Labour's smoking ban killed the British pub

[hyperD]

If you are driving a car and the lights are red but it's clear nobody is coming, would you do the same? I always want to

At night, yes, if I know the area is clear and free of traffic cameras.

But that wasn't the point I was illustrating, which was how much more subservient people have become with the ever burgeoning rules, regulations, bylaws, bans, health and safety hysteria, food fascism, eco-fascism, terror threats, authority figures, whether the authority is valid or not, all washed down with a daily dose of dumbed down, State provided "on message" soundbites by the MSM, repeated every minute, every hour, twenty four fecking seven.

I see this especially in the conformist and cotton-woolled younger generation that have been State fed on a diet deficient in critical thinking and gorged on acceptance of 24/7 propaganda and "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" mantra from a growing army of "elites".

There's also a growing core of mendacious little viscous arseholes that seem determined to micro-manage our lives in an ocean of lowest common denominator rules, supported by fines of all denominations of course, according to their bibles of common purpose Marxist bulltulip, sitting there with their "holier-than-thou", "I'm in the club, you're not" pious attitudes of non-reasoning and blind acceptance of the word of State. I'm surprised they're not all wearing coloured armbands.

Anyone with any liberal view, a critical view, a libertarian view of even a slightly rebellious view is scorned from above for not conforming to the ever-growing clutches of the State and her minions. Even the very mention of the word "Libertarian" brings out the bile, hate and anger in anyone that seeks comfort and familiarity within a big state authority paradigm, such as green tulip and religion.

Save the whale, save the snail.

Sometimes it's like living in a fecking Ayn Rand novel at times.

[SpontaneousOrder]

There you go again implying that fat=bad.

Sure, nobody wants to be overweight but in years gone by people were just that. Overweight. And they didn't have all this guilt heaped on them by the health fascists.

Whether being fat is bad or not is a subjective judgement. So you're correct here.
How on earth can we cope with all of these different and sometimes incompatible subjective preferences & value judgements? Oh yeah, that's it... markets.

[SpontaneousOrder]

At night, yes, if I know the area is clear and free of traffic cameras.

But that wasn't the point I was illustrating, which was how much more subservient people have become with the ever burgeoning rules, regulations, bylaws, bans, health and safety hysteria, food fascism, eco-fascism, terror threats, authority figures, whether the authority is valid or not, all washed down with a daily dose of dumbed down, State provided "on message" soundbites by the MSM, repeated every minute, every hour, twenty four fecking seven.

I see this especially in the conformist and cotton-woolled younger generation that have been State fed on a diet deficient in critical thinking and gorged on acceptance of 24/7 propaganda and "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" mantra from a growing army of "elites".

There's also a growing core of mendacious little viscous arseholes that seem determined to micro-manage our lives in an ocean of lowest common denominator rules, supported by fines of all denominations of course, according to their bibles of common purpose Marxist bulltulip, sitting there with their "holier-than-thou", "I'm in the club, you're not" pious attitudes of non-reasoning and blind acceptance of the word of State. I'm surprised they're not all wearing coloured armbands.

Anyone with any liberal view, a critical view, a libertarian view of even a slightly rebellious view is scorned from above for not conforming to the ever-growing clutches of the State and her minions. Even the very mention of the word "Libertarian" brings out the bile, hate and anger in anyone that seeks comfort and familiarity within a big state authority paradigm, such as green tulip and religion.

Save the whale, save the snail.

Sometimes it's like living in a fecking Ayn Rand novel at times.

Except without the perpetual motion machines and cloaking shields.

The Praxeology & Ethics of Trafic Lights:
The Praxeology and Ethics of Traffic Lights - Justin T.P. Quinn - Mises Daily

Regarding a scheme in Sommerset.

[Mich the Tester]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hyperD again.

HyperD's post actually shows what I find so inspiring in the story of those two kids that buggered off to the Dominican Republic. Sure, it's irresponsible and they're enormously privileged, but they've grabbed that once in a lifetime thing that most will spend the rest of their lives wishing they could get back and they've squeezed the very best out of it; youth.

They've done something ridiculously extravagant and delightfully daft at the same time. They realised that all the rules, restrictions, commands, orders, directions and regulations are actually pretty worthless in the face of individuals who decide, without harming others, to do what they damn well please for as long as they can get away with it, and well done to them. What they did was off message, off the wall, basically harmless and gloriously rebellious and most of all, fun. Well done to them.

[Gittins Gal]

HyperD's post actually shows what I find so inspiring in the story of those two kids that buggered off to the Dominican Republic. Sure, it's irresponsible and they're enormously privileged, but they've grabbed that once in a lifetime thing that most will spend the rest of their lives wishing they could get back and they've squeezed the very best out of it; youth.

