The Lawless World

Pat Nurse was right: the pub smoking room proposal has been removed from UKIP’s manifesto. I suppose that it’s no surprise that this happened as soon as Nigel Farage stepped down as UKIP leader: it was probably only his personal intervention as a smoker and drinker that ensured it was in their manifesto in the first place. But it means that there’s now no UK party that speaks for me, who is also a smoker and a drinker.

But why should UKIP’s members vote for something they themselves don’t want? Isn’t the law whatever people want it to be? And so, if the city councillors of Laguna Beach want smoking to be banned everywhere, why shouldn’t it be banned, if that’s what they want?

The Laguna Beach City Council approved a ban Tuesday on smoking and vaping in all public spaces, making it the city with the strictest smoking laws in Orange County.

The new ordinance bans smoking throughout the city including sidewalks, alleys and common areas of apartment complexes.

A fine of $100 would be given for the first violation and up to $500 for the third.

The city already prohibits smoking at beaches and parks.

And if they want to ban drinking anywhere in Laguna Beach, or the colour yellow, or mini-skirts, or books, or the word “bananas”, why shouldn’t they ban them? And slap $100 fines on the first violation? Isn’t the law just the enforcement of people’s personal preferences?

I’ve got my own personal preferences about lots of things. And if I were to make my own personal preferences into law, I’d ban celery. I’d ban celery because I can’t stand celery. I can’t even stand the sight of other people eating it. And I’d ban fruitcake too. I like fruit, and I like cake, but I don’t like fruit – raisins or sultanas – inside cakes. I think it’s unnatural. So I’d ban that too. And I’d ban Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. In fact, I’d hunt down every vinyl disc or CD of it, and have them burned. It’s a stupid song that keeps turning into another stupid song. And I’d also ban Slade’s Merry Christmas Everybody. We seem to have endured this piece of music in Britain for about the last 200 years. And I think I’d ban Christmas as well, or at least the commercial spending-binge Christmas season that now seems to start in October and go on until December 25. I wouldn’t ban the religious Christmas, with all the cribs and Virgin Marys and angels and Wise Men. I’d just ban all the santas and Christmas trees and Yule Logs and snowmen and reindeer.

And why shouldn’t I just make my own personal preferences into law? Why shouldn’t I make people do what I want? After all, isn’t what I want the only thing that really matters? Isn’t it all about me, me, me, and then again – after a short pause – me? Isn’t this increasingly how laws are actually made anyway? The councillors of Laguna Beach don’t like smoking, and so they ban it. Good for them.

But if laws are to simply be people’s personal preferences, that would mean that the laws would be continually changing, as different people made their own personal preferences into law. One day smoking would be banned, the next day bubblegum, and then trousers, and then spinning tops. And as one new ban came into force, the previous bans would probably be lifted. So when the spinning top ban came into force, the trouser ban would be lifted, because whoever didn’t like spinning tops actually quite liked trousers.

And so if the law is to simply reflect personal preferences, it will become chaotic. And it will become unpredictable. People will not know what the ever-changing laws currently actually are. And if nobody knows what the laws are, it has become a lawless world.

Or what about Wildwood’s upcoming smoking ban.

What I find most obnoxious about what Wildwood is doing is while the law doesn’t start until January 1st, officials say they’ll be asking people to put out their cigarettes this summer. Really? You’re going to send your police officers up to people who aren’t yet breaking any law and ask them to stop what they’re doing? “Hey, it’s not illegal yet, I can’t do anything yet, but can you just do us this small favor and put out the cigarette anyway?”

Why bother to make your own personal preferences into law, if you can just send in the police to tell people to stop smoking (or anything else you don’t like), regardless of whether there is or isn’t any law currently in force? Why not entirely dispense with the silly business of making laws, and just get your own goon squads to enforce whatever you happen to dislike that day?

And doesn’t making lots and lots of laws, about everything and anything, also serve to debase the law? One good thing about the Ten Commandments is that there are only ten of them, and most people might (once have been) reasonably be expected to know what they are. It also helps that they are written in stone, and so can be expected to not change from time to time. But if there were Ten Thousand Commandments, who could possibly be expected to know what they all were? And when nobody knows what the law is, has not law become valueless?

A society in which laws multiply, and in which the laws represent the personal preferences of the legislators, is one which has become lawless. It could not be one in which people could possibly be law-abiding. How can people be law-abiding if they don’t know what the law is?

