Losing Authority

H/T to Churchmouse in the comments about this in the Boiling Frog:

The European Union will next year intensify the smoking laws. “Will be the target of new legislation on tobacco products, smoking, making in all EU countries less attractive and less harmful,” said the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Affairs, John Dalli, 62, WELT ONLINE. “We must strengthen our efforts in the fight against smoking. The ideal is a smoke-free Europe, “the conservative politician from Malta.

The Commissioner proposes “a significant reduction of toxic and addictive ingredients in cigarettes, like nicotine” in front. He also think about it, cigarettes make it even harder to access, they may be issued by not more visible in a store. He praised the ban on the sale of cigarettes in Britain’s supermarkets in 2011 as “exemplary.” The Commissioner further said: “Even changes in cigarette packaging are desirable: the more uniform and bland, the cigarette packaging, the better.

It’s news to me that cigarette sales are going to be banned in supermarkets. I’d not heard that before. Is it true? I don’t know. But it sounds like the sort of thing they’d do. After all, if you can ban smoking in pubs for the sake of people’s ‘health’, it’s going to be no trouble to ban the sale of tobacco in supermarkets. The supermarket bosses will agree as readily as the pub chains. They’ll just want a ‘level playing field’ so that all the supermarkets suffer equally.

A few years ago, I was quite pro-European. Happy family of nations, and all that. Bulwark against European wars, etc. But now, as EU totalitarian dictatorship spreads across the whole of Europe, I’ve come to hate the EU. And to fear that it might itself become the cause of the kind of European civil war it was supposed to prevent. A civil war – or revolution – when people all over Europe have simply had enough of these obnoxious bullying bastards, many of whom are unelected.

The EU parliament voted through a Europe-wide smoking last year. And that’s obscene. It’s no business of theirs to make Europe-wide decisions about the private behaviour of Europeans. And it is a blow struck at the smokers of Europe, who comprise about a third of the population. It hasn’t been put into effect yet, however, as far as I know.

I think they have misunderstood the nature of authority. It is not, as they seem to think, an entirely one-way street, with them issuing the orders, and everyone else obeying them. Authority is a two-way street. The governed must consent to be governed. And they may withdraw their consent at any time.

When, for example, students sit and listen to a teacher who is writing equations about differential calculus on a blackboard, it is because they have granted him the authority to do so. They have placed their trust in him, because they believe that he knows more than they do about such mathematics. They don’t do so simply because he’s a professor of mathematics, and has been authorised to teach by the university or school. The authority does not come from above, but from below. For if the students should begin to think that their teacher knows next to nothing about calculus, or is teaching them nonsense, or is otherwise abusing his authority, they will refuse to pay attention to him. They will refuse to be taught. And even if they are forced to attend his lectures, they will disregard everything he says.

Even in an army, the same is true. Soldiers in an army will willingly obey generals whom they regard as being competent, and who they believe have their interests at heart. They will at best unwillingly obey generals whom they regard as incompetent and careless. They may even mutiny against them. In this manner authority collapses.

These days we are witnessing the growing collapse of authority of many kinds. It’s not just arbitrary, vindictive laws like the EU smoking and tobacco bans that are bringing political authority into question. It’s also that scientific authority is being called into question in respect of climate science. And that medical authority is being called into question about the dangers of secondhand tobacco smoke. Scientific and medical authorities have been found to be lying, making stuff up, in order to further a political agenda. And so belief and trust are disappearing. And with it, authority.

Climate scientists seem to believe that the general public has some sort of obligation to accept their findings as authoritative. But nobody is obliged to believe them. And increasing numbers of people don’t believe them. Senior doctors equally seem to believe that their authoritative declarations in respect of active and passive smoking, and other lifestyle health issues, is something that ordinary people should accept unhesitatingly. But there is no reason why people should accept uncritically their findings any more than they should accept climate science.

We are watching a growing and widening collapse of authority, as growing numbers of people are withdrawing their trust and belief in formerly trusted institutions. It is a loss of trust which is likely to be progressive. Once people cease to trust doctors and scientists and politicians in one respect, they are very likely to distrust everything else they say, and to extend that distrust to other bodies and institutions.

When trust goes, people stop listening to those they distrust. They actively ignore them. People will switch off.

There’s going to be a complete breakdown of communication between government and people. Nobody will want to know what the bastards are thinking. Nobody will want to hear their latest edicts.

