Drudge: ANARCHY IN THE UK

[Agorism]

Anarchists blitz the Ritz and occupy Fortnum & Mason: Yobs break away from anti-cuts demo as HALF A MILLION peaceful protesters march on London


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370053/TUC-anti-cuts-demo-At-HALF-A-MILLION-peaceful-protesters-march-London.html#ixzz1HjPNX2jX

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/26/article-1370053-0B58A48D00000578-979_634x398.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/26/article-1370053-0B58263500000578-679_634x419.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370053/TUC-anti-cuts-demo-At-HALF-A-MILLION-peaceful-protesters-march-London.html

[acptulsa]

Alleged anarchists. Last I heard, the protest was for more government spending.

[FrankRep]

These "Anarchists" are actually Rioting Socialists.


500,000 MARCH IN LONDON TO PROTEST BUDGET CUTS... (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/half-a-million-activists-join-anticuts-march-2253791.html)

[gregb]

I think the basic premise is - get tax money owed by corporate tax dodgers before making education cuts/etc. I find it tough to disagree with that. They have (in the past) picked specific targets with specific amounts ie Vodaphone owes 5 billion in taxes, latest cuts to education, playgrounds, bus transportation etc were 5 billion - "uncut" the cuts and collect the taxes.

[TIMB0B]

I think the basic premise is - get tax money owed by corporate tax dodgers before making education cuts/etc. I find it tough to disagree with that. They have (in the past) picked specific targets with specific amounts ie Vodaphone owes 5 billion in taxes, latest cuts to education, playgrounds, bus transportation etc were 5 billion - "uncut" the cuts and collect the taxes.
Businesses shouldn't be taxed anyway. They just pass that burden onto the consumer by raising prices.

[sailingaway]

That white gunk all over the guy's face doesn't look perfectly peaceful. Just saying....

[gregb]

Businesses shouldn't be taxed anyway. They just pass that burden onto the consumer by raising prices.
Well .... maybe .... but people should be taxed? I'm assuming you mean corporations are businesses, do you mean just businesses run by the individual?

Regardless, I haven't a lot of sympathy for the companies that avoid existing taxes by funneling their money offshore when the business they do and profit they make is in the country. I guess I sort of tend to think that you should spend your profits where you make them - both on an individual level and a corporate level, as local as possible being more important and out of country being least. Avoiding taxes by taking money out of country seems at first glance to me to be wrong.

[sailingaway]

I think the basic premise is - get tax money owed by corporate tax dodgers before making education cuts/etc. I find it tough to disagree with that. They have (in the past) picked specific targets with specific amounts ie Vodaphone owes 5 billion in taxes, latest cuts to education, playgrounds, bus transportation etc were 5 billion - "uncut" the cuts and collect the taxes.

Yeah. That's the problem with the social security fixes, for that matter. They stole the surplus and are declaring the bonds owed the social security funds to be what shouldn't be paid back, rather than, say, the interest 'due' the federal reserve for printing money with value derived only from depreciation of existing dollars... Which isn't to say it isn't still the best deal the people are likely to get, and better than waiting until it all runs out and they just lop off the debt entirely....

It is cronyism in the cuts, not just in the spending. This bothers people, and it should.

However, they need to present an alternative.

[Cowlesy]

I hope one day one of these private property owners fights back against these socialist pigs and gives them a taste of their own medicine.

[gregb]

That white gunk all over the guy's face doesn't look perfectly peaceful. Just saying....

Right, and that little violence thing that happened at one of Rand Paul's appearances was his/our fault? Or that the police themselves are not capable of trying to instigate something? Or that the caption says "yobs" ie hooligans break away from demo? In other words not part of it.

[South Park Fan]

How sad it is that the only way to arouse mass civil disobedience in Western countries is when you try to wean people off the trough?

[FrankRep]

How sad it is that the only way to arouse mass civil disobedience in Western countries is when you try to wean people off the trough?

The UK Public Government Unions are behind this "civil disobedience."


UNISON | The public service trade union
http://www.unison.org.uk/


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/26/article-1370053-0B58564C00000578-48_306x453.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/26/article-1370053-0B5846A800000578-218_634x404.jpg

[sailingaway]

Right, and that little violence thing that happened at one of Rand Paul's appearances was his/our fault? Or that the police themselves are not capable of trying to instigate something? Or that the caption says "yobs" ie hooligans break away from demo? In other words not part of it.

I have no idea whose fault it was, I just said it wasn't 'peaceful'.

[Vessol]

They are demanding more government, yet they are labeled anarchists? Wtf lol.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

How sad it is that the only way to arouse mass civil disobedience in Western countries is when you try to wean people off the trough?

Happened in France a few years ago too. Europe created this monster.

It's bad in America too, but likely not '500,000 socialist nuts protesting no-doubt modest budget cuts' bad, yet.

[FrankRep]

They are demanding more government, yet they are labeled anarchists? Wtf lol.

They only want to Overthrow the existing Government using "Anarchy." These people are Revolutionary Socialists.

[ClayTrainor]

They are demanding more government, yet they are labeled anarchists? Wtf lol.

lol, I know eh? They arent anti-state at all, they are anti-capitalist.

[hugolp]

They are demanding more government, yet they are labeled anarchists? Wtf lol.

This happens a lot. Its the Noam Chomsky type of "anarchism". They talk nice, promise a lot of things, and define themselves as anarchists in a theoretical level, but when the time for real action comes, they always always always demand more government. For them being an anarchist is just a beautiful pose and not anything meaningful.

[TIMB0B]

Well .... maybe .... but people should be taxed? I'm assuming you mean corporations are businesses, do you mean just businesses run by the individual?

Regardless, I haven't a lot of sympathy for the companies that avoid existing taxes by funneling their money offshore when the business they do and profit they make is in the country. I guess I sort of tend to think that you should spend your profits where you make them - both on an individual level and a corporate level, as local as possible being more important and out of country being least. Avoiding taxes by taking money out of country seems at first glance to me to be wrong.
I don't want any direct tax imposed on individuals or corporations/businesses.

Also, I disagree with the notion that people should spend their profits where they make them. That goes against a free society and the free market in general. It's not the corporations that are necessarily wrong for avoiding taxes, but the government for imposing those taxes, which drives the companies to these offshore accounts.

[Cowlesy]

They are demanding more government, yet they are labeled anarchists? Wtf lol.

Guardian.co.uk's headline says "Activists" :p

It's such a joke!

[acptulsa]

For them being an anarchist is just a beautiful pose and not anything meaningful.

Easy to spot, too. Just say, 'Gee, it would fix everything if we just put you in charge.' They will invariably agree with a straight face.

Gotcha!

[AZKing]

Happened in France a few years ago too. Europe created this monster.

It's bad in America too, but likely not '500,000 socialist nuts protesting no-doubt modest budget cuts' bad, yet.

Our society is totally docile. Congress could probably raise taxes 10% and barely get a response, just so long as the people can watch American Idol. And even if there was a response, chances are we'll just vote 'em back in, like we did with the people who voted for the bailouts.

[hugolp]

I don't want any direct tax imposed on individuals or corporations/businesses.

Also, I disagree with the notion that people should spend their profits where they make them. That goes against a free society and the free market in general. It's not the corporations that are necessarily wrong for avoiding taxes, but the government for imposing those taxes, which drives the companies to these offshore accounts.

Yes, I agree with you that is the final goal, but its important how we get there from the present situation. Its not the acceptable to start lowering taxes on corporatiosn while leaving the income tax the same or even raising it, and at the same time having corporate subsudies and cutting social spending. I would prefer if the government does not tax at all and all the services were voluntary, but that does not mean any tax cut is a good tax cut.

[gregb]

Yes, I agree with you that is the final goal, but its important how we get there from the present situation.....

Exactly.

I've been following uncut since they started, found it interesting. I'm more interested in logistics and areas of common interest. Regardless of what anyone thinks about it they still got a large amount of people out and how they do/did it is of much interest to me. I don't like dismissing tactics just because some other group uses them. I've seen somewhere a 10 point instruction set that sets out times and methods to do various things that lead to what essentially is an extremely large "flash mob". The definiteness of purpose is interesting too - how they pick a target with a specific amount of tax owing and relate that to a specific cut, for example.

I have also seen signs that uncut includes a fair amount of people that could easily "cross over" to a Ron Paul type of stance. I don't see any reason to dismiss them out of hand without investigation. Additionally, Rupert Murdoch is their number one, sworn enemy and that means something to me ie you can't be all bad if Rupert is using his media empire, attempting to destroy you.

[TIMB0B]

Yes, I agree with you that is the final goal, but its important how we get there from the present situation. Its not the acceptable to start lowering taxes on corporatiosn while leaving the income tax the same or even raising it, and at the same time having corporate subsudies and cutting social spending. I would prefer if the government does not tax at all and all the services were voluntary, but that does not mean any tax cut is a good tax cut.
I haven't made a suggestion on which tax cut to make first, but if you began with corporate taxes, it would benefit everybody. Prices of commodities would go down making it more affordable for consumers. Current businesses will have the incentive to hire more employees. Not to mention, the ones that have left due to high taxation will now be inclined to come back.

Cut corporate taxes = more incentive for business expansion = more jobs available for the unemployed. I'm also including small businesses with this as well.

[nate895]

Happened in France a few years ago too. Europe created this monster.

It's bad in America too, but likely not '500,000 socialist nuts protesting no-doubt modest budget cuts' bad, yet.

The thing is, even if American socialist could get 500,000 people to march, that would not be the equivalent of 500,000 people in the UK marching. The UK has about 60 million people compared to our 300 million, so the socialists would need to have around 2.5 million people marching (although, it would have to be in separate places since we are much larger than the UK) to match the British.

[Anti Federalist]

Our society is totally docile. Congress could probably raise taxes 10% and barely get a response, just so long as the people can watch American Idol. And even if there was a response, chances are we'll just vote 'em back in, like we did with the people who voted for the bailouts.

Shit, you could double them and nobody would give a frog's fat ass.

The only thing that will put Americans in the street in any massive numbers is a threat to cut off the government cheese supply, or an illegal war with a Republican in the White House.

[eOs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcIbIeJY-xU

[Anti Federalist]

Had to do it...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkActP-isE

[Fredom101]

Always blame the anarchist. :(

Even if every single true anarchist in the UK got together and decided to riot, they could easily & quickly be contained by police.

[Agorism]

I am of the belief that any tax cut is a good one unless it's some sort of trade off where one group gets a tax hike in exchange. Whenever there is a trade I am skeptical.

[gregb]

But perhaps the most striking response was from the right. One of Britain’s most famous businessmen, Duncan Bannatyne, came out in support of the protests ..... The Financial Times conceded that “the protesters have a point” .... Surprisingly, the Daily Mail, Britain’s most right-wing newspaper, became one of the movement’s most sympathetic allies..... that attacked UK Uncut outright was, predictably, Rupert Murdoch’s empire....His tabloid the Sun accused UK Uncut of being a “group of up to 30,000 anarchists” ... (http://www.alternet.org/story/149806/vision%3A_everyday_brits_are_in_revolt_against_wea lthy_tax_cheats_--_can_we_do_that_here?page=entire)

So ... the question is, does Fox News (Rupert Murdoch) only lie when it is about Ron Paul, but everything else is straight ahead? I'm not for uncut but it is in the US now, it became a force in Britain overnight - I guess I don't see forums as a place to vote with your opinion but rather a place to explore without pre-conception. I figure that first of all, who cares what they think. The really important thing is how did they organize?

The replies on this forum that use "socialist" and figure that that means "no point in looking any closer", the dismissive tones - I doubt there'll be much attracting people from other political stances with that attitude, so get set to lose I guess. I mean, who cares if they are socialists? We should be examining their beliefs and initially presuming that much as Ron Paul's support is diverse so might be uncut's. Now .... do we have any targets in common? Do we at least both believe in transparency of government? Drug legalization? Bring the troops home?

I see it as counter-productive to be dismissive, but maybe I'm wrong.

[acptulsa]

I see it as counter-productive to be dismissive, but maybe I'm wrong.

Principled politics has become such an oxymoron. I suppose it always was. So, if we refuse to take on any allies on principle, how much longer will it be before we can begin fixing things? I don't know the answer, but I do think that's the question.

[Freedom 4 all]

These "Anarchists" are actually Rioting Socialists.


500,000 MARCH IN LONDON TO PROTEST BUDGET CUTS... (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/half-a-million-activists-join-anticuts-march-2253791.html)

This. Anarchists and Minarchists protest because they want the government to fuck off. These fine folks want the government to steal MORE and give it to them, they are not anarchists, they are statists. Not that I necessarily condone whatever horrible things the police involved are probably doing to them, just saying.

[libertybrewcity]

I think they were using anarchy instead of chaos

[Arklatex]

Don't be so quick to label these protesters... everything is slanted by the media. After all don't they label us? Aren't we radicals? They are fighting the establishment over there it looks to me and everywhere else in the world. Kudos to them!

[gregb]

This. Anarchists and Minarchists protest because they want the government to fuck off. These fine folks want the government to steal MORE and give it to them, they are not anarchists, they are statists. Not that I necessarily condone whatever horrible things the police involved are probably doing to them, just saying.

I find it troublesome to have to defend something that I think I disagree with but the precise point of uncut is not to "steal MORE and give it to them" but to collect what is owed to them.

Whether taxation is right or wrong I see it as if you know the laws and you choose to do business you should be bound to those laws. Then, if you owe back taxes you should pay them. If you don't like the laws and you think you can make more money by selling your wares in Monaco where your wife has a post-office box and a legal address then go there and do it.

A corporation whining about too much tax and therefore they shouldn't pay what they owe should be about as useful as an excuse as me refusing to go to jail for getting caught with drugs because drug laws are wrong.

[Stary Hickory]

Don't be so quick to label these protesters... everything is slanted by the media. After all don't they label us? Aren't we radicals? They are fighting the establishment over there it looks to me and everywhere else in the world. Kudos to them!

Except that they are the establishment, they are not fighting against it they are fighting for a continuation of the statist regime which gives them benefits using the violence of the government. These people are teachers, NHS workers, firemen, and government employees....they cannot possibly be fighting the establishment because they ARE the establishment, they thrive in it. They most certainly are not anarchists, anarchy does not provide government checks...which is the sole motivation of these clowns.

[Sentient Void]

"I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible." - Milton Friedman

Agreed, Friedman. Agreed.

[Sentient Void]

Most of us here are very familiar with socialism in regards to it's 'economics' (or lack thereof) and 'morals' (or lack thereof). Extensively.

Socialism deserves every ounce of scorn it gets. Whether it's an immediate response, or after hearing the 'argument' in it's favor (which is always the same anyways).

[FrankRep]

Don't be so quick to label these protesters... everything is slanted by the media. After all don't they label us? Aren't we radicals? They are fighting the establishment over there it looks to me and everywhere else in the world. Kudos to them!

You better do some research before making silly comments like that.

[Stary Hickory]

Most of us here are very familiar with socialism in regards to it's 'economics' (or lack thereof) and 'morals' (or lack thereof). Extensively.

Socialism deserves every ounce of scorn it gets. Whether it's an immediate response, or after hearing the 'argument' in it's favor (which is always the same anyways).

I feel no pity for them, because I have fought against this sort of thing my whole life. Even when I was not so steeped in theory as I am now, I understood everyone had to work not try to rob one another. Socialism is bad because of what it does to people, how it gets them dependent on a system that cannot work. It needs violence and deception to perpetuate at all. Anyways this is something that will affect as all pretty soon, and I do not have any tolerance for these sorts of people anymore. I have to sacrifice work hard, harder than I would have to...because of people like this who have rationalized stealing from their fellow man rather than working and trading voluntarily.

