The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

I think libertarians ought all to pretend publicly to smoke, even if they do not in reality. This would also be a grand gesture in memory of Chris Tame, who thought it was a nasty and disgusting, smelly, antisocial habit, would not allow it in his flat, and battled mercilessly against the health-nazis all his working life, especially while working for FOREST for the rights of smokers. Dear old chap, gold-pieces be upon him in Paradise. 

David Davis

Here’s the BBC on this anti-smoking Statist Nazis thingy-stuff. 

A cigarette “display ban” is being considered. A particular and identifiable droid, known in certain circles by other droids as a “Dawn-Primarolo” , is “concerned” “for the children”.

How could any living being give any job whatsoever, to someone called “Dawn” and “Primarolo” in the same line? It would have to be a wind-up by students on a rag-day.  There are no people called that. The droid referred to  must therefore be a real droid, and so legally therefore can’t exist as a person or a corporate person. Therefore it can’t discuss stuff known as “draft legislation” or “consultation” “papers”, “white papers”, green papers”. (We were given “green paper” at school in the 1960s when we had failed some task and had to redo it)

This stuff is for Nazis to discuss and not droids, so I don’t know what an early-mark Primdroid is doing being switched on here and running.

Moreover, as this blog’s historian readers will know, smoking was first linked with lung cancer by “scientists” in the Third Reich. Of course, they were quite correct. But that’s not the point: if people tell you to not do something for your own good, you become their FARM ANIMAL.

You are a  human being. Either you want to be that animal, or you do not.

Your body is either yours, or theirs (think of the implications, if you are a woman or girl - a much more dangerous thing to be under post-60s-post-western-deconstructionistic-femi-nazism, than was the case in the British Empire and Commonwealth, which functioned according to the Ten Commandments (sorry, I meant the Gospels! spotted by the comentariat..) and the Mosaic Decalogue, and also, er, Magna Carta and other stuff that is very very scary to socialists and Kingists……)

Will you allow yourself, as a woman, to be raped, because a bureaucrat says she(he) wants to “do” you? if S(he) brings the right forms, duly signed and countersigned, to your house?

Will you forbear from smoking because a bureaucrat says you must not?

 YOU have to decide. 

Read this!

David Davis

I think Rowan Williams has missed the salient point…“What’s our oil doing under their sand?”
Posted by Cliff on March 24, 2008 4:46 PMThis is taken out of the comment thread from the Telegraph, on his “sermon” yesterday. How is it that the religious chappies who claim to be on our side, always shoot US in the foot, and not the enemy?Apologies, I have no blinking clue why it’s formatted itself like that. Not the usual small stuff. It’s not even that important that it needs to be so ultra-typoe’d in 196-point.

Wish i could learn how to blog.

David Davis

The poor confused old Marxist-leaning Archbishop has apparently delivered a sermon, preaching about how “….. modern “comforts and luxuries” were unsustainable and would one day bring about the collapse of civilisation. He added that Christians must prepare by striving constantly to let go of “selfish, controlling, greedy habits”……”

The report and the comment-thread in particular are worth a read: majority opinion seems to be against the fellow, but this the Telegraph is not the Guardian.

So here’s a more constructive Christian Message for Easter, which the sad old wierdie-beardie would do well to read out in his (agreeably wonderful) Cathedral sometime.

 ”Western Greed” is a theoretical construction, reflecting the mindset of those anti-Western philosphers who live in a fictitious neopastoral idyll, which is unobtainable and not desirable for humans to be in.

The “resources” often referred to in such discussions would neither be discovered nor invented if not for the liberal post-Renaissance “Western” attitude to life and the purpose of existence. the purpose of existence is not simply to exist and just die, but to better the lot of humans everywhere. This cannot be done by forcing those whose societies have the power for betterment, to live as if they were locally-chained-subsistence-farmers.

Capitalism is NOT a zero-sum game; the doing of it benefits all, especially those “outside” initially, and makes poverty and deprivation hideous (where it was never hideous before!) because it shows the world what shall be achieved instead. It has been the West, and in especial particular the British Empire and Commonwealth, which has done most to spread worldwide the ability to deploy great amounts of energy and resource, and the benefits of this to humankind - and not any other “civilisation”. We glibly allow ourselves to marvel at the seeming longevity of “ancient” civilisations, but we forget that dozens of generations of humans lived in these, in substantially unchanged primitive conditions, without any improvement whatsoever, from one millenium to the next. Instead of flagellating ourslevs, we should aggressively ask all the other societies what it was that stopped them from developing and improving the lot of their people in any way at all?

A precapitalist society’s “rulers” are to blame for their people being stuck - not ours for showing the whole world how to unstick. 

Marxist lefties stuck with a wrong analysis of human relationships, and “liberal” Anglican “Archbishops”, simply have never got this connection.