We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Pendulum swing like a pendulum do Purely for the benefit of people who get excited about this kind of thing, a tantalising tidbit to whet your appetites:
The Conservatives have moved into the lead in the opinion polls, bringing to an end the record dominance that Labour has enjoyed for more than a decade.
So is NuLabour on the way out? Are the Tories on the way back? I don’t much care to be honest. For people like me the British Conservative Party promises more of the same, business as usual, social democracy by other means.
And so to bed.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Not more of the same, surely. Less of the same. Which would be an improvement, not quite so bad. I agree going another way under the Tories seems unlikely, yet drifting in the state-socialist direction is preferable to Labour’s determined, busy, populist, drive to a civil service paradise.
Since the Conservative Party is the only mainstream party that has consistently opposed signing up to the European Constitution, they are worth supporting on that issue alone.
One can point to Socialist Party A and Statist Party B in a jurisdiction whose sovereignty isn’t threatened, but ‘Europe’ overrides such matters in Britain. It is a defining line that orients your attitudes towards political parties.
After all, the British pendulum usually swings between indifference and apathy. A Tory lead in the polls indicates some political energy stirring, though as YouGov has come in for a lot of criticism, it is best to wait for confirmation in another poll, like ICM or Gallup.
Hi David,
I’ll gather my rosebuds while I may, on this one. Yes, the Tories are a long way from being perfect, but many of them have their hearts in the right place. And many of their policies are heading in the right direction, too. Particularly on pre-University education.
Let’s look at what at a possible Tory government gives us: a leader opposed to the Euro, a tearing-up referendum on the Euro constitution should Blair be foolish enough to ratify it without the permission of the British people, the abolition of LEAs and introduction of Mr Friedman’s school vouchers, the introduction of more private provision, and tax rebates for self-financed private provision in the NHS (a major blessing to those who cannot afford private treatment because of the high levels of tax they pay).
But best of all, it means the end to Blair, Brown, Short, Cook, Straw, Reid, Hewitt, Mandelson, Jowell, Clarke, and best of all, Hain, all out-and-out destroyers of the UK.
And Oliver Letwin will be the real leader, anyway, at least the one thinking behind the throne, and he must be as close to a libertarian as it’s possible to get in British politics, with Britain’s current massive state-fostered population.
I wouldn’t say Rejoice, Rejoice, Rejoice, at this news from Peter Kellner’s YouGov poll, and we do need some “proper” polls to back it up, but it will put the ol’ cat among the pigeons in the Labour Party. At best it will put Blair out of his misery with a Brownite coup, or at worst, make him panic and adopt even more stupid “populist” policies which backfire. And once the Labour Party are stupid enough to let Blair go, the only force which got them into power, it’s all over for them. And from where I’m sitting, that must be a good thing.
Given a choice between Napoleon Blair, the vain assuming peacok, and destroyer of Britain, or Captain Duncan Smith, of the Guards, the unassuming quiet man who believes in Britain, give me the bald bloke every time.
There’s a long way to go yet, but I’ll be fighting for him at the next election. To me there is a difference. I hope I can help him win it.
Rgds,
AndyD
“…the record dominance that Labour has enjoyed for more than a decade.”
A decade? I sure when the vote was counted in 1992 that Labour were not dominating much at all… and back then it was OLD Labour.
I think NEW Labour only really started rising above the political horizon from 1994. A bit less than a decade…
…pedantically sad, but true.
I had to grit my teeth to vote George Bush. As it turns out, of course, he’s still not good enough, but the fact that he’s better than the alternative turned out to be a lot more important than I could have foreseen. Vote like the little differences matter, because they might.
I agree that the Tories are the lesser of two evils, but how many of them indeed “have their hearts in the right place”? Very few of them ever have the guts to cock a snook at their Whips: I think it was 128 of them who revolted against the 1997 Firearms Act. The biggest revolt for some years, it’s true, but my MP is typical in that while he agreed unreservedly that the Act was nothing more than short term political expediency, he was going to toe the Party line… The Tories are characterised, in Parliament and especially in the grassroots party, by paternalism, authoritarianism, and a deep distrust of “the people” – at least as much as Labour Lite. IDS is a no-hoper. Howard is an unprincipled authoritarian pragmatist. Letwin I don’t know enough about, except that he’s clever, and I wouldn’t trust him as far as any other career politician. Far too many of the rest are lawyers. I’d execute ten percent of them, chosen at random, to encourage the others…
Tony H – I like your radical thinking. But the death penalty’s against the law … oh, dear …
I think there ought to be a new qualification for standing as an MP. Five years engaged in private enterprise. And not as a lawyer serving private enterprise. On the money-producing end. All this coming up through social services and local councils is a recipe for mass ineptitude. Letting lawyers in is a recipe for mass authoritanarianism. There should be a quota for lawyers, say 10% – hey, the exact percentage Tony H wants executed! – and require the rest to have spent five years toiling in business.
This would have the added advantage of, if that person hadn’t done very well in business, it’s measurable, and would act as a clue-bat for voters and selection committees. I can’t see that this would do anything but raise the standards.
If you want to make politicians more pro-buisness then we could take some ideas from yesteryear.
1) Don’t pay politicians any wage.
2) Make a persons vote property that people could buy or sell. Candidates should be expected to pay for their voters votes.
