Another example of the tyranny of unelected bureaucracies:
A secret court is seizing the assets of thousands of elderly and mentally impaired people and turning control of their lives over to the State – against the wishes of their relatives.
The draconian measures are being imposed by the little-known Court of Protection, set up two years ago to act in the interests of people suffering from Alzheimer’s or other mental incapacity.
The court hears about 23,000 cases a year – always in private – involving people deemed unable to take their own decisions. Using far-reaching powers, the court has so far taken control of more than £3.2billion of assets.
The cases involve civil servants from the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), which last year took £23million in fees directly from the bank accounts of those struck down by mental illness, involved in accidents or suffering from dementia. …
The organisation has 300 staff, costs £26.5million a year to run and is headed by £80,000-a-year career civil servant Martin John, a former head of asylum and immigration policy in Whitehall. It prepares reports for the Court of Protection, based in a tower block in Archway, North London.
Dr. Robert Epstein, author of The Case Against Adolescence, offered some good links about the folly of artificially prolonging childhood:
* One more thing which has led to the modern underestimation of youth: urban dangers. I think it was Richard Leakey who pointed out that we “waste time” being afraid of snakes, spiders, lions, and other animals, which were a great threat to our ancestors but not to us, but don’t feel anything like the fear we should of technological malfunctions. Thus, we have urban children having nightmares about wolves but unconcerned about cars, electricial outlets, and stoves. Ayn Rand, who asserted repeatedly and incorrectly that humans have “no instincts”, used this sort of thing as an illustration of her theory that emotions derive from the logical mind: if you point a gun at an adult, he will be afraid, but if you point it at a baby, who has no idea what a gun is, he will laugh and may even reach for it, thinking it is a toy. She did not mention, and probably did not know, that if you give a baby a snake, he will not reach for it, he will scream, even if he has never seen a snake before. Parents observe their babies sticking their fingers in electric sockets or trying to grab the handles of pots of boiling water and conclude that their children are idiots who need to be told everything. They do need to be told everything, but they are not idiots; put a snake or a wolf near them and they will respond very rationally.
But it isn’t surprising that having to spend years teaching children to stay out of the street and keep their fingers out of the blender should lead parents to conclude that children’s brains are nonfunctional and that the natural equipment won’t preserve their lives. Put some wolves in the street and a spider on the blender and you’ll have no trouble at all.
* Progressives always respond to scientific evidence of innate differences between individual humans as well as groups of humans with hysterical shrieks of “Nazi!” They seem to believe that the moment you concede that there are more men with high IQs than women, or that some ethnic groups (i.e. Ashkenazi Jews) have generally higher IQs than others, or even that some individuals are born with higher IQs and greater talents than others and thus far nothing has been discovered which will change this, that the logical next step is murdering all the “inferiors”.
This is because to them, it is the logical next step. Right now, it is their justification for murdering the unborn: the unborn have little ability, even to breathe unassisted, therefore they are less than human and it is all right to murder them. In the Soviet era, it was their excuse for the mass murders of the USSR: they were killing the unactualized, less than human ones so that they could manufacture more highly evolved, actualized humans. It is also their excuse for trampling over the rights and wishes of “middle Americans” in this so-called democracy; the yokels in the flyover states and their European equivalents must be deprived of everything they value so that the enlightened ones may cram enlightenment down the throats of everyone.
Progressives have no comprehension of the Judeo-Christian valuing of all human life, even that of “inferiors”. They can’t imagine that we do. We say, “Joe is not up to a difficult, intellectually demanding job,” and they hear, “Send Joe to the gas chamber!”
* Historically, progressives have always been eager to go to war to further their utopian aims. It was progressives who insisted upon invading the Confederacy rather than let those states exercise their sovereign right to self-government. It was progressives who dragged the U.S. into World War I, a war in which there was no logical reason for us to be involved. There is speculation that progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen so that he would have an excuse to get us into the Second World War, a war which destroyed the British Empire, allowed the Soviet Union to expand its territory, and robbed many European nations of their rightful sovereigns and protectors. Even nowadays, they view highly aggressive Islamic regimes with great affection.
Today’s progressives gave Slick Willie a pass on Kosovo, and have been remarkably silent on the fact that there are currently more American troops in Afghanistan than there ever were during the Bush administration. Nevertheless, they have identified themselves so thoroughly as an “anti-war” ideology that it has become difficult to imagine them any other way. I have even seen their anti-war rhetoric used as support for the untenable theory that the Nazis were “left-wing”. Sure, they practiced socialism, pseudo-paganism, and affirmative action favoring ethnic groups considered to be less intelligent and able at the expense of those considered to be smarter and more able, but they were warlike, so they must have been on the right!
I was wondering why in recent decades a movement which has historically been exceedingly bloodthirsty should have attempted to cloak itself in dove clothing. It is no doubt partly because everybody claims to be in favor of “peace”. Even military strategists claim so: “Si vis pacem para bellum.” Let him who desires peace prepare for war. Sherman, probably the most brutal butcher America has ever produced, claimed that he yearned only for the peace which would have frustrated his murderous urges. Hitler said that he wanted only peace. Sure, peace after he had all the Lebensraum he wanted – a little piece of Poland, a little piece of France.
I think the real reason was that at the time this “peace” babbling began, progressives still had a realistic hope that the Soviet Union would invade the U.S., after which Europe would likely have joined the bloc as well. They wanted Westerners as unprepared to deal with it as possible so as to hasten the victory of the Worker’s Paradise.