I heard that somebody called Andrew Marr has been denigrating the blogosphere. Who the hell is Andrew Marr? Some totalitarian bureaucrat in the mainstream media, I think. Why does anyone bother to take notice of him? I don’t. Because I don’t watch the MSM any more. I don’t want to know what those bastards think. The real debate (and the only debate) is on the blogosphere.

P.S. The Boiling Frog suggested you make your feelings known to the EU commissioner running an online consultation about how to screw smokers even harder. I know that’s what they want to do, because none of the checkboxes on it allowed for any relaxation or easing off. But I made my feelings known all the same. Not that they give a damn what I think, or anyone else thinks.

About the archivist

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Losing Authority

  1. Anonymous says:

    It means the proposed ban on tobacco displays – don’t wet yourself now.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It means the proposed ban on tobacco displays – don’t wet yourself now.

  3. Frank Davis says:

    That’s not what it says!
    Frank

  4. Frank Davis says:

    That’s not what it says!
    Frank

  5. Anonymous says:

    I thought he’d been misinterpreted too, Pubc, nevertheless they can make life really difficult (see previous thread – only slightly tongue-in-cheek).
    I’ve always been pro-Europe but anti-EU: if there is a genuine spirit of willingness between peoples it seems to me that it’s useful to have a group of leaders talking to each other but unnecessary to formalise this in yet another tier of government, especially one which has pan-European sovereign power. I read somewhere recently that the EU was deliberately engineered to position Germany as a force to again be reckoned with. Perhaps more clued-up people than myself could evaluate that idea.
    What I find really incredible, given the lack of reaction to the erosion of liberty and democracy especially in the last 13 years, is that England had a civil war. There again, comfort makes people acquiesant and the English Civil War, although fuelled by other issues, was sparked by economic concerns. I wonder what will happen in our new age of austerity. Our issues aren’t those of the 17th Century; probably the most recent time that we’ve had to knuckle-down was during WW2 – except today we don’t have a common enemy or the values of that time. There was a programme on R4 not long ago in which an articulate man (who sounded in his 30s) said that there’s going to be trouble when young people realise that they’re to be expected to look after old people. It seemed to have totally escaped him that those old people had paid taxes from which he’d benefitted and that one day he’d be old and dependant on younger people! Such is NuLabour’s legacy of ‘entitlement’. Will we pull together or will the divisions that have been created in our society widen ever deeper?
    Interesting times ahead.
    Jay

  6. Anonymous says:

    I thought he’d been misinterpreted too, Pubc, nevertheless they can make life really difficult (see previous thread – only slightly tongue-in-cheek).
    I’ve always been pro-Europe but anti-EU: if there is a genuine spirit of willingness between peoples it seems to me that it’s useful to have a group of leaders talking to each other but unnecessary to formalise this in yet another tier of government, especially one which has pan-European sovereign power. I read somewhere recently that the EU was deliberately engineered to position Germany as a force to again be reckoned with. Perhaps more clued-up people than myself could evaluate that idea.
    What I find really incredible, given the lack of reaction to the erosion of liberty and democracy especially in the last 13 years, is that England had a civil war. There again, comfort makes people acquiesant and the English Civil War, although fuelled by other issues, was sparked by economic concerns. I wonder what will happen in our new age of austerity. Our issues aren’t those of the 17th Century; probably the most recent time that we’ve had to knuckle-down was during WW2 – except today we don’t have a common enemy or the values of that time. There was a programme on R4 not long ago in which an articulate man (who sounded in his 30s) said that there’s going to be trouble when young people realise that they’re to be expected to look after old people. It seemed to have totally escaped him that those old people had paid taxes from which he’d benefitted and that one day he’d be old and dependant on younger people! Such is NuLabour’s legacy of ‘entitlement’. Will we pull together or will the divisions that have been created in our society widen ever deeper?
    Interesting times ahead.
    Jay

  7. Anonymous says:

    I vented my spleen on that EU consulation :-)
    The Man with Many Chins (anonymong as I cant get anything else to work…)

  8. Anonymous says:

    I vented my spleen on that EU consulation :-)
    The Man with Many Chins (anonymong as I cant get anything else to work…)

  9. Anonymous says:

    Thank you, Frank
    … for bringing this out into the open.
    These chaps are always several steps ahead of the game, like a chess master. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest, although I hope it is only what Pub Curmudgeon says, i.e. about the displays.
    To Jay, sadly, I think we will become further segmented and generations in the same family will eventually turn against each other. Wasn’t it the (Tory) Willetts (?) whose book on greedy Baby Boomers came out earlier this year who rounded on that generation for providing for themselves, as he forgot or minimised that they also contributed much in tax over the decades they worked?
    Yes, ‘interesting times’ lie ahead. Unfortunately, I never thought we would have to live through them. I’ll have a post up on this topic late Thursday p.m. (BST) which will be up through Friday. Because of our education and media, we have become densitised to social engineering over the decades.
    All the best
    Churchmouse

  10. Anonymous says:

    Thank you, Frank
    … for bringing this out into the open.
    These chaps are always several steps ahead of the game, like a chess master. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest, although I hope it is only what Pub Curmudgeon says, i.e. about the displays.
    To Jay, sadly, I think we will become further segmented and generations in the same family will eventually turn against each other. Wasn’t it the (Tory) Willetts (?) whose book on greedy Baby Boomers came out earlier this year who rounded on that generation for providing for themselves, as he forgot or minimised that they also contributed much in tax over the decades they worked?
    Yes, ‘interesting times’ lie ahead. Unfortunately, I never thought we would have to live through them. I’ll have a post up on this topic late Thursday p.m. (BST) which will be up through Friday. Because of our education and media, we have become densitised to social engineering over the decades.
    All the best
    Churchmouse

  11. Anonymous says:

    MPs reject David Nuttall’s bill
    From Taking Liberties:
    http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/taking-liberties/2010/10/13/mps-reject-david-nuttall-bill.html#comments
    ‘Ayes 86
    Noes 141
    Majority 55’
    Not bad!
    Guido says:
    http://order-order.com/
    ‘… This was a mere lone backbencher’s campaign thrown together hastily on the luck of a draw. With a coordinated movement within the coalition who knows what could happen…’
    Churchmouse

  12. Anonymous says:

    MPs reject David Nuttall’s bill
    From Taking Liberties:
    http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/taking-liberties/2010/10/13/mps-reject-david-nuttall-bill.html#comments
    ‘Ayes 86
    Noes 141
    Majority 55’
    Not bad!
    Guido says:
    http://order-order.com/
    ‘… This was a mere lone backbencher’s campaign thrown together hastily on the luck of a draw. With a coordinated movement within the coalition who knows what could happen…’
    Churchmouse

  13. Anonymous says:

    I watched the debate, it was most interesting.
    Mr Nuttall was calm and authoritative, his opponent appeared red faced and flustered, he seemed to stutter and get confused,spouted ASH propaganda and repeated all the thoroughly debunked heart miracles, I couldn’t decide if it was rage or nerves.
    The most interesting thing was they could only wheel out 141 to crush the motion, I can only assume the rest were watching to see how it went, with 86 prepared to stand up and support, they may feel more confident another time.
    Now I can understand that some MP’s voted for the ban on ASH’s assurances of no loss of business, huge public support etc.etc.
    But now they know the depths of the continuing catastrophe.
    The really interesting thing is that even knowing all that, 141 MP’s have voted for the continuing isolation of pensioners and the infirm, and publicly approved of shelters 50% open to the elements for smoking humans and their friends, when apparently pigs must have 95% shelter by law.
    Best of all, they are going to be named.
    I daresay that their constituents thus insulted, may have a thing or two to say.
    Rose

  14. Anonymous says:

    I watched the debate, it was most interesting.
    Mr Nuttall was calm and authoritative, his opponent appeared red faced and flustered, he seemed to stutter and get confused,spouted ASH propaganda and repeated all the thoroughly debunked heart miracles, I couldn’t decide if it was rage or nerves.
    The most interesting thing was they could only wheel out 141 to crush the motion, I can only assume the rest were watching to see how it went, with 86 prepared to stand up and support, they may feel more confident another time.
    Now I can understand that some MP’s voted for the ban on ASH’s assurances of no loss of business, huge public support etc.etc.
    But now they know the depths of the continuing catastrophe.
    The really interesting thing is that even knowing all that, 141 MP’s have voted for the continuing isolation of pensioners and the infirm, and publicly approved of shelters 50% open to the elements for smoking humans and their friends, when apparently pigs must have 95% shelter by law.
    Best of all, they are going to be named.
    I daresay that their constituents thus insulted, may have a thing or two to say.
    Rose

