Sunday, November 18, 2007

Westmonsterous fatuity

Sadie at Westmonster has written an article that I must assume is a spoof; however, it is worth addressing because, if it is not a lampoon of some of the more bigoted and stupid Lefty commentators, then it's just depressing.
Westmonster has just got back from the weekly shopping run and has reached the conclusion that whilst the nanny state is not a good thing, it may well be a necessary evil.

Just look at what goes on in a state of nature (or "Tesco's" as it's sometimes known) for a sense of what would happen if all restrictions on social norms were lifted overnight.

First point of idiocy: is the "nanny state" synonymous with "social norms"? No.

The nanny state is authoritarianism; it is a collection of people who think that they know better than everyone else. And what moral right do they have to insist that their way is better? None.

All of this causes me great anger, especially in another respect. I find that a great many people of a socialist bent are also anti-monarchist. "What right," they argue, "have the Royal Family got to lord it over us, and think that they are better than us, eh?"

Many libertarians put forward a very similar argument, but the difference is that the Lefties—whilst decrying the position of the Royals—are more than happy to give the same authority to politicians elected by a minority of the population.

Here's the real issue: politicians, and the state in general, have no moral authority to tell us what to do or how to live. This is why the state, as presently incorporated, is generally evil.

Look at it this way: the American Constitution holds that every person has the right to "the pursuit of happiness." But everyone has their own idea of what happiness entails and so everyone's priorities are different: how can the state legislate for 60,000,000 different sets of priorities?

The ideal situation is that the state only does those things that are necessary, i.e. what we cannot collectively achieve. In the most desirable form of government, that is only one thing—the defence of the citizen, either from an invading nation (Defence) or from other citizens (Criminal Justice).

In order to achieve this aim, we have emdowed upon the state certain powers of force that normal people do not have; unfortunately, over the years, the state has begun, Kracken-like, to batten more and more power onto itself. With every new power, the accrual of power has become easier and easier; with every new power, the populace has accepted that the state deserves these functions.

So, we now have a situation wherein people find it natural that the state should determine how they should live their lives; that the state should, effectively, legislate as to how 60,000,000 people should pursue happiness.

Which we established was impossible. Thus, support of the state in its present form is not only morally reprehensible, but actually logically flawed.
People would just wander around aimlessly, crashing into each other, not looking where they're going, and Lord only knows what would happen if there was some sort of dispute. Everyone would just stand stock still, trolleys parked all over the aisles, staring at each other dumbly waiting for the log-jam to magically shift as their children widdle all over the sugar.

For fuck's sake, are we humans or dumb animals? How many times does this happen?

Yes, people are often stupid and aimless, a bit like stupid farm animals. But then, for at least sixty years, the state has been the farmer—directing the sheep this way and that, denying them any real choice in their own actions, providing an insulation from the consequences of their actions and thus breeding them into the dumb animals that Sadie complains about.
Libertarians (we assume) by and large do not shop in Tesco's...

Ah, yes, in the absence of any decent argument, why not fall back on ignorant snobbery, eh? I live in Brixton, Sadie: where the fuck do you think I shop? My nearest shop is a Sainsbury's Express but I often shop at the Tesco down the road because it is bigger and cheaper.

Have I burst your bubble, love? No, sorry, but we have a bit of a shortage of Marks and Spencers and fashionable little delis up my way...
... which would explain why they are so keen to celebrate the sort of Porter-esque bollocks that argues that the rolling out of the Tesco Model is a good thing.

Tesco gives people—and generally the poorest people—a wealth of affordable choice that they would not otherwise have. Tesco works because it delivers what the customer wants and it does so at a reasonable price.

It is the poor who benefit the most from the Tesco model, Sadie; just as it is the poor that Gordon Brown shafts daily by refusing to raise the Personal Tax Allowance. The poorest get taxed to fuck but, thanks to Tesco, at least they can afford to eat.

Besides, if you think that the Tesco model is so bad, Sadie, what the hell are you doing shopping there?
Presumably these high-minded discussions do not take place over Tesco produce either.

It rather depends who you are shopping with, doesn't it? But no, they tend to take place in the pub. Fewer distractions, you see.
It's always the likes of us who suffer the political whims of the posh in the end, folks.

It's this last line, in particular, that makes me hope that this article is a spoof. Because, if it isn't, you can go fuck yourself, you stupid bigot. Seriously, you demean yourself. It's the likes of us who suffer the whims of the political classes, whatever social class they may be: which is why we should not allow them to have any power over us.

We should hang them all, tear down the whole parliamentary structure and start again.

5 comments:

Trooper Thompson said...

I commented on that article, asking what on earth she was talking about, and it's been removed.

John Trenchard said...

"Many libertarians put forward a very similar argument, but the difference is that the Lefties—whilst decrying the position of the Royals—are more than happy to give the same authority to politicians elected by a minority of the population."

indeed. that's right on the money - that is indeed the heart of the utter hypocrisy of the leftists.

"dictatorship of the proletariat" ultimately results in a new royal family - only this time, it's called a Politburo.
(case in point: North Korea)

getting back to the Tesco thing - i read her blogpost and shook my head in disbelief. As a libertarian, i think that Tesco is becoming far too much of a monopoly in certain areas and are distorting the free market to a large degree. I don't think any libertarian would be in favour of having a private monopoly in the grocery trade.

But the blame ultimately can be pointed back to government - and socialism. For if you hit small businesses with exhorbitant taxes, then in the face of a Tesco onslaught, they will close down. As has happened in my local town, where the brain dead council raised business rates to such an extent that 70 year old small businesses like fishmongers, butchers and local grocers , all closed down.

John Trenchard said...

"It's always the likes of us who suffer the political whims of the posh in the end, folks."

utterly baffled here at that statement.

the "posh" (whoever they are) hate the working class so much that the working class end up with food prices being at such an all time historical low in terms of a percentage of your wages? hmmm... yeah. right.

its either a spoof or complete class-war paranoia. i hope its a spoof.

Roger Thornhill said...

Tesco can be fought by suppliers forming voluntary collectives, by people choosing not to shop there, by the State not having planning laws that distort the market.

Once you start limiting Tesco, there is no end. The result will be bread queues.

Trooper Thompson said...

"Once you start limiting Tesco, there is no end. The result will be bread queues"

I think you might be over-egging the pudding with that one.