I think many Brits would say that Chomsky's thesis doesn't apply to their broadcaster, only the "evil" ones that are owned by corporations instead of Governments, and are "for-profit" instead of funded by the taxpayer.
Why, it's almost as if the vast propaganda power of a national broadcaster has been used to guide their thinking. Surely not... the BBC is good and would never do such a thing.
You can also avoid paying the licence fee if your TV can't receive over-the-air pictures, e.g. if it is disconnected from the aerial.
There was once a "radio licence", you can still see a reference to it in one episode of Monty Python, but this was phased out when almost nobody owned a radio but not a TV.
In the future, I expect the TV licence will be extended to include Internet connections as well, since those can now be used to receive BBC programmes too. At that point, we will see if the BBC can continue to convince people that it is worth the money.
To modern Government, statistics are a tool that is used to define reality, rather than understand it.
You're more likely to agree with something if you think 90% of the population are backing it. This is the purpose of opinion polls and focus groups; not to find out what people think, but to find out how they can be told what to think.
The decisions come first. Then, the statistics follow to show that the decisions were right. It is cunningly manipulative. Even those familiar with the old "damn lies and statistics" quote still tend to believe that "scientific" "statistical" data cannot be twisted to serve a political agenda.
If the Government wants you to believe something, that in itself is a good reason to disbelieve it.
What Shakrai said. If you would like to read about the problems caused by Government welfare, and also see an excellent demolition of the myths about what preceded it, I recommend "The Welfare State We're In", by James Bartholomew. Your library probably has it, there is no need to pay. Bartholomew is not a libertarian as far as I know, but he is a good writer, and his history of the welfare system is quite an eye-opener.
The alternative to a distributed system like a free market is a centralised system like a Government, which takes a large proportion of our earnings and then wastes them. There is nothing magical about this: distributed is better than centralised.
(Minarchist) libertarians believe in the rule of law and would not dismantle laws that truly exist for the protection of ordinary people, rather than existing simply to keep them out of work and dependent on the state (e.g. the benefit system and minimum wage).
Like it or not, free market Capitalism built Western civilisation. We have advanced technology and a transport infrastructure because somebody wanted to get rich. Money is a good thing: one of mankind's greatest inventions in fact.
These are well-known criticisms of Libertarian philosophy. Personally I think they have good justifications for everything they claim (see the Manifesto). Their common sense capitalist policies would enable redistribution of wealth, reduce social inequality and promote individual liberty. None of these things require Government - in fact, history shows that big Government just acts as a parasite that gets in the way of positive change. Government should stick to enforcing the law and protecting the borders. IMHO of course.
Unlike all the other parties, their opposition to ID cards comes not from a specific belief that they are bad, but from the more general "minarchist" belief in small Government and personal liberty. They hold that large Government is harmful in itself, so Government should be constitutionally restricted to the things that no other organisation could do. This means that there would be no ID cards, but also no equivalently bad things, like DNA databases. Also, there would be no income tax: you keep what you earn, and public sector jobs cease to be a route to personal enrichment at the taxpayer's expense. Pretty radical idea, eh?
There are some Conservatives who oppose ID cards and authoritarian policies, such as David Davis and Daniel Hannan, but they spend most of their time being demonised by the media for being "right wing". Consequently they have no political influence within the party, which is simply New Labour with different people.
Indeed. With New Labour and their friends in the "conservative" party, and all those unelected lawmakers from the European Union, the Queen is really the least of our worries.
Her presence also means that we can criticise the Government without unpatriotically criticising Britain itself. This may not seem important, but there are people in some republics who think it is unpatriotic to criticise the President, and this can cause problems.
All I can say is it's lucky that Britain has a resourceful, unbiased, independent and impartial public service broadcaster. It always opposes authoritarian, illiberal ideas like CRB checks and identity cards. It always puts what the people want in front of what the Government wants, and never tries to influence opinion in favour of the Government.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you'd like to read more about this, see my homepage. But I cannot resist challenging the idea that progressive ideas are always better than socially conservative ones because although many people believe so, they are mistaken.
As a critic of Britain's progressive "theocracy", I feel unable to let your post slide without pointing out that progressives also have "religious" beliefs which are also not based on evidence. These are more dangerous than openly-admitted "religious faith" because they are generally assumed to be facts rather than being acknowledged as religious beliefs.
Some of them, such as Marxism, are every bit as harmful to life and liberty as that Old Testament stuff, as most people now agree. Others are harmful to liberty in a more insidious way, such as political correctness and the doctrine of equality.
I think it is quite wrong to reject all socially conservative ideas as "bad" because of their source. Remember that such beliefs have been developed slowly over millenia, and although they contain bad ideas, they also contain good ones. It is very wrong to reject them entirely because of the belief that a better way has been found.
I do not look forward to an Islamic-dominated Britain, since under Sharia law, I will not be permitted to work or own property, and I will be forced to go everywhere under a burqa.
"A Handmaid's Tale" is reality now in Iran, and could be reality in future Britain as well. The women of my grandmother's generation fought hard to win us legal equality to men, and now far-right religious conservatives threaten to take that away and bring us back to the dark ages.
The "liberals" at the BBC, and in the population at large, say nothing. They are afraid of being called "fascists" just for speaking the truth. They are willing to tolerate any human rights abuse rather than be "Islamophobic". If they would only speak about these problems and challenge the issue of Britain's divided society, that would be something. But they are cowards. They condemn us all to a dark future in which are no liberals, there are no women's rights, and there are no beliefs but Islam.
It should be obvious to you that I strongly oppose fascism. But feel free to carry on painting me as a BNP supporter or whatever, because it's dangerous to think for yourself these days.
Well, thanks. You deserve the BBC. Enjoy those ad-free "quality" programmes. Enjoy the "unbiased" news reporting. Enjoy the British Government that you deserve, enjoy the Britain that you accepted by default.
£140 a year is what you pay for the BBC. However, you have no idea what the BBC actually costs you. Don't bother to find out, because if you do, you won't be able to tell anybody. They'll just attack you for saying bad things about the "wonderful" BBC. They'll just say "bullshit.. bullshit.." and "if you think otherwise, you're an idiot."
Well of course they do. The vast majority of the population support the NHS.
You've got the causal relationship the wrong way round. The BBC supports the NHS, therefore any attempt to criticise it means instant death, no matter how justified the criticism might be.
The BBC were in fact quite critical of the increased detention periods, control orders and various other anti-terror laws.
Quite critical? And that was good enough, do you think, on such an important issue? More like a bit of token criticism to give the impression of independence. The BBC could have ruined the careers of everyone involved with that sorry authoritarian mess, but they didn't. I wonder why.
Yes I do, because everything he has said has been exactly what he thinks. Also, I have never, ever heard him say anything disrespectful about Britain. Perhaps you could give an example? btw. Criticising Britain's Government, politicians or institutions is not "disrespect", it is "democracy".
To me, "outsourced by the Government" means the same thing as "run by the Government". I think your list provides some good examples of why "Government control of everything" is not a good idea.
I'm confused, because I know that the BBC is neither neutral nor objective. and the political bias of the people who work for it definitely affects what they say and how they say it. For example. I just can't imagine how you can think that the BBC isn't biased. Do you think the absence of a commercial motive really means they will be fair and balanced about everything? Why, then, do politicians such as David Cameron spend so much effort appeasing them? I know I'm going against the groupthink here, but come on...!
Noted. I don't personally see Biased BBC in that light and I think they're unfairly pilloried as idiotic. I think they're only trying to give an alternate perspective on BBC reporting. But I agree that Biased BBC does not really represent most BBC viewers, and concede it would have been less controversial to simply link to the relevant wiki page which is what I will do in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
I think many Brits would say that Chomsky's thesis doesn't apply to their broadcaster, only the "evil" ones that are owned by corporations instead of Governments, and are "for-profit" instead of funded by the taxpayer.
Why, it's almost as if the vast propaganda power of a national broadcaster has been used to guide their thinking. Surely not... the BBC is good and would never do such a thing.
You can also avoid paying the licence fee if your TV can't receive over-the-air pictures, e.g. if it is disconnected from the aerial.
There was once a "radio licence", you can still see a reference to it in one episode of Monty Python, but this was phased out when almost nobody owned a radio but not a TV.
In the future, I expect the TV licence will be extended to include Internet connections as well, since those can now be used to receive BBC programmes too. At that point, we will see if the BBC can continue to convince people that it is worth the money.
To modern Government, statistics are a tool that is used to define reality, rather than understand it.
You're more likely to agree with something if you think 90% of the population are backing it. This is the purpose of opinion polls and focus groups; not to find out what people think, but to find out how they can be told what to think.
The decisions come first. Then, the statistics follow to show that the decisions were right. It is cunningly manipulative. Even those familiar with the old "damn lies and statistics" quote still tend to believe that "scientific" "statistical" data cannot be twisted to serve a political agenda.
If the Government wants you to believe something, that in itself is a good reason to disbelieve it.
What Shakrai said. If you would like to read about the problems caused by Government welfare, and also see an excellent demolition of the myths about what preceded it, I recommend "The Welfare State We're In", by James Bartholomew. Your library probably has it, there is no need to pay. Bartholomew is not a libertarian as far as I know, but he is a good writer, and his history of the welfare system is quite an eye-opener.
The alternative to a distributed system like a free market is a centralised system like a Government, which takes a large proportion of our earnings and then wastes them. There is nothing magical about this: distributed is better than centralised.
(Minarchist) libertarians believe in the rule of law and would not dismantle laws that truly exist for the protection of ordinary people, rather than existing simply to keep them out of work and dependent on the state (e.g. the benefit system and minimum wage).
Like it or not, free market Capitalism built Western civilisation. We have advanced technology and a transport infrastructure because somebody wanted to get rich. Money is a good thing: one of mankind's greatest inventions in fact.
These are well-known criticisms of Libertarian philosophy. Personally I think they have good justifications for everything they claim (see the Manifesto). Their common sense capitalist policies would enable redistribution of wealth, reduce social inequality and promote individual liberty. None of these things require Government - in fact, history shows that big Government just acts as a parasite that gets in the way of positive change. Government should stick to enforcing the law and protecting the borders. IMHO of course.
He's been demonised for opposing the media groupthink on some hot-button issues, e.g. this or this. His Conservative leadership failed because the media didn't like him, preferring the Blairite David Cameron. The central issue is that, to quote one left-wing blog, "Our vision of civil liberties is fundamentally different to that of Davis". I found this interview with him to be quite interesting.
Ooh, I'm "overrated" this time.
Seriously, mods! You wonder "why does the Government do these things?" and "how does it get away with it?" Then you mod people down for explaining it!
As are the Libertarians.
Unlike all the other parties, their opposition to ID cards comes not from a specific belief that they are bad, but from the more general "minarchist" belief in small Government and personal liberty. They hold that large Government is harmful in itself, so Government should be constitutionally restricted to the things that no other organisation could do. This means that there would be no ID cards, but also no equivalently bad things, like DNA databases. Also, there would be no income tax: you keep what you earn, and public sector jobs cease to be a route to personal enrichment at the taxpayer's expense. Pretty radical idea, eh?
Mod parent up.
There are some Conservatives who oppose ID cards and authoritarian policies, such as David Davis and Daniel Hannan, but they spend most of their time being demonised by the media for being "right wing". Consequently they have no political influence within the party, which is simply New Labour with different people.
Why not indeed? Such a system would only be misused if the Government was "fascist".
A nice cuddly left-liberal Government like New Labour (or their "conservative" successors) would only use the system for good.
Indeed. With New Labour and their friends in the "conservative" party, and all those unelected lawmakers from the European Union, the Queen is really the least of our worries.
Her presence also means that we can criticise the Government without unpatriotically criticising Britain itself. This may not seem important, but there are people in some republics who think it is unpatriotic to criticise the President, and this can cause problems.
All I can say is it's lucky that Britain has a resourceful, unbiased, independent and impartial public service broadcaster. It always opposes authoritarian, illiberal ideas like CRB checks and identity cards. It always puts what the people want in front of what the Government wants, and never tries to influence opinion in favour of the Government.
Like we all agreed last week.
