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]
|
It is now being resisted so expect it soon This on the midday BBC Radio 4 news:
The Government is resisting pressure from the European Union to introduce random breath tests.
Yes, my ears did not deceive me. Here is the story in writing:
Police should carry out random breath tests as a matter of course, according to the European Commission.
Under existing laws, UK police can only carry out a breath test if they believe the driver has been drinking.
But the European Commission wants all member states to allow its police to carry out random tests.
The Home Office said introducing random testing was “inefficient in catching drink-drive offenders.”
Whenever the British Government describes itself as resisting pressure from the European Union, it is a good bet that this pressure will in due course be succumbed to.
|
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.
|
I’m surprised that Brian did not point out that this rule has not come from the nominally elected EuroPeon Parliament but from the EuroPeon Commission, the unelected gentleman’s drinking club of heads of government. Since when did they give themselves the power to make rules, since this is the job of the parliament (which has already made 80,000 pages of them!)?
A wise man once said:
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
Looks like the EU is on the verge of winning this fight.
It is only a matter of time until we shall be told “you only have to worry if you are guilty of something” when we object to random arrests.
The various Australian states have had random breath tests for around 20 years. If you oppose them because tthey are fundamentally illiberal and you dislike giving police powers to stop and detain people who haven’t actually done anything wrong, the uncomfortable fact is that in Australia their introduction was undoubtedly very effective as a deterrent to drink driving. The number of road deaths did drop dramatically immediately after they were introduced. Australians hate speed cameras at least as much as British people do, and Australians saw off an attempt by the government to impose ID cards on us about 15 years ago, but these days random breath testing is a compelete non-issue.
but these days random breath testing is a compelete non-issue.
Which just goes to show that people become conditioned to Statist intervention in their lives. The State counts on just that or else it would be put back into the box it deserves to be in. Something has to account for the level of confiscation and regulation we have here in the US and very few people bat an eye. Of course few are examining all the downsides that are being swept under the carpet like a heavy debt burden and impossibility of complying with the laws and regulations even if one wanted to, at least as an individual (as an example the sheer impossibility of the average layman to fill out tax forms to pay their taxes, they are so convoluted that even CPA’s (such as myself) find it hard going). People just shrug their shoulders and move on.
The biggest fear I have with such random stops for no cause is that you could be running afoul of the law in some other manner, and once under scrutiny, are subject to further examination. The notion that the State can randomly interfere with your life with no just cause strikes at the very root of liberty. No statistical ‘upside’ can justify it. Otherwise pandora’s box has been opened and there will be no end the Goodness. Security and Liberty are offsetting notions and the enhancement of one causes the erosion of the other. I’d much rather have a slightly higher risk of a negative random event than the certainty that the State is peering over my shoulder.
As to the “If you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about argument”, let me tell you a story about something a very close friend is going through right now.
Several years ago this person was stopped for erratic driving. There were a couple of causes-both innocent: speck in a contact lens and undiagnosed hypoglycemia. The police officer made the stop, took this person to a nearby hospital where a blood sample was taken, called me to help, said “No ticket, no charge, be careful and good luck”. We retrieved the car the next day and, other than seeing a doctor about the hypoglycemia, forgot about it.
Two and a half years later, a court summons arrived for a charge of DWI. Apparently perscription drugs were found in the blood sample. A zealous “zero tolerance” prosecuting attorney was out for a victim.
As it turned out, after several thousand dollars in attorneys fees, days spent in court and gallons of excess stomach acid, on very close examination the blood and urine analysis on which the charge was based seemed very bogus. Notice that I didn’t previously mention a urine sample? That’s because none was ever taken. Yet there was an analysis on the same page. Also the date of the analysis was after the first summons date.
So, other than the attorneys fees, no problem -right? That’s not how the legal system works. There was a negotiating session between the defense attorney and the prosecuter. Result: DWI would be dropped if my friend would plead guilty to two moving violations- changing lanes without signalling ($500) and something else which I missed hearing (another $500).
This will also result in higher insurance premiums for several years and if there is another ticket over the next year, (it would be three years, but two have already passed), loss of a drivers license.
One could go ahead and fight this in court. The attorney advised against that even though it would be more profitable for him, so I suspect that that is honest advise. Apparently court is a crap game with no guarantees of justice for the innocent. Therefore the tribute will be paid and escape from the cluches of the state will be accomplished minus only a few patches of hair and hide.
So please don’t tell me that “the innocent have nothing to worry about”, if you don’t want me to consider you a naive moron.
And, since the trend in law is to consider the effects of legal perscription drugs as well as illegal drugs to be a cause of DWI (New Jersey is even including simple drowsiness), how long will it be before either random blood tests are taken or some clever company comes up with a sweat or skin oil test that ‘detects’ drugs? Think of the revenue potential for enterprising prosecuters!
You’re innocent? Worry anyway. A lot.
They have had random breath testing here in New Zealand for about 20 years now and most of the population support it.
Resisting urge. Resisting urge.
Aaahhhh! Shawn’s setup was too good to resist!
Shawn, that’s because most of the population of New Zealand are sheep.
Byna, feels much better now.
It’s not clear to me whether the EU is really talking about random breath tests or arbitrary ones. Anyone know?
It makes a big difference for civil liberties.
Those who are lucky enough to be chaffeur driven at our expense, love to place ever more restrictions on our driving.
Here is an illustration of the difference between the United States and Britain. Most readers of the original item will have figured out by now that “resisting pressure” is NuLabspeak for “expect this in six months”. Most, I imagine, will have felt a little pinprick of the unjustified colonisation of one more freedom – that to go around unmolested by the “authorities” if obeying the law.
In the US, people would have been on the phone or the email to their elected representative telling him or her that they weren’t going to tolerate it. Enough groundswell of indignation and the elected representatives fight tooth and nail to get the legislation stopped. The American voter normally (the shame is, not always) prevails.
In Britain, they will raise a cynical eyebrow, sigh, make a remark – and allow it to happen. This is how supine the British are in the face of the theft of their civil liberties.
In regards to Australia, one should also note that road deaths are a big issue, alot of effort has been put into reducing them, and the public certainly supports most of those measures.
If you wanted to use an issue to illustrate why statism is bad this is a bad one to use.
It’s not clear to me what random breath tests are. In SA we have roadblock breath tests, complete with caravan courthouses, usually at Christmas and New year, after a big sports event and so on. But do people in Australia get pulled over at random while driving in a perfectly normal fashion? That sounds constitutionally dodgy if true. Reasonable suspicion is required in a democratic state before intervening in such a manner.
In addition, motorists may refuse in most countries to submit to breath tests. That means they have to be taken to a police station, where a district surgeon may take a blood sample. If enough dirvers did this, the measure would quickly be abandoned.
Verity, the cause and effect of the difference between US and UK democracy may be the other way round.
In Britain people have learned that contacting one’s MP is often useless, so don’t bother. It isn’t that MPs would change if only people would pressure them. (Though the average congressman serves 10 times as many people, so any given level of popular pressure will be more noticeable.)
It’s because party discipline is much stronger here. And there’s more of it. MPs will continue to vote the way their party tells them unless they have a strong personal belief to the contrary, and their party tells them which way to vote almost all the time. Their party, not voters, decides whether they have a seat or not. Only an issue that makes the entire party so unpopular that significant numbers of marginal MPs feel more threatened by a tidal shift in votes than they are by party managers for stepping out of line will yeild a significant rebellion.
Guy – Yes, I think that’s a fair reading. But the British tolerate it. Americans don’t. American senators and representatives are much more sensitive to the wishes of the voters because the voters absolutely insist upon it.
