I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 on Thursday - a show I both love AND hate. I love it because it's a good indicator of where society is at by way of the topics Jeremy Vine talks about, his 'non-specific question' asking techniques (never offering his own opinion), the so-called experts that share their two cents, and the chumps that phone up and chime in with their fear-centred views. I'll be writing a lot on topics discussed on Jeremy's show.

And then I also hate the show because, well, all of the above. Often times I'm left shaking my head in bemusement and anger at what I'm hearing come out of my fellow human beings' mouths. I'm always shocked at how anti-freedom - without always realising it - the speakers are. If these people were free to rule the world, the human race would quickly eat itself. Fortunately, we're not there, yet - we still have time.

So the topic at the top of Thursday’s show was the situation of supermarkets selling alcohol at a loss to get people in the door, and supermarket, Tesco's, announcement that they would gladly accept new government regulations forcing themselves and their peers to raise their prices above that of cost (wholesale) in a bid to curb the alleged drinking problem in the UK.

Questions that were raised by this announcement, and the ensuing debate between an MP and a 'Science and Society Director', focused on the likelihood of this having an overall effect on society, and whether Tesco had made the move under concern for the 'public's' health OR as a publicity act as a way to deflect criticism.

Some of the views of the phone-in chumps covered a wide spectrum, including people complaining that a raise in prices would taint their weekend bottle of wine after a hard week's work, or how pensioners would struggle to afford their usual consumption level, or how the raising of prices is a good thing as it would deter kids from buying it.

Someone commented that in Europe, alcohol is cheaper, yet they are without our so-called 'binge drinking problem'. Someone else lamented that it was the fault of the police for not dispersing of drunkards effectively. A pensioner argued that supermarkets shouldn't be selling alcohol full stop, and that it should be left to off licences and pubs to sell it. A father concluded, after watching the alcohol-charged 'Brit Awards' on television the night before, that the blame lied with thirsty celebrities.

Other remarks made were that there should be a limit on how many units of alcohol should be allowed to be sold per person, that alcohol should be taxed across the board, and that it wasn't fair for youths to be attacked again in a seemingly never-ending vendetta against them from more senior folk.

This feature, for me, was a definite head-shaker as - if you have any semblance of a philosophy similar to mine - you'll notice that all the comments, concerns, theories and ideas are centred around control and anti-freedom. I shake my head so hard in disbelief when people think anti-freedom leads to freedom. They are at opposite ends of the path, my friend.

So where does the problem start? You've heard the saying, "Guns don't kill people: people do." Society is made-up of individuals, and individuals make their choices in life based on their philosophy, which was moulded from their own life experience AND what was fed to them intellectually in their formative years. It comes down to choice: you decide to drink, you pay the consequences incurred as a result of your actions. Except, in today's society, YOU don't have to pay the consequences. But I HAVE to pay them for you. Observe.

In today's society, everyone's (the producers) money goes to pay for complete strangers whom will get into any trouble they want. This Saturday, a man will get completely drunk, and not have to worry about the cost, because when he gets thrown out of the club in a defunct heap, and into a fight, he'll be carried into a non-drunk-funded ambulance and lovingly driven to a non-drunk-funded hospital to be cared for by overworked non-drunk-funded nurses and doctors, just like last Saturday, AND most probably next Saturday too - all free of charge! The lucky scamp!

Today, on any given Saturday night, hospital 'Accident And Emergency' wards are massively overrun with a high percentage of patients having drink-related injuries. Stomach-pumping, fight wounds, you name it. The cost is huge. And it's the rational whom are footing the bill.

In an ideal world (I.e., that which I'm fighting for) it would be down to an individual's choice, and the consequences thereof, that would determine his path in life - not the anonymous contributions of a tax-paying hostage. If a man wants a drink, he earns the money to pay for it. If he incurs physical harm from it, he pays for it. If he can't pay for it, he'd better hope that he has someone that will help him out, or that there is a charity - funded by volunteers - that will support him, because in a truly free society, there would be no 'free' health care.

If a man gets injured in a drunken brawl, he would pay for his healthcare. If he couldn't afford it, why not? If he gets himself into the position where he can't afford healthcare, he gets into trouble and ends up needing it, that's his problem.

And what about if a man who ventures out in the evening, completely sober, but gets unwittingly involved in brawl with a bunch of drunks? Who should pay for his healthcare? He should. He decided to go out knowing full well that there are people out there that will happily relieve themselves of their senses every weekend by drinking themselves into a maniacal mess. Bilbo Baggins once said, "It's a dangerous business stepping out of your door, you step into the road and if you don't keep your feet, there's no telling where you might be swept off to." He was right. Life is choices. Or at least, that's how it should be.

The issue of kids getting hold of cheap cider that is cheaper than lemonade, but stronger than beer, and then causing trouble on the streets has been gaining ground, too. So whose fault is this? Is it the government's? Is it their friends'? Is it the area they live in? If you choose to have kids, you accept full responsibility for the development of their philosophy. If they become drunken louts, you have to take some of the blame for bringing them into this world. You moulded their philosophy before they took it and made it their own. You chose the area they were brought up in, and therefore the calibre of person they would be in contact with. It all started in the bedroom, my friend.

In conclusion, I ask: how do we end this? The answer is the same as in any societal issue. It comes down to individuality, responsibility and the freedom of choice. If humans were truly free in this society, there wouldn't be a problem. If you wanted a drink, you'd earn the money and you'd buy it. If you couldn't afford it, you find a way to earn the money.

If you didn't want to earn the money to buy it and would rather steal it, you'd steal it, knowing that theft is a crime that begets punishment; at the very least you'd be ostracised from rest of society for anti-social behaviour. If you developed a drinking problem, whereby you became addicted, the same rules would apply. If at any time you harmed yourself physically, for example, via getting into a drunken brawl, or by destroying your liver, you'd pay for it.

Unless you fixed yourself, eventually, you'd kill yourself. It sounds harsh. But there are some people that want to live, and some that aren't bothered. It's the ones that can be bothered that stick around. Drinking magnifies your behaviour. If you're violent, you become extra violent. If you're sloth-like, you become extra sloth-like. And so on.

A system whereby the rational, productive want-to-liv-ers are robbed at gunpoint (try NOT paying your taxes for a while) to pay for the unproductive, irrational can't-be-bothered-s does NOT work. A system that robs people of choices, yet encourages and rewards bad behaviour does NOT equal freedom. End of story.

And who stands between this elusive freedom and our current 'come one, come all' culture? You guessed it: the government. Until the power is returned to the individual, no matter what rules and regulations are imposed - the culture will remain the same.

See what we're up against..?

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens