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]
|
Perry’s posting on the Libertarian Alliance conference reminds me to tell you about two events, one indoors and one outdoors, that may appeal to those of a libertarian temperament or tendency.
First up: less an event, more of an individualist free-speech happening. Monthly mass lone demonstrations. You can not just go along though; you have to fill in a form first. Mark Thomas explains. [Overseas readers: do follow the link, you may be astonished to discover how speech is regulated in New Britain.]
The next occasion is next Wednesday.
Second: a plug for The Battle of Ideas run by the Institute of Ideas in Kensington on the weekend of the 28th/29th October, under the slogan “Free speech is allowed”. I shall be taking part in what they are calling a Salon Debate [‘salon’ = ‘small’?] on The Surveillance Society, but there are many other attacks on state control and the tyranny of received wisdom to be enjoyed.
After we conceived the festival, Prime Minister Tony Blair was calling for a ‘battle of ideas’ in response to the London bombings on 7/7. He knows a good slogan when he sees it, but unfortunately, many of the government’s policy proposals since then seem more about closing down debate than opening it up. Laws curtailing free expression, and a general climate of inoffensive conformism, are anathema to the IoI’s aim of creating a space in which issues can be openly argued over. The recent cartoons controversy shows what a live issue free speech is: free speech is not an abstract principle but is crucial for tackling the problems society faces. It is free speech that enables different interpretations of the world to be debated on their merits.
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
– Hubert H. Humphrey
Not everything left-liberals say is nonsense.
The EU and the US have failed to reach an agreement on airline passenger data sharing. This is a euphemism. The US is demanding information on all travellers that the European Court of Justice says violates our privacy, and the EU countries have been trying to square the circle. They have failed so far.
Let us be clear. The member states want to do it. All 25 of them, despite Germany’s constitutional data protections. They would love to give the FBI your travel plans, bank account details and dietary preferences. UKgov is particularly keen, and makes sure such information is always sent ahead from UK flights to such friendly, peaceful and enlightened regimes as the People’s Republic of China (it bullied the other EU states into accepting the principle of requiring carriers to retain all communications data for state inspection). What is stopping this becoming an universal convention is not European states but the independent, supra-national institutions of the Union.
Those Samizdata readers who like to see Blair attacked, but do not read The Guardian paper edition – which I guess includes most of you – are missing a treat this Monday morning. Have a look at the NO2ID website, and enjoy a very crisp piece of advertising created for the campaign pro bono*. I am glad to say that the Guardian is distributed in bulk to Labour Conference delegates.
* PS – But not, unfortunately, inserted by the Grauniad pro bono. If you want to see more of this sort of thing, then you know the words of St Bob.
PPS – I did not put in any picture for copyright reasons. Perry put in the version from the Mail, which is a crude mock-up. So I have changed it back to the original version, by linking to the properly licensed copy on the NO2ID website. The Daily Mail’s crop and bland retouching destroys the entire intention and subtlety of the adveritisement.
It seems the NO2ID campaign is starting to build up some momentum. We are not just nerds and rabble-rousers any more. We are nerds, rabble-rousers and comedians.
Yes, it is time for a comedy benefit. When 10 of the sharpest acts from the London stand-up circuit turn out on a Sunday night to support a two-year-old pressure-group, you feel we might just be getting somewhere…
By numbering everybody and everything, the world is going to be a better place? Unless you’re a bureaucrat, that’s a laughable idea. So why not laugh at it? That’s what we intend to do at the Hackney Empire on the evening of October 1st.
Those of you in other parts of the world will just have to content yourselves with sending money to help save what remains of British liberty… but if you are handy for London, please come along. You can even book online (£12.50 a seat) by clicking the jolly banner:
In a centrally heated and climatically warming world, I have never been able to see much fun in fur. I certainly would not want to wear it – too much hassle and discomfort. However, it has been brought to my attention that a number of attractive models and actresses have revived the “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” protest campaign for PETA, and are posing naked for publicity photos. This has raised my interest in the topic considerably.
Please help them continue in this valuable charity work for as long as possible. Do not stop buying fur.
Roy Hattersley, in a short piece in the Guardian today commenting on this story, illustrates how the fundamental difference between Old Labour and New Labour, is not in their attitude to governance. It is the willingness of the former to express themselves clearly, and their angry confusion at the rhetorical deformations that New Labour uses to lead the public by the nose:
How likely is it that a mother who (whatever her motives) insisted on her son having unhealthy food will be either willing or able to ensure that he is educated at the right school or treated at the best hospital? The Rotherham sausage makes the government’s “choice agenda” look rather overdone.
What Lord Hattersley does not get is that the government is equally contemptuous of people’s ability to make ‘the right’ choices for themselves and their families. That is precisely why the Rotherham sausage smuggling is taking place. Government has removed choices that it does not approve of from the school menu. The ‘choice agenda’ is a three card trick. The method is misdirection; the effect is dirigiste.
The government’s plan to help the disadvantaged was outlined in its Social Exclusion Plan on Monday.
The moral basis of the Plan was “rights and responsibilities”. That is, the right of the government to interfere in the lives of people it thinks don’t know what’s good for them, and the responsibility of these “customers” to acquiesce.
Mark Ballard pins it down precisely in The Register.
I was distracted this morning by Mr Blair’s predictable difficulties with the TUC, and nearly everyone else seems to have missed it too. There was nothing in The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph or the early edition of The Evening Standard about this. But this is the important UK story today. Congratulations to the Financial Times on actually reporting the plan to abolish privacy.
It was trailed a little way back by a selective leak to The Guardian, but now seems forgotten. The Information Commissioner is playing dead. Or perhaps he has been reduced to a depressive paralysis by the tedious presentation and appalling implications of HM Government’s Data sharing vision statement [pdf].
This Government wants to deliver the best possible support to people in need. We can only do this with the right information about people’s circumstances […] That is why Government is committed to more information sharing between public sector organisations and service providers. […] We recognise that he more we share information, the more important it is that people are confident that their personal data is kept safe and secure. The Data Protection and Human Rights Acts offer a robust statutory framework to maintain those rights whilst sharing information to deliver better services.”
I’m really not much reassured by assurances about “proper respect for the individual’s privacy […] supported by ensuring the security and integrity of personal information both before and after it has been shared”. How about not sharing it?
If you actually have privacy, you don’t need government Codes of Practice to tell bureaucrats how to ‘respect’ it. If you actually have privacy, then the private sphere is beyond regulatory intervention and ‘support’. If you actually have privacy, you actually have freedom.
The press has covered the walkouts by the brothers, and where friendly to the government has characterised it as ‘brave’. But Tony Blair’s advertised last speech to the Trades Union Congress was fascinating in itself, calculated in a cartoonish way. Who was it for?
Who would be entranced by the sententious, treacly opening, claiming some sort of credit for sympathy with the victims of terrorism and war?
Before speaking to you today, I want to remember all those who died, including the many British people, repeat our sympathy and condolences for the loss of their loved ones and rededicate ourselves to complete and total opposition to terrorism anywhere, for whatever reason.
Who would be persuaded by the windy pseudo-rhetoric, the clichés set in shattered sentences, and exhibition of truism as valuable policy insight?
We have to escape the tyranny of the “or” and develop the inclusive nature of the “and”.
The answer to economic globalisation is open markets and strong welfare and public service systems, particularly those like education, which equip people for change.
The answer to terrorism is measures on security and tackling its underlying causes.
What, addressed to trades unions, was the point in half the time to international affairs, and Mr Blair’s role on the world stage?
Peace which threatens its security is no peace. But on the right terms it must be done.
Yesterday’s announcement of a government of national unity in Palestine is precisely what I hoped for. On the basis it is faithful to the conditions spelled out by the quartet – the UN, EU, US and Russia – we should lift the economic sanctions on the Palestinian Authority and be prepared to deal with the government, the whole government.
Then, piece by piece, step by step, we must put a process of peace back together again.
Is this really carefully scripted? Is it aimed at an English-speaking audience? What on earth does it have to do with congress?
And who could miss, or be fooled by, the manipulative slide from lachrymose anectote about exploited foreign workers to the hint (immmediately contradicted) that they might be stopped from coming here at all (and thus from competing for work with union members… er, being exploited…) by magic biometric border controls?
I know this answer isn’t popular, at least in some quarters. But I tell you, without secure ID, controlled migration just isn’t possible.
You can have armies of inspectors, police and bureaucrats trying to track down illegals but without a proper system of ID – and biometric technology now allows this – it is a hopeless task.
And as identity abuse grows – and it is a huge problem now across parts of the private as well as public sector – so the gains for consumers and companies will grow through a secure ID database.
And we all want effective armies of inspectors, police, and bureaucrats, don’t we, children? The whole thing (offered by The Guardian here) is extraordinary. The relevant bits – attacks on protectionism, allusions to Labour’s success in enacting union-friendly legislation – would be a perfectly good TUC speech. Short, but to the point. One might not agree with it, but one could see it as a piece of working political machinery. But that speech is suspended in a mush of late-Blair messianism that is much more instructive.
He’s going to fix all the world’s problems. All it requires is for all the great powers to come to a final lasting peace agreement in which he is playing a vital role, defusing the grievances that (alone?) drive global conflict(s), and monitoring all activities of everybody who lives in or visits Britain using a big database.
So who was the speech for? It was the calling-card of a War Leader for the lecture-circuit, some cynics may say. But this cynic suspects the speech was mainly for Mr Blair himself – that this is how he sees the world, and how he wants us all to see it too. It is a preamble to rants to come.
With the newly rigorous airport security, that is.
(Thanks to the ever-reliable The Register.)
Tax cutting can be simultaneously a good thing to do and a stupid thing to promise. Winning policies and election winning policies are not always the same thing. What’s so hard to understand about that?
– Daniel [when did he get too old to be called Danny in public?] Finkelstein in The Times.
If politicians could offer strawberry and chocolate flavoured policies, then in a democracy they would.
|
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.
|
