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]
|
Surely this cannot be for real? I can only imagine that our Chancellor, Gordon Brown, is simply tickled pink by the thought of the Brussels elite choking on their morning brioche. Or perhaps someone has bought him a Seethe-O-Meter for Christmas and he has decided to test it out on the Labour Party rank-and-file?
That may be petty but how else can one explain a senior left-wing politician using the Telegraph to set out his ‘big vision’ for Britain?
Now we must build an even stronger and deeper national consensus: a shared national economic purpose that the Britain of the Industrial Revolution should become the Britain of a 21st-century enterprise renaissance.
And, mirroring America, that new consensus for enterprise should embrace not only commerce, finance and science, but all schools, all social groups and all local authorities. There should be no no-go areas and it should include even the poorest inner-city areas, where enterprise is the best solution to deprivation.
Er, come again?
So I want business to seize the opportunities of the upturn in the world economy. The Pre-Budget Report will lock in the stability that is the foundation for growth, sweep aside old rules and regulations, and set out a plan to lead Europe in fighting Brussels red tape.
‘Nurse, nurse…Mr Brown has had a funny turn!’
But more enterprising as we are, Britain still lags behind the American rate of business creation and success. And as the world economy strengthens, this is the time to encourage more start-ups, to provide more incentives for new investment and to build a deeper, wider British entrepreneurial culture that once again rivals America.
Shhh…Gordon, for pity’s sake, keep your voice down. You’re not supposed to say these things.
Starting a business or becoming self-employed in America is not seen as the privilege of an elite, but a chance open to anyone with talent, initiative and the will to get up and go. And in America, failing is merely an interruption and a lesson learnt, not a cause of ignominy or an excuse for inertia.
Listen? Can you hear it? Yes, it’s the unmistakeable ‘popping’ sound of Guardianista heads exploding. → Continue reading: How? Now? Brown? Wow!
I am reminded of an old, inscrutible Oriental saying: time is a slow but fair judge:
Less than half the population in the European Union’s member states now support the EU project, according to polling results yesterday.
The latest Eurobarometer to be released this week found that just 48 per cent of EU citizens viewed membership as a “good thing”, down from 54 per cent last spring.
Britain was by far the most negative state, with positive feelings tumbling to 28 per cent, but even the French were below half for the first time after months of battles with Brussels over tax cuts and illegal aid to ailing firms.
How long until George Bush scores a higher approval rating among Europeans than Brussels does?
Surely, this time, that clique of tranzi panhandlers and chisellers have overstretched themselves just a bit?
The United Nations has published new predictions on the size and age of the world’s population 300 years from now.
You know what they say, there’s lies, damnable lies and then there’s UN predictions.
It says that if fertility stays at the current level, the global population could rise to 134 trillion.
134 Trillion!!??. Why not add a few more zeros? Go on, really crank it up. Why be so conservative?
The UN publishes long-range projections to help environmental scientists and policy-makers assess implications of dramatic change in world population.
And whine for more funding, of course.
The report says the increase is a clear indication that fertility levels are unsustainable.
Then make war, not love.
Has there ever been any organisation more scurrilous, more fraudulent or more transparently self-serving than that stinking, Augean mess known as the United Nations?
I have long since passed the point of being surprised or shocked at the sheer number of my fellow Britons who labour under the impression that we do not have a constitution in this country.
So many ill-informed Brits seem to think that a constitution is something only the Americans have; an impression which is probably driven home by the fact that they so often hear Americans citing and arguing about their constitution while, here in the UK, such talk dropped off the radar of debate years ago.
But Britain most certainly does have a constitution only it is not codified. Instead it has been constructed piecemeal and painstainkingly over the best part of the last thousand years and it consists partly of laws but also of customs, coventions, traditions and respected arrangements.
Previous generations of political elites worked with and even cherished this delicate web of checks and balances. In many cases this was because they genuinely valued and respected them but, even where that was not the case, they were rightly fearful of the consequences of tampering with them.
No so Nulabour who have taken a box-cutter to these time-honoured institutions and arrangements and traduced them with a missionary zeal that has left our constitution teetering on the brink of oblivion. For the Blairites, these most British of traditions were simply too embarrassingly ‘outmoded’ to be tolerated. Besides they could not let anything so ‘unEuropean’ and arcane get in the way of their high-octane personal ambitions.
But because most Britons were unaware that they even had a constitution (much less did they realise its importance) the Blairites were able to get away with their campaign of vandalism unremarked. Except, that is , among those few of us who knew exactly what they were up to and why they were up to it and were prepared to kick up a stink.
At long last, that stink appears to have reached some august nostrils:
A written constitution may be needed to protect judges and citizens from the Government’s “disturbing” legal changes, according to Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice.
England’s most senior judge said he was no longer sure that our present – unwritten – constitution would provide the necessary protection.
Referring to the Government’s plans to abolish the Lord Chancellor and create a Supreme Court, Lord Woolf said: “The fact that changes of the scale now taking place can be decided upon without legislation… is disturbing. It does suggest that additional constitutional protection may be necessary.”
In the past, said Lord Woolf, he had believed that “our unwritten constitution, supported by conventions and checks and balances, provided all the protection which the judiciary, and therefore the citizen, required to uphold the proper administration of justice”.
The governments proposals to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor and establish a new ‘Supreme Court’ cut right through the heart of the principle of judicial independence and render the justice system as the mere catspaw of the executive. In light of the way that the law has already been so politicised, this does not auger well for the future of Britain as a free country.
However, while the sentiments that Lord Woolf has expressed are admirable and timely, I fear that his proposal for a new codified constitution may be a cure that proves every bit as bad as the disease. Any constitution that is carved out under the current hegemonic ideology is highly likely to greatly resemble the kind of monstrosity that the European Union is currently trying to foist on Europe. In other words, a micro-managerial charter chocked full of faux ‘rights’, costly entitlements and pages of nauseatingly modish claptrap about ‘diversity’ and the ‘environment’. Thanks but no thanks.
So what then must we do? To be honest, I cannot point to any specific remedy. But I do think it would be a good start if we could simply get the message to enough of our fellow citizens that the traditional Anglo-Saxon common law freedoms they take for granted are in mortal danger and that they are sleepwalking into a state of despotism.
(WARNING – some of you may find the following article annoying as it was written after the author shortly enjoyed a fabulous holiday in the sunny Caribbean. Readers forced to stay in grimy and cold parts of the world during this period should skip forward below).
I have recently returned to England from Barbados, the eastern-most island in the group of volcanic islands stretching in a parabola arc across the Caribbean. The trip was obviously thoroughly enjoyable across a number of fronts – not least the cool rum punches, the sea fishing and the seascape. However, away from the usual tourist stuff, I noticed plenty of things I thought worth recording.
Barbados has been an independent nation since decolonisation in 1966, the year of my birth. Despite throwing off the shackles of colonial status, Barbados remains a remarkably pro-British and pro-Anglosphere nation. This is understanderble on a number of fronts. For starters, a huge slice of its earnings derive from British tourism. Britons and Americans are among the main nationalities who visit. From what I could see there were few continental Europeans there. → Continue reading: Gem of the Anglosphere
Gabriel’s last post brought irresistibly to mind another letter that was orbiting the planet via email several years ago (this was before the Planet Blog emerged from ether). As with Gabriel, I apologize if you have already seen this, but it is not only hilarious, it is funny in such a kind and gentle way that I have used it in several classes as an example of how to write a letter in which you are saying “no, no, a thousand times no!” while making a new friend.
The letter, from the Smithsonian Institution to a backyard archaeologist, follows: → Continue reading: Courtesy costs little II
Chris Addison of the Guardian shares a letter from tax authorities he received as a reply to his earlier missives on the topic of tax gathering. The Guardian? Tax authorities? This does not bode well for the entertainment potential of this post. Nevertheless, I reproduce the letter below in full as it made my day1:
Dear Mr Addison,
I am writing to you to express our thanks for your more-than-prompt reply to our latest communication, and also to answer some of the points you raise.
I will address them, as ever, in order.
Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last as a “begging letter”. It might perhaps more properly be referred to as a “tax demand”. This is how we, at the Inland Revenue, have always, for reasons of accuracy, traditionally referred to such documents.
Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the “endless stream of crapulent whining and panhandling vomited daily through the letterbox on to the doormat” has been noted. However, whilst I have naturally not seen the other letters to which you refer, I would cautiously suggest that their being from “pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses and pissant gas-mongerers” might indicate that your decision to “file them next to the toilet in case of emergencies” is at best a little ill-advised.
In common with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders of these letters do see you as a “lackwit bumpkin” or, come to that, a “sodding charity”. More likely they see you as a citizen of Great Britain, with a responsibility to contribute to the upkeep of the nation as a whole.
Which brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some spirit of truth in your assertion that the taxes you pay “go to shore up the canker-blighted, toppling folly that is the Public Services”, a moment’s rudimentary calculation ought to disabuse you of the notion that the government in any way expects you to “stump up for the whole damned party” yourself. The estimates you provide for the Chancellor’s disbursement of the funds levied by taxation, whilst colourful, are, in fairness, a little off the mark. Less than you seem to imagine is spent on “junkets for Bunterish lickspittles” and “dancing whores”, whilst far more than you have accounted for is allocated to, for example, “that box-ticking facade of a university system”.
A couple of technical points arising from direct queries: 1. The reason we don’t simply write “Muggins” on the envelope has to do with the vagaries of the postal system; 2. You can rest assured that “sucking the very marrows of those with nothing else to give” has never been considered as a practice because even if the Personal Allowance didn’t render it irrelevant, the sheer medical logistics involved would make it financially unviable.
I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would not in any way wish to influence your decision one way or the other, I ought to point out that even if you did choose to “give the whole foul jamboree up and go and live in India” you would still owe us the money. Please forward it by Friday.
Yours sincerely,
H J Lee
Customer Relations
Notwithstanding the purpose and the origin of this letter, I think its style is commendable2.
Note (1): This article has been published on 27th September, so it may have circled the planet Blog by now. Please skip, if I am merely reposting the ‘joke of the month’ from two months ago long after the party.
Note (2): Yes, it is a joke and not a real letter.
Wired has an article about the Supreme Court hearing on whether the federal government should reimburse individuals whose sensitive data was disclosed illegally, even if no harm can be proven.
At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is. The Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits the government from disclosing private information intentionally, without the individual’s consent, and provides for a $1,000 minimum fine if the individual is “adversely affected.”
Marcia Hoffman, staff counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, argues that Congress preset the penalty precisely because it is so hard to put a price on an abstract concept such as privacy or to prove damages in absence of others’ misuse of that data.
If your Social Security number is disclosed, there is a real potential harm from identity theft.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, argues that if the government has to pay damages in the case of any improper release of someone’s Social Security number, then reporters will not get information from the government that they need and are entitled to.
In the spirit of releasing as much information to the public as possible, we think he should have to prove damages. If every time you release information about an individual, you are going to be threatened with this $1,000-per-record fine, you are going to have agencies so nervous that they are going to err on the side of not turning over something. Government guardians of information are going to be way overly cautious.
And we would not want the government agencies nervous, would we…?
ComputerWorld reports on the U.K. government set to consider legislation next year for the establishment of compulsory biometric identity cards and a central database of all U.K. subjects.
The information that the government is considering for inclusion on the card includes personal details such as a person’s home address and telephone number, his National Insurance number (the equivalent of the U.S. Social Security number), medical information and criminal convictions, as well as the biometric information, most likely in the form of an iris, fingerprint or palm print scan.