They've done something ridiculously extravagant and delightfully daft at the same time. They realised that all the rules, restrictions, commands, orders, directions and regulations are actually pretty worthless in the face of individuals who decide, without harming others, to do what they damn well please for as long as they can get away with it, and well done to them. What they did was off message, off the wall, basically harmless and gloriously rebellious and most of all, fun. Well done to them.

Yes. I agree.

Wonder how old they are? If they're not 6 th formers could there be any comeback on the parents? I'm guessing that since it is a private school the process must be different than it was for that poor guy who faces jail for taking his children on holiday during term time (or rather for the non payment of fines).

[Mich the Tester]

Yes. I agree.

Wonder how old they are? If they're not 6 th formers could there be any comeback on the parents? I'm guessing that since it is a private school the process must be different than it was for that poor guy who faces jail for taking his children on holiday during term time (or rather for the non payment of fines).

16 (boy) and 17 (girl). There can't really be any legal comeback on their parents I guess. Unless some joyless, officious, miserablist git finds some regulation or bye-law with which to castigate them, which wouldn't surprise me.

[Gittins Gal]

He's right.
"And in that definition I would include schools, hospitals, roads etc." - why make special exceptions? Your positions aren't principled.

A free market can provide all of those things, but for some reason you think that only a group of men who call themselves 'government' have special powers to achieve it (and the inconsistency in principle is that you suppose that they have the right to).

Well, if we took the concept of Libertarianism to its extreme than, yes, your comment is fair. But, as Mitch says, there are degrees of Libertarianism.

A society in which there is no government would be an anarchic one and chaos would rule supreme.

I believe there should be laws and governance but my beef with our current system, indeed the whole paradigm of modern governance, is how intrusive it is.

Of course, espouse any views that chime with the concept of Libertarianism and you are hounded down as some kind of a fascist or labelled as "selfish" while your accuser bigs up his own morality. As, in fact, Doogie has done right here.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Well, if we took the concept of Libertarianism to its extreme than, yes, your comment is fair. But, as Mitch says, there are degrees of Libertarianism.

A society in which there is no government would be an anarchic one and chaos would rule supreme.

I believe there should be laws and governance but my beef with our current system, indeed the whole paradigm of modern governance, is how intrusive it is.

Of course, espouse any views that chime with the concept of Libertarianism and you are hounded down as some kind of a fascist or labelled as "selfish" while your accuser bigs up his own morality. As, in fact, Doogie has done right here.

1) You can't just prefix anything you disagree with with the word 'extreme' in order to magically make it dismiss able. What does that even mean? Is 'extreme' truth not valid? Is 'extreme' logic false? Is 'extreme' "Rape is bad" too extreme (perhaps "Too much rape is bad" is better?).

2) "I believe there should be laws and governance"
Of course there should be laws.The question is, again, what magical super-hero attributes do you think that men of government have, which ordinary men don't, that means that only they can form and enforce laws?

3) "A society in which there is no government would be an anarchic one and chaos would rule supreme."
Why? (and remember noone is suggesting we throw a switch tomorrow and plunge the country into anarchy immediately - demolishing all the churches in the land doesn't make everyone an atheist.)

4)"Of course, espouse any views that chime with the concept of Libertarianism and you are hounded down as some kind of a fascist or labelled as "selfish" while your accuser bigs up his own morality."

Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan—so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.”

-- John Galt, Atlas Shrugged.

Perverting the concept of morality is how they get you to give them your 'sanction of the victim'. That's why it's so important to be philosophically grounded in your opinions & beliefs.

[d000hg]

Whether being fat is bad or not is a subjective judgement. So you're correct here.
How on earth can we cope with all of these different and sometimes incompatible subjective preferences & value judgements? Oh yeah, that's it... markets.

Being as fat as we were discussing is only subjectively bad if you think dramatically shortening your life-span and increasing to a practical certainty the chances of diabetes and heart disease are subjectively bad.

Some people just want to baseline us all against the lowest common denominator, and they're happy to use violence to make sure you agree with them.

Where did violence come from in this discussion?

It's not about base-lining. You wouldn't think it sensible to change the road safety laws based on how good the top 10% of drivers are: go as fast as you think safe, undertake if you see a gap, ignore red lights if you think you can get out in time, etc.

[SpontaneousOrder]

It's not about base-lining. You wouldn't think it sensible to change the road safety laws based on how good the top 10% of drivers are: go as fast as you think safe, undertake if you see a gap, ignore red lights if you think you can get out in time, etc.

I'd think it sensible to let the market decide, rather than to hold a violent monopoly on road planning/construction/ownership/conditions of usage.


Where's the violence?! We're talking about laws. Laws are meaningless without the use of violence to enforce them - in this case violence against peaceful people (i.e. not a legitimate law).