Mo Le Taxi

I've been having an interesting conversation over at Julia's place. It's a conversation that made me re-evaluate and then re-affirm my Libertarian viewpoint

Julia is not a Libertarian. She is more what you might define as a Classical Liberal. She believes in freedom, but not to the extent of doing away with most of the laws and going it without the need for a Government

Her views are always well informed and well thought out, she never chooses the popular, off the shelf philosophy and always thinks things through. That's one of the reason I find her blog such a delight

It's also the reason I agree with her on most things. But not all

I'm quite a staunch Libertarian and believe above all things, in the freedom of the individual and property rights. I do not believe someone should be punished by the law if they have caused no harm to other people or their property

Before you start sending me examples, yes, it applies to that too. No harm, no foul is my philosophy in all things

The post I'm talking about was one on dogs in taxis
A taxi driver who refused to take a blind woman and her guide dog was caught as part of a huge crackdown on cabbies breaking the law.
Turns out it was a Muslim taxi driver, so it's all about his backward superstitions

Julia has always been of the opinion that because the law states taxis must carry assistance dogs, it should be followed. Also that it's the right thing to do

I agree with her that it's the right thing to do, but do not believe someone should be compelled to take a dog in their cab if they would prefer not to

So I said so:
There is an old saying about good men ignoring bad laws. I don't know if he's a good man, but any law that says you don't have control over your private property is a bad law.
Even more so when it is enforced by council jobsworths setting people up on the off chance they do something naughty
Non-smokers wanted all the pubs, blind people want all the cabs. How about we let the property owners decide?
My comment was roundly disagreed with. Sobers commented:
"Non-smokers wanted all the pubs, blind people want all the cabs. How about we let the property owners decide?"

How about you try being blind, then see how you feel about the issue?
One thing I always try to do is put myself in the situation I'm talking about, or the shoes of the person I'm referring to. That way i can always be ready if someone says the inevitable, "What if it was your child...?"
"How about you try being blind, then see how you feel about the issue?"

I'm sure that if I was disabled, I would understand that by the very definition, there are some things I'm unable to do
Nobody, disabled or not, should be entitled to demand the labours and services of another
 And in answer to others:
 My example with the smoking law was to try and show that it's possible to make provision for everyone. Even though pubs can have non-smoking areas and some taxis will choose to carry guide dogs, some people want control of everything, even though they're never going to use all the pubs and cabs in the town

A public house or a taxi may be designated areas where the public can go, but they're still private property and part of a privately run business. I'm of the opinion that the business owner should get to decide, not the customer

If a business owner makes a wrong decision, a free market will sort that out. Non-smokers will be free to choose pubs and blind people to choose cab companies, as will owners be free to choose customers
I don't think this is a case where rights are in conflict. The only right I see here is property rights and that's on the side of the cab owner. The only right the dog owner can claim is the right to enter another persons private property and demand their services, which isn't a right at all

The dog owner simply has to ask if the company take dogs when booking the cab. If they don't, use another company. Such transactions don't need to be backed up by Government force
I don't mean to disrespect disabled people and the hardships they go through, but sometimes these days it seems that some disabled people forget that a disability means there are things they cannot do. Obviously something so simple as getting in a taxi should not be one of them, but there are other taxis

My main point is that people should not be able to demand the goods or services of another. Some people in America say that healthcare is a human right (Because they have to pay for it in a different way than we do)

If a human right involves an article or service that must be provided by another person, that becomes slavery. People should be free to trade their skills with others, but no-one should be able to demand the labours of another as their right

Sobers makes a good point:
"The dog owner simply has to ask if the company take dogs when booking the cab. If they don't use another company. Such transactions don't need to be backed up by Government force"

And if there aren't any? Which in this day and age is entirely feasible in certain parts of the country. According to you, if you're blind and happen to live in a town where the majority of the taxi drivers are Muslims (or such a large % that finding a non-Muslim one at any given point in time is a lottery) then thats just hard cheese, you'll have to walk miles home in the rain because while you managed to get a non-Muslim cab to go out, you couldn't find anyone prepared to take you on the way home.

I always ask myself in these sort of scenarios - would I swap? That is to say, if person X is demanding special treatment because of some sort of disability or whatever, would I put myself in their shoes in order to get the special treatment? Thus I consider if I'd be prepared to be blind just so my dog could accompany me in a taxi. And no sane person would purposely blind themselves for that reason, so I conclude that the blind persons needs are reasonable, and outweigh the needs of a taxi driver to obey a sky fairy and avoid dogs. If he doesn't want to deal with dogs, don't be a cab driver, any more than get a job at a kennels. There's plenty of jobs that don't require contact with dogs, so a dog disliking Muslim has more options to avoid them than a blind person has to not use cabs.
I do live in a town where the majority of taxi drivers are Muslim. The sheer number of Muslim taxi drivers is another problem in itself, but there's always another cab
The trouble with this viewpoint is that Sobers is saying the person with the biggest need should be able to demand the services of others and if those others do not want to comply, they should be denied the job of their choice (or forced to comply)
I get your point and I understand that the blind woman vs the Muslim isn't the best hill to die on, but your argument basically states that if I can demonstrate a greater need than another, I then have the right to demand their services and enter their property. Take that to it's logical conclusion...

Without Government interference, I'm confident the market will provide. I live near Blackburn and there's always a non-Muslim taxi driver available if you want one. They're scarce, but you just have to know where to go

"If he doesn't want to deal with dogs, don't be a cab driver"
If he wants to be a cab driver who only offers services to people and not animals, I don't see that as an unreasonable aspiration. If he thinks he can make money by ferrying around only giraffes, he should be able to go and do so. The Government should not put him out of work simply because another person who has been deemed more needy than himself, might possible want to use his services one day
As invited, he did take it to it's logical conclusion:
So are you in favour of taxi drivers saying 'No Blacks'? Or 'No women not dressed in burkas'? Or 'No gays'?

As the law stands a pair of flaming queers can order a cab, and any devout Muslim (or indeed evangelical Christian) who turns up must take them to their destination, and rightly so, by threat of legal punishment if he refused. Are you suggesting that such discrimination laws be repealed? If not why are you trying to make life harder for people who are suffering enough as it is?
If we follow my logical conclusion, we end up in a situation where everyone is free to chose what they offer and to who, but with a large section of society possibly disenfranchised. If we follow Sobers logical conclusion, we would be in a situation where everyone is a slave, forced to work on the whims of others who can demonstrate a need

In an ideal world, no-one would even think of judging another by their skin colour or sexual identity, but largely due to religion, we don't live in that world. In the actual world, whatever logical conclusion we adopt, we would probably end up somewhere in the middle of the above spectrum

I would love to live in a time where religion had been abandoned, nobody was racist or bigoted and these laws would not be necessary

But are they necessary now? If I went to get in a cab and the driver told me he doesn't take white people, what would I do?
  • Sue him
  • Call him a racist twat and walk away
I would pick option two

If I were to, say, beat the crap out of him, would he then say, "Sorry, you were right all along. White people are fantastic"?

Would he buggers like. So would he do that if I were to employ the Government version of beating the crap out of him; having him fined or imprisoned because of his wrong think? No, of course not

No matter how vile a persons viewpoint, you can't beat it out of them, fine it out of them or legislate it out of them, so as long as they're not causing any harm, all you will achieve by trying to do so is righteous vengeance

A taxi that refuses to take a certain demographic should be dealt with by one means only, the free market. The conversation did not start about racism or bigotry, it was about blind people being denied the services of a taxi (actually a dog, the blind person would have been welcome on their own, but as the two come as a parcel, we can say the blind person was not allowed in)

Granted, blind people with guide dogs might not have a huge purchasing power or influence in the market, but allowing the market to decide, is the only option that avoids people being made slaves to others, with the threat of force

People, particularly the religious, seriously need to grow up. The human race has a lot of evolution to do before we start to get things right, but Government is not the answer. At least not until that growing up thing has been done

So in answer to Sobers question:
Are you suggesting that such discrimination laws be repealed?

Legalise Cannabis?

It seems people are tripping over themselves to legalise cannabis these days. Everyone is talking about it and efforts to do so are well underway

So why is another plant, tobacco, still considered to be the most dangerous drug known to man?

