Elsewhere (132)
Christopher Snowdon on Derby Council and its proposed ‘Tesco Tax’:
A hundred years ago, they would have been in favour of taxing the electricity companies to subsidise the candlestick makers. Forty years ago, they would have been throwing money at British Leyland… And what is the justification for this looting? Essentially it boils down to a rose-tinted nostalgia for high street shopping by reactionaries, protectionists and the kind of people who insist that supermarkets are unpopular despite the fact that they are always full (due to our old friend ‘false consciousness’, no doubt). These are the people who hated Woolworths and HMV until the day they went bust, at which point they tearfully mourned the end of an era.
Simon Cooke on the same:
Seeking to rescue the traditional town centre by this [‘Tesco Tax’] route merely replaces trade with subsidy. The independent retailers and town centres become dependent on the money that flows from the levy. This doesn’t really make those businesses and those centres viable; it merely acts to ossify a failed model. The future for high streets… doesn’t lie with mere shopping but with being places of leisure and pleasure. This probably means fewer shops and smaller centres but it also means a different approach starting from what people want – not defined by opinion polling but rather by what people actually consume.
And Tim Worstall on telling certain politicians to take a running jump:
We’re going to have a law now where a willing purchaser cannot negotiate with a willing supplier to gain 600 calories in return for folding money instead of 400 calories for a smaller amount? What? Here’s how things work in a free and liberal society: you don’t get to decide what we would like to have. We get to decide what we would like to have.
The MP in question, Sarah Wallaston, “formerly a doctor and teacher,” is “now bringing a love of South Devon to Westminster.” And hoping to dictate your default portion size. The state, says Ms Wallaston, has “a duty to intervene” by telling you what it is you “don’t need” when buying drinks and snacks at the local cinema. Because you simply can’t be trusted near those sweet and shiny objects. At which point, I’m reminded of the Guardian’s Jill Filipovic, who also struggles with the concept of personal liberty and, specifically, with why “every socially conscious person” doesn’t agree with her. Being “socially conscious,” so defined, and therefore better than us, doesn’t seem to entail any reservation about spending, or indeed wasting, other people’s earnings on imposing state-dictated portion sizes. Or any reservation about embracing a condescending relationship with those of whom one is supposedly being conscious. Quite the opposite, in fact.
It is, I think, easier to imagine you’re being righteous and heroic if you target the provider of a service rather than the people who choose to seek it out, and who to a very large extent dictate the range of products on offer. But even this manoeuvre implies things that are rarely said directly for fear of how it might seem. To attack consumers directly for in effect making proletarian choices – of which the campaigners disapprove – would jar somewhat with any egalitarian affectations. And so a common strategy is to sideline the customer, and their agency, and insinuate some variation of ‘false consciousness’. The customers, by implication – unlike the campaigners – can’t see through advertising. The customers, unlike the campaigners, don’t know their own minds. Of course saying this explicitly might make the campaigners sound presumptuous and conceited, which they quite often are. And saying it face to face with Those Who Need Saving From Their Own Shopping Lists™ might invite a suitably frank and colourful response.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments. It’s what these posts are for.
I don’t think I’d have been so restrained.
Improbable as it may sound, I’m usually scrupulously polite, sometimes even shy, among strangers. Plus I couldn’t spare the time for a proper parsing of his arrogance.
I suppose you should be grateful he didn’t tell you what and how much you could have for your dinner that night.
Apparently he didn’t think that patients – his customers – needed to know such details.
Ha! The patients are not his customers, the government is his customer. You’re no more a customer than a Facebook user is a customer.
The patients are not his customers, the government is his customer. You’re no more a customer than a Facebook user is a customer.
Yes, I think that has quite a lot to do with the prevalence of such attitudes. In my (admittedly limited) experience, there’s been a noticeable difference in attitude between state healthcare and the private sector (even when there’s an overlap in the staff).
The same is true of many things, including airport security. Again, the customer is the government, the passenger just the product that is there to be processed. What do you think these people fear more, complaints from the passengers/patients or complaints from the government?
At least the Soviets had the kniga zhalob.
I commend Minnow, to an extent, for coming to this blog and putting the opposing point of view, however poorly.
However, what he is actually engaged in is a higher-end form of trolling.
As Karl Popper said, it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood, and Minnow has elevated the deliberate misunderstanding to an art form.
Thus, in any given comment he will identify one or two loose words or ambiguous phrases – lacunae into which he can insinuate himself and his puerile opinions.
You cannot win against people like this, he is lost – until such time as he is mugged by reality, which happens to most of them eventually.
In the meantime, I strongly suggest ignoring him and anything he says. He’ll soon tire and go elsewhere
“What benefit is there to the supersizing of [drinks and meals]?” she asks, as if the customers for such things needed to present her with agreeable excuses.
In a nutshell, that.
In a nutshell, that.
Well, it does have an air of “Why are people allowed to like things I don’t like?”
“Why are people allowed to like things I don’t like?” This is a common failing, and it’s not (unfortunately) the sole preserve of the Left, although it does seem to be greatly concentrated on that side of the aisle. I think it’s a failure of both imagination and empathy. And it does appear to be one of those dichotomous personality traits, like optimism/pessimism, introversion/extroversion etc. that are very refractory to change. I might not be able to understand, for example, why someone enjoys anodyne musical fare like One Direction or Justin Bieber. But that doesn’t mean I wish to interfere in anyone’s enjoyment of it. The failure is on my part for not understanding, not theirs for having different tastes. A little bit of humility would go a long way with people like Wallaston.
Actually, I’m tempted to think that many of the pathologies of the authoritarian mindset are rooted in a failure of empathy. Empathy is the ability to picture oneself in someone else’s shoes, but in order to do that you have to acknowledge that the other person is indeed other, and not just an extension of you. None of us can do this perfectly, but some can do it better than others. Denial that the other person has agency leads on the small scale to Wallaston’s impertinent meddling and on the large scale to toxic ideas like false consciousness. There’s a vast arrogance embedded in this idea: that not only does someone not know what they truly want, but that I do.
Some time ago, I had to register with a new GP, which involved filling in a questionnaire about existing medical problems and so on.
One of the questions demanded to know how many units of alcohol I consumed in an average week.
I stopped to ponder this particular question, prompting a “Now tell the truth…” remark from the purse lipped receptionist.
To her disappointment, I told her that it was her misfortune that I knew exactly what an Alcohol Brief Intervention* is and exactly how many units I would have to write down for my GP to later sit me down and tell me I’m a problem drinker.
I wrote down three. She scowled and told me there were no appointments for a month.
*Deranged Scottish Government scheme where you’re hectored by your GP and branded an alcoholic if you admit to downing three pints in one sitting at least once a week.
I am no fan of Dr Wollaston – she is too much of a nanny for me, and whenever I think of her ilk misappropriating their power to make it harder to buy ‘bad’ things like junk food and booze, I think of my elderly granny who was poor as a church mouse but who gained a bit of much-deserved pleasure and relaxation from a tiny nip of sherry in the evening – something she partake responsibly and which was nobody’s business but hers. Such pleasures would be out of her reach if Nanny Wollaston had her way.
However, we do live in a world where nanny has to bail us out if excesses of eating/drinking etc make us ill, stop us from working productively and are a drain on the health services. Our health service is on its knees, largely due to unrealistic demands for attention to the tiniest of twinges, to the vastly expensive drugs and surgeries needed for lifestyle conditions, the costs of which are rocketting up at warpspeed due to sheer numbers. So I tend to think if Nanny has to pay for such health care (or rather pay by taxing the bejaysus out of those of us who are more responsible), it’s not so unreasonable she tries to prevent the worse excesses.
Overall it would maybe be more reasonable if those who drank/ate to the excesses of making themselves ill (or to criminality in the case of alcohol) were the ones who could more proportionately foot the bill. So (in the absence of an insurance-funded health service) I’d prefer to see penalty charges for those arrested or admitted to casualty when paralytic and perhaps some sort of financial carrot/stick regarding the health costs of those who are grossly obese, up to and including that perhaps they just shouldn’t be funded at national expense? Ie, levy the responsibility back at the consumer and the tiny minority who behave like idiots to the extreme. For the rest of us, leave us to eat and drink whatever we want, preferably as cheaply as possible.
Yes, I know that’s a tad pro-fascist, and heaven forbid ‘judgemental’. But if we want a health service that can still afford basic care to as many people as possible, something will have to change regarding either the funding, or the sheer numbers, of those with ‘lifestyle’ illnesses.
[DH]*Deranged Scottish Government scheme where you’re hectored by your GP and branded an alcoholic if you admit to downing three pints in one sitting at least once a week.
Pfffffft!!!! Three pints??? I live in Glasgow. That’s an aperitif
Indeed. I work in the second city of the empire and three pints of heavy constitutes a light lunch.
Maybe that’s why they’ve managed to mark about half a million people’s cards for drinking too much since 2008 using the aforementioned scheme.
They’ve also banned two-for-one booze deals in the supermarkets and are currently fighting through the European courts to try and enforce minimum pricing. It’s almost as if the tinpot Scottish Government ministers view the populace with utter contempt.
It is hilariously misguided to regulate food portion sizes at cinemas, a place the average person goes a few times a year. Really gonna have an impact there eh Sarah (but we know that’s just the start, too)? But then again we are talking about narcissism driven dogooderism, which hits the mark about 1 time in 100. Here’s my beef with this… i work out about 4x per week and try to stick to a low-ish carb high protein diet with as much vegetable matter as i can get. Not preaching, but it works for me to keep my body fat in the high teens. But once a week i treat myself, especially if this is planned around attending a movie with the kids. But even here at an entertainment venue we can’t escape bossy Sarah’s commandments on eating well. Apparently even at a movie one must be doing their level best to not indulge as Sarah sees fit. Even at the f*&k*&g cinema.
re DH: where you’re hectored by your GP and branded an alcoholic if you admit to downing three pints in one sitting at least once a week.
In the US we tend to measure “one drink” technically speaking as one 12 oz beer, 6 oz glass of wine, or 1 oz of 80-proof booze. I had a marriage counselor many years ago who “informed” me that three of such in one evening constituted a “drinking binge”. I remember thinking if this concept ever catches on in Europe, especially with their socialized medical systems, the shrinks will be rolling in dough. And given that once people are wise to the absurd threshold, they will lie their way down to the Mendoza line. Which of course will create a self-incorrecting loop possibly leading to effective prohibition. The future’s so bright I gotta wear shades.
Yes, I know that’s a tad pro-fascist, and heaven forbid ‘judgemental’. But if we want a health service that can still afford basic care to as many people as possible, something will have to change regarding either the funding, or the sheer numbers, of those with ‘lifestyle’ illnesses.
That’s the very reason why I believe the left love the NHS so much: it’s gives them a nice wide avenue into interfering in peoples’ lives and telling them how to live. To control freaks and authoritarian tosspots, this is the most attractive feature of a universal health system.
Aaaaaargh! Italics! Sorry!
Die, italics! Die!
Top modding, David!
Minnow: I think a lot of people are as bad at judging their political as their medical needs and the consequences can be just as bad for them (and for the rest of us).
Minnow clearly is too foolish (or twisted) to exercise the duties of citizenship and should be restrained from voting. 🙂
Top modding, David!
I am a great host. [ Wipes bar, straightens beer mats, listens attentively. ]
That’s the very reason why I believe the left love the NHS so much: it’s gives them a nice wide avenue into interfering in peoples’ lives and telling them how to live.
Indeed. But as far as the public are concerned, our ‘free’ NHS is a sacred cow. Of course, it is not free – we pay massively so in taxes and line up outside our GPs in scenes reminiscent of communism-era USSR bread queues for our snatched 10 minutes of ‘healthcare’, interwoven with compulsory ker-ching dollops of advice on our private habits so as to reward our GPs with extra nannyish-box-ticking money.
It’s expensive, inefficient, intrusive, and compared to many poorer countries, woefully inadequate as our cancer death rates show. Plus it helps our population be passive sheep who lack motivation to take responsibility (if they wish) for their own health. We need an ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ moment when it comes to health care. But Nanny Wollaston and her political colleagues do not want to allow one, and the public do not want to hear it.
Still – there are occasions where the state justifies sticking its nose into recklessness when a small measure can reduce risk and cost to others. Not nearly as many as we have and certainly not whether you can have large or small popcorn on the family treat to the flicks. But, eg, crash-helmets for motor-cyclists; babyseats for cars etc. A light-handed touch from a pragmatic Nanny who only rarely sticks her nose in, and only then when it is on matters which significantly impact upon others, I can live with. Micromanagement of what size treats I am allowed in my own leisure time with my own money, no thanks.
“Look, you may be a doctor, but you’re not MY doctor. So, ya know, piss off.”
Thus, in any given comment he will identify one or two loose words or ambiguous phrases – lacunae into which he can insinuate himself and his puerile opinions.
Yup and yup.
At no juncture does Minnow say, “yes, you’re right on that point, and let me add this,” but rather functions as an obnoxious younger brother who says “why?” after every statement because he knows it drives you straight up the wall, not because he’s curious to know things.
Overall it would maybe be more reasonable if those who drank/ate to the excesses of making themselves ill (or to criminality in the case of alcohol) were the ones who could more proportionately foot the bill
The only way for people to truly be free is if they’re exposed to the full consequences of their actions, wise or foolish.
It’s also the only way for people to become mature adults. I was not a rebellious teen but I do remember screaming, “Let me make my own mistakes!” That’s the proper way to separate from one’s parents, not by mechanically doing the opposite of what they say.
That’s also why socialized medicine is anathema to most of us in the USA: we know that when the cost (read: responsibility) is spread out that much, people will stop weighing the long-term effects of their decisions because they don’t have to. Either they’ll be bailed out by MommyGubmint or MommyGubmint will tell them which decisions to make.
Atrophy of the character, is what. Trade liberty (dangerous) for security and this is the inevitable result.
‘It can be benign and helpful, as, for example, when we forbid people to make their own prescriptions for medicines and insist a doctor decides what they need’.
Just over twenty years ago, I took my gap year after school, part of which was spent working in Poland teaching English. Anticipating the possible wish to travel around parts formerly Iron Curtain, and on being told that healthcare in some parts may be rudimentary in emergencies, I was strongly advised to get hold of an emergency kit with clean needles.
So I went to my GP, and after a prolonged wait, I explained my requirements.
‘Oh no. Needles. That won’t do’.
I told them they’d be sterilised and packed, and that if I got hit by a Skoda I didn’t want a blood transfusion done with dirty ones if I had a clean set to hand.
‘No, no. The customs will think you’re a drug addict. It can’t be done’.
So I went to my local pharmacist. He told me he could order a medical kit with needles, and it was a common request. I told him what the GP said. He laughed.
And so I went to Poland, and a few neighbouring countries besides, with that med kit in my rucksack. Of all the border guards in all the frontier posts I crossed, not one of them decided to give me the ‘Midnight Express’ treatment because of it. Even the Lithuanians, who were arseholes who insisted on doing full searches on everyone’s luggage.
End result if I’d listened to my GP? I wouldn’t have had a piece of useful kit I may have needed had I had a bad accident. I might even have thought twice about engaging in a life-enhancing experience that broadened my horizons.
So thank you, paternalism, I will be the master of my own destiny, and not a permanent child.
Dan,
You cannot win against people like this, he is lost – until such time as he is mugged by reality, which happens to most of them eventually.
In the meantime, I strongly suggest ignoring him and anything he says. He’ll soon tire and go elsewhere.
Doubtful, really. Like the ones in the park where a few crumbs mean they’ll never leave you alone, the resident pigeon thinks he’s winning, and will continue to strut about for quite some time to come.
DH,
It’s almost as if the tinpot Scottish Government ministers view the populace with utter contempt.
Sadly, the same is true of government bureaucrats the world over.
The previous Labor government here in Australia, fairly early on, introduced a bone-headed piece of legislation whereby they increased the price of pre-mixed drinks sold in cans and bottles (you Brits call it alcopops I believe), in an effort to discourage young drinkers from consuming too much. So of course the young people just switched to bottles of spirits and separate bottles of mixer (which they would have done sooner or later anyway), and discovered that they could adjust the level of spirits in a drink themselves, and hence, potentially become more drunk more quickly. So, this wonderful piece of social engineering failed miserably. The arrogant, nannyish posture of that government was breath-taking: “We will control the behaviour of the general public by manipulating the price of this product”. For me, it was the first alarm bell sounding, warning me that there was something decidedly dodgy about this Labor government. And it all went downhill from there.
David Gillies
Doctors are a jumped-up caste of middle-class do-gooders high on self-righteousness and misplaced sense of importance
I once complained to a friend (who is a nurse) about the amazing intellectual snobbery of doctors. Her reply? “You don’t need to tell me about that. I’ve gone out with several doctors”
Doctors have to explain complex decisions in simple terms to patients daily, so they get too used to talking down to people. I think there’s a bit of a feeling of superiority in medical schools as well, let alone in hospitals
One way or another they develop an extraordinary hubris, and many of them seem to have taken on board ‘progressive’ tics like lamenting the bigoted, prejudiced attitudes of “Daily Mail readers”. They feel they know it all, and need to be understanding (as part of their job) about those less educated people they have to deal with everyday.
That’s how they think. Some of them can barely disguise their contempt for everyone else
In the meantime, I strongly suggest ignoring him and anything he says. He’ll soon tire and go elsewhere
Agreed, sadly. He does have moments of being congenial online company, but we’re not getting anywhere with his debates, which consist of too many misrepresentations
“When people teach creationism in schools (or if people were to try to teach that the earth is flat) they are publicly ridiculed. However, the very same chattering classes who do the ridiculing wish to enshrine flat-earth economics into public policy.”
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/flat-earth-economics-and-the-tesco-tax#.U9tpC2eXY0U