Posted on 02/24/2005 12:32:34 AM PST by ijcr
A former colleague of mine was involved as an expert witness for the defendant in a civil case not long ago. A short time thereafter, he bumped into the judge at a golf clubhouse, who half recognised him.
"Are you a doctor?", he said.
"Yes", replied my colleague.
"And weren't you a witness in a case recently?"
"Yes".
The judge then asked him what he thought of the outcome. My colleague replied: "I think that the defendant would have received a fairer hearing in a kangaroo court run by generals in a South American military dictatorship".
I need hardly say that this remark brought the conversation to a close. But as reported, it set me thinking about the nature of our own freedom: how much freer are we than the citizens of a South American dictatorship (in the old days, where there were such things)? How free, exactly, are we?
I don't want to indulge in any self-pitying false comparisons. We have neither Gestapo nor Gulag, and it is an insult to all those who have experienced such things in their own flesh and blood (or bone, as they say in Spanish, perhaps more accurately) to compare our small tribulations with theirs. Irritations are not tragedies.
Nevertheless, I think we are less free than we used to be. The weight of the state is making itself everywhere felt. In my former professional life as a doctor, for example, I was obliged more and more to obey the dictates of ministers, rather than those of my medical beliefs.
Whereas when I started out on my career all that was necessary to continue in practice was that I should be qualified and that I should refrain from behaving in an egregious or outrageous manner, by the time I retired this year I had to fulfil all sorts of requirements, all of which (in this age of evidence-based medicine) were quite without evidence of use or efficacy. But that is not the real point of such requirements: they are not there to improve the quality of medical practice; they are there to let us all know who is boss. And even if they were effective, which is intrinsically very difficult to prove, they would still represent a loss of liberty.
The fact is that the requirements laid down by ministers and their bureaucrats now take up fully half the time of senior doctors, when they could be doing clinical work, and this at a time of shortage of medical manpower. Most doctors, except for the apparatchiks among them, are profoundly unhappy about this, and are taking retirement as soon as possible.
An increasing proportion of medical graduates never practice medicine, because the career is now so deeply unattractive to them, and they can do better elsewhere. Having brought this situation about, the government has launched its Improving Working Lives initiative, still failing to realise that it is the sinner, not the saviour.
There are other ways in which the state (by which I mean all agencies vested with public power) weighs increasingly heavily upon us, quite apart from the fact that we spend nearly a half of our working life paying for it. Here are a few random indicators:
1. The other day, at dawn, a large council vehicle parked outside my house with a very tall crane-like attachment, from the top of which photographs were taken of the neighbourhood, including my house. No one had felt obliged explain why, or for what purpose the photographs were to be used. The city is the council's and the fullness thereof.
2. Once a year, I receive through the post a letter marked with the exhortatory words, "Don't lose your right to vote – register now". Added to this is the warning, in case I don't feel like exercising my right, "Failure to comply could lead to a £1000 fine". This is like being accosted by a beggar in the street who simultaneously appeals to your charity and menaces you if you don't cough up.
3. Every few months, I receive a letter from the TV licensing agency, who do not believe that I do not have a television. Once again I am threatened with a £1000 fine, and also warned that my house will soon be spied upon unless I buy a licence.
4. When I drive out in my car, I am immediately in the presence, every few hundred yards, of cameras. (The British are now the most heavily surveyed people by CCTV in the world. There were more than fifty CCTV cameras in the hospital in which I worked, most of them hidden.) I don't want to drive like a lunatic, and in fact conduct on the road is the one aspect of British behaviour that is still superior to that of most foreigners, and was so even before the cameras were emplaced. Even if they are effective, and reduce accidents, they add to the pervasive feeling of being spied upon by the state.
5. Our police now look more like an occupying military force than citizenry in uniform. They are both menacing and ineffectual (quite an achievement), and even law-abiding citizens are now afraid of them. If you want to ask the time, don't bother a policeman. I know from medico-legal experience that the police are far more interested in preserving themselves from the public than from preventing or investigating crimes, up to and including attempted murder. This is not because, as individuals, they are bad men and women; it is because of the same kind of bureaucratic regulation imposed on them as it has been imposed on doctors and other professions.
6. I own a flat in London and have recently learned that I must replace a boiler, not because it does not work or because it is dangerous, but because the regulations have changed, for reasons that it would be impossible to discover, except that they obey the rule of Keynesian economics to stimulate demand and keep it stimulated. And this in practice would mean that, if I still want gas heating, I have to put a new boiler in my living room.
And so it goes on – and on. Very rarely nowadays do I feel myself free of the state. Its power has increased, is increasing and ought to be decreased. But I am not the man to do it. By retiring, I have withdrawn myself from it as far as possible. Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
About like arguing with a child about why it is vital that they wash behind their ears...while I'm sure an argument could be made in the negative, at a certain (early) point a "debate" such as that quickly descends to the level of the absurd. As is the case here, with you...
Cute "alternate" nick, BTW. You're still not really fooling anyone. But press on, if you feel the need...
First of all, been here longer than you guys ('98) so I know all about the profanity. Sue me. An occassional expression such as I uttered doesn't get you banned. And sometimes they are highly technical terms. (although admittedly this wasn't one of those times)
Second, my understanding is that (and it is my understanding, so I sincerely apprectiate the education I'm getting) you don't have an analogy to the Fourth Amendment anywhere in your system - got to go review the Magna Carta...been a while. That the police have entirely more power than they do over here...and no, I don't think our police are appropriately restrained on some points. (That doesn't mean I'm anti-police...especially since given I used to be one.) I look forward to the Patriot Act being fully overturned someday as well.
Third, since when did you guys become a sovereign political entity as opposed to a subject? (KT...if you don't understand what I'm talking about let me know...I'll explain it to you.) IF you truly are...that's great.
Fourth...the whole second amendment issue determines where your form of government stands on the issue of who is superior - the individual or the State. Any State that fears an armed populace should be feared. Once upon a time the US operated on the principle that we don't regulate behavior based on the least common denominator and/or what people might do. Sadly that has been changing for some time and we continue to fight against it. However, on balance I think we are still better off than the UK. For the most part the US recognizes that normal people (not politicians) are basically good and firearms are tools.
A similar issue is self-defense/defense of property. A State that doesn't recognize these as the provence of the individual is a State to be feared. Don't bother arguing...go talk to the families of the people the Crown has imprisoned for defendoing their homes from burglars.
No, I'm not a bloodthirsty yank...but I do believe in a self-chlorinating gene pool. And the only places in the US where you can't defend your home/person are liberal utopian cities like Baltimore, DC, New York, Chicago, etc... The same places that point to the UK as a model regarding these issues.
So it appears that the UK and the US are somewhat similarly situated...more UK more free on some issues where the US is less free and the US more free on some issues where the UK is less free. With both countries still attempting to prove John Locke correct in the long run.
Regards.
What does he expect when Britain throws out the party of Thatcher and brings back the party of Harold Wilson. Oh, I'm sorry, this is NEW Labor.
Thank you for a rather more considered and reasonable response.
One the issue of the citizen-subject distinction,
"since when did you guys become a sovereign political entity as opposed to a subject?"
Yes, we Brits are now citizens. There was an act of parliament some years ago (I forget the Act and the date but I'm sure some other British Freeper can quote you "chapter & verse") which clarified this issue.
The term "subject of the Queen" is just one of those traditional but irrelevant expressions which is still in occasional use.
It applies not only to Brits but to all citizens of countries which are members of the British Commonwealth and which therefore have the British monarch (notionally) as their head of state.
Thus, Australians, Canadians and people of many other nationalies can be described as "subjects of the Queen".
All meaningless in reality of course.
You need to read some Leo Strauss. I think he was on to exactly your point. A society without absolute moral values that endlessly promotes the notion of individual liberties is left rudderless, without unifying social structures to keep it afloat. He theorised that America needed myths to believe in - whether they were absolutely true or not didn't matter. Step forward, the neocons!
Happy reading :)
oursouls: British Nationality Act 1948.
abundy: learn to take yourself a little less seriously.
If I have anything to say to you, you will be the first one to hear it. In the mean time knock off the personal attacks. It's a cowardly way to do things.
You get arrested for the same things in New York (although driving w/o a license would require it to be suspended, or no ID at all on the driver). So your point is?
...snicker...
Of all the dodges, evasions, and, yes, outright "cowardice" I've seen displayed on this thread, yours is hand-downs the winner in that smarmy category.
Which is indeed saying something, given the various wholehearted efforts to be #1 for which it had to contest. But Coward On, by all means...
Not to mention every innocent motorist and pedestrian you encountered along the way, eh? :)
You know, that guy that was looking me in the eye when I pulled out of the Rental agency knew I was from some place else. However he used the jesture that some use here for idiot drivers like myself.
My family still tlka about Dad and his driving in England.
You inhabit your dream world, I prefer to stay in reality. The fact is that you are the one who started the name calling here, not me. I won't join in by replying in kind, nor will I even bother to read any more of your inane replies. So have at it.
I won't join in by replying in kind, nor will I even bother to read any more of your inane replies
And this is supposed to trouble me in some way, manner, sense, or form...ummmm...how, exactly?
Seriously, what's the downside? ...(snicker)...
MadIvan a leftist. Ha! Now I've heard it all.
Mr. Cad, MadIvan is a well-known and well-regarded institution around here, and he has never been known for preening, silliness, slander, abuse, nonsense, or any other of your litany of accusations. You seem to be the one who can't get through a single sentence without flinging abuse.
-ccm
Nice try, though. Now, get lost. Sincerely.
People that know me know I take most everything more seriously than myself.
State vs Individual debate I take the most seriously.
More laws, less justice. – Marcus Tullius Ciceroca (42 BC)
I suppose that we can discuss the nitty gritty all day, but I believe in the above. Each new law and each regulation (imposed by unelected, virtually unaccountable bureaucrats) which is given the power of law gnaws away at freedom and liberty. Just because it doesn't impact you (plural) in any way, doesn't mean that it is harmless.
Are some new laws necessary? Of course. However, I believe that they are far and few between.
"You need to read some Leo Strauss."
Oh, I don't think so. Strauss was a pointy-head, and for those of us who are middle-aged and have learned the meaning of life the hard way, through living it, sitting around and reading people theorize about the meaning of life isn't interesting either. Where's the suspense? Will he get it or not? Who cares? After all, he's dead now, so it can hardly matter whether he got it or not. ;) Besides, I once decided that I was going to study the history of philosophy, just because I wanted to know it, to be an educated person, so I started with one of those old Greeks, I forget which one. Well, after about 20 pages of him I put it down in disgust-- reading it was like arguing with teenagers. Let me tell you, if arguing with teenagers is your job, it's the last thing in the world you want to do for entertainment!
Anyway, I can tell that you're a modern person, who lives below what Francis Schaeffer would call the "line of despair". From my own experience, the best thing to do about the whole "meaning of life" question is to quit worrying about it and just jump in and LIVE life. It takes courage and energy, and will cost piles of money and break your heart, but hopefully before you're dead you'll figure it all out. I feel pretty lucky to have it figured out at only 45-- I regret a little that I didn't understand more sooner, because it would have saved me a lot of suffering, but my regret is far outweighed by my gratitude to finally GET IT. Now I get to spend the rest of my life knowing what the hell I'm doing and why, and maybe I'll be able to pass along some of that to younger people, if only subliminally, as they see my joy and wonder at the reason for it.
Good luck!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.