That is why the British use that spine-chilling phrase: Our political masters. I don’t care whether it’s supposed to be ironic, it’s subservient and it signals a sense of helplessness. Americans have a much more robust attitude to their elected representatives – which is why elected officials are always harping on about how proud they are to serve. They know who’s the servant and who’s the master.
In regards to Australia, one should also note that road deaths are a big issue, alot of effort has been put into reducing them, and the public certainly supports most of those measures.
If you wanted to use an issue to illustrate why statism is bad this is a bad one to use.
Just because the majority agree doesn’t make it right. The US constitution was designed to balance majority rule with individual States, and, presumably on down (though there is some debate on whether the States themselves practiced what they preached).
The majority of the world believe in some form of superstition, it doesn’t give them license to use the State for their ends. People have a great capacity to invest faith in ‘THEM’ whether it is a proper religion or the (supposedly) secular State. Above and beyond that, all these statistics of lower death rates usually come from the the very people who are making the laws.
In the end, usurpation of privacy rights should never be allowed. There must be cause for the State to interfere with an individual. Subjecting ourselves to statistical tables and slide rules is no way to live. Living a hermetically sealed life isn’t one worth living in my opinion. Laws should eminate from the notion of protecting life and property from imminent threats and derive from observable behavior which create ‘just cause’. Cracking out actuarial tables and super-imposing a template over the citizenry is Statism in its most manifest form. It is still wrong whether the majority need a security blanket against the vagaries of life.
Americans have a much more robust attitude to their elected representatives – which is why elected officials are always harping on about how proud they are to serve. They know who’s the servant and who’s the master.
I guess I didn’t know I had it so good.
Pehaps there is some difference in thinking one can actually change public policy versus just being philosophic about what comes. If we THINK we can change things doesn’t mean we can. I look at it this way, there is little difference in Statism if it foisted on the masses regardless of their wishes, or if the Pols prostitute themselves to special interests. The end result is the same. Taking this further, the larger the the association of the Body Politic is, the closer the two become. Am I to think that I am having a real impact on the Federal government when I elect four individuals at various times for various terms, while standing in a high school gymnasium, with the intent of sending them a thousand miles away to oversee a 2.4 trillion dollar annual budget and a 7 trillion dollar debt? I’ll send them a letter and the whole thing will fall into place? Perhaps I’m too cynical but I don’t think so. The Federal Government is dominated by special interests who manifest themselves in self serving collectives who themselves likely don’t represent the rank and file of their own association (unions, trade associations etc). In all the functions may vary slightly, but grinding Statism is grinding Statism, and the higher up the mountain they are, the less likely the individual is going to make a bit of difference. But again, maybe thinking so counts for at least something.
The Ozzies and Kiwis might have random breath tests, but it didn’t stop that guy from hopping a motorized bar stool naked zoom down the street while sticking a lit rolled up paper in his arse and get stopped for speeding……
I printed that story out, wish I would have archived it. Brought tears to my eyes….. Happened last year, I believe.
As someone who lived in the US for 5 years I am always amazed at how US apologists , like Verity, consider themselves to be freer than the rest of the world, when the evidence is to the contrary. Traffic cops are more interventionist in the US than anywhere else I know, and the case retold above by Doug Collins would not have happened anywhere else; certainly not in a common law jurisdiction – the charges would have been dropped, or the date mismatch for the urine sample would have been enough to cause the court to throw it out. Traffic court in the US is about as free as Federal court – and the conviction reate for the Federal judges is 85%.
Ireland, where I now live, is abundantly freer than the US. There are no fascist traffic police patrolling rush-hour – and the Police here refuse to create a specific traffic department or police force, arguing that it antagonised the middle classes. If I do see a police man at rush hour he is trying to promote traffic flow – not make revenue for the State by catching “moving violations” which can’t be contested. And the courts are not bought and sold for either: just today a judge threw out a speeding case because:
“Judge Con O’Leary dismissed the case at Cork District Court on the grounds that a radar gun does not produce any actual record of the speed in question, required under the Act to allow the defendant prepare a defence.”
