We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Nanny Bloomberg

“Imagine a British politician saying: we’re so worried by the abuse of prescription drugs that we’re going to reduce the supply of powerful painkillers to our hospitals. And if people in genuine pain suffer as a result, too bad. The protests from the #WELoveTheNHS lobby would be deafening. The politician who said it would be out of office by the end of the week. But that’s exactly what Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, has just announced.”

Damian Thompson.

In some ways, Michael Bloomberg  is merely being more honest than most puritans are prepared to admit. He openly says what they think. It is shocking, but in his own, depraved way, people like this man are doing us a favour in putting the horror of their views right up there, front and centre.

I have had a brief period of being in bad pain and thanked those brilliant scientists out there for inventing the drugs to remove it. And millions of people who have suffered excruciating pain have managed to get through thanks to painkillers. He would rather they suffered “a little bit” than that anyone should get addicted.

It is hard to be charitable and hope that he never suffers extended pain.

32 comments to Nanny Bloomberg

  • Laird

    Why would you hope that? It’s what he deserves. He has always been a despicable creature; it’s just getting more blatant now.

  • Jaded Voluntaryist

    In spite of what he thinks is good for everyone else, do you seriously think that were Bloomberg to be injured or sick that he’d be going without pain medication?

    Just like he thinks “guns” are bad and shouldn’t be allowed, and yet he seems to have large men in suits with mysterious bulges under their left armpits following him around all the time….

    ‘Tis one rule for thee, another for me I’m afraid.

    But this isn’t just a Bloomberg thing. It’s inherent to statism, particularly left wing statism. The scruffy guy I see handing out copies of the “Socialist Worker” outside my local University doesn’t seriously want to toil in the factories of the Glorious People’s Republic. I’d wager he’s always assumed that were his Leninist fantasy to come true, he’d be amongst the group who were sort of in charge and thus afforded a more pleasant existence.

    99.9% of all politics boils down to “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure you get it good and hard whether you want it or not”, regardless of how it is dressed up.

    It sounds so very childish when reduced to its most basic level.

  • Paul Marks

    Yes JV – Mr Bloomberg is a total hypocrite, on firearms and everything else.

    Or, rather, he believes (as you say) in one rule for the elite – and another rule for everyone else.

    Sadly, as JP points out, his views are NORMAL among the Progressive elite.

    In New York State both the Democrats and the Republicans were long dominated by the Progressives.

    Mr Bloomberg has himself been a Democrat, a Republican and is now a registered Independent.

    It shows how bad things are that in changing political parties her did not have to change his beliefs at all.

    It is the world of Richard Ely and the Progressive elite in academia.

    Both “Teddy” Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson being followers of Richard Ely and co – and their German Historical School stuff.

    New York City looks prosperious.

    But its prosperity is an illusion – based on the flow of credit money from the Federal Reserve.

    To see the truth – go to cities of “Up State” New York.

    The real economy (manufacturing and so on) has collapsed.

    The State of New York is doomed – there is no hope for it.

    Many other States are doomed also – Illinois, California and so on.

    And, I fear, the whole United States is doomed. Indeed the finances of the Federal government are WORSE than those of any State (even the three I have mentioned).

    States that can – should seceed. If this can be done peacefully.

  • llamas

    This would be the same Michael Bloomberg who freely admits to having used and enjoyed marijuana, but who staunchly resists any attempt to decriminalize it?

    That hypocritical POS, you mean?

    He is your basic fascist thug, but now with added ‘do as I say, not as I do’! But there’s a growing streak of vengeful viciousness in all of these clowns – the streak that can somehow rationalize imposing suffering and hardship on millions of people who never did anything wrong in their lives, in order to somehow ‘punish’ a tiny minority who do ‘bad’ things. It’s the type of collective-responsibility thinking that is used at a certain sort of school – ‘if the guilty party does not confess, you will all be punished equally’. In this way, he clearly demonstrates that he considers the citizenry to be his inferiors (like a schoolmaster dealing with a class of schoolboys) and that it is both his right and his duty to impose his will upon the rest of us. For our own good, of course.

    Elitist pr*ck.



  • PeterT

    “Why would you hope that? It’s what he deserves.”

    My thoughts exactly. At what point exactly can we stop playing nice?

  • Laird

    The State of New York is doomed – there is no hope for it.

    Paul, a couple of years ago I would have agreed with you, but with the new fracking technology and the discovery of vast fields of shale oil/gas in western New York state, northern Pennsylvania and Ohio, I think there is actually hope for those “rust belt” states. Of course, they have to insulate themselves from New York City (and the cesspool that is Albany), but their doom is not so inevitable as you think.

  • Laird

    Right, PeterT. I’ve stopped playing nice. I openly celebrated the death of Ted Kennedy, and I make no apology for it.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Bloomberg gets re-elected by comfortable margins, so I suppose we can console ourselves the the people of New York City are getting what they want, “good and hard.”

    Actually, I don’t need all that much consoling. Them as tolerates supercilious gits deserves what they get.

  • Mike James

    At this point, one would think the New Yorkers’ customary form of greeting to him every time he appears in public would be a fusillade of vegetables.

  • veryretired

    I tend to agree with JV and PFP above, but find I must disagree in part with Paul.

    Let me explain.

    JV is correct about the collectivist mind set—it always envisions a role of higher authority for itself, never as one of the directed serfs, always one of the commissars.

    PFP is correct that the people of NY and, by extension, the US in general, are getting what they want, and will therefore get what they deserve. I’m reminded of the conversation in Atlas in which Francisco responds to a woman’s question about consequences by saying that the people will get exactly what they deserve, and the woman responds, “Oh, how cruel!”

    And that is the crux of the collectivist complaint about reality and the law of cause and effect—it is cruel and unfeeling, and, of course, feelings must take priority over everything else.

    As for my partial disagreement with Paul, it is in the use of the term “doomed”. There is no doubt that the US, and much of the “blue model” world, will suffer some serious consequences for decades of ideological delusion as they pursued the mirage of the progressive/statist nirvana.

    But I know the ability of ordinary free people to find solutions when their lives and freedoms are threatened, and I don’t believe all is lost by any means.

    Yes, there will be a ferocious and painful price to be paid when the ugly, mean chickens now circling finally decide to come home to roost, but there are several positive signs also on the horizon, especially in energy and information technology, which may help alleviate some of the damage.

    What is needed now, among other things, is a concerted effort to insure the standard collectivist scapegoating to place blame for the problems anywhere but their own policies is a failure, and they are held accountable for the decades of irrationality and counter-productive “magical thinking” that brought us to this chasm’s edge.

    Repeatedly over the last century, any failures in economics or politics or our social lives was immediately pinned on the alleged evils of capitalism or private initiatives or private choices. Even the gruesome evils of racial or religious bigotry, both fundamental principles of collectivist thinking, were magically transformed into elements of a capitalist mentality, even though that type of bigotry violates basic principles of individualism and efficient economic principle.

    Combatting this form of delusional thinking will not be a simple, or quick, process, but will require long, relentless, and often dirty fighting down in the trenches of the educational, media, and political battlefields.

    Rome was not built in a day, and neither will a world which respects individual rights and liberties be constructed. The sooner we dig in and begin the struggle in earnest, the sooner that world can exist.

  • Schrodinger's Dog

    Isn’t nannying an inevitable consequence of progressivism?

    One of the central tenets of progressivism is welfarism which, while well meaning, tends to have unintended results. Specifically, it insulates people from their choices and consequent actions. Pay people not to work and some will choose to do just that. Rather they will drink, smoke and abuse drugs. Obviously this is not what the progressives intended, hence the nannying as an attempt to stop the adverse outcomes they helped create.

    On the other hand, libertarians have no problem with people spending their days boozing, smoking and doing drugs. They just expect them to live with the consequences of doing so – and are certainly not going to give them money taken from others by force which enable them to make such choices.

  • Current

    Laws like this are attempts to prevent the poor coming into further disrepute.

    Welfare is justified by the view that those receiving it are little different from anyone else. The view that they are normal, hard-working people who have been unfortunate. If the electorate can be convinced to believe this then even the conservatives among them will support welfare.

    But, if welfare recipients are seen more negatively then that justification disappears. Voters won’t support welfare if they believe the recipients are irresponsible. Anyone with any experience of them will know that most are fairly irresponsible. No doubt a lot of that from the boredom life on welfare creates, and because of how it insulates people from their choices, as Schrodinger’s Dog mentions. The left must keep that reality away from recognition and polite discussion. They’re frightened that if it becomes acceptable in polite society to criticize the poor then conservatives will be get electoral support to cut welfare. But, they can’t control the actions of welfare recipients. So, instead they have enacted more and more laws to ameliorate the problem, such as alcohol and cigarette taxes, smoking bans, wars on drugs and now limitations on prescription drugs.

    The leftist elites aren’t doing this because they care much about the health of those directly affected, though I think they do care a little. What they care about much more is the reputation of the poor being further dragged into the gutter. I think some of that comes from a genuine sympathy with the poor, and some from an understanding of how welfare helps them by providing civil service jobs for themselves and encouraging the poor to vote for them.

  • I think it is much simpler than what both SD and Current are saying. I think it is the desire to control other people. “Welfare” means control, because he who pays the piper calls the tune. Plus, poor people are easier to control than rich ones are, so more poor people means more people to control, adding to one’s sense of importance.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Laird @ 5:12 pm: Me too. And when called on it, explained why, in no uncertain terms.

    Alisa, I agree about the desire to control other people. I also think the “helping the poor” shtick plays into some people’s rescue fantasies, and into others’ Messiah complexes. Then there are also people with too much time on their hands, who have a bureaucratic streak and who (to say again just what you said) absolutely ADORE giving orders. And in certain social circles, there are positive feedback loops all over the place that reinforce the resulting behavior.

    llamas: I would like to associate myself with your remarks above.

    And anybody who would say, as Bloomberg is reported to have said, of people in severe chronic pain that they “will have to suffer a little bit” is a vicious, cruel scumbag.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    I don’t think we ought to lean over backwards to credit progressives with good intentions, either: there’s big money in government (half the US Senate are millionaires), and bigger money in bigger government.

  • Indeed, PFP. I used to think in these ‘good intentions’ terms – I no longer do. BTW, it’s not money in and of itself, it’s power (AKA ‘control’). Beyond some basic amounts, money is simply one of the means towards that end.

  • Thornavis.

    I have had nearly forty years of chronic pain of varying degrees from an auto immune condition, the wonderful NHS took nearly a decade to diagnose it properly and start doing something about it. When I finally got to see a specialist he asked me how long I had been experiencing pain and when I told him he said and I’m not making this up, ” well you should be getting used to it by now “, I thought he was joking and attempted a wan smile which was greeted with a stony stare. I’ve never forgotten that and although my present specialist is very different it has always coloured my view of the medical profession as a caring one, to which my response is – complete bollocks they would just as soon kill you as cure you, whichever is easier. As for the Bloomberg vermin, I’m told strychnine is pretty effective.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Thornavis, I’m very sorry to hear that. I hope you have something now that makes it easier.

    I never studied my Miss Marple so carefully as I should have. If strychnine is relatively quick-acting, it’s not what we want. Actually, maybe just a large helping of rat bait would be satisfactory.

  • Thornavis.

    Thompson with the usual religious horror of people doing anything which might be regarded as gratuitously pleasurable seems to agree with Bloomberg on this. The attitude seems to be that the poor and feckless are misusing prescription medicines and therefore everyone who uses them must be collectively punished. Of course there’s a fairly simple answer to at least part of this ‘problem’, legalise recreational drugs. Some of the comments below are horrible, there’s one twat wittering on about those who want to avoid unnecessary suffering being cowards. It’s depressing to contemplate just how many borderline psychopaths there are in the world and how many of them occupy positions of power and influence.

  • Thornavis.

    Thanks and yes I’m taking Celecoxib which is very effective and also has a slightly raised risk of coronary disease, a risk I’m very willing to take. No doubt someone who is determined to think of the children will eventually get round to banning them but in the meantime they’re a godsend or whatever the atheists equivalent is !

  • Julie near Chicago

    I’m so glad, Thornavis! I’d feel exactly the same way about the little bit of risk. Thank you for letting me know. 🙂

  • Falco

    Anyone who has been in severe pain on the NHS is likely to recall their “pain management” only in the darkest pits of night.

  • Current

    “I think it is much simpler than what both SD and Current are saying. I think it is the desire to control other people.”

    I’m sure that Bloomberg enjoys that as much as any politician. But, why does he want to control these people in this particular way? Why don’t the left have more legislative pops at the rich, the religious and conservative? They certainly could, the poor may be easier to control, but not by much.

    “Welfare” means control, because he who pays the piper calls the tune.”

    But, do governments control people directly with welfare? Generally not. Some welfare comes with strings attached. For example, most of the unemployed who are claiming benefit must show that they’re looking for a job (though this is easy to circumvent). Governments don’t say “to claim X you must stay off the fags, booze & drugs”? Why not? Because doing that would be an admission about welfare recipients that the elite left don’t want to make.

    Once in a while someone suggests some sort of “re-education camp” for those on welfare. A sort of military-style program to put them back on the straight-and-narrow. Why does no government do this? It would certainly satiate some lust for power and control. They don’t do it because spreading the idea that it needs doing would be too detrimental to their goals. The public may think “Instead of sending this shiftless lot to a bootcamp why don’t we cut their welfare down to, say, 10lb of potatoes per day? Or how about nothing? Nothing sounds good to me”.

    The government can’t directly attack the feckless that would be too dangerous. So they have to impose laws on everyone in order that a specific few hopefully obey them. Conservative governments are limited in the same way because if they are too obvious about targeting welfare recipients then they’ll get attacked by the left.

    The crux of this is what can be said in polite society. If it’s off limits to criticize the poor and welfare recipients too much then the left are safe. At present it seems acceptable to laugh at stereotypes of people watching Jeremy Kyle in every situation except conversations about politics. If that changed then the first thing that would happen is that conservatives would use it as an opportunity to show that certain groups are feckless. They could do that pretty easily, the statistical evidence exists it just isn’t polite to talk about it. That would then push a whole lot more voters in an anti-welfare direction.

  • A couple points from one of Baron Bloomberg;s subjects.

    His last re-election was not at all comfortable. He near lost against an underfunded non entity. Bloomberg spent more than $100 mil on his campaign. His popularity is (at least from what I see) in the tank. Not because most New Yorkers are not liberal (in the US sense of the term) but because his nannyism is so annoying.

    A few year ago I was amazed to see a very violent screed aginst him on a blackboard outside a gay bar in the West Village. His support for Gay marriage didn’t stop them from hating him for all the petty regulation he’s imposed on their lifestyle (smoking bans etc.)

    Our Baron has a mean streak that comes out whenever he feels he is up against an opponent that cannot, within the context of New York City politics, strike back.

    I could go on but it would be a waste of time. There is only one thing I am certain of, the next Mayor of my beloved city will be worse.

  • Eric

    This particular policy is such a travesty because we’ve only just (mostly) recovered from a period where dying people couldn’t get as the medications they needed to control the pain because somebody, somewhere might become addicted.

  • Eric

    I mean, at the federal level.

  • Saxon

    “It is hard to be charitable and hope that he never suffers extended pain.”

    no, no, no … if/when he needs pain meds, he ‘ll have them. these laws are for the commoners – not for the ruling elite.

    off topic, when the corrupt idiots passed gun control laws, they forgot to exempt police from the “7 bullet limit on clips” – so, now they need to revise (and the turd bloomy or cuomo won’t be affected in any way)

  • Ernie G

    The seven round magazine law was implemented not for safety, but for control and to make felons out of law-abiding gun owners. They are virtually unobtainable for most weapons. For current weapons they would have to be specially manufactured. Owners of older weapons would simply be out of luck. In the Bloomberg regime, police with illegal magazines wouldn’t have to worry because the Gregory Rule* would apply.

    *Named for that path-finding legal scholar, David Gregory of MSNBC, who established that firearms laws do not apply to the right people.

  • Rob

    Other people have to suffer because he cares. This is the essence of Progressivism.

  • Rob

    Oh, and isn’t it time to drop the ‘Nanny’ bit? I think we are way beyond that – today’s Nanny would be arrested after a tip-off from Social Services, even if she wasn’t a UKIP member.

  • Tedd

    Personal gain and a will to power might explain the the politicians who promote the progressive agenda, and the bureaucrats who benefit from it, but it doesn’t explain the much larger number of people who support the progressive agenda by voting, or by hooting at the appropriate moment during speeches. For that, we have to look at the “magical thinking” that veryretired describes. This is a battle of ideas, not of motives.

    Progressives have a set of ideas that are easily understood, flatter those who subscribe to them, and provide plausible-seeming insurance against things most people fear. That’s a sufficiently powerful combination that it scarcely matters whether the ideas have any actual merit.

    Enlightenment about progressive ideas isn’t going to come from external events, such as economic or even social collapse. Those things will only cause people to cling to their beliefs that much harder. If it comes at all it will come, as veryretired said, after a long period of publicly critiquing progressive ideas.

  • Surellin

    My 12-year-old son, undoubtedly goaded by my profane mutterings about Bloomberg, has been unearthing Hizzoner’s nannyings from the web recently. When he said, “Maybe Bloomberg should start worrying about bedbugs instead of large Cokes”, I knew he was going to grow up to be a fine upright curmudgeon like his father.