I have to pay a price for actions and systems they forced on me..forced on all of us. I will be damned if I shed one tear for these people as I try to be responsible and dig myself out of the mess they created.

[gregb]

Except that they are the establishment, they are not fighting against it they are fighting for a continuation of the statist regime which gives them benefits using the violence of the government. These people are teachers, NHS workers, firemen, and government employees....they cannot possibly be fighting the establishment because they ARE the establishment, they thrive in it. They most certainly are not anarchists, anarchy does not provide government checks...which is the sole motivation of these clowns.

Unable to get through a whole post without name-calling ("clowns"). Whenever I see that sort of thing I immediately think that the poster MUST be wrong or why resort to that? Like your message would be different if you said "people".

So Ron Paul is a Republican. The Republicans started the war in Iraq. Does that mean Ron Paul (supporters) can't be against interventionist military actions?

These people are soldiers, pro-gun, etc. They cannot possibly be fighting the military-industrial complex because they ARE the military-industrial complex.

Rand gets the old "How can he be against medicare when he derived 75% of his income from it" and that isn't fair but your comment is? Then you make a point of "they most certainly are not anarchists" - way to spout Rupert Murdoch's propaganda talking points - he was the one who labeled them anarchists. Maybe do a little thinking about where you are getting your information (or lack thereof) from, person.

[gregb]

I have to pay a price for actions and systems they forced on me..forced on all of us. I will be damned if I shed one tear for these people as I try to be responsible and dig myself out of the mess they created.

Oh, come on. The bank bailout (together with the banksters last 40 years of organized crime) put more straws on your back than any other single group of people but I suppose we'd better cut their taxes because you know there isn't enough left over for bonuses as it is.

[acptulsa]

Maybe do a little thinking about where you are getting your information (or lack thereof) from, person.

Oh, now, I've been watching Mr. Hickory post a long time, and he's seldom if ever guilty of a bigger sin than overgeneralization. We all know where all those tons of stuff on Wikileaks comes from.

Besides, I think he was specifically talking about the protestors, not all of their colleagues.

[Stary Hickory]

Unable to get through a whole post without name-calling ("clowns"). Whenever I see that sort of thing I immediately think that the poster MUST be wrong or why resort to that? Like your message would be different if you said "people".

So Ron Paul is a Republican. The Republicans started the war in Iraq. Does that mean Ron Paul (supporters) can't be against interventionist military actions?

These people are soldiers, pro-gun, etc. They cannot possibly be fighting the military-industrial complex because they ARE the military-industrial complex.

Rand gets the old "How can he be against medicare when he derived 75% of his income from it" and that isn't fair but your comment is? Then you make a point of "they most certainly are not anarchists" - way to spout Rupert Murdoch's propaganda talking points - he was the one who labeled them anarchists. Maybe do a little thinking about where you are getting your information (or lack thereof) from, person.

Frankly I don't care if you like my referring to them as clowns or not. How about thieves vile vermin? Any better? It is truly what they are, they are out in the street rioting so that they can continue to rob BY FORCE others around them. Perhaps they are just too stupid to understand where it all comes from, but I think they have a pretty good idea, and they don't care. Pick your word, I think calling them clowns was pretty mild. When they start acting like human beings and not demanding that they be given by force the wealth of others then maybe we can look at them again...now did you have anything of substance to add?

What are you talking about? Your parallels are full of fail, they are protesting budget cuts, because they feed off the budget. This is the motivation behind why they are there, they are not fighting the system. This is straight out of the progressive playbook, they are fighting a system...by imposing a vast government of pure violence on the people and feeding off them....yes they are fighting the establishment.

Oh and please just drop the partisan politics, I don't care which party people belong to, quit looking at things through the lens of Republican vs Democrat...or whatever your issue is. You are trying to draw parallels that do not exist. The protesters are in support of big government and continuing the pay checks. They have made there desires well known. Are you trying to honestly convince us that they are FOR reducing the size of government....FOR abolishing the very institutions that provide them a free or cheap meal?

I mean what do you take us for?

[Stary Hickory]

Oh, come on. The bank bailout (together with the banksters last 40 years of organized crime) put more straws on your back than any other single group of people but I suppose we'd better cut their taxes because you know there isn't enough left over for bonuses as it is.

Socialism is bad ok? It's forced on people. Why so defensive? The bankers are partaking of their special brand of socialism, and I do not tolerate that any more than I do the parasites in the streets of London. Its the same disease, use government to take from others what you want by force. The bankers, corrupt politicians and the socialist/socialist-lite protesters in London deserve each other, they are one in the same.

I think as we watch our country slide into the financial abyss, with dirty bankers at one end and parasites on the other...we have the right to feel just a little bit cynical and jaded. And to see these people have the nerve to get violent out in the streets, it's almost too much. They got what they wanted, they got the socialist state they wanted along with all the corruption, inefficiency, and state coercion any statist could ever want. They never shed a tear for the people they rob and terrorize every day to maintain their lifestyles why should anyone care about them when the financial ponzi scheme blows up in their face?

[Flash]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Aqfp5iMnw

[Sentient Void]

Socialism is bad ok? It's forced on people. Why so defensive? The bankers are partaking of their special brand of socialism, and I do not tolerate that any more than I do the parasites in the streets of London. Its the same disease, use government to take from others what you want by force. The bankers, corrupt politicians and the socialist/socialist-lite protesters in London deserve each other, they are one in the same.

I think as we watch our country slide into the financial abyss, with dirty bankers at one end and parasites on the other...we have the right to feel just a little bit cynical and jaded. And to see these people have the nerve to get violent out in the streets, it's almost too much. They got what they wanted, they got the socialist state they wanted along with all the corruption, inefficiency, and state coercion any statist could ever want. They never shed a tear for the people they rob and terrorize every day to maintain their lifestyles why should anyone care about them when the financial ponzi scheme blows up in their face?

^^^^ omfg *this* ^^^^

[gregb]

Socialism is bad ok? It's forced on people.

I'm not an "absolutist" - I remember back late 1950's, 1960's and there is always something that is bad. I remember teachers telling me straight faced that "drugs are bad, ok? Pushers force them on kids", I remember the whole "Russia bad" thing, it goes on and on and everyone who tries to tell me that "something is bad, ok?" loses me right away.


Why so defensive?

I'm not really trying to be defensive, why so offensive? I just see huge events with people from all over being assembled and then I see people dismissing them as "socialist" or "anarchist" depending on the point they are attempting to force. Neither one means anything to me, I honestly don't know the exact make-up of the people there and I can't see how you could either.

I bring up what I think is a decent point ie the most right-wing of newspapers is behind them and Rupert Murdoch attacks and slanders them. Nobody addresses that, it is like I'm in a room with a bunch of parrot/sheep crosses who can't ignore for the moment the socialist or not aspect and intelligently comment on things that can't be put in a "socialism bad, us good" - "Polly want a cracker, socialism bad. Awk. Pieces of eight".


The bankers are partaking of their special brand of socialism, and I do not tolerate that any more than I do the parasites in the streets of London.

Actually, the way I see it is you do too tolerate it and in fact are currently tolerating it - for all the tough talk I don't see anyone in the USA that isn't tolerating it.


I think as we watch our country slide into the financial abyss, with dirty bankers at one end and parasites on the other...we have the right to feel just a little bit cynical and jaded.

Totally agree.


And to see these people have the nerve to get violent out in the streets, it's almost too much.

Don't be dumb. It isn't "those" people, it is the usual thugs that tag along to any demonstration. See, why do you have to include almost outright lies about them. Those thugs turn out for soccer matches and anywhere else they can cause problems. For all you know they were cops like at the North American leaders' summit in Canada in 2007 where they got caught and outed.

I object to people stating stuff they know little about except what Fox tells them and saying it like it is fact when anybody can see they haven't a real clue.

