And the whole thing is available online. Thanks, Jonathan, I can now win any argument about economics in one link!

This statement resonates only for those who don't like to be coerced AND don't like to coerce.

Unfortunately, there is a full third of the population, the amalgam of vocal minorities, who have no qualms about coercing others (regardless of their own attitude about being coerced themselves). In fact they are so deluded by their own contrivances that they feel a sense of duty to coerce. They are deeply offended that one would be so ignorant as to resist their coercion and, in fact, not learn to love it.

To these folk such quotes simply point out the kettle is black, and "By God, rightly so".

Unfortunately, there is a full third of the population, the amalgam of vocal minorities, who have no qualms about coercing others (regardless of their own attitude about being coerced themselves).

I think this is taking it too far. Perhaps one fifth of the population work for an organisation that ultimately coerces its citizens. Not all of those people, however, are in the position to "coerce others".

The public sector is used to employ many people who would otherwise be unemployed. They are doing non-jobs or are in overstaffed organisations, but the social consequences of putting them on the dole would be bad for the country.

"The public sector is used to employ many people who would otherwise be unemployed. They are doing non-jobs or are in overstaffed organisations, but the social consequences of putting them on the dole would be bad for the country."

What an absolute load of shite. If you lived in an absolutely privatised world you would be in hell. Remember when people used to say "If you like communism so much go and live in Russia?" Now that can be turned on people like Peter. If you love unfettered capitalism so much go and live in Russia.

Gus @ www.1820.org.uk

If you love unfettered capitalism so much go and live in Russia.

You have got to be joking! Russia is a country in which Vladimir Putin (who you have have noticed is the head of state) simply steals the companies of his political enemies and de-facto nationalises foreign assets once it looks like they will make a profit (such as the Shell Sakhalin Island operation), and you think that is unfettered capitalism? Jesus H. Christ!

Public sector employees should have their vote gently but firmly removed from them. It could be called the Anti Gerrymandering Act.

What niconoclast says was once a common position.

Indeed taking a Crown position is still a technical way of leaving the House of Commons - although (sadly) this does not apply to becoming a minister (although these are also paid positions under the Crown).

In the 18th century there were regular Bills in Parliament (some of them passed) depriving certain officers of the Crown of the vote - on the grounds that those who live by tax money should not have a say in how high those taxes are.

In the 19th century such an opinion was still common in both Britain and the United States.

Indeed even when I was in the Civil Service (Home Office early 1990's) it was still sometimes said that there was a "pact" - we should be non political (at least during office hours - and we certainly should not stand for election) and low pay, in return for job security (although it should be remembered that the modern Civil Service is only a mid 19th century creation).

These days wages (especially for the higher positions) are much higher and firm political commitment (to "making government work" or just to "the project") is expected - which is why I would never be let back into the civil service (for those who doubt this presentation - go and look at a "Captia Raz" application form sometime and then talk, privately, to some Civil Servants).

Even if one wants to be what we used to call a Dole Office Clark one has to fill in an application form giving examples (with "documentary evidence") of how one has run a large organization, led a team to some great objective, (and so on). And then one has to show true commitment to the goals of training and whatever.

Truth (i.e. "I would like a secure job with a pension") is not what is looked for.

I know what I am talking about. A few years ago (in my desperation) I actually tried to get back into the Civil Service - and the "Department of Work and Pensions" was the place that had vacancies. A careful read through the application form showed it was hopeless - in the end I never even filled it in.

As for the experience of current Civil Servants - I am told about it. Civil Servants that I know are being driven mad by all the lies they have to tell (they have to live a lie) the endless targets and faking are rather stressful. "So what" - errr, who do you think they take their stress out on dear reader?

Not that things "work better" in this time of endless "targets" and "commitment" of course.

Indeed the public were much better off when "morning trolley", lunch and "afternoon trolley" made up the day.

I remember fondly the days when government officials did not have to pretend that they were "making the world a better place". And when the only thing that stopped the general chit-chat was the sound of the little bell of the trolley coming with tea and buns.

So what if wages were low. There was no stress (and no endless deceptions about how government was improving people's lives), and Civil Servants could not be got rid of (in various ways) if they did not have "correct" political opinions.

"But you were parasites" - quite so, but government administrators still are parasites. They are just paid more (at least at the top levels) and have to pretend (even to themselves) that they are not parasites - with endless schemes that just mess the general public about.

If you lived in an absolutely privatised world you would be in hell

Justify that statement.