At 32%, what is marketed as the world’s strongest beer has just been released. As per its label:

This is an extremely strong beer; it should be enjoyed in small servings and with an air of aristocratic nonchalance. In exactly the same manner that you would enjoy a fine whisky, a Frank Zappa album or a visit from a friendly yet anxious ghost.

Beautiful. I’m interested in how this plays out in the political arena. Though a case can perhaps be made for controlling drugs that are unsafe to use, it is clearly a sign of incoherent policy-makers to allow drinks that are significantly above 32%, but not beer. At 30 pounds ($50) the 330ml bottle and with marketing that tells us how it’s made to be savoured, the customers are certain to drink it at least as responsibly as they would drink whiskey, and probably more so than the Jack Daniel’s that gets chugged at college parties. And yet, the same company was previously challenged for having too strong a beer. It won, but that was with a 18.2% beer; now that they have almost doubled the strength, there are some things left to unfold.

But even if it might be used in irresponsible manners that are not possible without such strong beers on the market, is it really the responsibility of government to protect us from our own choices? This is where the problem of self-ownership arises: can we talk of “self-ownership” and if so, to which degree should this exist? Alcohol laws are an example of the government intervening against people who wish to trade alcohol, for the sake of protecting the consumer from his own choices. It is almost universally accepted that it is righteous to use force against someone who uses undue force towards another, but what about when the person harms no one, except perhaps — just perhaps — himself?

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Here is one of romantic poetry’s masterpieces: “Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections Of Early Childhood”, by William Wordsworth. Through this poem he offers to us some insight into the nature of our inevitable growth as individual human beings. Not only are we forced to grow physically, but we cannot help but grow spiritually as well and this change inherently affects our relationship with the natural world and the kind of knowledge and pleasure that we have access to.

As we grow old, should we ponder those past days in quiet nostalgia, with implied regret? Or perhaps we should simply be grateful for those past experiences? Is it possible that such gratefulness can only be experienced once we recognize the gifts that time has granted us? There are so many ways for us to see our past, our present and their relationship: for some, it all leads to regret; for others, the fruits that our past has granted us are ignored. Wordsworth’s “Ode” tells us that it is possible to appreciate the unique beauty of a child’s perspective all while recognizing the value of human growth in forming our perspective on nature.

Through his poetry, he explored these matters for himself and shared with us the path through which his emotions progressed. It was not a linear path without impediments, but it lead him to accept the processes of aging, even death, and form a greater understanding of nature and our relationship with her.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text