Friday, April 06, 2007

Making Titchmarsh unemployed

Maybe a good thing, you'd think? Well, not this way. Do you have a garden; do you like your garden? Want to keep it?

Well, as Longrider highlights (do go and read the whole thing), thanks to this fucking near-fascist government, you could be in for a fight.
In a more sinister and draconian move, the Government has created a situation where it is even possible that householders could be forced to give up their gardens against their will. Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, local authorities and planning boards will be able to acquire land for development ‘if they think that it will facilitate the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement on or in relation to the land, on condition that such acquisition will be of economic, social or environmental benefit to the area.’ In plain English, if a local authority gives its support, a planner could compulsorily purchase any garden, although this has yet to happen.

No, it hasn’t happened... yet. But how long before an enterprising developer decides to utilise this loophole and householders find that instead of their carefully tended garden, they will be looking out onto “social housing”? Sounds like something from a soviet diktat.

This government really are the fucking pits, aren't they? Who would have thought, on that bright day in 1997, that it would come to this?

Well, me actually. As I have opined before, humans are genetically programmed to be selfish creatures: start from that simple biological premise (one that is backed by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene; people will act on the best interests of propagating their genes) and you can understand why, all around us, we can see the truth of Adam Smith's "enlightened self-interest" (the "invisible hand").

If you accept my premise (and I think that it would be difficult not to acknowledge some truth in it), this means that a person will not voluntarily help others when it is against that person's interest to do so. Now, donating a large amount of one's income in order to allow an inefficient and ineffective state to pay large numbers of people not to work is obviously counter to one's own interest. One could spend that money much more efficiently and spend it on oneself or one's gene inheritors (children).

Therefore any socialist government must compel people to donate their money. Compulsion requires the use of power and, as we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

By its very natire then, socialism requires compulsion; as those at the top realise that there are more and more ways to realise their Utopia, they require more power and they require its use in ever greater amounts. Thus, a socialist government always moves towards greater control, more power, over its population.

And if you think any of my arguments syllogistic, name me one socialist government where this has not happened. And then name one right-wing government* which has moved towards tighter state control over the lives of individuals.


* A special prize of a punch in the face to anyone who mentions the Nazis in this category: they were the National Socialists, remember.

6 comments:

Milo said...

The Selfish Gene was indeed a good book, though I keep meeting people who criticse it (particularly "memes") without having read it. It is well worth reading The Extended Phenotype, which goes into a lot more detail and provides better references (very handy for thesis writing).

Anonymous said...

"name one right-wing government* which has moved towards tighter state control over the lives of individuals"

err, the current lot in America?

PDF

JMB said...

Two examples spring to mind - the removal of power from local government and this imposition of a national curriculum in schools; both unfortunately taking place under the 80's Conservative government.

JMB

Neal Asher said...

There is no such thing unless ultimately it benefits the individual in some way. This applies at the genetic level and at the cerebral level. In the latter case there's the problem with the brain not necessarily knowing what's good for it. Hence socialism.

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

JMB,

I'd argue that the current ones in the US are a bunch of lily-livered left-wing crooks overall. Have you seen their idea of 'economics' and diminishment of the welfare state (they've done the opposite)?

Perhaps Pinochet's regime might be worth a mention, though?

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

Oh... I'll add that the Conservatives have been running a campaign against this for about a year now, under the theme "Labour's Land Grab Scheme".