Now who on earth would imagine that a nanny state could ever develop a dumbed down society whose citizens have very real problems dealing with risks? Not Tony Blair, it would seem.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
34 comments to Who’da thunk it? |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
The idiots will probably ban airguns next
“And he said he was concerned about the country wasting disproportionate amounts of money dealing with relatively insignificant problems, simply because a scare has been whipped up around them.”
I look forward to Labour’s general election manifesto pledging to stop going on about terrorism and anti-social behaviour and to reverse everything they’ve done since June 1997, in that case.
Apart from the initial impression that the story was about a panic over addicts’ needles, this is an absolutely classic Phoney tactic – initiate a massive scare and then blame everyone else for the ensuing backlash against your party’s popularity. This coming on the same day as the repellent John Stevens (the only Metropolitan Police Commissioner who The Queen is reputed to have actually requested he resign his position) trys to whip up more unease.
Why did the queen request his resignation?
He doesn’t seem to mind the risks associated with being a British homeowner who’s confronted with a burglar he can’t defend himself against!
His wife will have him by the balls if he starts messing with her source of income.
Perhaps this is because he can in fact defend himself, as can any other homeowner. This myth that self-defence is not possible or is severely restricted in the UK really needs to die because it is just that – myth. Every time it comes up here the facts are put in considerable detail, yet still people persist in believing the myth rather than the reality. Certain newspapers, with their disingenious campaigns to reform the law, don’t exactly help.
The ruling law is the Criminal Law Act 1967, the relevant parts of which have not been repealed explicitly or implicitly. I suggest you read it – you will see that the general principles of permissible force in self-defence are pretty much the same in the UK as they are in the US.
If you want to read judgements of the courts when people have been convicted of murder or whatever in supposed self-defence, many are available here for your delectation. This will reveal the reality rather than the histrionic exaggeration of the situation.
If legislation and legal judgements aren’t your cup of tea or are too complex, then a summary treatment of the law as it stands is available here, and this is written in straightforward language.
I think this gets closer to the real cause of the problem. I don’t think it is so much the nanny state, but rather the increasingly litigious culture in the UK. Pretty much the same effects (a risk-averse culture) are seen in many respects in the US, an even more litigious culture.
EG
“.[…]yet still people persist in believing the myth rather than the reality.”
‘Fraid that’s the case with almost everything, EG. (Witness rot about, e.g., “national competitiveness”, “good for the economy”, retailed by many people who ought to know better.) Some US states are happier about your defending your property with force, however, than the British jurisdictions are.
Why people believe this particular myth is more interesting. Suspect it has something to do with changes in police law, police attitudes, weapons control, and the bureaucracy of prosecution than any law on self-defence. If one must arrest the householder on counteraccusation in order to check out his story; if the police no longer show deference to the respectable; if owning or carrying weapons for defence whatever ones conduct is criminalised; if a long process distanced from the experience of the incident is necessary before a householder is cleared; then that gives the impression of bias against self-defense, because all those things are seen as punitive process by civilians, whereas they are of no consequence to either the police or experienced criminals.
Likewise, why people are suckers for health, crime and terrorism scares, and whether the tendency is increasing is much more interesting than that they are.
My reading of it is partly as spolit-child syndrome: the populace increasingly has little experience of any form of danger or hardship, so imagined danger throws it into paroxysms demanding to be “protected”. This also explains why imaginary (witchcraft, racial pollution) or rare (terrorism, drugs) dangers cause so much greater a moral panic. People are less frightened of things that they or people they know have experienced and survived. So much is not new.
What is new–in western liberal countries–is mob-rule by proxy, where rulers find it useful to pay obeisance to the velleities of public opinion as transmitted by focus groups and polls, rather than regarding it as their duty to damp the unreasonable urges of admass in order to sustain stable institutions and rule of law.
There may be something in this, but the need to experience some form of risk is a natural part of human life. It has been suggested that the removal of risk from everyday life encourages the intentional seeking of risk, by such means as excessive driving speeds, dangerous sports, drug consumption, etc. It has also been noted that states with very high levels of welfare provision and hence exceptionally low normal risk levels also have exceptionally high suicide rates, perhaps in part because life is just so boring, safe and predictable.
True enough, and I suppose this is the logical result of democracy. The answer, IMO, is to restrict the franchise.
