The Subjugation of Minorities by Majotities

‘The morigan’, in a comment, asked why it is that people worldwide are so anxious to be subjected to nanny state control. This comment coincided with some information about the intentions of a couple of counties in the USA to ban the sale of tobacco products in their counties. I too wondered how The Tobacco Control Industry has managed to get so deep inside American life that they are even present at ‘parish’ level.

What is the probability? It may well be that the TCI is not actually as widespread as we may think. It would not be difficult to get someone elected to a county body somewhere in the USA and have that person propose such a ban. Once the proposal has been made, one could imagine the TCI going into overdrive and getting that proposal publicised in the MSM very widely. In other words, the object of the exercise was all along a publicity stunt. Whether the proposal is adopted or not is that important. The idea has been ‘marketed’.

But another thought occurred to me, which is the question as to why hardly anyone stands up against these crackpots/charlatans.

Imagine that you are a reasonably intelligent person who is reasonably well know in your area. You are a ‘politically active’ in that you are a member of the Democrat Party (or the other) and you attend meetings. You actively take part in discussions, and have been known to do some leafleting from time to time. Someone suggests, at a meeting, that you might like to stand for election. You feel somewhat honoured to be asked and so you agree. You and the party make an effort and you get elected. You know bugger all about how local government really works, but you are willing to learn.

Somehow or other, you find yourself on the local health committee. The committee’s job, generally speaking, is to ensure that local taxpayers get value for money from ‘the health community’. Being on the committee is not onerous. Most of the time, your duties were to receive reports and sign them off.

Then, one day, a member stands up and makes a statement about the prevalence of smoking in the area and how damaging smoking is, especially to ‘our’ children. A proposal is made that smoking should be banned around the local hospitals because hospitals should be beacons of health. There are eight member of this committee, and another member stands up and backs up the proposer.

There are six other members and you are one of them. What can you do or say? Suppose that you raise the question of enforcement? Who is going to stop people from smoking? What you do not realise is that you have just conceded the principle! Suppose that you say that hospitals are stressful places and that people who find a cigarette calming should not be stopped from indulging. You have still conceded the principle!

What is the principle? It is that the proposal should never have been put in the first place, because it absolutely conflicts with rights of personal autonomy. The atmosphere inside the building is enclosed and therefore subject to control by the hospital authorities, but the atmosphere outside is not enclosed, and therefore not subject to the control of the authorities. The hospital authorities, and the committee have not right to legislate about the atmosphere outside the buildings. The harms of smoking and ‘our children’ are irrelevant as regards the atmosphere outside the buildings.

But would those ideas come into your mind, and would you be prepared to speak up? What would you do or say if you were accused of killing future generations of babies if you do nothing NOW? It seems to happen again and again.

Which brings me to the ban on smoking inside cars when persons under the age of 18 are present. Note that not all these persons are ‘children’ and should not be described thus. A 16 year old can leave school and get a job, and is expected to do that job properly. Such a person is not a child. Besides, the interior of your own car is not ‘a public place’.

 

So how did that legislation get past the 650 intelligent MPs? I suspect that most of them did not really give a shit one way or the other. They voted in favour as the easy option and thus avoided any possibility of being accused of killing babies. I wonder how many babies have died from smoke inhalation in the UK over the past 12 months, apart from house fires? I suspect that the number is zero. How many children have ever been harmed by Dad having a fag in the car during a journey? Again, I suspect that the number is zero.

So why did not MPs see that they were being tricked? Why did Cameron and the rest of the Cabinet permit this travesty of justice to bypass The Freedom Of The People? Note my use of the word ‘justice’. People do not always realise that laws passed by Parliament are primarily matters of Justice. For example, the reason that there are laws banning smoking in pubs, and why the property rights of publicans have been overridden, is that it was considered to be ‘unjust’ for people, smokers or non-smokers, to be subjected to the harmful effects of SHS. ‘Unjust’ is the important word. What has been omitted in this idea of ‘unjustness’ has been the free choice of individuals to decide for themselves. That is, ‘unjustness’ only arises when a person is forced to inhale SHS and has no other option. Clearly, no person is forced to enter a pub where smoking is not prohibited.

I sometimes think that part of the equation (suppressed) in the enactment of the smoking ban was the possibility that unemployed people might reject employment in pubs on the grounds of SHS danger. Not a big thing, but a small factor. But the thought occurs to me, and it has never been addressed, as to how the presence of smoke can be tolerated in industrial processes?

===

There are masses of cogitative dissonances in the whole anti-tobacco religion. The principle dissonance is the War on Ecigs. let us suppose that old disgusting, filthy, stinking smokers like me were to move wholesale to ecigs, and were totally happy with the ecig experience. What would that do to Framework Convention on Tobacco? It would render the whole thing irrelevant. It is therefore essential for the TCI to get ecigs categorised as ‘tobacco products’.

