Russian roulette and the impending ban on herbal products

In a recent newspaper there was a piece asserting, ‘you are playing Russian roulette if you take such and such drugs without having them prescribed’.

I thought of adding, ‘and of course you are playing Russian roulette with your life, health and liberty every time you have any contact with a doctor, whether or not this is in order to obtain a prescription’. There is no reason to suppose he is trustworthy – in fact in view of human psychology in general, it is most unlikely that he is well intentioned towards you – and he has the power to deprive you of your liberty and have you subjected to compulsory medication.

* * *

Every time it is made more difficult to obtain medication under your own auspices it is actually making it more difficult, and perhaps impossible, for those who will have nothing to do with the medical ‘profession’ to obtain treatment for themselves. The argument justifying this is that they will be placed under greater pressure to expose themselves to (abuse by) the medical ‘profession’, as that ‘profession’ likes to believe that individuals acting on their own behalf are running greater risks. As usual this is a statistical belief not allowing for individual differences, notably differences in IQ. And it may well be the case that, even on average, the riskiness for anyone of any contact with a socially authorised sadist exceeds that of doing the best he can for himself.

We note, and deplore, that various herbal products will no longer be available from the end of April, as a result of the hostility of the medical ‘profession’ to remedies which can be obtained independently of them. This is absolutely appalling. Apparently it will be necessary to go to a herbalist in person, where the person running the shop may count as an expert, who may prohibit you from having what he does not approve of your having. But no more mail order. So you must either make an arduous journey to subject yourself to a psychologically damaging interview – in principle, as decentralising as an interview with a doctor – or else make an even more arduous journey overseas to a more liberal country where you may be able to make your purchase.

What about elderly people in outlying districts, such as Scotland, dependent on some herbal tincture, now unavailable to purchase by mail order, having to travel down by train from Edinburgh to London to obtain supplies from their usual herbalist?

But the most serious thing, to my mind, is the violation of the principle that a person should not be forced to submit to having decisions about his territory of control made by someone else, doctor or otherwise.

Another principle is also involved, namely that the territory of control within which an individual is free to act legally should be clearly defined. This might be taken as the defining feature of a civilised society. It is nowadays the case (a development that has come in over the course of the last twenty years) that you cannot buy medicines at a chemist’s shop without having your order scrutinised by a ‘pharmacist’, who will assess your order in relation to ‘guidelines’ produced by the manufacturers and which you are not allowed to know. You will not be allowed to have what you want if it seems as if you might be violating some ‘guideline’. E.g. an adult might prefer a strength of preparation made for juveniles, so (it is assumed, by some bizarre logic) he might be about to abuse a child.

This is a terrible development, and means that many forms of medication are now in practice unavailable to those who are strongly opposed to abusive (decentralising) psychological experiences. The situation is about to become even worse, as a result of the impending ban on herbal products.

The relevant departments of my unfunded independent university are effectively censored and suppressed. They have been prevented for decades from publishing analyses of the complex issues involved, while misleading and tendentious representations of them have continued to flood out from socially recognised sources. I hereby apply, for financial support on a scale at least adequate for one active and fully financed university research department, to all universities, and to corporations or individuals who consider themselves to be in a position to give support to socially recognised academic establishments.

Medical authoritarianism: opposition starved of funding

copy of a letter to a philosopher

It is really terrible that with the appalling legislation that is constantly being made, which in many cases directly affects one’s own liberty, one can squeeze out so little in the way of criticism, and publish it only on the blog.

Surely some university (yours?) could provide enough to make possible a much greater output of analysis of the principles involved, which one would, if not prevented by lack of support, have been publishing continuously for decades before the whole thing reached so advanced a point.

They are gradually making it impossible for medicines of any kind (including herbal) to be obtained without subjecting oneself to scrutiny by an agent of the collective, even if not a supposedly qualified doctor. So in effect they are making medicines inaccessible to those who will not subject themselves to that kind of scrutiny, whether or not this is because they recognise it as psychologically damaging.

I would suggest that it is the desire to interfere with other people’s autonomy, as well as the more recognised power and profit motives on the part of medical and pharmaceutical professionals, which motivate the development of such restrictions. No one actually cares about the possible harm people may be doing themselves with echinacea, kava kava etc, any more than anyone cares about the much greater harm which may be done to people by heavy-duty chemical or mechanical intervention that is not under the victims’ control. What interventionists do care about is the possibility that the pressure people are under to expose themselves to the latter might be reduced by having access to the former. This kind of infringement of liberty should be regarded as unacceptable, but as usual the academic establishment is on the side of the interventionists.

Alternative views, not currently represented in academia, should be given publicity, but this is unlikely to happen unless we are supported. £500K per annum is a small part of the running costs of most academic institutions, but if we had even that much, it would enable us to be more productive than is possible at present, and with less pressure on our health and well-being.

We could use any funding not only to support ourselves but to employ domestic, bookkeeping, caretaking and secretarial staff, all of which we badly need.

Genes: another excuse for interference

The Daily Mail (and no doubt others as well) has got the idea that some health and behavioural problems, such as drug-taking, may be genetic. This could be taken as a counter-argument against intervening because there are ‘unfair’ differences in health between different sections of the population. However, it appears it is just as likely to be taken as a reason for more intervention. Thus the abusive medical ‘profession’ can indulge in further interference; perhaps sterilisation will be proposed, especially of high-IQ people whose drug-taking is the result of living in so hostile a society.

Suppose it is only health, and not behavioural, problems? ‘How can a clean-living 33-year-old have a heart attack?’ asks the Daily Mail. Oh, it’s in his genes. Therefore (the argument goes) the iniquitous medical ‘profession’ has an excuse for more ‘tests’, and a lot more of taxpayers’ money can be spent on ‘testing’, and possibly keeping alive for longer (at taxpayers’ expense), people who might otherwise not live so long.

So first you increase the percentage of genetic deficiencies in the population (as previously discussed), and then you can justify even more taxation to pay for widespread ‘testing’ and ‘treatment’, which of course involves abusive interaction with doctors, and so the development of an even larger population of medical abusers being paid out of taxpayers’ money.

Heart UK advises that children of people with [familial hypercholesterolaemia] should be tested by the time they are ten. ... but it can be difficult to distinguish ... experts are calling for genetic testing to be more widely available ... it was for FH patients that statins were developed in the 1970s.

‘Developed’ by biochemists salaried by taxpayers’ money, probably with university appointments, working in laboratories funded by taxpayers’ money.

Analysing the distortions involved in this is complicated (distortions of this kind could and should be the subject of at least one book), but the point is that the research done is affected by being filtered through a socialist system. The research is not paid for directly by individuals, or carried out by those with independent means, but financed by charities (which are only to a limited extent supported by individuals contributing their own money) and by ‘universities’.

Even if the institutions carrying out research in those areas receive some of their support from corporations rather than the state, those corporations are operating under significant social pressure to give support to the ideology which exists to take money (freedom) away from above-average individuals, and to bestow it, in the form of oppressive ‘benefits’, on those who are below the average on some measure or other. Pharmaceutical companies are, in any case, deriving their profits from an artificial market, since most drugs are not purchased directly by individuals, but prescribed by doctors.

There is no solution but the abolition of the NHS, the abolition of the medical ‘profession’, and the abolition of state-financed research.

The relevant departments of my unfunded independent university are effectively censored and suppressed. They have been prevented for decades from publishing analyses of the complex issues involved, while misleading and tendentious representations of them have continued to flood out from socially recognised sources. I hereby apply, for financial support on a scale at least adequate for one active and fully financed university research department, to all universities, and to corporations or individuals who consider themselves to be in a position to give support to socially recognised academic establishments.

Population growth and ideological dominance

In David Willetts’s book The Pinch (Atlantic Books, 2010), it is suggested that baby boomers might feel an idealistic satisfaction in accepting low pensions (or high taxes) for the sake of future generations.

Communism (or its modern equivalent, egalitarian collectivism) is the third world religion, to my knowledge, to appreciate the importance of maximising population growth as a factor in its struggle to become dominant over other ideologies.

Catholicism forbade divorce and artificial methods of birth control, such as condoms. It is starting to weaken its line on the latter, as well as advocating ‘social justice’. Christianity is on the way out, and these are expressions of its defensive retreat.

Islam continues to advocate polygamy, which is probably a good way of encouraging population growth. It used to be quite explicit about the importance of increasing population for armies to fight in the holy world-conquering wars of the future.

The new world religion of communism appears to be doing well in this area. Fifty years ago, staying at the country cottage of Mary Adams of the BBC, fellow-traveller, and friend of Dame Janet Vaughan, the Principal of Somerville, I read the propaganda storybooks that she had got from communist Russia for the enlightenment of English speakers. I remember at least one story about old people willingly shortening their lives by foregoing food so that there would be as much as possible for young people of reproductive age.

