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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day [I]f they have got drug dealers living in the street, you know, love is not the answer to that I am afraid, evicting them from their houses and locking them up is the answer.
– The Right Honourable Tony Blair MP, at his monthly press conference yesterday (At least the cleaned-up transcript from No.10.).
Lobby correspondents are united in thinking the Prime Minister was belligerent and bad tempered about everything. Has he finally gone completely round the bend? The people he wants to evict and lock-up are implicitly those suspected of being Bad People. The rest of the conference made clear he is not interested in due process, civil liberties, all that old-fashioned nonsense.
|
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 once managed to go to a public press conference with Blair and the usual cheesy grin, the fake bonhomie, was entirely lacking (this was around the time of the 1997 General Election, before the gloss started to come off). He was aggressive, clearly contemptuous of any awkward questions, testy and sarcastic. None of this really comes across apart from the odd tv interview. And yet the essence of Blair is caught up in this.
Even Maggie, whom some on the right tend to worship uncritically, was not as bad as this. She had the anchor of belief in liberty under the rule of law, respected due process – most of the time – and realised the dangers of ignoring it. Blair does not. I’d call him a techno-fascist.
It appears to me that Blair has almost single handedly destroyed all the freedoms, limits to power and checks and balances that have taken 8 centuries to build up. From ASBOs to defanging the House of Lords he has removed almost every brake on a “rule by decree” style of government.
‘Monthly press conference’? He only had the last one a fortnight ago!
As in so many other things, I don’t mind what ‘Tony’ does as long as he calls it what it is.
“It appears to me that Blair has almost single handedly destroyed all the freedoms, limits to power and checks and balances that have taken 8 centuries to build up. From ASBOs to defanging the House of Lords he has removed almost every brake on a “rule by decree” style of government.
Posted by Steven Groeneveld at November 7, 2006 11:28 AM “
He and his federalist friends in the EUssr
I don’t see anything in the transcript suggesting that the people be “locked up” on suspicion rather than on evidence and the result of a trial.
Now, I’m not saying that Blair might not propose that – just that his comment doesn’t seem to implicitly assume that in my reading.
It’s not like Britain doesn’t have plenty of people it tries and convicts of dealing drugs, and then doesn’t do anything much to, as I understand the situation. From my understanding of the British situation, and from what he said in the transcript, it looks more like he wants to actually resume jailing people who’re convicted of crimes.
I hated Mr Blair back when many libertarians (including some high up in the British “Libertarian Alliance”) were saying things like “he is not that bad really”.
However, I watched the Press Conference (on B.B.C. News 24) and it was the reporters who were rude to Mr Blair.
They repeatedly insulted (by the way they spoke and what they said) him and interrupted him.
It is not just a matter of Mr Blair being Prime Minister, no person should be treated as he was.
On Iraq (and I did not support the judgement to back into Iraq in 2003) Mr Blair made his case well.
On drugs. Like you I do not support the laws against drug use (I would go back to the old British practice of allowing people to use whatever they like – regardless of the effect on their health), but most people do support these laws. There is also the matter that drug dealers (perhaps because the unlawful nature of this market attracts a certain sort of person) engage in other criminal activity.
Most ordinary people would love to see the local drug dealers locked up – these people make ordinary folks lives a misery.
When the term “anti social” is used I get the impression that some people think that it is such things as bad table manners that is meant – it is not. Yes people should only be punished for a specific crime, but it happens to be true that there is a certain sort of person who commits most crime (the division between the deserving and undeserving poor, the working and the criminal or under classes happens to be real).
If you are interested in the misery that antisocial types inflict on ordinary people I advice you to contact Frank Field M.P. for further information.
What a wuzz!
That is a quote from a sometime wannabe rock star!
Keith Richard would move in next door to them (well it’s less far to walk)
rather than evict them!
I am with Sigivald. There does not seem to be anything untoward in locking up lawbreakers if found guilty at a fair trial. Or sending them off to the salt mines if that penalty is properly legislated.
This ASBO stuff, however, makes me cringe for the same reason Americans should be awfully concerned about the president’s new prerogative to deem any citizens “enemy combatants” at his whim.
If I want an all round authoritarian and the PM isn’t available, I will certainly go for Frank Field.
I don’t doubt that poor people (in particular) have a miserable time because of their anti-social neighbours – and they probably always will, since the cheapest accomodation will always be found where it is unpleasant to live. But my mitigation strategy is to stop subsidising fecklessness rather than to discipline and punish. Mosquitos are best controlled by draining the swamp.
Although I do not agree with Frank Field on many matters, he would agree with you Guy about the need to stop subsidising fecklessness.
Of course most of the Guardian and Independent people (the newspapers you normally quote from) would not agree with you on this.
You quote from them in support of civil liberties – but these people only care about the civil liberties of those they favour.
It is like claiming Mark Thomas as an ally in the defence of free speech – it leaves me baffled (although I do NOT doubt either your honesty or good intentions).
Mark Thomas and his comrades would happily cut out the tongues of those whose speech they regard as unacceptable.
Of course I am willing to be proved wrong on any of the above.
Paul,
Frank Field’s approach to the benefits system is refreshingly free of cant, and is logical. He is rightly contemptuous of present arrangements. But I’m very chary of paying benefits to people who behave in an approved manner and withdrawing them from those who don’t, which is still implicit in his system. I think that still puts sticks and carrots (mostly sticks) in the hands of petty officials and will readily recreate the benefit serfdom he identifies.
I think you are wrong about Mark Thomas, himself, though what you suggest may go for many lefties. He is certainly on record as opposing on freedom of speech grounds moves to close down a Neo-Nazi website called Redwatch which had attacked him personally and published material about him tantamount to inciting violence against him.
I quote people when they say something interesting, bad or good. I’m not much surprised when a Telegraph writer says something I approve of. The Daily Mail, though I do often accord with it at a superficial level, and frequently differ violently, is seldom better than banal. If someone isn’t trying to make an argument, it is hard to argue with them – but even harder to agree wholeheartedly.
Guy I agree with what you say about Frink Field.
As for Mark Thomas – it was silly of me to argue with you about a man you have met and I have not. I would still trust my gut instinct, but it I were to try and put into words why I would go against your judgement “I just know when people are cong….” it sounds daft (even to me).
On the Guardian and the Independent – well I make a point of looking at them myself from time to time (just as I watch the B.B.C. sometimes).
However, I do tend to feel very ill when I do so (that is not always the case when I watch the B.B.C.). Such “Independent” newspaper writers as Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn (spelling – this man, I believe, comes from a family that has been involved in attacking the West for several generations) are clearly enemies of the West (rather than people who think we should have gone on the defence rather than the offense – a point of view which can be argued for strongly, although it is rather late for such a view now).
The hatred for the West that comes from these newspapers is almost a physical thing. It is almost as if one could see the evil of the various writers separate from the words on the page.
Of course one can feel that about writings in any publication. There are writings in the Daily and Sunday Telegraph that I have felt that from (as if the hatred for the West of the writer was reaching out from the article).
I suppose it is a matter of how many such articles there are. Although it is often just a few words (in an otherwise banal piece), that give it away.
Almost needless to say such people should be allowed to write whatever they wish. Just as (in my opinion) pro Nazi writers should have been allowed to continue to publish their work during World War II. And pro Communist writers should have been allowed to continue to publish their stuff during Vietnam (of course they were).
“We can not survive if we allow our sworn enemies freedom to publish” – like, I suspect you, Guy I simply do not agree with such a view.
It is a matter of having counter arguments presented (and outlets, especially television outlets, to do this).