This would mean that a succesful politician must have some outside business interest to enable them to pay for the votes they get, and people in opposing parties will keep them from being corrupt because that would make them more likley to win elections. The most expensive election under this system cost 1/2 million pounds in the mid 19th century, that’s about £36 million in todays money.
S.Weasel says something that many people dont understand… and then whine about the results that they could have changed with a little thought:
“Vote like the little differences matter, because they might.”
Its very true because it encapsulates the way the world works…. in real life it is the many many little things that make big things happen.
You have to act as though the little things are vastly important …because in reality they are… its the little things that move the big things to change life in everywhich direction!
Ignore the little differences and you fall into the trap of generalisation and fatalism!
Pay attention to pushing the little things in the right direction and the big things will start righting themselves.
David,
you’re being you usual self-effacing self. This poll was released a day after your magisterial television appearance denouncing all collectivist oppression. I am sure the two are intimately related.
Della – I like your idea of not paying politicians any wage for one reason: they would have to go out and earn a living and so stay out of our hair with their constant make-work legislating.
I’m not sure I like the idea of politicians buying votes, though. It would give them too much power. I’d much rather see individuals able to sell their vote to other individuals if they felt like it.
I still think five years in business should be a requirement for standing because, after they’d got a grasp the hard way of how capitalism works, they might not be so eager to pull the pillars of commerce down around society’s ears with their moronic socialism and planned economies. At the moment we have the Robin Cooks, Clare Shorts, Mo Mowlams, Harriet Harmans, Jack Straws, Tessa Jowells, Stephen Byerses, Estelle Morrises et al (including, I see, a new “minister for children” who will be devoting seven or eight hours daily thinking up ways to interfere in families), not one of them ever having held a wealth-producing job. Every one of them an oxygen thief. This would get them all shovelled out in one go.
I’m not sure about restrictions on people becoming MPs – I sense more opportunities for regulations and lawyers there.
But I admit I haven’t got a better idea right now.
Perhaps a simple website with clear graphics showing the number of MPs in recent parliaments who were lawyers, state employees, etc, so people can see it visually?
I think the idea of people buying votes is pretty far out. I can’t think of much more of a recipe for endemic corruption than that. And besides, will that somehow make the government more representative of what Joe Q Public wants?
What about NGOs, pressure groups, oil companies, Comintern, the EU,.
There would no doubt be enough bovine nonvoters to happily be stitched up by the.
That said, I’m getting heartily sick of the electoral dictatorship we currently have. The various brakes on the power of the House of Commons are breaking down, and their previous performance is open to interpretation.
Maybe something like the Swiss referendum laws, to make the publics voice better heard, and pressure better brought to bear, against a government which otherwise has 4 years to inflict whatever damage they wish before the public gets to voice their displeasure.
The Last Tory Boy – actually, I hadn’t thought of all the pressure/lobby groups buying up votes. OK. You’re right. That’s out.
Your example of Switzerland introduced an interesting option. Switzerland is run exactly the way the Swiss want it run because no one can sneak legislation through. The electorate gets to vote on everything. Given that we’ve just have a vivid illustration of how easy it is to hijack Parliament and impose the will of a very few people on the millions of voters, the Swiss method may be the way to go. Or we need a written constitution STAT, so no more quasi dictators can tear our structure and history to shreds ever again.
But I do think engagement in a real commercial enterprise or the military for five years should be a requirement for standing for Parliament. What we don’t want ever again are people who’ve spent their youth having rock band fantasies and sitting around planning on how they, aged 20, are going to save a world they’ve never engaged in and don’t understand. Look at Britain and Europe and you will see that all the governments are infested with these socialist products of the 70s – not one of them ever having done a day’s work in the real world in their lives (save Berlusconi).
Tony H writes:
“Howard is an unprincipled authoritarian pragmatist. ”
Well Mr H, ya got me there! 🙂
Not perhaps quite as bad as Norman Fowler (my God, is it human?), but still way down there, Neo. But, even if you take the best member of the Idiot Party,…hmmmm…, perhaps Robin Cook (come on, I had to pick somebody :), Mr Howard is still at least three times as good as that, and he’s proved the only Tory capable, in recent years, of making El Gordo look like the fat cowardly mountain of wobbly blubber, that he is, stuffed up behind a hill of stupid Galbraithian economic idiot guides.
And until Mr David Carr, future leader of the I-hope-eventually-will-be-formed Samizdata.Net political party, steps forward as a potential Prime Minister, to collect my support, I cannot sit on my hands and let the Guardianistas run this country unmolested by my vote (while I still have it). Better to have Telegraph readers, we disagree with, in charge, rather than Guardian readers we loathe.
And, as I may have said before, Dunkers Smith and I have families which originate from the same part of Scotland, so therefore we must be related (I actually met him, at the last election, and we discussed this!). So that means you’ve just insulted my long-lost cousin. How dare you, sir! 🙂
As for limiting who can be an MP, what about one of the following three solutions detailed here? 🙂
Andy D – interesting: “Starship Troopers” is one of the few Heinleins I haven’t read. Must remedy this. Your third solution is closest to my preference, which is national conscription. Yes, conscription in principle is something that seems un-free, but militarily I think a citizen army on the Swiss model is a social good for all sorts of reasons, and political conscription (once in a lifetime for most of us) would do away with career politicians. Naturally, some minimum qualifications such as your earning-a-living thing, plus literacy & numeracy. Couple that with a civil service barred from working in the same dep’t for more than (say) two years. Oh, and sell Westminster Palace (to Ministry of Sound?), replace it with a few Portakabins.
Sorry to impugn your family honour – though it’s difficult to see the IDS of former times leaping across the heather waving a bloodstained claymore…
Another thought for ye, I can’t help wondering whether we folk in the libertarian/individualist camp have hada wee impact, through all our campaigning against the erosion of civil liberties, in helping to reduce support for Blair. I honestly don’t know.
Much of the upswing in support for the Tories seems, on the face of it, to be generated by hatred and distrust of Blair and co, rather than out of positive attraction for the Tory Party. But that said, we live in interesting times and I think we have as good a chance of spreading our ideas as has been the case in the last decade.
That prat “Giggler” who lin the comment sections of this blog ast week claimed libertarians have nil influence in the Tory Party must be a tad vexed, mebbe.
Andy Duncan – Hmmmmm. Works for me.
Ah Friedman economics – they worked so well last time we tried them…
“And until Mr David Carr, future leader of the I-hope-eventually-will-be-formed Samizdata.Net political party…”
Darn! You beat me there Andy Duncan. I was about to propose the same thing. England needs it.
Re. Liberty Belle,
I think one problem is that the Declaration of Rights is 400 years old and thus a dim and distant memory, and is nowhere near as clear and concise as the American version.
Hardly anybody is even aware of the English Declaration of Rights. About as close as it gets is some mutterings in the pub about how “its a free country”. Those rights are too vague, and need beefing up, not to mentioning making them more resonant with modern times (the old Declaration of Rights has some text about James IIs transgressions on it, that strikes me as making it a little laughable and anachronistic to modern ears).
That said the European Convention on Human Rights is rot, as has been agreed on this site numerous times. I think the old Declaration needs redrafting, to a modern document that sets out the unalienable rights of the citizen, in the same manner as the US.
Declaration of Rights – 1688 – a tad under 400 yrs old boy!
Don’t the schools teach numeracy any more! and don’t forget it’s the English Constitution!
The problem with representative government is the same one we have with mainstream media and trade unions to give 2 examples – It gets highjacked by motivated, but un-representative minorities.
I am aware of *only* one way out this problem which is to choose representatives by (random) lottery. I expect this to be hugely popular in gambling mad and ephemeral fame obsessed Britain.
It would also bring us much closer to the primary meaning of representative – One that serves as an example or type for others of the same classification.
I am deadly serious about this, and would expect it to pass if put to a referendum.
Phil: I’ve suggested this idea in the past, too – choosing representatives by some random process similar to jury duty. On the idea that anyone who really wants the job clearly can’t be trusted to have it.
Of course, such a scheme would be coercive. But so’s the draft, and jury duty.
Of course, such a scheme would be coercive.
It can always be made optional, i.e. a person can decline. A nice salary, and the standard MP perks would mean only a rich or at least very affluent person would turn it down.
I could see the whole process turned into a hugely popular TV show. The reality TV show to end all reality TV shows. Maybe get a small number of people by lottery who then progressive vote out their fellows until we get down to the final two, just like Survivor. This would fit in nicely with another idea of mine that we add new people and consequently remove them after a fixed term, at short intervals, say weekly. 2 new people a week with a five year term gives a legislature of 500, which is about right.
Think of the TV advertising revenues!
And in case anyone thinks I am being flippant, then circuses have a long history of being used to involve people in the apparatus of the state. And most people view politics and the workings of the government as deadly dull. Livening it up will do wonders for increasing interest and participation.
In Thailand not too long ago, they drafted monks who had taken vows to abjure the world and wordly things in to govern. The monks didn’t want the power, but accepted the responsibility as a penance. I believe they had a set term and did as well as they were able and then fled gratefully back to the monastery when the time came for their release.
Phil Bradley, I don’t like your lottery idea because those chosen might well be pleased to accept the salary and the perks, but if they were not motivated to perform a public service, they could be as sloppy and venal as they liked. And who would they be representing as no one voted for them? To whom would they owe a duty?
I definitely think there are far too many MPs and Parliament is in session and making mischief for too long. The bare bones of governing shouldn’t take more than three months a year – and the bare bones is all most of us want.
Another idea would be the cancellation of all laws after they’ve been on the books for a set amount of time – say three years. After that time, there would be a time-consuming procedure to get them put back on the books. Governments wouldn’t want to devote the time to salvaging rubbish legislation, so this would mean most of the detritus would just be shaken out and never reinstated. This would mean we could get an armed citizenry back, which would be a step in the right direction.
LB: I don’t like your lottery idea because those chosen might well be pleased to accept the salary and the perks, but if they were not motivated to perform a public service, they could be as sloppy and venal as they liked.
I’m sorry, but I find the notion of politicians as public servants complete horsesh**. I present George Galloway as evidence. Politicians are just people with agendas (a lot of other stuff deleted). Just possibly people without such agendas would make better legislators – consider the merits of the arguments just like jurors are supposed to do.
And who would they be representing as no one voted for them? To whom would they owe a duty?
I have already pointed out that that they represent in the more generally used meaning of the word. Not in the narrower and more recent usage of an elected representative. A statistical explanation of why they would be representative is out of place here.
Otherwise I like the idea of terms on laws. But in the wider context of rationing the number of laws that can be passed. Note that referenda driven legislation tends to naturally to have this effect.
regards
Interesting that several people say that the Bill of Rights 1688 is less clear and less well-remembered than the US Constitution a century later.
For me, Magna Carta 1215 is far clearer and far more universal than either document. (Precisely because it avoids pontificating about general ‘rights’ but sets up measurable limitations on power exercised by the government in power.)
It all fits on one page, too.
Phil Bradley – I take your points, and naturally I’ve never thought that anyone clawing their way into Parliament was making the effort for anything other than their own aggrandisement and to force their ideas down other people’s necks. In the absence of Thai monks, maybe a lottery would be the best solution after all.
I think making a career of Parliament should be out of the question. Seven to 10 years max, and then back into the real world. And no pensions. That a pompous, self-righteous old traitor like Edward Heath is still being supported 40 years on by the taxpayers he betrayed is obscene.
I also think that having laws lose their legitimacy after three years would get rid painlessly of dead wood and dodgy laws that were passed in a hurry to pander to a special interest group at the time. Three years is long enough for the world to have moved on, and no government is going to want to find time to reheat ancient arguments in defence a law which is no longer at the front of public consciousness. Except in really critical cases, governments which present themselves as forward-looking, as they all do, won’t want to be seen fidgeting around looking backward.
This would mean we could get an armed citizenry back, which would be a step in the right direction.
And what if I don’t want there to be an armed citizenry.
Do I get a say? Or do we all become little statelets of our own. In that case, I want to be armed with WMD myself, just to protect myself from the nutjobs.
Of course, this is where most reductio type arguments get us.
There isn’t going to be a libertarian utopia for the same reasons that there isn’t going to be a socialist one. What there can be is the rule of law designed with the goal of ensuring a maximum of personal liberty for the individual.
I also think that having laws lose their legitimacy after three years
In all seriousness do you believe this?
What laws were you thinking of? Laws governing financial regulation? Pensions? Insurance? Murder? Traffic offences? Theft? Share trading? Banking?
The problem with a complex civilisation is there is a lot of stuff which if left to its own devices simply doesn’t work.
Yes Dave, but it’s in the interests of the career politicians and State apparatchiks to exaggerate hugely the amount of “stuff” they say wouldn’t work without them… Socialists, of course, are people who believe that politicians and civil servants know better than ourselves how we should run our lives; I think there are a lot of things I’d rather decide for myself, than have forced upon me by agenda-driven politicians who say their legitimacy derives from the (max) 25 – 30 % of the population that voted them into power. Why are you afraid of “nutjobs” in an armed society? If you’re any sort of “democrat” surely you believe, like me, that the overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens are responsible people? I mean, around 100 years ago when you & I could have walked into a British gunshop and bought whatever we wanted, and a great many people did just that, the streets did not run with blood and echo to the sound of gunfire – they were quieter & safer than they are today. Your “nutjobs” wouldn’t get very far against armed citizens: neither Michael Ryan nor Thomas Hamilton would have lasted more than a few minutes…
I actually find L.Belle’s notion of a 3-year limit on legislation quite interesting; I’d certainly vote for any candidate who promised first not to approve any new laws, and second to work at rescinding at least half the laws currently on the statute books.
Why are you afraid of “nutjobs” in an armed society?
Because, I don’t want to have to arm myself just to ensure I have a peaceful life. And, while lots of people are sane, lots are not.
mean, around 100 years ago when you & I could have walked into a British gunshop and bought whatever we wanted, and a great many people did just that, the streets did not run with blood and echo to the sound of gunfire – they were quieter & safer than they are today
Nonsense. Utter rubbish actually. Sure, they didn’t echo to the sound of gunfire, but there wasn’t a mythical “golden age” which was free of crime. Look up the stats for crime in Victorian London – especially the murder rates.
What was different in the past was the average person didn’t really have much worth stealling. That’s changed a hell of a lot in the last few decades. When I was a kid in the 60’s and 70’s we had very little worth stealing.
I’ve used guns in the US and was underwhelmed by the process, I certainly don’t want to know that the people pissed in a pub in town on a Friday night who are more than capable of bottling me are also potentially armed. I’ve a US friend who lives in London now who feels the same and this from a man who had a CCW in Texas.
If you’re any sort of “democrat” surely you believe, like me, that the overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens are responsible people?
Why on Earth would I believe that? People are people and my concept of what’s responsible and yours are probably completely different. My fellow citizens do irresponsible things all the time – so do I for that matter.
People should be free to conduct their lives as they see fit with minimal interference from the state – only there need to be mecahnisms to handle people who want to infringe the rights of others.
Dave – in answer to your question: yes, actually.
How has the law on pensions helped anyone in the UK? No one will darre to scrap it in its labyrinthine intensity, but if it were self-scrapping, there may be some energy put into coming up with something better, or abandoning the entire law and devising something more effective – in the knowledge that if it were were no good, it would cease to be law in three years. It takes a lot to concentrate an MP’s “mind”. As long as it’s on the books, they can just roll along, shrug and tell their constitutuents, “Well, as the law stands …”.
