The president of our National Welfare Rights Network is a man named Michael Raper.
Surely an excellent name for someone who constantly thinks about how best to take advantage of taxpayers.
|
|||||
|
He might well say, man, this is some repugnant shit:
If only Mr. Jackson were here to pop a few caps in a few asses. February 15th, 2007 | 43 comments - (Comments are closed)
 A certain amount of media interest, as we English put it in our understated fashion, has been stirred by the revelations that David Cameron, leader of Her Majesty’s opposition, supposed Conservative, windmill advocate and former PR consultant, took drugs while at Eton (for those living outside Britain, Eton is an incredibly posh and expensive English public, ie, private school). Cameron has so far said little about this. There have been rumours, of varying degrees of believability, that Cameron has taken drugs, including cocaine. This saga tells us a lot about how the debate about whether the state should ban adults from injesting substances of their choice. Had this story broken 20 years ago, then Cameron would have been reduced to burnt toast. Remember, this twerp once chided wicked capitalist retailers from flogging chocolate oranges to obese Britons, and yet, if the allegations are correct, Boy Dave was quite happy to partake of South American exports and in quite impressive quantities. I personally am not a prig on this issue: I have smoked the odd joint and felt pretty bad afterwards. I once took coke and talked at about 150 miles an hour about some incredibly meaningful subject and later felt like a bit hazy. I did not repeat the experience. I find that champagne is frequently cheaper and legal. I suspect that quite a large percentage of people of my age – professional, reasonably intelligent, have had the same experiences. To listen to the Daily Mail type persons out there, most people should never touch anything stronger than Italian coffee. I think drugs should be decriminalised, believe the War on Drugs has been an unmitigated disaster and would hope that Cameron’s alleged behaviour might, just might, lead to a more sane political conversation about such issues. But although the Tory leader may inadvertently encourage different views, he has a continued problem. Cameron, after all, is in love with a drug far worse than cocaine, LSD, Qaaludes (what the heck are they?) or dope. He is in love with power over other people. He suffers from hallucinations about how the Tories will win power by conceding Blairist ideas of the role of the State. He suffers from the extraordinary idea that Oliver Letwin is a great thinker. Compared to Bolivian marching powder, that is heavy shit he is smoking. February 12th, 2007 | 36 comments - (Comments are closed)
Here is a website for the film Amazing Grace, due for release soon. It centres on the life of William Wilberforce, friend of great British Prime Minister William Pitt, and the man most people will associate with the abolitionist movement. The campaign to end slavery lasted for years before eventually succeeding in the first decade of the 19th Century, although it lingered as an institution in the colonies for many years before ending in the conflagration of the US civil war. I have no idea whether this new film will be any good and what sort of “point” it will make, but if there is a point worth making on a libertarian blog like this, it is that slavery in all its forms is an abomination, a stain on humanity and should be resisted. Furthermore, man since ancient times has known that slavery is an evil but for many centuries was either resigned to the institution, or was cowed into thinking that it was part of the natural order of things. I have read comments on this blog – by an individual who thankfully no longer bothers us – that slavery was a product of its economic times and it would be quite wrong for us to “lord it over” our ancestors by condemning the practice. This is moral relativism, pure and simple. Some people have tried to argue that the British slave trade proves the wickedness possible through capitalism, although I think it demonstrates a quite different point. Kidnapping people from their homes and then forcing them to work in conditions as appalling as a plantation has not, as far as I know, got anything to do with consensual acts of commerce as classical liberals might understand it. Quite the reverse. What slavery shows is that trade without respect for the rights of individuals is in fact a form of thuggery. Here is an article I wrote over a year ago about a less well known opponent of slavery, Thomas Clarkson. On the 200th anniversary of Britain’s outlawing the slave trade, let’s celebrate what these men achieved. February 11th, 2007 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
I read the headline of John Lloyd’s article in the FT Magazine this week, and I read it again, and again. Every time it seemed to make less sense than before:
Regardless of what it is or is not right for the government to do, state intrusion means something is no longer a matter of private morality, or morality at all. It is certainly not private, once the state is involved. And regulation displaces morality. The capacity for choice is required for morals to play a role. Reading the article was even more perplexing. To the extent Lloyd’s piece is about the Catholic/gay-adoption argument, it is as tedious as most of the vacuous discussion on the question. What engaged and enraged me were his premises. Mr Lloyd in this discussion treats the state as a kind of super person, possessed of its own opinions and moral sense, and that hectoring people who do not conform to those pseudo-desires is legitimate.
