"I'm a libertarian, but …"
Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 11:29 I was on Fubar Radio this morning.
I was talking to presenter Mark Dolan about outdoor smoking bans and he began by saying, "I'm a libertarian, but …"
Well, I knew what was coming, but it was worse than that.
The reason Mark supports smoking bans is because he's an ex-smoker and seeing people smoke tempts him to relapse so it's better (for him) if we banish smoking completely.
Another self-styled libertarian who not so secretly enjoys smoking bans is Alexandra Swann, the former national deputy chairman of Conservative Future who defected to Ukip and then resigned her membership of that party because of their "anti-immigration rhetoric" (as if this was something new!!).
Alexandra is also a columnist for Breitbart News where her "libertarian" views on smoking were clearly a surprise to editor James Delingpole who admonished her (on Twitter) before curiously deleting his tweet.
Anyway, it's good to know that libertarianism (or liberalism, as I call it) is in such safe hands:
Bristol smoking ban. As a libertarian I have to hate it and yes it's joyless & illiberal but secretly, if I lived there, I would enjoy it.
— Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann) February 2, 2015
Reader Comments (5)
Some say that antismoking should be countered with “free choice” arguments or exposing scientific fraud. These are important. However, the approach that will have people questioning antismoking rhetoric is the accurate depiction of antismokers as neurotic bigots.
There’s a 400 year history of antismoking. It’s a very sick history. There has been a litany of highly inflammatory claims made over all of those years, at least 99% of which were baseless, i.e., lies.
Antismokers are misocapnists/capnophobes. They believe that all places, indoor and out, must cater solely to their emotional mess, through force of law if necessary. They have manufactured tobacco smoke into a “magic mist”, probably originating in another galaxy, imbued with all manner of “destructive potential” limited only by antismokers’ self-terrifying imaginings. Let antismokers loose and their claims become progressively more absurd and hysterical and their demands progressively more draconian and inhumane.
There’s more than ample evidence over centuries that the rabid antismoking mentality is a significant mental disorder. Only more dangerous is the physicalist framework – medically-monopolized Public Health, that obviously has no regard for mental, social, or even physical health, that has lent “authority” to these antismoking nut cases.
Misocapnists are way, way, WAY worse than germaphobes.
Then they're not libertarians, simple as that.
"I'm a libertarian, but, I'm a homophobe."
"I'm a libertarian, but, I hate fat people"
"I'm a libertarian, but, I'm a racist."
"I'm a libertarian, but, I'm an anti-smoking bigot."
"I'm a libertarian, but, I want to use the government to stop you doing thing I disapprove of."
No, nope, none of those statements make sense.
Epic fail!
graphic health warnings ARE forced aversion therapy.
Ludovico technique - "But it works!"
Those people who start their sentences with “I’m a libertarian, but …” remind me of the Father Ted sketch in which Father Dougal, when asked by a visiting Archbishop if there are any parts of the Catholic faith he has difficulty with replies:
“Well, you know the story about God sitting up there in Heaven? And about the world being created in just seven days? And about all those miracles – the loaves and the fishes, and all that? And about Mary having Jesus, even though she was a virgin? And how, when he died, he died for all of our sins – not his own? And about him coming back to life after being dead for three days?”
“Yes, my son?”
“Well, those are the bits I have trouble with.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2939693/Lung-cancer-cancer-killer-women-rich-nations.html
How about publicly countering the lies in this article ? According to CRUK own data http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/lung/incidence/#trends in 1975 there were 22.6/100.000 age-adjusted lung cancers in females. In 2011, there were 40.9/100.000. During all this time, the female smoking rates have been falling, just like is the case with male smoking rates. So how can falling smoking rates be responsible for almost doubling female lung cancer rates and at the same time be heralded for halving the male lung cancer rates (from 112/100.000 in 1975 to 58/1000.000 in 2011 ?