My friend's boyfriend is really anti-government and it's scary?

[Beth]

Hi everyone, firstly thanks so much for clicking on this question.
Ok so I'm 20 years old (female) and a university student from the UK. One of my housemates has a boyfriend.
Anyway, so her boyfriend is 25 years old (she is 21 herself) and he works in Primark full time and did a Maths degree at Uni.
Anyway, essentially he's very anti-government to the level it's actually scary. It's as if at any moment he's going to start a war or something.
He is constantly "sharing" statuses on facebook from anti-government groups which describe the UK as an example of "modern day slavery" and how politicians are corrupt and dangerous.
I like to pride myself on the fact I am very politically aware and in fact I love politics. I've never studied politics academically but I take a great interest in current affairs and the like. I'm a supporter of the Conservative party but I think it's fine for others to support any political party as long as they can justify their view. Don't get me wrong, the Conservatives are far from perfect but in my opinion they are the best for the difficult job of running the country.
Anyway, so he keeps tagging me in posts in these anti-government groups... what can I do?
I have to keep untagging because quite frankly I'm embarrassed at how narrow minded and untrue they are.
I want to open it up with him when I next see him, shall I? I don't like arguments but if I can persuade him to read up and listen then it may help.

[505]

Could be typical behavior for a guy his age or he could be a problem in the near future. If he makes you nervous then it might be best to limit the time you're around him and better yet don't be around him at all. When in doubt it's better to be safe than sorry.

[Max Hoopla]

He is a nut case. Nothing he does is going to turn out well. He needs to be a former BF.

[David H]

Hmmmm....being anti government is a supported argument by 'millions' of UK peoples (supposed democracy) - who 'disagree' with whats happening to this country carried out by our 'moronic/self serving' governments and politicians and their disastrous policies etc.

As long as 'his' dislike of 'any government' only goes as far a 'verbally criticising' etc....thats fair enough.

Anything more radical or planning a 'Guy Fawkes' type scenario....no matter how much 'that' would be appreciated by a lot of the public in this UK country....thats a step to far.!!

The UK people masses are 'fed up' with the contempt 'we' are shown by our political masters....as is happening 'all the time' (any political party governing) - and a peoples rebellion would certainly make our government/politicians 'wake up' and take notice of 'our opinions' etc and act on those public opinions....instead of 'ignoring' that public opinion as has been happening since we were all born.

Most UK people with 'this opinion' are not trouble makers....just ordinary people who are (again) fed up with whats been happening politically to them (us) and this UK country....and who demand a political attitude change for the 'benefit of those peoples' (us) - we demanding 'fair play' all round + attending to 'our' needs and wants (democracy) - instead of the present political attitude of (when elected) implementing polices that 'were never voted for' by the general public....or even appeared in any election manifesto as has/is happening all the time.

If (we) people don't protest against our/their governments policies....dictatorial governing takes place - as is starting to happen....right now.!!

[Clive]

What an oddball he is. Having done an MA in political philosophy, can I share something of a crash course in academic politics? You might find it interesting anyway - I get the impression you will.

Thomas Hobbes was the author of "Leviathan", a well-known text in this field. The most famous quotation from it is about what happens if you don't have government? "Life is poor, nasty, brutish and short". If you're going to have a civilised society, at the very least we need the rule of law so people don't get away with murder and theft. Things like that ought to be punished because if we're going to live together peacefully, we have to define them as wrong. To have that rule of law, there has to be a government, and there has to be punishment or there is no point in defining what is a crime and having courts to judge it.

So there has to be government. What kind should it be? What we've got, and we've taken a thousand years to evolve it, is the British kind of democracy. We elect our MPs, and between them they sort out a government. Usually one party gets more than half the MPs and they've won. If no party manages that, as happened last time, the biggest party can try to form a government or they try for a coalition.

OK, MPs might be corrupt. It's all up to the people who actually stand for election and get elected. In practice that means they've got to join a party, because not many people in the local area will know the candidates personally. Back when only rich men were allowed to vote, that could actually be true and there were no political parties - but now any adult can vote, we have parties and how else can you choose who to vote for unless you know something about who the candidates are?

We could have total democracy with everyone voting on every little issue but then would we have the time for it in between work or study? (Switzerland actually comes close to this - anyone who can get enough signatures to a petition can force a national vote on the issue. I have a Swiss friend and he gets a pile of ballot papers in the post every few months.) So we elect our MPs and leave them to decide things for us. If we don't like what they do, we can vote for someone else next time. What's the alternative?

I happen to agree with you on who to vote for as I'm 48 and in 30 years of being able to vote I've always voted Conservative. Of course nobody's perfect and like you I'm the first to admit that about the Conservatives, but they understand the real world and insofar as the Conservatives have an ideology at all, it's pragmatism - do whatever seems right at the time. In my lifetime, it's always worked. I've lived through two periods of Labour government I can actually remember (and one I can't because I was only a baby - the first Prime Minister I was actually aware of was Edward Heath, 1970-74) and the Conservative or Conservative-coalition government afterwards has had the same problem both times. The economy is in a mess because Labour borrowed too much money so the new government either has to put tax up or cut public spending in an effort to pay back some of the debt. So which do you do, or what combination of both?

People complain about the coalition now but that's nothing - I remember Margaret Thatcher. Amazing, incredible woman. In the mid-1970s we had inflation at levels you've never seen in your lifetime, and a government that would give in to anything the trades unions demanded. She smashed that by introducing new union laws on strikes and never giving in to when the coal miners went on strike for a whole year in 1984-85, and having a radical new economic policy to bring inflation down. What she did HURT and threw a lot of people, especially in the north of England, out of work. They will never stop hating her for that, and that explains the "ding, dong, the witch is dead" thing when she died last year. But we were so lucky - she was the right person for the time and she even forced the Labour Party to change. Labour now is nothing like it was then. In a way I regret that: at least in the 1970s it offered something positively different.

Of course she wasn't perfect either. She got to the stage where she would ignore all advice and in the end her own party kicked her out. The final straw was the poll tax. What we had for local taxation was domestic rates, which was based on the estimated rental value of your home. What if you are an old lady who just happens to live in a big house you inherited and can't afford it? So she replaced it with every adult paying a community charge of the same amount. This is even more unfair and it resulted in riots in Trafalgar Square. It was soon replaced with the council tax, which is "sort of" like rates used to be. But having said all that, our country would be very different if Maggie Thatcher hadn't run it for 11 years.

On your immediate problem, could you get away with leaving facebook completely? I've never even joined it.

[Guitarvirgin]

He is right, the government is totally corrupt.

And how can you say that the conservatives are best for running the country when that moron of a prime minister is comitting treason by brown nosing around Islam, the very totalitarian ideology which has declared war on us, is at war with us and fully intends to kill or convert us and totally dominate every facet of our lives and that traitorous Cameron helps them in every way he can.

[Tzeench]

Either ask him to stop tagging you or you can talk to him about his views. Its fairly easy to detect logical fallacies in somebody's rhetoric.

[Nuck]

That is the problem with today's society. Government is expected to protect the people... however this is not quite true. Laws are what protect us, and even from our own government. A government can easily be swayed by a greater power, say a coalition of governments/corporations or a gigantic world bank. That is why I am grateful for our forefathers, implementing U.S. Constitution to protect us, including bear our arms, and many other rights in case of unforeseen circumstances.