Governments stay in power by collective acceptance. If they lose that acceptance whilst most will not actively riot many will support the rioters because they feel the same. When the poll tax cam out millions simply disappeared but they were not necessarily the ones that rioted.

Lol, the internet is so funny.

This is even more LOL.

Thousands of years ago they had nothing but austerity measures, everybody lived hand to mouth and if there was a famine, they died. Where there was no political authority, there was constant war; life would have been nasty, brutish and short as there would also have been no law other than take what you are strong enough to seize. Where there was political authority, it was derived entirely by rule of arms anyway, so there still was no rule of law, just a king stealing your stuff and ravaging your daughters.

What security there ever was for the individual in those times came entirely from membership of clan and tribe. These are rigid, conservative, conformist organisations that tend to brutally punish non conformity. We still have that sort of thing today, the Taliban is the obvious example, but there are plenty more. Hardly something to view with nostalgia imho.


The French revolution did nothing of the sort.
The basic components of Modern Capitalism arose in the Netherlands and were brought to Britain long before the French Revolution. They also went to France. What was different was that the British government made efficient use of them and thus was able to finance wars against France. The French retaliated by indirectly financing* the American Revolution, which turned out to be too expensive for them. Which caused a debt crisis that did contribute to their own revolution.

The debt crisis on its own was only one of many causes though, and was not sufficient to cause the revolution.
To imagine that a debt crisis now could cause one requires a certain amount of perversely wishful thinking. And possibly a deliberate ignorance of history.



* by sending their navy to support the revolutionaries, blockade British garrisons etc.

Whilst you laugh at me, I do at least get a thought out response, so thanks. You make some good points, but I would like to know how the following is any different now:



We have constant war, life is nasty and brutish. Just because it's not happening in your life, doesn't mean it's not happening.



I think the debate should be had, what price do we pay for "security". We don't NEED bankers for security, we don't NEED oil companies for security, we don't NEED governments for security. We have just grown to accept these things as alternatives to the clans and tribes of old. Are they better? In some ways yes, in other ways no.

I can't say with certainty that they are any more rigid, conservative and conformist than the current system, as none of us has experienced it first hand. It's very easy to feel certain about things and a lot harder to question what is going on and attempt to use Socratic reasoning to understand the world around you. But IMO it's better to choose the latter and not merely accept that Brussels, London, or anybody else knows best......

James May once said

Yes it's not their fault, but governments can't pay out what they can't afford, especially with the nation debt of most EU countries.

I can't help feeling that the point has been missed here.

These protests are largely driven by the sense of unfairness of these measures.

The vast majority of people have either lost their jobs, had pay cuts or, at best had a pay freeze over the last two to three years, and all the time products and services are getting more expensive. Yet banks are still paying out bonuses whilst refusing to lend to small businesses and consumers.

Call it a witch hunt if you like, but how about we examine the increase in wealth of some of these bankers and stockbrokers over the last few years, compare it to the performance of the institutions they worked for (and their impact on the economic decline), and take some of it back?

Wouldn't that at least have a small mitigating effect on the austerity measures?

Simplistic, I know, but I'd certainly feel better if the main cuplrits shared the pain.

Pay freezes are in effect pay cuts when you take into account the rising cost of everything else.

Yes but the main culprits have funded the political parties so are exempt. We need a higher capital gains tax to recover those gains from the bankers, and it needs to be extended to all homes so that house prices do not become another tax on the young. A Tobin tax on share trading will eliminate much of the dodgy high frequency trading, so allowing shares to find a true value. Plus raising money for the government, albeit a small amount eventually. A tobin tax on food commodities and use the revenues it gains for international aid and development, again curbing speculation in the markets. If you extend capital gains tax to all assets then there is good reason to abolish inheritance tax which is what the Tories want anyway.

But where it is happening does matter. Where is life nastiest and most brutal these days?
Things are [LIFTED] in the places where people lack access to, or respect for, basic government services. Somalia, Afghanistan, much of sub Saharan Africa. If the Wire is to be believed, then that place seems quite bad too.

In each case, broad civic institutions such as governments have difficulty operating effectively. So people form their own smaller scale and less formal associations. Then they go to war with their neighbours, because in these circumstances property rights are established by force of arms alone. Drug gangs don't sue each other to resolve boundary disputes, they shoot each other, tribes do exactly the same thing.

Now look at what happens in the law governed parts of the world, and consider it within an historical perspective...
Apparently there is a major economic cataclysm which threatens our entire civlisation. How can you tell? Really, if it wasn't on TV, would you have noticed the recession? Where are the tent cities of malnourished hobos who all used to be graphic designers and bank managers? Who in Britain has starved to death because of this crisis?

The truth is that for thousands of years, there was no such thing as an economic shock that wasn't followed by famine and pestilence. Now there is, and still people are whinging and making out like everything is [LIFTED], apparently it used to be so much better when you could measure how good a recession was by the pile of emaciated carcasses.


I don't understand why you put security into quote marks. Are you questioning the definition of the term? If you are, then I don't understand why you proceeded to use the word again but without quote marks and presumably with some intended meaning. But just to be clear, I was using security in a broad sense. Physical security against molestation and aggression, material security for hard times, and security of property and rights.

Your distant ancestors had little security, that's why we are each of us descended from countless generations of thieves, rapists and pirates (but not ninjas).

For security we need certain basic things. The ability of a farmer to reap and sell his harvest depends upon security of property. If a big bully can come and take his land from him, there is no incentive to develop and improve the land. If you want to have that kind of security, you need a nation to safeguard it. Tribes and clans aren't enough, they fight over resources non stop.