The ID cards would be rolled out in two stages, beginning with the biometric identifiers being included on renewed and newly issued passports and driver’s licenses. Also as part of the first phase, once the national database was available, the government would issue identity cards to European Union and foreign nationals seeking to remain in the U.K., and would also offer an optional card for those who do not have a passport or driver’s license. As part of the second phase of the program, to be implemented five years after its launch, the national ID card would become compulsory.
The government estimates that residents will be charged about $41 for the card and that setting up the basic system will cost taxpayers $215 million, and up to $3.59 billion to fully implement.
In a speech to the House of Commons on Nov. 11, Blunkett asserted that the development of technology that recognizes specific personal identifiers, or biometrics, “would mean that identity could not be forged or duplicated.” But the government’s own feasibility study on the use of biometrics issued in February said such methods “do not offer 100% certainty of authentication of individuals” and went on to warn that the “practicalities of deploying either iris or fingerprint recognition in such a scheme are far from straightforward.”
Bart Vansevenant, director of security strategy at Ubizen NV, said his company sees no real value for adding biometrics to ID cards, especially since it wouldn’t stop terrorism or fraud. Ubizen has been working on Belgium’s electronic ID card scheme, the first in Europe to move beyond the pilot stage, according to Vansevenant. The Belgian ID cards, which should be fully rolled out in three to four years, use digital certificate technology, which is cheaper and more reliable than biometrics, Vansevenant said.
There is no reason that is good enough to explain the use of biometrics. It is still a very immature technology, plus you have the additional costs of equipment, support and administration problems… Vansevenant also expressed serious doubts about the security of a national database. It is a pretty bad idea, especially the database, which would be an ideal target for hackers and terrorists.
Perhaps the U.K. and the U.S. [which is proposing the use of biometric data on U.S. passports] are using biometrics and related databases from a marketing point of view and trying to position it as the big solution to the problem of terrorism. But even then, it’s still a bad idea.
Quite.
The Lord God is a jealous God, and in his Christian form he is followed by hypocrites and fools. Or at least, that’s what I was thinking yesterday after a ‘debate’ with what polite British society calls a ‘Mad Christian Socialist’. I say debate, but what I really mean of course is a verbal fight to the death.
Much of socialism draws its strength from Christianity. Indeed, you could argue that socialism is simply late radical Christianity by another name. Instead of worshipping God, its followers worship the State. Instead of donating a tithe of their income to the Church, they donate a tithe of their income to the Socialist Worker ‘newspaper’ collective. Instead of blindly following the teachings of Jesus, they blindly follow the teachings of Marx, another heretical Jew with a beard.
Even the glorious European Union, that flowering of socialist omniscience, can be seen as the latest papal plot to castrate the protesting rabble in England, to bring them under the heel of Rome. Or should I say, the Treaty of Rome. But yes, I’m getting off-topic, and straying towards Godwin’s law, so let’s get back to the central thrust of my point. → Continue reading: God is a libertarian
It has been tantalising everyone for so long now. Were they? Weren’t they?
The little signs were all there. The furtive glances, the blushes, the games of footsie under the table, the electric crackle whenever they were in the room together and those oh-so-subtle gestures of intimacy when in public that were so charged with romantic frisson.
Were they even aware that polite society was awash with all manner of fanciful and delicious gossip about their dalliances? Nobody was fooled by their calm exteriors. Everyone knew. Did they think they could hide their irresistably mutual animal magnetism behind their coquettish games for ever?
