Given my extremely low expectations, it takes a lot for a British government to actually amaze me.
Well they have managed to do exactly that. The people who rule us are not misguided, they are actually evil.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Beyond beliefMarch 16th, 2004 |
 28 comments to Beyond belief |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
For what must be the one billionth time:
The State is not your friend.
The big problem isn’t that this regulation will get implemented soon — it probably won’t be.
The real problem is that when insane garbage like this randomly slips in under the radar, it Can Never Be Eliminated. Bad law Never Goes Away.
This is fucking unreal. This government is indeed evil. There’s no other word for it.
The “victims” in these cases were guilty of the only crimes that really matter: they were both weak and detectable. Their weakness allowed our Living God, the State, to judge them.
We must learn from their sins. We must become strong and invisible. Then we will be righteous.
Evil is a pretty strong word.
However, I can’t think of a more appropriate one.
Scott:
If anybody complains about using the word evil, feel free to use wicked instead. 🙂
Bill for the bullet. Christ.
Blunkett makes a very interesting case study for the statist whose mind is so warped that it leads him to come to ideas a six-year-old could recognize as horrible. There’s some sick moral inversion that goes on in the brain of someone like that where the people exist as grist for the government mill rather than the government being a construct of the people. Any psychology students feel like writing their thesis on Blunkett? I think the world could benefit.
Heh. Next they will be asking for the taxes that you may of earned had you not been in prison.
Don’t say things like that – someone may be watching….
I too was horrified – but didn’t this happen before with Steven Downing a couple of years back? What happened in that case?
Some things are just so outrageous, even the hardened cynic finds it difficult to believe.
Perhaps kidnappers will now hand their victims an invoice for room and board too.
Eamon
Off topic: While checking out Mark Thomas on the original subject of the post, I noticed that the New Statesman has discovered a new socio-technological phenomenon…. emoticons.
I kid you not.
This is beyond belief! I’ve heard that we Americans have too many prisons, but at least no one imagines they are hotels. Did the convicts volunteer to go to prison? I can’t wrap my mind around this, I just can’t.
Since we’re talking evil here, I’ll play the devil’s advocate. Looking at it from a logical standpoint, if a person wrongly (but fairly – i.e. no railroading) convicted and imprisoned, and is given compensation, the compensation is presumably for lost income while imprisoned, at least partly (and in the case cited the person got 960,000 pounds – granted got shafted on the advances but that’s another issue somewhat). If a person is made whole in such a way, and no factor was included for the cost of living during that time, they are in essence getting a ‘gross’ amount instead of a net amount. Therefore it may be logical to ask for the cost of room and board back, or net it out of the award in the first place. After all it’s the people who have to pay for the blunder. Of course one could argue that a person should get some return above and beyond missed earnings netted with cost of living expenses.
I know in some parts of the US a wrongly convicted person pretty much got nothing (or at least used to)and no right to sue the State as it was seen as a drain to innocent taxpayers and it was simply the risks entailed in the scales of justice. I’m torn on what is proper, as the State, as long as it was performing within its bounds, imprisons someone, it is a cost to taxpayers. When the person is let out, and is compensated, it is a cost to taxpayers. I’m not sure how much I support the idea of compensation in the first place, and therefore certainly wouldn’t ask for room and board. I look at this way, that if I am a contracting member of a State whose job is to protect life and property, and in so doing, makes an honest mistake (no intentional railroading), I risk as a part of that contract the possibility that I will be wrongly convicted. I don’t expect to reimburse people for their lost earnings, I don’t expect to get compensated for mine. It is part agreement we have with each other that there is a risk to our liberty by having even a minarchical State.
The case certainly becomes grayer when purposeful railroading is involved, or gross negligence in investigation which boarders on railroading. But in many cases, once a State is created, it will make mistakes, and the question is how much burden do we share when the State makes a mistake in our name. Also, how will the system work if people, who were wrongly convicted based on a legal technicality, but are likely the person who did it, how would the mass feel that the ‘guilty’ party were entitled to a payout on top of it all, at the taxpayer expense? You’d almost need another trial to determine whether the person was completely innocent, or simply not guilty based on a technicality for eligibility for a payout.
I suppose this all may seem to contradict may anti-statist views to those who may have pieced together a trend in my ramblings. But I do see it as a risk of having a State that liberty will be curtailed. But as long as it is in the execution of proper laws based exclusively on protecting life and property rights, it’s a risk I’m willing to take, a risk we’d all share. But that’s why it is so critical to make sure the State exists within its proper boundary and doesn’t go making laws which are steeped in ‘proactivity’ and social engineering etc as it vastly expands the potential for wrongly eclipsing liberty and for ‘crimes’ that are not crimes based on life and property in the first place. In other words, the laws themselves are bad, and merely in increase the scope in which to commit errors.
Toolkien, I think this is one of those occasions where compensation is appropriate. I for one would not feel particularly charitable toward a justice system that stole a chunk of my life no matter how genuine the mistake. Something too valuable to measure has been lost forever. The idea of charging bed and board is just crass beyond belief.
I do, however take your point and mean innocent as opposed to an unsafe conviction due to incompetence or technicalities.
The man had the nerve to embarrass the government by being innocent. He should pay for making the government look bad. In fact, he is lucky not to be going back to jail.
We had a guy in the US wrongly convicted, released, then hit w/ a bill for back child support (which is calculated based on what he was earning before being locked up). They relented when the political heat got to be too much:
Wrongly Imprisoned
B U R G I N, Kentucky, June 25 — William Gregory spent eight and a half years in a Kentucky Prison for a rape he did not commit — leaving his son on state child support.
But with his freedom came a twist straight out of Kafka: not only did he get no compensation, but the state then sued him for the child support it paid while he was in prison.
“At least compensate me for the time,” said Gregory, who was released on account of DNA evidence. “Say ‘I made a mistake. We made a mistake, and pay that man!'”
He said he had nothing when he got out of jail.
“I was sleeping on the street,” Gregory said. …
Toolkien, I think this is one of those occasions where compensation is appropriate. I for one would not feel particularly charitable toward a justice system that stole a chunk of my life no matter how genuine the mistake. Something too valuable to measure has been lost forever. The idea of charging bed and board is just crass beyond belief.
But do concede that if the compensation was for lost compensation it should include some factor for cost of living that didn’t have to be paid? Here in the US (don’t know where you’re from) when people are awarded judgements that are based in compensation (and not punitive) they usually have to pay taxes on it. Is that fair?
What is a fair amount of compensation? Should it be flat across the board for everybody, or be based on the individual’s earning potential? Who exactly is assessed to make up the compensation? In the case where the ‘scales of justice’ are misapplied, there is potentially two errors, an innocent person goes to prison, and, likely, a guilty person is free (not so in the case where 7 people are convicted for a crime that was committed by only 6). Do we, at large, get compensation for being subjected to threats we shouldn’t have? Especially in the case of a person injured in some way by the fact the person is free, are they do an errors and ommissions award from the treasury and the taxpayers’ pockets?
At the most, I’d concede a flat award, regardless of earning potential, that takes all factors into account and is fair to all involved, including the taxpayer, who has just as much chance of being wrongly convicted themselves and also bears risks from inaccuracies in the system in the form of criminals let free. I myself would surely want to get something back from the system at first blush, especially if the State maintains the bloated, engorged form it is in, as I may be wrongly convicted of a crime that, IMO, falls outside the bounds of criminal activity in the first place. But if the State is confined to a proper form, I’d have to strongly consider my position as both a potential wrongly convicted man and a taxpayer on the hook for inevitable miscalculations of justice. So in some sense, my outlook on the subject is contingent on whether or not the State is properly bounded.
Toolkien, I’m in the UK. Wrestling with your points (because there is no easy answer) – I’m inclined to agree with your final paragraph; i.e. a flat payout. I don’t believe it should be taxed. I do believe it should be sufficiently punitive to concentrate the minds of those who might be tempted to opt for the easy collar.
Why not just bill ALL convicts fro their time in clink? Then they can claim the money back + interest + loss of earnings when their guilt is doubted. However those that did the crime, can do the crime and then pay for it.
Oops making crims pay might be a deterant and we can’t have that!
My Bad.
Big Blunkett is clearly ripping off Terry Gilliam’s film in which prisoners are liable for the cost of ‘Information Retrieval’ procedures used on them (although Blunkett will probably deny having seen the film, if challenged).
Mark Elliot writes: “I do believe (a payout for wrongful imprisonment) should be sufficiently punitive to concentrate the minds of those who might be tempted to opt for the easy collar.”
I agree. However it will only concentrate their minds if it comes out of their pockets – not the taxpayer’s. The problem in the US is prosecuting attorneys who make their careers, both political and commercial, by being ‘tough on crime’ and convicting everyone that they can regardless of justice. Making the potential cost of an error too high would be a disincetive to prosecuting anybody. Our problem at present, however, is that there is no cost to making a mistake and a political gain to be made even for convicting innocent people (so long as it does’t get too much publicity). Those people who, like Hobbs, see society as a war of all against all don’t mind a few innocents having their lives ruined as long as it doesn’t hit too close to home. They think it makes them ‘safer’. And they also believe the State is their friend and protector.
Some clever and enterprising Brit should frame David Blunkett for an imprisonable offence. Me thinks his views on the matter would change right quick upon setting foot in the pokey and spreading his cheeks.
I lost a piece of my waning innocence today. When I first saw Perry’s post, and followed the link, I thought, “Someone’s pulling my chain. This is obviously a hoax.” But, evidently, it’s not.
I think the argument that the state is just taking costs out of a gross settlement to make a net settlement has the situation backward. Am I supposed to give up my house when I go to prison so that I can pay the state for my time there? Or is the difference between gross and net only supposed to come out of my end? If you look at it from the point of view of the individual concerned, rather than from the point of view of the state, the net-versus-gross argument falls down.
Do you use the phrase “the people who rule us” sardonically or is that actually how people refer to the government in the UK?
zmollusc, of course Blunkett will deny ever having seen “Brazil”. He’s blind.
As a Civil Servant and therefore beneath the contempt of those who normally post here (hi Verity!) I will justify your opinion by admitting to introducing “Information Retrieval Charge” as an official entry on the Department of Transport’s balance sheets many years ago. We (quite rightly) had to hand out traffic count data free of charge to the public, but it got a bit onerous when someone from Shell rang up for the third time in a day and went, “We’re thinking of putting a filling station here, can we have all your traffic counts for a fifty-mile radius for the last ten years”. So the Policy was set out that we should charge for the time and paper required to provide this, and muggins was selected to implement it.
I’m still not quite sure which bit I’m more proud of: getting it called an “Information Retrieval Charge”, or making sure roads protestors were added to the list of people for whom the charge was waived…
There, wasn’t that better than another rant about Blunkett? Personally, I believe he lacks a soul along with his vision. Not in the sense that he sold it; just that he doesn’t seem to ever have had one.
As a Civil Servant and therefore beneath the contempt of those who normally post here..
Adrian, while libertarians support radical reform of the public sector (many to the point of abolition!) that should not be confused with or translated as animosity towards or contempt of the individuals who happen to work in it.
We are delighted that you take the time and trouble to read this blog and your interesting contributions are most welcome.
Not a priori animosity or contempt, certainly. We need good public servants, and I’ll assume every individual public servant is a good one unless there’s sound evidence to the contrary.
Those of Adrian Ramsey’s interventions I’ve seen have always been valuable. He strikes me as admirable, rather than contemptible.
I reserve the right as a commentator to continuing animosity towards individuals who exhibit or promote incompetence or officiousness, who pursue evil departmental policies (whether or not adopted by government), or who presume themselves above criticism by reason of presumptive neutrality and excellence of caste.
Houston:
I don’t think there was any irony intended.
You have to remember that the British form of government is elective dictatorship overlying a permanent government establishment. (Hence the animus against civil servants.) It is totalitarian in essence, being scarcely constrained at all by constitutional or institutional means, and increasingly in practice. The current Government has been assiduous in uprooting those weak limits remaining on state power. (Though it isn’t all Blairism: the reason those limitations are so feeble is that there’s no administration in a century that hasn’t done some damage to basic liberty.)
Adrian, double plaudits for both,
I’m still not quite sure which bit I’m more proud of: getting it called an “Information Retrieval Charge”, or making sure roads protestors were added to the list of people for whom the charge was waived…
Clear business opportunity here. I think I’ll start working part time as a road protestor, selling DoT information to petrol suppliers.