He doesn’t mean to be a monster and I don’t want to see him as one, but in his presence my blood ran cold. I was afraid of him. I was even more afraid of the way the earnest folk in the room laughed as he joked about the unintended consequences of various programmes to clean up the act of the idiotic, self-destructive great unwashed, I realised that I might be the only one there who included himself in the category of “the people” to be shaped as opposed to the smug elite doing the shaping.
No one seemed remotely concerned for the freedoms of those on the receiving end of Dr Chadwick’s mind bending, “nudging” and manipulation — the benighted mugs who ultimately pay to have such well-shod professionals sneer about them behind their backs.
– Tom Paine writing an article titled ‘An unexpected encounter with a monster‘
Oh boy, do I feel Tom’s Pain (sorry).
It reminds me of the following remarks I made when speaking to a rather earnest employee of Her Majesty’s government. It was at a PPE dinner at an Oxford college, filled to the rafters with pretty much the same people who filled the room where Tom Paine’s blood ran cold. As I was clearly very off-message, she had just told me that “You’re the sort of person we need to convince”:
“Don’t waste your time trying to convince me its all for my own good, because the objective isn’t my good, its making sure the people in this room have power. If you keep nudging people, and you just won’t stop, eventually they’ll punch you in the face. But we both know the reason that doesn’t happen to you is because Mao’s dictum is entirely correct. Your presumed right to do what you do to the hoi polloi is embedded at an axiomatic level, you don’t have any coherent moral argument to back it up, and why should you? The only reason you can do what you do is because you keep the police force funded, which is why you don’t need to convince me of anything.”
For some reason I don’t get taken to those kind of dinners any more 😆
The name “Chadwick” is one of ill omen – as it was Edwin (rather than Paul) Chadwick who did more than anyone else to spread the statism of Jeremy Bentham in 19th century Britain.
An ever increasing number of things “must” be done by the state – the (rigged) “scientific reports” of Sir Edwin Chadwick “proved” this, and private and mutual aid efforts were (according to his rigged reports) no good.
Where does it come from? This utter contempt for people and this fanatical statism? It comes from a certain philosophical (yes that scary word “philosophical”) view of what humans are……
Sir Edwin Chadwick was a follower of Jeremy Bentham and Bentham, like David Hume, politely, and Thomas Hobbes – more bluntly in his case, did not believe in human personhood (moral agency – Free Will). And neither does Paul Chadwick.
Such thinkers hold that ordinary humans are not really beings (free will moral agents) at all – that only those who control an “enlightened” state (Sir Francis Bacon style – Thomas Hobbes was a servant of Sir Francis Bacon) are human beings – the rest of us are just cattle who must be controlled (our behaviour and thought manipulated) for-our-own-good, for our “happiness”. We (the cattle) can not make a free choice to change our “bad” behaviour – so we must be controlled.
Actually it is older than Sir Francis Bacon (and his “New Atlantis” – which was two centuries before the 13 Departments of State suggestion of Jeremy Bentham) – it goes all the way back to Plato and his “Gold Guardians” who were to control the (essentially non sentient – in this view) ordinary people.
What Paul Marks said.
But the good news is: Buterin has already delivered the fatal blow – it will take a while for the message to reach the monster’s brain and it will whine and scream and trash around blindly in the meantime, but, essentially, it’s all over, folks.
How strange that 2 Russians – Rand and Buterin – should provide the final vindication of the great English project.
Mao’s dictum?
“All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Probably Mao’s most famous remark.
Buterin??
Perry – I thought it was “Dammit, we’ve just got to do something about these sparrows”
The truly scary thing to a classical liberal like me is just what a nice chap he seemed to be. I don’t doubt his good intentions or his good humour. If he were my son, I would be proud of him. Which raises the terrifying question; just how far has our society slipped that a clever young man like him, full of scientific rigour and desire to make a better world, only addresses moral questions accidentally?
Further proof that Arendt’s observation on the banality of evil was right on the mark.
Also, this statement of PdH is excellent and equally on the mark: Your presumed right to do what you do to the hoi poloi is embedded at an axiomatic level, you don’t have any coherent moral argument to back it up, and why should you? I expect I’ll plagiarize it at some point.
The truly scary thing to a classical liberal like me is just what a nice chap he seemed to be.
Nothing could illustrate that better than the firestorm currently going on on in the US right now. It is hard to believe that in the land of the free and home of the brave that such a thing as a secret court even exists, like a star chamber from days of tyrannical kings. But here we have one. And oh the howling in protest when the legally constituted body to monitor it for abuse actually monitors it for abuse.
