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]
|
This is a public service announcement to save time for those who would rather get on with irrelevant vituperation and not bother digesting the point of my post: In a moment I’m going to say something positive about Gerry Adams.
First, consider this from The Washington Post:
The government’s terrorist screening database flagged Americans and foreigners as suspected terrorists almost 20,000 times last year. But only a small fraction of those questioned were arrested or denied entry into the United States, raising concerns among critics about privacy and the list’s effectiveness.
A range of state, local and federal agencies as well as U.S. embassies overseas rely on the database to pinpoint terrorism suspects, who can be identified at borders or even during routine traffic stops. The database consolidates a dozen government watch lists, as well as a growing amount of information from various sources, including airline passenger data. The government said it was planning to expand the data-sharing to private-sector groups with a “substantial bearing on homeland security,” though officials would not be more specific.
….
Jayson P. Ahern, deputy commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said focusing on arrests misses “a much larger universe” of suspicious U.S. citizens.
“There are many potentially dangerous individuals who fly beneath the radar of enforceable actions and who are every bit as sinister as those we intercept,” he said.
Gotta love those adjectives: “Potentially dangerous”, not “dangerous”. “Dangerous” would invite the question: How dangerous, exactly? And: What mayhem have these invisible pseudo-threats caused that the forces of security could not have created all by themselves? As for the visibly suspicious, the “sinister”, just how threatening they are is shown up by the US Customs and FBI’s own account – a “small” number of arrests, not necessarily related to terrorism, a number in the hundreds turned back at the airport. Which can happen even if you have been arrested without charge at some other time in your own country and didn’t realise that in consequence you need a visa.
Which brings us to Mr Adams. → Continue reading: State security theatre
Readers will recall the conniptions with which the UK Government and its media proxies met a Conservative policy paper from John Redwood (not actually a party policy) recommending reductions in red-tape.
The horror was Mr Redwood projected to reduce the compliance burden on business by approximately £14 billion. No cut in public spending was mentioned. Given the way bureaucracy works, removing inspections and forms does not necessarily mean reducing the number of inspectors and form-monitors.
Now comes some analysis that shows both sides were making a fuss about nothing. The way the current government operates, £14 billion is peanuts – roughly the annual rise in the direct cost to the general taxpayer and the regulatee of new bureaucracies. Lets not attempt to count compliance costs. No-one else has. But the Economic Research Council has been doing some sums.
As reported in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph (and appearing shortly on the ERC site):
[T]he cost of executive agencies, advisory bodies, independent monitoring boards and other quangos has mushroomed under New Labour. Spending on such agencies soared to £167.5billion in 2006, up from £24.1bn in 1998. Research revealed for the first time this weekend shows that over the past two years ministers have created 200 quangos.
Now there is a wrinkle here that seems to have been sidestepped by The Telegraph and the ERC: much of that increase is reclassification combined with expansion, particularly of chunks of the NHS. Reclassification is also a ratchet device – it puts bits of government machinery beyond ready scrutiny by calling them independent and lets them be pumped up independently of the departmental budget. But nonetheless it means the Tories, had they the nerve (and if they thought it would work as a political strategy), should have no difficulty in promising £50 billion in actual tax cuts, with the lifting of any compliance burden mere spin-off, rather than the main event. You can make your own list of favourites for culling from this document [3.5Mb pdf], though reading a 372-page list of official bodies may be a distressing experience.
It may also be funny, for those with a sick sense of humour. This body does not appear to spend anything, yet, though there is provision for £200,000 a year in state funding, and administering its existence and listing must cost something:
National Community Forum.
The Community Forum acts as a sounding board and critical friend to ministers and senior managers in DCLG. Members provide a ‘grass-roots’ perspective on the way neighbourhood renewal and other policies impact on local communities. Especially in relation to community participation and empowerment. They also provide valuable insights and information based in their first-hand experience of living and working in deprived neighbourhoods.
Established 2002. The NFC has not been ‘reviewed’ by the department, but they have just completed a two year evaluation which is about to be discussed by the board and will be placed on the website.
It is not that “you couldn’t make it up”. Most writers of fiction would be ashamed to invent anything so banal in its pointlessness. Whatever happened to mandarin prose?
