(0) (10)

Or more accurately, the day after the night before. Two separate parties yesterday involving a large contingent of Samizdatistas has resulted in rather meagre output today.

Proper decorum was observed at all times



Brian Linse, our pet pinko from California crashed
the party yet again and chatted up everything female



Sober discourse was the byword at this gathering as usual

Normal output will resume tomorrow...

(0) (4)

I came across this little comment on man's foibles in the middle of the chaos known collectively as "the holidays". At the time I couldn't do more than check the validity of the article which, I'm sorry to say, was accurate. While the date would now classify it blogospherically speaking as an archeological anecdote, I felt the issue it addresses is still poignant.

This article appeared in a local US newspaper on Nov. 15, 2002 but it's importance may well be global.

Absolutely the Least Substantial Reason for a Knife Fight:
Police in Mansfield Township and Hackettstown, N.J., charged Emmanuel Nieves, 23, with aggravated assault on Nov. 13 after he allegedly slashed the face of his friend Erik Saporito, 21, as the two men fought after arguing over which one had more hair on his buttocks. [Express-Times (Easton, Pa.), 11-15-02]

As with any criminal act, there is something we as a society can learn. The lesson here is obvious: the bruised male ego can be a violent thing.

The more tickilish question, and the one we must answer if we are to prevent future attacks of this kind, is what finally triggered the assault? Was it ridicule (ha ha. your butt's hairer than mi-ine!) or was it envy (my butt's hairer than yours! nah na nahna na.)?

Its a sensitive issue.

(0) (7)

This is a terrific idea, and this is how nytimes.com reported it (scroll down to where is says "Sam's blog"):

A new online diary made its debut on Jan. 1. Yes, there are already millions of such personal Web sites. But this diary belongs to Samuel Pepys, who lived from 1633 to 1703, long before "Weblog" cracked the lexicon.

Pepys (pronounced peeps), a British naval administrator, was a compulsive diarist who recorded his life in detail for nine years beginning on New Year's Day 1660. The resulting diary is the most comprehensive personal account of life in the 17th century. The site, The Diary of Samuel Pepys (pepysdiary.com), posts Pepys's entries in a Weblog format as if they had just been written - a new one is added each day - with the goal of allowing people to read along for nine years.

Phil Gyford, a Web developer in London, set up the site because he had always wanted to read the diary but found it "daunting and uninviting" in its long form. "I haven't read much further ahead than what's on the site," he said by e-mail. "I'm enjoying reading it along with everyone else."

Mr. Gyford also had the inspired idea of allowing site visitors to annotate the entries. The annotations can be personal comments or explanations proffered for obscure terms and historical references. The result is like reading a book along with a group of clued-in friends.

Still, Pepys should not be taken as a model by today's online diarists. Although "Pepys's diary shows us that the smallest of everyday details can be fascinating a few hundred years in the future," Mr. Gyford said, "I wouldn't want to encourage Webloggers to put even more of the details of their lives online."

Gyford started this project on January 1st of this year. Pepys himself started on January 1st 1660. To make a start yourself, go here and scroll down.

I have a small personal link to all this through the late Robert Latham, one of the editors of the latest edition of the Pepys Diaries, and, it seems pretty generally agreed, the best and most complete one. Before going to Magdalene College Cambridge to work on Pepys full time, Robert Latham, a memorably jolly man as well as a great scholar, was a Professor at Royal Holloway College, Englefield Green, which was a walk away from my childhood home, the Lathams and Micklethwaits being good friends. Robert Latham's son went to the same preparatory school as me and my elder brother.

I wonder what Robert Latham would have made of this project. He might have had mixed feelings, because the edition that Gyford is using is, alas, not his, but an earlier and less complete one, simply because only the earlier one is now out of copyright.

I've always meant to read Pepys but have never quite got around to it. This is my chance. All sorts of people are congratulating Gyford for having embarked on this project, but Pepys himself kept at it for nine years, and I will save my heartiest congratulations for the year 2012 when Gyford is scheduled to complete the job. So far he's managed just over a fortnight of it.

(0) (3)

Those concerned with legislative attempts to alter society may find this article on cnn.com interesting. It concerns recent and current efforts to have toy guns outlawed because they are sometimes used to commit real crimes. Even worse, the perpetrators of toy gun crimes sometimes end up really dead when their victim turns out to be a cop who reacts by defending himself with lethal force.

Surprisingly, the idea was discussed that the real issue is not the prop used but the criminal intent of the assailant. Personally, I take that as a given. If a perpetrator knowingly engages in an illegal activity it does not matter what is chosen as the crime enabler of choice. While it may engender discussion, the issue is not the criminal misuse of toy guns.

The real issue is why do lawmakers want to remove toys resembling guns from society?

The immediate answer is social engineering. This is a conclusion reached not only through logical thinking, but also through the words of the two city councilmen who have introduced a bill to ban toy guns in New York. One likens toy guns to toy cigarettes. Given the increasingly pervasive and invasive bans on smoking, it is not hard to see where that leads. The other, Albert Vann, is even more blatant when he states

"If they use toy guns there's a greater chance they'll graduate to the real thing when they grow up."

(0) (11)

According to this report in the UK Times (not linked as subscription required for non-UK readers), President Bush is forging ahead in his confrontation with American trial lawyers:

"President Bush opened an assault on America’s litigious culture yesterday, saying that a deepening healthcare crisis could be solved only by curbs on patient lawsuits.

Calling for caps on jury awards to patients injured by doctors, Mr Bush said that the American instinct to sue was breaking the system.

“There are too many lawsuits in America, and there are too many lawsuits filed against doctors and hospitals without merit,” he said."

From what I understand, trial lawyers in America are only marginally more popular than the Taliban so Mr.Bush should have ample public support in his showdown with them.

Whilst putting a mandatory cap on jury awards (which is the proposal) perhaps Mr.Bush might do as well to look at the entire concept of 'punitive damages' which can be awarded against a Defendant in negligence claim on top of the actual compensation paid to the Plaintiff. As far as I can tell, punitive damages are a means of punishing a Defendant for the negligence and lead breathtakingly high jury awards in medical damages cases.

