Russell Brand May Have Started a Revolution Last Night

[Skitty]

Well, at the very least he earns his money - it's not inherited, or profit based on underpaying workers - and pays his taxes instead of taking advantage of the legalised tax avoidance others of his ilk exploit. I wouldn't think it fair or in line with his fairness-based philosophy to expect him to give up what he has legitimately earned in order to help fund the deficit created by those who profit off creating said deficit.

If everyone paid taxes and paid their underlings a living wage, and there was still a gap left to fill, then yes, I'd expect him to be happy to pay more in, but as it is it's a bit of a strawman to say that he can't ask people to contribute as much as he already is unless he gives more.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Planet of the Vapes mobile app

 

[LordLucan]

I think that I must be the only person that found the whole interview a bit nonsensical. He speaks well but doesn't really have any answers to the difficult questions.

 

[steffijade]

I think that I must be the only person that found the whole interview a bit nonsensical. He speaks well but doesn't really have any answers to the difficult questions.

The answers are simple enough in theory.. all it would take is the will to implement the necessary changes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex8U_4rJn4s

The first part of this video explores the causes of the situation we have to day, the rest explores the solutions.

If you're happy that you know what has caused the inequalities in society and just want to see the possible solutions, then you can skip to approx 1hr 30 mins into the video.

 

[Mawsley]

I think that I must be the only person that found the whole interview a bit nonsensical. He speaks well but doesn't really have any answers to the difficult questions.

Thing that gets me with this POV is that it presupposes that alternative ideas for the structure of society should be fully detailed, costed and the implications addressed...and yet it is fine to have a totally dysfunctional method of running a country remain in place.

What's wrong with him raising the topic for further debate? Why does he need to have everything nailed down?

To my mind a country which panders to the richest 10% yet leaves people cold, hungry, sick and disenfranchised is simply not fit for purpose.

Where are the ideas for improvements from those who support the notion of the status quo? Do you believe that this is as good as it gets and the idea of a community for all is nothing more than a pipe dream?

 

[LordLucan]

You're quite right. It's good that he brought it up for debate - but I feel that he did more damage than good by encouraging non-participation.

Where are the ideas for improvements from those who support the notion of the status quo? Do you believe that this is as good as it gets and the idea of a community for all is nothing more than a pipe dream?

I'm afraid that I do. It can be fairer (and should be) - but it will never be fair for all. Cynic? Yup But i'm also a realist.

 

[Mawsley]

I firmly believe in non-participation with a corrupt and unjust system. I don't feel advocating removing your support for it does an alternative damage, what it does do is undermine the current nonsense - even more so if done in larger numbers.


http://www.ukpolitical.info

The trend for voting at General Elections is in sharp decline - despite a bounce in 2010 still 50% of the country didn't register to vote or didn't vote. At some point soon that figure will tip so that not only are we governed by a party that most people in the country don't want but that we are given choices by a system most of the country doesn't want.

I'm open to arguments to continue this method but simple numbers cry out that it is not working.

Also, I simply can't balance the scale of accepting iniquity & inequity with realism. It sounds like defeatism to my mind and that is the only thing I believe does damage to change.

But enough of this serious stuff, we need more bunnies...

 

[LordLucan]

I approve of your bunnies.

 

[steffijade]

but I feel that he did more damage than good by encouraging non-participation.

I'm afraid that I do. It can be fairer (and should be) - but it will never be fair for all. Cynic? Yup But i'm also a realist.

Non participation is the only way to combat a system that just isn't working. The socio-economic model that society is based on at the moment cannot be changed by politicians of any ideology, because all of those ideologies depend on the continuation of of the debt based, consumer driven model.

The only way to effectively end the inequality is to get rid of currency as a core concept and thus eliminate the motive for wealth accumulation. A shift away from currency to a model where resource management and sustainability are the prime motivators is best way move towards true egalitarianism and politicians are not capable of doing this.

All politicians have to 'buy' votes in one form or another in order to gain/retain power using currency as 'bait'. There would be no need for anyone to be bought in a system where resources were effectively managed and distributed according to need.

Being a 'realist' is often just code for saying that nothing can be changed, but non participation is just the first step towards change. If enough people refuse to vote/spoil their ballots then any government that was elected would have no real mandate to govern. With no valid government in place, alternatives would have to be seriously explored.