Sunday 10 April 2016

Bile:

Firstly, some very uncomfortable news for me is I have slipped on one of my most important metaphysically important habits. Masturbated twice. The message is, never ever look at porn, or porn captions of that sort. Always a release.

Staying away from that behaviour is primary importance and as long as I never check those pictures (outside of perhaps with someone I'm intending to sleep with), then it won't happen again.

Also, although I'm not a Law of Attraction zealot I do notice the behaviour of ten attracts girls to you like those you fantasize about in some way. Which is not good! I'd prefer it came from a spiritual atunement!

This is important because from a chakra perspective, the south node, which is our lower chakras, brings in new experience for us.

Anyway, what I wanted to talk about is this:



Surprising to me, because even though I have often respected Katie Hopkins view and saw her as standing up for what a lot of people believe in, this kind of statement to me crosses into the kind of thinking of ... One person is more worthy than another (for having a job) and further into ideas around depopulation in my view. This kind of social Darwiniism.

This was the rest of the transcript before they got to this place:

Matt: We have a national health system, we have state funded Universities, etc. etc. we're not America we do not have the sort of... broken health and all the rest of it. 
Katie: OK, do you think David Cameron is a hypocrit because he has managed to avoid paying some taxes. 
Matt: No, no, if he's done it legally that's fine. I've got no problem with that, he's done it legally, that's not a problem. 
Katie: So what's your problem? 
Matt: Two years ago he was basically saying, 'everybody that avoids tax, everybody that stashes money in Jersey, everybody that stashes money in the Bahamas, that is the British virgin islands, that's what he's done, is... Morally wrong. Your caller earlier said Jimmy Carr did this, Jimmy Carr did that he's morally wrong; that's not fair; but then oh hang on a minute, I've been doing exactly the same thing... Err, err, err. 

And after an unsuccessful attempt by Katie to make him look bad she chowed down on the 'you're inferior because you don't pay taxes' argument.

So in my view, the idea that people who don't have a job should not have a voice in our society is a pretty nasty one. It is hard to name an exact reason why this is so. However, lets look at it in relation to free market principles, and all the potential manipulations denying some people a voice or a vote:

So lets say that we did start denying a vote to all those who don't pay tax. So that's all those that are unemployed. This gives a good reason for the government to start putting in policies that manipulatively employ those with the same political opinions as themselves.

You also have a major group who cannot protest slights against them. If you then denied these people healthcare then what? They can't fight back only violently. Then you crack down with martial law.

It also gives the government reasons to keep people unemployed. Because then it can keep silencing those that it would prefer not have a voice. In a free market explanation, mostly peoples expression of their own desires is what brings some sort of justice to events (this notably, in the economic sense, having been utterly destroyed by Quantitative Easing). So it works like this... Lets say a left wing government is cowardly and overly dependent on the unions which run amok and make everyones life hell. People get sick of this and vote in someone like Thatcher! Makes sense.

Or lets say another government puts in bad policies by being over reliant on banks, and loads of people become unemployed. The people who are now unemployed are angry and they vote out the bad policies. Lets call the government in this case, the EU!

These are natural checks and balances of the free market. (it is notable that even the off days here can be partially explained by the markets!)

... and finally, we talk about small state and tax reductions as libertarians. But really what Adam Smith was about was common sense. We don't take these things seriously if a free market policy results in loss of life where a bandaid by the state is needed to counteract a dysfunctional and abused economic system:


No comments:

Post a Comment