Of course not. So now they have done the decent thing and formally announced their engagement. Socialism and Islamism are now, officially, an item:
The Muslim Commissariat in Moscow oversaw Russia’s policy towards Islam. Muslims with few communist credentials were granted leading positions in the commissariat. The effect was to split the Islamic movement. Historians agree that a majority of Muslim leaders supported the soviets, convinced that Soviet power meant religious liberty. There was serious discussion among Muslims of the similarity of Islamic values to socialist principles. Popular slogans of the time included: ‘Long live Soviet power, long live the sharia!’; ‘Religion, freedom and national independence!’ Supporters of ‘Islamic socialism’ appealed to Muslims to set up soviets.
The Bolsheviks made alliances with the Kazakh pan-Islamic group the Ush-Zhuz (which joined the CP in 1920), the Persian pan-Islamist guerrillas in the Jengelis, and the Vaisites, a Sufi brotherhood. In Dagestan, Soviet power was established largely thanks to the partisans of the Muslim leader Ali-Hadji Akushinskii.
The assault on Islam marked the beginning of a sharp break with the socialist policies of October 1917. As the Soviet Union launched a programme of forced industrialisation, Muslim national and religious leaders were physically eliminated and Islam was driven underground. The dream of religious freedom was buried in the Great Terror of the 1930s.
Socialist Review stands in a tradition that totally rejects the Stalinist approach to Islam. But in the early years of the revolution the Bolsheviks were successful at winning Muslims to fight for socialism. We can learn from and be inspired by their achievements.
They are going to make such an adorable couple.
[Link courtesy of Harry Hatchett who also has some pointed observations.]
There’s a Reason online article here, and comments about it all on the Reason blog here, about this:
One night a few weeks ago, I was half-watching a black-and-white, early ’60s episode of The Andy Griffith Show on TV LAND (Episode 60, “The Bookie Barber”), when, all of a sudden, the homespun wisdom of Griffith as Sheriff Andy Taylor touched on today’s heated debate over how to balance individual privacy with security. Andy responded to a suggestion by his deputy Barney Fife by saying: “You can’t ask a private citizen to become a police spy. It’s too dangerous. Something could go wrong.” The statement jolted me, and I thought, if only Sheriff Taylor had been there to offer this profound piece of advice to the Republicans and Democrats writing the USA PATRIOT Act.
Title III of the act, which contains provisions to counter money-laundering, requires a host of private businesses to become “police spies” on their customers. These little-known provisions of the much-talked about law draft a substantial number of private-sector employees as citizen soldiers in the war on terrorism as well as on the broadly-defined crime of “money laundering.”
Says commenter James Merrit:
A free people, empowering a government that acts consistent with the ideals of freedom, will have the minimum to fear from terrorists. It won’t be a perfect world, or a world without danger, but it will be the best we can hope for. We need to reject the fear-based policies and concentrate on freedom-based ones, starting as soon as possible. Do not empower the fascists; do not empower the socialists. We’ve seen where their roads lead. Empower those who uphold the principles of freedom in word and deed. Making a good start really is as simple as that.
We have similar money laundering stuff here in Britain as well, as David Carr explains.
And turning traders into government stooges has also been here a long time. If you buy a TV, the shop you buy it from has long wanted to know who you are so that it can tell the government and the government can check that you’ve got a TV license. If you refuse to say who you are, you are liable to end up not buying the TV, as Michael Yardley explains in the latest Spectator:
They changed tack. ‘You’ve got to give us your name and address or you can’t have the television.’ ‘But I’ve paid for it.’ ‘You can’t have it.’ At this point, perhaps I should have walked out of the shop with the television and risked prosecution for some unspecified offence in Kafkaesque Britain. I went for the less dramatic option. ‘Well, I’ll have my money back.’ The first response from the shop staff was that this was impossible. They backed down when I pressed the point. I was directed to ‘customer services’. A credit was made to my card. I left without a television. What a palaver.
Driving home, I thought back to the last time I had bought a television, ten years or more ago. I had a dim memory of being asked for my name and address ‘for the guarantee’. It wasn’t for that purpose, I now knew. It was a ploy to get the information for the faceless ones. …
|
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.
|
