That’d be so much better*.
They’re so wise, and always looking out for my best interest.
Or is it the greater good? I get those two confused.
—
*screenshot from Ace of Spades
Will Blog for ISP Time, Glaucoma Meds, or Cheap Booze.
Free! (and worth every penny)
Scary Manifesto that keeps getting pushed down on the sidebar by filthy capitalism!
They say that Louis XIV had the inscription Ultima Ratio Regum cast into all the cannon of the French Army. It means “The Ultimate Argument of Kings,” and that always struck me as one of the most honest and up-front things any ruler or would-be ruler ever said. “We can dress it up prettier than this, but when it comes down to the unvarnished truth this is what it’s about: You’ll do as I say or I’ll send my goons to kill you.”
I thought about that for a long time. If there’s an ultimate argument, it seems only logical that there must be an ultimate answer. For years I thought the ultimate answer must be the bullets in my rifle, but it never seemed quite right. I’ve got bullets – he’s got frigging Cannon Balls. I mean, if there were three hundred million rifles throwing bullets at him, then maybe. But we all know that’s not going to happen. So if there’s an ultimate answer to his ultimate argument, it sure as hell ain’t bullets.
It finally came to me – and that’s when I abandoned the city and most of my stuff, and gave all that was behind me a good stiff Randian Shrug.
The ultimate answer to kings is not a bullet, but a belly laugh.
Our Founder
Our Late Editor
Little Bear 2009-2018
Our Late Cattle Wrangler
Laddie the Amazing Torso Boy 2011-2020
Blogroll
- 357 Magnum
- 5 Acres and a Dream
- 90 Miles From Tyranny
- A Day in the Life of a Talk Radio Blogger
- Adaptive Curmudgeon
- Armed & Non-Violent
- Bayou Renaissance Man
- Bill St. Clair
- Borepatch
- Carl Bussjaeger
- Claire Wolfe
- Commander Zero
- Dio's Workshop
- Eaton Rapids Joe
- Forgotten Weapons
- Freeholder
- Home on the Range
- Instapundit
- Irons in the Fire
- James Zachary
- Kent McManigal
- Nails and Sawdust
- Never Yet Melted
- Resistance Library
- Say Uncle
- The Price of Liberty
- The Smallest Minority
- The View from North Central Idaho
- The Vulgar Curmudgeon
- The War on Guns
- The Zelman Partisans
- True Blue Sam
- View from the Porch
- Weer'd World
- Wendy McElroy
- You will shoot your eye out
- Zendo Deb
Previous OPSEC Violations
Context: the hospital had kept Alfie alive for 15 months before they gave up and told the parents there is nothing they could do.
Realistically, Alfie is going to die. I don’t think a US insurance company would do any different. You’ve got to give up sometime.
BUT…
What makes them think Alfie is theirs to dispose of? What gives them the right to deny the parents their right to take their kid wherever they friggin want?
Cynical me thinks it’s because they’re worried the Italians will figure out how to fix him and have egg on their faces.
But regardless of motive, this is wrong. Alfie doesn’t belong to the State.
Have you seen the photos which are said to be the line of cops guarding the hospital doors to make sure the parents can’t escape with the kid?
#CopsAreNasty to do such a “job”.
only following orders, nothing to see here, move along…
Realistically, Alfie is going to die.
Realistically, we’re all going to die. It’s pretty much guaranteed that, someday, something will kill us, we just don’t know what or when; so far, it’s been expected that we’ll have some say in how that plays out.
Which means we’re witnessing with Alfie a matter of degree – the state is certainly influencing, and perhaps deciding, how that process works, and it’s reasonable to assume that factors other than sanctity or quality of life are at the top of their list. There are ample reasons for discontinuing efforts that prolong life, but that’s an issue controlled by individual circumstances, and deserving of reasoned input from those most closely involved.
It’s doesn’t exactly mean Soylent Green is the next step, but it may be possible to see its distant shadow on the horizon from here.
Goober had it right in his last sentence :the kid doesn’t belong to the state. Once we give in on that position,they can (and will) do any evil that they can imagine. I’m not on either side of this particular story,but I wouldn’t let the state decide for me,if I was in their shoes.
One of my favorite philosophies is from Voltaire ; ” Everything that the state has,it has stolen,and everything it says is a lie “.
So “There will never never ever ever be any death panels” is right in there with “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.”
My first reaction to this story was to apply Occam’s razor, which says that the explanation that involves the fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one. Namely, I was reluctant to assume malevolent government intent here, but just a government that valued the professional opinion of the boy’s doctors over that of the parents. Otherwise, one must assume incompetent medical care COMBINED WITH a malevolent government.
But then the UK government refused to allow the parents to take their child elsewhere for treatment when obviously doing so couldn’t have hurt the boy, even though it was unlikely to do him any good. What’s up with that? What could they possibly have gained by doing that?
The only explanation I can see is that the UK government has something to hide regarding this boy’s case, and allowing him to be seen by Italian doctors would have exposed it.
By the way, the boy has died.