In Soviet Wales, Organ Donates You!

Last year, I was with friends in Wales, (Wrexham to be specific). On one afternoon we went shopping and they told me that I had to pay 5p for any bags I used. In other words: supermarkets, grocery stores, retail outlets – if you want to bag your goods there is a 5p mandatory fee for the bag. Why? Because the Welsh government passed a law forcing all retailers to impose a 5p fee on shopping bags. On principle, I refused to buy a bag in any store I went to. I even carried my goods the old fashioned way. Silly? Petty? No. Because this is the thinking behind the Welsh government in plain terms:

  1. People aren’t giving enough to charity, in our wise opinion.
  2. We want people to give more to charity, despite the fact they already have the free choice to do so and obviously are choosing not to.
  3. If we point a gun at private citizens who own retail shops, they will have to do whatever we tell them.
  4. Let’s do just that, and order them to surcharge their customers, other private citizens, into paying for carrier bags.
  5. Let’s then give that money to a charity/charities of our choosing.

Stop for a second and ask yourself what the reaction would be if a private corporation used its economic power and customer loyalty to increase its profits by simply raising prices on items that customers couldn’t do without? There would probably be uproar and boycotts and harsh language and another round of “blame all the greed and evils of the world on capitalism”. Actually, it might not get that far: the government might step in to stop one group of innocent private citizens from agreeing terms with other innocent private citizens because another group of citizens doesn’t like the idea. However, that same latter group of objectors is usually the sort which despises the very idea of a free enterprise gaining wealth through voluntary trade through value exchange, but has absolutely no problem with the State using its monopoly of physical force to dictate, at the point of a gun (because that is what physical force ultimately is), what two people may or may not trade and for how much, and whether your right as a human being to aid those in need, or not, is acceptable.

But it’s all for a good cause, isn’t it?

No. For years I have warned and written about fascism in our governments and how it will only keep increasing. I can use all the clichés I’d care: a slippery slope; the thin end of the wedge; the tip of the iceberg. The point is the same. When my friends told me that the law required a 5p compulsory charge on carrier bags, my first reaction was disbelief. ‘What a blatant and horrific abuse of political power!’ But, because it’s in the name of charity, the law was passed. (Of course, it wasn’t a law, it was a statute. A law in classic terms is one that protects the rights of human beings. Historically, no one is above the law, not even the Monarch or the government. Our governments get around this by issuing statutes, which are only valid because we don’t know any better to object. Of course, we are led a merry dance by a legal system, in league with lawyers, magistrates and the police, into thinking we have no lawful recourse. We do. It’s called the word ‘no’. But I digress…)

For one thing, charity at the point of a gun is not charity. If you want to give to charity, why do you need to be forced to pay for a carrier bag to do so? And even if you’re lazy and/or mindless enough to tolerate such decisions being taken off your fragile little mind, please don’t pretend to speak for the rest of us.

This is what happens when a government thinks it is on a holy crusade to make the world a better place. Why is this a bad thing? Because it comes down to how a government gets its own way, as opposed to the way the rest of us get what we want. It comes down the difference between economic power and political power. What is the difference between the two? What is the line? Where is the line? This is a question that is almost never asked in political debates, and never answered. Too many people have too much to gain by clouding the issue. The difference is this: physical force. As much as the Left would like you to believe differently, a vast corporation can only get to the top through exchanging values (it can get there through bribery and corruption, but only by the very system the Left wants). A corporation is only successful when it wins and retain customers. Customers are FREE to choose a corporation or its competitors. If they have no choice, then the corporation is the only one which can give them what they want. Without that corporation, they couldn’t have what they wanted anyway. This is economic power – the power to leverage based on the values you possess. Political power is exactly the opposite. Political power is this: do what I say, or I will hurt you. Or: do this and I will hurt you. No corporation is allowed this power, rightly so. Governments should have this power, otherwise they couldn’t function. But that is why this power should be used so sparingly and be strictly limited. The power of the government is: the right to point a gun at a person and force them to act (or not act), or punish them for acting (or not acting). This is why a government’s roles must be clearly defined. In other words, we the people invest our right to self-defence in the government and say: only you may use physical force, for everyone else it is banned. This, this and this, is where you should use it, and in no other circumstances.

It is the government’s sacred duty to protect our Rights. It is most certainly not the government’s job to decide whether or not we are giving enough to charity, and force us to charge other people on carrier bags!