  15. Frank Davis says:

    Very interesting. The vote in 2006 was 452 to 125, a majority of 327, and a ratio of 3.62 to 1.
    Today’s vote of 141 to 86 was a majority of 55 and a ratio of 1.64 to 1. A total of 227 MPs voted. A 35% turn-out.
    It certainly appears that parliamentary support for the ban has eased quite a lot. Increasing numbers of MPs appear to realise that they were duped by ASH, using a “confidence trick”.
    I’ll be interested to see what was said. I suppose that it’ll all get put up on the Public Whip and/or They Work For You. I wrote to my MP asking him to support it. Got no reply. It’ll be interesting to see if he voted.
    Interesting that, among the bloggers, not only Guido Fawkes but also Iain Dale seems to have supported an amendment.
    Frank

  16. Frank Davis says:

    Very interesting. The vote in 2006 was 452 to 125, a majority of 327, and a ratio of 3.62 to 1.
    Today’s vote of 141 to 86 was a majority of 55 and a ratio of 1.64 to 1. A total of 227 MPs voted. A 35% turn-out.
    It certainly appears that parliamentary support for the ban has eased quite a lot. Increasing numbers of MPs appear to realise that they were duped by ASH, using a “confidence trick”.
    I’ll be interested to see what was said. I suppose that it’ll all get put up on the Public Whip and/or They Work For You. I wrote to my MP asking him to support it. Got no reply. It’ll be interesting to see if he voted.
    Interesting that, among the bloggers, not only Guido Fawkes but also Iain Dale seems to have supported an amendment.
    Frank

  17. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Thank you, Frank
    It does seem rather uncertain that this supermarket ban is real, judging from the comments. But it’s the sort of the thing the antis are likely to start demanding.
    Frank

  18. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Thank you, Frank
    It does seem rather uncertain that this supermarket ban is real, judging from the comments. But it’s the sort of the thing the antis are likely to start demanding.
    Frank

  19. Frank Davis says:

    P.S. As for the 141 who voted to retain the ban, perhaps I might put their names up on my blog. “141 bastards”?
    Frank

  20. Frank Davis says:

    P.S. As for the 141 who voted to retain the ban, perhaps I might put their names up on my blog. “141 bastards”?
    Frank

  21. Anonymous says:

    Wonder if it would be a good idea if people wrote to the 86 to thank them. A bulging inbox on the issue would indicate the strength of support and encourage them.
    Jay

  22. Anonymous says:

    Wonder if it would be a good idea if people wrote to the 86 to thank them. A bulging inbox on the issue would indicate the strength of support and encourage them.
    Jay

  23. Anonymous says:

    I could do with seeing a copy of Kevin Barron’s speech.
    I can’t remember the exact words but I’m sure he mentioned Denormalisation.
    As I strongly suspect that the average member of the public has no idea that all this was part of a deliberate campaign to turn them, their friends and relatives, anyone who smokes into social outcasts, it was very unwise to mention it on a live broadcast.
    After all, we don’t do that sort of thing in this country.
    Rose

  24. Anonymous says:

    I could do with seeing a copy of Kevin Barron’s speech.
    I can’t remember the exact words but I’m sure he mentioned Denormalisation.
    As I strongly suspect that the average member of the public has no idea that all this was part of a deliberate campaign to turn them, their friends and relatives, anyone who smokes into social outcasts, it was very unwise to mention it on a live broadcast.
    After all, we don’t do that sort of thing in this country.
    Rose

  25. Anonymous says:

    Bastards is non specific.
    How about something along the lines of – the 141 who could have helped to stop the social disintegration of England, but chose to perpetuate it.
    I’m sure you could word it better.
    Rose

  26. Anonymous says:

    Bastards is non specific.
    How about something along the lines of – the 141 who could have helped to stop the social disintegration of England, but chose to perpetuate it.
    I’m sure you could word it better.
    Rose

  27. Anonymous says:

    “That’s been the debate in this house for certainly the decades that I’ve been a member of it and something that I’ve often argued in this house to take legislation to denormalise smoking”.
    The incoherent grammar may be from the John Prescott school of public speaking, but the meaning behind it is clear: he’s a lying, bullshitting anti-smoking nutter.
    Rick S