And what would a lawless world be like? Most likely it would be one in which brute force ruled. In London and other cities, some years ago, street gangs would mark out their territories with graffiti that read “Our Gang Rules OK” or similar. We are approaching the point where the next piece of legislation to be enacted in parliament will be appear on a small piece of paper on which is written “Tory Gang Rules OK” or “Labour Gang Rules OK.”

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to The Lawless World

  1. As luck would have it I was talking to a seemingly dedicated & active Kipper this very morn on Twatter (yes I know, but I only have it for updates from the Raccoon). Here part of one of his messages (in reply to my mentioning UKIP having sold out my community:

    “Bollocks that’s bad, had no idea. FWIW I’m from the libertarian pro smoking etc side of ukip and our kind are not represented at top any more.”

    Which ties in with what ‘Blazeaway’ (a slightly more frothy mouthed ‘kipper it seems) said yesterday over at Junicans (my bolding):
    “If a failure to scrap the smoking ban is in the UKIP manifesto – I haven’t checked yet – then the answer is for UKIP members to take up the matter.
    It will now have to be after the election.
    There may have to be a change of leader or a change of the NEC.”

    • Pat Nurse says:

      No support for smokers = no vote from smokers. Fcuk UKIP. :(

      • I was particularly narked to read in the manifesto (via Chris Snowden) that they ARE supporting Road Users as road users are ‘heavily taxed’. Yes road users are indeed but in comparison to smokers? Surely they might have supported the obscenely taxed poor old bloody smoker?
        No I’m afraid that once the cancer of Anti-Libertarianism/NannyStateism has infected an organism or organisation there is no known cure. Burn it, burn it with fire.

        • Pat Nurse says:

          It will burn itself. It has nothing to offer that other parties don’t except for hatred of Muslims. I hope ukip dies at this election.

      • smokingscot says:

        @ Pat @ BD

        Oh and this business of UKIP being single minded in its focus on getting Brexit.

        Turns out that’s been exaggerated. When the chips are down, they’re just a bunch of duplicitous turncoats.

        This article tells of UKIP supporting 1) a Labour candidate who 2) is pro the EU against a Tory candidate who favours Brexit. All in a town that voted for Brexit.

        https://order-order.com/2017/05/26/ukip-endorse-labours-ultra-remain-creagh-over-tories/

    • beobrigitte says:

      Which ties in with what ‘Blazeaway’ (a slightly more frothy mouthed ‘kipper it seems) said yesterday over at Junicans (my bolding):
      “If a failure to scrap the smoking ban is in the UKIP manifesto – I haven’t checked yet – then the answer is for UKIP members to take up the matter.
      It will now have to be after the election.

      Daedalus X. Parrot, I’m afraid it can’t wait until after the election as UKIP makes no promise to address the draconian smoking ban and I believe UKIP would fall in line with the other parties.

      Labour wants to spend money the country doesn’t have and has some hare brained ideas of how to get the cash.
      Money to go to the NHS.

      The Tories want to continue with austerity and increase the pension age to 70.
      (Either the smokers also do live longer, or old people are not healthy and it is known they suffer from “smoking-related diseases”, even if Tobacco control lobbying outlaws tobacco in the future?)
      Money to go to the NHS.

      UKIP pledges to ban the “dehumanising” burka and with that the fanatic muslims will just lock their wives into their homes. They will still come and bring with them their wives.
      I did read that all EU flags are to be removed from buildings in this country after Brexit but I did not read ANYTHING about amending the smoking ban.
      Money to go to the NHS.

      It’s fine that all want to give money to the NHS, yet NONE of the above states that getting rid of leeches (such as ASH) would free money towards the noble gesture to invest into the NHS.
      Do I care about EU flags? NO. I care about becoming a non-discriminated against member of the community again!!

      I vote (locally) for none of the above now. Thank god I’m not allowed to vote in the general election.

      Yes, I feel bitter and let down.

  2. Fredrik Eich says:

    OT,
    This lovely documentary did not try to hide the fact that this 80 year old deep sea diver
    is a smoker. Which makes a pleasant change! I highly recommend it.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5141686/

    • RdM says:

      That looks to look great, from the one review I see on IMDB. Thanks!

      OT further still…

      “Somebody has to be made responsible.”

      https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/otago-daily-times/20170525/282480003739541

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/201845139/government-being-sued-over-climate-targets

      This brainwashed deluded snowflake… ‘helped’ by other lawyers in the background, thinks NZ isn’t going far enough in its mad sacrificial pursuit of dumbing down and buying in to the CAGW meme, Paris “Agreement”, global agenda taxes, &etc.