If the government can use its power so flagrantly and arbitrarily, what else will it decide to do? What other moral crusades will it embark on?

When I heard about the 5p carrier bag levy, I said ‘it won’t stop there.’ And I was right…

http://news.sky.com/story/1110822/wales-approves-organ-donation-opt-out-law

…because now the Welsh government has decided that all its citizens are organ donors, unless they state otherwise. Let’s think about the implications of this for a moment: by simply living in Wales, this agency has assumed that it has the power to make claims over your body! The fact that you can opt out is irrelevant. The level of sheer arrogance and abuse of power to instantiate such a statue is mind-boggling. It is despicable and evil. By what possible power does such a government even base such a ruling on? How on earth does it get away with such a blatant violation of individual rights?

Let me say this again, because it’s being trotted out by those wishing to defend “paying back Caesar’s things to Caeser”: the fact that you can opt out is irrelevant! The very notion of “opting out” implies that if you don’t, you have consented to be an organ donor, which implies that the government’s claim over your organs is valid, which means that the government owns your organs…unless you explicitly claim them for yourself! I try to keep a modicum of decency on my blog, but, seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?!

What greater example could there be of a government claiming: ‘your life belongs to us’?

This is collectivism through and through. This is why a government that acts for “moral” reasons should never be trusted. This is why altruism and collectivism are two sides of the same coin. It is why collectivism always leads to Statism. It is why altruism is inconsistent with human well-being.

Almost all of us have come across the “classic moral dilemma” thought experiment at one point in our lives. The scenario usually involves a runaway train and people lying on the track, or a doctor who needs to save ten people at the cost of one organ donor. Even when confronted with the ten versus one “dilemma”, most people wouldn’t choose to kill the one innocent man to save ten (or even a hundred) because we recognise that regardless of the numbers involved, that one man’s life doesn’t belong to us. We also know, in our hearts, that the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few. Or perhaps we’re more comfortable with the thought of a faceless government taking from a faceless man, something we wouldn’t be prepared to do ourselves if we had to look him in the eye and explain why.

But here, the Welsh government (perhaps drunk on the power of finally being able to rule its staggering population of 3 million (less than a major UK city)), has turned that thought experiment into reality. Oh dear, it seems they’ve actually taken it literally: what do you do when you aren’t getting enough organ donors? Claim ownership of all the people you are faithfully entrusted to protect, and their organs. It’s amazing what you can do with power, isn’t it?

Of course, this raises the question: why are organ donations so low? Well, I don’t claim to have all the answers to that, but it seems to me that organ donations historically rely on one key factor: someone has to die. (But hey, we might not have to even wait for that in the future.) Maybe organs are becoming harder to get because fewer people are dying? Which raises an even more interesting thought experiment: what if, due to medical advances (no, don’t laugh – even with the NHS, it could happen…), the quality of life greatly reduces the incidence of death, and life expectancy increases? What if, due to these factors, organ donations drop 90% over the next 50 years? My question to the Welsh government is: what then?

Of course, the obvious retort might be: “we’re not saying more people have to die, just that more people have to donate”, (although it seems somewhat hard to do one without the other…). So, maybe there are plenty of deaths (hoorah), but not enough people consenting to be organ donors? It almost makes you think there could be a perfectly valid moral reason that free individuals have chosen not to be cannibalised for their parts after death. Or, maybe many just never give it a second though. (I admit, I would happily be an organ donor but I haven’t given it that much thought. Is this laziness on my part? Maybe. Does this mean I’ve defaulted on my duties and now my body belongs to the State? Nope.) Perhaps raising public awareness and education is the way to go? Maybe people aren’t feeling particularly generous towards others (I can think of a few reasons why, in this day and age – what, when everyone seems to be lobbying the government to get something off you)?

Nah, much easier to do it by force. And the most damning part of this is that the statue passed by 43 votes to 8 with two abstentions. That’s 81% of the government which saw no problem in claiming property rights over the people it exists to protect.

This wicked and inhuman action by a tin-pot government sets a very dangerous precedent, just like the silly 5p carrier bag fee did.

And the saddest part is that the most outspoken critics of this action are religious leaders! Jesus Christ, what have we come to when the people who believe in invisible beings in the sky are the ones leading the charge for morality?! Oh but don’t worry, these are the nasty religious zealots the left-wing humanists are so eager to get rid of before they fill your kids’ heads with nonsense (in their Church of England or Catholic school, where they’d probably get a better education than your secular state school anyway).

The arguments in favour of the bill? “It will save lives”. The British Medical Association praised the bill, also praising how Wales was “leading” the UK on the ban on smoking in public places years ago. The only thing the Welsh Assembly is leading is the march towards statism (and given the competition that’s an impressive feat).

It will save lives.” When that is the strongest moral justification for the monstrous violation of an individual’s sovereign claim to his own life and property, things will only get worse. I was going to make a rather macabre list of all the people who could be sacrificed if the end goal was simply to save more lives, but I won’t. I’ll leave it to you to think through the implications of this line of reasoning.

This little fiasco is, for me, a perfect example of the socialist mindset in action: erode the notion of genuine acts of kindness and compassion between human beings by assuming that such actions are a duty, not a free gift. Therefore, undermine the only genuine basis for human compassion (free will) by making charity a penance to be exacted for the sin of not giving enough.

Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you you’re living in a democracy. Did you give the State the power to lay claim over your body? Probably not. Even if you did, does any government have the moral right to take such a power even if it were offered up? Even if it could, do you have the right to claim the body and organs of another, using the government as your proxy? Does anyone group, no matter how large, have such a right? Does the number of people who claim your body change the fact that it is yours, your property, and no one else’s? Does any group, gang, minister, assembly, or representative have the moral right to make such a claim?

Only if your life belongs to the State by default. Which means that, after thousands of years of recorded history, having resigned tribalism to primitive corners of the earth, after the feudalism and despotism of the Dark Ages, having survived the Pharaohs and the Emperors and the Lieges, having outgrown the Divine Right of Kings and slavery, having fought civil wars to establish constitutional republics, having written the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the United States, having fought at least one world war against fascism, after seeing “The People” of communism intentionally starve millions , and “The Father Land” of German slaughter millions in its quest for perfection, after bringing the Berlin wall down… in the year 2013, in Wales, if you do not explicitly declare your body to be your own property, the State needs must take it as it wills.

It’s said the Welsh Assembly is “leading the way”. The scary thing is, where there are leaders there are followers.

Advertisements

Racism more important than Fascism

In another demonstration of how your freedom of speech extends only as far as the State allows it, a 21 year old man has been arrested for alleged racist remarks on Twitter. Story. It’s incredible the depths we’ve sunk to when this is just reported as being perfectly acceptable, with Swansea University and Treorchy RFC distancing themselves from the man, as if this were just an everyday regular police investigation of a crime. Everyone is quick to play the “me too” card, as if not expressly declaring “I’m not a racist!” might make you a suspect.

Racism is not a crime. A crime requires the violation of an individual’s Rights by another. Having a racist opinion doesn’t make you a criminal. Vocalising a racist opinion doesn’t make you a criminal. Initiating violence against someone does make you a criminal, whether you do it because your victim is black, white, yellow, fat, thin, tall or short.

Yes, racism is anti-human and as well as that is just plain stupid. But you could say that about any irrational ideas that people hold. Some fundamentalist Christians and Muslims hold extremely offensive and evil beliefs related to race, gender and sexual orientation. Astrology might not be as viciously anti-human but is still irrational. Those who claim to be psychics and talk to the dead are frauds, duping the gullible or emotionally-vulnerable to make money. I find that offensive. I also find socialism and communism offensive: two variations on the same theme that the individual must defer to the State and sacrifice his interests to the “greater good”. For that matter, I find modern “art” and postmodernism offensive. I also don’t like R&B music and would rather listen to nails down a blackboard than hip-hop.

But, I can accept that other people don’t agree with me and I’m fine with that, because no one is putting a gun to my head and telling me to hold a particular opinion, or not hold the one that I do. The idea of individual freedom is that you can like whatever you want, choose whatever you want, do whatever you want, as long as you don’t infringe on the freedom of others to do the same. In fact, it’s inevitable that human beings won’t always agree – which is precisely why individual rights enshrine this principle of freedom! Some will believe this, some will believe that, some will be right, some will be wrong, some will be moral and some will be evil – but that’s the point! You can’t pick and choose what opinions to allow in society because then nothing would ever change; whatever the status quo or popular opinion of the time was, that would be the unchangeable “truth”, and heresy against the Accepted and Allowed would be a crime. Ironically, that’s exactly the case in other parts of the world like Iran, a totalitarian religious dictatorship where freedom of speech is a concept as foreign as sexual preference. But isn’t that what makes us better than them?

You can’t pick and choose politically acceptable speech because no one has the right to make that decision. Sure, you can give it to the government and leave the State as moral arbiter of acceptable speech (and behaviour), if you’re a fascist. But the idea of freedom of speech is that…you might not always agree with it! It’s not freedom to speak…unless you don’t like or agree with it. It’s not freedom to speak…unless it’s wrong. It’s not freedom to speak…unless it’s socially frowned upon. It’s not freedom to speak…unless it’s evil. In fact, the principle of free speech exists precisely to protect the unpopular and marginal viewpoints from being banned by the majority. Saying “ah, but racism really is evil and we as a society have decided to outlaw the expressing of such opinions by force”, is defeating the very principle upon which anyone is allowed to voice any opinion anyway! Tomorrow, it could be your opinion that clashes with that of the majority of society, and should you be silenced? So then, the only way to never have a clash of opinions and find yourself on the “wrong” side of the State is to conform to whatever the collective opinion is at the time. In the words of Bill Hicks: “you are FREE…to do as we tell you.” But since the collective opinions of a society at varying points in recent history have been xenophobic, homophobic, sexist and more – you’d be taking your chances even by being a sheep.

Look, this isn’t about racism. The issue is not whether racism is acceptable or not, or what “we” do about it – as if the State were a true reflection of the will of the people – as if such a collective entity existed in the first place. The matter at hand is: do we want a society with freedom of speech, or not? There are no half-measures. You can’t have it both ways. If speech should not be politically endorsed or condemned, and if force shouldn’t be used by the government against civilians for holding an unpopular opinion (whatever it is), then it is unconscionable to arrest someone for a racist remark. And yet here we are in the United Kingdom, where saying something offensive is a crime. But not just anything offensive: only particular speech is a crime (you can insult someone for being fat, but not of a different colour), which means the government makes a decision about what is acceptable speech (and conduct) and what isn’t. You might say “well I’m ok with that”, which is honest at least – but you’re a fascist.

Speech is a natural form of human expression. Human expression is a result of individual choices and motives. Choices are a product of thinking or believing. Thinking and believing are mental activities inextricable to human nature. Banning speech is like banning thought. That is why the State restricting speech is anti-human.

There is a great hypocrisy going on here though: an ounce of rationality will tell you that banning unpopular opinions (even morally reprehensible ones) doesn’t eliminate anything. All it does is leave the belief to fester, unspoken. People who are truly racist won’t be “cured” by being treated like criminals, they will just feel aggrieved and even more hostile. But the fascists who support banning “hate speech” don’t care about curing irrational ideas, they just care about not offending people – and that’s the critical issue. There are countless ways to offend someone and the people in charge of deciding what is acceptable or not are the same ones whose sole purpose in life is to curry favour by winning votes and appealing to the masses. Hardly a great combination.

The way to defeat an opinion is intellectually. Truly false beliefs of years past didn’t disappear because the government banned them, but because they were shown to be simply wrong. Racism should not be treated like a taboo, as something hush, hush “we don’t talk about”. It needs to be discussed openly and objectively to lay it to rest once and for all. Let the racist have his opinion…and then destroy it. If he continues to hold it, he’s declared himself to be foolish and irrational in front of the world, along with his opinions. If he changes his mind, the world has one fewer cretin and the case for the truth is made all the stronger.

I’ll give you another illustration based on a true story: someone I know is homophobic (actually due to their religion a lot of people I know are). Some of the opinions this person has stated have been anything from “it’s unnatural” to “it’s disgusting” to “I think they get bored with the opposite sex and go after the same sex” to “it’s a perversion” to “it’s a conscious choice.” Now, I know if people like this were put in a room with others and voiced these opinions they’d probably be shouted down. They might fall silent or feel oppressed. Imagine if they were imprisoned for their opinions! But they’d still hold them. But this could be an otherwise kind well-intentioned person labouring under a false belief (God knows there are plenty of them in the world). Similarly, in the past as well as today, there are those who genuinely believe that race is a factor with human intelligence, ability and morality. The Hitler Youth were shown “scientific proof” that blacks were inferior; what were they to believe? If you want to get rid of irrational and immoral ideas, do you merely silence them with a gun, or do you prove in front of the world exactly how and why they are wrong?

Where does curtailing free speech end? If the government gets to decide what is offensive “enough” to be banned, how long before any potential opinion or speech of yours crosses the line? Will you be able to insult anyone, for anything? What is an acceptable topic for humour? What about “racist” friendly banter? What if you voice an opinion about say, the Euro or inflation or taxation, and it’s deemed harmful to the common good? Some British citizens have already been told what flags they can or cannot display (on their own property!) in case it offends others. These issues aren’t new; they are as old as dirt: a government with the power to dictate lifestyles to its people will inevitably use that power to do just that. And it happens because the people let it, because they believe it’s well-intentioned.

Fascism is different in approach today than it was in the dictatorships of the 20th century. Fascism doesn’t come to you and say “don’t you think your speech and behaviour should be sacrificed to the collective good of society, with politicians deciding what is acceptable for you to say, or what food and drink you’re allowed to consume?” No, modern fascism, nicey-nice Left-wing fascism today says “don’t you hate racism? Isn’t it just bad? Don’t you think we as a society should take steps to get rid of it? Don’t you think the rightfully elected ruling body of a society should outlaw such behaviour?” It also says “isn’t alcohol bad for you? Don’t you hate the number of alcohol-related violent crimes? Aren’t saturated fats bad for you? Wouldn’t it be easier and safer if certain foods were just banned to save you having to decide for yourself? Don’t you think it’s only fair to tax the naughty food and drink more than the stuff we decide is ok?”

Forget the content of the words, look at it like this: a private citizen, using his own computer, to post his comments on another privately-owned website (however visible) to make bad words appear on the screens of other people – is officially a criminal, an enemy of the State. Now consider on principle: if the State can pass judgement on what’s acceptable or not on any private property but simply because it’s visible (popular with free admission doesn’t make it “public”), then where does the future of Facebook, Twitter, blogs and the entire internet lie? You don’t need to try hard to imagine, there is already a place today where freedom to say whatever we want with whomever we want is forbidden by law: Communist China.

Socialism and Football

Politics is, in a simplistic sense, the legal regulation of social interactions. Man on his own has no need for politics, for government, even Rights. But even in a free society, interactions should be regulated to prevent the initiation of force (and fraud). A political system, despite possibly have numerous contradictions and leaps of logic, is founded on morality. Your moral code will drive your politics. In turn, your moral code is derived from your worldview; your view of existence. But for this purpose I’ll limit myself to discussing morality and politics.

If you believe that man is a sovereign being capable of reason and volition, with his own life as an end in itself, and not a tool, cog, or pawn for some other purpose outside itself, you will respect the Rights of that man to pursue, as the Americans put it: his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. You will not initiate force against him because to do so is to undercut his very ability to think freely and act accordingly. In short, you will apply capitalism in politics. On the other hand, if you reject the individual as an end in itself; if you see men as interchangeable faceless pieces; as drops in a collective sea; as beings whose only purpose is external to their own lives; if you ignore the very nature of human beings and, finding it impossible to raise all men to the level of man at his best you have no choice but to lower all men to the level of his very worst – you will establish in politics the systems of socialism and communism. The only difference between the two is the extent to which man is treated as a means to someone else’s end. In socialism, everyone pretends that they’re free, tacitly acknowledging that this “privilege” from the State can be revoked at any time under the right circumstances. In communism, there is no pretence at all.

Any and all evil regimes in human history, and I do literally mean all and, by the way, ONLY those systems – have all found it first necessary to attack the individual. No evil could ever be committed by respecting individual Rights, an extension of the moral principle that man must live his own life free from the use of force. This is tautological: man simply cannot live his own life where force is present. Where force is present, he must live someone else’s, or live FOR someone else’s.

All disavowals of the individual come in the form of an appeal to a “greater good”. This metaphysical murder of the individual is committed by atheists and theists alike. For the Christians, the greater good is Jesus. For Muslims, the greater good is Allah. For secular humanists who are almost always socialists, it’s society. For communists, it’s also society or the community. These systems all have one thing in common: they all propose that some external power takes priority over the individual. In other words, some value external to your life is of more value than your own life. This is the root of all mystical and evil regimes. The staggering fact is that it’s also completely and utterly wrong! Value presupposes the question: of value to WHOM? Values exist precisely because YOU need to act and pursue them, because if you didn’t you would die. Beyond the immediate reality of life or death, to live like a human it is not enough to merely eat enough to make it to the next day; our minds and souls also require feeding. Life for a man isn’t surviving, it is flourishing. But all the things you value in life, are YOUR values in YOUR life to fulfil it and give it meaning and happiness. When you stop doing that – when you stop pursuing your values and instead surrender them for that which doesn’t benefit your life – you have stopped living, you are merely existing; you aren’t living like a human, you are no better than an animal – worse in fact, you are a slave. A value external to a valuer is a contradiction in terms; “value” and “good” cannot be applied to collectives, only individuals. And this simple truth wipes out the entire foundation of all these political and religious regimes in one swift move.

Unfortunately, because individualism is so misunderstood in our culture today, the dominant philosophy underlying all countries in the world is of its nemesis: collectivism, which is the secular equivalent of religion’s altruism. This anti-human poison permeates almost aspects of society and personal life. Needless to say, it’s the doctrine behind religion. It’s the “morality” behind the mixed-economies and socialist agendas in the Western world and the once virtually-capitalistic United States, and because it is simply accepted – rather than being an all-conquering foe that tramples over every individual – most individuals happily lie down on the tracks in front of it, telling themselves or being told that as the train approaches this is, somehow, somewhere, in some way – the right thing to do – although no one quite knows how or why.

It is the voice of the politician, or the religious leader, or the bureaucrat telling you: “you have no right to live simply for your own sake; part of your life belongs to society, and you owe it something; you have a duty to restrict your own life with one eye on the wishes, whims, and desires of others. Your guide to life must not be your own mind and judgement, but the need or “good” of a larger collective, which trumps your own.”

It is the mentality that punishes and penalises the businessman for being too good, too big, too successful. It is the morality that compensates the lazy and unintelligent for being lazy and unintelligent, at the expense of those who aren’t. It is the green-eyed monster looking at the beautiful, the famous, the rich, the joyous, and wanting, not to share their success, but to see them fail. It is the man who wants to take the wealth of Elvis and give it to Einstein, or commands reality to automatically and magically take the wages of sports and rock stars and give it to doctors and nurses. It is the politician who says “what you have belongs to us and if at any point we don’t like what you’re doing or how you’re doing it, we’ll take it from you and do it our way.”

Now consider that in England, a small football club finally makes it to the top league – and must use all its skill and wisdom to remain in that league and secure its future success. Consider that no football club, or any business for that matter, is ever going to consciously act for its own destruction. All businesses, all teams, or sportsmen, exist with one goal: success. When success (whatever that be in the context of the venture) is not the number one priority, there is only one alternative: failure; self-destruction. There is no alternative, just as there is no alternative ultimately when one stops pursing life.

A football manager will pick a team to play in a particular match – but he doesn’t do so in a vacuum. There are other factors to consider: the morale of the players and their fitness; the requirements of that match in terms of what can be considered relative success; how the consequences of the outcome of that match factor into the club’s entire season; the next game, and the game after. For example, a small team drawing with the best team in the land would be considered a success; but that same team losing to a pub team would be considered failure. A win against your closest rivals is more valuable than beating a team you aren’t in direct competition with. A win is not just three points; there is a host of other concepts and concretes that a football manager must assess in his decision making process.

Ultimately, the goal for all teams is the same: success. But success for whom? The team itself of course; what other standard can there be? What sane person would suggest that the top teams deliberately drop points so that less successful teams have a chance? What rational mind would tell a football manager to bear in mind the effect his team’s success will have on that of others; and to put the needs of another team above his own? Is this starting to sound familiar?

This small club, new to the Premier League, is Blackpool. And they have just been fined £25,000 for fielding what was, in the non-objective whimsical judgement of an external committee, a “weakened team” for a league match. Did Blackpool cheat? No. Did Blackpool evaluate the consequences for losing, drawing, or winning this game and accept the consequences in the context of their entire season? Yes. Did Blackpool still try and win the game? Yes. Should Blackpool care if other teams succeed or fail? No.

The mentality behind this fine is the same as that of socialism and communism and all the other anti-human religions today, which is why I use it as an example of how rife this toxin is in society. The unquestioned and unchallenged assumption is that there is some external higher ideal to bear in mind when trying to win. That ideal cannot be named, because it doesn’t exist, but it’s given quasi-political terms like “the good of the game” or the “good of football.” Make no mistake about it: these expressions are meaningless! The game is a sport played by clubs – the league is a ranking system of clubs. And these clubs must act (without cheating) in whatever way serves their best long-term interest. This might mean being harder in the tackle against some teams than others; passing the ball short in one game or long in another; using one striker in one game or two in another; moving the ball quickly or wasting time in the corner; playing for a draw or playing for a win; saving your best players for some games and not others.

But the Premier League board has decided that they are the final arbiters or what is acceptable in all these conditions, in any game. They have taken it upon themselves to assume control over a football club and the business and football decisions it might make. On what possible justification? Some greater good; the same rationalisation used by all power-seekers for attacks on the individual. I use this quote often, but I’ve changed the words here as illustrated by the italics. Can you guess who said it originally?

“It does not mean that all these teams must necessarily be regulated, merely that they can be regulated if they transgress against the interests of the Premier League. So long as they do not do that, it would, of course, be criminal to upset the manager’s team selection. . . . I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the principle that the good of football takes priority over that of the club. But the Premier League should retain control; every club should feel itself to be an agent of the Premier League; it is its duty not to misuse its possessions to the detriment of the Premier League or the interests of its fellow clubs. That is the overriding point. The Premier League will always retain the right to control clubs. . . . For us the supreme law of the league is: whatever serves the vital interests of football is legal.”

Try it yourself. Replace the appropriate words with “State”, “God”, and “Society” – and see if it looks eerily familiar to every field of human activity today. Look at a committee of power-hungry opportunists and see them leech more authority and wealth for themselves at the expense of the very ones who produce, in supposed service to a greater good which justifies their position and ennobles them. In socialism it’s the welfare state, in religion it’s god, in communism it’s total regulation to force equal unhappiness of everyone, and in English football it is now dictating what team a club should field. Blackpool cannot live for its own sake; it doesn’t have the right, and what freedom it has is subordinate to some good external to itself. The root cause of all of this is the same.

The way to fight this spreading poison is not to give it credence. Do not defend yourself by ceding ground. Don’t fight on their terms, because you can’t win. Conversely, they cannot win on your terms – if your ground is reason.

Blackpool, instead of replying “the team wasn’t that weak”, or appealing against the invalidity of the decision that was reached – should oppose the principle of the rule altogether and proudly say “we picked our team from our players to best serve our long term goals of success. We have no responsibility or duty to anyone apart from ourselves and our fans – and our success or failure will speak for itself.”

All forms of collectivism are built on foundations of sand. They are impotent and impractical in themselves – and only survive as long as good men do nothing. The fact that they cannot be justified by reason is evidenced by them all requiring one thing to work: a gun. It just takes enough of us to stop and say “why should I?” And when no answer can be given, say “no”. That is what Blackpool Football Club should do.

China’s success proves Communism doesn’t work

China has overtaken Japan to become the world’s second biggest economy.  As we all know, China is a communist nation which perfectly demonstrates the result of collectivist ethics: human rights are ignored.

Despite the apparent “success” this might indicate for communism, the irony is that all the purported “flaws” of capitalism actually only occur when its opponents have power.

“Just five years ago China’s GDP was half of Japan’s.

However, its rapid expansion has not been felt by much of Chinese society.

While there are dozens of billionaires, the average income for the rest of its 1.3 billion people is among the world’s lowest.

China has a per capita income of just £2,300 compared to a per capita income of £24,250 in Japan.

Americans remain the richest in the world with a per capita of over £27,000, and their economy is a whole is still by far the biggest.”

A tiny few in China are very rich whilst the population as a whole is, by comparison to international standards, very poor.  Aren’t these the supposed consequences of capitalism; the rich getting rich at the expense of the poor?  Yet isn’t this what happened in Soviet Russia when millions were starved to death?  Don’t we actually find that in less socialised economies the standard of living for the general population is higher and people earn more?

Any system designed for man that ignores the nature of man is doomed to failure.  Communism and socialism have consistently failed to produce wealth and “universal” good, whatever that means, whenever they’ve been practiced.  China’s “success” is no comfort to its one billion inhabitants who are treated like servants of the government.  So much for “the greatest good for the greatest number.”