It is often maintained, quite rightly in my opinion, that the state intrudes into our lives unnecessarily - a problem which probably has at its core all the 'experts' to which politicians listen. Picking up on a very witty post by CallingEngland we find:
We are drinking too much, although there is no acknowledgement of the fact that we are probably attempting to lessen the period in which we have to suffer all the crap dropped on us by our politicians.
That patients should be given a choice over when they die, with this idiot suggesting that there should be a referendum or a free vote in parliament to decide the issue. Is it not the person to whom the life belongs who should make that final decision? What legitimacy would any free vote by MPs have?
The two examples chosen from CallingEngland's post illustrates all that is presently wrong with our system of democracy, that politicians and their tame quangocracies elect to decide what is and what isn't good for us. It also demonstrates the point that politicians take from us and rarely give; by which I mean that if I wish to end my life voluntarily or drink myself to an early grave (which I don't, I hasten to add) the least the politicians could do is express some thanks and appreciation of the fact that my actions had saved the country monies in pension payments and end of life care. I mean to say, it is not asking much of them, is it?
6 comments:
or drink myself to an early grave
Yep - still way too early. You've decades yet.
JH, WfW, we've a long way to go yet. I'm 59, so probably younger than you two, but even I hope to live to see the end of these days of tribulation. It will come, it's just a matter of time; and that's the unknown.
Thank you for the linky, I owe you a drinky :-)
Oh, word ver is 'foadi' - now that has me stumped.
correction : 'so probably OLDER than..' sorry for any negative aspertions.
"Expertitis" what an excellent word and so accurate.
The social democratic principle is that government can provide a solution to every problem, which morphs into 'government must provide a solution for every problem, real or imagined'.
I have commented before on my experience that 'experts' educated post 1970 were generally not 'expert' in that they had no real depth of knowledge in their subject, no doubt connected to the point I made in another thread that since the 1970s one can pass exams at the highest grade purely on rote learning and with no actual understanding of the subject. I have also noticed that most miscarriages of justice today occur because the 'expert' witnesses turned out to be not so expert, in fact plain wrong.
Even worse, of course, is for the most part we pay for these 'experts' to lecture us about the bleeding obvious and produce puerile and fatuous guidelines and regulation that is irrelevant for 99.999999% of the population.
It would be far better for us, in every way, if the government and parliament took a five year sabbatical, unpaid, of course.
JH: I sincerely hope so......!
jic: ditto and yes you are a sprog compared to me..... :)
GV: My pleasure, young lady!'foadi'? Its an abbreviation of f*** off and die, idiot....(word ver's attempt at humour)
PC: Thanks, I was quite chuffed with it too! Expert advice is counter productive - witness yesterday we are told too much alcohol increases the risk of strokes, heart attacks, etc and on the same day another study finds that eating chocolate decreases those same risks!
Post a Comment