To whom does an individual human being belong?


I only ask, because I want to know.

David Davis

Yesterday we had this health scare. Today we have this one. And that’s just in one UK newspaper, on two consecutive days.

Libertarians ought to discuss what is to be done about powerful special-interest-groups – and that does not just include doctors grifting for state-paid-non-work, which claim to be acting “for people’s good”.

Smoking and drinking will be at their highest of course, as is natural, among those populations labouring under socialist governmant burdens, and thus having nothing else to occupy their robbed, miserable lives. The USSR was, and is yet as it still exists, a major case in point.

About these ads

2 responses to “To whom does an individual human being belong?

  1. Pingback: To whom does an individual human being belong? | Smoking

  2. In a way, I see libertarianism by definition as a suspicion of (or opposition to) special interest groups. Broadly speaking, we should IMV be promoting a kind of “balance”, by watching for power arising and opposing it, wherever that may be. It may be powerful kings and aristocrats (as the liberals of the Enlightenment opposed) or priests, or trades unions or bankers or business tycoons or, in this current age, technocrats (a coalition of academics, “intellectuals” and “opinion formers” who are the current driving force behind progressive statism).

    Any group, however worthy they may start out, become a danger to us all when they gain too much power. I think many Libertarians fail to grasp this more general picture, instead concentrating their ire on particular special interest groups (e.g. unions) while ignoring others (e.g. corporate interests in bed with the government). It’s good that Prime Ministers no longer take beer and sandwiches with union barons; but it’s no better when the bankers are scuttling to Number 10 to get the government to bail out their bad debt. It’s catastrophic when government becomes simply the tool of a horde of academics pushing madnesses based on panics (health, global warming, etc), as has pretty much now become the case.

    In my humble role as one of the zillions of commentariat on the internets™ I try very hard to pull back the curtain to reveal who’s pulling the levers. I’m usually dismissed as a crank, ho hum. I find it strange as I’ve always been a fervently pro-science person, and it was an unwelcome and difficult thing for me to recognise that the scientific community (as well as other academics in economics, philosophy, sociology etc) are behind our descent into the “total state”.

    But I honestly believe that we aren’t going to get anywhere until we can face that the modern breed of “activist scientist” is liberty’s enemy. Science has turned into a racket. Something has to be done.