Listen to yourself. Now you're saying my extreme-capitalist views have come from being brainwashed by moderate-capitalist media. That alone doesn't make sense but your entire argument is based on assumptions that people are morons and follow whatever they read and watch. It's very cynical and very typical of left-leaning minorities in western countries.
The BBC is a government-run artificially subsidized left-leaning propaganda machine. The vast majority of British newspapers are liberal to socialist (except the telegraph which I don't read either). It is actually very impressive that the UK has maintained a 50% free market economy.
i'm not saying that people
are morons. i'm saying that you can't complain about other people swallowing propaganda when you've done the exact same.
please get your terms right. the newspapers are not socialist. socialism is an entirely different economic system to capitalism. things like the nhs, extensive benefits, an income-based tax system....these are not in existence to do away with capitalism, they are in existence to make capitalism "fairer" (whether you agree with them or not). this is called social democracy, and by definition, social democracy is a capitalist ideal. not pure capitalist, not extreme capitalist, but capitalist rather than socialist. no mainstream media outlets are in favour of pulling down the economic system and replacing it with socialism. many are in favour of the welfare state and advocate social democracy, but that IS capitalism.
and what does "liberal" mean? the extreme right and extreme left can both claim that term and everything in between always claims that term. calling the media "liberal to socialist" is not only meaningless, but it avoids the issue that i was raising. left-leaning or not, the media is capitalist.
If I complained about every issue I did not see in a manifesto, I'd be permanently marching in the streets.
People don't protest because they're outrageously dissatisfied about an issue. They protest because they enjoy taking to the streets, chanting, wreaking havoc etc. Anarchy is a basic animal instinct. Condoning it is like condoning a felony just because the criminal had a "reason".
erm, ok. the vast majority of protest is peaceful and certainly has nothing to do with anarchy. and as has already been said, you criticise me for implying that people are moronic and followers (when i never said any such thing), before yourself saying that people have no free will and only protest as they are following their basic animal instinct. organised, peaceful protest is about as far removed from anarchy as you can get, by the way.
condoning demonstrations againt wars, pay cuts, etc is different from condoning illegal actions simply because one is legal and the other is not. indeed, sometimes legal demonstrations take place to voice anger at illegal actions, such as the war in iraq.
There's more to "reality" than protesting, complaining, bitching, whining. If people worked harder and complained less the world would be a happier place. I've already said everything in my replies to Chris and Martin on the previous page, so you can review those. I'm not going to repeat myself.
Economics, like many facets of life, is very simple when you break it down to its core principles. Socialism is a destructive force in this regard because it complicates things dramatically and creates a whole field of unnecessary study. Same goes for politics but that's just human nature.
if people worked harder and complained less, we'd still have 19th century sweatshops, we'd still have people living on a pittance, we'd still have high rates of death by curable illnesses in the "1st world", we'd still have only a handful of people able to vote, women would still be second class citizens, blacks would still be slaves.....i could go on forever. yet you think it is better that people shut up, work unquestioningly (again, an argument which proves you are the one who thinks that people are moronic), and get on with things, even where things are clearly wrong and unfair?