Home Politics Nesrine Malik Doesn't Realise There's No One Here But Us Chickens

Nesrine Malik Doesn’t Realise There’s No One Here But Us Chickens

Author

Comments

This is an amazing revelation of gross and profound stupidity. Nesrine Malik seems not to realise that there’s no one around here but us chickens to pay for stuff. The only group – because dolphins don’t pay tax and cabbages don’t staff food banks – that can offer up the resources to do stuff in Britain are we Britons.

Now, sometimes it will be better to do stuff individually, sometimes collectively and voluntarily – those little platoons of society – and sometimes it will all work better with the firm thwack of government compulsion. We can also even differ over which belongs in what class. But it is still true that there’s only us here to do things or pay for them – the true cost of anything being what has to be given up to get it, time, other resources, whatever – so it’s going to be us doing the paying.

The importance of this being that government isn’t a manner of us not having to pay. It’s just a different manner of organising – sometime appropriate, sometimes not – how that we paying for it all is to be done.

Which means that this is crass idiocy:

It would be reasonable to suppose the expansion of our role into funders of services that should be provided by the government is an embarrassment for the Conservative party.

We’re the funders either way, Honey.

Already forced to commit to more public spending than it ever would have contemplated in normal times, the government’s refusal to extend the paltry sums needed to extend the free schools meals programme is not a matter of money but of precedent.

Whether it’s public spending or charity or little platoon collective activity it’s still us financing it Love. Can’t be any other way because we’re the people here.

Now, it is possible to think that a certain thing would be better done by government, this other thing better done by the peeps directly. Rubbish collection for example:

It is a common feature of corrupt regimes – when the people resign themselves to the fact that they are on their own, they develop all sorts of coping mechanisms. In my birth country of Sudan, most neighbourhoods fashioned such an efficient system for collecting and disposing of waste that when the government eventually started a trial waste-disposal scheme there was no rubbish to collect.

Sounds like a pretty cool argument for less government to me but that’s not the way that Ms. Malik sees it. But what transfers this over into idiocy is this:

We can do both. We will help the NHS. We will feed our neighbours’ children. But we should never forget that it’s not our job to do so.

It is our job and we’re the people who are going to pay for it either and any way. The discussion of government or private action is about how it is to be organised – we the people are going to pay for it whatever for the very simple reason that we’re the only people here who can pay for it. Either and any way that it is done.

We do get to that other little thought too. If the people, collectively and voluntarily, manage to sort out rubbish collection, feeding the poor and all that, then what need for government to do it for the people anyway?

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

10 COMMENTS

  1. Had to read this bit twice ” We will feed our neighbours’ children. But we should never forget that it’s not our job to do so.” That runs counter to Lefties doctrine – “It Takes a Village” and all that rot. Apparently “we” should be doing these things, but only through the gov’t? This seems like staggering cognitive dissonance.

  2. One good thing to come out of the food arguments during half-time is that local businesses and charities and individuals have stepped up and provided meals to Malik’s neighbours’ children. Some of them will be the children of very deserving cases, possibly on UC for the first time, with a disruptive family member making life doubly difficult. And some will be the children of scrotes. And all gradations in between of loveliness and scrotiness. So people get to know who they are and what they are like.
    A £15 supermarket voucher doesn’t achieve that. It doesn’t even buy the ingredients and prepare the food.

  3. A £15 supermarket voucher doesn’t achieve that. It doesn’t even buy the ingredients and prepare the food.

    …and where scrotes are prevented from purchasing alcohol and baccy with their £15 supermarket voucher they will trade it to someone who wants the £15 voucher in exchange for £5 cash so that they can buy what the scrote needs, not what the family needs. This has been true since forever.

    Harder to spunk away a hot or reheatable meal in the same fashion.

  4. However, there is a very good reason why charity should be performed through government rather than privately. If you rely on people providing charity, some will and others won’t, so it becomes a tax on being nice. The only reason why charity should not always go via the state is that the state is often very bad at doing things and failure in this area leaves people homeless or hungry. Private charity in these areas should be seen as a failing of the state which needs to ber corrected and not an acceptable solution.

    • Dear Charles

      A gift freely given is not a tax.

      The state fails at everything beyond its very limited use.

      We, the people are all there is; the state is a convenient institution to achieve those things the state is the best way of doing. When it grows beyond that, it is a burden upon society – us.

      DP

  5. As a former bureaucrat, I naturally believe that if it works don’t fix it. Plainly the people of her home town had solved the rubbish problem. Thus nothing needed to be done.

    Charles is undoubtedly right that some people are stingy bastards like myself. In the good old days, they’d put us in the stocks and pelt us with shit, or perhaps stones. No doubt this would work today as well.

    In more drastic circumstances government intervention may be necessary. My dear father did mention that, when temporarily freed from the iron heel of the British empire, the locals in Borneo used the heads of annoying Japanese to replace the manky old ones in their longhouses. But when Japs rallied and began to fight back, they needed Dad and his mates to come up-river in their armoured barge and smash them up again. The locals could then get back to cutting off the Japs’ heads.

    No doubt custom and tradition will determine how individual countries and cultures handle things. But I’d still have to argue for leaving well-enough alone.

  6. Wait a mo, what’s this “should” be provided by government? When did we have that debate and come to a decision?

    And she’s sorely lacking in any history, close to the entirety of public services in Britain started with private individuals privately acting. Dunnymen collecting rubbish, cisterners providing water, matrons providing education, groom providing carriage, communities getting together to employ a doctor. *EXACTLY* the situation in her home country. Most “public” services entered public ownership and control through local communities gathering together to communally provide those services. Town Burgesses Boards, Seamen’s Hospitals, Forresters’ Funerals, etc. Most of them became state owned through the rapid urban expansion of the 19th century that moved the reality too fast for them to keep up – in some cases due to the state killing off the people trying to provide the services by chucking them at foreigners. And then in the 20th century the avaricious greed of the state to take control of people’s lives.
    We were still paying the mortgage on our cottage hospital four years after Bevan stole it from us.

    • The earliest medieval Poor Law was the Ordinance of Labourers which was issued by King Edward III of England on 18 June 1349 and before that there was the christian charity provided by churches and monasteries supported by charity. It ain’t new and it certainly doesn’t have to be a function of government.

  7. I had a boss once who told me: ‘If you do someone’s job once, you’re doing him a favour. If you do it again, you own it.’. It is indeed the parents’ job to feed the kids. If fact nothing they do is more important.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

At Least The Guardian Manages To Ask The Right Question This Time

Sadly, being The Guardian, it manages to give the wrong answer to the right question but still, we should all be happy with advances...

Should Facebook Obey The Law Or Not, You Vicious Colonialists?

I think we're all onboard with the idea that a company operating in a certain place should obey the law in that place? We...

So Here Is The Death Of The German Vision Of The Eurozone

Germans will - likely - have to pay for Italian government spending. This is exactly what the Bundesbank was worried would happen. Exactly what...

Not Wholly And Entirely True About Federal Firing Squads

Firing squad deployed for death row backlog Err, no. Sure, The Donald is speeding up - resuming possibly - the application of the federal death...

#Amazonmustpay – What Are These Cretins Talking About?

Presumably all the real problems in the world are solved now that we've got people whingeing about convenient retail. Which is what is happening...

Recent comments