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]
|
Enabling the end of enabling legislation? Bishop Hill:
Devil’s Kitchen has a must-read post up, detailing the increasing use of enabling legislation by the government. And he doesn’t swear at all – must be serious.
Indeed.
I daydream that one day, a British Cabinet Minister will grab hold of one of the laws that DK writes about, where it says that, if there is a crisis (and it is up to him to decide), then he, the British Cabinet Minister, may do whatever he considers to be appropriate (i.e. whatever he damn well pleases). I daydream that he, the British Cabinet Minister, will bring into the House of Commons a huge list itemising all the laws that he is now going to repeal, just like that, no ifs no buts no discussion, because he, the British Cabinet Minister referred to in one of the laws, says so, on account of there being a crisis caused by all the damn laws.
Impossible, you say? Very probably. But it is surprising how much of history consists of impossible dreams that were dreamed during earlier bits of history.
|
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.
|
Except, of course, that anyone whose head’s been in the game long enough to get to Ministerial rank will double all those laws because they obviously need to be stronger. Nice dream, though.
I may be a dreamer
But I’m not the only one!
Crap song, but the right sentiment for this thread.
Brian:
Do you happen to remember one of Babylon 5’s first season episodes that covered a labour dispute? I smiled and thought of a rerun in pursuit of a more principled end.
However, for the foreseeable future PFP is correct. Until the culture changes for the better, and in turn until the nature of what pops up from the murky depths of politicians’ subconscious changes for the better, the principles that legislation like this would be turned to are apt to be ever more collectivist. Psychoepistemology is a bitch.
JJM
Psychology.
Well come, to the US, land of “interpretive dances”
and interpretive legislations. Rest of it gets ugly to interpret, as well.
It’s election day, here, in the US midwaste. I don’t indulge (them). A radio program just mentioned vote fraud. Isn’t it all ?
Voters just want to be happy and have fun. Buy dope, some random sex, rotten music, bad relationships, and try to find their daddy on a ballot.
The majority never loose an election. Government is their daddy, corporations are their mommy, and “Who sez?” the only law they know.
Sanity is a felony.
We can all dream:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Great_Repeal_Bill
Problem is, once the Roman Republic fell it never was restored, despite promises by Emperor following Emperor.
I don’t always agree with cjf (more precisely, I don’t always understand him!), but I have to say that the post above is a gem. Each paragraph gave me a chuckle while making a deep point.
Thanks.
Quite so Brian.
And, of course, this was also the dream of your old friend Lord Harris of Highcross (the classic “Crossbench” independent in the House of Lords with his long campaign for “Repeal”).
There are two matters here.
The “emergency laws” (“legislate in haste – and you will repent at leasure”) whether Acts of Paliament or “Orders in Council”.
And the vague “enabling Acts” that allow ministers and civil servants to just make up “statutory instruments” with the force of law on just about every matter.
Parliament has delegated powers (delegated from the people) it is FATAL for it to delegate these delegated legislative powers to other people (such ministers and civil servants) John Locke warned against exactly this.
And Chief Justice Hewart explained what was happening in his “The New Despotism” (1929).
As Christopher Booker and Richard North have long explained, going into the E.E.C., E.C., E.U., has given a vast new door to this sort of abuse – indeed made it universal.
“But Paul the modern state is impossible without delegated legislation such as statutory instruments”.
As Brian has been saying for many years “then the modern state is unacceptable then”.
Nothing to do with being an “anarchocapitalist” (or “Tory Anarchist” as the saying was in the 19th century) although I have nothing against people who are. Even a standard “democrat” (which nearly everyone says they are) should be against the “modern state” – as such things as delegated legislation (“statutory instruments” and other names for such regulations) makes a democracy a farce.