Only a complete ass would make the cost of ID cards, rather than principle behind them, the main thrust of their opposition to such an imposition. And it would appear that Tory Blair David Cameron is exactly such as ass.
So presumably Cameron, who does nothing not somehow calculated to help return the Tories to power, thinks that such a stance will play well with people who actually care about civil liberties? Well if that really is his objective, does he really think that the NO2ID crew and the LibDems (the two main anti-ID card groups) are really just worried about another small tax? In short, is he really that stupid? And if he is trying to curry favour with ‘Middle England’, is this not the group we are told do not really care one way or the other on the issue?
All he needs to do to get the serious civil libertarians to cheer him to the rafters is stand up and say “regardless of what it costs, we oppose them because they are wrong and any government that tries to impose them is not just wrong, it is wicked. And if they are imposed, we will scrap them the moment we take power, again regardless of what was spent to impose them.”
There is of course no chance whatsoever he will ever say that because clearly the idea of that ID cards are all about civil liberties does not really resonate with a Blairite like Cameron… but of course I would love to be proven wrong.
I fear you will not be proven wrong Perry. Politicians in recent years have become quite adept at using a manipulative sales technique called changing the base of the argument. So the issue is not whether you want to buy the car but whether you want it in blue or red. Likewise the issue of banning smoking in public places has been very cleverly stage managed. It is now an issue of whether there should be a complete or partial ban. It was, prior to that, an issue of smokers’ rights vs the health of everyone else. It has never been presented by anyone as private property rights vs government interference.
In short, is he really that stupid?
I don’t know if it’s stupidity exactly. But I don’t think Cameron’s the brightest light in the harbour. And he only knows how regular people feel from what he sees on the completely neutral Beeb. He has no connection with normal people, except the ambulance drivers who collect this disabled kid – for god’s sake, what is this kid’s problem? Has it been given a name anywhere? – and the doctors and nurses who treat him, who are all, in their genes, gnawing, destructive little socialists.
David Cameron was born to sell Jaguars off the showroom floor in America. He should not fight his fate.
This cost issue has bothered me in Canadian politics a couple of times.
Specifically the gun registry, which ran 2 billion or so over budget (it was supposed to pay for itself) and the Sponsorship Program (designed to promote Canada in Quebec and ending in scandal based on Liberal Party kickbacks).
The problem with the gun registry cost wasn’t the cost, it was the registry. The problem with the Sponsorship Program scandal wasn’t the scandal, it was the program. Granted costs are part of the overall issue, but they aren’t the root of it. I was never really happy with how the Conservatives presented their criticisms.
Am I the only one that remembers him saying that ID cards were an entirely ‘un-British’ thing?
I don’t think it’s wrong of Our Dave to point out the cost implications of this scam- they are very real, after all.
But surely also, if this is the point that makes the public think long and hard about ID cards and the NIR and leads to their abandonment, who are we to complain if it goes in our favour? Are certain Samizdat preferring that we have ID cards and the NIR forced upon us, instead of taking a less principled approach?
It’s all well and good having principles, but I think a more robust and realistic view should be taken on this. I’d imagine most of the public aren’t taking a very principled stand on this, so why bother trying to fight the war on that footing?
The Government aren’t playing on that level, they’re fickle enough to know that much.
As I thought my article made clear (obviously not) my objection is that I cannot see how the cost issue can be the issue which will win this (i.e. a utilitarian objection to the typically unprincipled Tory approach to opposing ID cards). Face it, look at the typical tax burden most people pay… ID cards are hardly going to put anyone in the poor house.
Oh, for heavens’ sake! – in a fight, there are no principles except the principle of being the winner.
Verity: just to repeat – (i.e. a utilitarian objection to the typically unprincipled Tory approach to opposing ID cards).
My objection to the unprincipled Tory approach to opposing ID cards is BECAUSE IT WILL NOT WORK. The cost issue is actually trivial when weighed against all the myriad of other state boondogles. And whatismore, all they have to do is claim they have found ‘savings’ of x zillion quid and so much for that approach. So not only is unprincipled, it is not even good politics.
The cost will matter a great deal to those on low incomes who have to pay for the ID cards,this will be the same constituency that rioted over the Poll Tax.
Ron Brick – and, having learned, this will be the same group that gets “relief”. No more riots. Ever.
David Cameron was born to sell Jaguars off the showroom floor in America. He should not fight his fate.
Why the reference to America, incidentally, Verity? You got your dander up for someone being insensitive to the French on the comments two posts ago, yet throw in this remark. Hypocrite. In any case, I’m highly unconvinced that car salesmen are more or less honest in America than anywhere else.
John Thacker – Because Americans are more easily beguiled by a Brit with a poncy accent. That’s all. Some Brits would be impressed by David Cameron shimmering across the floor – indeed, would regard a shimmering David Cameron in full sales as being included in their purchase price – but by and large, the Americans are far more likely to be impressed.
I mean, look how they took to swivel hips tony, whose government, in the memorable words of Jonathan Pearce, makes Oliver Cromwell look like Hugh Heffner.
Yes, I was annoyed about the ignorant insults, clearly made by an American, to the French. Our own insults are much better informed, have the pedigree of history and are much wittier. “My auntie farts out of her knickers at your stupid ugly leader in Dieppe!”
See? Noel Coward couldn’t have said it better.
Cole Porter: In olden days, my auntie farted
About the war Frenchies started
Now heaven knows
Anything va.
Foreigners should think twice before trying to get in on this.
Mr Cameron is not stupid. His attack on cost is good strategy. Not only are the publicised government figures meaningless rubbish that they dare not expose to proper scrutiny, but cost is the key political pressure point anyway.
Frustrating though it may be for many of us opposing this scheme, it will not be defeated as a threat to civil liberty and privacy, both of which, though shared to the best of my knowledge by the Tory front bench, are minority concerns.
We can be as right as we like about that, but in politics it is irrelevant if you are right. The policies that get executed are not the right ones, but those that are politically manageble. (Blair’s revolution is founded on that realisation: you get to do what you want by disguising it as what the public wants.)
People in general and many backbench Labour MPs in particular, do not see the scheme as a personal or a general threat. It isn’t in the unimaginitive popular mind; “They”, the formless daemons of authority, know everything about you anyway. Even all the inconvenience and bureaucracy involved doesn’t strike a note. The misconception abounds that it will make our lives easier.
But the people and many Government supporters do care that this scheme is potentially a vast white elephant, costly to individuals and to the taxpayer. That’s why the government has proffered a subsidy already: a notional £30 cap on the price (though the word “cost” is used) of a stand-alone ID Card.
It is no surprise that they can set this so firmly without the first brick of the first enrolment centre being laid. Because it is nothing to do with cost. It is a price which research has shown most people have said they are prepared to bear. (In abstract with no concept of the registration process.) Above that level support falls off very rapidly.
Labour MPs, on the other hand, look at the question with a bit more sophistication. They care about the direct charges to their poorer constituents. But they also understand, as those constituents mostly don’t, that headline price isn’t everything, and that even funds for a ‘self-financing’ scheme have to come from somewhere.
If the cost is tens of billions, then the Labour Party will (correctly) see that as money at the government’s disposal that could have been spent on public services, but is instead going on one of Tony’s technocratic hobby-horses. And incidentally into the pockets of large multinational corporations with whom he is so cozy.
Stopping the scheme is easier than dismantling it afterwards. Neither Government nor people is going to be persuaded by good sense or liberty, even if crazy-and-oppressive might eventually get through to the people once it is in place. To stop the scheme now means enlisting the Labour movement to force Mr Blair to drop it and/or creating an institutional block, which is what insisting on proper costing for an open-ended, largely secret, mass-surveillance scheme may do.
That said, NO2ID is committed to raising the profile of the fundamental objections. If this scheme is for the moment stopped, the surveillance state is not going away, and the fight against it will need to continue for decades to come.
Cameron used the issue of cost to demonstrate the most fundamental reason that the Bill was sent back from the Lords: that the costings used by the Home Office were inaccurate and no other department have even began to predict costs for compliance and access.
The argument concerning civil liberties being suppressed is actually weaker than most people think: why do you think Stella Rimmington said that nobody in the intelligence services is pressing for id cards? Because
i) they will be utterly useless and
ii) the people that need the information can already get it or have got it.
More significantly, however, is the underhand way Labour has presented the costings and then rejected the LSE’s report out of hand. The cost is absolutley outrageous and it should be a legitimate point of attack.
I agree with you to an extent Perry because the objections should be on principle but I imagine that a tactician such as Cameron will use all sides of the argument. As James points out earlier, Cameron adopts a different approach depending on the forum and the news (vapid but savvy, I concede). 2 examples in the last week:
Brown talks ‘Britain Day’, Cameron employs ‘un-British’ phrase about ID cards
PMQ’s: point scoring with a string of diversion of funds NHS, pensions and public spending under the kosh) and a dig about ID cards being a “monument to the failure of big government”.
That last quote should give you some hope, Perry!
I don’t mind Cameron or anyone else using cost as a weapon to defeat ID cards. Whatever works. That said, as Perry pointed out, it would be nice, for once, if a leading politician could step outside the usual utilitarian calculus mindset and actually oppose something on grounds of principle. And the funny thing is, Cameron could use this issue to appeal to people who tend to think of themselves as liberal rather than as conservative.
Opposing ID cards on principle is not just the right thing to do, it could also be the smart thing.
Perry,
My objection to ID cards is one of principle too. But I also object to the waste of money.
Unfortunately, the libertarian aspects are more difficult to explain to most of joe public. They won’t really understand the issues until the ‘system’ is imposed on them. But most people understand the issues of practicality and cost.
I agree with you entirely on ID cards, but I too would have taken the same tack as Cameron in the circumstances. I expect that at other opportunities he will attack the restriction on liberties. I’ll be sorely disapointed if he doesn’t.
Perry,
My objection to ID cards is one of principle too. But I also object to the waste of money.
Unfortunately, the libertarian aspects are more difficult to explain to most of joe public. They won’t really understand the issues until the ‘system’ is imposed on them. But most people understand the issues of practicality and cost.
I agree with you entirely on ID cards, but I too would have taken the same tack as Cameron in the circumstances. I expect that at other opportunities he will attack the restriction on liberties. I’ll be sorely disapointed if he doesn’t.
Cameron, who does nothing not somehow calculated to help return the Tories to power
Perry – Correct. And so it should be. That is his job. Nothing else.
I too am against ID cards in principle but I am mightily heartened that NO2ID and the Tories are being pragmatic in their defence by creating the awareness about the cost. Guy Herbert is spot on in his comment.
My concern over the cost issue raised by Perry is not that it is the only issue raised by Dave Cameron, it is that Middle England seems to think that is the only issue.
I’ve lost count of the number of people commenting on the BBC website who say something like
or
or
To these people, the only objection is the cost and that could be disastrous.
Verity wrote:
‘Because Americans are more easily beguiled by a Brit with a poncy accent. ‘
and I laughed so hard that stuff came out of my nose. But it’s true, and it’s been working for me for 25-odd years, why fight it?
llater,
llamas
One way for a politician to campaign against ID cards: Publicly come out in favor of them and use lots of logical arguments (the least effective means of persuasion in politics). _Then_ carefully tie that support to something that your audience wants no part of. This works best if you mos
For example, in speaking to non-assimilating minorities, stress how very, completely and utterly British this will make them.
For more rightwing audiences, stress how much further this will integrate Britain into the EU (and eliminate tax loopholes!).
For more leftwing audiences, stress how it very traditional it all would be.
For the lower classes, stress how it will much more efficient it will make government and social services and how it will eliminate welfare fraud.
Verity said:
“this disabled kid – for god’s sake, what is this kid’s problem? Has it been given a name anywhere?”
David Cameron’s son Ivan has suffered from birth with cerebral palsy and severe epilepsy – despite the implication here that Cameron is shrouding the situation in mystery to make it sound more dramatic than it actually is this is a quite sufficiently unpleasant set of conditions that I would think reasonable people would be prepared to cut the guy some slack on this one. It isn’t even as if this information is that difficult to find – I pulled it from his wikipedia entry.
As for the substantive issue, Guy hit the nail on the head. The sad fact is that the majority of people in this country don’t care about the civil liberty impact of ID cards, if Cameron were to bang on about that he’d just get portrayed as yet another swivel-eyed tory extremist. They do care about the cost implications however, and so may be prepared to listen to Cameron when he makes the argument that cards are a waste of money (and who knows, once they get into the habit of listening to him he may be able to make the civil liberties argument too). Attacking your enemy in his weakest point is not cowardice or lack of principle, it is merely good strategy.
RPW – Cameron has made a feature of this disabled kid, so I for one am not cutting him any slack. And I wasn’t interested enough to Google the kid.
I do agree with your argument for his strategy with ID cards, however. If he said it was a civil liberties issue, the predictable brayers would be all over the BBC saying, “Yeah, civil liberties for the rich. Wot abaht my income support then?”
Verity,
This will mean millions of the unemployed pensioners and students,the cost will have to be taken up somewhere..it will put a huge hole in Browns budget,costs will have to increase for those who do pay..
Of course it is good to oppose this in principle,but sink it ant way you can,for example it will offend against Muslim women.
Ron Brick – I do agree with you. This Bill has to be sunk by whatever works. It doesn’t have to be a principled argument. I have no problem with getting the right result for the wrong reason.
If it can be sunk by a combination of rational arguments for liberty per Guy Herbert, Perry, Jonathan et al, fear (if you blink at the wrong time, the retinal scan can cause temporary blindness – my cousin said they had to stop using it in Hong Kong), greed (every time the central system goes down even temporarily, it will throw the entire social security system into disarray, causing payments to be between four and six weeks late; or, there’s a real danger that it will throw the banking system into disarray because, by having so much information about each individual vulnerable to hackers in one easy bite, identity theft will become routine), then fine.
Four magic words: ID cards cause impotence.
You can then start endless urban legends. Something about the plastic they use or some hidden computer chip inside, who knows? maybe it’s that retinal scan (and a friend of a friend of mine has epilepsy now after getting one of those. (better more than one story so it can never be pinned down. If it were the US I’d make up something about satanic symbolism, but that probably wouldn’t fly in the UK.
Michael Farris,
If you only knew how true that was,I took part in experiments in the army with high powered microchips and now suffer from blackouts.I have been unable to work since being invalided oiut of the army
Hmmm, Michael Farris, I don’t know that even the most stupid twerp on a jobseeker’s allowance would fall for that. You’d need to throw in some factoids that he could grasp easily, and believe. I think as you phrased it, although it’s a good idea, is too starkly disbelievable.
OTOH, the cards will destroy medical confidentiality because your medical records, like, say, instances of temporary impotence, can be scanned, giving the people at passport control a bit of a laugh.
Or how about, the card contains a cache of all the websites you’ve ever visited to assist the police in searching for paedophiles.
Verity,
I remember a broadcast where a Liberal QC and Conservative debated, wirh the assistance of some typical examples,contraception , juvenile sex with the consequent teenage pregnancies,
One teenage mother was asked why her boyfriend did not use a condom,she answered,”Because he is frightened of them”.so yes there are many out there that dumb.
The QC,incidentally took that as an adequate answer.
When you consider many sections of society believe in Wicca,healing crystals , Voodoo and even the tooth fairy,why not give it a whirl?
When you consider many sections of society believe in Wicca,healing crystals , Voodoo and even the tooth fairy,why not give it a whirl?
Let’s leave Cherie out of this shall we?
She’s probably out anyway. Having another “ancient Mayan rebirthing ceremony”. Getting smeared with papaya pulp and slithering down an ancient Mayan plastic tubing birth canal. Then she and Carole Kaplan can get in the shower together and Carole can scrub off Cherie’s “bad karma”. Oh, wait a minute, karma’s a Hindu concept. Never mind, Cherie and Carole don’t know what karma is anyway, except something to do with the Beatles – a little mix ‘n’ match New Age philosophy that you make up as you go along.
Have we ever had a more ridiculous prime minister’s wife?
Well if she buys Tony one we’ll know the rumour is true
What rumour?
Verity,the rumour thay the First Lady slips a microchip into Tones jockey shorts.
I thought Carole Caplin chooses tony’s underwear and she buys him boxers. That’s what was all over the papers in yet another barf-o-rama attempt to persuade us to think Emily is sexy.
(P S We do not have such an official First Lady position in Britain. Let us not slip into another misunderstood Americanism – like trailer trash. It’s a real post in the US. I think Roosevelt’s daughter Alice was his First Lady. An American will come racing in to correct me if I’m wrong.)
Don’t be like taht about the Queen of the Chavs Verity,she’s a Liverpudlian girl done good.
I think the cost of this scheme is an important point. However, the fact that certain members of society, specifically, the disabled are going to suffer major difficulties accessing public services due to flaws that have already been noticed with the biometric verification system, is more worrisome.
In the UKPS trials a small percentage of disabled users were not able to register their fingerprints on the database, 20 percent could not verify their fingerprints once registered on the database, 39% could not register their iris and further, the biometric verification system was unable to verify the cards of 48 percent of disabled people who took part in the trials.
As these cards will be used to prove entitlement to key services, such as healthcare, it could lead to the disabled being denied access to health care, for instance, at the point of service.
Like Cameron, I have a child with cerebral palsy – it will be next to impossible to get fingerprints or have her sit still long enough for the iris recognition machine to register her iris. I am naturally concerned about the potential there exists for disabled people to be excluded from key services because of these flaws.
Life cannot be run for the weakest.
By “key services” I assume you mean “free services” – in other words services paid for out of other people’s salaries?
“Life cannot be run for the weakest”, writes Verity. I don’t think that was Carol’s point. She is concerned about how ID cards might be misused in relation to disabled people, etc. A perfectly legitimate point and one I had not considered before.
One reason Britain has become so weak is it is overconcerned with the “disadvantaged” and other forms of victimhood.
Societies should be run for the strong and fit. They will usually take care of the less able without being ordered to do so by governments.
Second, I don’t think any able bodied person is going to be able to execute a successful identity theft on someone with cerebral palsy. And what would be the point of an able bodied person presenting himself at a hospital and demanding treatment for cerebral palsy?
This point is not going to resonate with enough people to become motivated to oppose ID cards, which is what this topic is about. We’re not discussing the merits of ID cards and how they can be made more user friendly for disabled people. We want to stop this idea dead in its tracks – regardless.
carol is the one who is so worried about Nike “sweat shops” and so on. She’s a socialist/communist.
Verity opines that this topic is about how to motivate people to oppose ID cards and not about their merits – well Verity… how do you suppose you are going to raise consciousness unless people think about how this issue will work in practice?
Jonathan, I wonder how David Cameron would respond to the points I raised earlier, I assume he would be sensitive to these facts. This issue should be one of the central planks of any campaign to oppose the ID card.
carol – This issue is beyond irrelevant to 99% of the population. They are not going to think yea or nay on the basis of it. And how Cameron votes should be based on considerations of the historic liberty of the individual in the British Isles, not special pleading on what would suit the Cameron household.
Verity, who said that it should be decided on what suits the Cameron household? I would be interested in knowing what Cameron thinks of the issue because he has a disabled child. Would he make a decision that would go against self-interest, something that underpins your ideology, no?
You say that the majority of people are not going to decide on the basis of this one issue, but I would disagree… changes to the public consciousness on this matter will come about through organizing the widest range of voices in opposition to it. Right now, the arguments against ID cards is reduced to special interest groups, sites like this, on the basis of civil liberties. What does such an abstraction mean to the woman who happily collects nectar points every time she shops at her local supermarket? She sees no threat to her liberty and feels she benefits, the loss of privacy is a small price to pay. But should you explain how ID cards may affect her in actuality, then she will sit up and listen more closely.
The number of disabled people in the UK is substantial. In the UK there are about 10 million adults covered under the Disability Discrimination Act. No small sum! Don’t underestimate their ability to vociferously oppose the ID scheme.
The use of ‘cost’ as the tip of Cameron’s sword lowers the level of the battle to the politics of indignation (Sun readers and BBC ‘Have your Say’ veterans) and really amounts to a form of deception used in order to promote a cause, in other words, propaganda. The problem lies with the British themselves who have gradually grown fond of their slavery. Some of them even seem to welcome their chains.
A – Like dogs. They feel comfortable getting their instructions, because then, they know. They like being told when to go to the doghouse or their mat to go to sleep, because it’s a command and they feel secure with commands.
Happy to obey. Tails wagging. Happy, happy, happy.
The British have come to this.
It happened so fast.
While I agree with you on the deceptiveness of Cameron’s stance, you are generalising when you say that some of the British public “welcome their chains.”
Too many people monotonously repeat the same dogma here, it’s like there’s a small self-congratulatory club of people who think they know how the great British Public think and love to bounce the same refrain of each other. They could so easily get off their arses and DO something. Organize.
If these individuals left the safe confines of cyber-space and talked to that “other”, rather than relying on pundits to inform them or what the general mood was and bouncing the same tedious dogmas of each other, they would find the great British public actually do care about these issues.
People are alert but overwhelmed by what has happened since 911. Blair is a fear monger, everytime he attacks civil liberties he uses 911 as the pretext. People are sceptical about this but need to find some kind of expression which would allow them to contest the assault on civil liberties while at the same time not jeopardising their security. It’s a double bind, that not only the GBP but politicians find difficult to navigate. So don’t blame the little man. Put it into context and then perhaps more will join this select club!
Too much pontification, too little action.
carol – That there are 10m people in Britain – a country of 60m people – “registered as disabled”???? That tells me there is something wrong with Britain and I am glad to be the hell out. That means there are 10m people sucking the life out of the wealth producers – and that is before counting in the unemployed.
Do not have the face to argue that you are trying to mobilise opposition to something (ID cards) you have already glommed onto like a limpet. This is your life, isn’t it, carol? The best possible service from the taxpayer?
Do you work (I am not counting taking care of your sadly mal-abled child as work – sorry; it’s not wealth producing)? Do you contribute to the British economy? Yes or no?
Verity, do you see that disabled people suck the life blood out of Britain? Insert deity name here “”…..” help us!’ Or if you are an atheist just swear foully. Nobody makes a decision to be disabled, or do you think that people do decide to become disabled because they are work-shy? I really dont understand you. Where do you live Verity?
I think Guy Herbert and his organisation don’t need to take lessons from you, commie carol.
You’re only opposed to this one particular measure because you fear a cut in “benefits” (commanded charity) for your mal-abled child. This is no way to run a successful country.
When you’re not pursuing your meal ticket with sophistries, you are busy trying to destroy capitalism and the livings of third world people lucky enough to be working in factories of enlightened first world countries.
Ask them – not that you could, as you’ve never been to those countries and I am sure don’t speak the languages (and people whose livelihoods come from scavenging garbage mountains and gutters don’t happen to speak English or even have heard of it) – whether they prefer this to the life they had before and whether they now have hope for their children’s future.
I am also confident you have never been to any of the countries you’re whining in such a one-note irritating tone about.
You’re a typical lefty. The kind who, when they get enough traction with El-Gharday-en, try to demolish one more human impulse to freedom and capitalism.
Do you really think you are going to get one little teardrop of sympathy from the libertarians who post here?
carol – of course you don’t “understand” me! I’m a capitalist and a free trader and a libertarian!
I don’t think mal-abled people “suck the lifeblood out of Britain” — yet. But I think 10m adults is a hell of a lot out of a country of 60m, half of whom are children. So 20m working people are powering our country? That is outrageous. And also sickening.
No, I don’t think malabled people “decide” to become workshy – although Buddhists and Hindus might make an argument for karma – but I do not believe the government of any country has a mandate to compel their fellow humans to provide for them. Sorry. But no.
The kindly initiative has been sapped out of Britain and Europe by socialism, which I regard as a wicked disease. Formerly churches and synagogues would have provided help for your child. I do not see a case for a government compelling me to do so. I may know disabled children or poor old people in my own community and wish to help them over your kid. I do not wish to be compelled to take an interest in your child through my taxes.
Verity, you are a total idiot. Did you think that I started perusing this site because I had a disabled child? No. I came here because there were conversations going on about issues I cared about.
and one of those issues was my disabled child whom I care about – see what I did there… ? my kids disabled or otherwise are so special. my love is so deep.
This has become FAR too personal now, so please spare us the epithets. Please desist or the thread gets locked.
Carol – I may get deleted, but I am speaking for capitalism and free choice.
You say you came to this blog because there were “issues I care about”. Yes, you were hoping to convert people to a socialist point of view regarding the lucky people working in Nike factories in SE Asia. You dragged in the Marianas in a frantic attempt to bolster your case about Nike factories in other parts of the world.
I am sincerely sorry that you have a child who needs charity, and I mean that. But I think charity will always be best provided through private individuals and through religious organisations (and companies which, by board decisions taken by accountable board members, wish to donate part of their profits). Not mandated by the state which has extracted taxes by force.
There is never a place for the state, other than national defence for which I would be absolutely pleased to pay through taxes. I am sorry, carol, but you are on the wrong track – the communist track – as you have demonstrated with your attacks on free enterprise in SE Asia. And this topic may be closed off because you have earned yourself victim status and we must all defer to victims.
You should not have entered this ring if you weren’t prepared to take the hits. I’m sorry. I can see that this is painful for you, but you jumped into the ring expecting special treatment.
To me, it is outrageous that you – anti-capitalist, antifree enterprise, as in Nike factories, anti-Third World (wishing to keep them victims rather than achievers) have succeeded in poisoning a libertarian blog.
Again, I am genuinely sorry that you are in your position. If you could free your mind from communism, you would see that free enterprise is more inventive in every single phase of life – including medical treatment. Drugs to treat your child, and other forms of medical intervention will not be developed by the elephantine, self-preserving NHS. They will be developed by companies that have shareholders who are looking for a profit. Profit is the motivator of human life — not preserving jobs by shutting two more hospital wings on the NHS to pay for more managers.
Come over to the bright side where all the inventions are.