The relevant departments of my unfunded independent university are effectively censored and suppressed. They have been prevented for decades from publishing analyses of the complex issues involved, while misleading and tendentious representations of them have continued to flood out from socially recognised sources. I hereby apply, for financial support on a scale at least adequate for one active and fully financed university research department, to all universities, and to corporations or individuals who consider themselves to be in a position to give support to socially recognised academic establishments.

Sharing the pain

Motorists hit by the soaring cost of petrol could be spared the 1p a litre rise in fuel duty due to come into force in April. Sharing the pain of rising oil prices between the Treasury and the motorist through the ‘fair fuel stabiliser’ is also still being considered, it was confirmed yesterday. Cancelling the 1p tax increase would cost the Treasury around £600million in the next financial year at a time of acute belt-tightening in the public finances. But Chancellor George Osborne is planning to help cash-strapped motorists either by scrapping the rise or by reforming the fuel tax system through the stabiliser. (Daily Mail, 28 January 2011.)

Sharing the pain between the Treasury and the motorist? What does that mean but sharing it between pensioners and younger people, whether taxpayers or on benefits? Or, actually, sparing those on benefits from any pain at all, and making sure that it is only pensioners, university graduates and the middle class (so-called) in general who are squeezed until the pips squeak. If the Treasury subsidises motorists at all, it will have to take the money to do so away from some other sector of the population. We know that pensioners are the preferred milch cows (from, among other things, David Willetts’s book The Pinch).

The state can alter the terms when it wishes

Of course all discussion about pensions these days is about who really ‘needs’ or ‘deserves’ anything. Of what relevance is it that some decades ago state pensions were supposed to be determined by contributions? Why should retrospective legislation matter anyway, nobody thinks it does now.

Such issues in themselves could easily take a book to deal with.

They like to increase state pensions, if at all, by reference to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) rather than the RPI (Retail Price Index). The RPI is more realistic than the CPI, but not much, because it leaves out much of what is really essential, such as servants, and going abroad to get things which in this country can only be got by exposing oneself to abuse by the medical ‘profession’. (A live-in housekeeper now costs £75K per annum.)

However, what makes the CPI even less realistic is that the cost of housing, renting or mortgage, is stripped out. Perhaps it is thought justifiable to use this index because ‘housing benefit’ is available to those who are prepared to expose themselves to the scrutiny of agents of the collective, and are able to prove to their satisfaction that they have no saved or inherited capital, etc.

Whenever a ‘benefit’ is provided by the state on abusive terms it can be ‘stripped out’ from the supposed ‘cost of living’ – meaning cost of keeping physically alive without being able to do anything.

So the cost of ‘medicine’ can be stripped out by those in charge of pension legislation, as well as ‘housing’, because you are supposed to find the NHS an acceptable substitute for what you might previously have been able to get by paying for it.

When the state pension became means-tested, the part you had of right, with no questions asked, started to fall in real terms, even more than it had been doing. In effect this meant that the ‘basic’ state pension itself became means-tested, since those pensioners who qualified for the new ‘benefit’ – pension credit etc. were also eligible for other ‘benefits’. So, in the eyes of those in charge of pension legislation, there was no need to consider, as part of the cost of living of un-means-tested pensioners, anything which they could get as a ‘benefit’ if they became ‘means-tested’ pensioners who qualified for other ‘benefits’.

The impact of increased fuel costs on pensioners is another cost which the pension legislators can disregard because those pensioners who qualify for the supplementary pension are able to go on the ‘social tariff’. (See earlier post.)

Another fuel-cost reducing ‘benefit’ for which those who qualify for certain other benefits are eligible, including those qualifying for the means-tested part of the pension, is a loft insulation allowance to cover the cost of insulating your house so that your energy consumption, and hence fuel bills, will be reduced. But those who only receive the ‘basic’ (non-means-tested) part of the state pension do not qualify for this.

The state pension was the only ‘benefit’ available ‘as of right’ once the qualifying contributions had been paid, and no doubt this fact was resented, and the intention was and is still to let it ‘wither on the vine’.

When the Crossman Scheme was introduced in 1970, the aim was supposed to be to provide a state pension of about half the average national wage. The average national wage is now about £25K, and if Charles McCreery and I were each receiving half of it, we would have £25K between us with which to continue working towards setting up our independent institution.

It would certainly grease the wheels better than the £10K we now receive between us, although it would not go far towards setting up and running an academic institution, in which to commence our proper forty-year academic careers.

When I was at the Society for Psychical Research in the early sixties, ‘graduated contributions’ were deducted from my tiny salary and I was sent pieces of paper telling me that I would receive so many pence a year extra (earnings-related) pension one day.

This certainly gave the impression that the eventual pension was supposed to be comparable with that provided by a commercial contributory scheme, as did the fact that businesses could only ‘contract out’ of the state pension system by setting up a really generous and well-run alternative.

What does it matter what impression was given, or even what statements were made? The idea lapsed long ago that an individual needed to know what was legal and what was not, so that he could plan his affairs in view of his own interests as he conceived them to be.

Arthur Seldon, discussing a 1957 report entitled ‘National Superannuation’, says:

The new graduated pension was not designed to have a financial fund, as those on which occupational schemes are based. Then what was to be the pensioner’s guarantee? ‘... confidence can be placed in the survival in perpetuity of a government in Britain.’ From a political scientist of Mr. Crossman’s stature, this is a claim that not everyone will accept ... ‘The State,’ said Aneurin Bevan in 1954, ‘is a sovereign body and can alter the terms of the contract when it wishes without asking anybody. It did in 1931, and it has done it over and over again.’ (Arthur Seldon, The Great Pensions ‘ Swindle’, 1970, pp. 67-68.)

The relevant departments of my unfunded independent university are effectively censored and suppressed. They have been prevented for decades from publishing analyses of the complex issues involved, while misleading and tendentious representations of them have continued to flood out from socially recognised sources. I hereby apply, for financial support on a scale at least adequate for one active and fully financed university research department, to all universities, and to corporations or individuals who consider themselves to be in a position to give support to socially recognised academic establishments.

A Hero of Our Time

From time to time, pieces of research are published by universities, or statements are made by journalists, suggesting that compassion is a fundamental piece of psychology, hardwired into human behaviour, and that ‘individualism’ overrides the fundamental human need for group solidarity. At the same time, modern novels frequently portray people behaving badly towards one another, although the authors are usually identified with left-wing ideology.

A remarkably realistic portrayal of human psychology is found in a novel by Mikhail Lermontov, a pre-communist Russian writer. Lermontov was probably himself moving towards a socialist position, having sufficiently offended the Tsar by his criticisms of conditions of living in Russia to be sent into exile in the Ukraine. Lermontov was clearly IQ-ful as well as upper-class, having lived on his grandmother’s estate as a boy and made use of the extensive library to read widely, in English, French and German, as well as Russian.

In his novel A Hero of Our Time, the narrator is a Russian officer who, as he passes from place to place, needs at one stage to take lodgings in a certain house in a very poor and rundown village on the seashore. In this house, which has a bad reputation, he finds living an old lady, a blind orphan boy who has been taken in and supported (presumably for his usefulness in fetching and carrying, in spite of his blindness) and a fey and sexy young woman (described as a ‘daughter of the sea’).

The Russian officer becomes curious and inquisitive about what is going on, and discovers that the household is engaged in, and supported by, a contraband operation which involves sea-borne visits from the young woman’s boyfriend. The woman becomes afraid that the Russian officer knows too much and may inform on them, so she tells her boyfriend (Yanko), and the whole smuggling operation breaks up. This is the final conversation between Yanko, his girlfriend, and the blind boy, overheard by the Russian officer in hiding (my translation):

“Listen, blind boy!”said Yanko “Tell ... that I won’t work for him any more. Things have turned out badly and he won’t see me any more. And tell him, if he had paid me better for my hard work, then I might not have left him. He will not be able to find anyone as intrepid as me.”

After a silence Yanko continued: “She [the young woman] is coming with me, she can’t stay here. Tell the old woman from me that it is time for her to die, she has lived a long time, one must know when it is time to end one’s life. She won’t see either of us again.”

“And me?” said the blind boy, in a voice that harrowed me.

“And what are you to me?” was the reply. ... he put something in the boy’s hand and said, “Well, buy yourself a cake.”

“Only that?” said the blind boy.

“What more could you expect?”

I heard coins ring on the stones. The blind boy did not pick them up ... the boat vanished across the sea ... I started to hear what sounded like a person crying, and realised that it was in fact the blind boy crying, and crying, crying ... I was deeply moved.

Then the narrator of the story gets his chance to leave the village where he has been forced to stay. He never knows what became of the old woman or the blind boy. The episode concludes with some disclaimers on the lines of “What business is it of mine to concern myself with human happiness and misfortune ... What fate threw me into a group of honest smugglers whom I obstructed and disturbed like a stone thrown into quiet waters?”

It seems to be a paradoxical feature of modern literature that modern writers, fully aware of the modern socialist ideology which surrounds them, and apparently in complete sympathy with it, simultaneously present human nature in their works of fiction as quite the opposite of compassionate. Their awareness of the unpleasant realities of human psychology seems not to affect their commitment to a world view which depends on believing otherwise, nor indeed to their implicit demand that others commit to it too. In fact, this may appear as a psychological syndrome, in which apparently incompatible features arise from the same underlying motivation.

But Lermontov, in spite of any incipient socialist ideas which he may have had, was living in a pre-communist society. So the psychological syndrome involved in his describing human interactions with such cynical realism was not exactly the same.

Brief analyses such as these should be being expanded into research papers, but this is unlikely to happen unless Oxford Forum is supported.

Local oppressors: so much better

The Mail led the way in highlighting how NICE, the Government’s drugs rationing body, was denying life-prolonging treatments to cancer patients purely on the grounds of cost. ... Of course, the NHS does not have unlimited funds, and on occasion patients must be told No – however heartbreaking this may be. But these decisions must be taken by doctors who know the person best. Not by bureaucrats sat in regional offices. (‘One more injustice’, editorial page, Daily Mail, 21 November 2010. )

And how is that supposed to help? Instead of an explicit universal prohibition, a subjective decision will be made by ‘your’ doctor who has his own reasons for knowing how much he will enjoy depriving you of something you will really suffer from not having. He may know that you are middle-class, send your children to non-state schools, have a high IQ, and so on. Just how much each individual doctor hates a particular characteristic is variable, but I do not see any advantage in that.

Better to have a blanket prohibition based on some objective criterion, however arbitrary, and to have to pay to get the refused treatment if you do not qualify. You are over the age of 57, or you are over 6 foot tall? Then you do not qualify for the free medication, and can only get it by paying for it. Actually it is quite likely that many of those refused the treatment would be willing and able to do so, as they would be more likely to fall into the category of bourgeois over-achievers or intellectuals, who are more likely to be refused things than those who are regarded as acceptably down and out.

There is certainly no advantage to the individual in having decisions about himself made by members of the local community who think they know him well, compared to having them made at a distance by bureaucrats. It is not that the latter are likely to be well-intentioned towards him, but that the damage which is intended can be more accurately directed by members of the local community, including one’s ‘own’ doctor.

In my own case, I was prevented from taking advantage of the legal possibility of taking exams (including degrees) before the ‘normal’ age, by the hostility of the local community, including some relatives, who knew too much about my father and myself.

The most I ask of society is that it should express the will of the majority in a blind and imperfect way. That would at least give one a sporting chance of survival. (Celia Green, The Decline and Fall of Science, 1976, p. 173)

A very poor deal

The Great Pensions ‘Swindle’ by Arthur Seldon (*) was published in 1970. I have never found this book at all easy to read, as Arthur Seldon was himself a politician and finds various arguments for and against different forms of taxation and redistribution far more meaningful than I do, as they depend on many unexamined assumptions.

However, in the course of discussing some past debates, he draws attention to two fundamental weaknesses in the state pensions system.

(1) That universal pensions could not be affordable at the proposed level if the annual out-payments had to be taken from taxation on a year-by-year basis, i.e. if no cumulative fund were built up to provide a capital basis, out of the income of which pension payments would be made.

Beveridge, in 1941, said at one point:

“It seemed to me right to make pensions as of right ... genuinely contributory; for pensions there must be a substantial period of contribution.”

The “substantial period” he recommended in the Report was 20 years. This advice [i.e. to build up a fund] was ignored. (p. 58)

People were misled, at least initially, into believing that they were paying into a contributory scheme, and that what they eventually received would reflect what they paid in.

However, Arthur Seldon’s book makes it clear that this was never in line with the ideas of many politicians. Should people be able to get better state pensions by contributing more? That was a controversial idea even then, and by now surely few would support it openly.

(2) The other way in which the state pension scheme was always a swindle (on the electorate by the government) was that the contributions paid in would have been enough to pay for much higher pensions. People are seldom aware of the potency of compounding interest, and if money is invested and the interest ploughed back as increments to the original capital, over a period of years the original capital is multiplied by a factor which is surprising to the unsophisticated.