The Government get a lot of money from tobacco; 13 billion per year currently. Anti-tobacco groups also get a lot of money from tobacco. The Government pays them with our taxes to do a job. That job is to tell the Government what it wants to hear; that the general population want to be controlled more

The Tobacco Control Industry does not just tell the Government that tobacco might be harmful and people should be warned. They tell the Government that all non-smokers want smoking to be banned and all smokers desperately want to quit

That gives the Government something else that it loves almost as much as money. Control

So tobacco provides both money and the means to control people. All Governments want this

But the trouble is, the more restrictions the Government places on tobacco and it's users, the less revenue it gets. When they actually succeed in forcing people to quit, they no longer pay tobacco taxes. That can only happen for so long. Eventually both the money and the means to control people even further, will start to dry up

So why not replace tobacco with something else? The war on drugs is not working and it was never supposed to. There is also a lot of money and control to be garnered by fighting drugs, from law enforcement to the army of councillors and addiction specialists employed by the state

The public are becoming more used to the idea of legalising cannabis because it is a relatively harmless drug compared to most of them, so it's a perfect candidate to be made legally available and taxed

This approach would enable to Government to recoup the losses of tobacco tax and then some

They would lose some of the control for a short period of time, as they would no longer be able to bully people for using cannabis, but it wouldn't last. There will always be prodnoses who think they have the right to tell others what to do, so sooner or later, these people would be going cap in hand to the Government, demanding their share of the Control Industry pie

Give it a few years and there will be a cannabis Control Industry to rival the size and scope of tobacco control, demanding the Government punish and denormalise another group of people enjoying another legal product

The Government cannot loose. The only losers are the general public who just want to be left alone. Yet again

Maybe when the Tobacco Control Industry has switched battles, us smokers will finally get some peace?

Ominous Headlines

From the BBC

Who are the smokers that haven't quit?

Who? Who are they? Where can we find them? They must be found

Well I for one, am a smoker who hasn't quit. I'm also a smoker who does not intend to quit and enjoys smoking a great deal. I'm here BBC, yoohoo! GFY
In 1974, almost half of all adults in the UK smoked. For many, spending time in smoke-filled homes, pubs and workplaces was simply a part of daily life.
I was clearly born at the wrong time. A part of daily life for smokers now, is standing outside in the British weather
But some people remain much more likely to smoke than others.
The article then drifts on to a load of divvel about poor, pregnant, manual workers with mental illnesses, you know, the type of folk who desperately need the help of their betters
In recent years, the UK has introduced policies that appear to have helped many smokers quit and deterred others from starting.
None of the Governments anti-smoking measures have 'helped' smokers quit, they have bullied smokers into quitting. There's a big difference
The smoking ban was introduced in 2007
Closing an unprecedented number of pubs and putting thousands of people, myself included, out of work
Taxes on a £10 pack of 20 cigarettes have increased to over 80% of the retail price
Vastly increasing the black market and the number of people who buy their tobacco abroad, reducing tax revenues and making tobacco a much less regulated market
Wales is targeting a 16% smoking rate by 2020, while the Scottish government aims to create a "tobacco-free" generation by 2034 and Northern Ireland is also aiming to eradicate smoking altogether, in addition to England's pledge to end smoking by 2030.
These are people who are supposed to work for us, but long have they been our masters who will use force against us to ensure we live our lives as we are told
Stop-smoking services providing support and medication have also been offered nationwide, contributing to the fall in overall smoking rates.
Stop smoking services are in decline because hardly anyone is bothering to use them anymore. If people want to quit now, they have the option of using e-cigs, which are much nicer and help more people quit than patches and gum
What is more likely is that the remaining smokers smoke because they want to
Yet they have been less effective for poorer and mentally ill smokers, even if they are as likely to try to quit as other groups.The reasons for this are varied and complex.
Oh do tell...
These groups can have higher levels of dependence, making it harder to give up.
Nicotine is more addictive to poor people?
They are also more likely to be around other smokers, normalising the behaviour
It is normal
They may also have to deal with stress factors such as income instability, poor housing and living in run‐down neighbourhoods.
So will making them quit the fags, make them less stressed or more stressed?
At the same time, stop-smoking services, which appear to have helped reduce inequalities, have disappeared in many areas, with an estimated 30% funding cut in England between 2014-15 and 2017-18 .
The point I made earlier. The funding has not been cut because of evil Tory austerity, it's because the services aren't being used enough to justify the layout
For these reasons, a different approach may be needed.
The BBC is not a news service, it's a left wing lobby group. But you already knew that. Let's see what new and innovative ideas they have to force people to give up the deadly weed
Free, tailored individual support, including advice, mobile stop-smoking services and online resources, has been shown to be effective, as have financial incentives such as making cigarettes more expensive and offering smokers cash to quit.

Price increases appear to work best in combination with support such as counselling and smoking alternatives such as electronic cigarettes or nicotine patches.
So nothing then. More of the same services that people are no longer bothering with, plus more tax which is already happening and give smokers free money which has been proposed many times
Why is this so important?
Again, do tell
Reducing smoking among the most disadvantaged is one of the most important ways to reduce health inequalities.
I don't get this 'Health Inequalities' business. Why do the Left think everyone has to be equal? Encouraging richer people to take up smoking would also reduce 'Health Inequalities'.
Alongside shortening life expectancy through disease and illness, smoking can also negatively affect mental health.

Giving up is associated with reduced depression, anxiety and stress, while boosting overall quality of life.
Seriously? I've always found that doing something I like helps my mental health, reduces anxiety and stress and boosts my overall quality of life. Being told I cannot do something I like would have the opposite effect
On top of this, smoking is expensive and can trap people into cycles of poverty.
That's because it's taxed so much, you blithering idiot! Reduce the tax to a fair level and it would not trap people in cycles of (defined in rich western societies) poverty
While far fewer people smoke now than in the past, there are still seven million smokers in the UK.
I salute you, the seven million. And all the others Nanny doesn't know about
Studies suggest most long-term smokers die from a smoking-related disease.
'Suggest'. 'Most'. Very scientific. When? At what age? What disease? Was it cause by smoking? When is an acceptable age to die?
Every year in England, 80,000 people die from the effects of smoking, making it the number one risk factor for ill health and early death.

With more than 200 deaths per day, this is equivalent to a plane crashing every day.
No it bloody well isn't. If a plane crashed every day, we could say, "All those people were killed in plane crashes". As for smoking, all we can say is, suggest, might, could, possible, related, earlier, etc.

When a plan crashes, most people on board will be under the age of seventy. Most average smokers who die are over the age of seventy and may, possibly, might just have lost a few years of additional life through their smoking
This analysis piece was commissioned by the BBC from an expert working for an outside organisation.

Dr Leonie Brose is a senior lecturer at the National Addiction Centre, King's College London.
She's also a muppet

Not so Super Mario

Saved by the Bell actor Mario Lopez calls trans children 'alarming'
I read his comments here and here and you know what? I totally agree with him. The progressive left have a sickness. It's not good enough that people are happy to leave them to their beliefs without hindrance. People, all people have to agree with their every viewpoint. The minute someone publicly steps away from the narrative, there's a pile on. And who are the ones who get charged with 'Hate Crimes'? The people who didn't pile on

I've never heard of Mario Lopez until today, but he's caused quite a stir after the following interview:
“I am trying to understand this new Hollywood mentality,” Owens told Lopez, after sharing how Charlize Theron recently revealed that her own child did not identify as a boy, “where they just think their children now have the mental authority.

Lopez agreed, stating: “I am trying to understand it myself, and please don’t lump me into that whole [group]. I’m kind of blown away too. Look, I’m never one to tell anyone how to parent their kids obviously, and I think if you come from a place of love, you really can’t go wrong but at the same time, my God, if you’re three years old and you’re saying you’re feeling a certain way or you think you’re a boy or a girl or whatever the case may be, I just think it’s dangerous as a parent to make this determination then, well, okay, then you’re going to a boy or a girl, whatever the case may be…It’s sort of alarming and my gosh, I just think about the repercussions later on.”

He later added: “When you’re a kid…you don’t know anything about sexuality yet. You’re just a kid."

“I think parents need to allow their kids to be kids but at the same time, you gotta be the adult in the situation. Pause with that and — I think the formative years is when you start having those discussions and really start making these ‘declarations’.”
Some of it is a little laboured and nonsensical, but he is an actor, so...

The point he is making though, is that very young children have no idea about sexual identity and a belief that they do should not be encouraged:
“When you’re a kid…you don’t know anything about sexuality yet. You’re just a kid."
Who could disagree with that? The modern LGBTETC lobby, that's who

Let the pile on commence

And your hair Alex, tells us you have nothing of any importance to say

He was talking about three year olds. I would love to see the stats on three year olds who've killed themselves because of bullying about their gender identity. Saying that, I would love to see the stats on three year olds who have even given it a moments thought

To me, Trans is the new Gay. In the past, Gays and Lesbians went through a whole heap of hell that they should never have been subjected to, yet the world has moved on since then and the war has been fought and rightly won. Move on, nothing to see here

But the modern left are not interested in winning, all they are interested in, is being victims. They want that special place in society where they are not equals who blend into the woodwork like everyone else, they want to stand out, to be treated special and for everyone to pay attention to them

That's why they've stepped it up a level to 'Trans'

Hence the new war. The made up war of 'Trans' people fighting gallantly against oppression that exists only in their minds

Hence attention seeking parents who think it's cool to have a trans child, just like it once was cool to have a child with ADHD or some kind of food intolerance. It makes other people look at them, talk about them, treat them differently and tell them what absolute troopers they must be

At a time when we are allowing very young children to make very adult assertions about gender identity, the adults in the mix are beginning to act like very young children, expecting the world to snap to their own viewpoint ans throwing almighty tantrums when anyone has the audacity to suggest that maybe things are going a little too far

The biggest problem with all this nonsense, is that the adult babies are actually winning
Lopez has since issued a statement apologising for his “ignorant and insensitive” comments.
“I now have a deeper understanding of how hurtful they were,” he told People. “I have been and always will be an ardent supporter of the LGBTQ community, and I am going to use this opportunity to better educate myself. Moving forward I will be more informed and thoughtful.”
His comments were not 'ignorant and insensitive', they were downright correct and need to be said more often by a great many more people
Educate yourself? No, moving forward you will be a whipped beta male who had his arse handed to him by a bunch of screaming loonies on Twitter and will be forever to frighted to express your own opinion again

Never apologise, never back down

Excess Baggage

Southwestern Airlines passengers left bemused as flight attendant hides in overhead compartment
Passengers were left bemused when they boarded a plane to discover one of the flight attendants was hiding in the overhead luggage compartment.

Why? I mean, just, why? Fancied a kip and woke up when the plane was boarding? Looking for loose change? Just as pissed as the passengers? Free flight, no spare seats? We never really find out
Southwest Airlines said in a statement: "Southwest employees are known for demonstrating their sense of humour and unique personalities.
"In this instance, one of our flight attendants attempted to have a brief moment of fun with customers during boarding.
"Of course, this is not our normal procedure, and Southwest crews always maintain Safety as their top priority."
We also never find out why this is news. Oh well. Bit of a larf. I suppose it takes all sorts :-)

Maybe America won't let her in...

...or maybe the ship will sink
Greta Thunberg is to sail across the Atlantic in a high-speed racing yacht next month to attend UN climate summits in the US and Chile as part of a sabbatical year the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist will spend in the US
The Yanks don't just let anyone in their country and Donald Trump is no fan of Climate Change evangelism. I remember some of the questions I had to answer when applying for my entry visa to the US:

Fortunately I have never engaged in any of those activities, so once I ticked that box, I was welcomed into the US.

Can we say the same though, for Green Greta the Swedish Meatball? Her ilk certainly want to sabotage the western economy and by sending us all to the dark ages in order to eradicate all CO2, genocide could certainly be on the cards too

And the whole thing could be classed as an act of terrorism against the world and all the progress we have made in it
In a joint Guardian interview with the US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in June, Greta said of her planned visit to the UN climate summit [...] Ocasio-Cortez said: “If you land in New York, we will give you a Queens welcome!”
Well that's only to be expected from the Socialist Senorita, she's batshit crazy too
Greta, who has encountered fierce criticism from climate deniers and some politicians, told AP she was not sure how her message would go down in the US, where Donald Trump leads broad opposition to the radical measures scientists say are required to limit global warming.
I hope she gets her arse handed to her. It's about time