I've just worked something out. The reason that I object to big-party politicians. (Please note this isn't the same as big-party politics. I'm going to look at that separately.)
People who have power over you, the reader (who probably doesn't exist yet, but that's beside the point) are just people. But they tell you that they know better than you about what is good for you.
The basis for this is that they believe that there is a definition of 'good' that is external to you. It exists and they have magical access to it because they are in a position to look at it.
That's all very well and good, but they should be making damned sure you have access to it as well. If I choose not to let you walk into the road blindfolded, I'm saying that my decision is better than yours. But I've defined the field 'better' for myself, as one where I don't want you run over. It might be that walking into a road blindfolded is absolutely fine. If your ears are good, and it's not bicycle country.
This is the big question about society that bothers me. How far is someone else allowed to make decisions for you? Is it as the point where you want to be blindfolded while jaywalking? Because that's an analogy, and I know that some people will say 'line x is the blindfold'. And other people will say 'line x is walking into the road with your eyes open'. And others will say 'line x is doing it with intent to stop traffic'.
Big party politicians affiliate themselves with assumptions. One of those is that they know best. That really pisses me off.
Mind you, small party politicians may do the same. I just haven't got there yet.
The Pound Did Soar After Lancaster House Speech
3 hours ago