      But search on Sarah Thomson climate and one finds it goes back to late 2015.

      • beobrigitte says:

        In the United States, an environmental law nonprofit is suing the federal government on behalf of 21 young plaintiffs. Individuals in Pakistan and New Zealand have sued to force their governments to take stronger action to fight climate change. A farmer in Peru has sued a giant German energy utility over its part in causing global warming.
        Hmmm…. correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t we (in the temperate climates) find that there have been previous ice-ages and previous tropical climates? Wouldn’t it perhaps be better to learn to adapt to our planet’s “moods” as it does what it has always done best? After all, we cannot assume that the cause for previous climate changes were always meteors hitting the planet.
        We are wasting time, money and energy on a money drain (just like tobacco control, WHO, etc.) who needs to justify it’s existence.

        • RdM says:

          Hmmm…. correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t we (in the temperate climates) find that there have been previous ice-ages and previous tropical climates? Wouldn’t it perhaps be better to learn to adapt to our planet’s “moods” as it does what it has always done best? After all, we cannot assume that the cause for previous climate changes were always meteors hitting the planet.
          We are wasting time, money and energy on a money drain (just like tobacco control, WHO, etc.) who needs to justify it’s existence.

          All perfectly sensible, and I don’t think you’re wrong.

          This issue has been picked up (with extensive comments already, a few even noting the NZ law student – who is manipulating her, I wonder?) at

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/26/crazy-litigious-climate-citizens-have-a-constitutional-right-to-a-stable-climate-system/

          Takes a little time, but reading, scrolling, scanning the comments gives some insights.
          Into American thoughts at least.
          It certainly relates back to law, lawfulness, lawlessness.

          What say all the TC and CAGW memes were (and are) expert influence campaigns?
          Who could possibly want, and engineer, the West to self-destruct itself like this?
          Gosh!

          From one of the comments there: (Just one of the minor tools, perhaps!)

          It’s called lawfare.

          “Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare, consisting of using the legal system against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory”

  3. Agree completely. All parties are in an obscene battle to outdo each other in these nannying bans, taxes and nudges to show how good they are and that we stupids must lap it up because they know better.

    But they don’t.

    Blocked Dwarf quoted me below, I am that less frothy kipper who hates the clique in UKIP that dropped the support for allowing smoking.

    I’m staying on in UKIP though because the fair-weather fake friends that joined ukip from the tories are all leaving and going back to Mummy Theresa. Most of them were the politically correct types who opposed the likes of us in the pro-smoking, libertarian anti-PC brigade. So I’m staying on to fight for reform inside UKIP. Anyone want to join me, email me at daed.parrot@gmail.com.

    By the way I will still with gritted teeth support the Tories in this one election but only for Brexit candidates though. I like many kippers are putting country before party.

    • Pat Nurse says:

      No. We have been with them since 2007. We helped them rise. They dumped us because they hate Muslims more than freedom. The working class party my arse. They want our vote and want to give us nothing in return. It is too late now. 10 years too late for those of us who already tried to get ukip to drop racist policies and become more libertarian. Those efforts are now more useful directed at the Tory party and trying to get it back to being free choice, free market Tories. There is no hope for ukip. None.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Blocked Dwarf quoted me below, I am that less frothy kipper who hates the clique in UKIP that dropped the support for allowing smoking.
      I do have a question re “Allowing smoking”. This means nothing, I’m afraid and requires elaboration.
      I was thinking in terms of amending the smoking ban. It is remarkably easy to protect the fearful of passive smoke and there are industries (eg. ventilation) benefiting, which in turn increases the government’s income by tax. No leeches.
      I’m afraid I am not a libertarian. Libertarianism comes with the responsibility to ensure the person/people you’re encountering/exploiting don’t feel hurt. Enjoy a shackled life unless you are the one deciding what “hurts” others and what not.
      I am an Egalitarian. And, in view of amending the smoking ban so we all are equal members of society again, this can be achieved easily.
      If you kicked your dog out in wind and rain the RSPCA would knock at your door. Smokers can be kicked out and the mass media applauds. Question: Are we worth LESS than a pet considering the government earns of the daily additional tax payers?

      Please elaborate on what UKIP has in mind for us and get Paul Nuttal to confirm it.

  4. Frank Davis says:

    Nigel Farage didn’t seem bothered by the absence of the smoking room proposal. Instead he didn’t like the change proposed to the licensing laws.

    http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/ukip-manifesto-policy-nigel-farage-doesnt-agree/

    • Pat Nurse says:

      Nigel Farage was a single issue politician who got what he wanted with the Brexit vote and then dumped everyone who had hope he could make this country right. He is a tosser.

  5. buckothemoose says:

    I quite like celery…

    • Frank Davis says:

      Begone, satan-worshipper!

      • castello2 says:

        Celery is the cause of climate change! :)

        • Celery is Satan’s toilet brush.
          But I disagree with Frank about raisins – they are but God’s DIY wine kit with shelf life.

        • Rose says:

          I am all for banning celery, it appears where you are not expecting to find it.
          Tomatos too unless they are made into a sauce. I hate tomatos, they promise so much and deliver so little,
          Being a nightshade vegetable, I could use anti-tobacco science to get tomatos heavily taxed if you like, or at least make the public fear them, nicotine and “tar” (solanesol)
          Tomatos were thought to be poisonous for years, so it shouldn’t be too difficult.

        • beobrigitte says:

          I’m all for banning roast lamb. It stinks the whole house out when it’s in the oven!!! I had to suffer that smell countless times!! Even when the landlord back in the early 80s cooked it in his flat downstairs!! I’m sure the stench crept through the telephone.

        • waltc says:

          Chelsea Clinton just said that childhood marriage causes it and these guys say that penises do:

          http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/#.WR970Du9nWo.facebook

        • beobrigitte says:

          Walt, Brilliant!!!! I was laughing at the impressive nonsense in big words until I reached this:
          If you’re having trouble understanding what any of that means, there are two important points to consider. First, we don’t understand it either. Nobody does. This problem should have rendered it unpublishable in all peer-reviewed, academic journals. Second, these examples are remarkably lucid compared to much of the rest of the paper. Consider this final example:
          ——-
          Inasmuch as masculinity is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual penis. The penis, in the words of Judith Butler, “can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility” (Butler, 1993). The penis should not be understood as an honest expression of the performer’s intent should it be presented in a performance of masculinity or hypermasculinity. Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what’s referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as “toxic hypermasculinity,” is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones (confer: Foucault, 1972).
          ——-
          No one knows what any of this means because it is complete nonsense. Anyone claiming to is pretending. Full stop.

          Essentially papers and impressive wording means none of the peers reviewing this paper was going to admit they didn’t understand it.
          Something like that had crossed my mind when it came to reading Tobacco Control&friends financed papers. And here your average (business degree etc.) politician is just too overwhelmed to admit that he/she hasn’t got a clue of what is written.
          Looks like this applies to the medical profession as well?

        • smokingscot says:

          Why on earth have none of you mentioned liver? Awful smell and taste. So bad it can only be eaten with fried bacon or fried onions – and they doth pong too.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Smokingscot, there is nothing wrong with liver. And sour pig’s kidneys with Spaetzle are just a treat!!!

          Lamb in the oven is the devil’s work!!!

    • Joe L. says:

      Celery isn’t all that bad (not to mention it’s quite essential in a mirepoix), and I don’t mind Bohemian Rhapsody. Is it overplayed? Yes. Is it Queen’s best song? No. However, there are countless worse songs more deserved of a ban. Off the top of my head, anything by Bob Geldof. In fact, I think even he wouldn’t mind.

  6. Emily Wieja says:

    What about raisins in cookies (I think you Brits call them biscuits)?

    • beobrigitte says:

      What about raisins in cookies (I think you Brits call them biscuits)?
      I think the British call any sweet little things you eat, dipping into a cup of tea, biscuits.
      I’ve become quite partial to this custom, too. I like all of them, except the ginger ones.
      Ban ginger?

      • Frank Davis says:

        the British call any sweet little things you eat, dipping into a cup of tea, biscuits.

        Also known as dunking.

        In fact, I seldom dunk my biscuits, because they have a tendency to completely dissolve and leave a biscuit deposit at the bottom of the tea cup (or mug).

        I like all of them, except the ginger ones.

        The ginger ones are the only ones that don’t completely dissolve.

        I believe that Americans don’t dunk biscuits (or cookies as they call them). Instead they dunk doughnuts (or donuts), probably in coffee. I’ve never seen anyone dunk a donut. They’re quite large. And I can only suppose that they cram the donut into the coffee mug, where it gets wedged in, and can’t be got out again. But what do I know?