Murder? Yes, indeedy. Again, this law, whatever the hell it is, should be scrapped. This is a law which allowed an innocent citizen, whose calls over months to the police begging for assistance were ignored, yet deemed said citizen who shot the intruders in his remote farmhouse in the dead of night, in the dark, to be guilty of murder (later, in the wake of public outrage, mysteriously downgraded to manslaugher) and not only serve a prison sentence and be denied parole on the grounds that he refused to admit he’d done anything wrong, but allows the 37-times convicted felon he wounded to sue him. The murder law in Britain is clearly crap and needs to be revisited. Let it lapse. MPs know the citizenry would demand a new one, perhaps considerably more transparent and on the side of the majority. People, in the wake of experience with the about-to-expire law, may demand the law be re-adopted, but with the provision that people be allowed to arm themselves to defend themselves, their families and their property. My goodness, who knows where this could lead? This is where it gets uncomfortable for legislators. They would constantly have to be explaining themselves. Let the old law slide into oblivion? Explain why you’re trying to re-animate it?
I am warming to my theme. The more I think about it, the more I like it. It needs some refining, I modestly allow. Some laws, without too much Parliamentary time, may be universally seen as desirable and nodded through for another three (five?) years. Others, governments wouldn’t want to touch with a bargepole in the light of current concerns and would let them slide into the mud of history in the blink of an eye. Bad law, unpopular law, unjust law would have to be rejustified by governments which would not be inclined to devote time away from their current projects to put themselves on the line over. So, big annual shake out of garbage legislation. Would Labour Lite go to the wall fighting to preserve the Tories’ Dangerous Dogs act when it had other priorities to get through?
And the ultimate beauty of this idea is, they would be so busy scanning upcoming expiring legislation, they would have little time for inventing new laws.
No, Dave, the reason the crime figures for the 1800s are not overwhelmingly different from today’s is because the average person then didn’t have anything worth stealing. People did have something worth stealing, at the time. Tuppence, in purchasing power, was well worth stealing. The point is, violent crime today is not a personal murder as it was then, as repulsive as that is, but random violence against strangers against whom the perpetrators have no grude and in whom they have no interest.
We need a rethink of laws on murder and other violent crimes including, despite the Lord Justice’s opinion from behind his ramparts, burgling someone’s home.
Tony Martin? A man who police repeatidly warned about but were powerless regardless of what he did to people until he actually killed someone. Perhaps we do need to tighten up the laws?
And the ultimate beauty of this idea is, they would be so busy scanning upcoming expiring legislation, they would have little time for inventing new laws.
Not really, because the laws themselves would still be drafted by the civil service. All that would happen is you would increase dramtically the size of the government, the unelected part that is. Not something I approve of one bit.
The point is, violent crime today is not a personal murder as it was then, as repulsive as that is, but random violence against strangers against whom the perpetrators have no grude and in whom they have no interest.
What do you mean by this? Depending on the crime, either your looking at dumb idiots who are pissed, or its a theft – either way there’s nothing inexplicable or new about it.
You can pretend to yourself that things are getting worse, but speaking to my 70 year old mum, things as far as she’s concerned are pretty much the same as they ever have been.
It makes nice rhetoric but that really is all it is. There wasn’t a golden age, we’ve just got a lot richer than ever before.
That’s a good thing.
Dave,
It is true that there is nothing new about violent crime or murder but it is worth bearing in mind that the murder rate would be a lot higher now than, say, fifty years ago, were it not for the improvements in medical science which have enabled victims of violent attacks to survive when, fifty years ago, they would not. Hence what might have been another murder then is just classified as an ‘assault’ now.
But even though there is nothing new about burglary and violent crime, what is relatively new is the judicial and political demonisation of and prohibition on any form of proactive self-help or self-defence. That is an ethos which dates only from about the late 60’s.
what is relatively new is the judicial and political demonisation of and prohibition on any form of proactive self-help or self-defence. That is an ethos which dates only from about the late 60’s.
I tend to see that as a feature rather than a bug. Its also hyped beyond all belief by the reporting of certain events.
I’ve not seen anything that formally suggests your thesis is correct. The key issue is legal. If a complaint is made, or a crime committed, even in the act of self defense, then a senior officer or the CPS will take the decision on whether or not to proceed based on the evidence.
If something serious has happened, such as the death of another person, the police have to look into it.
I’m no fan of “make my day” laws, nor of simply accepting things on face value. The Martin case is an excellent example of something which lots simple on the outside and is a good tub thumping cause but which looks less certain when you get into the details.
“I tend to see that as a feature rather than a bug. Its also hyped beyond all belief by the reporting of certain events.”
One of the many differences between us, I daresay
“If a complaint is made, or a crime committed, even in the act of self defense, then a senior officer or the CPS will take the decision on whether or not to proceed based on the evidence.”
I am aware of that. Beaucratic procedures (especially the ones that work rather better in theory than they do in practice) do not a better world make.
I am aware of that. Beaucratic procedures (especially the ones that work rather better in theory than they do in practice) do not a better world make.
Do you have a remotely practical alternative to due process?
The principle behind the rules is very sound regardless of your political perspective. People need to be protected from other people where there is a threat of force – without it you teeter on the brink of anarchy. And, frankly, I don’t think our current civilisation can function like that.
Perhaps when we have one more like Iain M Bank’s culture we’ll be able to do without laws and due process. But we’re a long way off that.
