Neil Clark Says Something Sensible Shocker!!!!

OK, he over eggs the pudding, manages to prove Godwin’s Law before the comments ever start but his basic idea is absolutely correct:

The death of liberal England has been predicted many times over the
past decade. But on Sunday, England, for long regarded (rightly) as one
of the freest countries in the world, will finally mark the end of its
long history as a liberal country as the government’s draconian smoking ban comes into force.

There is no liberal case whatsoever for the ban; if you support it
you may be many things, but please, don’t have the audacity to call
yourself a liberal.

8 responses

  1. Bit of an odd one for me this – as a liberal I oppose the ban in principle and argued against it at the time it was discussed, but as a socially active non-smoker, I’m really looking forward to it on a purely selfish level.

  2. Little Black Sambo Avatar
    Little Black Sambo

    Infoholic UK: it is your case (and mine) that exactly shows up the difference between true liberalism and false. The false has now almost completely taken over in this pathetic country.

  3. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    Surely not, LBS. You can be a liberal – in the sense that, given a referendum you’d have voted against the ban – but enough of a hedonist to enjoy one of the consequences. Or do you feel that a true libertarian must puritanically deny himself the enjoyment of less cigarette smoke, just because he resents the illiberalism that led to it?

  4. I’m in the same basket as Infoholic UK.
    I loathe cigarette smoke, it makes me ill.
    However, I cannot support a ban which affects private property in this way.
    I will enjoy the smoke free environment, but it doesn’t stop me being against the manner in which it came about.

  5. IanCroydon Avatar
    IanCroydon

    This angle of liberalism ended when we got the NHS.
    The smoking ban is a direct consequence of the NHS, directed by the consensus of doctors, and implemented because the government dictates our health care through NI, so it has assumed authority to dictate our lifestyle in relation to health.
    If we had the freedom to make informed decisions on how we wish to insure our health, then our choice of lifestyle would be dictated by the premiums, we could then lead whatever life we wished as long as we could afford to do so.
    You either have a nanny state that strives to give the maximum possible health care to everybody, or a free state that allows you to accept the consequences of your actions.

  6. Little Black Sambo Avatar
    Little Black Sambo

    Dearieme, you have confused me. I would have voted against the ban and shall willingly subvert it if I have the opportunity, but I am not a smoker & never liked being e.g. on top of a bus or at the pictures when everybody was smoking. I think I am still a libertarian?

  7. IanCroydon: “If we had the freedom to make informed decisions on how we wish to insure our health, then our choice of lifestyle would be dictated by the premiums, we could then lead whatever life we wished as long as we could afford to do so.”
    I would agree completely, except, of course in the present case of banning smoking because of the “dangers of passive smoking”… As far as I’m aware there has never been any proper study of the subject that has shown any causalrelationship between “passive smoking” and “smoking-related illness”.
    It’s not the NHS that is the prime mover, it’s pressure groups and puritan members of the BMA. Oh, by the way, I’m a lifelong non-smoker and I’m appalled at the ban. Interesting that it, naturally, doesn’t apply to the Palace of Westminster!

  8. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    LBS: sure thing. Sorry if I implied otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading