In response to Kathy Gyngell: Wake up, Home Secretary! This drug scheme is a recipe for chaos
The drug legalisers’ approach is similar to the Remainers’ approach and for that matter most ideologies. Apply controlled opposition techniques to hobble and straw man the opposing side as unworkable and a disaster, then use this false argument to push your own agenda!
Peter Evans wrote:
A standing ovation for Kathy Gyngell.
Interestingly, Vladimir Putin made an intriguing, and I believe very accurate observation, this week:
‘The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population.’
The liberal idea presupposes that human beings are free sovereign individuals who should be permitted to pursue their interests and pleasures without hindrance by the state. This is the natural state of the human animal. Except it isn’t. This freedom of the sovereign individual exists nowhere in the state of nature, where the freedom of the most aggressive and ruthless has dominion over the weaker and less aggressive.
Humankind is different, in that we are the creatures possessing the mystery of consciousness; we refer to ourselves as ‘I’ and to others as ‘you’. ‘I’ and ‘you’ are far more enigmatic than they might appear: neither is made of neurones and neurotransmitters, bone and muscle, which are merely the necessary material preconditions for them. They exist not as part of nature, but as a point of view on nature, and will not return to nature as our physical selves will when we expire because they contain no molecules, no material particles.
Yet these outlooks can be corrupted in the world of the sovereign, freely self-inventing and choosing individual assumed by liberalism. We need customs, institutions, laws and fellowship (social membership) to protect our liberties, which would rapidly disappear and recreate the nightmarish ‘nature’ scenario I referred to earlier if we were merely to pursue our own pleasures. We are free to sin, after all, and as Augustine knew well, sin is the primary cause of servitude. In City of God, he wrote:
‘ . . . a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.’
Liberalism appears to have no concept of the good and the wicked in its libertarianism. If we open the world of drug addiction to a new generation of naïve youngsters, we are making the world more, not less, wicked for them, enslaving them in vice to some very, very nasty new masters.
Listen up, Mr Javid. There is nothing remotely conservative, let alone beneficial, in what you’re proposing to do.
This is one of the ways society is being ruined, isn’t it? Time after time, over many decades, we’ve seen middle-class types push for a weakening of the arrangements, taboos and bonds previously put in place to protect everyone, but particularly the more vulnerable working class. It’s the ‘I’m all right Jack’ attitude writ large.
We’ve long seen comfortably well-off libertarian middle-class types, fully insulated by the benefits of good education, career and a reasonably solid, disciplined upbringing, campaigning for their convenience and freedom, all whilst blissfully unaware that a freedom they can probably handle will be devastating to those not enjoying their advantages.
In a more responsible age, with a stronger sense of public duty, middle-class people would think more about the needs of others, including their far greater fragility socially, economically and morally. Shame on these selfish people, I say. The selfishness of the faith-free, ‘enlightened’ left-liberal middle class knows no bounds. Wake up, Home Secretary, for you are being taken for a very long ride towards disaster!