        • Emily Wieja says:

          American youngsters dunk cookies in glasses of milk! And I have observed the dunking of donuts in coffee- the technique is to dunk a little, take a bite, then keep dunking just a bit of the donut so it doesn’t get stuck.

          I have also heard of dunking pizza crusts in soda (or tonic as they call it in Boston.)

  7. inmate000003 says:

    “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
    Ayn Rand

    No more need be said.

  8. Tony says:

    I’m seriously disappointed by UKIP’s betrayal though I’m afraid I don’t really have any influence. They have (probably) lost my support.

    I do happen to know that there are several smokers amongst the senior ranks of UKIP. Unfortunately, some may of the ‘guilty smoker’ variety. One of them once said to me that he was ‘popping out to feed my addiction’ and clearly wasn’t interested in anything I had to say on the subject, which I found disturbing at the time.

    I have mentioned this before but Paul Nuttall was against the smoking ban when I met him at the HOC Forest event in 2011. He was accompanied by Nick Hogan.

    My guess is that Susan Evans is the principle malign influence in this. I don’t even understand how she can remain in the party let alone be deputy leader. She was, after all, a full time employee of that turncoat Carswell. Presumably he sacked her when he left UKIP though I don’t actually know.

    Odd that Nigel Farage has not spoken out as yet. It may be my imagination but a few days ago I thought a caller to Nigel’s radio show was about to mention the subject just before she was cut off. It sounded as though the call had been edited out because the normal ‘thank you for your call’ formalities were missing. Maybe I’m paranoid but I suspect LBC have banned any mention of smoking. Probably because they’d lose government and pharmaceutical advertising if any heresies were spoken on air.

  9. Tony says:

    Despite my intense disappointment with UKIP I still feel obliged to defend against accusations of hating muslims. They are against extreme Islam but certainly not muslims as a whole. In fact I think they are running too scared of the PC enforcement brigade. For example in forbidding Anne Marie Waters from standing for election. She has very robust views but is certainly not mad, bad or racist (Islam is not a race anyway). She was a prominent member of the National Secular Society until it became politicised by the ruling elite. She is critical of all religions.
    I’ve met her a few times. She’s very pleasant, softly spoken, highly knowledgeable and the answer to Frank’s question is yes.

  10. Paul says:

    As for me,: my membership runs out on 31 May. I vote for less Islam, lower taxes and from EU. If UKIP can’t offer me that I am not interested.

    I am a non smoker but I long to see smoking in pubs again. The present UKIP leadership is a waste of time.

  11. waltc says:

    Instead of just not voting ukip, why don’t you all flood their hq with calls and letters telling them why you won’t? That at least would be constructive.

    And my post above–that turned up way below what I was referring to–was about the cause of global warming.

    I want to ban the robots who answer phonecalls to corporations, the music they put you through while you’re on Hold, and the sale of sauerkraut by street vendors. It really stinks up the street and I have to light a cigarette to counter the smell.

  12. waltc says:

    I just now read this stunning article which pretty much says what Frank said but, tho it tacitly makes a case for Brexit, tacitly holds not much hope for it either. We might have to rethink “No man is an island” and consider becoming islands

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/04/19/the-american-experiment-in-liberty-has-failed/#221a66184e2d

    • Frank Davis says:

      The greatest fear of America’s Founding Fathers has been realized: The U.S. Constitution has been unable to thwart the corrosive dynamics of majority-rule democracy, which in turn has mangled the Constitution beyond recognition. The real conclusion of the American Experiment is that democracy ultimately undermines liberty and leads to tyranny and oppression by elected leaders and judges, their cronies and unelected bureaucrats. All of this is done in the name of “the people” and the “general welfare,” of course. But in fact, democracy oppresses the very demos in whose name it operates, benefiting string-pullers within the Establishment and rewarding the political constituencies they manage by paying off special interests with everyone else’s money forcibly extracted through taxation.

      Slight variant: The tyranny and oppression is done in the name of “health and safety”, by special interests like Tobacco Control, using everyone else’s money forcibly extracted through taxation..

      But history is not over. The Founding Fathers were just the last in a series of reformers stretching back though history. Next up are the Foundering Mothers, who will construct the next polity when the old one finally founders.

  13. Pingback: Post Election Shambles – Library of Libraries

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s