  28. Anonymous says:

    “That’s been the debate in this house for certainly the decades that I’ve been a member of it and something that I’ve often argued in this house to take legislation to denormalise smoking”.
    The incoherent grammar may be from the John Prescott school of public speaking, but the meaning behind it is clear: he’s a lying, bullshitting anti-smoking nutter.
    Rick S

  29. Anonymous says:

    Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry -2008
    “However, internationally, the term is also used to encompass efforts challenging notions that smoking ought to be regarded as routine or normal, particularly in public settings.
    Hammond et al state that “social denormalisation” strategies seek “to change the broad social norms around using tobacco—to push tobacco use out of the charmed circle of normal, desirable practice to being an abnormal practice”.
    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25.full
    Ways to embarrass a smoker to quit
    “According to a recent study conducted by the University of Sydney Department of Psychology, embarrassing a smoker by talking of the smell that lingers with smokers after a ciggie break can prove to be a better way to push them towards quitting rather than discussing about tobacco-related diseases.
    Explains psychiatrist Dr. Sameer Parekh, “Quitting smoking is a problem that needs a three-way treatment. First educate the smoker on the biological, psychological and social benefits/harms of quitting/not quitting the habit.
    Embarrassing them constitutes one of the psychological measures.”
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4635216.cms
    “Some ministers are known to sympathise with the concerns being raised about the point-of-sale ban and fear that such a move, especially in a recession, could be unwise and unpopular.
    However, health ministers say it will prove a key weapon in their efforts to “de-normalise” tobacco, reduce the number of smokers and build on the success of the 2007 ban on smoking in public places.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/11/labour-rebellion-tobacco-shops-bill
    “reduce the number of smokers”
    Presumably that’s why there is no exemption for the elderly and the sick.
    Rose

  30. Anonymous says:

    Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry -2008
    “However, internationally, the term is also used to encompass efforts challenging notions that smoking ought to be regarded as routine or normal, particularly in public settings.
    Hammond et al state that “social denormalisation” strategies seek “to change the broad social norms around using tobacco—to push tobacco use out of the charmed circle of normal, desirable practice to being an abnormal practice”.
    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25.full
    Ways to embarrass a smoker to quit
    “According to a recent study conducted by the University of Sydney Department of Psychology, embarrassing a smoker by talking of the smell that lingers with smokers after a ciggie break can prove to be a better way to push them towards quitting rather than discussing about tobacco-related diseases.
    Explains psychiatrist Dr. Sameer Parekh, “Quitting smoking is a problem that needs a three-way treatment. First educate the smoker on the biological, psychological and social benefits/harms of quitting/not quitting the habit.
    Embarrassing them constitutes one of the psychological measures.”
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4635216.cms
    “Some ministers are known to sympathise with the concerns being raised about the point-of-sale ban and fear that such a move, especially in a recession, could be unwise and unpopular.
    However, health ministers say it will prove a key weapon in their efforts to “de-normalise” tobacco, reduce the number of smokers and build on the success of the 2007 ban on smoking in public places.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/11/labour-rebellion-tobacco-shops-bill
    “reduce the number of smokers”
    Presumably that’s why there is no exemption for the elderly and the sick.
    Rose

  31. Frank Davis says:

    BBC has a video of the Nuttall parliamentary debate here. Not sure if non-UK visitors will be able to see it.
    Frank

  32. Frank Davis says:

    BBC has a video of the Nuttall parliamentary debate here. Not sure if non-UK visitors will be able to see it.
    Frank

  33. Anonymous says:

    Great topic :)
    It is rather interesting for me to read the article. Thanks for it. I like such topics and anything connected to this matter. I would like to read a bit more on that blog soon.
    Kate Hakkinen
    escort ed accompagnatrice asiatica milano

  34. Anonymous says:

    Great topic :)
    It is rather interesting for me to read the article. Thanks for it. I like such topics and anything connected to this matter. I would like to read a bit more on that blog soon.
    Kate Hakkinen
    escort ed accompagnatrice asiatica milano

  35. Anonymous says:

    Great topic :)
    It is rather interesting for me to read the article. Thanks for it. I like such topics and anything connected to this matter. I would like to read a bit more on that blog soon.
    Kate Hakkinen
    escort ed accompagnatrice asiatica milano

  36. Anonymous says:

    Great topic :)
    It is rather interesting for me to read the article. Thanks for it. I like such topics and anything connected to this matter. I would like to read a bit more on that blog soon.
    Kate Hakkinen
    escort ed accompagnatrice asiatica milano

No need to log in

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.