Tuesday
(1)The gods of Samizdata decree that linking to The Times of London is discouraged. But I am going to at least quote from it. Twice.
First, here is William Rees-Mogg on the EU Constitution, but stating a general rule:
So long as our Government takes us for fools, we have every reason to take them for liars.
Meanwhile, my former neighbour Mr George Thomas, on the letters page, demonstrates an application of the rule:
Tony Blair claims that "there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack".He is wrong. If the 20th century teaches us anything it is that the greatest threat to civil liberty comes from governments that have been allowed to exercise excessive power over their own people. The greatest civil liberty is to live securely protected from government intrusion. We have seen that, while terrorists can threaten the lives of hundreds and maybe thousands, governments can oppress and maltreat entire peoples and can do this for decades.
Mr George Thomas sounds like my kind of chap!
I had a letter on the topic in my local rag, not quite so eloquent I'm afraid.
Posted by Mark at March 1, 2005 08:58 PM
How can one ever live "securely protected from government intrusion"? Governments, by definition, have a monopoly on the use of force. You'd need another government to protect you. I'm afraid we're dependent on the government being afraid of the people and grossly incompetent, and only the second characteristic is always true.
Posted by Robert Speirs at March 1, 2005 09:28 PM
A philosopher, commenting on the repressive laws passed in the USA and Britain during WW1 and WW2, said that after each war there was a little less democracy to defend. Looks seriously like there won't be any democracy left to defend after the "war" on terror.
Posted by David at March 1, 2005 10:24 PM
Mr Thomas seems to have grasped the fundamental lesson of the 20th century very clearly. Wouldn't it be wonderful, assuming spiritualism was a valid belief, if the ghosts of all the millions killed by their own governments could appear and march around the legislative halls where some of these collectivists gather to do their worst.
Might give protest marches, or floats, a whole new meaning.
Posted by veryretired at March 2, 2005 12:43 AM
Personally, I feel like I have a better chance of defending myself against terrorists than the government. If allowed to, that is...
Bolie IV
Posted by Bolie Williams IV at March 2, 2005 02:30 PM
Governments, by definition, have a monopoly on the use of force.
This, is of course, the fond wish of every government, and is what they want you to believe, but it is false.
First, of course, you have the right to use force in your own self-defense.
Second, you have the ability and the power to use force whenever and wherever you want (many of these would be both wrong and illegal, but they are contrary to the government "monopoly").
Finally, of course, (and this is arguably a subset of "self-defense") you have the right to use force to overthrow a tyrant.
Posted by R C Dean at March 2, 2005 02:42 PM
"Anyone willing to trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither."
Ben Franklin
Posted by Ellis Gee at March 4, 2005 01:31 AM
You should all consider reading Rees-Mogg's excellent co-authored book, "The soveriegn Individual" excellent reading, a scathingly dim view of the state, and a bright look at the future of individual liberty.
Posted by Stephan at March 4, 2005 10:32 AM
Governments, by definition, have a monopoly on the use of force. This, is of course, the fond wish of every government, and is what they want you to believe, but it is false. First, of course, you have the right to use force in your own self-defense.
A right which is being continuously nibbled away.
Second, you have the ability and the power to use force whenever and wherever you want (many of these would be both wrong and illegal, but they are contrary to the government "monopoly").
Ability vs right?
Finally, of course, (and this is arguably a subset of "self-defense") you have the right to use force to overthrow a tyrant.
Really? Do we still have that right? Wow! I'm quite pleased and surprised.
Posted by Mike at March 8, 2005 10:13 AM