James Porter, the headmaster of a private school, has been convicted over the death of a three year old child who fell from some playground steps and died. The implications of this monstrous and truly idiotic ruling are that soon visits to the playground will become a thing of the past unless the students are wearing safety helmets and body armour and are supervised by a team of lawyers at all times.
It is a tragedy that a young child died after jumping down a few stairs but that is just the way life is… sometimes it ends in premature death for no good reason other that children are wont to act like children. That is sad but it is also not just no one’s fault, it is entirely acceptable as life has its casualties and to blame this teacher is truly, truly monstrous.
Of course it cannot have helped that James Porter made the supremely sensible but very politically politically incorrect statement that “[Children] need to learn how to move in any given situation in a way that will protect them from injury. If they don’t have that facility, if we simply wrap them in cotton wool, they will never learn that lesson.”
But never mind that everyone seems to agree that there was nothing unusually unsafe or in any way exceptional about this particular flight of steps, this man has been found guilty under some preposterous health and safety regulations regardless. We seem to be heading down the enervating and idiotic path blazed by the United States in which every mishaps has to be someone else’s fault regardless of common sense or natural justice. Appalling.
In his defence of classical liberalism and critique of 20th Century state welfarism, F.A. Hayek argued that one of the dangers of socialised medicine (Michael Moore, please note) is that if health care is not rationed by price and expanded by the freely chosen actions of patients and doctors, then some other means of allocating scarce resources, and making them hopefully less scarce, will be needed. That “other” way is state coercion and control. Because healthcare is delivered in Britain free at the point of use – of course it is not free at all – the individual patient does not directly see the price of the health care he or she receives, such as in the form of an insurance premium. There is no price incentive, therefore, for a person to, say, cut out smoking, cut the beer and the beef burgers, get in shape by frequenting a gym, etc.
I wrote some time ago about the scarcity of human organs such as kidneys and livers, and how much of the western world suffers from a strange form or hypocrisy: we say it is great that people volunteer to donate organs (the libertarian writer Virginia Postrel has done just that by donating a kidney to a friend) but we recoil in horror at the idea that a person might ever be persuaded to sell an organ or be paid for such a donation, even though there is, in some countries, a commercial market in the business of using such organs and the related human tissue. (There is some legitimate worry that very poor people who do not realise the health implications might undergo surgery to sell their body parts, to be fair).
I thought again about such mixed attitudes when I saw the front page of the Sunday Times this morning:
THE chief medical officer wants everyone to be treated as organ donors after death unless they explicitly opt out of the scheme.
Sir Liam Donaldson believes the shortage of kidneys, livers and hearts is so acute that the country needs a donation system that will presume patients have given consent for their body parts to be transplanted.
Those who wanted to opt out would have to register in a similar way to those who now carry organ donor cards. This could be done through a central NHS database or through other documentation, such as driving licences.
But ranting away about the presumptious tendencies of a state doctor is all very well for relieving a bit of blood pressure, but there clearly is a problem with shortages of organs and how to save the lives of people in desperate need. Donation, either for no money or for a payment (with safeguards, if need be), can work only so far. We need to encourage biotechnological fixes: and a good place to see what sort of fixes might be out there is this interesting study by Ronald Bailey.
The doctors are right to highlight that there is a problem, but how less depressing would it be if they could think about ways of solving it without recourse to asuming that your body belongs to the collective, just for once.
They never give up. An article nicely slams attempts by UK neo-Malthusians to get us all frightened about the terrible idea of people wanting to have babies. Selfish, cruel to the Planet Earth, a drain on “resources”: you know the litany. Here’s an excerpt from the article, which I recommend:
Of all the bogeys you might have thought well and truly nailed in the past decade or so, the population control movement seemed most obviously to have a stake through its heart. At a time when we – I mean, anyone over 35 – are all horribly conscious that there won’t be enough taxpayers to support us in gin and cigarettes in our old age, the very last thing we need to worry about is excess population growth. On the contrary: as seen from the dinner party circuit, the real crisis is the difficulty for female graduates in getting anyone to breed with. Forty per cent of women graduates don’t have a single baby at the age of 35.
