As you have pointed out before, Mill’s argument in On Liberty, that the state can intervene to prevent harm to a third party, is the trapdoor to the hell we find ourselves in. It is such a brilliant argument for its plasticity; in the case you cite, ‘harm’ to Our NHS allows the state to further marginalise parents in favour of itself.
Finally, the rise in childhood dental decay results ,in no small part, from the catastrophically stupid lockdown closure of dental practices, many of which have since closed for good.
Confirmed by my excellent dentist, who recounted the official advice to treat childhood caries with longterm use of antibiotics,rather than dental treatment.
Another brilliant analysis, David. Particularly fond of the poetics here. I think it's worth pointing out how key the role of education is here. And this presents us with a problem: national ministries of education, which any true teacher knows is the nub of all our social and cultural trouble as well as an impediment to actual education. It's probably worth a consideration of the history of education to attempt parsing where education has gone right and where wrong and how and why. Establishing national, basic educational goals seems obvious, but what are they? or rather what ought they to be? If universal education began in Europe with Charlemagne, we're talking about a form of nation-forming and essentially brainwashing. When education was the purview of the elites, it was something else entirely: providing the tools for leadership and cultural points of reference in class systems. At present education is an industrial processing plant meant to churn out processed raw materials to fill the workforce and civil service with right-thinking cogs. Any psychological trouble emanating from this can be corrected with pharmaceuticals or a prescription for assisted suicide, since there are too many cogs anyhow. In short, what should education look like to avoid these pitfalls? This also gets to the crux of what I keep harping on: we're living wrong. How ought we to live? And perhaps take it from there. . . keeping in mind the pitfalls of Plato's damned republic.
Too true David. The insidious insertion of the state into every waking moment drives me bonkers, just look at all the ‘signs’ exhorting you to do this or that or not to do something or to be careful. The rise of ‘safetyism’ is the rise of the left. This of course creates jobs for those who enjoy telling other people what to do and voila, the state is the economy. It will end of course, when the money runs out like all previous socialist experiences.
As always, really helpful, thank you. Sadly, supervised toothbrushing has been the norm here in Scotland for a number of years and obsessive hand washing and sanitising hasn't abated. I wonder when they'll install showers? In fact, children won't need to go home at all.
Two quotations, of which I am fond: "6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” (1 Samuel 18)
and
"We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors; and specially thy servant CHARLES our King; that under him we may be godly and quietly governed..." (from the Intercessions for the Eucharist in the Book of Common Prayer)
We have a large state because we have small virtue, and we have small virtue because we have rejected divine authority. Which is why the left is atheist and the right cannot be - a truth which it seems is finally dawning on people!!
At the beginning of the 20th century government spending amounted to around 7 percent of GDP. At the beginning of the 21st century it was just under 40 percent.
Now in the Brandon era it's getting close to 50 percent.
These percentages are a reasonable proxy for the growth of government as an acting force in our lives.
It might be reasonable to claim that Conservatives and Libertarians agree that this is too much government, but it's also reasonable to note that at the beginning of the 20th century, most drugs were legal, there were very few restrictions on firearm ownership, and prostitution was legal in many cities around the United States. There was no minimum wage. Which sounds much more like a Libertarian state than a Conservative one.
Excellent analysis and exhortation to understanding the nature of the beast, which is the state. The social and the business sphere are not the domain of the state in a healthy society. (which begs the question whether there was ever a healthy society. Perhaps the quasi heterarchical hunter-gatherer tribes...)
In short, the more we lose sight of the difference between the state and the society, the closer we get to a totalitarian dystopia.
As you have pointed out before, Mill’s argument in On Liberty, that the state can intervene to prevent harm to a third party, is the trapdoor to the hell we find ourselves in. It is such a brilliant argument for its plasticity; in the case you cite, ‘harm’ to Our NHS allows the state to further marginalise parents in favour of itself.
" ... the superior of dispersed over centralised knowledge ... ": Michael Polanyi is very good on this. It even extends to the doing of jigsaws.
And is it just coincidence that the seventeenth century also saw the rise of science?
Welcome to the new managerial Soviet,as the Nomenklatura extends its control- all for the best ,of course.
Some party hack decreed that the people
had lost the government's confidence
and could only regain it with redoubled effort.
If that is the case, would it not be simpler,
If the government simply dissolved the people
And elected another?
Bertolt Brecht
As to the state's relegation of parenthood, here is another decidedly disturbing example:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/01/13/safeguarding-mostly-involves-protecting-children-from-their-families-the-safeguarding-scandal-of-a-labour-council-shutting-out-parents-to-push-gender-identity-ideology-in-schools/
Finally, the rise in childhood dental decay results ,in no small part, from the catastrophically stupid lockdown closure of dental practices, many of which have since closed for good.
Confirmed by my excellent dentist, who recounted the official advice to treat childhood caries with longterm use of antibiotics,rather than dental treatment.
Another brilliant analysis, David. Particularly fond of the poetics here. I think it's worth pointing out how key the role of education is here. And this presents us with a problem: national ministries of education, which any true teacher knows is the nub of all our social and cultural trouble as well as an impediment to actual education. It's probably worth a consideration of the history of education to attempt parsing where education has gone right and where wrong and how and why. Establishing national, basic educational goals seems obvious, but what are they? or rather what ought they to be? If universal education began in Europe with Charlemagne, we're talking about a form of nation-forming and essentially brainwashing. When education was the purview of the elites, it was something else entirely: providing the tools for leadership and cultural points of reference in class systems. At present education is an industrial processing plant meant to churn out processed raw materials to fill the workforce and civil service with right-thinking cogs. Any psychological trouble emanating from this can be corrected with pharmaceuticals or a prescription for assisted suicide, since there are too many cogs anyhow. In short, what should education look like to avoid these pitfalls? This also gets to the crux of what I keep harping on: we're living wrong. How ought we to live? And perhaps take it from there. . . keeping in mind the pitfalls of Plato's damned republic.
Too true David. The insidious insertion of the state into every waking moment drives me bonkers, just look at all the ‘signs’ exhorting you to do this or that or not to do something or to be careful. The rise of ‘safetyism’ is the rise of the left. This of course creates jobs for those who enjoy telling other people what to do and voila, the state is the economy. It will end of course, when the money runs out like all previous socialist experiences.
As always, really helpful, thank you. Sadly, supervised toothbrushing has been the norm here in Scotland for a number of years and obsessive hand washing and sanitising hasn't abated. I wonder when they'll install showers? In fact, children won't need to go home at all.
Two quotations, of which I am fond: "6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” (1 Samuel 18)
and
"We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors; and specially thy servant CHARLES our King; that under him we may be godly and quietly governed..." (from the Intercessions for the Eucharist in the Book of Common Prayer)
We have a large state because we have small virtue, and we have small virtue because we have rejected divine authority. Which is why the left is atheist and the right cannot be - a truth which it seems is finally dawning on people!!
At the beginning of the 20th century government spending amounted to around 7 percent of GDP. At the beginning of the 21st century it was just under 40 percent.
Now in the Brandon era it's getting close to 50 percent.
These percentages are a reasonable proxy for the growth of government as an acting force in our lives.
It might be reasonable to claim that Conservatives and Libertarians agree that this is too much government, but it's also reasonable to note that at the beginning of the 20th century, most drugs were legal, there were very few restrictions on firearm ownership, and prostitution was legal in many cities around the United States. There was no minimum wage. Which sounds much more like a Libertarian state than a Conservative one.
"Get away from my kids!"
Hell, yeah.
Excellent analysis and exhortation to understanding the nature of the beast, which is the state. The social and the business sphere are not the domain of the state in a healthy society. (which begs the question whether there was ever a healthy society. Perhaps the quasi heterarchical hunter-gatherer tribes...)
In short, the more we lose sight of the difference between the state and the society, the closer we get to a totalitarian dystopia.
https://www.takimag.com/article/parental-license-the-lefts-new-child-snatchers/
Parents beware! The new Commissars know what's best for your children