I have done a rough calculation of this effect, and it comes out that if you save one tenth of your salary (assumed constant for simplicity) for 40 out of 45 years, compounded at 5%, then at the end you will have saved a capital sum capable of generating (at 5%) about 75% of your salary in perpetuity. By contrast, what the state currently takes in as National Insurance contributions is well in excess of 10% of people’s salaries, whereas the basic state pension it pays out is equal to only about 20% of the average national wage.

In 1970, Seldon’s comments on the Crossman scheme which was then proposed, included the following:

The only thing that is clear is that most people would be paying, as tax-payers and consumers, more than they think they would as employees. Young people especially will be paying in contributions for 30 or 40 years that could have brought them really high pensions if invested at high yields of interest. (p. 78)

The relevant departments of my unfunded independent university are effectively censored and suppressed. They have been prevented for decades from publishing analyses of the complex issues involved, while misleading and tendentious representations of them have continued to flood out from socially recognised sources. I hereby apply, for financial support on a scale at least adequate for one active and fully financed university research department, to all universities, and to corporations or individuals who consider themselves to be in a position to give support to socially recognised academic establishments.

*Arthur Seldon, The Great Pensions ‘Swindle’, Tom Stacey Books, 1970

The pensions swindle and euthanasia

The Daily Mail is working on the idea that we should not want to live beyond a certain age and should be pleased for the qualified sadists (medical doctors) to do us in when they think fit. Cilla Black does not want to live beyond the age of 75, it is said, and now Max Hastings comes out with ‘Thanks to medical science, most are in better shape than any previous generation of our age.’

The idea is, no doubt, that it is on account of ‘medical science’ that one in six will become a centenarian. If I get there it will certainly not be on account of 'medical science, as I have always shunned the medical ‘profession’, which has become ever more stupid, unprincipled and sadistic over my lifetime (as I gather from accounts of other people’s experiences).

When IQ was admitted to exist, it was also admitted that high IQ was correlated with longevity, whether as a result of genetic factors or because people with a realistic and forethoughtful approach to life were more likely to avoid the hazards that often led to death at earlier ages.

Most of us would say that we shall not want to continue if we lose our minds: it is tragic to see very old people who have lost contact with reality vegetating for years in the lounge of a care home, head drooping or staring blankly into space. The irony is that when we reach this state, we become incapable of making rational decisions about our own future or anything else.

Better by far (in my opinion) to have no ‘care homes’ at all, at least none financed by the state. What happened before the onset of the Welfare State was that if a person became too dysfunctional to support himself, and had not enough savings of his own or supportive relatives, then he succumbed to adverse conditions and was found dead at home or on the streets without having fallen into the clutches of the medical ‘profession’. Conscious or subconscious motivation of his own may have gone into his failure to provide for and protect himself, but he was not, on the whole, exposed to having decisions made for him by doctors concerning whether it was in his interests to go on living.

No doubt there is a hidden link to the pensions swindle here. Governments do not wish to go on paying the pensions that people were promised, so they need people to agree to euthanasia. Journalists such as Max Hastings, or entertainers such as Cilla Black, must therefore give a strong hint to the population that it would be sensible to let doctors pull the plug when deemed appropriate. They must provide a (notional) example to others by saying they might choose this option for themselves, though they need not necessarily stick to their suggestion when it actually comes to it. I believe it is what modern politicians and economists would call ‘a nudge’.

After two-thirds of a century of Welfare State ideology more people than ever before are reaching the age of 100. They live longer because, among other things, they are provided with money to buy food whether they could otherwise pay for it themselves or not, and medical treatment for all diseases, including obesity and alcoholism, whether or not they could or would pay for it themselves. Also they are prevented by legislation from exposing themselves to various risks which they might not themselves have avoided. And so they are at less of a disadvantage in comparison with the few who would live to a hundred anyway on account of high IQs and/or realism and forethought. Doesn’t that sound fair?

But then, having protected the dysfunctional from the consequences of their accident-prone ways of life, there is too large a population to be provided for out of taxation, so all must have their life-span curtailed, including those who are still functional and would have been so anyway. What could be fairer than that?

From cradle to grave – the social workers will be waiting to whip away your baby if they think there is a risk you will not look after it in the right way; the doctors will be waiting to put you down if they think you would prefer not to go on living, or would prefer not to if you had the right attitudes.

Socialism is incompatible with individual liberty. Capitalism alone protects it.