“ I want for our country enough laws to restrain me from injuring others, so that these laws will also restrain others from injuring me. I want enough government, with enough constitutional safeguards, so that this necessary minimum of laws will be applied equitably to everybody, and will be binding on the rulers as well as those ruled.
Beyond that I want neither laws nor government to be imposed on our people as a means or with the excuse of protecting us from catching cold, or of seeing that we raise the right kind of crops, or of forcing us to live in the right kind of houses or neighbourhoods, or of compelling us to save money or to spend it, or of telling us when or whether we can pray.
I do not want government or laws designed for any other form of welfarism or paternalism, based on the premise that government knows best and can run our lives better than we can run them ourselves. And my concept of freedom, and of its overwhelming importance, is implicit in these aspirations and ideals.”Robert Welch
Friday, 18 April 2008
Quote of the day
WHO seeks to persecute law abiding drinkers
“A New world authoritarian order?” He types, from his secret, heavily armed bunker, somewhere in Texas ;-)
Sounds rather like what ‘they’ would like to brand as the stuff of paranoid right wing survivalist imagination – but is it really?
Consider the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO) Who say: “health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats.”
One suspects they would have used the word ‘collective’ in place of shared if they hadn’t used it later in the sentence.
Their ‘commissar’ of substance abuse is one Dr Vladimir Pozniak, Coordinator of the Psychoactive Substance Abuse programme.
They have produced a report published in the magazine New Scientist.
Basically the report argues that because of the bad effects produced by alcohol on non-drinkers (third party damage), i.e. Drunks occasionally becoming violent, destructive or noisy. That these effects of over indulgence in alcohol should be vilified like the so-called ‘dangers’ of passive smoking. Presumably with the aim of creating similar draconian legal controls.
The last time I looked drink driving was illegal in much of the world. As is criminal damage and assault.
That law abiding people should be effectively punished for drinking because of the mere possibility of it impacting on someone else. They emote about violence and damage to unborn children, the latter presumably from pregnant women drinking excessive alcohol.
This smacks of the Fascist-Lite, excessive authoritarian legislation for something that is already covered by law approach, so beloved of New-Labour.
WHO’s proposed solution? Why penalising everyone who dares to want to have an alcoholic drink. The wider “medical community” allegedly backs this.
Effectively nothing less than punitive taxation, artificial price controls and state restrictions on availability - on a global scale.
Who pays for this organisation? The taxpayer that’s who…
Sounds rather like what ‘they’ would like to brand as the stuff of paranoid right wing survivalist imagination – but is it really?
Consider the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO) Who say: “health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats.”
One suspects they would have used the word ‘collective’ in place of shared if they hadn’t used it later in the sentence.
Their ‘commissar’ of substance abuse is one Dr Vladimir Pozniak, Coordinator of the Psychoactive Substance Abuse programme.
They have produced a report published in the magazine New Scientist.
Basically the report argues that because of the bad effects produced by alcohol on non-drinkers (third party damage), i.e. Drunks occasionally becoming violent, destructive or noisy. That these effects of over indulgence in alcohol should be vilified like the so-called ‘dangers’ of passive smoking. Presumably with the aim of creating similar draconian legal controls.
The last time I looked drink driving was illegal in much of the world. As is criminal damage and assault.
That law abiding people should be effectively punished for drinking because of the mere possibility of it impacting on someone else. They emote about violence and damage to unborn children, the latter presumably from pregnant women drinking excessive alcohol.
This smacks of the Fascist-Lite, excessive authoritarian legislation for something that is already covered by law approach, so beloved of New-Labour.
WHO’s proposed solution? Why penalising everyone who dares to want to have an alcoholic drink. The wider “medical community” allegedly backs this.
Effectively nothing less than punitive taxation, artificial price controls and state restrictions on availability - on a global scale.
Who pays for this organisation? The taxpayer that’s who…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)