Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Bloody Jamie Oliver Cashing In On Food Wowserism.

UK Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson reckons the celebrity chef’s idea of taxing sugar a good one:

Why Jamie Oliver's sugar tax is a good idea

The Government should forget about industry lobbying and act on the national scandal of sugary food and drink …

Pearson joins a long line of MSM journos who love pushing the line of wowserism, which serves none of us well. Below is the comment I posted to Pearson’s thread.

I'm so over this food fascism.

Questions on the State attempting to change our diets via the tax surveillance state - one of the most ruthless surveillance states in our history - are not a matter of science (even if the science was certain, which it's not: for example, the same people who would tax sugar would tax some forms of fat which are good for us). These are questions of philosophy.

A tax on food choice is a tax on choice, period; it's an atta(x)k on our individual freedom. I love Jamie, but I'm angry with him on this one. And the author of this piece can jackboot herself off the scene too, please.

One of the biggest threats to our liberty, in the details of the minutiae of our lives, is wowserism. Every time you find yourself about to voice an idea, or write an article, that would have the state force an individual who is doing you no harm to live according to your own (selfish) edicts … stop. Don't do it. Because you're being a prick.

And let me end on this point.

Jamie was aired on New Zealand TV over the last week: I noticed he's much 'bigger' than he used to be, especially around his neck and jowls.

I put it to Jamie one of the issues with his obvious weight gain may be all the (lovely, sumptuous) pasta in his cookery books (and his restaurants), which is fattening. So be careful going down this route, Jamie, you don't end up on a hellishy boring diet, thus reduced quality of life, served up on your own petard.


Thin Jamie with chin:

Plump pasta’ed Up Jamie:



Further comments on this thread & my reponse:

Well if you demand total freedom of choice, the so be it. You can then also be responsible for the costs of the consequences of your free choice, not the rest of your community. Is it not reasonable for the community to encourage good behaviour for the benefit of all of the community, especially the young?

A long range Dutch study proves the obese and smokers cost public health systems less as they tend to die quickly, and younger, whereas the lingering long lived - who still die - use health services longer. So cost is not an argument for sugar taxes.

But yes, speaking as someone who eats healthily, hasn't had a soft drink for over 30 years - but loves alcohol - and is the correct weight for my height et al by application only of self-discipline, let's privatise health so we cop the consequences of our choices. Obesity is at the hands of Nanny State that breaks that vital link.

Though, bottom line - hang on, got to refill my wine - I'm sick of the arrogant, and the self-anointed arbiters of my happiness who would force me to live by their joyless dictum a long lived, sober, low calorie life is somehow better than a happy one.


No comments:

Post a Comment