[gregb]

Socialism is bad ok? It's forced on people. Why so defensive?
However, I do want to say that I'm on your side. I've done a lot of work for Ron Paul related web projects, I'm pretty experience with software and I am Canadian so I contribute how I can. I'm active in most areas of web-development including and specifically buying, selling, and collecting domain names. I have a few hundred. I try and look for future trends so that I can register good domains. I also register domains for political purposes.

So, I stumbled onto the UK Uncut thing pretty much when it first started and I had this thought that it would catch on and so I noted their naming conventions and communication methods and proceeded to register the relevant domains - so I own canadauncut.org, canadauncut.com, canadauncut.ca. I have a certain amount of principle so I left canadauncut.net. I had joined all the facebook and twitter pages for UK Uncut and US Uncut and that includes the working group. I kept up on it sort of but I lost interest as it was happening over in the UK and didn't affect me.

Then one day I'm innocently working away at my computer and this email comes in because this person wants to use my domains (I suppose I was to donate them) to the now happening Canada Uncut. One of the reasons they gave for why they would be a decent person for me to transfer my domains to was that he had very strong union connections. He listed three really big Canadian unions.

Now I'm as willing as anyone to consider that something may in fact be good but I've never been a union member (except student union, unavoidable) and I can't help but view unions with a certain amount of distaste - but I have many good friends, otherwise decent people, who belong to unions. So I told him straight out that I trusted me to do the right thing with them more than anyone else and that I had bought them to make sure that I could critique Uncut if I wanted to.

Next I join up with the canada uncut facebook working group to see what is up and it is a hotbed of activity. Some stuff sounds good but I pretty quickly got this feeling that they were more interested in being a part of it, fun and demonstrations, and not so much into figuring out exactly who or what needed dealing with. I like the idea of defining targets and connecting specific amounts with them. I just can't see dressing up as a clown though and parading around some poor local businessman's place.

Then I see the US Uncut getting going and growing. It isn't as if they weren't using tried and true uncut methods in Wisconsin and were a major part of organization. The thing is though, that for whatever it is worth, it is a grassroots movement - the unions are trying to co-opt in much the same way as I see the Tea Party riding on Ron Paul's coattails and not the other way around.

Anyone who has read any Louis L'Amour knows that to turn a stampede of cattle you turn the lead steer - standing in front and screaming "Socialist" at them isn't going to do anything but get you trampled. So I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to approach this - it is conceivable that I can frame the Uncut movement in Canada if I do it correctly - I'm not sure I want to try but I'm just looking for areas of overlap right now, in case I want to. Right now I'm ranking top 10 in Google for a search for "canada uncut" and if I tried I could do way better.

So, if I seem defensive I think that it is just that I am looking for subtleties and a stepping stone of points to make. It isn't as if the same problems that affect the USA don't exist here - just the other day our fighter jets flew a bombing mission into Libya and I can tell you a lot of people are none too happy about this new development. We used to be peace keepers.

[Sentient Void]

Understand that our distaste for socialism is not merely for the absolutist form of socialism (which is just the worst form as the highest degree of it). We understand that the US and even the UK, Canada etc are all 'mixed economies', some more socialist than others. But the point is that any socialism, to any degree, any quantity, any quality of it, is immoral, inefficient, easily corruptible, and destructive. And our position is that it should be minimized as much as humanly possible.

These people and other inion people etc may not be clamoring for absolute socialism across the board, but they are clamorIng for whatever degree or type of socialism that benefits them - which can only be done at the expense of others, those who produce. These people are thieves and parasites.

Theft is wrong, period. It doesn't matter whether you're a straight-up criminal, or you like to call yourself 'the government'.

It's really that simple. Socialism is bad, mmkay?

Any socialist who has even a modicum of an open mind and simply value truth and want to understand how the world really works around them and truly wants to alleviate the situation of the poor, and raise everyones standard of living - I recommend them to read 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt. I don't mention the free market, socialism, libertarianism, or anything - I just say if they want to do these things above, to read that book.

Doing a quick Google search for that book as a PDF, you'll find it for free very quickly. And it's a quick, enjoyable, easy to understand read. I've converted many socialists with that book.