Dave,
Don’t be silly. I have not attacked due process nor would I. I am opposed to the law being seen only as an adminstrative tool of the political classes and I am also opposed to the anti-self-defence and self-help culture of both government and judiciary. If ‘leaving it all to the professionals’ was the best way of dealing with crime, then why do we still have so much crime?
My point is that there is too much – way too much – bad law on our books. Much of it is panic law, or trendy law, or law that pandered to a particularly strident special interest group of the time. And more is being shovelled onto the citizenry, via Westminster and Brussels, every day.
We need a massive clearing out, and rather than unpick thousands of stupid laws stitch by stitch, I contend it’s better just to let them lapse. Laws we all, by common accord, deem necessary could be walked through, possibly with amendments or changes to make them better law. Laws that are trivial, abusive of our liberties or have proved unpopular would, with the politicians’ instinct for self-preservation at all costs, be allowed to sink without trace. In other words, some laws would be clarified and strengthened and put back on the books for a further three years. Most wouldn’t.
This procedure might also serve as a warning to those who enjoy busying themselves with legislation for the hell of it. For example, drafting of laws to make talking on a mobile phone while driving would be abandoned, under the new consciousness, because we already have laws against dangerous driving.
Britain is over-governed and no one is doing anything about it.
Treaties should also be revisited in the same way.
Dave, I don’t know why you should translate my claim that 100 years ago our streets were quieter & safer than they are today into into any sort of “golden age” suggestion – you’re just exaggerating my position for your convenience. Of course there was violent crime and general nastiness. You instruct me to look at the stats for Victorian crime: will Edwardian crime do? The 1920 Firearms Act was based on the Report by a committee chaired by Sir Ernley Blackwell, who wrote, “It appears that in the three years 1911-1913, firearms were used in the Metropolitan Police District by 100 persons of British nationality and by 23 aliens; while firearms were found in the possession of British subjects in 76 cases and of aliens in 27 cases…” Many of the 123 gun-crimes were relatively trivial, and that leaves a figure for serious gun-crime that is pretty trivial by today’s standards – at a time when firearms ownership was very much more widespread.
And I find it worrying that you don’t necessarily believe the majority of your fellow citizens are responsible (i.e. enough to own guns without harm to the rest of us): surely your position is a recipe for a police state? We are sheep, and the police/other State officials are the shepherds, the only ones allowed guns?
I contend it’s better just to let them lapse
And I contend that that is a recipie for anarchy. I’d suggest spending time discussing the legal system with some lawyers and police.
will Edwardian crime do?
Not necessarily. As I had to point out to somebody else today. The crime rates showed general trends down from the mid 19th century to the mid 20th.
A period which saw a major conflict each generation resulting in huge numbers of men killed and called to arms. The effect on subsequent generations is largely underestimated.
Would you rather we had continued the trend post 1950’s after the end of National Service, or the social problems we know existed in other times of general peace?
I’ll take the problems and the peace. The hurt and injured have a long way to go to match Crimea, the Boer War, WW1 and WW2.
David,
If ‘leaving it all to the professionals’ was the best way of dealing with crime, then why do we still have so much crime?
That’s a strawman argument which isn’t worthy of other arguments I’ve seen you make here.
The best way of dealing with crime is looking at what causes behaviour that cause problems for other people, not eliminating the laws that protect people.
Dave
You’ve got some nerve calling my ideas ‘strawman arguments’ and then vomiting up this meaningless bit of social worker cant:
“The best way of dealing with crime is looking at what causes behaviour that cause problems for other people, not eliminating the laws that protect people.”
David,
What is meaningless about it?
To clarify, the phrase “strawman” was used specifically in relation to:
If ‘leaving it all to the professionals’ was the best way of dealing with crime, then why do we still have so much crime?
Much criminal activity is a direct result of the success of our civilisation in creating wealth. Something I’m sure you applaude as much as I do. However, it does lead to various factors which make criminal activity, especially directed at the individual far far easier than at any point in human history.
Consequently you’ve made an argument which is deliberately misleading and therefore made of straw.
Dave – You say that letting pointless laws that no one bothers to reinstate lapse (because they’re pointless) is a recipe for anarchy. Why is cutting the ropes that bind human beings a recipe for anarchy?
Then you say: “I’d suggest spending time discussing the legal system with police and lawyers.” As they, along with politicians, are the organisations which are dedicated to upholding their own comfortable status quo at the expense of the population at large, why would I want to do that?
I only thought of this idea of letting laws lapse and only reinstating the ones worth fighting for a couple of days ago – although doubtless hundreds of others have thought of it before me and I just haven’t run across it before. I haven’t had time to refine it. But I know the last people I would be consulting would be the police, lawyers, politicians or social workers – in other words, four power-hungry segments of society with a vested interest in not just reducing the number of laws on the books, but piling on more.
“vested interest in not just NOT reducing …”
Dave – I have to guess at your meaning, given the delphic quality of your sociological utterances. You seem to suggest that the large numbers of young men killed in wars had some bearing on post-war crime, but fail to explain the connection with radical new firearms controls emerging immediately after the slaughterhouse of WW1 – controls that were patently political, not based on gun crime, because the latter was at very low levels. You fail to explain what any of this has to do with the State forbidding us to defend ourselves with guns against the “problems” you appear to acknowledge, while it undertakes to defend us itself – an undertaking that is utterly bogus because it’s impossible to carry out. And why are we apparently far less to be trusted by the State to own guns than were our Edwardian (e.g.) forbears, who – I repeat – incontrovertibly lived at a time when far more of us owned guns, and gun crime was far less common – ? Work beckons – if you feel like replying, scrub the sociology, please…
Liberty Belle;
You say that letting pointless laws that no one bothers to reinstate lapse (because they’re pointless) is a recipe for anarchy.
This is also a strawman. I’m not saying anything of the sort. I am saying that a blanket removal of all laws after 3 years as you suggest will have that effect. The problem is not with the pointless laws, but with the pointed ones that need to be identified.
The problem with that identification is often you only find they were needed when lawyers start finding the loopholes.
You seem to suggest that the large numbers of young men killed in wars had some bearing on post-war crime, but fail to explain the connection with radical new firearms controls emerging immediately after the slaughterhouse of WW1
Because I don’t see a connection between the introduction of the gun controls – for largely political reasons with the crime rate.
The crime rate remained low through to the 50’s, which is to be expected. A huge percentage of Edwardian men had served in the armed forces, not to mention the deaths and long term illnesses which affected the vetrans of WW1 – my mother lost several Uncles to the trenches and gas related illness.
Even now, gun crime is very rare. If you don’t work in the “drug business”, you are incredibly unlikely to be involved in a criminal activity which involves guns.
Since the 1950’s we’ve left a period in which most males had had a military training and the associated discipline that engenders and have moved into a universally rich consumer society.
Couple that to the end of a generation of full employment in the late 1960’s and you have a whole pile of reasons why crime figures have grown dramatically.
Since the first gun rules were introduced 80 or more years ago, the likelyhood of a person owning a firearm being a deterent for a crime has been dropping. By the time of the Dunblane knee jerk nuttiness, can you honestly say that the 10,000 or so legal hand gun owners had any impact on crime?
Dave, a correction: there were over 56,000 owners of licenced handguns in the UK, not 10,000, and between them they had around 165,000 handguns – my Colt .45 auto being one of them.
Still having trouble understanding you. Initially you said you didn’t want an armed citizenry. You agree that crime figures have increased very considerably in recent decades. Even though you don’t necessarily trust your fellow citizens, I presume you agree that the great majority of them are not bank robbers or psychos. Given that the State cannot possibly protect individuals against armed crime (and granted, few of us are likely to experience it personally) what have you got against people who wish to arm themselves for protection? A great many US citizens “use” a handgun to fend off criminals every year, nearly always without firing a shot; it seems perfectly liberal & reasonable for me to want the same facility.
“Since the first gun rules… the likelihood of a person owning a firearm being a deterrent for a crime has been dropping.” If I understand you correctly, you are acknowledging that since criminals now know that we are are almost certain not to have a gun, they can prey on us with impunity. Absolutely correct. So why not rectify this by restoring the natural right to arm oneself against attack, and make the bastards think twice – or shoot them if they persist?
Tony, when was the last time you felt that you needed to use a hand gun to protect yourself from anything?
I’ve been robbed once. I was out of the house at the time.
If I understand you correctly,
You do not.
you are acknowledging that since criminals now know that we are are almost certain not to have a gun, they can prey on us with impunity.
They could prey on us with impunity anyway, ownership of guns was a red herring. 56,000 you say? That’s 0.1% of the population.
Do you believe that was ever a significant deterent. I’ve been a crime victim once. Have you been in a situation where being armed would have made things better?
There are dozens of other factors which affect crime rates. I do not believe that, at least in the case of the UK, mass gun ownership has played much of a factor – lots of other things have.
A list of these factors, in no particular order; criminalisation of drugs, the first generations of young males with no induction or experience of the military, persistent long term unemployment created through the decline of so called “traditional” industries, a massive and welcome increase in the availability of high value commodity goods carried on the person and in homes, the creation of welfare traps through ill thought out benefits schemes.
Dealing with some of these problems created, often, through very un-liberatarian economic and social practises will do more than arming everybody.
Looking at last years crime stats less than 0.1% of crimes involved the use of a firearm. If the population were armed, do you believe that percentage would remain the same, fall or rise?
Assuming that it is impractical to expect a zero value for crime.
NB: I don’t personally support the handgun ban, and I have learnt to shoot – albeit not well. I consider the banning of a hobby to be unacceptable, however, I don’t think that means that an armed society is necessarily a better one, certainly not 00’s Britain.
Yes, of course they could prey on us with impunity Dave, because the tiny number of 56,000 people with handguns were not allowed to carry them for self defence anyway – but pre-1920, who is to say that a more heavily armed populace was not a factor in keeping the rate of armed crime so very low by modern standards? And I’m sure our US friends would support when I point to, e.g., the very much smaller incidence of “hot” burglary in the USA (i.e. against occupied households) compared with that here, and the falls in violent street crime in states such as Florida following the introduction of readily-available CCW permits.
As to the likelihood of robbery, I dare say you have house insurance even though your house has never burned down – ? I simply reserve the right to arm myself against the possibility of attack – not in the countryside where I live, but when I have to work in a big city, carrying a carload of expensive equipment, say.
I agree entirely with some of the causes of crime you list; but I don’t call for an “armed society” as such, merely for the freedom to arm myself as & when I see fit, as I believe is my right.
