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]
|
Fun on Twitter… “Corbyn’s policies will reduce hate crime in this country”
Yes indeed, Corbyn, being a Marxist & anti-Semite, will nationalise hate crime & it’s well know that nationalised industries are gawd-awful at doing what they set out to do, epidemiological research supports this.
– Perry de Havilland
|
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.
|
Is it really possible to reduce hate crime with a government policy? You could certainly increase it by defining practically every single human interaction as a hate crime. People are going to hate other people, sometimes with justification sometimes for no reason at all. How is any government’s policy going to change basic human nature?
Once you have conceded that such a thing as a “hate crime” even exists, the entire battle is over.
All the rest is just the details of the surrender ceremony.
Well, I think Perry has a point!
Sadly, while the state is often very bad at doing good, it is often very good at doing bad. Oft evil will shall evil mar – but sometimes only after 6 million Jews have been murdered. Corbyn will run out of steam long before that – but I’d prefer it to be so long before that he never gets elected.
I like the OP’s variant of the effective 70s slogan “Nationalise crime – make sure it doesn’t pay” – but remember that, given the number of governments in the world that could justly be termed kleptocracies, I never felt that plan was going to work either.
You don’t think just maybe this was a piss-take? 😆
I think McDonnell and Milne have a more straightforward dream to reducing hate – sending all the “haters” to the gulags.
Mr Corbyn is 70 tomorrow, we all know what a socialist in a hurry is like.
Mr Corbyn is 70 tomorrow, we all know what a socialist in a hurry is like.
Corbyn is just Old Major, it’s Napoleon and Snowball we need to worry about.
Somebody round here asked me to explain Corbyn. I said “He’s kind of like Bernie Sanders, except he doesn’t pretend to not want to murder the Jews”.
Hate crime will certainly decrease when the police stop recording grooming gang crimes and we have a Jewish exodus.
Corbyn won’t win though. I hate to sound like Jon Snow but the North will remember. His heartland is hollowed out and his middle class, non socialist remained will go Lib Dem.
Hate crime would increase under a Labour government because many more categories would be invented so that many more politically correct and Labour voting people could be put on the public payroll to investigate and prevent them.
Why would anyone expect a man presiding over Labour’s anti semitism crisis to reduce any kind of hate?
Holy fuck, are you folks serious? 😆
Stonyground
May 25, 2019 at 2:16 pm
Is it really possible to reduce hate crime with a government policy?
————————————
Yes, but “profiling” that works so well in Israel was deemed illegal for New York City by a minority of “special interests”
I’m just curious as to why the left is so obsessed with “hate” crime. Is it different from a “love” crime, or something? We really to need to start mocking them about this. After all, throughout the 1970s and 80s, as crime of all types rose, the left dismissed those on the right who expressed concern about it as the “hangemandflogem” types, obsessed with “lawnorder”.
Hate crime, schmate crime. The concern of the authorities should be all crime.
One can’t rely on government incompetence. As Instapundit once posted:
The same applies to a government bureau of censorship.
(And in any case, the Left isn’t opposed to hate speech; it’s just opposed to the wrong kinds of hate speech – it’s just fine with hate speech directed against Those Nasty People who are not of the Left, even to the point of milkshake-throwing as a form of “speech.”)
They are concerned about all crime. However all crime is hard to reduce with left wing methods, because criminals are the real victims.
Thus hate crime, conveniently documented on the internet was jumped on after Blair birthed it to appear righteous and ensure the locals didn’t object to certain migration issues.
Mr Corbyn knows what he is and he knows what he is about – hence, for example, his writing of the introduction for the new edition for Hobson’s century old “classic” claiming that the British Empire was a conspiracy of evil “capitalist” Jews.
Compare the consistent evil of Mr Corbyn (and Mr McDonnell and so on) with the muddle headed confusion of many of my fellow Conservatives.
It is hard not to come to the conclusion that he evil that Mr Corbyn is such a faithful servant of will WIN – when the opposition to it is such a mess.