But perhaps the most salient thing is this: for many in America they really don’t care that this secret court was used in secret and was deceived by fake evidence to allow the subversion of the rights of an American citizen, and used in the attempt to subvert a national presidential election, and to try to pull down a sitting President. Why don’t they care? Because it was done to bring down a President that they think is crass and whose policies are slightly different than their preferences.
This memo is not some minor procedural detail, is is a document written by the body created to monitor the executive branch which, in summary, says that the state police conspired with others in the executive branch to perform a quiet coup d’etat, in the United States of America. And half the country doesn’t care, because Trump offends their sensibilities.
It is like a freaking banana republic.
I have a slightly different take on our lords and masters. The older I get, the more I appreciate how realistic the original “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister” are. Sir Humphrey Appleby is the platonic ideal to which the Deep State aspires.
Fraser, let me disagree with a part of your thesis.
All warrant application processes are conducted in secret. In all warrant application processes – whether it be simple like a cop seeking a warrant to search or a FISA court application for spies – there is an inherent imbalance. Unlike most other court actions, there are never two sides presenting views to a court with the court adjudging between the merits of each. It is always one side – the exec branch functionaries – swearing to the court that they are presenting true and complete information as they ask the court to authorize normally-prohibited acts. The court has to then take the sworn testimony as true – it has no factual basis with which to disagree. And these warrant applications are always secret – they always take place behind closed doors – there is no open court for warrant applications.
In today’s world, in which we are confounded by many sophisticated enemies seeking to do us harm, government is going to have to have secrets. We could be entirely open and transparent about everything, but that would cede huge advantages to those enemies. Imagine the police having to apply for search warrants in full view of those they wish to search. As a society, we have made conscious and voluntary choices to allow for such secrecy – with safeguards.
The FISA court is one of those safeguards. Prior to its inception, the executive branch – the FBI and DOJ and all of the other acronymed agencies – ran with whatever moods and whims they felt. The FISA court was a way to interpose another of the three branches – judicial, in this case – into the authorization chain in a way that preserved secrecy while adding accountability.
But, like all such processes, this depends upon the honesty and integrity of the players. In this case, those honest players stayed home, and they sent thieves and liars to do the job instead. Like all courts, the FISA court is always disadvantaged in the process – it depends upon the integrity of the sworn testimony given to it by the executive branch workers seeking warrants.
But here, the exec branch functionaries were partisan liars seeking advantage for their political friends. THAT is what broke down in this instance – not the system itself, but the people within it.
Secrecy by itself doesn’t spell “banana republic.” Perjured or incomplete testimony by DOJ/FBI officers does. But we can root that out without destroying a necessary court oversight function.
@bobby b
Fraser, let me disagree with a part of your thesis.
Thanks for the correction and legal education Bobby. Perhaps you can explain though why we need the FISA court then if the FBI could, apparently, simply apply to a regular circuit court judge for their warrant in secret?
Also, to be clear, it is like a banana republic not in respect to the secret court but in two important respects — the state police and other agents of the government tried to overthrow an election and a president and bring him down after election. And second, and perhaps most worrying of all, after such a revelation, half the people don’t actually seem to thing that that is particularly serious, since the ends were what the sought, and so the means seemed unimportant.
But perhaps not half. We will see how that plays out in the next few days and weeks.
@Gene Vitalik Buterin
“I *love* pointing out similarities between governance challenges of “apolitical” crypto projects and the eternal stupidity that is mainstream geopolitics.”
LOL.
It’s simply a matter of HOW secret “secret” needs to be. For matters of national security, walking in to a normal district court and seeking a warrant, even behind closed doors, was never acceptable to the spies. With one central court specifically set up to preserve national security-level secrecy – where all personnel could be properly vetted and the system nailed shut – they felt the process was safe enough.
Right out of law school, I worked for a district court judge as his clerk. We’d handle cop warrant requests on an ad hoc basis – whenever they wandered in with an application, we’d break what we were doing, dismiss the court reporter, and go back in chambers, where they’d explain to the judge what they wanted, submit sworn affidavits as to probably cause, etc, and answer the judge’s questions if he had any. I’d be there, sometimes his secretary would be there, sometimes if I was gone or his secretary was gone he’d have a substitute, there was never any provision made to sweep for listening devices – in short, secret enough for everyday work, but probably not enough to counter Russian spies working for Trump. 😛
Sorry, forgot to address this.
I agree completely. Now, we must find a way (in spite of a divided Congress, one half of which has venal aims) to root out the rot in our agencies. But the deeper problem – the fact that about 90% of our federal government employee body is deeply partisan on the Democrat side – is going to be just as important, and tougher to fix.
@bobby b Actually, the problems you mention in the civil service are bad enough, but far worse is the fact that half the country doesn’t care. They are far more focused on trivial dislike of the president than on these profound structural tyrannies on the government.
If the people don’t care about something as serious as this, we are pretty much screwed.
Half of the people seem to consider those profound structural tyrannies to be features, not bugs.
But that’s simply progressivism at its root. We’ve spent decades not even challenging their view on this. Finally, we’ve now called the question – through the agency of Trump – and we’re openly ridiculing their beliefs.
As a “glass half full” kind of person, I’m seeing this less as “we’re screwed” than “finally, the fight comes to a head.”
Bobby B:
Only half of Congress has venal aims?
I’ve known enough congresscritters to now believe that the proportion of outright bastards among them roughly mirrors what we find in society at large.
Granted, they’re almost all flaming narcissists with a deep need to see their names and faces up in the lights – but beyond that, most of them do enter into the political realm because they want to effect social change for the better.
What I call venal isn’t so much thievery or dishonesty on their parts, but their impulses to bring us to a more perfect socialist union. How a thinking person could see a better future for us all in that direction baffles me. Venal is probably the wrong word to use here. Ignorant, maybe?
FYI …
Flynn plea deal delayed as there’s evidence FBI agents fabricated the 302s (notes summarizing witness interviews) in Flynn investigation. IG Report will reveal fabrication of other 302s, at the direction of Comey and others within DOJ.
More coming down the chute.
Matthew Asnip
Not only does Sir Humphrey run Britain, but he chose May as Prime Minister because she showed at the Home Office that she does as she is told, or as they like to put it “takes advice”. And Sir Humphrey wants Britain to stay in the EU.
“That is a matter for the government. And we, Bernard, are the government.”
Thanks to JohnW for that link to Vitalik Buterin. Another of Buterin’s quotes from that biography is germane to the point being made by Perry and Tom. When asked what control strategies he programmed into his fighting robot, he replied “I gave each agent a utility function and let them independently act to maximize their own objectives”.
Brings to mind the famous C.S. Lewis quote about “tyrannies sincerely exercised for the good of its victims…” I’d rather have the bastards in it for themselves.
I don’t understand why, in this day and age, the FBI doesn’t record interviews. Rather, the agent summarizes the interview later on a form based on his notes and recollections. Is it just one of those “this is the way we’ve always done it” things?
Eric
at least it isn’t quills, soot and wax seals. Mueller has previous:
If you look up the C.S. Lewis quote in full, he does say just that. The robber baron’s greed is sated from time to time but the self righteous never rest. Or words to that effect.
bobby b
“…THAT is what broke down in this instance – not the system itself, but the people within it.”
And , of course, without swift and appropriate consequences for abuse of the integrity, and trust, I no longer have to pay taxes, drive in a civil manner, cross at the crosswalk, or respect ANY Executive, Judicial, or Legislative suggestions.
Naturally, the offenders, and those willing to extend them professional courtesy, may no longer expect any consideration of “special” protections of civility.
And voila, In the US, we have the same “civilization” enjoyed from the Mexican boarder and parts South.
I can only hope the bread and circuses prove superior than the daily soap opera installments, as seen from our “smart” phone service providers, currently espoused by “experts”.
Their “techniques” only work on the young and dumb.
Knowing what is going on ends their power.
The rest is just ordinary state thuggery.
Taking the young out of their clutches is the real priority. And that means no leftists or leftist cant anywhere near the young. These scum are more dangerous than paedos–who after all can only hurt a few. Socialism–unless ended– will destroy everything including even itself.
I don’t understand why, in this day and age, the FBI doesn’t record interviews.
Because FYTW. [F*** you, that’s why.]
Here’s a video a friend shows clients prior to any possible FBI interview.
Might shed some light on why they don’t want recordings of what they do.
I dunno. IMO, a “secret court” is a contradiction in terms. If it isn’t open to public scrutiny, it isn’t a legal proceeding under any reasonable idea of republican government!
For that matter, secrecy in general has been abused far too long and far too deeply by our government. It should be a serious political cause to remove any right to it from our government officials. Secrecy is what you use to defend a conspiracy from discovery by an *enemy*. It’s somewhat useful operationally in a war. The US government doesn’t get to defend itself from its own people though – that’s not how constitutional government works!
Ah, the 302s.