False dichotomy and all, this is the authentic voice of the New Labour branch of civic republicanism: ‘citizenship’, which is to say personhood, defined by duty to the state-collective. He notes entirely accurately that:
The square brackets there stand for the omission of two and three-quarter paragraphs, so apologists for the New Labour point of view may object that the last clause refers only to removing some disadvantages from homosexuals. But I am not being unfair. Ensuring that society as a whole observes the new order is the key to the project. Despite there being other theories of the welfare state that I and other Samizdatistas might reject but that are less repugnant to human autonomy, we are now offered a Hobson’s choice: be treated as drone in the sense of a worthless idler – or become a drone in the Borg sense, actually not a fertilising drone but a sterile ergate, emptied of all capacity for moral choice. What is the eGovernmental equivalent of soft hands, marking the unproductive drones out for hounding to destruction of their dronish identity? Inadequate contribution. Failure to comply with whatever compliance is required. You will not will incorrectly. You will comply. February 11th, 2007 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
This morning, when I read Guy’s post about his and the public’s responses to the letter bombing, I felt a thrill of excitement. I have been expecting and looking for signs that this time is finally coming. I actually have found some comfort in the acceleration of the recent decline of liberty and privacy in the UK. It is slow declines that go undetected and unchallenged. Generations may forget, but individuals remember. When good intentions run amok, individuals remember what the original justification was. James Madison in Federalist 51, said “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” Recognition of this danger seems to be unique to English cultures. Being farther removed from the UK, I have a different and wider perspective. My expectations come from reading more Tolkien than Times. And from reading history, not histrionics. English literary and political history is one of awakenings. In the past millennium, freedom has been won in sweeping victories, and is only lost through neglect. For two of my favorite authors, Lewis and Tolkien, awakening was the sole plot line of virtually their entire life’s work. Dickens’s best known character is Ebenezer Scrooge, and his story is the essence of an awakening. This struggle against obsessive domination by a big brother state will be difficult with many wobbles and diversions. There will be times when backward steps out number the forward ones. But my confident expectation is that the history of Britain and of English speaking cultures everywhere is on our side. Liberty “lost in the pursuit,” will be reclaimed. It always has been. This event inspires a feeling that confuses a lot of people. They cannot quite put their finger on it. Some have mentioned schadenfreude. No. That’s not it. In fact, that particular viciousness is so alien to English speakers that we need to borrow a European word for it. I am confident that no person here takes any sick pleasure from that clerk’s suffering. The trail of English history is a search for justice, not redistribution of suffering. The feeling this event inspires is deeper than that and it is a just and justified one. This feeling is coming from our recognition of possibility, of alliance, of purpose; the first perceptions of a change in the direction of history. Since this feeling is one we have felt seldom and mentioned even less, it does not surprise me that it should go unrecognized. But when I read Guy’s post this morning, I felt it. Joy. February 8th, 2007 | 27 comments - (Comments are closed)
A U.S. politician wants to pass a law that would make it a crime to cross the road while listening to an MP3 player or some other device that presumably screens out the noise of approaching traffic. For one’s own safety, naturally. People who wear iPods while walking around are a menace to themselves and this sort of bad behaviour should be banned immediately, naturally (sarcasm alert). Alas, the story I have linked to does not give any examples of where a pedestrian was run over by a car because the person happened to be daydreaming while listening to Mozart or for that matter rocking to ACDC. Music, it’s the new menace. February 7th, 2007 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
– Sir Edward Coke (Institutes of the Law of England, I, 280b) ever more applicable in an age of legislative acceleration. There are currenly more than 20 government bills in progress, several of which have profound implications for the common law and some of which MPs will have had less than two weeks notice of before they are called to vote on timetable motions to hustle them through regardless of consideration.
– Douglas Hogg MP (Hansard 27 Nov 2000 : Column 680) One need not sidestep a legislature in order to rule by decree. It suffices to exhaust it. Perhaps he has his own reasons for doing what he does in his own political context – and crudity is a selling point for the mob – but it makes Mr Chavez’s behaviour look unsophisticated and extemporised. February 1st, 2007 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
In light of the recent damage and imminent destruction of the right of habeas corpus in the United States of America, it is with mixed feelings I point out the following observations by James Madison (or possibly Alexander Hamilton) in Federalist Paper 53.
and…
and…
February 1st, 2007 | 24 comments - (Comments are closed)
The row about whether Catholic adoption agencies should be allowed to refuse to give children up to gay couples has already caused a great deal of controversy, and there is a very, smart article on the issue at The Devil’s Kitchen blog which takes a pretty firm libertarian line on the matter. In my view, if a Catholic or any other religious organisation wishes to refuse to hand over children entrusted to it to certain sorts of people on grounds of religious doctrine, then one can certainly object to those views, but they should not be banned, in my view. The problem, however, is that such adoption organisations receive money from the taxpayer: you and me. I am not a Catholic (although my wife is) and I am not happy that I may be financially enabling people to act on views I regard as wrong. This in my view demonstrates the great dangers of encouraging charities to receive tax moneys or indeed to get involved in state initiatives of any kind. By receiving such moneys, these bodies will slowly but surely lose their autonomy. The Catholic charities that are involved in areas like adoption may choose to sever any links with the state apparatus, and I strongly urge them to do so. This government, remember, is one that regards autonomous institutions, be they businesses, charities, or any associations of people, as a threat to its power and designs. It wishes to bend these institutions to its corporatist, collectivist ends. In a sense, this is in fact a profoundly fascist government, in that it maintains the appearance of tolerating private property rights and institutions, but in fact seeks to regulate them so closely as to turn them into empty husks. I hope this whole episode drives home in people’s minds the extent to which civil society, traditionally understood, has been weakened by this government. It was the late Tory MP, Nicholas Budgen I think, who once remarked that NuLabour would no longer seek to nationalise industries. Instead, it would nationalise people. January 31st, 2007 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
First off, a sincere apology for my notable lack of recent contributions. My absence has been caused by the more pressing and time-consuming task of keeping a humble roof over my head. I mean to address this dereliction of duty in future by cutting back on sleep. Anyway, on to juicier matters. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing as simply messing up political careers. Especially in this country and especially now. So, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to nominate my candidate for the day:
So is this menace to society now quivering in fear over the sum of money he will have to pay in fines? Is he polishing his sturdy walking shoes in expectation of an extended driving ban? Is he crippled with guilt and shame about the reckless way that he imperiled other road users and innocent pedestrians? Will he be forced to attend a driver re-education course? Um, no.
What a stroke of good fortune! Obviously the Praetorian Guards were in a generous mood that evening. Perhaps they even bade him on his way with a hearty slap on the back and a nerve-steadying snifter from a hastily produced hipflask. I am not entirely sure that the Guards would be quite so charitable to some lowly unelected serf whose similarly petty infractions are seldom tolerated or excused and are generally regarded as chicken feed for the state mincing machine. But none of that need inconvenience or worry Mr. Turner who is free to resume his soaring career of anti-drink drive (and anti-God-knows-what-else) campaigning with an unimpeachable record and a disinterested fouth estate which is disinclined to risk embarrassing him. But, maybe the blogosphere can play a role here. When Mr. Turner next thrusts his head over the parapet of public affairs (by early next week, I reckon) to press for more driving restrictions, seatbelts on toilets, no hamburgers after 7.00pm, regulations on toenail growth or some such desperately needed and worthwhile initiative, then perhaps a timely and polite e-mail could be sent to Mr. Turner (via his website) to ask if he may spare a thought for the less privileged little people. January 30th, 2007 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
I am back and have been lurking for a bit. I did not intend to post for another week or two. In my initial post I said that occasionally something would cause me to “blow a gasket”: Habeas corpus is that something. Since King John at Runnymede was compelled to accept the Magna Carta, the right of an individual to demand access to judicial process has been the foundation stone of constitutional government.
While I have been away, I have apparently missed some fun jesting about ‘meta-context’. This is a serious example of it. In its simplest and most fundamental way, this is about tribalism. This is about who ‘we’ are. Who we see our selves as. Are we defined by our geographical boundaries? Is ‘American’ a tribal bond? Or are we the citizens of our constitution? Have we charged our government with protecting its own sovereignty and security by exchanging it for that of its citizens? Or have we charged it with protecting all citizens from violation of their personal sovereignty by all powers. Are we, the citizens, not the fundamental reason for our government? If it will not abide by its contract with us, is it truly still our government? At what point does it become an occupying power? It is babies and bathwater. More than that, it is meta-context. Underpinning assumptions about collectivism vs individualism. Did you happen to notice that Attorney General Gonzales singled out individuals and citizens:
→ Continue reading: A bolt between the eyes of constitutional government January 23rd, 2007 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
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. |
|||||