Quite. The obsession with their being “too many” people (quite how anyone can work that out is a mystery) is something I find rather malevolent. In any event, as the writer quoted makes clear, it seems a bit weird for the population worriers to go on about supposedly high birthrates when in fact a lot of recent commentary – from the likes of Mark Steyn – has tended to suggest quite the opposite. Indeed, Steyn and others argue that the indigenous population of western Europe, or parts of it, is stagnating and birthrates have fallen below the replacement level (the level required to maintain a stable level). And of course, to enforce strict population controls, even if it makes any kind of sense (it does not) begs the question of how. Does it require China-style policies that lead to mass abortions and an imbalance between girls and boys? I ask these questions now because while watching the BBC television show this morning as I got ready for work, I saw some middle-aged, white-haired woman, a sort of genteel Rosa Klebb, arguing very emphatically against large families. The BBC hosts gave her only the most gentle of grillings. Sitting next to her on the couch was a black couple with 8 children (and very happy and relaxed they looked). The grey-haired lady made all kinds of claims that big families “put too much stress on the planet” and completely dismissed any idea that low population growth, or decline, was a problem. The issue of how to pay for an increasingly ageing workforce and the pressures on pension systems was also dismissed.
In the end of the day, rational debate works only so far with these fanatics. Some of them look quite nice, they wear suits or woolly jumpers, but their demand for state power over the most intimate aspects of your life – having children and raising a family – is implacable. They haven’t gone away.
This thread features TimC comparing unenforced laws to fence posts without the panels.
Here is a clear example of an uninstalled panel.
A vicar who lit his pipe in a Kent police station as a protest against the smoking ban has failed in his attempt to get himself arrested.
The totalitarians typically begin each step by enforcing it against those who garner the least sympathy. Clearly a pipe smoking vicar is too sympathetic of a target this early on. Beginning with social outcasts, progressively less unpopular targets are chosen for enforcement until the ‘Why should ___ be allowed a ‘privilege’ that I am not?’ argument takes over.
And notice that in a five word headline about the vicar’s smoking protest, BBC managed to use the words “unholy”, “stunt” and “failed”.
On this day, 231 years ago, thirteen colonies declared themselves to be thirteen states.
Less known is that Thomas Jefferson wrote the “original Rough draught” of that declaration. Today is a good occasion to read in that rough draft what the full scope of grievances were before the representatives “in General Congress assembled” took the pen and scissors to it to assure unanimous support.
The last paragraph is the final treason of a treasonous document and had we lost the war that ensued, the greatest thinkers, doers and leaders of this continent would certainly have been executed for the crime of attempting the liberty of self determination.
We therefore the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled do, in the name & by authority of the good people of these states, reject and renounce all allegiance & subjection to the kings of Great Britain & all others who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve & break off all political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us & the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independant states, and that as free & independant states they shall hereafter have power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, & to do all other acts and things which independant states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, & our sacred honour.
Like they say, read the whole thing. It wasn’t just about tax. It wasn’t even primarily about tax. Some of the grievances have returned to us in force today and are worse perpetrated today by the government in Washington than they were by the government in Britain when this document was written. But some of the grievances may come as a surprise, particularly to some of you feeling the colonization by the EU. That is EU ‘colony‘ as in definition 2.
In the Daily Telegraph of Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007 there is the following letter from Lesie Watson of Swansea (in Wales).
Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all introduced smoking bans without problems. But we read “thousands of smokers defy [English] ban” (report, July 2). What does this say about the English?
If the report is true Lesie, it means that there is still sometimes a reason to be proud to be English.
This comment was left by a person calling herself Jasmine, responding to Sam Leith’s fine piece bemoaning the attitude of mind that led to the UK smoking ban in privately-owned places:
Has it occured to you that this is a nanny state because we need nannying? I don’t think anyone can dispute that smoking is not good for you. I read somewhere that having a smoking “section” is like having a peeing “section” in a swimming pool. It’s just not enough to have a partial ban and wait for the natural goodness of people who simply don’t know any better, to stop. They need to be forced to stop.
A question I would put to this woman, and quite a few of the other control-freaks out there is this: what gives you the right to tell an adult that he or she should adjust their habits for “their own good”? Does Jasmine think of herself as being some sort of god? Has it never occurred to these people that their obsessive desire to regulate all aspects of existence is in fact a sign of a deep psychological problem, which needs to be fixed?
The most invidious part of ‘health authoritarianism’ is that it takes a very reasonable aspect of a state’s responsibility, that of defending against the truly collective threat of infectious plagues, and debases it to interfere with non-infectious diseases which only pose a risk to people who voluntarily enter private property where certain very obvious conditions pertain.
And so we have the smoking ban on enclosed non-residential private property in Britain being imposed by classifying private property as ‘public places’. Never mind that you do not have to enter that privately owned property if you do not like the smell of it, or that the owners should be able to exclude people they want to exclude (such as smokers or for that matter, non-smokers) or that employees who do not like the working conditions can quit and go work somewhere else.
No, the political class loves the idea of eliminating emergent civil society and extending political control ever deeper into people’s lives (this is usually described as making things “more democratic”), and the idea that private property is actually private is an intolerable obstacle to those whose world view is based on violence backed control of the lives of others.
Many people have a deep seated psychological need to see others controlled, not because they are genuinely threatened by them but because they simply get off on controlling other people. The world is full of curtain twitching busy bodies who feel enlivened by calling down the power of the state on those of whom they disapprove for no other reason that it ’empowers’ them (it used to be ‘queers’ who got reported, now it is different types of nonconformists). No totalitarian system that has ever come to power has been able to sustain itself for long without appealing to this all too common psychologically defective demographic, relying on denouncement and informers to perpetuate a political order.
And the only way to resist is to, well, resist. Find ways not to obey the rules. Subvert the meaning of statutes. Do not accept the ‘rightness’ of the prevailing bigotries. Speak out against the orthodoxies of though that underpin the control freaks. Call them what they are. Just find ways to be awkward, find ways not to cooperate, and confront those who assume they on on the moral higher ground and pour contempt on their world view. Just do not meekly cooperate.
Kilt wearers could face prosecution if they do not have a licence for their sporran under new legislation which has been introduced in Scotland.
I’ve just heard the latest news
I’m not impressed and I’m nae amused
They say if I want my kilt to use
I’m going to need a licence
Let the wind blow high, let the wind blow low,
Through the streets in my kilt I’ll go,
And all the lassies shout hello
Donald, where’s your licence?
I tried to fill in all their forms
Tae get approval for my sporrans
But there’s too many beasties coats I’ve worn
So I will’nae get a licence
Let the wind blow high, let the wind blow low,
Through the streets in my kilt I’ll go,
And all the lassies shout hello
Donald, where’s your licence?
From the Isle of Mull to the Forth and Clyde
I always wear my kilt with pride
I’ve centuries of history on my side
So why do I need a licence?
Let the wind blow high, let the wind blow low,
Through the streets in my kilt I’ll go,
And all the lassies shout hello
Donald, where’s your licence?
They’d prosecute me if they can
But I’m nae scared of their stupid ban
You can’nae put the brakes on a Highland man
And they can stick their bloody licence!!
Let the wind blow high, let the wind blow low,
Through the streets in my kilt I’ll go,
And all the lassies shout hello
Donald, where’s your licence?
You really couldn’t invent this if you tried. Or at least I couldn’t. It is real ad, from the Guardian Online:
Smokefree Coordinator
Organisation: ENFORCEMENT JOBS
Salary: £26- £28 p/h
Date posted: 31 May 2007
Closing date: 30 Jun 2007
A formidable position has a risen for a Smokefree Coordinator.
The role will involve the implementation of the smoke free action plan. This will involve report writing and presentation, training, giving advice and information to stakeholders of council primary care trust (PCT), and the business community. Preference will be given to candidates who have previous projects experience.
The ideal candidate will have excellent communicative and interpersonal skills and be confident in delivering a project plan.
We require candidates who have been a Environmental Health Officer or other Health Practioner. Otherwise a professional with a history of working within a council. A good understanding of the enforcement issues around Environmental and Consumer Protection Law. Must have knowledge of current developments around smoke free legislation.
The contract is for a 6 month period, due to the level of experience required for this is paying between £26-£28 p/h.
Enforcement Jobs is a member of the Red Snapper Recruitment Group and acts as both an Employment Agency and Employer .The Red Snapper Recruitment Group is an equal opportunities employer
The government scheme to ban smoking in public places in Britain is currently reported as about £100 million over budget, at somewhere in the region of £1.6 billion. But I am not sure that counts local government expenditure, which this is.
|
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.
|
