What I would term a self-centred misunderstanding of the system.

Under the system, it’s not your money. It never was. It an acknowlegement that you must pay to the omni-present society. You don’t ever look at the pool of money and go “there’s my bit over there and I want it back because some scum sucker is taking it off me”. You do get to vote for the areas in which you think that pool should go or how it should be gathered – that’s the democracy bit. Sometimes you’ll agree with that, sometimes you won’t. But it was never your (or any other individual’s) money.

As long as we have an economic system designed to extract wealth from the lower tiers of society and concentrate that wealth in the pockets of the few sitting atop the economic heap, the state run protection racket will continue to develop ways and means of ameliorating the effects that that capital harvesting causes.

“The real core problem is the vote…democracy.” Voting for which group gets to manage the economic prison has become so meaningless that fewer people are bothering to participate at the ballot box. The “real core problem” is allowing the term “democracy’ to be defined by elite interests. Shoehorning the democratic process into a system which, regardless of the electoral outcome, continues to deliver the same systemic disparity is inviting social upheaval.

The most obvious elite reaction to social upheaval becoming predictable consequence of a state enforced economic paradigm has been the militarisation of the police force and the massive growth of mercenary armies (private security contractors in ‘newspeak’). Another manifestation of the ‘one percent’s’ recognition of massive economic disparities is a PR program promoting marketing campaigns which masquerade as charitable acts of ” voluntary finance”.

Which begs the question: At what point does charitable ‘voluntary finance’ become part of a cynical marketing campaign? I would argue that once the corporate’s logo appears in association with the ‘public service’ is the point where the charade of “voluntary finance” charity ends and commercial self-interests begins.

True, but ‘enough people’ are seduced by other peoples money so these parasite political parties survive. Their hard core voters never seem to stop to think either a) It’s too good to be true OR more importantly; b) Every time it’s tried it ends in tears…

People continue to vote for more welfare, more ‘free this’ & ‘free that’ all washed down with higher taxes to punish the rich pricks. Then the economy tanks and the socialists sit on the opposition benches for a few years… Rinse & repeat.

It’s easy to motivate a predominately low wage society against the wealthy, but a society eating it’s own head off is a pretty sick society. The lowest form of political appeal… We’ll give you other peoples money if you vote for us!

Surely if its truly essential, then it will attract funding from sources other than government.

I don’t agree that follows. If private funding is charitable then it does not come directly from those for whom the service is necessary. To say funding will necessarily be provided is an assumption, one based in faith and ideology more than any specific evidence or fact. Alternatively perhaps you are advancing a circular argument wherein something is essential if and only if it attracts private funding.

In this case, and whilst people may disagree, the author is saying that there is specific evidence to indicate that private funding is sufficient, based on what has already been raised.

Surely if its truly essential, then it will attract funding from sources other than government.

There isn’t a contradiction in that statement. Note the words “…as many as POSSIBLE…”. The statement assumes that there is a practical limit to the free market and that state involvement in necessary. The point of the statement is to say that that portion of the market which does remain “free” should be maximized… within the limits of practicality.

not sure what disliking of a helicopter could do to annoy fascists other than being an example of the private sector providing charity (which socialists of all stripes dislike as they beleive in the primacy of the state).

Yep, only an economic and general illiterate could write something so incoherent as the above and be unaware of the obvious contradiction.