Monday, November 16, 2009

The Nadir of Political Evil

How do you tell when a political system has reached the nadir of evil? Is it at the point where the state enslaves and kills millions of its subjects, or establishes a cult of hysterical dictator worship? Or can a government cross that threshold in a less dramatic way? It seems to me that evil and politics become virtually identical when an ordinary man can no longer fathom the arbitrary demands of his rulers, and runs afoul of them even when he attempts to obey them.

From an article on the UK web site Surrey Today:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

To get a more comprehensive idea of just how morally inverted Britain has become, read some of the posts on the Nanny Knows Best blog. Though written with wit and humor, they tell a sad tale of a once free nation whose native population is harangued, hounded, and punished simply for going about their business. For example, it is apparently a crime in the UK to babysit without a license.

I know too little about British politics to guess what might replace this loathsome system when it has run its course. But even a crude authoritarian regime, which gives its subjects a few comprehensible rules to follow, would be preferable to the merciless, invasive lunacy of a totalitarian social democracy. I won't be at all surprised to see Britons gravitating to that sort of political movement someday.


  1. I can't imagine living under that regime. I feel sure they might say the same about some of our unique government idiocies. Still, it seems the UK is leading the way to a new totalitarian form of communism, things which would embarrass the old Soviet states.

    I wonder if anyone who knows enough would care to explore whether, when some of the most oppressive living under previous regimes when titles or rank meant something, were they not somewhat better off than they are now? Was ancient feudalism any worse?

  2. Broken, your question is worth answering on a separate post. I'm not a profound student of the Middle Ages, but I've read enough about them to recognize several ways in which an English commoner of 1209 AD would be more free than his descendant living in 2009. The very concept of rulers micromanaging people's lives to produce new, politically-correct beings is thoroughly modern. It would have been alien and repugnant to the medieval mind.

  3. I would agree, based on my knowledge. While the Middle Ages is one of my specialities in teaching history, my education was rather broad in scope, and not so terribly deep. Seems to me we would benefit from an evaluation by someone with more in English History itself, perhaps living there now, to compare more accurately.