If you want 6 billion people to have food, you do need oil companies, they need banks to finance investment, they need nations to regulate and insure the markets, they also need universities to educate their staff... it goes on forever, but the general gist is that we have institutions because they are useful, not because an elite group of reptilian overlords use them to imprison us etc.


Ask an anthropologist what happens to nonconformists in tribal societies. They will tell you that they get mutilated, exiled, or killed. Tribes don't use constitutions, and they don't separate out the functions of making and interpreting law (which is derived as a rule from custom).


Either way, it makes no odds. Societies of whatever type, be it clan tribe or nation will inevitably compete for resources, and given the opportunity, more powerful groups will deprive the less powerful. If everyone abandons modern forms of nation and switches to pre-feudal society, then one of them will evolve into a feudal one and invade the rest.

So let's recap.
1, The only reason why this pipe dream isn't dangerous is that it's not possible.
2, If it were possible, it would still be guaranteed to result in failure.
3, So try to appreciate the massive advantages that you have been gifted; we live in a time when economic uncertainty doesn't bring starvation and disease, try to be thankful for that.

I've half a mind to just say let everybody have their way and carry on spending. Let's see what happens.

Once again a superbly thought out post, thanks.

With regard to the security point, it's my contention that freedom is better than security, but as concepts these things are confused deliberately by the media and western governments. They tell us that if we conform, we will be protected from threats such as terrorism etc. That we will be safe and "secure". Personally (and I admit it's idealistic), I would prefer true freedom i.e. to be left alone to live my own life and to take care of my own security. But I suppose the point I'm arguing would require critical mass and human beings to change a fair bit.



I am thankful for that, but I'm also not entirely sure why those of us who have, don't help those of us who don't have - rather than bombing them or trying to make them change religion or system of government and then sending our young men to die trying to kill them. Jus' sayin'.

That's the Utopian dream. A land of milk and honey where everyone is really lovely. Be excellent to one another, and party on.

If you take away security, in the real world you end up with bad men with guns raping your women and stealing your goods. And then you die in misery. You don't have to look that far to see the evidence.

You're probably right JJ. But it's not a certainty as we haven't tried it. Besides, doesn't stop me hoping.

But what about basic rule of law, and essential human rights. Is absolute freedom worth having, or does it represent the bestial drudgery that is the life of man in the State of Nature?

I like to balance liberty with security and I suspect that on the whole most other people in Britain agree. I like that there are police around to arrest and imprison those who would rape my sister (thus curtailing their freedom to rape), or steal my TV. I like the fact that I don't have to join some Mad Max militia to gain a measure of freedom from other militias.

If we were to dispose governments, laws, corporations, and so on, we would become free, but only in a limited sense that not many among us would enjoy. We would be free either to cower beneath the skirts of some sort of mutual defence association, or else to go it alone and be repeatedly robbed until starvation ended that brief hit of liberty.

what I'm getting at here is that there are two types of liberty, negative (freedom from x) and positive (free to do x). Negative liberty applies whenever I am free to do whatever I damn well please, negative liberty requires opportunities. So when I was forced to go to school against my will as a child, I was being denied freedom in one sense, but I was provided with the education that opened a limitless realm of opportunity in later life, so my freedom was being enhanced in the other respect.

What makes a modern, wealthy democratic society such a good place to live is the unique blend of the two forms of liberty that result. We get sufficient negative liberty to lead a rewarding life, forming our own thoughts and expressing them, earning a living and spending most of the proceeds according to our own wishes (the other bit is taxes etc which contribute to the well being of the society that supports our welfare). We also get demarcation of those negative liberties; the right to free expression is not an entitlement to incite murder. The right to own property only applies to that which is earned fair and square, not to stuff extracted from others with violence or deceit.

But crucially we get something that has never been available in any other civilisation; the massive range of opportunities to exercise our freedom. To travel, to read great literature and write absolute doggerel, start your own company, or drop out and backpack round Tibet, it's all there for you to do, there's nothing stopping you.

I've roughly paraphrased one of the themes of Isiah Berlin's classic essay "Two Concepts of Liberty" above. If you wish to know more then you can read about it here http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77888213 I highly recommend it.



There is always the temptation to see Now as the End of History; the point that it was all leading up to. We're really just at a stage in a process that continues forever. At the moment, that process seems to involve a range of countries that have traditionally been poor and backwards turning into vibrant wealthy ones.

Brazil, Russia, India, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey and some others are expanding their economies fast. Some other countries are lagging badly. There's internal progress they need to make before they can get in on the act, give them time and they will, although frankly I expect they would do it more quickly if we would stop interfering. When those countries listed above are rich enough, they will be able to help with development funds for the remainder. With twice the funds available, and only half as many needy to support, I expect future generations will do better at this development game than we have, and we haven't been that bad ourselves.

Good question. I wish more people were able to articulate that kind of question and responses to it.



Balance is key to everything in life and I'm not for one minute advocating the abolition of governments. However IMO, the current system is corrupt and works for it's own greed. I believe the fact that we have the negative freedom you talk about, is a form of appeasement that keeps the vast majority of people doing the things that benefit the greed of those in charge.

The two concepts of freedom you talk make perfect sense to me, but I've never heard them talked about like that before. Thanks for the tip, I'll take a look. I'm also about to start reading "Liberty in the Age of Terror : A Defence of Civil Society and Enlightenment Values" - AC Grayling. The foreword is extremely interesting.



I'm just wondering if the balance is more toward the negative than the positive at this particular point in our society.....