But what really, really matters, in the UK, is the reaction of the 650 MPs. Will none of them demand a debate on the tobacco control directive? Or will they just nod the regulations through? This is important in view of the referendum about Brexit, since the date of the implementation of the TPD precedes the vote by a month or so. Who will object? Probably no one, since the number of vapers is so small. Few politicians care about minorities.

===

Brexit MUST happen. Cameron’s reputation is already shot to pieces. He cannot win because he has already committed himself to the subjugation of Brits. Despite what pundits might say, Brexit will rumble on, even if the vote is lost. Or, the strength of feeling, even if the vote is lost, will force the UK Government to abandon ‘One World Government’. New thinking is required about the UN. The costs of that organisation are no longer supportable in view of its uselessness. Nor are the costs of the EU, or the so-called World Bank. Those organisations are a drain on our taxes. They produce nothing of value.

Can I think of alternatives? No…. I cannot. But I can certainly imagine a Statesman who can. Such a person would gain the confidence of the people and certainly not countenance the persecution of minorities, provided that they were law-abiding and abided by the principles of ‘Justice’.

The EU is f*cked, which is a shame. But only in its present form.

 

Advertisements

3 Responses to “The Subjugation of Minorities by Majotities”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Yes Brexit must happen otherwise we as a nation are finished. We must get sovereignty back and be able to stop ourselves being swamped by people of cultures alien to us and our way of life.
    As regards smoking. Control of smokers has got entirely out of control and is now akin to personal persecution. The future as I see it is to oppose these people completely and refuse to obey their bans. The tobacco industry has to defend itself and its consumers otherwise they will be wiped out within 10 years. The reference I made earlier to alien cultures is the same as the anti libertarian tendencies we see all over the UK now. Freeborn Englishmen such as myself who support free speech are the natural enemies of these people.

    • junican Says:

      I find it sad that a great idea – cooperation between the Nations of Europe – has been destroyed in the way that it has been. I really do not understand people like Heath, Blair, Brown and Cameron wanting to rush into a ‘United States of Europe’. For example, who decided that now is the time for a common currency when so many of the nations of Europe have very divergent economic models? What I could have envisaged was a secondary currency – one which could be used in any country in the EU – alongside the local currency. Eventually, it is likely that people everywhere would move to the Euro gradually. We are doing that with metric measurements, slowly but surely. In a sense, the ‘European Project’ has been a conquest by stealth.

  2. Roberto Says:

    You ask, why so many citizens are so anxious to be subjected by the Nanny State? We tend to think that some few puritanical dictators oppress “the people”, when in reality a lot of “the people” (at least a large minority) do agree with Nanny State proposals and wholly support implementation of authoritarian regulations on whatever they dislike. They will only rebel if Nanny State affects what they like (and can enjoy openly).

    There is also a social class issue. People sufficiently motivated to protest Nanny State policies tend to be middle class. In the case of smoking, the lack of protest against may be explained by the low prevalence of smoking among the middle classes. Most smokers are then lower income, hence they are very convenient political punching bags: mediocre Nanny State enforcers get easy score points on folks who are too weak politically to fight back. These social class tendencies among cigarette smokers are more accurate in rich countries but are rapidly spreading worldwide.

    The importance of the social class issue is sharply illustrated by looking at the much milder attitude of Nanny State prohibitionists towards alcohol. If they tried to legislate massive bans on booze and to implement a “de-normalisation” on drinkers the prohibitionists would face popular revolt, simply because middle classes and more affluent higher social classes (to which politicians and businessmen belong) enjoy drinking, mostly soft alcohol, beer and wine. These affluent sectors would not tolerate Public Health bureaucrats to describe their light alcohol drinking habits as alcoholism.

    Cigar smoking is a niche of relatively affluent smokers, simply because good cigars are expensive. Nanny State enforcers also hate cigars and cigar smokers, but they ignore us because we are a tiny minority. Cigar smoking is not something you do in the street or in “designated” smoking areas. We tend to smoke at home or in private clubs. You find places to buy and smoke your cigar indoors in comfortable conditions, even in cities (Miami, London, NY) that are very unfriendly to smoking. Also, Nanny State enforcers know that cigar smokers are not so easy to be used as political punching bags. A lot of politicians and businessmen still enjoy a good cigar, specially in Latin America but also in the puritanical USA. Do you remember the Monica Lewinsky affair during Bill Clinton presidency? well, the rabid anti-smoker Bill Clinton was accused of using a cigar in his sexual foreplay with Monica Lewinsky, right inside the smoke-free White House !!

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: