(Despite my misrepresentation: the emergency code for the UK is 999, not 911. I am surprised the Politically Correct Brigade hasn't thought to push for changing that 9/11 number.)

Being in medical school, any idealism about your role is systematically ameliorated and deconstructed. When we submitted our personal statements outlining precisely why we wished to pursue the arduous path of medicine (an admittedly mad decision), a common piece of advice was not to present a picture of unrealistic idealism: they wanted some evidence of the understanding of precisely what a doctor's role actually is, specifically within the framework of the National Health Service. Still, the primary reason for choosing the doctor's role over other professions for most who do is in finding that is worth doing, worth getting out of bed for, worth the comparative loss of sanity, sleep and income to other fields open to you. A role that is both compatible with your personal ethics and perceived to be of inestimable worth to society.

You are allowed to retain some version of naivety and self-righteousness -- sorry, encouraged to be ethical and good -- insofar as it allows you to justify any action to yourself within the safe knowledge that you are doing it either in the best interests of your patient or out of respecting their autonomy: that is, for them to make their own decisions even if you disagree with them.

You are allowed to do a lot of good as part of the medical profession: vaccination, treatment, easing suffering. This is what happens most of the time.

However, there are grey areas. Or even black areas. A problem with being part of a nationalised service or any organisation is that you are essentially an agent of their interests; you may disagree with them but your enforced job is to remain in line with them. You are a slave to political trends and helpless to powers beyond your realistic control.

What faces the future doctor?
We have the financial consequences of the recession, although finances were a problem already. Latest figures from the office of statistics place the public debt at 7.7 billion, compared to surplus at the same time last year. Contributing to this figure is the cost of bailing out banks; figures for the cost of this ranged from billions to over a trillion.

Cost-cutting measures in the nationalised health service are happening and will happen, leading indirectly to loss of life. This can't be avoided.

Euthanasia is currently illegal in the United Kingdom. A matter darker than this is that there is and will be increasing clamour for legalisation and laxity around anti-euthanasia measures. Not only will this benefit the strained coffers of the NHS but the demand increases: as we lose the soft, warm and comforting blanket of the comforts of deranged consumerism, more of the population will find the idea of living intolerable as well as the idea of being a 'burden'. More people will want to be helped to die and it will be easier to say 'yes'.

This is an issue wherever economies are affected and not just a local one.

I wonder -- as an aside -- what the USA motivations for pushing health care reform measures leading to an increase of control by governmental institutions might be amidst a tenuous economic climate? Will Obama's administration abuse this control? Will the next administration?

Again and again, I question and reflect: will I be able to recognise when I'm doing what a good doctor should be doing or am I rationalising that what the NHS wants is precisely what a good doctor is?

Well, we are far away here from the idealistic pre-medical student state where the role of the doctor is to 'save lives.' It is to ease suffering. Like healers before me, I may include dispensation of death within the purview of my role: even though it offends the very foundation of what I intended to study and fight to preserve.

Easing suffering (where do we draw the limit for suffering?) or not: will I be able to make the decision to kill? That remains to be seen.

Milton Friedman argues against drug prohibition:

One of his more interesting arguments: If we ban drugs because they might harm people, why is it in principle wrong to ban overeating or smoking? The video producers then list a bunch of stuff that could become illegal in America. The funny part: most of it is already regulated or banned in Sweden.

Smoking restrictions: check.

Seatbelt laws: check.

Helmet laws: check.

Gambling laws: check.

Gun rights: check.

Trans fat ban: probably on its way via EU.

Driving restrictions: check.

Fluorescent bulbs: not banned, but regulated against.

Thermostat control: no idea.

Sobriety checkpoints: check.

Free speech: in effect, check.

In the classic "Foreigners Around The World", PJ O'Rourke wrote of the English that "their shabby, antiquated, and bankrupt little back alley of a country slowly winds down like the ill-crafted clockwork playthings of which their undersized children are so fond". This winding down continues, as Britain's entire economy is sinking in the world rankings, getting passed by the likes of China and Italy and set to fall behind Canada and India by 2015... yup, that would place it behind at least three of its former colonies.

As we point and laugh at these losers, we should also look for someone to blame. I blame Britain's rulers, not for being evil or incompetent or corrupt, but for being nice and making their subjects' lives less troublesome. To quote from a speech Charles Murray made earlier this year:

Almost anything that government does in social policy can be characterized as taking some of the trouble out of things. Sometimes, taking the trouble out of things is a good idea. Having an effective police force takes some of the trouble out of walking home safely at night, and I'm glad it does.

The problem is this: Every time the government takes some of the trouble out of performing the functions of family, community, vocation, and faith, it also strips those institutions of some of their vitality--it drains some of the life from them. . .

A man who is holding down a menial job and thereby supporting a wife and children is doing something authentically important with his life. He should take deep satisfaction from that, and be praised by his community for doing so. Think of all the phrases we used to have for it: "He is a man who pulls his own weight." "He's a good provider." If that same man lives under a system that says that the children of the woman he sleeps with will be taken care of whether or not he contributes, then that status goes away. I am not describing some theoretical outcome. I am describing American neighborhoods where, once, working at a menial job to provide for his family made a man proud and gave him status in his community, and where now it doesn't. I could give a half dozen other examples. Taking the trouble out of the stuff of life strips people--already has stripped people--of major ways in which human beings look back on their lives and say, "I made a difference."

Read the whole thing - it's a good summary of Murray's central ideas. And then shed a tiny little tear for our co-blogger Alfred...

If we know anything about the Scots, it is that they like to drink. While Swedes only have one or two beers while watching football on TV, the Scots bulge down a whole local brewery before the game has even started. Yet, while it would be a big mistake to suggest that the solution to Scotland's alcohol problems lies in the "Swedish model," some insist:

Research has shown that, given the opportunity, both Scots and Swedes binge drink. Yet the average Swede consumes 9 litres of pure alcohol per year, compared with 12 for the average Scot.

"Our own research indicates that the 'Systembolaget' monopoly reduces consumption by 25-30%," he tells me. "As a consequence it also reduces alcohol related problems."

"It takes political skill and motivation to control alcohol problems," Sven Andreasson tells me. "But our policies are based on research which shows the most powerful tools to control alcohol problems in a nation involve price and availability."

The message in the article is surprisingly clear: Sweden's heavy taxation on alcohol really works. But hold your horses, because I'm about to explain why the pro-taxation arguments don't hold, and why Sweden is in worse drunken problems today than it has ever been.

Myth 1: Sweden's government monopoly "Systembolaget" helps to lower alcohol consumption

Then why are Swedes drinking more today than they have been for the last 100 years? Alcohol consumption in Sweden has increased by more than 30 % since the mid-1990s. One reason to this is the heavy taxation; instead of paying more at home, Swedes pay less abroad (mainly Denmark and Germany). Critics say this is because of Sweden's entry into EU and its liberal border laws, but that doesn't explain why alcohol consumption has also increased from Systembolaget. Swedes are simply drinking more, despite the government monopoly.

Myth 2: Tax cuts always lead to increased alcohol consumption

Another interesting example, and close neighbor to Scotland, is Ireland:

Despite having the highest tax regime on alcohol in Europe, our [Ireland's] levels of consumption remains amongst the highest.

With easier movement of people and travel a much more common pursuit, it is increasingly easier to buy alcohol from abroad- something that would only be encouraged by higher taxes at home.

Furthermore recent research carried out in Scandinavia and published in the periodical Addiction showed that consumption of alcohol fell or remained flat following cuts in taxes on alcohol in Sweden and Finland.

Apparently there's not necessarily a casual relationship between price and consumption. Even the liberal government institutions admit this. Take a look at this graph for instance:

Looking at this, it's easy to arrive at the conclusion that there's a relationship of causality going on here, when experts themselves merely hint at a relationship of correlation:

There is a clear association between price, availability and consumption. But there is less sound evidence for the impact of introducing specific policies in a particular social and political context:

• our analysis showed that the drivers of consumption are much more complex than merely price and availability;
• evidence suggested that using price as a key lever risked major unintended side effects;
• the majority of those who drink do so sensibly the majority of the time.
Policies need to be publicly acceptable if they are to succeed; and
• measures to control price and availability are already built into the system.

The influence of price on consumption is complex. For one thing, there
can be cross price effects ie if the price of one alcoholic beverage increases relative
to the others, some consumers may switch to a cheaper alternative. There is also
the question of incomes. The effects of increases in prices may be reduced or
cancelled out by increases in disposable income.

Do we really expect brainless and slow bureaucracies to calculate those complex relationships? Obviously price affects consumption, but does lower prices necessarily mean people booze more? Apparently not. We also know that high prices don't necessarily limit boozing--Ireland and Sweden are two examples of this, so something is wrong with this pro-taxation argument.

Myth 3: Tax cuts is the primary factor in limiting alcohol consumption

Since there's no clear causal relationship between price and consumption, we don't know this, because there are several counterexamples. Other factors that may be equal to or even more important than price:

• Greater wealth: if young people began boozing more in the UK after the 1960s, we might as well point to an increasingly richer middle class, which acquires new needs with more cash in the pocket.
• Cultural attitudes: Danes are famous for their drinking culture, as are Englishmen, Scots and Irishmen. How come? Continental cultures have a different attitude to alcohol than, say, genuinely Nordic countries. Put simply, while the Continentals drink a little now and then, Swedes drink it all during two days a week. Danes often have a drink or two after work, and then they go home. In Sweden this is taboo behavior; people would suspect you're an alcoholic. In Sweden you drink nothing during work days, until Friday and Saturday, when you pour down it all at bars and clubs open to till 4 am the next day. In England whole families meet at the pub to socialize. In Sweden people would think the parents were terrible people who need government support. That these cultural differences aren't mentioned when comparing Swedish and Scottish alcohol consumption is proof of cheap journalism.
• The liberal revolution: "The birth of the Celtic Tiger led to dramatically increased disposable income, a more liberal society where values like obedience and abstinence were no longer prevalent and changes in work and commuting routines which added to changing consumption patterns." Not that hard to understand: it would be deeply scandalous if young people in Sweden began boozing and trashing the city during the 1930s or 40s. After the leftist-liberal revolution in '68, youth culture began and young people started having random sex, drinking, doing drugs and voting for more government policies. This is uncomfortable for North European Nanny States to admit, because their whole voting base is centered around the ideals from this liberal-leftist revolution. That it brought reckless drinking no longer rooted in tradition, no one wants to mention. The lack of traditional drinking (= drinking certain spirits at certain occasions under certain conditions only) has of course made people more prone to drink when they feel like it, which was rarely the case back in history.
• Existential crisis: it's not news that Europe's populations don't feel well. Suicide rates are sky-rocketing among young people. When you feel your life is shit, it's easy to start drinking or doing drugs. But governments don't know how to treat social or cultural problems, so it's much easier to point to bureaucratic figures like prices and spend all energy beating down on that instead.
• Globalization: of course EU and the process of globalization in general has led to increased binge drinking across the chart. But this is the development we're seeing today and suddenly enforcing protectionist policies against alcohol trade over borders don't seem like a realistic solution. In fact, it would go against everything else that Sweden and Scotland supposedly stand for.

I can think of more, and so can you, I'm sure, so let's just agree that price obviously not is a lone factor in this equation, and most likely not the primary one, considering what we already know.

Myth 4: If you don't support the Nanny State, you support the evil alcohol industry

Here we go. This same argument always comes up with the tobacco industry as well. OF COURSE, alcohol industries want to sell their products. Why wouldn't they? Interestingly, so does our governments, because the tax increases help bureaucracies expand their interests and services. So we have two "bad boys" playing against each other, rather than some innocent governmental institution against some evil industry complex against public health. This whole argument is ridiculous for two reasons:

1. Reputation: Why would the alcohol industry really want out-of-control binge drinking? The more problems with alcohol and public health/safety, the more the press will stress the dangers of alcohol and thus hurt profits for the industry. Industries don't like to get bad reputation. This is especially true for local breweries who see their mission more as a cultural one than as an economical one.

2. The industry pours in money to health organizations and frequently warns about health dangers associated with binge drinking.

The alcohol industry wants to make money, but it's hardly evil, and we'd be quite mistaken if we assumed the government is any less irresponsible. In fact, our governments are currently making money off of drunk people doing stupid things, yet this way is somehow supposed to be better than if the money landed in the pockets of industries who at least create job opportunities.

Myth 5: If you believe in individual responsibility, you are a careless person

From New Zealand's Drug Foundation page:

Firstly, alcohol is an addictive substance. Addiction and dependency seriously impair the ability to make rational decisions.

This is not an argument against the belief in individual responsibility. No one claims alcohol isn't addictive or doesn't affect you. On the contrary, if this substance really is so bad, people need to think about how they use it.

Secondly,consumers find themselves in an environment in which several millions of dollars are spent on alcohol marketing.

They do, but do they drink because of the ads themselves, or the culture they're in? Ads might trigger behavior, but that behavior is already there if you look at a specific culture. In other words, we need to look at the cultural environment and not just prices. This is still not an argument against individual responsibility, or the belief that the industry should be able to promote its products.

Another important aspect to keep in mind is that harmful alcohol use is rarely an individual problem. Rather, it impacts on family, friends, neighbours, work colleagues and, ultimately,society as a whole.

Individual responsibility and individual problems are two different things. It's still possible, without any contradictions, to hold the belief that promoting individual responsibility will benefit the social whole. The argument also overlooks pure facts like the increase in Swedish alcohol consumption despite price control.

Contrary to the widely held misperception, alcohol harms are not confined to the heaviest drinkers in a population but are much more widespread. For example, recent research from Finland found that the majority of problems occurred in 90 percent of the population consuming moderately, compared to the 10 percent of the population drinking heavily.

Of course they did--do you really think 10 % of a population can top the riot of 90 %? The majority of a population who drink moderately is naturally expected to cause more general trouble, which may be related to alcohol, but probably involve a range of other factors. For instance, if I had a beer one night at a bar and later got into an argument with my girlfriend and began fighting her, I would be a part of these statistics. Yet few people would suggest the alcohol was to blame at all. It'd be like saying the majority of sane drivers get involved in more car accidents than drunk drivers. So?

Myth: Raising prices has no effect on heavy or binge drinkers. This myth is widely disseminated by certain sectors and frequently cited in media reports. Yet the evidence shows the opposite is true. Price increases and a set minimum price have a much greater effect on heavier than on lighter drinkers, with modest or only small extra financial cost to lighter drinkers.

But if the heavy drinkers cause minimal problems compared to moderate drinkers, why should we care? The conclusion remains: we punish a great majority for a minority's drinking problems. But the minimum prices are so "modest" and only mean a "small extra financial cost" to light drinkers, you say? If they're so small no one should care, why do you claim people do care and actually lower their alcohol consumption? There's clearly both confusion and hypocrisy behind the central pro-taxation arguments.

Myth 6: Legislation is effective in changing cultural behavior

Is it? NZ's Drug Foundation continues while drawing parallels to smoking:

While legislation alone won’t change our drinking culture, its role in shaping behaviour should not be dismissed outof hand. Our view is that legislation has a crucial role to play in influencing the drinking environment, which is currently oriented towards ease of access and excess. We also believe there are important parallels that can be drawn from the success of anti-smoking legislation, where a substantial culture change has occurred following the enactment of smokefree legislation. There has been a significant shift in attitudes towards smoking in public places since the smokefree legislation.

No one is dismissing legislation as unimportant, otherwise we wouldn't object to it, but the fact that people smoke less at public places doesn't really mean people smoke less overall. We want to control the consumption of alcohol, not control where people drink, so this parallel is pretty uninteresting. If people smoke less today (if they do, in NZ or in Sweden) is probably more due to a recent interest in health and environmental trends than the silly warnings on smoke packages that say "Cancer can kill you" or "Smoking poses a dangerous health risk." If we put signs on cannabis packages that said "When you're high, you may lose self-control," would that reduce the smoking of drugs? Yeah, it's that silly.

Myth 7: Alcohol is a "special" commodity

The Drug Foundation adds:

Alcohol is no ordinary commodity. It is an addictive substance that can lead to long-term dependence. It isassociated with a range of acute and chronic health harms and has been classified by WHO as a Class 1 carcinogen, alongside asbestos, formaldehyde, mustard gas and plutonium-239.

Why would this make alcohol a "special" commodity? I know a lot of things that are either inherently dangerous, or can be misused to become dangerous. Should we raise prices on knives because some people use them to kill people instead of food? There's no clear argument why alcohol would be a commodity exempt from basic economic market laws. Creating a monopoly on something like alcohol or drugs feeds illegal markets. This is one simple law that's already come true during every prohibition in history, both in America and Europe. Why do you think teenagers buy dope from gang lords in slums? Because if an industry doesn't sell it, crack heads will.

Myth 8: Without government monopoly, the rich selection of alcohol at a place like Systembolaget wouldn't be possible

The last time I was at a bar, I spoke with the owner while sipping a Czech Staropramen Granat (sweeter than the original, recommended). He told me the local city once had a fine brewery, but it closed down a few years ago. "That's how it goes with Big Capitalism eating everything up," he finished off saying. Maybe he was right: there was no market for that product, so it had to go. As Frank has noticed, tracking down finer European beer in the States isn't as easy as it is for a Swede to walk into any Systembolaget store and buy home a rare Belgian ale no one's ever heard of.

But there are a few problems with this argument. First, do we really want that monopoly control and price fixing that goes along with being served a selection of spirits that a majority of people are unlikely to ever explore to its fullest (hilariously, when you walk into a Systembolaget store, most people cram down mediocre beer brewed by Swedish companies)? Secondly, just because you cannot survive on doing something, it doesn't mean you should have the government to back you up. That line of argumentation, if applied to most or all commodities on the market, would be insane (i.e. Communism).

Third, and most importantly, because this is what I told the bar owner: Yeah, I guess too few people bought from that brewery, but how well did they market themselves? What if they'd both sell to Systembolaget (or any bigger liquor store if we didn't have monopoly) and export to Europe? The rest of Europe is fascinated by Swedish beer. It wouldn't be hard to find customers if the product was good. Just look at Stockholm Beer Festival; local Swedish beer is going stronger than ever. It should also be noted that Swedes have lately changed from a beer-nation to being a wine-nation.

Conclusion: Nanny State control is not effective in limiting alcohol abuse

Looking at the pro-taxation and pro-monopoly arguments, we see that a Nanny State controlling people's urges through price control and market intervention is a pretty ineffective and misdirected policy. So what can we do about the alcohol related problems? As a Conservative, I propose:

• A sound (Continental) pub culture.
• Linking alcohol consumption to special occasions through cultural traditions.
• Creating alcohol societies for the public where taste and quality are central, and notions of getting drunk are discarded as immature and misdirected.
• Stronger parental involvement in what their kids do at night.
• No alcohol monopoly, but start out by keeping Systembolaget as private-run companies offering a wide range of products.
• More public health figures on TV who promote a sound lifestyle and link it to physical and mental well-being and success.
• A better social future for younger generations by embracing private-run organizations where youngsters can perform different activities involving friendship, personal responsibility and independent thinking.

I bet these suggestions combined, which don't really need the help of any government program, would do more good for many cultures than all the price fixing and monopoly creation in the world. Cheers to that mate!

The common public response in Europe whenever someone is harmed, is to let the government put in place more laws. Someone got killed in a car accident? More signs and speed limits. Someone was shot at school? More gun laws. Someone hijacked a plane? More security control at air ports. Yet all of these responses share one thing in common: they end up incarcerating mostly obedient citizens while letting most gangsters off the hook.

I was interested – but not at all surprised – to read in The Times last week that cycle lanes actually make cyclists less safe. According to a study by the universities of Leeds and Bolton, cars drive far closer to cyclists where there are cycle lanes, putting them at a much greater risk of being hit. It's a classic example of the law of unintended consequences at work: when motorists sense that cyclists have their own designated lane, they don't go to such trouble to give them space.

This is just the latest indication that government-inspired "road clutter" designed to make us safer on the roads often ends up having the opposite effect. The Dutch are probably the pioneers of this: the town of Drachten famously removed all traffic signals, and found that traffic flowed more smoothly and that accidents were reduced, not least at Laveiplein, a 22,000-vehicle-per-day junction next to a bus terminal.

But the technique has also been applied in London. As the Telegraph reported back in 2006: "Kensington High Street has been decluttered by removing barriers and simplifying road markings. Pedestrian accidents in the affected area have been reduced by more than 40 per cent." More recently, Ealing has followed suit, announcing that traffic lights would be removed from up to seven junctions leaving drivers to fend for themselves.

More laws and regulations, more accidents and corruption. This is what you'd expect; when people feel there's an external force (government, parents, laws) taking care of things, they feel less inclined to take personal responsibility and pay less attention to reality. Of course, this should come as no surprise to many of our readers, who brought up interesting objections to why enforced collectivism rarely works.

Americans disdain European political culture because they correctly identify its psychological behavior: when you don't like something or feel offended, you ban it. You don't figure out the root causes, you don't open up a free debate, you don't dare to admit people are different. You ban it all:

We like banning things. This is what we do. We banned condoms in 1928. We banned books with a frenzy that would have pleased Hitler (some 6,000 titles had been banned by 1956). We banned or mutilated thousands of films. We banned British newsreels in 1953 for showing the coronation of Queen Elizabeth, which was the most watched event in the entire world that year. Africans could watch it. The Irish couldn't.

The priggish, prudish, know-all, sanctimonious instinct of the Irish has reached its acme with the Greens in Government, a vision of hell beyond all telling. Hence, the ban on incandescent light-bulbs, and our forcible conversion to CFLs. This has, grotesquely, coincided with the European mood, and all over the continent, useful lights are going out; and electrical glow-worms are being plugged into sockets, by the palsied light of which we can all go blind.

But the darkness engulfing Europe is not our main worry about the CFLs. These bulbs contain mercury, which is highly toxic. A single bulb could contain enough mercury to do grave damage to a child's long-term health -- and so what is one to do when one drops and breaks a bulb (apart from a second mortgage or some armed robbery, to pay for a replacement bulb)?

Greenism is a perfect example of the socialist-liberalist culture at work:

(1) A problem has been identified: we're wrecking our environment.

(2) A symbolic response is formulated: we need to show we care about the problem (as opposed to solving it), so we create a new cult around the problem (in this care: greenism).

(3) We apply our cult to reality: we exchange ordinary light bulbs for mercury bulbs. "Green," we reason, until we notice these bulbs get toxic when they break and might harm both the environment and our health.

(4) Status quo faces rising opposition: some people who think outside the box become critical of the cult and its methods. What to do? First mock them (how dare you not thinking in terms of our greenist cult?). If that doesn't work, ban them (if you don't adopt our policies, you won't succeed as a political party). Kevin Myers just happens to be one person looking at this mindset with reason instead of emotions: banning evil doesn't seem to work.

Unlike anarchists and some libertarians, we don't believe in a lawless society. We need laws, structures, norms, values and traditions. This is the framework keeping people coerced and united around common goals. But what we as Conservatives realize is that governments simply are pretty useless at enforcing this coercion. We'd rather let people themselves take as much responsibility as possible. You'd be surprised how efficient this method can be, even in chaotic environments:

There was a simple reason why I warned our readers about the swine flu hysteria back in April: I knew governments and health organizations would eventually freak out over this. I was right. Sweden is currently panicking over the 900+ cases of swine flu reported in the country. So far one person is said to have died from swine flu. Before you panic also, consider this:

• There is no epidemic in Sweden. 900 people have contracted the swine flu, but in comparison to tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, which aren't classified as epidemics in most Western countries, this is peanuts.
• We don't know if anyone has died from swine flu in Sweden--these people could have contracted the flu but also suffered from a weak immune system and coughed themselves to death.
• Cases of swine flu already began to decline in Mexico by May, shortly after it began to spread world wide.

Now, what is the Swedish government proposing we do? Of course, in the Holy name of Nanny Equality, we mass vaccinate everyone for millions of tax payers' money!

The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL) is set to recommend that the swine flu vaccine is issued free of charge for all.

"The advantage of having a free vaccine is that there will not be any groups who can claim that they can't afford it. More people will be vaccinated, which is important for society," he said.

These are the recommendations that have been made by the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to local health authorities and which were presented at a press conference on Thursday.

Instead of thinking rationally, taking into account that this is yet again not an epidemic and that we're currently in a deep recession with high unemployment, we literally waste millions on vaccinations. We don't even know if the vaccine will do more help than harm, since this it is likely to reduce the power of the natural immune system against the flu. There are even legitimate concerns about the health risks with the vaccine itself:

A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.

The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.

It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.

I'll highlight from the article what we learned from the American swine flu vaccination in 1976:

• More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.
• 500 cases of GBS were detected.
• The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times.
• The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear.
• The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected.

Why isn't the Swedish government informing the public about this? Because bureaucracies are brainless entities that exist to protect and justify their own existence. The health department in Sweden would feel impotent if it didn't act upon this issue, which has been portrayed in the media as armageddon. And now we're all going to pay for this party, whether we join it or not.

I won't join it. Simple risk evaluation tells me I am better off taking care of my health and hygiene more than usual, than getting a vaccine that carries a small but notable risk in damaging me permanently. In an ideal (Conservative) world, each person would pay for his or her own vaccine if they felt like it was important. In the Swedish world, you pay for any idiocy currently in the headlines, even if it means your very fall. Let this be a warning for those who still long for a socialist revolution.

Read more about why I reject the swine flu panic here: 1, 2

David Eberhard

Working as a psychiatrist in Stockholm, David Eberhard began observing how people seeking psychiatric care after the 1980s were experiencing mental problems caused by petty everyday experiences like being dumped by a girl/boyfriend. When he finally presented his theory about the phenomenon in one of Sweden's largest newspapers, it became a popular but controversial cultural meme: the "national panic syndrome."

Sweden, Eberhard argues, has made its citizens neurotically dependent upon a welfare system where everything deemed possibly dangerous is banned. In his now classic book In the land of the safety narcomaniacs, Eberhard startlingly provides example after example of absurd laws and policies in Sweden made to prevent people from eating "dangerous" food, carrying babies in "dangerous" ways, smoking "life threatening" cigarettes, and playing football with "dangerous" soccer goals. The list eventually becomes a humorous depiction of a welfare society gone too far.

Eberhard's most important contribution to contemporary public debate about welfare-ism is the issue of what social consequences you get from living in an environment so safe you stop evaluating risks. How is a public affected by having a welfare State nannying them about every aspect of their lives? The result, he argues, is a culture of social impotence, so neurotically afraid of risks that it stops thinking rationally, actually increasing the de facto risk of danger. In his latest book, No one takes shit in the land of the easily offended, Eberhard additionally claims Sweden is suffering from a culture of victimization where people project their fears over everyday injustices unto other people through bureaucratic institutions.

Fredrik Lindström

Originally a linguist, popular historian, comedian and film director, Fredrik Lindström began entering mainstream media with a series of television shows humorously describing the nature of Swedish language, mentality and culture. Combining his academic knowledge of language together with stand-up comedy, Lindström quickly became a national icon, self-ironically symbolizing the classic figure of the inventive, socially incompetent, rationally thinking, absurdly considerate Swede.

Lindström, by analyzing the subtle linguistic diversity in Sweden, picks out centuries of historical and cultural evolution. Then studying the impact the welfare society has had upon Swedish sociocultural development, Lindström argues modern civilization combined with the "Swedish model" of society are slowly eroding important traditions and undermining the value of spoken language.

Perhaps most insightfully, Lindström's civilization-critical analysis exposes the actual reasons behind why Swedes are so famously afraid of being racist, barely celebrate their own national day, have problems communicating with their neighbouring Danes, and believe bureaucratic institutions should control everything. Everything presented in a form made to create public awareness by mocking the absurd.

Tanja Bergkvist

With a Ph.D. in mathematics, Tanja Bergkvist suddenly appeared in public media as a strong opponent of the politically correct agenda promoted by the current feminist establishment in Sweden. Accusing kindergartens and schools of adopting neo-Stalinist methods to brainwash children into accepting a utopian socialist view of society, Bergkvist touched one of the holy cows in Swedish political debate.

Together with like-minded intellectuals such as establishment-critical Pär Ström, Bergkvist attempts to diversify the discussion around what role the various institutions in Sweden should have to actively discriminate and promote individuals to positions in society based upon gender. Lately Bergkvist has begun blogging, combining a sort of mathematical-satirical language with her own views about feminism, gender theory, and the European Union, colored by her cultural background in Eastern Europe.

Peter Hitchens, worried about abortion on every level, asks rhetorically when we're going to begin aborting the old:

Are we going to do the same thing to the unwanted old that we do to unwanted babies? That is to say, are we going to kill lots of them off, and pretend that this is just fine?

I think so. The only question is how we will do it, and what we will call it.

Old, ill parents are also going to become a major nuisance to the same generation, very soon indeed. Baby boomers are all secretly terrified that mum or dad will end up wasting away slowly in a care home, rapidly consuming the inheritance.

We're already there; it's called State care for the elderly. Since we regard our parents and grandparents as obstacles to our very unique and important dreams, we simply shove them into day care centers when they turn 70 and pray that the government will conserve them well until they pass away from lack of stimulation and happiness. Oh well, no abortion is painless, is it Hitchens?

Paleoconservatives think in terms of moral dogma. That's why they're reliably defending sane traditions, but lack the flexibility to deal with current issues. Peter Hitchens, although usually one of my favorite Conservative commentators, demonstrates why when he completely fails to argue why banning drugs is going to do anything good:

The ground I choose is the suggestion that those who wish to see the laws against the possession of illegal drugs enforced are hypocritical, because of their allegedly relaxed attitude to the legal poisons, alcohol and tobacco.

I think the law should be used to control the use of alcohol and of tobacco. In the case of smoking, this is very easy for me. I do not smoke. I do not like others smoking nearby, especially when I am eating or in an enclosed space. I think smoking by anyone of my generation or those younger than me is close to an insane act, given what we have now known for many years about its likely effects on the human body. I have been impressed by the effectiveness of smoking bans in offices and other public places, bans which I once opposed and now support, and think that such action has helped many people give up their habit, even though I think the 'science' on 'second-hand smoke' is highly suspect. I have begun to think it possible that smoking might be eradicated by legal force in a couple of generations.

I do not think alcohol can be so easily dealt with. This is partly because it is far deeper in our culture than tobacco, which we managed quite happily without until 500 years ago. It is partly because large numbers of people are quite capable of drinking alcohol for pleasure alone, without becoming drunk, violent, incapable or incoherent, and many drink it in small entirely non-intoxicating quantities, especially in the case of wine, because they like the taste. It would be very difficult, in fact impossible, to frame legislation that left these people free to drink while preventing those who drank to get drunk. (There's no such distinction among dope-smokers, all of whom smoke to become stupefied, and the same of course goes for cocaine and heroin users.) I think strict licensing laws and targeted taxation, as existed in this country until very recently, are the most effective method of controlling alcohol consumption in Britain. Even so, I have said before, and here repeat, that I would give up the small amount of alcohol I drink, tomorrow and forever, if I believed that by doing so I would aid the battle against drunkenness.

Hitchens' position rests upon the following set of arguments:

• People who endorse legalization of drugs and tobacco to combat societal problems related to these substances, are themselves frequent users.
• We should ban these substances, because they harm our body.
• Some people consume alcohol in moderate amounts, so we should taxate and license that substance instead of banning it.

I think we immediately find these claims pretty unconvincing. Hitchens provides no proof that people who oppose drug prohibition are drug users themselves, hoping to escape prosecution. He's simply pulling a fast one here, and even if he's right, it doesn't really tell us whether legalizing drugs would be a bad idea or not. In fact, one of America's most outspoken leaders against the drug war, Ron Paul, has never touched a joint in his life. He's simply making a clear case: We're out of money, the drug war hasn't worked, and not all drug use is dangerous to society.

As I've explained before, banning something just because it's potentially harmful is a terrible idea. Most things can become harmful in some circumstances, including cars and kitchen knives. Smoking is actually so bad for your health that we need to ban it outright; it mostly reduces your lung capacity. Long-term smoking leads to other health effects, but it's hardly a dangerous lifestyle choice for most people. Alcohol, as noted by Hitchens, is obviously a bigger problem, and would make more sense in this regard to ban. Of course, no one buys that anymore.

Paleoconservatives think like Neoconservatives: I see evil, let's wage war against it. In some cases, like with Islamic terrorism, it makes sense to bomb a few targets and defend the national security. In other cases, like suburban middle class people smoking dope on Saturdays to get away from work, we need to address the root causes behind why people do drugs instead of sending police squads into their houses and put them in jail. We can't afford it, it's a useless way of reducing drug use, and only feeds the underground crime networks.

We begin this week with a handful of curious findings concerning the future of the Nanny State, e.g. the welfare system our precious leaders have decided should be the model for the entire West. Does it really work? You check these links out and decide for yourself.

• Conservative journalist Mark Steyn explains why the European welfare State combined with anti-Americanism may be the end of Western civilization.
• When government tries to "institutionalise" culture to appear pro-active, it diminishes diversity and merely becomes an outlet of destructive political doctrines.
• The Telegraph reports that one facet of the West's Islamophobia surely is the impossibility of knowing where Muslims stand, thanks to confusing imagery and heterogeneous beliefs.
• Cassy Fiano suggests we don't lose sight of what the independence meant for America, and what it can mean to us in the future.
• Anti-humanists explain why many Brits find the countryside boring.
• John Derbyshire remembers the first moon landing and won't mourn for the space shuttle.

Tonight, let's look at some of the problems a modern civilization faces.

West

Teachers at St Sidwells Primary school, Exeter, Devon, have told parents of pupils goggles can now only be worn by children who have an 'adverse reaction to chemicals in water'.

"Wet plastic is very slippery and frequent, incorrect or unnecessary adjustment or removal of them, by pulling them away from the eyes instead of sliding them over the forehead, can lead to them slipping from the pupil's grasp with the hard plastic causing severe injury."

The school said in a statement: "In the present culture we need to make sure we are legally covered in the event of a problem or injury.

In this cute little story we see two main factors at work:

• The government is blindly dedicated to securing the safety of the public, to the point where it doesn't trust the judgement of its citizens anymore and wants to take responsibility that otherwise would be individual by nature. This means we all have to pay to make all our institutions idiot-proof. Sure, some kids may actually hurt themselves with these goggles, but instead of letting them learn a lesson from that and move on, we end up nannying everyone at the expense of those who just want to control their own lives. In fact, the more the government nannies people, the more impotent they become (Sweden, anyone?!).
• There's a second part to this story, which is cleverly revealed in the statement issued by the school: "In the present culture we need to make sure we are legally covered in the event of a problem or injury." Translation: We're trying to avoid getting sued thanks to bureaucratic safety regulations that wouldn't allow a fly to scare a child, so we're taking the safe path and banning all that is possibly horrible, scary, dangerous and uncertain. A nice recipe for doom, because governments in all Nanny States only end up regulating more and controlling more. At the end of it, we're all robots serving a system we no longer control.

Here's another pack of gems from Nanny Europe:

Banning welcome mats…

Families living in a flat block have been told to remove welcome mats from their porches because they are a health and safety risk.

…and implementing Castro-style block watches

In partnership with regional chapters of the charity group Crimestoppers U.K., multiple local police forces have launched a program called “Too Much Bling? Give Us a Ring.” The object of the program is to encourage people who suspect that a neighbor or acquaintance is living off the proceeds of crime to anonymously provide information about that person to the police…

Not very surprising; I'm sure we'll have to ban pets, stairs, cars, tobacco and kitchen knives soon, because they all cause harm to a lot of people who behave like idiots. A better way would of course be to let people take some individual responsibility and then face the consequences of their actions, to learn what works and what doesn't. But wait, that's offensive, because then who are we going to nanny to feel good? The public are the incentive behind nannying, because they cry out for safety. Don't listen to them, or you end up with a civilization in decline and crowdism as culture.

East

When looking at empires in decline, Russia is a prime example, mirroring many of the European problems with demographic collapse, economic crisis and invasion by radical forces. Sometimes, rotten factors in the social equation only become apparent when the problems have already grown too big:

— Russian authorities seized 2.4 metric tons of heroin in 2006, about three times the seizures in 2002, according to United Nations figures. That's a small fraction of the estimated 60 metric tons that are thought to arrive in Russia from Afghanistan each year.

Russian officials publicly blame America for the plague because almost all the heroin comes from U.S.-dominated Afghanistan , but they won't discuss in detail how drugs move through their country. They've yet to devise a comprehensive plan to address the issue. Trials of high-level traffickers are conducted in secret. Even midlevel police officials usually don't talk, and when they do, it's privately and away from their workplaces.

In Russia , it's much easier to blame a U.S. conspiracy than to bring up the subject of corrupt officials, the Russian mafia and their involvement in the drug trade.

As with most critical problems that push a civilization towards collapse, the Russian health crisis is influenced by external factors like drug import. But it really boils down to a decaying social culture and government/mafia-sponsored corruption. Not all health problems are related to corruption though; the good old vodka remains the miracle of Caucasus:

A new study by an international team of public health researchers documents the devastating impact of alcohol abuse on Russia — showing that drinking caused more than half of deaths among Russians aged 15 to 54 in the turbulent era following the Soviet collapse.

The 52 percent figure compares to estimates that less than 4 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by alcohol abuse, according to the study by Russian, British and French researchers published in Friday's edition of the British medical journal The Lancet.

Professor David Zaridze, head of the Russian Cancer Research Center and lead author of the study, estimated that the increase in alcohol consumption since 1987, the year when then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's restrictions on alcohol sales collapsed, cost the lives of 3 million Russians who would otherwise be alive today. "This loss is similar to that of a war," Zaridze said.

Alcohol took the natural place a Soviet-dominated culture once had in the hearts of the Russian public; Putin may accordingly be right that the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the great catastrophes of the 21st Century, but hardly for geopolitical reasons alone. As an interesting side-note, the article actually suggests moderate drinking of alcohol has got a lot of positive health effects, including protection against stroke, Alzheimer's disease and dementia, and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. So, enjoy drinking in healthy amounts.

Yet, of course, corruption and post-Soviet totalitarianism remain key problems in modern day Russia. As a soon-to-be journalist, I would hesitate to migrate to Russia, unless I wished for a sudden "accidental" death:

A local corruption reporter in Russia died of head injuries on Monday in what police said Tuesday was a drunken fall. Colleagues, on the other hand, are sure it was a revenge attack for muckraking journalism.

"I have no doubt that the attack was directly connected to Yaroshenko's writing and is payback for his journalistic work," said Sergei Slepzov, a close friend and colleague of Yaroshenko.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has called for an investigation, suggesting that Yaroshenko was targeted because he had written about corruption in the local law enforcement agencies, government office and the prosecutor's office.

Of course, the police are not interested in continuing the investigation; that might reveal some nasty inside work. So why is this a civilization problem? Well, when the tentacles of government secretly order the death of oppositional and inconvenient critics, it's rendering itself godlike and indisputable. At that point, loyalty to government becomes more important than loyalty to community, culture and truth. And so we breed a nasty Nanny State á la Europe, where we're free to have sex on television but not point out that Europeans are being replaced by third world immigrants to finance out-of-control government spending.

So you’ve found yourself inheriting complete political power as the head of your national government. You’re an honest guy and your intentions are clear; stick around for four or five years, fiddle every set of statistics you release, and if you do a good job the perceptive electorate will vote you back in for more of the same! You will have upheld the honourable vocation of you and your political brethren in good hands.

But perform badly, or hire some amateurish PR, and you and your party will lose the election. But what if you’re all so systematically incompetent, corrupt or unintelligent enough to bring the actual basis for big government into suspicion? This could mean that a lot of politicians, bureaucrats and public sector workers could lose their jobs; these are your people!

Don’t worry, there is a solution! Everyone knows that half the time in politics is spent trying to justify yourself; with the following tips and tricks, you can safely secure the privileged lifestyle of government, whilst also increasing employment opportunities for you and many other polite yet unproductive workers.

Make the population utterly dependent on you

People are scared of responsibility and the possibility of failing, so start taxing everyone and create a welfare state to take care of the elderly and sick for them. Those who are looked after will be thankful for the mothering. Along with the good Samaritans who pity their sufferance, they will not tolerate any limiting of government intervention. Make sure you tell everyone that people who want to live healthily, care personally for their most loved ones and not pay taxes for comatose alcoholics and weedy flu-magnets are evil!

Destroy consensus

Destroy or make unnecessary whatever relationships there are that hold people together; these provide them with moral fibre which could quite possibly stage a coherent revolutionary platform. Infiltrate, condemn or ridicule religious, cultural, national or ethnic symbolism, and muddy the waters by introducing foreign influences. Place sarcastic "progressives" into high-profile media positions where they can proliferate the meme that conservative opinions are quaint relics. Once these reference points are erased, not only will the public fail to notice creeping authoritarianism, but will be too busy fighting one another over doodles of religious prophets to even begin suspecting it.

Disperse, obscure, and complicate power

Having protesters regularly turn up at your parliament to pester the legislators can be rather boring. What better way to disperse the crowd than to tell them that the matter is out of your hands, and that the relevant decision-making authority is now a devolved, semi-autonomous, and non-governmental organisation based on a small balmy island somewhere in the Indian Ocean?

Effeminise the population

This step may take some time but it is worth it. As well as physically disarming people, steps should be taken to turn the entire populace into hand-flinging metrosexuals who shirk from any confrontation. Ambiguous men with bleached drainpipes and pashmina scarves do not join riots. Successful attempts so far include: Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, the Eurovision Song Contest and glam rock. Invent and promote camp secular holidays like International Vest Day to speed up the process.

One final tip! Try generally to stick your fingers into everything you can, then claim further government action is necessary once you fail disgracefully: the economy, schools, policing and so on. Unbelievable, but it works!

Here's yet another news piece worrying about alcohol consumption in the UK:

But alcohol deaths did climb by 19% between 2001 and 2006. Of these 6,500, the majority suffered liver failure.

When politicians and health authorities ponder alcohol, that is what they are thinking about. Deaths, hospital admissions, alcoholics, violence and drunken drivers: the extreme end of the spectrum. In reaction to this, they treat it aggressively and universally. I personally didn't care about the issue until I actually saw what some university students did to themselves when grossly abusing the substance. Instead of experiencing temptation (as I thought would happen when exposed to a drinking environment), my anti-alcohol sentiment became exaggerated and polarised. Scientific evidence points to benefits of moderate drinking, yet the abuse of the minority seemed to merit a global ban on the availability of alcohol. This was a view that was not practical, fair or realistic: the individuals and their culture make their choices. Imposing one ban on leads to rebellion and seeking out alternatives. You can ban alcohol but you cannot change the underlying mentality and culturally centered practices around it; those who wish to enjoy their alcohol responsibly may now turn to unsafe options.

This sheds some light on the place anti-alcohol measures come from. There is bias and emotion by the people behind them here; they need to be evaluated critically. The UK government and its health service is beginning to fully justify banning cheap alcohol as well as drinking promotions.

As the medical profession well knows when they witness an alcoholic stealing their alcohol-based disinfection supplies, there are alternatives the desperate will resort to. So, who then, is this really punishing? When does it become too intrusive? The advantages and disadvantages of alcohol according to up-to-date evidence-based information can be made clear; whose choice should it really be beyond that? On the presumption that every effort has been made to provide full availability of information, shouldn't harsh anti-binge-drinking measures be specifically targeted at those who bring harm on others, come to the attention of the government through their misuse and prompt "scarce" government resources to be used by them? Isn't this altogether fairer, less controlling and more effective than focusing on the price of alcohol at the till? Does it not work as a more immediate deterrent to everyone, knowing that alcohol-fuelled mistakes are not lightly looked upon, rather than knowing those who commit them will be coddled and sent home?

Let us put these ideas into practice. Here is a scenario:
You own an off-licence. There is a particular group of troublemaking louts that come in and buy your cheapest drinks. They get drunk outside your shop, bothering your customers, throwing up outside the entrance and generally causing trouble. Occasionally some may graffiti on your windows and overturn your sign. What combination of measures are you going to take?
Here are some suggestions:
A) Remove all your cheapest drinks from stock
B) Close down your shop
C) Refuse to sell alcohol again to any of the members of the group that you recognise
D) Call the police
E) Institute some security guards
F) Warn them of the consequences should they continue on their behaviour
G) Add a mysterious substance to their drinks, that may or may not be a sedative

On the basis that 75% of adults are engaging in what is deemed to be safe drinking (and this figure seemingly increasing), perhaps the UK is heading in a different direction: something to worry about or something to cheer for?

From a 2006 Charles Murray speech:

When all is said and done, there are just four institutions through which human beings imbue their lives with meaning: vocation, family, community, and faith.

It is not necessary for any individual to make use of all four. Some people live deeply fulfilled lives who are in love with their vocation and are indifferent to family, community, and faith. Others live for spouse and children. For others, faith is everything. I do not array the four institutions in a hierarchy. I merely assert that these four are all there are. If the human beings in a society are to pursue happiness, those four institutions must be vital and rich, for it is through them that happiness is pursued. Seen in this light, the purpose of government is to ensure that they are vital and rich.
And here comes the paradox: The only way that government can achieve that goal is leaving those institutions alone—protecting them against predators, yes, but otherwise leaving them alone.

. . .

The more government tries to help, the feebler these institutions become. The explanation for the paradox is simple. The real problem with the welfare state is not that it is inefficient in dealing with social needs (though it is), nor that it is ineffectual in dealing with them (though it is), nor even that it exacerbates the very problems it is supposed to solve (as it does). The real problem with the welfare state is that it drains too much of the life from life. Children do not become deep sources of satisfaction despite the difficulties of raising them, but because of them. A vocation does not become a deep source of satisfaction because it is easy, but because it is challenging. A community does not become a deep source of satisfaction because it is subsidized, but because it has responsibilities that only the community can meet.

The modus operandi of the welfare state is to say, “We’ll take the trouble out of that” when “the trouble” it wants to take out is in fact not trouble at all, but the stuff of life—the elemental events associated with birth, death, growing up, raising children, comforting the bereaved, celebrating success, dealing with adversity, applauding the good, and scorning the bad—coping with life as it exists around us in all its richness.

It is no surprise that the advanced world has evolved toward the welfare state. It is human nature, especially in the early stages of life, to take the easy way out if the easy way out is offered. But, thankfully, it is also human nature for adults to think about what constitutes a life well-lived. The clichés of American English reflects the lessons we mature—“nothing worth having comes easily,” “I pull my own weight,” “he’s a stand-up guy,” “you take out what you put into it.” There is a reason clichés become clichés: They express truths. In this case, the truth is that for life to have meaning, one’s life must be spent doing important things, challenging things, and taking responsibility for them.

I do not think that what I have just said falls in the category of an argument that has to be made. It falls in the category of things that all of us instinctively understand.

HT: EconLog commenter bgc

Today, BBC Television reported on a scheme that essentially monitored everything about an older person's habits at home. I can't find a clip of this online (wise move, I must say). The closest reference I've found was here. The feature talked about sensors in the house, in the letterbox, in the bathroom. It featured a camera automatically monitoring motion patterns, eating patterns, automatically monitoring for any change that could signal ill health. Isn't it amazing what technology can do?

I don't want to indulge in the slippery slope argument (this could be justified for the 'health' of the whole population). There clearly is little trust in patient data security held by any government. Data can't even be realistically protected from external threats, nevermind internal misuse. The medical profession often justifies a lot of measures, because they all they see is ill health, its burdens and methods of preventing it. That is their primary agenda, which does not take into account other priorities.

Why is this measure seen as justified? There is noone there for the pensioner. They are living alone and independent; this is all to keep it that way. They should be living with someone else, they should not be on their own. Where's the family, the children, the concerned neighbour? Decay of social structures makes it mark. Looking after the elderly should be in the hands of the people, not in the faceless, impersonal state which has an agenda of its own, subject to corruption and change.

The loss of social responsibility enables more and more intrusion into the individual's life. Look after your grandparents and parents, because the doors that open when you don't do not bear thinking about.

Enough has been said about why multiculturalism at large is a ludicrous theory, but having spent my entire life in the most multicultural of all regions in Sweden, Skåne, and socialized both in small working-class communities and larger academic cities, my experiences all point to the same problem: most people are too ignorant to care about other cultures. There is no way integration is ever going to succeed in Sweden, because the common Joe is simply not interested in exchanging values and customs with other people.

In academic circles, you pretend to care about other cultures because it's an easy way to morally boost your ego. You'd never even consider the thought of actually living in Malmö and spending quality time together with people from different cultures, except for PR purposes--you want your all-white middle class refuge, after all. In working-class circles, immigrants actually integrate much easier, because there's less drama and more practical interaction between people. But working class people are also super-disinterested in other cultures and tend to have less tolerance for diversity in general. They prefer to harvest their own village patterns of behavior. Even a newly moved-in Swede will receive critical eyes for a few years before he or she is finally accepted.

It's funny how the most ardent multiculti-promoters live in classy, all-white neighbourhoods without the faintest of relationships to people from other cultures. In short, multiculturalism, like third world aid, is a surrogate theory for the ignorant and privileged to appear morally superior. The real multicultural people in the West have a natural interest in other cultures, but are also the ones aware of the problems that ensue from mixing radically different cultures. Multiculturalism is going to fail, because it thrives on ignorance.

As noted by myself and Martin, one of the best services you can do to someone leading a moronic lifestyle behind a pretty façade, is to call him a loser. Pentti Linkola and the Unabomber hinted at the same thing when they argued against people living "safe" but boring lives behind an abundance of technology. Martin spells out the moral justification for the phenomenon pretty well, but what many people forget is that there are farther-reaching consequences for these people unless they're stopped.

In a Nanny State, citizens misapply principles of safety to life until they are unable to make simple risk evaluations. For some people, this will in fact make life much more dangerous. Take people with bike helmets for instance. Before the 70's, there wasn't law on wearing bike helmet in Sweden. Today, children and teenagers below 15 years old are required by law to always wear their helmet. As a result, even adults wear helmets in safe neighbourhoods, just to prove they're law-abiding and morally good citizens. Many of these people end up endangering themselves, because they seem to think they become knights on bikes simply because they're wearing helmets. They ride their bikes as if nothing could happen to them. No wonder many of them end up at the hospital.

We see the same syndrome with pedestrian crossings: people in Sweden have learned that nowadays cars are required to stop if they are standing in front of a crossing, so they run out in the middle of hectic traffic, because "they can do so by law if there is a pedestrian crossing." And of course some of them end up dead. Or how about those overprotective parents who teach their children to remain meek, love everyone, and they shall be loved back--until one day they meet their personal bully in junior high and get a daily ass-kicking because they're too afraid to fight back. These people all have one thing in common: by pretending to the rest of us that they are morally superior, they in fact display the behavior of idiots.

Therefore, the best service you can do for people who have been nannied into stupidity is to call them out on being losers. True, you will earn your fair share of local enemies, but on the other hand you will hardly be liked by everyone no matter what you say and do - and chances are they'll thankful for it later in life. And sure, you might boost your ego some while doing this, but the point is that these people are never going to change their lifestyle unless someone blasts the truth right in their faces. And rest assured, you will be thankful for being called a loser if you fall into the same trap, too.

Frank recently wrote a post in which he warns parents against letting the Nanny State replace them as role models for their children. Conservative Republicans talk about it all the time. While that group to a large extent is clueless, its members have got a simple point, which Frank as responsible parent tries to pick up on in his writing: we need to teach our children the art of risk evaluation.

Back when civilization didn't exist, we roamed around as tribes in the wilderness. Threats lurked everywhere: dangerous animals, swamps, famines, diseases, enemy tribes etc. Today, compared to back then, we live extremely safe in our civilized societies, free from most of these problems - but our survival instincts are still there. Although we've come to distrust our intuitions, we still feel danger lurking behind us now and then. The Nanny State knows this and takes advantage of it to increase its power.

What happens when we put in place more regulations and laws, while our lifestyle becomes easier and safer? That's right: our ancient risk evaluation skills are being disrupted. Why? We no longer trust ourselves and our judgement, because we assume the Nanny will do the thinking for us. Why look up facts about alcohol and smoking when you can listen to the weekly health recommendations from the government? I like to think for myself and therefore I also like to check facts instead of blindly trusting the government. Here's someone who may not agree with me:

Study your toxicology. Second-hand smoke is a serious health risk indeed.

http://www.corrupt.org/columns/frank_azzurro/parents_allow_policestate#comment-3335

Yes, but so is driving, fast food and office lifestyle. When you realize that life is and will always be full of danger, you come to the simple conclusion that you need to be able to evaluate risks. Is it safe to drive to work today? Yes, because few cars are out today this morning and the weather is good. If it was snow storm and people were driving like maniacs to get to work early, maybe I would take the train. Frank's point, I think, is merely that we need to teach our children this ability of risk evaluation, which is crucial, instead of saying "no, that is DANGEROUS" and explain no more.

Okay, so how dangerous is smoking really? Turns out, not so dangerous after all, when placing things in perspective:

When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word "cause."

Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less. I personally would not smoke cigarettes and take that risk, nor recommend cigarette smoking to others, but the numbers were less than I had been led to believe. I only did the data on white males because they account for the largest number of lung cancers in the US, but a similar analysis can be done for other groups using the CDC data.

The process of developing cancer is complex and multifactorial. It involves genetics, the immune system, cellular irritation, DNA alteration, dose and duration of exposure, and much more. Some of the known risk factors include genetics, asbestos exposure, sex, HIV status, vitamin deficiency, diet, pollution , shipbuilding and even just plain old being lazy. When some of these factors are combined they can have a synergistic effect, but none of these risk factors are directly and independently responsible for "causing" lung cancer!

In Sweden, only one percent of all smokers die in lung cancer. Is it still sensible to call smoking "dangerous" from such a perspective? Well, here you will need to use your risk evaluation skills, like our ancient forefathers did when they discussed whether to attack that bear and pull home food for a month, or to stay out of trouble.

Obviously, smoking means health risks, but everything in life involves risks, so we have to measure the risks against any advantages. Personally I don't smoke; I'm active within long-distance running and training at the gym. Smoking means reduced lung capacity, so for that reason alone I cannot start smoking. I don't like the yellowish skin color, bad breath, cost, addiction and "smoke voice" long-term smoking leads to, so for me it's an obvious choice. Similarly, while I enjoy alcohol, especially beer, I always drink in moderate amounts and at few occasions. Not because I think alcohol will kill me, but because I find it highly unclassy to get drunk among good friends, and always want clear judgement when I'm out on pubs and bars.

However, if someone like Frank wants to smoke a cigar now and then, while I respectfully would decline smoking one myself, he's probably not exposing himself (or his future children) to any noticable dangers or risks. There are risks, but they are low, and if he feels those are worth paying to smoke, well, it's his choice. Responsible parents set good examples by not smoking heavily, not getting drunk, not driving recklessly, not sleeping around, not fighting physically with each other etc. around children, or at all. Children will be interested in drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and sex. Let them be. If you serve as a healthy role model, place restrictions on your child in sensible amounts, and explain the risks of a decision or lifestyle, chances are your child will grow up just as smart or smarter than you.