From Irwin Stelzer in The Spectator to Tim Leunig in Prospect, they presumably think that Britain should enjoy the lifestyle of a proper, serious, grown-up, respectable country.
But they cannot see the point of the State action necessary in order to guarantee the agricultural and industrial life - proper, serious, grown-up, respectable - that is at least arguably that lifestyle's only sustainable economic basis, and which is undeniably the only moral entitlement to it.
If a people refuses to grow, raise, catch, make, build or mine anything, then it probably cannot live as if it did, and it certainly does not deserve to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not the people. The leaders. If the leaders refuse to allow anyone to grow, catch, etc. and so on.
ReplyDeleteI'm an American, and we're going through double this process, and believe me "people", and myself, really want to do productive work, but decisions by out leaders ensure that any productive work is not renumerated, and in some cases is illegal. The people played no part in these decisions.
And maybe instead of "leaders" I should use the term "rulers".