Genuine cases of negligence, be they medical or otherwise, should always be actionable but it is my view that the concept of punitive damages constitutes a zealous over-egging of the pudding. Negligence is not crime and should not be 'punished'. Similarly, a Plaintiff who has suffered loss and damage should be rightfully compensated but not rewarded. Recourse to law should be a matter of both necessity and justice not a warped form of entrepreneurship for both claimants and their legal representatives.

In my view that situation in the UK preferable. Whilst it is true that the litigious culture has blossomed in this country over recent years, nonetheless damages awards are maintained at only a fraction of their US equivalents. This is because there is no recognition of 'punitive damages' in the UK system. The purpose of a claim here is to 'make the Plaintiff whole' i.e. to put the Plaintiff into the position he or she was in immediately before the negligence occurred. There is also a compensation element for pain and suffering as a result of medical or other negligent damage but these are awarded on the basis of the Plaintiff's provable condition not as a means of penalising the Defendant.

The further advantage of the UK system is that there is no jury for civil trials (except Defamation cases) and therefore both the verdict and damages are decided upon by a Judge. This does not entirely remove the 'sympathy' element influential in many claims but does keep it in some sort of check as all Judges are bound by both guidelines and precedents. Judges can push at this envelope but not discard it altogether.

That said, I wish Mr.Bush the best of luck in his campaign. As a lawyer myself, I am concerned that the popular view of the legal system as a kind of 'get-rich-quick' lottery to be, at best, distasteful and, at worst, socially and economically damaging.

(0) (0)

The wonders of capitalism, or the false needs of the alienating consumer society? This gadget is designed to fulfill a role which is obviously important in badly ventilated homes and offices.

The question I would like to know is, does this methane filter reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore should it be made compulsory under the terms of the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty?

Three pints of gas a day for an average person? You mean it's more for politicians?

(0) (11)

For the last month or more I have been paying occasional visits to Michael Jennings's blog. One day a picture of him appeared at the top, making him look alarmingly like the bearded bloke on They Think It's All Over. And then it was there at the top the next day, and the next, and I jumped to the conclusion that he was on holiday and not blogging, because if he was blogging, the photo would have moved down, and have been replaced by further entries. Or so I deduced. But, I do sometimes get matters intenetted slightly wrong (see the comments). It turns out that under the picture he'd been blogging away like a mad thing.

Yesterday, for example, with an unerring eye for the main story, he focussed in on the alleged doom facing the banana. Apparently, bananas are all clones of each other, which means that they can't do evolution properly, which means that they are now about to be completely wiped out. This was national news in Britain yesterday, and for all I know, everywhere else that bananas are cared about.

Michael notes the supposedly ferocious consumer resistance in Europe to genetic engineering, but goes on to note that banana-wise Europeans – Germans in particular – may face an agonising choice.

Actually this could be interesting. Imagine the scene in 2012. Normal bananas are extinct. Those of us who have been following the ongoing EU banana war for the last couple of decades know that the Germans have an almost legendary appetite for bananas. It may be that they will be faced with a choice: accept genetically modified bananas, or move to some other fruit. My money is on the genetically modified bananas.

Michael also had a posting at the beginning of the month about cricket. For Zimbabwean mass murder reasons I want the entire blogosphere immediately to become fascinated about this strange game, and it can plug itself into an elaborate discussion via Michael's posting about which international cricket side was the best ever, who the all time best Australian (and English and West Indian) side(s) would consist of, and so on, also involving Iain Murray. And then when all of blogdom everywhere is lusting to watch the World Cup, others whom we have also been instructing, but this time on the political dimension of this tournament, can dig up all the pitches.

(0) (0)

Back when I was running an ISP here in Belfast, I was a regular reader and occasional poster on an email list about business in Eastern Europe. Steve Carlson, the list founder, moved with the times and the list expanded to general European internet business discussions; it spun off First Tuesday meetings all over Europe; then it became nowEurope, a more tightly edited Digest...

And now it's a blog. They've got some good writers who have been involved with it from the beginning. I sort of dropped out as I moved on to other things. Well, truthfully, 90% of my writing goes to Samizdata now. So there!

The nowEurope blog looks interesting, but I hope they soon learn how important cross linking is: they currently are pretty stand-alone. So visit them and urge them to join the community.

(1) (2)

It is certainly true that modern civilization has created environmental problems, but the key enviromental issue is addressed in this one question. Is our technology's ability to solve environmental problems advancing faster than are the environmental problems themselves?
- Michael Jennings

(0) (9)

In some cases, it is a heavy price.

The Swordsman, Iain Murray, one of the brightest stars in the blogging firmament, has just been summarily dismissed from his job:

"My employment was terminated this morning, with this blog stated as the reason.

It sounds like he has been treated very shabbily indeed. He has a wife and a small child so, if you can, please make your way over to his blog and leave something in the tip-jar. If you unable to do that, then at least let him know that you care.

(0) (5)

This is the first occasion upon which I have picked out a comment for further comment, as it were, but this comment from Natalie Solent sharply claimed my attention:

"Just possibly the miracle may have been helped along by the power of the blogosphere. Er, specifically, by me."

The 'miracle' that Natalie is referring to is the appearance of a vigourously pro-gun essay by Professor Joyce Malcolm on the website of the BBC and which I have blogged about euphorically here.

The part that Natalie might well have played in this moment of glory is set out in greater detail on Biased BBC:

"Dare we at Biased BBC hope that we had some role in its appearance? It is possible! The BBC's clutch of articles published on the subject last October were, in their utter failure to even consider why anyone might oppose gun control (other than through an idolatrous reverence for every word of the US constitution), a disgrace to the BBC Charter. I fisked them with all the brio I could muster, and quite a few blogs linked to the fisking. I then sent the url to Prof. Malcolm, whose e-mail address I found at the bottom of an article about British media perceptions of gun crime published about the same time. She was kind enough to reply, so we may have helped bring to her attention a specific and recent example of a point she has long made, that the British media ignore the case against gun control. On the BBC side of the equation, we do know by various small indications that the Beeb's watchful eyes do occasionally fall upon this site, so perhaps someone was stung by the realisation that one significant strand of opinion had been very ill served."

Well, perhaps Professor Malcolm had already decided to write her essay and perhaps the BBC had decided, in any event, to make some concession to the other side of the argument. But I prefer to think that Natalie's efforts did not go unrewarded. It gives me a delicious frisson of satisfaction to think that maybe one of us Lilliputians tied down the broadcasting Gulliver if only for a brief while.

It also illustrates the importance of communicating ideas and weaving the gossamer fine networks between sane, intelligent people who, whilst still acting individually, can eventually set off an avalanche. From the BBC to Natalie to Joyce Malcolm and back to the BBC. Thanks to the net, those degrees of separation get smaller all the time.

(0) (8)

As the potential military conflict with Iraq draws near, all sorts of weird things come out of woodwork. For example, some of them are planning a D-Day for the 'peace' movement in Europe and United States on 15th February. Andrew Burgin, spokesman for Britain's Stop the War Coalition expects record numbers on the day at the biggest anti-war demonstration London has ever seen, all marching under a "Don't attack Iraq" banner.

"The message is a simple one: no war against Iraq for any reason, whether the United Nations supports an attack or not."

I am aware that the public opinion in Europe is at best divided over an attack on Iraq and in most countries - Britain and France included - is against by a wide margin if an invasion is not supported by the United Nations. However illogical that position might be, I have grown used to fighting it and nowadays it leaves me cold, merely a reminder of human stupidity. But "no war, for any reason"?! Who are these people?

The aim of the Coalition should be very simple: to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against 'terrorism'.

When I looked at the list of supporters of the Stop the War Coalition, I found many of our old 'friends' from CND, assorted Marxist trade unions, and other institutions where 'idiotarians' like to congregate. Just a few rich pickings:

George Galloway MP, Harold Pinter (playwright), Lindsey German (Editor, Socialist Review), Paul Foot (journalist), George Monbiot (journalist), Tariq Ali (broadcaster), Liz Davies (Socialist Alliance), Dave Nellist (Socialist Party), John Rees (Editor, International Socialism), Will Self (writer), Germaine Greer (writer)...

These are just a few whose names have either been pilloried on this blog or the names of institution they belong to speak for themselves. What really gets me going is that these people confidently claim and occupy the moral highground in protesting against war with Iraq (notice how even the phrase 'war on Iraq' suggests aggression from our side; as far as I am concerned Iraq is at war with us and has been for some time, thanks to its megalomaniac leader).

They will satisfy their flaccid social consciences by making themselves 'feel good' about having the courage to stand up for things that everyone else is against like peace and justice and brotherhood... [hums the tune to Tom Lehrer's song: We are the Folk Song Army, Everyone of us cares, We all hate poverty, war and injustice, Unlike the rest of you squares...] It's an old communist, leftist, tranzi...etc technique. Grab them by their emotions and you are sure to be followed by those without reason.

What would these people say about fighting Hitler and the Nazi Germany or indeed about any aggressor attacking its neighbours and posing threat to the world? How do they square history with their idiotic demand to oppose war against Iraq for any reason? I fear that security and defence are meaningless concepts to such ideologues, what matters is that they get to call demonstrations against the US and be anti-American with a 'noble' message to boot. What joy!

On the other end of the table, we have the likes of Major Peter Ratcliffe, who won the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his role in the Scud base attack leading the crack Alpha One Zero squad behind enemy lines. He believes Britain should support any American military action in Iraq and describes anti-war critics in Tony Blair’s government as traitors:

"Tony Blair vowed to support America in the war on terrorism. He said: ‘Whatever it takes’. I see no reason why he should go back on that. Those who now say otherwise - old Labour lefties like Clare Short and Tam Dalyell, the pacifists, those now turning on Blair - they’re traitors.

Few doubted at the time of the Gulf War that Saddam’s true goal was to become a ruler of the Muslim world in the Middle East. There is no reason to believe that goal has changed. He is a megalomaniac. Saddam wants to dominate the Middle East, he wants to terrorise the world. His own people revile him.

Hussein has always vowed to avenge himself on America. His people suffer more, not less, because Saddam Hussein is allowed to remain in power. And they will continue to do so until he is removed. And no amount of hand-wringing, no amount of international aid, no amount of windy wobbling will change that fact.

Nobody likes war. Nobody enters a war recklessly, without deadly serious consideration of all the facts. Everyone would prefer to stay at home and hope for a political solution. But the fact is that there isn’t one.

Soldier's words, honest and direct. They also carry far more weight as they are uttered by someone who fought to protect us and the society we live in.

(0) (4)

The famous cartoon mouse is far too busy making money for the Disney company to waste his time on a BSc in "Golf-Course Management" or "Decision-Making". However, higher education minister Margaret Hodge has finally noticed the proliferation of ridiculously silly publically-funded university courses, identified them as "Mickey Mouse Degrees" and promised to solve the problem!

Even the Guardian can't resist making fun:

"There are the apparent oxymorons - turfgrass science, amenity horticulture, surf and beach management and the BSc from Luton University in decision-making, which begs the cheap but irresistible observation, how did those on the course manage to make the decision to take it in the first place?"

But has New Labour got some right ideas for once? Have they finally decided that market forces and the education system should meet?

"...students themselves will ensure that what is offered by universities not just meets their aspirations but also meets labour market needs," [Margaret Hodge] told a seminar in London organised by the Institute for Public Policy Research"

Well, no. Because actually, it shouldn't actually be any of their business what universities do, because they shouldn't be funding them in the first place, whereupon students would be obliged to be much more careful in their choice of how to spend their first three years after school than they are now. Perhaps some might even not go to university at all! But that would be a terrible blow to the government's Ten-Year-Plan to keep as many young able-bodied people as possible well away from the workplace:

"The Government remained committed to its target of higher education for 50 per cent of under-30s by 2010."

Actually, all the government is doing about their embarrassing joke-degree problem is trying to ban more things. This isn't going to help. Anyone can ban things if they use enough coercion: but the real answer is to make those libertarian economic reforms and then just watch the students abandon ship as the daft degrees suffer a slow and painful death... Madonna studies, feminist ice-skating theory, cross-dressing, nail varnish and citizenship, and all their loyal leftie practitioners disappearing down the post-communist rabbit-hole once and for all.

But don't hold your breath just yet. Not until you have a proper PhD in Underwater Oxygen Management first, at least.

(2) (4)

A change is as good as a rest, they say, and since I have made something of a custom of reporting and commenting upon all the gloomy news emanating from and occuring in this country, I can enjoy a brief rest and kindle a flickering light amidst the miasma of despair.

It gives me no small amount of pride to note that the British still possess a spark of creativity sufficient to produce interesting developments like this:

"An innovative radio that lets you listen to internet stations anywhere in the home has been showcased at the world's largest consumer technology event in Las Vegas.

The GlobalTuner InTune200 is a small portable radio that connects to a computer wirelessly, providing access to any music on the PC or to thousands of internet radio stations.

PDT, the Manchester-based company that developed the portable player, says it could be just the thing to persuade more people to sign up for high-speed internet services."

I love technological advances for their own sake but this one strikes me as having some potentially important consequences. We all know how libertarian and conservative views, having been squeezed out of the mainstream media, have flowered on the internet, to the extent that some even argue that they dominate the medium. Well, I can neither prove nor entirely dismiss that assertion but I am willing to stand by the claim that the 'anti-idiotarian' internet-bloc is both vast and growing.

With that in mind, the next logical development, as best I can see, is for a number of these voices to move up to internet radio. Indeed, I note with delight that some already have. How auspicious that, just as a tactical move from typing to talking may be afoot, along comes a consumer durable product that will enable internet radio to explode the way analogue broadcast radio did a century ago.

I wonder what music we shall play on Radio Samizdata?

(0) (9)

I read an article a few weeks back, in the Guardian I believe, which consisted of a lament about the lack of originality or creativity in British TV comedy production these days. I cannot remember exactly who or what the writer felt was to blame for this state of affairs (America, probably) but I have my own theory. I believe that no comedy writer in Britain could possibly produce anything as farcical as real-life:

"Former Scotland footballer Duncan Ferguson is being investigated by police over allegations he assaulted a man burgling his home on Merseyside."

It wouldn't surprise me if every burglar, mugger and bag-snatch in this country is going to routinely claim to have been assaulted, confident in the knowledge that their claims will be taken seriously. Burglars are rapidly becoming a 'victim' class.

"However, the criminal has accused the 6ft 4in former Rangers player of assaulting him during the confrontation.

Merseyside Police are investigating the allegation and officers will speak to Ferguson in the near future."

Even assuming the allegation proves to be true, I doubt that Mr.Ferguson will actually be prosecuted. At least, I sincerely hope not. But, what are the odds on the burglar making a claim for damages for alleged breach of his Heeeeeeewwwmin Rights?

(0) (4)

Another Brian, the Rev. Brian Chapin, calls this collection of 174 newspaper front pages from 26 countries around the world "the coolest thing I've ever seen on the internet". That may be an exaggeration, but it is a nice thing to be able to see.

You can't actually read the text on these front pages, although of course you can read the headlines. The images aren't detailed enough for that. But you can go from each front page to the website of each newspaper featured.

I'm not sure if the front pages that appear are updated each day. I'm guessing yes. Perhaps a commenter can clarify.

STOP PRESS: I went back, when checking that the link worked, and yes it is today's front pages. The clue was in the title of the webpage, which, I now note, is: "Today's Front Pages." We Samizdatistas don't miss a thing, do we? (Don't answer that.)

(0) (17)

For the first time in a long while I am prepared, temporarily at least, to suspend my animus towards the BBC. When they are prepared to publish an article called 'Why Britain needs more guns' by the outstanding Joyce Lee Malcolm then they have earned a respite from my relentless hostility. Nay, they may even by the worthy recipients of a nod of appreciation.

"The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.

First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs."

Amen to that. Testify, Sister Joyce!!

And, yes, it is on the BBC website. No word of a lie. Go and check the link yourself if you don't believe me. Yes, you could have knocked me down with a feather as well.

Since they have invited comments from their readers this will give ample opportunity for the British ones to rant, scream, pull out their hair, void their bowels and otherwise hissy-fit themselves into a cocked hat. But that doesn't matter because the truth has been spoken and it's out there in black-and-white for every anti-self-defence nut to see and try, in vain, to rebut.

This is a good start. In fact, and I don't want to runoff at the mouth here or jump the gun (pun gleefully intended) but I do believe that we could be getting just a little bit of traction with this issue. About bloody time, too.

(0) (5)

You may find me one day dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll find me in a pile of brass.
- Trooper M. Padgett

(0) (44)

Whilst Samizdata.net is not trying to start a flame war with LewRockwell.com, it would be fair to say that once we stray out of the area of economics, we disagree with them fairly consistantly on issues of war and peace. Alan Forrester adds his views on the subject.

One of my favourite ways of thinking about libertarianism is that we ought to have libertarian institutions because people are ignorant. I'm not misanthropic, it's just that outside a very narrow range of expertise people tend to know nothing and this ignorance means that we should strive to have a world in which people can offer advice to each other without making it compulsory. Interestingly enough there is a brilliant illustration of this within the libertarian community itself at Lew Rockwell.com, those Lew Rockwell fellows know everything there is to know about free market economics and I take my hat off to them in that respect. But when it comes to moral and political philosophy and in particular the morality and politics of war they don't have a clue.

Take, for example, this bizarre piece: Bloodthirsty 'Libertarians' by Walter Block

"The libertarian non-aggression axiom is the essence of libertarianism. Take away this axiom, and libertarianism might as well be libraryism, or vegetarianism. Thus, if a person is to be a libertarian, he must, he absolutely must, in my opinion, be able to distinguish aggression from defense."

How exactly one is supposed to derive all political wisdom from a single catchphrase rather than look at real problems and try to figure out how one could deal with them in away that is conducive to problem-solving I'm not sure. However, even on the basis of the non-aggression rule, the comments below are complete tosh.

"You don't have to wait until I actually punch you in the nose to take violent action against me. You don't even have to wait until my fist is within a yard of you, moving in your direction. However, if you haul off and punch me in the nose in a preemptive strike, on the ground that I might punch you in the future, then you are an aggressor."

So let me get this straight. You're standing atop a pile of dismembered corpses, laughing like a madman and brandishing a chainsaw covered in blood. You haven't noticed me yet, but I'm a few hundred metres away with a telescopic rifle. Am I allowed to blow your head clean off your
shoulders or not?

"Suppose you were a Martian, looking down upon the earth, trying to figure out which earth nations were aggressors, and which were not (i.e., were defenders). You have particularly good eyesight. So much so, that you can see actual uniforms, flags, etc. You notice that one country, call it Ruritania, has soldiers on the territory of scores of other nations, and sailors in every ocean known to man, and some completely unknown (just kidding about this last point)."

Ruritania is a thinly veiled but rather inaccurate reference to America, as we shall see below, but I don't suppose it makes any difference to Block that most of these countries invited American troops in and are very glad they're there. On the odd occasions it has been otherwise, like with Japan and Germany after World War 2, it was because the governments of the country concerned were evidently as mad as a barrel full of snakes and needed to be given a political enema.

"You discern that another country, Moldavia, has its armed forces in but just a few countries other than itself. And that's it. No other country has foreign military bases. What do you conclude? If you are a rational Martian, you deduce that Ruritania to a great degree, and Moldavia to a lesser one, are aggressor nations."

Surely that depends on the reason for the bases. Block has started with the conclusion he wanted to reach and tried to come up with facts to
support it while trying to pretend that he's doing it the other way around.

"Suppose that your Martian eyesight also allows you to read earthling history books. There you learn that Ruritania fought worldwide wars twice in the last century, and has physically invaded, oh, give or take, about 100 countries during that time."

What if these 100 countries were bad countries and the reason they were invaded was to bring an end to tyranny? Doesn't this rather change the
interpretation?

"Further, that Ruritania was the only nation in the entire history of the world to have used an atom bomb on people; worse, that they used this satanic device on civilians, not even soldiers; that they did so to get an unconditional surrender (Ruritania refused to promise to allow the emperor of the defeated nation to remain on his throne) from a country they pushed and hounded into war in the first place."

Seeing as this is a thinly veiled reference to Japan and World War 2, one might ask what exactly the US did to force Japan to declare war. The Japanese invaded China in 1931 while it was in the middle of a civil war and a famine and rejected all offers of mediation by the League of Nations and continued their war on China. On December 13, 1937 the Japanese entered the Chinese town of Nanking, home to 600,000 - 700,000 people of whom 150,000 were soldiers. 90,000 soldiers were killed and 200,000 civilians were murdered. The Japanese lulled soldiers into surrendering with promises of fair treatment and then bayoneted them or cut their heads off with swords. They also committed at least 20,000 rapes. It was one of the biggest single massacres of the 20th century.

Under the circumstances, a moderate response would have been for the US to get armed to the teeth, invade China and Japan and tear the Japanese army a new arsehole. Instead the US gave China a $25 million loan, abrogated a trade treaty that made the US the main supplier of Japanese weapons and imposed an oil embargo on Japan. The Japanese then bombed American ships at Pearl Harbour - they forced the US into the war, not the other way around.

The Allies had decided, seeing as letting Germany slink away at the end of World War 1 rather than actually invading and replacing their government with a sane one had been such a terrible mistake, that they would accept nothing other than unconditional surrender from the Axis powers so that they would have a free hand to replace their governments. The alternative to the nukes was to invade Japan and fight their way through the entire country if necessary until they obtained an unconditional surrender, not an enviable decision.

"Who would you think was the rogue nation? Who would you think was a danger to the entire world? Who would you think was an aggressor?"

Ba'athist Iraq. Funnily enough Saddam has waged wars of aggression against Iraq's neighbours, killed civilians out of sheer malice and spite, and been involved with terrorist organisations, most notably Al Qaeda, and let's not forget giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The sooner Iraq is invaded and Saddam Hussein toppled the better for all concerned.

I can't resist quoting one last howler from Walter Brock, or as he is known to those who have managed to crack his secret identity, Non Sequitur Man.

"It just so happens that young males commit proportionately far more crimes of violence than any other cohort of the population. Under the preemptive strike philosophy, we would be justified in putting them all in jail, say, when they turn 15, and letting them out when they reach 25.  Thus, if the preemptive striker were logically coherent, not only could he not be a libertarian in foreign policy, he could not favor this philosophy even in this area."

I don't favour locking up all 15-25 year old males, just the ones who actually have committed certain crimes, like mass murder, whether those crimes happened to personally affect me or not. Similarly, despite the French government being a spineless bunch of appeasers, I have no particular desire to see France invaded, but when it comes to Iraq, I've been itching for the US and UK to get its finger out and invade for months.

America doesn't need a direct attack on its shores to invade Iraq or any other mass murdering dictatorship that happens to capture its attention. I
unambiguously and wholeheartedly endorse any such invasions that the US decides to undertake, and so should everyone else who loves liberty.

Alan Forrester

(0) (4)

I have never been to Illinois, where the decision has been taken by an out-going State Governor to pardon four convicted murderers and commute the sentences of all "death row" inmates to life prison sentences. Unlike some libertarians, I see nothing especially wrong in a court sentencing a person to death for a crime. I would prefer the court not to be an instrument of the state. But more important than who pays the hangman's wage is the question of due process and presumption of innocence.