Further to my post on an earlier thread regarding the New Puritans and the Change for Life ad with the irritating jingle:
“Look for one hundred calorie snacks – two a day max. Look for one hundred calorie snacks – two a day max.”
I was curious to know what a one hundred calorie snack would actually be, a small chocolate bar of some kind I’m thinking. In fact, what we are talking about is 75% of a Freddo. For those unfamiliar with this particular confectionery, it comprises 20 grams of Cadbury’s chocolate moulded into the shape of a frog. Unfortunately the Snack Police will only allow you 15 grams of your Freddo because if you were to eat a whole one you would exceed your 100 calorie limit.
Niceness is over rated.
Sir John Holt was not nice – in his youth he was a rake (no lady’s virtue was safe from his seduction, or so it was said) and it was even said that he had been a highwayman (“stand and deliver” with his pistol pointed at you).
But he was also later the Chief Justice of England and Wales (1689 to 1710) with the best understanding of basic liberties that we have ever had. Someone who regarded both Crown and Parliament with the proper suspicion – bordering on contempt.
A nice man of the period (such as Judge Sewall in Salem) would give way to public opinion over witchcraft (although suffer agonies of remorse afterwards), Sir John treated those who believed in witchcraft with the contempt they deserved, ditto those who believed slavery (although the latter kept coming back – till Mansfield finally killed it off in this land).
And a nice man would give way to the practice of centuries that someone accused of treason could have no defence council (after all that is what custom was) – whereas Sir John (from the bench – whilst remaining judge) acted as the defence council of the accused (even if he despised them) and continued to do so until the powers agreed to allow the accused their own choice of defence council.
I defer to bobby b’s expertise regarding criminal procedure (I’ve never practiced in that field, or clerked for a judge), and he’s certainly correct that ordinary warrants are issued ex parte and that the FISA Court necessarily needs access to hyper-sensitive national security information to which no ordinary judge should be privy. That said, I still have serious problems with the FISA Court and the way it operates.
The FISA Court exists specifically to give judicial sanction to searches which would be unconstitutional if directed against US citizens. Its very name is “Foreign Intelligence”; its purpose it to facilitate intelligence-gathering against foreign enemies in foreign countries. And frankly, I don’t have a problem with that; such persons have no claim to the protections of our Constitution. But that is not true for US citizens or persons within our borders. They do have a legitimate claim to such constitutional protections. And it is those rights which are being routinely trampled by this modern “star chamber”.
In an ordinary criminal trial the defendant will have access to the warrant and the materials upon which it was based; information gathered pursuant to a warrant is routinely challenged in court because of defects in that warrant. That is not true with FISA Court warrants; if such information is ever used in a trial the defendant is never told how it was obtained. And in fact a huge part of the problem is the intentional abuse of the FISA system as a means of gathering information concerning ordinary domestic crimes having nothing to do with national security. Furthermore, when FBI agents pass along such information to local law enforcement the police/prosecutors are often instructed to lie to the court about its source. If our government were truly interested in protecting our rights it would amend the FISA statute to include an outright and absolute prohibition on the use of any information thus obtained in domestic criminal trials, and make it a criminal offense to disclose such information outside of national-defense circles. But the FBI strenuously resists any such change; they like abusing the system to gather information in unconstitutional ways. For them, the ends always justify the means.
Was the reason you weren’t invited back the insertion of a redundant definite article before hoi polloi?
There’s a small bottle of alcohol next to me. You want it. Do you say “hand me the alcohol”, or “hand me al-cohol”?
😉
In defence of bobby b, I note that ‘the hoi polloi’ is quite normal English speech and has been since that foreign phrase first appeared here. In defence of TomJ, I will grant that ‘hoi’ means ‘the’ so ‘the hoi polloi’ means ‘the the polloi’.
However we have in England a place called Breedon on the Hill, which, when you translate the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon means ‘Hill Hill on the Hill’. There are no plans to rename it to just ‘Hill’.
🙂
Wrong wrong wrong. In English we say “Leghorn” not Livorno. We say “The Argentine”, “The Ukraine” and “The Netherlands”. And we say “THE hoi polli”. Why? Because in English usage that’s what we do. And I was speaking English.
This made me think of what used to be known as TSB Bank. To give the title in full, Trustees Savings Bank Bank.
I should have clarified. From Arabic, we get the word alcohol – al-kuhl, in which the “al” is the definite article. So when we say “pass me the alcohol”, if we treat “alcohol” as the root words instead of our new English use of a phrase, we’re saying “pass me the the cohol” in the exact same sense we’re saying “the the polloi.”