Violence (2)

In the UK, we drive on the left. In the USA, they drive on the right. I have no idea when these conventions were first decided. It could be thousands of years ago. What were the rules on the Roman roads in Britain when those roads were built? What is weird, as far as I know, no offence is committed by driving on the wrong side of the road. In fact, we have to sometimes, but we do so carefully. Nowadays, there are bus-lanes and double white lines, etc, and it is an offence to cross those lines or drive in a bus lane, even if that lane is completely empty. If you are caught offending then you may be prosecuted and fined. In fact, nowadays, you don’t even need to be prosecuted. In many places, there are cameras looking out for drivers who cross a line into a bus lane. The camera photos the car registration and a fine is imposed automatically by post. It would not surprise me if lots and lots of people do not have clip-on false number plates.

It seems to me that what these regulations do is create underground industries. The more regulations there are, the more underground industries there are. Further, the people who engage in these underground industries have no feeling of doing anything wrong.

Why should they? Nowadays, what were originally sensible regulations are now  ‘one size fits all’ artificialities. ‘One size fits all’ is very close to ‘totalitarian’, which can only be imposed by force and violence.

Many would say that totalitarian force and violence is justified ‘for the greater good’. They would say, “Is it not true that crash helmets have saved thousands of lives, and is it not true that the State was justified in passing a law which forces motorcyclists to wear crash helmets, whether they want to or not, under threat of violence, to reduce the risk of them killing themselves?”

Erm…. No it is not. It is a long time since committing suicide was a crime in the UK. The same applies to seat belts.

The only justification that is rational is that these acts of violence might save the State (aka taxpayers) money. In other words, not wearing a crash helmet or nor wearing a seat belt harms the People by costing the People money. But is that true? I don’t know for sure, but I thought that insurance policies cover for personal injury. Thus, it is policy holders who pay and not taxpayers. Were the seat belt and crash helmet laws passed to relieve insurance companies?


I buy my ‘tobacco products’ abroad at half price. Should I feel guilty? Why should I? Should I feel guilty that I am not paying for my health care costs via tobacco duties and the VAT levied upon that duty and all the other taxes which ensue from that external increase in the price? Why should I? I seem to have the ‘longevity gene’ since I have been smoking since I was 17 and am now 76 and in good health. Erm… I wonder if there is a ‘shortevity gene’? Why should there not be? There could be a gene which says, “Right. We have done 60 years work. Let’s call it a day”. In fact, does it not make more sense to imagine that there is a gene which determines the shortness of life rather than one which determines the longness of life? The reason that it makes sense is because, at this moment in evolution, Man’s lifetime is limited by the wearing out of bodily mechanisms. For example, the ability of the spinal column to make fresh blood supplies must eventually cease.

Sometimes I like to imagine that our bodies have billions and billions of ‘on’ switches and ‘off’ switches. NB, not ‘on/off’ switches. Put extremely simply, every time you lift your arm, you use an ‘on’ switch. When you stop raising your arm, you use an ‘off’ switch. When you lower your arm, you use an ‘on’ switch, and when you stop lowering your arm, you use an ‘off’ switch. As you grow from a child, your body makes more and more ‘on’ and ‘off’ switches, as dictated by the genes, until you reach a point, in middle age, where your body stops making switches. For the rest of your life, you must survive on the switches which your body already contains, which may, of course, be billions and billions. But it may well be true that you have more ‘on’ switches than ‘off’ switches, or vice versa, which might explain cancer. Clearly, I don’t mean in detailed reality! Such an idea would be equivalent to ‘miasma’ – I mean as a basic understanding of how we grow, settle into middle age, become old and then die.


So how was it that the Doll ‘Doctors Study’ showed such a huge chasm between the fate of heavy smokers and non-smokers? There is not a single ‘expert’ who knows. They point at smoking, but do not know why. If they had discovered ‘why’, then there would have been no need for the violence against publicans and smokers.


To conclude.

State violence against THE PEOPLE must cease. Laws which rely upon violence must be repealed. Violence is only justified when used against violent criminals. State violence creates violent criminals. The UK has become a fascist State where violence against citizens is routine ‘for their own good’. It used to be the case that we elected MPs, of whatever party, whose primary duty was to protect citizens against the greed and selfishness of the powerful. It seems that MPs have become the greedy, selfish powerful. They vote into law violence against THE PEOPLE. It must stop.


%d bloggers like this: