Thursday, 9 September 2010

It's not getting any better

Sorry Kingbingo, but whatever you're doing is not fucking working. I just got my local rag through the mailbox and the front page is plastered with how fucking disastrous boozing is and how much it's costing the saintly fucking useless shower of shite that is the NHS.

Not a fucking word on the fact that smoking and drinking are nett contributors to tax. Just more of the same old nannying, hectoring, we-know-better-than-you shit that filled our fucking ears while the cunts who wore red ties were in charge.

To all you authoritarian bastards, gearing up to tell us some more about how wicked and dissolute we are, I have three simple words to share with you:

Just. Fuck. Off.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

The British are a bunch of cunts who can't handle their booze! Are you not telling everyone to become libertarians??

Anonymous said...

Nicely put, Obnox
but why stop there ,why not go out and seek the freaks where they
nibble their salads and sip their
Echo Falls 07.Lets be good citizens
and share our discomfort. Let us
see them looking over their shoulders when they order their
Starbucks skimmed and gluten free muffin
Make blogsville buzz with aprehension for the puritanical pervos.

Time for some happy slapping

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The British are a bunch of cunts who can't handle their booze! Are you not telling everyone to become libertarians??

9 Sep 2010 18:50:00

Most ,not all
Oh by the way,libertarians dream
about liberty,the pissyheads fight
for it.

26th Guiness Regiment of Foot


Gutter Sniper

Mitch said...

Well said!

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

There was a mother of three adopted children on ITV's Daybreak this morning. All three children came from the same birth mother and apparently, all suffer from learning disabilities due to the birth mother drinking during pregnancy.

It really is almost every day now that the MSM point the finger at alcohol or smoking for just about every single problem society encounters. There is never any proof of course, but you always get the feeling that they are not interested in that, just pointing and wagging the finger.

Wella said...

Yet in the United States, according to [I]Time Magazine[/I], a well-regarded study demonstrates that heavy drinkers live longer than non-drinkers.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html

Bayard said...

It's no different from Warble Gloaming, dole scroungers, immigrants, Muslims, communists, Jews, Irish, Catholics (if you go further back in history). People love having a scapegoat to blame the country's ills on. It saves them having to think what might actually be causing them.

Kingbingo said...

There are 2 plans. Plan Gordon and plan Dave. Neither are libertarian plans. However, plan Dave gets less libertarian much more slowly than plan Gordon. Maybe, if we are really lucky than the economy and the range of freedoms possible, perhaps through new technology (internets, mobiles, the next thing etc) will grow faster than plan Dave and the amount of your life that government is dicking around with will proportionally decrease.

I like plan Dave because it is better than plan Gordon. However, plan Bingo would not look like plan Dave. It would not make the Guardian rant, they would keel over from the apoplexy they would receive. The BBC would be shut down on day one, and within a few years so would more than half of the state.

However, Bingo does not get to make a plan, because Bingo is not a Prime Minister. So Bingo has to choose between plan Dave and plan Gordon. Bingo chooses plan Dave not because it is like plan Bingo, but because it is less unlike it than plan Gordon.

I don’t know if this makes any difference, but I have explained this about eleventy million times.

I know Obnoxio has plan Obnoxio, which is to have no plan at all. If Obnoxio would at any point ever ever ever ever ................ like to explain how he see’s plan Obnoxio actually being implemented. Then I shall be filled with rapturous attention. Because he has no way of actually achieving his vision without going through a major political party.

Chalcedon said...

Damn right! We had similar bollocks in our local rag yesterday saying how unfair it was spending millions treating a relatively few individuals for drink related medical problems (injuries owing to drunkeness). I reckon it's part of a national strategy to demonise drinking. I like a few beers. I had 3 pints with my brother and a friend in the pub last night. A glass of wine at home with my wife and since I am on holiday a couple of cans. This no doubt means I have some drink problem, according to THEM. According to me, this is utter bollocks.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Kingbongo, Hoppe has an idea.

Bayard said...

It made a promising start, but then failed to address a major flaw in the argument: If the protection business is privatised, the private businesses will be have to be powerful to succeed. What is to prevent a few businesses forming a cartel, using their power to drive competitors out of existence and then imposing what terms and conditions are most beneficial to them?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

How?

In an unregulated market, if anyone sees an opportunity to undercut, they can enter the market and undercut.

Eventually the cartel would bleed itself dry trying to fight off new competition.

Bayard said...

Well the criminal world of drug smuggling is the closest thing we have to a totally unregulated market and there you see cartels using their power to keep the competition out.
I mean, where are all the bad guys going to go, once they are no longer in politics? where the power is - the "protection" industry.

Bayard said...

Well the criminal world of drug smuggling is the closest thing we have to a totally unregulated market and there you see cartels using their power to keep the competition out.
I mean, where are all the bad guys going to go, once they are no longer in politics? where the power is - the "protection" industry.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Are you on drugs? :o)

Drug running is not an unregulated market, you have very strong vested interests trying to shut you down. If you want to partake of drug running, you have to have massive horsepower yourself, just to enter the market.

It's nothing like an unregulated market, FFS!!

Bayard said...

Opposition isn't regulation.
What Hoppe is proposing is that the government, staffed by devils, will be replaced by insurance companies, staffed by angels. Given the current reputation of insurance companies, I really don't think that's likely.
I think his analysis of the problem is masterly, it's just his suggested solution that lacks credibility. Just because the form of "democracy" (which isn't democracy at all, but an elective dictatorship) practiced in the US produces the results it does, doens't mean to say that it is not capable of being improved (replacing "democracy" by democracy would be a good start). It's rather like the garage saying "the petrol engine in your car isn't performing very well, what you need is a steam engine, 'cos it's not internal combustion, see".

Obnoxio The Clown said...

bayard, are you taking the piss?

Do you seriously think that a law completely preventing you from selling cocaine is not a regulation?

Bayard said...

Obo, are you taking the piss?
Of course a law is a regulation. That doesn't mean that criminalisation of something is regulating it, if you use the normally accepted meaning of regulation in an economic sense.
Anyway this is an irrelevant argument about semantics. Hoppe proposes a perfectly good alternative solution to the problem of the US superstate, with good historical precedent - breaking up into micro-states. It's just his suggestion of having these states effectively ruled by insurance companies that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

He's not talking about the insurance companies "ruling" anything.

From a regulation standpoint, you can't claim that the regulation that you're not allowed to sell drugs is not a fucking regulation, for fuck's sake.

It's the ULTIMATE regulation.

Bayard said...

OK, I'll try once more then give up:
Yes it's "a regulation".
No it's not "regulation".
There is a difference. Perhaps someone else would like to explain.

Kingbingo said...

Bayard beat me to it, he also got fed up of trying to reason Obnoxoo out of his circular thinking faster than I would have. Mind you Obnoxoo did not reason himself into that position, so no real danger of anyone reasoning him out.


PS: Obnoxoo (now we are substituting the 'i's in each others name, you may well enjoy this British title. Don't be put of by the title, he does not mean Tory party when he says Conservatives. He means loosely not statists.

http://www.seangabb.co.uk/culturewar2.pdf

Obnoxio The Clown said...

So, Kingbingo, does your approval of Bayard's farrago of nonsense mean that you're quite happy with your minarchist state telling everyone they're not allowed to do drugs?

How very libertarian of you!