Assuming that a person cannot be charged without evidence having been presented to a magistrate or (better) a grand jury. Assuming that the charge is for a crime: murder, as opposed to not wearing a seat belt in the back of a taxicab, or having a cardboard cutter in the trunk of one's car, or other bizarre regulations of the 'welfare' society. Assuming that the suspect is made aware of his rights: to silence, to legal counsel, that any statement made to police may be used. Assuming that the accused is presumed innocent until convicted, has the benefit of not having to assist the prosecution, or even presenting no evidence to the court if he so wishes. Assuming the right to trial by jury (although in France there is the oddity that murder suspects prefer to be tried by a panel of judges than face juries, who tend to convict killers and whose verdicts cannot be easily appealed against). Assuming the right of appeal in the grounds of error, mistrial, new evidence.

Despite all these safeguards, which certainly no longer exist in the United Kingdom, there will always be miscarriages of justice so long as there are incompetent, corrupt or simply mistaken criminal investigations. As a libertarian, I take the view that individual people are not to be used without their consent and in violation of their lives, liberty or property as the means to other people's ends, unless they have forfeited such rights by initiating agression against other people. As far as criminals go, there is no problem, they have declared war on society: violating the rights of their victims. But a wrongly convicted person is the victim and the culprit is the legal process that resulted in the error of justice.

There is a defence from the charge of murder, where the accused believed that killing the victim was a necessary act, even if this belief was mistaken. But such a defence is dependent on being a able to sustain a credible plea that one wasn't reckless: shooting at passers-by at random in the street because one of them might be a mugger is plainly not justifiable.

In the same way, I cannot support the application of the death penalty in any jurisdiction where there is evidence that a wrongful conviction may have taken place. Governor Ryan would have felt doubts about this when he reprieved a convicted killer who was exonerated within 48 hours of being executed. At least if a person serving a life sentence is found to be innocent, we can release him, say sorry, and negotiate some sort of compensation. This is - to say the least - difficult where the hangman's noose has come into play.

(0) (6)

Five police officers have been stabbed, one fatally, during a raid on an apartment in Manchester:

"The operation was linked to the discovery of the deadly poison ricin in a north London flat last week and to the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorism operation, police have confirmed."

'Linked' in which way? Sadly there is not enough information here to fill the back of a postage stamp. Probably with good reason.

I wonder how deep this rabbit hole goes?

(0) (11)

The story of 15-year-old British man Seb Clover who has sailed across the Atlantic ocean to the Caribbean is a tonic to my jaded tastes. At a tiime when we are precoccupied by Iraq, economic woes, higher taxes and assaults on our liberties, it is good to know that the spirit of adventure lives on in our youth.

It is of course difficult to know whether the current spate of young Brits taking up such challenges hints at anything happening in our culture. But it is difficult to turn on the telly these days without seeing some young Brit reaching the South Pole, sailing single-handed around the globe or performing some other feat. It may be that a few young people have retained sufficient amounts of enterprising spirit to do such stuff, and not much further can be inferred from that. I am not so sure. Are such things a sign that youngsters are not quite the dumbed-down, listless and cynical lot that our Cassandras in the chattering classes make out?

Meanwhile, back to the doom and gloom...

(0) (2)

We are not going to put our players in a situation where they have to shake hands with the president of Zimbabwe.
-Tim Lamb - chief executive of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB)

(4) (10)

Zimbabwe is in the news, and so it should be. Several million Zimbabweans are probably going to die of starvation in the next few months. What's more, this is, despite what President Robert Mugabe will tell you, a classic Communist-type famine, a state mass murdering its people, in this case all the people who dared to vote against Robert Mugabe in his recent election.

Now is the time for something to be done about this, not in a few months time, and to the credit of all sorts of people, not including me until now, this seems to be widely understood. Various efforts are being made to kick up a fuss about this horror. Last night, for example, British TV news had lots of Zimbabwe stuff, despite the imminent prospect of a war that our Prime Minister is having difficulty convincing anyone in Britain about who isn't, like me, already convinced.

Peter Oborne, for example, did a Channel 4 documentary which went out last Sunday night, of him travelling around Zimbabwe, surreptitiously photographing Zimbabweans describing what remains of their abject daily diet, or warehouses where maize imported in order to feed the starving but immediately stolen by the government is being allowed to rot, or else is being corruptly sold in tiny amounts at extortionate prices by organisations headed by Zimbabwean Cabinet Ministers. Oborne has also written a piece for the Spectator about his journey.

What is to be done? If the South African government greeted Zimbabwean refugees with food camps instead of barbed wire rolls that would help, ditto if they pressurised Zimbabwe by threatening to cut off its supply routes. If Britain pressured all concerned a bit more publicly, that would help. If the Belgium government were to be swallowed up by a giant fireball, excellent. That would mean "Europe" being a lot less despicable about all this. If President George Bush could make the time to refer to this thing more loudly in among his Iraq preparations than he has so far, that would also save some lives.

And although it might not be practical in the immediate future, some of us could at least put the wind up your Average Sub-Saharan African Despot and his Many Apologists Worldwide by saying that all this black-on-black murdering does rather strengthen the case for the reconquest of Sub-Saharan Africa by, you know, white people. (Please understand that I'm trying to insert some more heat into this row, rather than just to shine a little more light on it.)

There's half a book I could write about all this, but let me end with a word about cricket. The cricket point is that there is a cricket tournament coming up, a few of the matches of which are scheduled to be played in Zimbabwe. This is the Cricket World Cup next month. As atrocities go, the fact that these cricketers are probably going to play their games in Zimbabwe and be photographed not being very bothered about the fact that the government there is busy murdering about a quarter of its citizens doesn't rank very high on the scale of human badness. It's not their fault. And frankly, I don't care one way or the other whether this tournament is deranged to the point of serious derangement by protests about the mass murdering in Zimbabwe or not. If I had a button to push that would do it, I'd probably dig up every tournament pitch now, and fly a plane over the mess with the slogan (thank you Peter Tatchell) "Berlin 1936 Zimbabwe 2003" attached to it. Or something. But the bigger point is, this cricket tournament has turned a very boring little report about Africans murdering one another – and what's newsworthy about that? – into an already noisily singing and dancing Major Western News Story. The opening ceremony for this World Cup will be on February 8th, and the timing is good.

So, blogospherists, if you are looking for a hook, use cricket to spice up this story, which I very much hope that you will tell to each other and to anyone else you can interest. Say how much you loath and despise cricket, and how completely you would normally be ignoring it, but … Or like me, say how much you love cricket, except that in this case … Or say that cricket isn't the point; mass murder on the other hand … (That's what Oborne did at the start of his Spectator story.)

One way or another, please spread this news. It already is news. Please help to make it bigger news, before too many more people die.

(0) (2)

One of the advantages of giving up smoking (10 days now, folks) is that you can defend the rights of other smokers from a higher strategic ground; nobody can accuse you of having a personal axe to grind.

But not having an axe leaves me with a free hand with which to take up cudgels against busybodies and their campaigns for increased state bullying:

"The survey was carried out on behalf of Cancer Research UK, Marie Curie Cancer Care, QUIT, ASH and No Smoking Day.

Officials said they hoped the survey would encourage ministers to take steps to ban smoking at work."

My own view is that it is up to the owners of the business to decide upon the issue of smoking on the premises and what I find grating is not that these organisations disagree with me or even that they publicise their views on the matter. No, what I find questionable if whether 'charities' should be engaging in these kinds of campaigns.

Incidences of charities behaving as political lobbyists are far too frequent to be dismissed as symptoms of altruistic exuberance. In fact, whilst this is probably not true in the case of organisations like Cancer Research UK or Marie Curie, one could be forgiven for suspecting that the label 'charity' is, in some cases, used as a fig-leaf to mask a wholly political ambition. It provides an automatic authentication for the views they express and an insulation against criticism of either their opinions or motives.

I wish to make it clear that I am not against charities. In fact, I am very much in favour of charities as voluntary organisations which can and do provide real help to the distressed and the weak with far greater efficiency and humanity that any number of indifferent state bureaucracies. But I do think that the parameters of 'charitable status' are overdue for some scrutiny. Organisations that confine their activities to distributing hot soup to the destitute or arranging day-trips for orphans deserve the title and the advantages it brings. Organisations which exist merey to egg on Big Brother and advance an ideological agenda are lobbyists and should be treated as such.

(0) (10)

I honestly fail to understand all the fuss over the Judicial decision not to incarcerate burglars. It is perfectly understandable in light of the fact that, in London, the burglars are not even going to be apprehended in the first place.

Burglaries in London are only going to be investigated if the crime is "deemed solvable", according to new guidelines for the Metropolitan Police.

What they mean by 'deemed solvable' is if the investigating officer actually finds the felon climbing out of a householders window wearing a zorro-mask and holding a bag marked 'swag'. Short of that, they can't be bothered. A complaint to the police from a householder that a burglar has assaulted them may stir the sediment in their feet and, naturally, they will still whip themselves instantaneously into a frenzy of righteous froth should a burglar ever complain that a householder has assaulted him. After all we can't have people getting away with that sort of thing, can we.

However, mass voluntary redundancy is not on the agenda just yet:

Crimes which will be given priority must come under four categories: serious crimes like murder and rape, major incidents, hate crime and incidents that are the priority of a particular borough.

'Priority of a particular borough' and 'hate crimes' are largely synonymous and is likely to lead to victims of burglary or theft fabricating an element of racist abuse in order to get their complaints taken seriously. Thus the incidence of 'hate crime' will dramatically rocket and prompt politicians to hastily enact even more anti-hate legislation.

Also, I wonder how long it will be until 'low-profile' (i.e. non-politically sensitive) murders and rapes are quietly dropped from the agenda?

Hopefully though, some sections of the public wll begin to appreciate that the police, like all other nationalised industries, are indifferent to their customers. Equally, they may begin to re-evaluate the assumed social contract which the state is now unilaterally shredding.

In the long term, this may be good news. Though not such good news, I fear, in the short term.

(0) (6)

The excellent folks at Stand.org.uk, who describe themselves as "a group of volunteers who originally came together in 1998 in a vain attempt to fix the worst aspects of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act", are mobilising efforts to oppose the imposition of ID cards in the UK. They enable you to contribute your comments to the 'consultation' process, which Downing Street is claiming shows Growing support for entitlement cards... We think you should go to Stand.org.uk website and let them show you how to tell the British government exactly how you feel about this. I did and left comments saying:

To put it bluntly, this is clear evidence, not that any more is needed, that the Labour government is as utterly inimical to civil liberties as the Tory party was. I shall never cooperate with what is clearly just a euphemism for a national ID card which will enhance the state's ability to monitor and control its subjects. It is clear that any 'voluntary' system you offer up will just the thin end of the wedge for a mandatory system that will enable policemen to stop you on the street and demand "your papers". I will never consent or cooperate with this.

Be polite but tell them what you think. Kudos to Stand.org.uk for their efforts to defend what is left of civil liberties in the United Kingdom.

The state is not your friend

(0) (7)

Bill Clinton is the favourite candidate for the office of Chancellor of Oxford University. He is facing growing opposition from dons who fear that his election would endanger the reputation of the institution and the virtue of its undergraduates.

The arguments against his candidacy are many and varied:

1. The former President of the United States would harm "the dignity of the office" as Mr Clinton's sexual peccadilloes, including his affair with Monica Lewinsky, render him unsuitable for such a prestigious post

2. His lies on oath about the Lewinsky affair and his decision to award presidential pardons to a number of well-connected criminals just before he left office in January 2001 should disqualify him from the role.

3. Mr Clinton's patchy academic record hasn't been particularly distinguished in any field - he went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar in 1968 but failed to complete his degree and his extensive commitments in America.

Mark Almond, a fellow of Oriel College and a lecturer in 20th-century history, added that Mr Clinton would face "endless allegations of sexual scandal".

"There's bound to be trouble...We need a woman chancellor, not a womanising chancellor."

As far as I know, the main argument for is Mr Clinton's fundraising abilities. Since leaving office he has embarked on a series of lucrative foreign tours, giving lectures for a reputed £1,200 a minute. Oxford University being starved of state funds and facing transatlantic competition for its academics, grossly underpaid in the British academia, is desparate for more cash. And I suppose some dons are reasoning - if he brings more money, sod the dignity of the office or the potential damage it may do to the university's image.