It seems reasonable to me that if you don’t pay tax you don’t get to vote. This idea can be used to encourage wealth creation by setting the income tax threshold sufficiently high and eliminating indirect taxes and duties. To make this work it is necessary to significantly reduce the level of state expenditure in order to permit the removal of indirect tax, and this in effect means the elimination of the welfare state. Thus you have a situation where state finances cannot afford a welfare system and where the people most likely to vote for such a system are disenfranchised. Any government desiring to change this would have to explicitly bring more people into the tax system and would need to raise retail prices through the imposition of duties, both of which are unlikely to be popular. There are other ways of restricting the franchise – qualifiying by means of property ownership or educational level, for example. However, they all have their dangers as well as advantages.
Getting back to reality, though, this is unlikely to happen. We could have a government brave enough to openly dismantle the welfare system, although this is also unlikely. We could have a substantial educational program designed to persuade people of the folly of state welfare, the idea that welfare although well-meaning can be too generous, and the existence of self-help alternatives and insurances. We could also encourage the creation of alternative systems, and thus relegate the state system to simply one of a range of options, and in due course phase it out altogether. We could adopt a written constitution with an explicit and inviolable prohibition on exceeding a certain level of state expenditure, which at least permits universal franchise BUT poses problems in case of real emergency.
Or, more likely, we will just do nothing until the burden of welfare collapses the economy. Then people will be faced with real risk again, and will also know (at least for the brief period of a couple of generations) that taxpayer funded means of eliminating this risk simply won’t work.
EG
Guy and EG make excellent points. The current popularity of “extreme sports” and adventure holidays testifies to the unquenchable human desire to experience and enjoy risk. The problem is that if risk is cut out of ordinary day life completely it can lead to destructive behaviours. It also can discourage children from play – which probably helps explains problems like childhood obesity, problems at school, boredom, delinquency, etc.
JP
The problem with “restricting the franchise” is that voting is useful only to pacify the masses, not to choose a “good” government. And the same types would end up in power if the franchise were restricted, in any case.
Phony Tony does not need to defend himself. He has armed guards for that, and will have for as long as he wants. It’s OK for Tony to have guns for his protection, because he is important. The rest of us can take our chances. What’s wrong with that? I mean, Tony’s not a hypocrite is he?
Read the law.
EG
As EG is surely aware, the law is not just what is written on the statute. It is also how those writings are implemented by security agencies, courts and society.
Read the law.
What law’s this? The one that says I can employ guards armed with Glocks and Heckler & Kochs? I must have missed that one, but so long as King Tony is protected I am happy, my own worthless life is of no importance since I am not an important person.
Self-defence is an absolute defence against a charge of murder. This is part of both common and statute law. If it is proven that the person acted in self-defence, the court is bound to acquit. No buts.
Why would you feel you need to do this?
EG
Unfortunately EG does not understand how social attitudes and the predilections of those who enforce the law affect how the law is implemented(particularly when it comes to self-defence, with regard to which he is on a mission to evangelize against the pernicious influence of the tabloids). He knows nothing other than to say, ‘read the law, the law, the law says you can’, over and over like a broken record.
Watch, I’ll demonstrate:-
Hey EG. How do you account for the fact that law enforcement over in the states go easier on people who have used lethal force in self-defence of defence of their homes? How do you account for the fact that they are reluctant to bring charges against such people? Does ‘the law’ account for that? Or is it, you know, a cultural thing?
£10 says EG doesn’t bother to address this question, other than to blather on about the law. He’s not even trying to put a cogent case forward. He’s just taking the position he figures will cause the most grief. He’ll play dumb and beg the question endlessly, just because he’s trying to aggravate people. Our boy EG is not the most mature person on the block.
You’re all familiar with Ellsworth Toohey from ‘The Fountainhead’? Yeah. We’ve got a real-life Toohey right here, seeing how much of a drag on people’s patience he can be. That’s all he wants.
EUAN GREY IS A TROLL. DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
I know you are a troll, but I can’t resist. Cheque or cash only, I don’t take credit cards. Thank you.
Now, this question has been addressed at CONSIDERABLE length elsewhere on Samizdata and I am not about to repeat it all here. On the general matter of the law in the UK, and touching on the difference between US and UK interpretations, look here.
In summary, the law in the UK and in most states of the US is pretty much the same, both being based on the same common law root. The administration of justice in the two countries does not appear to be all that different, but perhaps the biggest difference exists where firearms are involved since these are largely illegal in the UK. Even so, as discussed elsewhere, the use of a firearm and the possession of the thing are two different things.
Whilst it is true to say that in general in the US there is a greater presumption in favour of the householder, it is most certainly not the case that the householder in the UK is automatically a suspect, nor is it the case that Americans have carte blanche to do as they please in this regard. Really you need to consider how many British householders are tried and convicted for murder, manslaughter or various assaults during supposed self-defence. Not to spoil your enjoyment, but you will find that very few people indeed are charged, and those that are have generally been shown NOT to have behaved in self defence.
