Paxman vs. Russell Brand, a worthy watch

I happened to watch this when it was on TV and I couldn't believe it. Gained so much respect for Russell Brand after this. His assessment of the voting flaw and government as corporate administration are dead on.

How do you resolve economic disparity and at the same time protect the rights of the people? Answer me that and I will be more than willing to listen to everything else you have to say. If not, I have no reason to listen. As it stands, there is no governmental system that approaches the problem and doesn't impose it's will on the people at the same time. If you must violate the liberty and property of the people to reach your ends using government than perhaps you should consider dealing with the problem using other means.

I wonder if Brand realizes that what he is advocating for and what is advocating against has the same source.

Why would anyone be interested in massive redistribution of wealth unless they themselves can profit from it? If a poor man gets welfare is there any reason to expect that the rich man won't ask for similar treatment? Is there any reason to expect that the rich man will not receive it? I always find myself wondering how someone can believe they can help the poor and never have to deal with the other classes petitioning the state for similar treatment. Why should one man get to benefit from the state and yet not another? Why does the one get gains at the expense of his fellow citizens and yet everyone else is undeserving of similar treatment? The very mindset that you can create a system of looting the treasury and only target one group and only one group has been proven to be false.

Henrin said:

Why would anyone be interested in massive redistribution of wealth unless they themselves can profit from it? If a poor man gets welfare is there any reason to expect that the rich man won't ask for similar treatment? Is there any reason to expect that the rich man will not receive it? I always find myself wondering how someone can believe they can help the poor and never have to deal with the other classes petitioning the state for similar treatment. Why should one man get to benefit from the state and yet not another? Why does the one get gains at the expense of his fellow citizens and yet everyone else is undeserving of similar treatment? The very mindset that you can create a system of looting the treasury and only target one group and only one group has been proven to be false.

Click to expand...

You are aware you can put all these points in one post, right?

tererun said:

You are aware you can put all these points in one post, right?

Click to expand...

Yeah, so?

Henrin said:

Yeah, so?

Click to expand...

I was just checking to make sure because there were three posts which really could have been one. I am basically saying quit dribblin and post a single concise point.

I think it's a logical fallacy that we can't take a person's identification of the problem seriously just because they are not presenting a solution. The institution of modern western democracy was fought for via revolution of the monarchy and subsequent political squabbles. It took years and collectives of nationalists and idealists to hammer out effective constitutions, sometimes waging civil wars in the process. Yes, revolution is usually a bloody business. Don't expect commentators to know how this is going to play out because the truth is that nobody knows. There will be power plays and attempts to control the outcome but really it's a toss of the dice -- that's how revolutions always are.

Brand is succinctly identifying all the factors that are going to contribute to the next major change in our western political institutions. He's not the first to point them out, and others have done it better than him in the past decade or so; but I find his passion inspiring.

Citizens who are still blindly following the party system and voting faithfully are completely oblivious of who is really running the government at this point. I mean, it's factual knowledge that every member of congress receives huge stipends from the world's biggest businesses, and yet we shrug it off and pretend democracy is still happening?

We are no longer being represented, and Brand is right, the awakening is happening. Just bringing people's attention to the 1% so that a debate can be had, was huge progress. Next up will be dismantling the illusion that this two party system of ours actually offers choice.

Once America's partisan bickering cools down, there will be a revolution. People just have to see through it first.

Northern Light said:

I think it's a logical fallacy that we can't take a person's identification of the problem seriously just because they are not presenting a solution.

Click to expand...

Russell did offer a solution. He called for massive redistribution of wealth, increased assistance for the poor, and the government taking action to lower profits by the use of heavy taxation on corporations. He even admitted his solution was socialistic.

The institution of modern western democracy was fought for via revolution of the monarchy and subsequent political squabbles. It took years and collectives of nationalists and idealists to hammer out effective constitutions, sometimes waging civil wars in the process. Yes, revolution is usually a bloody business. Don't expect commentators to know how this is going to play out because the truth is that nobody knows. There will be power plays and attempts to control the outcome but really it's a toss of the dice -- that's how revolutions always are.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with a revolution, but I do have a problem with a revolution that simply desires the same things happening now without even realizing it. I also have a problem with a revolution waged against a state with the reason behind it being that people want more government assistance and the desire for the state to be used to strip people of their wealth. I will not join a cause that is decidedly aggressive and does nothing to promote a free society.