December 11th, 2008 A Consequence of Not Having The Internet…
I write essays to myself; and as I promised in my last blog that I was going to post one that amused me; so here it is!
Illogical Safety Measures:
I propose a question to all of you…
Why is it that within the EU and the UK the advertising of Cigarettes is banned on the TV, Radio and most types of media; yet alcohol isn’t?
Now this isn’t a stupid question, and nor is it one that has lacks any depth, because if you think about it, smoking and drinking alcohol are both bad for the human body. In fact, if you want to, you look at how both are bad for everyone.
Smoking costs the NHS a lot of money (seeing as it’s something like eleven thousand people die per year from smoking related illnesses); and even when people aren’t smoking from their stupid addiction money is being spent on getting people to stop smoking. So it’s a very costly habit for the taxpayer to maintain… But then again, isn’t alcohol?
Alcohol causes notably Liver damage (if not failure) which costs the NHS money; and if people aren’t damaging their livers, then they are probably falling over and injuring themselves… Or worst of all, behind the steering wheel of a car, and hurting themselves and others. Now, traffic accidents have the added cost of policing, and quite possibly the other service-people who need to be called out to cut people out of their smashed up cars.
Both Alcohol and Smoking are highly addictive and dangerous for the body; both habits are financially stupid to maintain, and both seem to (worryingly) have a high prominence in teenagers.
So why is it that smoking is deemed more dangerous, when alcohol is actually equally as dangerous, if not more?
It’s these types of thoughts that make me wonder, what logic does the EU or our own Government have? If you’re going to ban the advertising of dangerous, addictive and costly toxins such as cigarettes, why not target everything else? I mean, what is the point?
What’s the best thing about it all, is that for alcohol adverts to remain “ethically sound”, the companies behind them only have to include in the smallest possible font “Please drink responsibly” in the corner of the commercial for the whole advert to be justified. And if one was to think about this logically, if the companies behind these brands of alcohol wanted you to drink “responsibly” why on earth are they encouraging you to drink more by advertising their products?
As I said before, logic is severely lacking.
After this single mini-rant/essay to myself, I went on and wrote another. This one however is probably up to more interpretation, and I no doubt expect to hear or see someone disagree with me!
Freedom and Equality, can they exist together?
If we are to take this question in terms of politics; and Governmental regimes and social class, I can honestly say that I believe that the answer is a clear cut – NO. I’ll explain.
You see, in a Democracy the height of political freedom; everyone has the right to vote, we’re all individuals, and ideally anyone can move either up or down the social ladder; and to be fully free a free market too. Each and every single person has the freedom to be what they want to be, and generally do what they wants (bound within the limits of common law that is); and so with that we have a definition of freedom. Everyone is an individual, anyone can within certain limits do what they want, and anyone as the ability and capabilities to achieve and gain as much or as little as they want.
Now, if we look at this democracy we can see a couple of vital flaws; if it’s up to the individual, and up to the free market we can already see that equality will not exist. We will see sects of rich and wealthy; who will have their own towns, or areas populated with vast amounts of disposable income, lavish facilities, and primarily the best education, health and other services possible. At the other end of the scale one will see deprivation in not only money, but in education and basic common commodities. The ability to climb up the social and economical ladder is no where near as easy as described, because in order to do that one has to have the same levels of intellect and abilities as those in the upper class. In this freedom we will see class divisions which expand through every aspect of education, health, economy and family life.
Clearly equality does not exist here. Being equal to another person within the total population just will never happen; you’ll either be in the top, middle or bottom of the scale and it’ll be unlikely that one would mix with others outside their own class.
Then we have socialism or communism. The ideal here is equality, and here the Government is controlling itself. It sets out its own ideals for the people it represents (the mass population), and controls everything. Here we will see a closed economy; a system of wealth and class that defines everyone as the same. You will see that for the majority, living conditions will be the same (maybe not the best), but at least the same. Jobs will be controlled by the Government who will control the pay, and will not discriminate against class or social origin.
However as a result of this you will find dictatorship, mass interference between Government and economy, and the ability to make decisions on your own personal choice, and the choices you want open for your children or family severely limited. Not only that, but there will be heavy law enforcement, in order to ensure that no one betters themselves beyond the Government limits; whilst at the same time you’ll have an often corrupt and wealthy central collection of individuals who will take it upon themselves on how everyone who is politically inferior to them, will live, work and relax.
Obviously here, freedom does not exist; choice and desire is limited, and opportunities are made by the government, not by the individual.
Now what about a little of in-between, why can’t we mix these two ideals to get the best of both; to get and maintain freedom and equality?
Well because as I’ve just tried to explain, the lengths required to maintain or even to allow for each circumstance to occur are completely opposite. Whilst one relies on the least Government intervention as possible, the other requires complete governmental control. To have one we need an open, free economy, whilst the other is all strictly closed; and controlled mainly by than those who have not been elected at the top.
To have freedom we have to have the least intervention possible; we require a system which makes it possible for the individual to take it upon themselves to make decisions and act on them; they also need to have the power to elect who they want to make the decisions which represent the population as a whole. Oppositely, to have equality, freedom has to be quashed. To be free means that you can’t be equal, someone will always be better off, and worse off than you. There will be people who naturally progress better because of what they are born into, and then the cycle continues. Then for equality you require that no one is free because to be free means that you can’t be equal; so then you’re locked into a system that doesn’t allow for anything other than what is desired by those unelected few; who quite probably don’t represent their own people in the best possible way. The distribution of wealth will be equal, but poor. Money will remain in one place, but out of the hands of the actual mass population.
It is purely because of this, that I believe equality and freedom cannot coexist; and that in order to have one we have to naturally sacrifice another, or at least move one step towards socialism or communism or on the opposite end of the scale, democracy.
Never fear, I’ve actually written more this week (even though I should be revising), but you know; ranting and complaing is far more fun! So I think I will post my next one tomorrow!
Enjoy,
Samantha.
(http://www.thesamantha.co.nr)
Posted in Blogging, Media, Politics, Rant, Writing | Comments (0)