You should probably follow the links I posted at 0757 on March 6 above and educate yourself. You can also Google the names of celebrated “self-defence” cases and learn even more – beyond the ill-informed hysteria surrounding the issue in the UK. Brett Osborn is a good start. Enjoy.
Now bugger off and stop trolling.
EG
You didn’t deal with what that guy said about differing social attitudes, so you owe him £10.
The one that says I can employ guards armed with Glocks and Heckler & Kochs?
Why would you feel you need to do this?
EG
Why does Phony Tony? Why is his life more worthy of protection than yours or mine?
Read my post again. There isn’t actually all that much difference that I can see, but if you’d care to post statistics illustrating the difference between the probability of being charged with anything (excluding illegal possession fo firearms, which is a wholly separate issue) and, for people who are charged, the probabilities of being convicted then I will of course review them.
Because he runs the country while we just moan about the people who run the country?
To be serious, though, your comment suggests you share the common misconception that possession of firearms is the only practical means of defending onself and one’s property. This just isn’t true, of course. If you think it is, post some statistical evidence.
EG
So? He’s just a politician – no shortage of them. The fact that Trust Me Tony thinks he is something special is one of the reasons he comes across as so arrogant and out of touch – don’t go encouraging him, it’ll only make him worse.
Anthony Spray injured a man who forced his way into his home. He was found guilty and made to pay compy.
Where’s the “no buts” in that?
Shooting someone when they aren’t actually attacking you and you have no reasonable apprehension that you are about to be attacked is not self defence. As I understand it, Spray did not claim self-defence, although I don’t have the court judgement in front of me. Incidentally, you don’t tell the whole story, Spray was acquitted on a further charge of causing grevious bodily harm with intent.
Hard cases make bad laws, of course. You really need to consider more cases and consider also just how often and in what circumstances people are charged or convicted.
EG
To be serious, though, your comment suggests you share the common misconception that possession of firearms is the only practical means of defending onself and one’s property. This just isn’t true, of course. If you think it is, post some statistical evidence.
Well el presidente could easily be guarded by SAS ninja types, but for some reason he prefers to have men with guns do the job. So it’s good enough for him but not the rest of us?
You are standing in your hallway, the door has just been broken in. You shout at the intruder that he should get out and he (apparently) lunges at you.
This is not self defence? As someone who is fond of thinking that they know more than anyone else about any given topic you must know that you do not actually need to be attacked first in order to defend yourself.
You say I’m not telling the whole story, but the extra you quote is not pertinent. Oh the intruder was drunk, I didn’t mention that either, but so what?
I repeat, shooting someone when they aren’t actually attacking you and you have no reasonable apprehension that you are about to be attacked is not self defence – which the law allows you to do.
I do wish people would listen to me, even though I refuse to listen to them.
The comment at 0524 above was not written by me, as the poor grammar and the IP record should betray. I suspect Mark has shown his maturity and rhetorical skills by using my name and email address.
Silly little boy.
EG
Please note that the comment made at 07:00 pm above was made by a person who thinks it is clever to adopt the name of another poster and write messages in their name. I would be most grateful if the Samizdata regulars, if they should happen to be reading this, take whatever action is necessary to nip this silliness in the bud before it is too late.
This really is getting quite bothersome. I have just now seen two posts by people who are posting under my name. One of them is very easy to spot, as they do not have the presence of mind to note that I always use my initials in my posts.
Unfortunately I do not know exactly who these trolls are, so I would hardly be likely to make wild accusations against any one person. I therefore extend my apologies to Mark, and hope that he does not get the idea that it was I who made that accusation.
EG
To be sure, the posts made at 0700 pm and 0733 pm are the work of imposters.
EG
So is that one, since the real EG spells “impostor” the Latin way. And doesn’t use hackneyed phrases like “to be sure.” And doesn’t put am or pm after times.
This is fun, isn’t it? You’ve nearly got my English style and mannerisms down, but not quite. Do keep trying, I’m enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself as the IP log swells. You do know the server logs which IP address the comments are posted from, don’t you?
EG?
I’m very much looking forward to seeing all of these ‘Euan Grays’ disappear. I’m glad you think it’s amusing to impersonate me, but rest assured, soon your childish antics will be cut short.
EG
Now I’m confused!
It’s getting a bit like Spartacus in here.
I’m Euan Gray!