This means that all radar guns, and previous convictions, can be contested. Hurray for common law.
If Judges like Mr. O’Leary existed in the US at traffic court level Doug’s friend would not have been scared to challenge the conviction.
This “libertarian” blog is mere “pro-us”, “anti-Europe” idiocy.
Y’all need to get out a bit more. Even if Big Bad Europe has more laws than the US – which it doesn’t – many of these laws are unenforced, unlike in the US – where Cops ( and other State employes) are BullyBoys to an extent unknown anywhere else; and which various wars are in effect against it’s people – wars on drugs and on terrorism – which haven’t stopped drug use or caught many terrorists but have put laws on the books which can criminalize pretty much anyone.
Which is why the US has 2 million people in Jail. This is up from about two hundred thousand in the early seventies. The UK has far far less, per capita. And Ireland, less again.
In fact I doubt that there is a part of Europe policed in any knd of way similar to the US, regardless of the laws on the books. So shut it.
(And don’t get me started on the MArtha Stewart show trial)
Good point, eoin. There are cultural differences, as well as institutional differences,and they don’t always run the way us admirers of limited constitutional government would like. (Though it is as almost as dangerous to suppose the culture of the US is homogeneous as it is that there’s a common set of values throughout the aethereal realm of Europa.)
In my pedant role, I feel I ought to point out that, pace mike, the Commission (the civil service and permanent government of the Union) has “the right of initiative”, which is to say it controls the agenda. One would expect a proposal to emanate from the Commission. The Council is the ruling body that affirms all the decisions, and that’s the club for heads of government. MEPs get to discuss things a bit (they are time-limited and must stick to a rota in debate), travel around a lot for conferences, be lobbied, and rack up quite extraordinary expenses and self-importance. However, the actual influence of the Parliament on EU Law and policy is very limited. Example. Like the EU citizen’s, the MEP’s contribution is only required when it is correct.
As an American expat living in Ireland for the last 10 years I have to admit that Eoin has a point about the Irish gardai v American cops. They are much more human and reasonable here than back in the US. On the other hand, they do have one common feature here that we lack in the US and that is random roadblocks to check tax and insurance (and whatever else may come up). When I was living out in the sticks (North Tipp) I was stopped every few months, here in Dublin it’s much less frequent, in fact I’ve only been stopped when out of town on business.
The conviction rate for federal judges may be 85% but there is a reason for that: people plea bargain their cases instead of going to trial. Most cases that make it to the indictment stage are pretty strong and a not-guilty plea that results in conviction will result in a longer sentence than a plea bargain (saves the prosecutor money).
“Shawn, that’s because most of the population of New Zealand are sheep.”
As a guest in this country I couldnt possibly comment 🙂
But your right…sadly.
Oh to be Irish and free! – and have the government decide that smoking should be banned on private premises such as pubs! And free of the fear of going to prison if I am found guilty of a crime!
The reason Britain and Ireland have fewer people in jail than does the US is, socialists don’t believe in sending people to jail. Criminals are victims.
Remind me never to set foot in Ireland!
“and have the government decide that smoking should be banned on private premises such as pubs!”
Errr…. a pub might be privately oowned but it’s surely a public place – “Pub” is short for Public House isn’t it?.
Actually I disagree with the smoking ban, but where did Ireland get the idea? The ban in Ireland is not a criminal offence – never for the smoker and a fine for the owner if caught by members of the Anti-smoking Health Mafia. And there are 6 of them. Only on continuous non-payment of this fine does the bar-owner face prosecution, but that is true of all fines. And,again, the Irish police refused to police this – citing resource problems. They’d prefer to catch criminals is what it is.
Alan – You must be new around here.
A “public house” means premises to which the public has access. It is not owned by the public. It is not maintained by the public by way of taxes.
The public is allowed in. Allowed in to premises owned by someone or a company.
The people who own/lease the premises are the ones who should, in a free country, determine the limits of behaviour within.