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.
Frankly, I don't care to do any of those.
While I understand your point, there is a large difference between not being able to drink beer on a beach and not being able to deliver a Biblical sermon.
Excuse me, but you start in on my country, playing fast and loose with the insults: if a British person said similarly on this board, they'd have their head handed back to them. I respond in kind. Then there is a space of months when I say absolutely nothing to you - and then you drop in on a thread uninvited with your abusive behaviour. As this thread shows, you continue this abusive behaviour towards my country and countrymen. I have noted that generally speaking, unintelligent insults backed up with a supposed "chuckle" appears to be your modus operandi. I don't want to speak to you - you have nothing worthwhile to say. I have not made it a point of crossing your path to continue a "flame war"; you have made a point to insult the UK at every opportunity you spot, and further to that, be extraordinarily abusive to any British person who speaks up, and even be abusive to people like Miss Marple.
I don't know what motivates people like you to behave like you do. I don't care. From my perspective you're just a someone with a chip on your shoulder and a bad attitude and thus best avoided.
Ivan
There are other indications that Britain is not free:
- Drive while drinking alchohol and you will be arrested
- Drive without a license and you will be arrested
- Collect child porn and you will be arrested
- Grow marujanna and you will be arrested
- Try fighting in the street (with a consentual sparring partner) and you will be arrested
How all freedoms have been eroded in Britain.
This is all true I'm afraid.
And worse still...we can be arrested for taking the life or property of another person!
I mean can you imagine! Not being allowed to rob and kill at will?
Freedom eh?
However, we are still allowed to cross the street without harrasment from the law unlike some places (jaywalking is it called?)
What? Damn ... hang on, I have to go and bury something ...
You'll have to get a council permit if you want to do any burial
Cute, but it doesn't wash and is simply another in a long line of semi-slanders you've attempted to push in my direction--only to find, much to your disappointment I note, that some folks push back.
The implication in those three sentences is that, at some misty time in the past, I "started in" on the U.K. and a hero arose to defend her honor: Maddy old boy Ivan.
We both know that that implication is as untrue as the day is long.
Indeed, it's another semi-slander; but my posting history is open to one and all whom wish to retrace those steps and invest the time to read it, as is yours. Suffice it to say (and again, we BOTH know this; you're not kidding anyone but yourself) that you fired a posted, unprovoked shot across my bow in an attempt to impress someone you apparently perceived needed "rescuing" or "help" in that opening sally between us; you got taken to serious task in the subsequent flame war and came out looking somewhat ridiculous in the aftermath; and that's where it ended--at least as far as I was concerned.
Fast forward to now: I post a comment to a thread, not even thinking about you or that past entanglement or anything else, really, and suddenly Maddy old boy is back on the warpath again.
ALL of this--every bit of it--has been initiated by you, for whatever reason (Paging Dr. Freud...). That said, as long as you want to keep it up, I'm game. Pathetic as it continues to make you look with every outing...
I am sure the mods are watching. If they examine the record, they'll note I said nothing to you for months on end. You decided to leap in on a thread I posted a couple of days ago with your rude and insulting behaviour and you've been determined to be rude and insulting ever since. I realise you have an exaggerated image of yourself, but your smear attempts will not wash.
I have nothing further to say to you.
Ivan
That could explain number 1:
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.
Yes, those both make sensible tests of a nation's freedom. The freedom to make idiotic, racist remarks and the freedom to have easy access to the means to kill fellow citizens. Britan scores badly on both of those. But I would also propose another test - are you allowed to see images of naked men and women - and their genitals - on terrestrial TV channels?
Here I think Britain has the edge.
Armed men are citizens. Disarmed men are subjects.
BAN BRITAIN!
Exactly--I couldn't have possibly put it better myself.
Another test may be to evangelize at a homosexual event. Oh, sorry that's America. ;-) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335699/posts
If you have to have a license to own a TV you don't even have a frame of reference to answer the question.
End of discussion.
ooooohhh - - -good one ;)
Am I free to disagree?
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.