explore that. Now I understand that the 'Supreme Governor' role given to the monarch is largely ceremonial but this does persist as an argument. So, why is a person the head of such a large religious organization based on what family they were born into? This person could be devoid of any spirituality and think that Christianity's all bullshit and still be the head of the church! That's madness surely. Why is the head of the Church of England not elected by members of the general synod based on their spirituality? What a crazy radical idea that is! Can you imagine if we had a rule banning the prime minister from being a Muslim? It would be thought intolerable by the people and quite rightly so (although the way the British political system is it doesn't seem likely that we'll have a Muslim party leader any time soon.)

There are though several arguments that people use for the existence of the monarchy. The most popular are:

1. "They perform an amazing public service." So would you if you were given a job for life that paid a fortune and all you really had to do was to walk about waving, going on holidays an staying in the best accommodation and having people over for dinner. If you offered me that job I'd be the best public servant you ever saw. Would you suggest that a President wouldn't perform an amazing public service? Maybe not, but then we could vote that person out of office if they didn't. The Monarch is there for life and unaccountable.

2."Well, you wouldn't want a president Blair would you?" This one particularly gets me. For a start there's no evidence that Tony Blair would run for such a position (although I really don't think anything that man does would actually surprise me). And let's face it, even if he did run, do you really think that after Iraq the British people would even vote for him? Of course not, he'd have to spike our water with LSD and run on a platform of £1000 for every vote to even stand a chance.

3. "But they're great for tourism." This is one that has never been proven. Of the top 20 unpaid attractions in England in 2012 according to Visitengland not one royal residence was on it! That's how vital it is. I hardly think that we need the royals to get people to visit Britain. Flamingo Land is more of an incentive to visit Britain than the monarchy (it's right up there on the top ten).

4. "They promote trade and industry." Really? Where is the evidence that the fact that Britain is in the top five economies in the world, the G8 of industrialized nations in the world and that London is a major world finance centre. Now what part of that is down to the royals? I'll make it simple. None whatsoever, the evidence simply doesn't exist.

5.  "They represent us abroad." Given the racist comments that we've already mentioned I somehow don't think that they particularly portray Britain in a positive light. Sure the Americans love a good royal occasion but they have a constitutional republic. Do you think Americans watch a royal wedding and think to themselves "Well darn it I wish they were still head of state here." Of course they don't because they got out!

6."The royals are 'above politics'." Seriously? Why doesn't one of his advisers go and tell Prince Charles that then? Because that is a memo that that man clearly didn't get. Here's a bit of proof. On August 13th 2013 Prince Charles faced a Commons inquiry into political influence. The committee was charged to look into reports that since the Tory/LibDem coalition took power Charlie held thirty-six meetings with ministers.

Look, it's very simple. It makes literally no sense to have people in a privileged position simply because of the family that they were born into, it's ludicrous. You don't have to love your captors who steal your money, without your consent and basically do what they like with the blessing of the deluded masses. They don't care about you or enhance your life or your country. They care about themselves and keeping the stranglehold they have on the British people. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the British people matter to them emotionally, they don't. The British people matter to them financially. And that's it. They've had a free ride for so long and there's no way they're going to get off their own personal gravy train. I think we can turn to our old friend Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh for an insight into what they really think of us when he turned to then Paraguay dictator General Stroessner (a man who literally committed genocide) and said: “It’s a pleasure to be in a country that isn't ruled by its people.”

The Terrorism Lie And Why We're Buying It

I was shocked by the reaction of the audience when watching an episode of Question Time from a couple of weeks ago when Will Self was explaining how he didn't think that all the surveillance that we see increasing in our cities was necessary to keep us safe from ‘terrorism’. The place went silent into disbelief that someone could have such a view. Then when journalist Louise Cooper appealed to everyone’s irrational fears by talking about how she didn't want her “Child to be killed by terrorists” the whole place erupted with applause!

            Let’s get this straight. What do they even mean by ‘terrorism’? The definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 is:

Section 1. –

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation]^[2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial]^[3] or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

Well if you read that it sounds an awful lot like the kind of behavior that the British government have been engaging in for hundreds of years! But they don’t have the British Ministry of Terrorism. They don’t even use the word war. When the British government commit terrorist acts abroad they’re the Ministry of Defense. Defending who exactly? Me or you from that Iraqi civilian who just wants to come over here with a bomb strapped to him? It’s not just bullshit but dangerous bullshit and the British people are buying it. You should be more worried about getting run over by a car or dying in some bizarre gardening accident than you should be of being a victim of a terrorist act. The fact that the government shoves this irrational fear down our throats seems to be a form of terrorism to me!

            The other problem to consider is that the British government might label the IRA as “A dangerous terrorist group” but call the Free Syrian Army “Brave rebels”. I understand the differences in the circumstances but what it comes down to is perception. If someone can be perceived to be a threat when they aren't then that is very dangerous. It can lead to people falsely reporting someone to the security services or even attacking someone because of the paranoia of terrorism put out by the mainstream media. I was on a bus one day and an Asian man with a backpack got on and he sat down and was sweating and I could see people looking at each other, most likely thinking that they were going to be blown up. Then guess what happened? He got off at the stop outside the college! The poor guy was probably freaking out about an exam he hadn't studied for, not planning on blowing the number 6 sky high! And there’s the problem. What if some nutter on the bus thought “I’m gonna be a hero and take this guy out before he takes us out.” Then the fear of violence creates violence.

            The British government are so arrogant that they feel as if they can commit atrocities at home and abroad and that they can tell themselves and everyone else that it needed to be done in ‘the national interest’ and that people were breaking ‘international law’. Every time a politician is asked if Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes they always talk about “being careful saying things like that” as if it’s completely unthinkable that a British Prime Minister could possibly commit a war crime. Surely not. “That wasn't a crime, it was a mission to preserve freedom in the national interest while helping the poor oppressed people in the country.” This argument which falls down when you look at the sheer mess that is usually left behind for someone else to clean up (often British private contractors). Also, if there weren't radicalized people in the country before the British and Americans flexed their imperialist muscles you can bet your arse there will be after they leave the mess behind.

            So why swallow it? Why is there some weird consensus that there are terrorist’s cells all over Britain just waiting to pounce at any moment? Sadly in my view it’s all down to the British people just passively believing the lies propagated by the mainstream media and not looking deeper into things for themselves. You could ask why the government would want us to be caught up in this lie. I dunno, to divide and rule the population, to grab resources in the Middle East, to satisfy the financial needs of the military industrial complex, to have an excuse to set up a massive surveillance state, because a worried population is easier to manage. There’s a few answers. Benjamin Franklin summed it up best when he said “He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.” He was right.

The Gay Marriage Distraction

In Britain people are still spitting blood and frothing at the mouth over the question of gay marriage. Endless debates and arguments, newspaper articles and leaflets through people’s doors. They want to know. Are you for or against gay marriage? Well, if I was asked that question right now I’d say neither. Here’s why: I’m confused about why people are so desperate to know how the government will recognise their relationship. Some people want Daddy government to tell them it’s okay and they’re just like everyone else and some want Daddy government to tell them that they’re sick and wrong and ban them from being together. 

            Now, I personally believe in a free society where everyone is allowed to say what they like and be with who they like, regardless of sex or ethnicity. I do think that gay couples should absolutely have all the rights of straight couples, why not? Consenting adults can do what they like. This is why I get very uneasy when this kind of debate brings all the intolerant authoritarians slithering out of the woodwork. Some people (not all of them religious) want to tell other people who they can go out with and how to live their lives to conform to their world view. These kinds of authoritarians are very dangerous if we want to work towards a free society.  How absurd and arrogant some people are who think that they have the right to tell anyone else how to live their life! Quite often people who want to tell others what’s wrong with their life usually have something badly wrong with their own that they’d rather not face, it’s easier to project that on to other people. The argument about how gay people will ‘burn in hell’ so they damn well better stop being gay often comes out. Well if they were going to burn in hell then that’s their business. Didn’t their god give everyone free will? Well if he did then everyone should mind their own damn business.
 

            I also feel I should mention the slippery slope argument that I hear all the time from opponents of gay marriage. I love it when people start shouting about how if you let gay people get married then we’ll be marrying three people or a whole football team and your brother and your mother and your dog. This argument should be seen for the ludicrous rubbish that it is. It’s not even a proper argument. These are the same people who think that if you legalize marijuana then two days later the streets will be littered with people with needles sticking out of their arms. Personally if three people wanted to have some three-way marriage and they were all happy then who cares? That’s their damn business! Also when they talk about marrying family members they totally ignore the incest laws in this country that no proponent of gay marriage has mentioned once changing. It’s just a ridiculous argument and a sign of clutching at straws because they don’t have any intelligent reason why being gay is such a bad thing.
 

            But there’s an element to this that the ruling elite just love. Everyone has fallen head-first straight into their trap. Do you really think that David Cameron and Alex Salmond lie awake at night because they haven’t fulfilled their lifelong goals of equality for gay people? I don’t. I think this is one of the most genius divide and rule tactics in play today. The elite are thinking “Let’s just get everyone arguing about the meaning of a word. They’ll be so busy arguing about something that in reality doesn’t even matter that they won’t have time to care about their falling living standards, the fragile economy and the horrendous wars that we’re losing badly.” It might sound cynical but I’m sorry to say that it’s the truth. Let’s be honest, if we want this semi-free society to become a truly free society we have to stop caring about what other consenting adults do. If gay marriage becomes legal then the sky won’t fall in and people won’t suddenly be walking down the aisle with their goldfish. Things will continue as normal. But we shouldn’t be so worried about how the government defines our love. What’s important is how the people in the relationship define it. That’s really all that matters.

Time For A Voluntary NHS?

I'm always hearing about how the NHS is crumbling all around us and it's because of smokers and fatties and junkies and alkies and dole scroungers and all the rest of it.  It is true that the NHS in it's current form is becoming unaffordable and increasing amounts of people I ask "Wouldn't you like to know exactly how much of your tax money is actually spent in the NHS?" give me an emphatic yes. Now there is an argument for abolishing the NHS completely  but I don't want to go there in this blog. What I want to ask is: is it time for a voluntary NHS?

Now, I'm sure most people would agree with me that anything not voluntary, anything that is forced upon you against your will is by definition violent and tyrannical. It might sound like I'm overreacting but if I were to say to the government that I didn't believe in the NHS so I wasn't paying taxes for it and because they won't tell me how much of my tax money goes to it it follows that I won't pay any tax at all. That should be my choice but what'll happen is that the government will eventually send thugs to intimidate me to give them my money and eventually their thugs will lock me up for not complying with their rules - an act of violence. But we have to examine health care in this country further with the use of an analogy.

 Suppose for example I want to buy a pair of shoes. Imagine that there's the NSC (National Shoe Company) who who give out poor quality shoes for free. Maybe I don't want those shoes. Maybe I want to buy private shoes that are of a better quality but I can't afford it because there isn't much competition to the NSC because everyone has to pay for them anyway. So we all have the same poor quality (but 'free') shoes. Now, it's a silly example but it does illustrate the health care industry in the UK. Now again, we can see one argument may be to just abolish the NSC all together and open the market up, making all the shoes private. That is one possibility but there is another option. What if people who want to give their tax money towards the NSC because they're happy with their shoes can choose to do so and everyone else who want's private shoes can then choose to spend their money on them?

We could have a system so that if you want the 'free' (I should mention that it's not free because you pay for it through taxes) NHS then you can opt-in and the money will come out of your taxes (and you'll know exactly how much it is) and you can still enjoy the NHS system that you're used to. Now, a counter argument I've heard to this is that the rich people who pay higher taxes will all go to, say Bupa for example and the NHS will lose most of it's money and not be able to produce the same level of service. I think that a lot of people on all types of income will decide to stick with the NHS actually. Not only that but with the opening up of the health care market in the UK there will be much more competition and new companies all at varying degrees of price and levels of service popping up.
Another criticism might be "Well, what about people on the dole?" I think people who are receiving short-term assistance could be helped by charities or even the government for a short-period of time. Anyone who read my post entitled "Why The Government Should Abolish Welfare and Reasons Why It Won't." Will know that I don't think that the "life-on-welfare" culture should get any services without putting anything in to the system.

In America there's the farce that is Obamacare. Where people are being forced against their will to buy private health insurance or face being fined for it. Dare I suggest this optional governmental system as an alternative?

I think if anything a voluntary NHS would not only allow people to know what they're putting in financially to the system but it would also be fair. If you believe in the 'national religion' that is the NHS you'll probably get a better service because there'll be less patients for a start. If you want private health care then you'll have more options as the market opens up and competition is allowed to begin and you won't have the problem of paying for the NHS through tax and having very limited private options. But most of all we won't have the NHS armageddon looming over us any more and we won't be forced with threat of violence into paying for it.