Oh, wait.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you'd like to read more about this, see my homepage. But I cannot resist challenging the idea that progressive ideas are always better than socially conservative ones because although many people believe so, they are mistaken.
As a critic of Britain's progressive "theocracy", I feel unable to let your post slide without pointing out that progressives also have "religious" beliefs which are also not based on evidence. These are more dangerous than openly-admitted "religious faith" because they are generally assumed to be facts rather than being acknowledged as religious beliefs.
Some of them, such as Marxism, are every bit as harmful to life and liberty as that Old Testament stuff, as most people now agree. Others are harmful to liberty in a more insidious way, such as political correctness and the doctrine of equality.
I think it is quite wrong to reject all socially conservative ideas as "bad" because of their source. Remember that such beliefs have been developed slowly over millenia, and although they contain bad ideas, they also contain good ones. It is very wrong to reject them entirely because of the belief that a better way has been found.
I am offended.
I do not look forward to an Islamic-dominated Britain, since under Sharia law, I will not be permitted to work or own property, and I will be forced to go everywhere under a burqa.
"A Handmaid's Tale" is reality now in Iran, and could be reality in future Britain as well. The women of my grandmother's generation fought hard to win us legal equality to men, and now far-right religious conservatives threaten to take that away and bring us back to the dark ages.
The "liberals" at the BBC, and in the population at large, say nothing. They are afraid of being called "fascists" just for speaking the truth. They are willing to tolerate any human rights abuse rather than be "Islamophobic". If they would only speak about these problems and challenge the issue of Britain's divided society, that would be something. But they are cowards. They condemn us all to a dark future in which are no liberals, there are no women's rights, and there are no beliefs but Islam.
It should be obvious to you that I strongly oppose fascism. But feel free to carry on painting me as a BNP supporter or whatever, because it's dangerous to think for yourself these days.
Yes. What on Earth has happened to people to make them imagine that this sort of thing is a good idea?
"Free speech should be restricted to things I agree with." "Free software should only be used for things I approve of."
It's just crazy.
What about class warfare? Is it ok by you if I use free software to fight the evil of global capitalism?
Well, thanks. You deserve the BBC. Enjoy those ad-free "quality" programmes. Enjoy the "unbiased" news reporting. Enjoy the British Government that you deserve, enjoy the Britain that you accepted by default.
£140 a year is what you pay for the BBC. However, you have no idea what the BBC actually costs you. Don't bother to find out, because if you do, you won't be able to tell anybody. They'll just attack you for saying bad things about the "wonderful" BBC. They'll just say "bullshit.. bullshit.." and "if you think otherwise, you're an idiot."
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Well of course they do. The vast majority of the population support the NHS.
You've got the causal relationship the wrong way round. The BBC supports the NHS, therefore any attempt to criticise it means instant death, no matter how justified the criticism might be.
The BBC were in fact quite critical of the increased detention periods, control orders and various other anti-terror laws.
Quite critical? And that was good enough, do you think, on such an important issue? More like a bit of token criticism to give the impression of independence. The BBC could have ruined the careers of everyone involved with that sorry authoritarian mess, but they didn't. I wonder why.
"You call that honest?"
Yes I do, because everything he has said has been exactly what he thinks. Also, I have never, ever heard him say anything disrespectful about Britain. Perhaps you could give an example? btw. Criticising Britain's Government, politicians or institutions is not "disrespect", it is "democracy".
To me, "outsourced by the Government" means the same thing as "run by the Government". I think your list provides some good examples of why "Government control of everything" is not a good idea.
I'm confused, because I know that the BBC is neither neutral nor objective. and the political bias of the people who work for it definitely affects what they say and how they say it. For example. I just can't imagine how you can think that the BBC isn't biased. Do you think the absence of a commercial motive really means they will be fair and balanced about everything? Why, then, do politicians such as David Cameron spend so much effort appeasing them? I know I'm going against the groupthink here, but come on...!
Noted. I don't personally see Biased BBC in that light and I think they're unfairly pilloried as idiotic. I think they're only trying to give an alternate perspective on BBC reporting. But I agree that Biased BBC does not really represent most BBC viewers, and concede it would have been less controversial to simply link to the relevant wiki page which is what I will do in the future.