Tony,
Firstly, for the reasons I have given, I think that any comparisons between crime rates now and the 1920’s are fraught with huge problems, hence I don’t support your thesis that it was gun ownership.
CCW’s work in some states, proactive policing in others. Either way I don’t see the US as being necessarily a good model for the UK for a variety of reasons. I’d compare, for example, a typical US small town center on a Friday night with a UK equivalent. Certainly not given the British propensity to drink too much and get into fights.
You might be trusted to not drink when carrying, but how do I ensure that unless I carry a gun to protect myself. Then we end up in a circle of me having to routinely arm myself.
merely for the freedom to arm myself as & when I see fit, as I believe is my right.
I have no objection to you owning a gun.
I notice, however, you missed my question:
If you arm yourself as you see fit, given that guns are used in less than 0.2% of all crimes in the UK (and most of those are currently drugs related) – what effect do you think your decision will have on crime statistics?
I routinely walk around large cities in the US, Far East and UK carrying many thousands of pounds of electrical equipment on my person – most business people do.
I’ve never felt like I needed a gun.
OK Dave, you don’t think pre-WW1 England comparisons are meaningful, so we have to look at foreign examples for guidance. I happen to disagree with you about the USA’s usefulness as a model, but let’s look at Switzerland, a small but not dissimilar W.European state. According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England’s 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. (In 1900, the period we’ve been talking about with virtually no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.)
In Switzerland, a great many people shoot for sport, but perhaps more important, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home: I think the figure is around 400,000 semi-automatic service rifles with ammunition kept in private homes. In addition, gun shops abound. Yet firearms are rarely used in crime. Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of guns. The Swiss Federal Police Office reported that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 – cf the figure above for UK, slightly higher but really very comparable, at 1.4, a figure that does not indicate a vastly greater willingness to murder.
If you’re going to argue that with easier access to firearms, the Brits would let rip and engage in Rambo-style mayhem, you really have to put flesh on these suggestions of yours about the social climate being so different from 100 years ago that the simple possession of guns would press some sort of psychopathological button. I don’t buy it: my grandad owned guns without any sort of licence before WW1, then had them issued to him in the trenches where he failed to run amok; my dad carried guns in WW2 and never shot anyone on his own side; I own (legal, licenced) guns and the people who know me remain unperturbed by this. I think it might have been Robert Heinlein who coined the phrase, The Armed society is a Polite Society…
In sum, though it’s pure speculation (as you very well know) I do not think that a restoration of the right that existed in the recent past for Britons to own guns freely would result in the streets echoing with gunfire.
Switzerland eh?
Are you also willing to under go the military training plus annual training assesments that my Swiss friends tell me are mandatory?
Again, I’m not convinced that from a sociological perspective its much of a valid comparison. There are far more limitations on personal liberty in Switzerland than, for one, are willing to put up with. Everything from the day you are allowed to hang washing through to use of record players and CD players.
Of course, given the wider ownership of guns. Why aren’t the murder rates lower? If, guns are, in fact practical for self protection. Alternatively, we could agree that something else is at play.
existed in the recent past for Britons to own guns freely would result in the streets echoing with gunfire.
Are you suggesting that pre 1920’s is recent past? You were not allowed to carry guns preior to Dunblane either.
Given the levels of physical violence in pretty much any city centre most nights, do you think that people who go, drink, get drunk and get into a fight should be allowed guns?
I have no problem with you owning guns. But the guys I see in Bristol city centre on a Friday night? Sorry not a chance.
I’ve USian friends who’ve held CCW’s who having lived in London for a few years have decided that mass gun ownership and CCW in this country would be a nightmare.
Plus, you keep dodging the question:
If you arm yourself as you see fit, given that guns are used in less than 0.2% of all crimes in the UK (and most of those are currently drugs related) – what effect do you think your decision will have on crime statistics?
Ah, learned how to access earlier threads… First, yep, military service on the Swiss model would be fine – I’ve thought for a long time that theirs is a pretty fair model. I’m fully aware that Switzerland is an oppressively conformist society in many ways – but this stuff is a red herring, Dave, because no-one is pretending their country & ours are equivalent. It’s a handy comparison, though, for speculating about firearms laws – and speculating is what we’re doing here. albeit as accurately as we can. I’m not dodging your question – I thought my final para was an answer, actually – unless you’re expecting me to estimate a change in gun-crime stats to a decimal place? Surely not!
Of course pre-1920 is “the recent past” – it’s within memory of many people still living, so it’s hardly ancient history. I’m sure you don’t want to disinvent recent history like Socialists do. Anyway, the Cabinet papers that explain the thinking behind the 1920 Firearms Act only became available thirty years ago, which is why reference to that Act now is so necessary – the facts were kept from us for 50 years.
Be realistic about changes such as I propose re firearms: it’s not a change that I want to see in isolation, but part of a broader change to society, which would see the restoration of people feeling responsible for their own actions and being prepared for the consequences. If people such as your Bristol yobs (lived there myself years ago) get pissed and maim others – anyway at all, fists, cars or guns – then they should pay for it – however you want to define payment. Same goes for me of course – but I don’t see why I shouldn’t have a gun if I choose, because I’m not going to add to the armed crime figures. Others might – but in a society where violently anti-social behaviour might be met with instant retribution from those on the receiving end, they wouldn’t last long.
I’m not sure how much further we can take this, unless it’s over a pint or two – no guns of course.