Perhaps the end of the (utterly ignorant waste-of-space) Mrs May, will change matters – we shall have to see.
Too pessimistic.
Most people – ignorant though we be – really do want to do good. Cunning minds can convince majorities that their chosen methods are the methods for achieving that good even when they are actually designed to achieve evil.
But not even cunning minds can hide forever the reality of what they achieve with their methods, and so those ignorant people who followed them into establishing evil while thinking they were fighting for good will turn on them eventually, and go off with a different plan to achieve good.
We hope they’ll chose our plan, but they probably won’t. But, ignorant or not, misdirected or not, so long as most people seek the Good, the Evil won’t outright win.
You know something is going badly wrong when a party leader loses a vote of no confidence from his MPs, loses a general election, loses seats in council elections and net control of councils, loses seats in EU elections, and is currently under investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for anti-semitism, and is _still_ party leader.
OK, I WAS WRONG!!!
In Venezuela, the cost of bullets is soaring, the amount most people have left to steal is sinking, and the result is an economic crisis for armed robbers. (h/t instapundit)
It’s not exactly “Nationalise crime – make sure it doesn’t pay!” but it is definitely “Socialise crime – and even private enterprise crime will eventually cease to pay.”
Of course, “socialise crime” may be a tautology – socialism is crime.
Quoth Niall, aptly.
That should win ’em over. I can hear them all coming to their senses right now.
neonsnake.
In the United Kingdom the socialist party (the Labour Party) is led by Jeremy Corbyn – a man who has supported every major totalitarian regime and major terrorist group of his life time.
The idea of “winning over” supporters of Mr Corbyn (and his Shadow Chancellor Jeremy Corbyn – an open supporter of “Stalin”) is not really viable.
Socialism is the confiscation of the means of production – all factories, farms and so on. If that is not crime it is hard to know what is a crime.
Of course the tradition of Thomas Hobbes and other (Legal Positivism) is that the law and crime are just what the ruler or rulers allow and what they forbid – so that (for example) of the ruler or rulers declare that killing everyone with brown eyes is O.K. (indeed is compulsory) that is fine.
However, Mr Hobbes also did not really believe that human BEINGS existed (he held that humans were a sort of flesh robot – with no free will) so his being O.K. with the murder of humans, if the ruler or rulers commanded it, is understandable – if one does not believe that human BEINGS exist, then the robbing (indeed the murdering) of humans by order of the ruler or rulers, is not important.
However, I suspect that Mr Hobbes would not have been O.K. with his own murder by order of the ruler or rulers – indeed he even talks of a right to protect one’s life (although Mr Hobbes defined the word “right” very differently to the way it is defined by normal people – he tended to redefine words very radically), but Mr Hobbes does not seem to have really grasped the moral duty of protecting the lives of OTHER people against the whims of the ruler or rulers.
If the socialist Mr X was the ruler, then Mr Hobbes would not act against (risk his own life by opposing) any robbery or murder of other people ordered by the ruler Mr X or his associates – although Mr Hobbes would have objected to the murder of HIMSELF.
The very word “murder” and the word “robbery” indicates that a crime has been committed – and this (and much else) shows the utter absurdity of Legal Positivism, which holds that law and crime are just what the ruler (or rulers) allow and what they forbid.
“The killing of all brown eyed people is not a crime if the ruler or rulers order it” is just wrong.
Ditto “the confiscation of all the means of production, factories-farms-and-so-on, is not a crime if the ruler or rulers order it”, is also wrong.
I believe (and hope) that this isn’t the case.
I wonder how many self-deceived socialists that voted for Labour on 2017 could accurately describe the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy? I don’t think so, and I don’t think many of the voters would agree with seizing the means of production.
I believe they can be won over. I also believe that’s the only possible way to advance, and polarising the voting population further will lead to defeat.
To the rest: I understand your position to be “just because something isn’t a crime, does not mean it’s moral” – correct? If so, then I wholeheartedly agree, Paul.