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]
|
Conservation of prohibitionism July 1st 2018:
Jeremy Corbyn backs calls to decriminalise possession of cannabis
Jeremy Corbyn said he would like to see the possession of cannabis to be decriminalised as he backed calls for the drug to be used for medicinal purposes.
July 10th 2018:
Corbyn backs Nordic Model to tackle sexual exploitation
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn declared his full support for Britain to look at changing our prostitution laws by criminalising the purchase of sex, also referred to as the ‘Nordic model’.
|
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.
|
Something similar happened, in reverse, here in New South Wales. Years ago we had a premier who decriminalized sex-work (prostitution). But Premier Neville Wran didn’t stop there- he also ‘nationalized’ all coal in the state. Socialists just can’t help themselves- they need to meddle in private property somehow.
Ah hereby hangs the rub… Decriminalize or Criminalize. Why not LEGALIZE? And get out of our face!
If you maintain that patina of illegality, you can tax it more. People feel lucky they’re allowed it at all and just pay.
“Why not LEGALIZE?” – actually if decriminalize means just remove penalties, it is much better than legalizing. Because legalizing means creating laws and regulations. Most sex workers, for example, support decriminalization not legalization .
Just old fashioned decadence – nothing more.
Corbyn backs plans to enshrine the entire middle-class Islington belief system as the Law.
To the left, everything not forbidden is compulsory – and everything no longer forbidden soon becomes compulsory. Under Corbyn, will it become an employer offence to sack workers for being high, hate speech to express disdain for the druggie lifecycle, etc.?
As for the sex puritanism, well, I don’t suppose Corbyn literally read 1984 as a how-to manual but today we can see that perhaps Orwell was not as wrong as C.S.Lewis thought he was in including that one in the totalitarian left’s list of obsessions. However the explanation may be much simpler – Corbyn hates private economic enterprise, so will always ban the purchase of anything where he can. I expect ‘Corbyn’s cannabis’ will be offered on the NHS. 🙂
I once shagged a Nordic model but that is another story.
“legalizing means creating laws and regulations” — Surely Corbyn would prefer to *nationalise*. After all, it is an injustice that some people, through no fault of their own, are born less beautiful and charming than others. Only nationalisation can ensure the correct redustribution to ensure that we all have the same, er, opportunities.
Niall Kilmartin wrote:
‘I expect ‘Corbyn’s cannabis’ will be offered on the NHS. 🙂’
I’m sure you’re right. But there will be a 32-week waiting list, the NHS will pay 7x more than the market rate for it, and it will be of poor quality and limited efficacy. And ‘going private’ will still be outlawed. Just as a desert run by the government will quickly develop a shortage of sand, so a dope supply run by the government will quickly develop a shortage of dope – a product which literally grows wild in the bar ditch and requires aggressive measures to keep under control.
llater,
llamas
“Decriminalize X” is much preferable to “Legalize X.” Two good points from bobby and Radu:
*
Expanding on both of these points: To “legalize” something suggests that the legality or illegality of X (or of action X) is within the legitimate (“just”!) powers of The Gov to determine, and upon which to enforce prohibitions or requirements. Whereas to “decriminalize” X is to imply that The Gov has decided it lacks the just power to criminally punish engaging in or refraining from X.
@Radu
Because legalizing means creating laws and regulations.
Not necessarily. Do you mean in the current political climate? It is certainly possible to simply rescind the statutes that make it illegal.
Most sex workers, for example, support decriminalization not legalization .
Well of course, because that raises the price and decreases competition.
I can’t imagine a more consumer-unfriendly business than one where it was a crime to buy but not to sell.
I suspect prohibition is more like entropy: It always increases unless external energy is applied.
How would this actually work in practice? If anyone is accused of this “crime” then neither the payer or payee (assuming they wish to continue in the industry) are going to admit to it. Could an escort claim that the payment was for social company but the sex was free? Won’t this actively encourage pimping as those involved seek to distance the payment from the act? Ultimately it will be left up to a third party to decide if a payment happened, and that can result in all sorts of complications. Does buying a gift in kind (a drink? a meal?) constitute payment? Could a live-in partner who does not contribute to rent be considered payment for sex? On another hand, how many false accusations are going to come about, it’s not unknown to falsely accuse someone of rape, how about falsely accusing someone of attempting to purchase sex?
It is already against the law to buy sex in Ireland (both north and south) and in France.
It seems to be the fashion now. Justified by arguing that prostitution is not really voluntary, that the women are forced into it by pimps – and that the way to deal with that is to making buying sex illegal so that the market for buying sex (and thus for forcing women into prostitution) dries up. The difficulty with this argument is, of course, that the market for drugs did not go away when buying drugs was made illegal – in fact the buying of drugs has exploded over time.
They’ve been doing “The Nordic Model” in Scandanavia long enough to know it doesn’t actually deter prostitution. That’s not the point, though. The point is to show how much politicians care for women, who lack agency, being taken advantage by men, the source of all things bad.
Well, have you SEEN Swedish women? That may not be a valid test of the Model.