Food, junk food, and health-Nazis: 2009 will get worse.

David Davis

The whole of this post from Junkfood Science is worth reading, for it perspectivises the more or less articulate refutations which a lot of us have suspected and been trying to focus for all you lot, over the last couple of years.

If libertarians are at all serious, then I’m not suggesting that we should shoot all State-food-bansturbators immediately – in the way Stalin accused an obsequious IRA delegation of not being “serious” because the IRA “had not shot any bishops yet”. But…..we ought to make more of the point that if a human being owns his own body, then it’s surely axiomatic that he can place whatever foodstuffs – or anything else whatever for that matter –  that he chooses, inside it. If certain foods are to be “banned”, then this negates that principle and we have become the State’s Farm Animals in very truth. Cigarettes, (any) alcohol, tobacco and (all) drugs, too, are part of the same argument.

Part of the problem of course is that modern pithed people do not understand the economy of, the present dynamics of, and the ultimate reason for, the DHSS. They think that “it costs” the DHSS money to treat people. No analysis is done of where the money has arrived from. Of course, if you are a DHSS bureaucrat, then it “costs” you some of your ultimate yearly bonus if you have to irritatingly spend some of it on some doctors or beds or medicines, to treat the people who supplied the taxation-take in the first place. But if you pith the population, employing techniques such as “good television”, then they won’t realise the conjuring trick you have performed. Furthermore, they will go about supporting you, saying that “smokers are selfish ‘coz they cost the NHS money” and other similar witticisms which televise well on the Wireless Tele Vision thingy machine.

I am afraid I can find no use for this machine at all these days, except to view videos of The Lord Of The Rings, a couple of times a year – that’s quite enough too. Or perhaps as a source for weird electronic parts suddenly needed to complete a project, and Maplin’s closed. Can anybody illuminate my problem please?


  1. Dave:

    Do you have Digital Cable? LCD or Plasma Widescreen? Digital Programme Recording on Hard Drive? Pause facility? Dolby sound? A PlayStation hooked up to it, to play CDs, DVDs, Games, Online stuff, Internetting?



  2. I don’t know why we’d want any of that stuff, Tony. What the “TV production companies” produce, and I include but do not single out the Booby-See, does not really interest us at all.

    What’s Dana interested in? She can get TVP and Polsat off the hotbird thing.

    What am I interested in on the telly? Nothing that I have not seen or can otherwise download, if out of copyright or worhtless, such as John Terraine and Noble Frankland’s “The World At War” via a bit-torrent client.

    What is Peter interested in? Top Gear. It’s on, on “Dave”, all day.

    “Modern” “Programmes”, aired tonight or any other night, do not contain anything we’d want to know about. For example, I can be better informed about Israel and Gaza (both of which matter to me) by looking on Firefox, now and then.

    The BBC or ITN “News” are both the worst of the lot. They are tabloid magazines about sad mums crying in hospitals, which have gone “wireless tele vision”. Whether the hospitals are in Liverpool or Gaza makes no diffenrece to the programme content.

  3. Dave:


    STARGATE Atlantis:

    Prison Break:


    Sarah Connor Chronicles:




    etc. etc.

    “Horses to water…”

    Online gaming, chat, etc.

    Ho hum…


Leave a Reply