A visual offensive (see below) blog from the paranoid wing of the libertarian movement. I won't say every libertarian is a freemason but I'll put my money on this one being one of them (can't quite put my finger on why but there's something about the sanctimonious tone of the blog overall that gives me that feel). Anyway you have to wonder how someone can defend patio heaters* yet have no real sugar in the house, a case of randomly pulling prejudices out of the internet fads I would guess.
I'd better explain why I find the blog visually offensive, on one page I counted at least six different colours of text and I'm pretty sure that more than a headline and a body font is downright disgusting.
* if you need a patio heater then (a) you are too bloody soft and/or (b) it's the wrong time of year for nude sun-bathing.
http://iangrey.org/
Comments
Is he a Freemason?
Perhaps you had previously read this post and had forgotten?
Shades
interesting - don't think I
interesting - don't think I read it unless it was when i was drunk eons ago. To be honest that theme with all the colours and fonts was too difficult on my eyes to pursue your blog too far into history.
BTW the reason your link didn't work was you put the "=" before the href not after it.
Straw Man argument
I think your examples are a bit of a straw man regarding patio heaters versus sugar- it is the difference between personal choice and others making my mind up for me. I don't have a patio heater but I would be up in arms if Politicians told me I couldn't have sugar for my own good.
Ian
Not really one is a basic
Not really one is a basic necessity of life (if you are diabetic then it would be fructose* rather than sucrose/glucose) the other is a bloody great candle. Governments (i.e the instrument of society) should be able to restrict the use of downright moronic products like patio heaters, 4x4s, plasma TVs etc.
* sperm run on fructose btw.