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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day This entire situation has come about because of State intrusion into matters that should be left to private conscience. It is a consequence of contradictory legislation that tries to protect rights to religious beliefs at the same time as preventing actions that stem from those beliefs. This Government is constructing a State morality backed by legislation. Not only is this wrong in principle – it is a practical impossibility as this situation demonstrates.
– UKIP Chairman John Whittaker commenting last week on the row about gay versus Roman Catholic adoption (with thanks to Peter Briffa for the link)
|
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.
|
Good God, a political comment as from an intelligent adult.
I tried to make a similar comment, though not nearly as well put, in the comments section of a favourite web cartoon.
The immediate reaction from most of the other commenters was that I was defending the Roman Catholic church’s bigotry. (many used somewhat stronger language!)
I am neither a believer in God (s) nor a homophobe. The point I made was that, although I think the RCC is wrong, I defend their right to speak and act on their beliefs – provided those actions do not impinge on anyone elses freedom. There are many other agencies that are quite happy to consider homosexuals as adopting parents.
Whitaker is right. What the hell has this to do with government?
We are being ordered what to think and, you know, its working. Our schools are churning out 1000’s of Blears Youth who do not have the capacity to question and think, only to hate those that disagree with the party line.
I saw the best comment ever from a Lab politician in this week’s Spectator.
“You simply cannot take the view as a minister that being committed to something means it will happen. There is no such thing as autopilot on reform. Autopilot means it stops. The civil service is a great vehicle but it does not motivate itself. Its job is to work to ministerial direction. Where these directions are not there, the thing shudders to a halt. ..The forces that don’t want change are deeply embedded in the system”
Lord Adonis
A concise summary of why Tony’s Nu-Lab project has been a dismal failure.
I see no problem with an adoption agency discriminating against gays, or blacks, or the welsh.
But they shouldn’t get public funding if they do it. The Government has every right to make funding contingent on certain minimum standards of behaviour.
It is my understanding that the Catholic adoption agencies provide a valuable service, but are also very heavily subsidised too. Cheaper than the government ones though.
“Antidiscrimination” regulations apply whether or not taxpayers money is given. As for taxpayers money being given to private adoption agencies (or government run ones for that matter) – my own view is that it should NOT be given (as a libertarian I believe that adoption should be financed voluntarily – which if taxes were lower on the general population, it could be). However if it is going to be handed out “no taxpayers money for bigots” will not fly – as a lot of the taxpayers who had their money taken (by the threat of force) are “bigots” themselves.
The basic priciple is as follows. Freedom of association must include freedom not to associate – otherwise it is no freedom at all.
If, for example, I choose not to associate with blond people (I choose not to employ them or let them on my property – and so on) on the ground of their blond hair that is my choice (to “discriminate” means to “choose”). I may be a fool and and bigot – but my action should not be a matter for the criminal or civil law.
What the government is saying is that people should only be allowed to associate in the way the government COMMANDS they associate.
Sadly Mr David Cameron (the leader of the British “Conservative” party) agrees with the government.
For Mr Cameron “antidiscrimination” trumps freedom of association. That is one of the reasons he is not a conervative (let alone a libertarian). There is no difference of principle between Mr Cameron and Mr Blair.