I can see how that happened - during my university days we came to appreciate the unique tutorial system at Oxford that the government has been threatening to scrap as it is five times more expensive per student than the usual seminar/lecture style of university education. Both Oxford and Cambridge are constantly under attack for their allegedly 'elitist' admissions policies and forced to fulfill quotas for students from 'state' schools.

I do have a problem with Clinton being the next Chancellor of Oxford University. I also want the university to raise enough funds to continue in its distinguished tradition, without the need to force change because of a lack of them. However, there must be better candidates for the post, both morally and academically more accomplished as well as able to attract sufficient funds for this ancient institution.

(0) (5)

Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.
- Winston Churchill

(0) (2)

"You teach people that it's wrong to care. You tell them that the right course of action is to "not get involved". When they see a crime being committed, then if they try to stop it they may end up in prison, but there's no punishment for looking the other direction and not seeing. And thus fewer people will get involved."

- Steven Den Beste writing on what happens when you punish people for killing robbers. Emphasis added by me.

(1) (12)

At the heart of almost all 'redistributive' statism lies the idea that it is perfectly okay to take money from one person, backed by the threat of state violence, in order to give it to other people deemed more worthy of that money. The 'worthy' people are those who have managed to make the political process work in their favour in some manner, such as students in Britain.

People like Will Straw, son of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, call education a 'public good' and thus sees that as ample justification for the National Union of Students demanding that students like himself have their education paid for by money taken from others... and yet is not the opening of a corner shop or supermarket a 'public good' as well? It offers not just needed products but also employment. Is not almost any lawful economic activity between two willing parties a 'public good' for much the same reason, as it generates wealth and satisfies needs?

Yet unlike education funded by theft, these other activities involve only consensual relationships and private capital allocated with private insights and information... If I buy a product or open a shop, it is because I think it is in my interests. However I am not going to use force to extort people into buying products at my shop or acquire things by violent robbery.

Although Will Straw may think it is in my interests for him to be educated, I happen to disagree. However he is quite prepared to have the state use force to compel me to provide for his education. Like most who feed at the public trough, he casually accepts the morality of the proxy violence of the state provided it benefits him.

There are some actual 'public goods' in the sense Will Straw uses the word, such as defence, the prevention of crime and perhaps discouraging communicable diseases, but those are really the only legitimate role of state... for the likes of Will Straw to think something like his personal education is something that compares to those true 'public goods' is strange thinking indeed, for it violates the true public good of the prevention of crime: he would have the state rob me for his benefit.

(0) (2)

I quit about ten years ago. I was getting sick of it and Hillary was going to finance her health plan with taxes on cigs. I went cold turkey and being mad at Hillary helped me over the rough spots. Maybe you could think of all your money that will NOT be going to the government.
- Commenter 'Spacer' on how to motivate a libertarian to give up smoking

(0) (8)

America is to award the Congressional Medal of Honour, the equivalent of the Victoria Cross, to a British Special Boat Service (formerly Special Boat Squadron) commando who led the rescue of a CIA officer from an Afghan prison revolt.

It will be the first time the medal has been awarded to a living foreigner. The Queen will have to give permission for the SBS soldier to wear it.

The SBS senior NCO led a patrol of half-a-dozen SBS commandos who rescued a member of the CIA's special activities section from the fort at Qala-i-Jangi near Mazar-i-Sharif, last November. The fort was holding 500 al-Qa'eda and Taliban prisoners, many of whom had not been searched and were still armed.

An exchange of fire developed into a full-scale revolt and two CIA officers who had been interrogating the prisoners were caught in the battle in which one was killed. The uprising went on for three days and the SBS commandos remained throughout, bringing down aerial fire to quell the revolt.

The battle was one of the most contentious episodes in the war last year with human rights groups raising concerns over air strikes against prisoners, some of them unarmed.

The eagerness of the Americans to recognise the courage of the NCO contrasts with suspicion within the regiment that two SAS soldiers being considered for VCs for an attack on the al-Qaeda cave complex will not get them.

Not by strength, by guile

(0) (16)

In this age where ancient protections of Liberty are openly scoffed upon by the powers that be, it behooves us to proclaim loudly from the rooftops those rights they much prefer buried and forgotten. I wonder how many of you know it is a basic Right of an American Juror to judge not only on fact but on law as well? As this forum has a large libertarian readership, I wager it is far higher than in the general public - but still depressingly low.

Jury Nullification is an ancient right of law inherited from England. It is yet another of the many glorious innovations in the defense of liberty invented here and forsaken in the rush to fascism of the last hundred years. Jury trial, Double Jeopardy, Habeas Corpus and Innocence until Proven Guilty all seem destined to follow it into the Westminster tip.

These foundational protections are still fairly safe in America. It is also the case Jury Nullification is still valid law there. This is not a matter of strange interpretations. It is a dirty little secret which is not easily swept under the courthouse rug.

I've known a number of activists in the battle to pass Fully Informed Jury laws, so I've long been aware of the importance of this concept in American history. The ancestors of many black Americans owe their freedom to this not-so-arcane bit of legal history. Juries could not be found that would convict workers on the "Underground Railroad" which helped so many escape the degradation of being self portable property. In both English and American history, Jury Nullification has been a bulwark of Liberty. It does not matter who buys the legislature if the courts cannot find a Jury of Peers willing to go along - or be bullied into going along - with the scam.

This is why "The System" hates it so much. It lets you, the six-pack drinking slob on the street tell them the Law itself is unjust - and make it stick. It makes you, the citizen, the final arbiter of what is Just.

I bring this up tonight because I finally "got around to" reading a legal paper by Glenn Reynolds on the topic. It's quite a good one and I think anyone interested in how the system used to work to protect liberty should read it.

Make sure everyone you know who might possibly be called for jury duty knows it as well, and knows if the Judge or Prosecutor threatens them... it is the Judge or Prosecutor who is breaking the law, not the Juror.