Adam Piggott

Gentleman adventurer

Mental welfare slavery.

Looky here all you rambunctious delcons and deplorables. You think that you’re all thinking for yourselves when in actual fact you’re carrying around a chain of mental strangulation that’s heavier than a semi-truck laden with fat chicks on their way to a concrete eating competition. It’s my job, nay, it’s my public service to point this out to you whenever the opportunity arises. Your role is to take it on the chin, get back up off the canvas, and consider whatever it is that I am on about. Not what I am on. There’s a difference. Capisci?

Okay. So the other day I wrote a wee little post on the lunacy of bicycle helmet laws. The post got some open discussion which was nice as usually it’s either, “Adam, you are the shit!” or “Adam, you are shit!” (Nobody commented on my old awesome bike. Almost blew my brains out over that one). Regular commenter Lady Moonlight was a touch confused at my stance against this onerous law.

However, as a parent, would it not be smart for me to want my child/teenager to wear a helmet? What I am asking is, does wearing a helmet not prevent head injuries and, therefore, a sensible thing to do? I am also against governments regulating every aspect of citizens’ lives; don’t eat this, don’t drink that, etc. People should be smart enough to demonstrate common sense and not have the government force them to do this and that, I agree. However, if someone suffers a head injury because they refused to wear a helmet, should they be entitled to free hospital treatment and on-going medical treatment paid for by the tax-payers?

Let’s leave aside that helmets cause more fatalities than they save, (skin cancer), and confront the bugbear on the blog here, so to speak. On the surface this seems like a reasonable question. Why indeed should we pay for your medical expenses if you choose not to wear a helmet and bang your precious head?

But this is another example of mistaking the symptom for the cause. It was the same old hoary chestnut that was rolled out to marginalize smokers under the presumption that treating them costs far more than smokers pay in tax, (which is not the case at all).

The fact is that almost all medical systems are terribly inefficient and overpriced due to government regulation. The only system that works is that of Singapore but nobody wants to follow that model because that would be too hard. Taxpayers should not have to pay for someone’s medical bills full stop. But we do so due to the government over-regulation that has resulted in both wasteful and inefficient systems, and private health insurance costs that are off the charts. (My wife and I pay over ten grand a year.)

(And if we really want to talk about burdens on the taxpayer then why don’t we start off with the huge number of diabetics that are in that condition precisely because of their diets.)

But the complete inefficiency of government medical providers is something that we have become habituated to, much like the fact that the current generations do not want to work. But both are symptoms of the disease that is government spending and over-regulation. In a small government market almost everyone could afford to pay for their medical bills, (like Singapore), and thus feel free to take the chance to knock their head on the pavement.

But the fact that our medical systems are in disarray due to fleecing the taxpayer should not be used as evidence in favor of mandatory bike helmets. It is a sad state of affairs that we have become so inured to our poor circumstances that we use that as evidence to enact even further outrages on ourselves. Creeping tyranny as another commenter put it.

It’s not just the frog boiling to death slowly in the pot of warm water. The frogs are pulling in all their mates that almost managed to escape. We’re like a cross between frogs and crabs. What would one of those look like? Pretty ugly I would imagine. But perhaps its an apt metaphor for our current mental state of affairs. Mental welfare slavery.



An ANZAC poem.


Europe versus Australia.


  1. I lean towards doing things in such a fashion that helps to mitigate risks, though solely on the personal level. For example: when I have kids over riding the horses they don’t ride unless they have a helmet on. I wear one to encourage the kids. Adults? You’re on your own. When I’m in the mountains I never wear one. I think government mandates for safety equipment end up doing more harm than good. It teaches the individual that they don’t have to think about safety, just follow the rules.

    The old, “it’s costing the taxpayers” yea and such. It’s always the folks on the left making this argument, which should make it immediately suspect. It’s just another emotional argument masquerading as fiscal probity.

    • Adam

      I think government mandates for safety equipment end up doing more harm than good. It teaches the individual that they don’t have to think about safety, just follow the rules.

      I did a bit of consulting work with suburban train lines. We had to constantly inform people that wearing a yellow safety vest does not make you impervious to trains.

  2. Brandon

    Hi Adam,
    We are in the midst of a UK general election campaign in which the Far left that has taken over the leadership and grassroots of the Labour party privately want to lose. This will, they believe, cleanse them of as many as 50 seats currently filled by their unruly but moderate rump of members of parliament. No other approach can explain their latest “suicide note” of a campaign and leader Jeremy Corbyn. It will however be much worse for these socialists.

    The Prime Minister, Teresa May, the most undeserving left wing Un-conservative, will win a huge landslide guaranteeing 15 years of Tory rule by wrapping herself in the Brexit flag in order to complete the Conservative Party’s detoxification and move to the centre left.

    You might ask what on earth has this to do with your blog? Well, to be honest I thought you might be interested; but also “You think that you’re all thinking for yourselves when in actual fact…” seemed apt as we have one Lynton Crosby running May’s campaign and I am trying really hard to resist reprogramming.

    The analogy I have been using to bemused friends and colleagues is the “rusty nail” strategy; as previously seen in the classic film “The Ipcress File” in which our hero, played by the very young Michael Caine, uses said nail to repeatedly cut open the palm of his hand generating enough pain to counter the effects of intense brainwashing.

    Lynton Crosby is a master of narrative embedding and messaging. The narrative is “Give Teresa a landslide to get the best negotiated Brexit deal from the European Union Bureaucrats”. And the messaging is four simple words that will be used to crush Labour: “secure, stable, strong, certain”.

    The “comparative deletion” is of course leadership and nation or anything you want. Soon these words will not even to be in sentences or articles they will be written on placards as just single words. We’ll start to hallucinate and therefore see these qualities in May and start to see them in the society around due to confirmation bias.

    Behind the scenes Crosby will of course have identified a set of key marginal constituencies to flood with resources, activist and leaflets, and as he did in 2015 break all the legally binding expenses rules. This is a major reason for this snap election in the first place as 30 Conservatives MPs were about to be taken to court and lose their parliamentary seats due to the last Crosby organised election victory.

    This overall technique would normally be sufficient to manufacture victory. But because of Corbyn’s disastrous leadership of a Labour party, having been elected twice by a party membership completely infested with far left enterists and converts it will be a doddle.

    No one will notice that as Home Secretary Teresa May made us less safe and secure, left our prisons in disarray, lost control of immigration and deportations, supported more “progressive change” (most noticeably Transgender commissions and gender pay gap legislation), berated, demoralised and engineered a depleted PC dominated police force, opposed and ridiculed Brexit and watched on as we ran down our military.

    We also have no idea of whether voting her a landslide victory will mean a “soft” Brexit reversible in the near future or a “hard” Brexit that actually retains all the useless social contract legislation that many Brexit voters want rid of. Both these terms “soft” and “hard” being themselves messaging originated after the referendum defeat by those that wanted, like her at the time, to remain in the EU swamp.

    What we can guarantee is that we are on course for a historic Conservative landslide so monumental that a whole generation will never see a Labour Government (not necessarily a bad thing).

    Oh, but wait… the Conservative party will in fact be a centre left party implementing a Brexit that all of the Labour, including Jeremy Corbyn passionately argued for in 1983 which, yes you guessed it resulted in a Thatcher Landslide and our further embedding in what we now call the EU.

    You see. I nearly fell for the brainwashing then. Oh dear. I must squeeze harder on this nail!

  3. Deserttrek

    I don’t want government to tell me what to do either. as far as bicycle helmets, one saved my life, both when I impacted the rim around the windshield with the top of my head then the back on the pavement.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

%d bloggers like this: