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]

Consequences

The destruction of British civil society continues apace…

New anti-paedophile vetting rules will threaten the 90-year tradition of Scout Jamborees, the Scout Association says. It has warned that major gatherings of packs from around the world may be cancelled due to the introduction of the scheme.

Under the controversial rules anyone working or volunteering with children must register for background checks. But organising checks on thousands of foreign Scout leaders was “just not possible”, a spokesman said.

Good. I have nothing against the Scouts, but I do like it when people are smashed in the face by the reality of the political order they tolerate. Let people feel the consequences and start to get angry. Of course I want people to stop even trying to comply, to ‘go Galt’ if you like, to wilfully break laws and subvert regulations, but here we have an example where they really cannot comply, and that works too.

The state is not your friend. Are you starting to get the message?

24 comments to Consequences

  • Are you starting to get the message?

    I doubt it. They’ll just convince themselves that all things considered it’s better this way. Oh, and there is the side benefit of reducing the carbon footprint:

    It has warned that major gatherings of packs from around the world may be cancelled due to the introduction of the scheme.

    What’s not to like?

    I’m afraid that it will take much more than this to get enough people angry, by which time it might well be too late. I am anxiously looking forward to being successfully contradicted.

  • It is never too late to smash something Alisa, and I doubt anyone affected will decide it is for the best. Pile it on I say.

  • cjf

    “Pile it on I say” Me, too.

    And, the new ofalcials want their bribes. The system is a Graft Zepplin. Witness how many are required to take
    drug tests and backround checks, later found guilty of
    the crimes those were to prevent. And, never an ofalcial is involved.

    “Mistakes” are made for a price; or, favors.

  • Yes, by all means pile on and count me in, there is nothing to lose by trying. It’s just that I want to keep expectations realistic.

    I doubt anyone affected will decide it is for the best

    You’d be surprised. I actually had people, cornered in a debate, tell me that they are willing to accept a degree of curtailment of their own freedoms ‘for the benefit of society’, or, as the case may be here, ‘to save at least one child’. When it becomes a matter of degree, all bets are off.

  • The way I usually confront that reply is “it is obvious that putting 1984 style CCTV cameras in every room of everyone houses would save *at least* one child, so presumably you support that notion? No? But if all that matters is saving ‘one child’, how can you possibly object?”

  • Alisa – given that the great majority of Americans have accepted a deal like that without complaint, I don’t think anyone should be too surprised.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I am sadly starting to wonder if there is nothing that people will not tolerate, so long as they can be convinced it is all about saving the kids.

    Of course, one consequence will be a worsening of the quality of life for children.

  • RAB

    It wont save one child though will it?

    The female nursery worker, who has just been convicted of paedophilia type offences, had already had all these background checks done on her, yet still she fiddles with Kiddies.

    This is just a job creation scheme for the terminally prod nosed.

  • Yes Perry, and you won the debate right then and there, right?:-) I had this very discussion on another forum last night. The good guys seem to think that the problem with the various collectivists is that they don’t understand. My point is that to the extent that they are capable of understanding (as most of them obviously are), the only answer left is that they are not willing to understand, and that is something none of us can do anything about.

  • RW

    First Akela and Wise Owl and their ilk had to be vetted. Next, all activities became progressively more expensive because of insurance and elf and safety. Then taking more children in a car to meetings than there were seatbelts in the car became illegal. Then small children all had to have booster seats. Then penknives were banned. Now all parents it seems have to be vetted. And with this post, all international children’s gatherings – and Scout jamborees are only the tip of the iceberg – will have to exclude Brits.

    Back in Gloucestershire in the 60s, a couple of parents would sometimes happily fill their cars with a load of us and take us to a picnic or swimming or whatever. Now effectively banned.

    Penknives? We had great fun throwing knives, including if we were lucky a commando dagger. And when someone brought along an ex-special forces garroting cord which appeared as if it had taken a few heads in its day – wow! Cor! Does it really! And so easy to make if you can get your hands on some piano wire, or perhaps a violin or guitar string! Blowpipes: a doddle! Firing paper pellets through biro casings or a recorder with its holes covered: what a whizzo wheeze! And if several of you do it at the same time, you can call it a salvo! And no-one would think of including a needle in the pellet, tipped with nasty substances or not… Or of course we did think of it but didn’t.

    Tough to be in elf and safety. So much to do, so little time. And the public are so unappreciative.

    Very tough to be a child today. The enjoyable is all banned. But wait! Daddy has some old violin strings and biros and on the next wet afternoon he’ll teach you, and any of your friends, in the comfort of your own home, something really really fun.

  • ScotsToryB

    ‘My point is that to the extent that they are capable of understanding (as most of them obviously are), the only answer left is that they are not willing to understand, and that is something none of us can do anything about.’

    No, no Alicia. We can and should.

    It was only after reading blogs like this that I realised what I had been doing year after year: arguing my point consistently. (also, ‘say what you like about me but it is nothing to do with the point’ is ad hominem: ‘please try, for once to stick to the point’ straw maninem etc’ 😉 Just repeat ad nauseum. A lot of others do start thinking and accept what you say. A good example is Hislop’s bitch slapping of Balls ne Cooper who had no answer.

    That is the thing that has annoyed me most about this attitude that ‘ they are not willing to understand’ ergo we should do nothing about it.

    The left are doing that Gramscian/Fabianistic thing of playing the long game. Their troops on the ground know naught but to repeat the leaders verbosity ‘Oceania is today warring with Germanic foxhunting Etonites (sorry, no Superpowers involved) but will tomorrow be in the forefront of the Vaur Ageenst TRRRorism, or some such.

    Call them on it every time.

    I still find it unbelievable that Anthony ‘I may not be a straight kinda guy but, look, my wife has had three cheeldren (think of the..)’ said to Major ‘I lead my party’ and Major did not have the wit to retort ‘Anyone who thinks that leading that bunch of shysters, crooks, extortionists, corrupt, self-serving ex-Marxist wannabees wants to boast about it should not be let within a ba’hairs length of power’ became first among equals in my country.

    Ask them to define wealth. That makes their heads explode.

    ‘Wealth is the deregulation of earnings to the lesser earners to increase their ability to forego Capital and acknowledge Statism’, is something akin to a correct reply.

    Seriously though, why is it beyond the wit of the Tories to understand that it is the easiest thing in this dear world to repeatedly point out the nonsense spoken by lefties?

    It is as easy as: think of something a leftie says, think why that is a nonsense on stilts and, even if you are struggling, just say ‘that is nonsense on stilts’ because that gives you more time to reprise your reply.

    It is simply not good enough to sit back and accept their criticism of your party and politely reply: talk over them, talk them down and repeat, repeat, repeat that their lies
    are lies.

    You, Tories, need a Scotsman who understands Campbell and is willing to call him.

    STB.

  • ScotsToryB

    Oh, yes, my son but is there a point?

    My point is that I called Blair as an asshole, I called new-labour high credit availability assholish and I now call the devaluation of the pound to be the utterly cynical outcome of the prudent chancellor’s economic policy.

    He hopes and expects that devaluation will save him and I say, J’accuse.

    STB.

  • STB: sorry for not making myself more clear, but my point wasn’t that we should do nothing about anything. My point was simply that there are people about whom nothing can be done, short of active (and if need be, violent) resistance. Giving them more of the same (‘piling on’) is not going to open their eyes, as Perry’s original post suggest. However, it will lead to the collapse of the system, unfortunately taking the rest of us down with it. If we ignore that last little detail, than yes, it’s never too late to smash something.

  • “My point is that….they are not willing to understand, and that is something none of us can do anything about.”

    You got that right, Alisa. Retards deluxe.

  • Andrew Duffin

    Is there any reason why “large gatherings of packs from around the world” need to be held in Britain?

    Why don’t they just move them to a free country?

  • Andrew: like where, for example?

  • Paul Marks

    A good post.

    As government intervention (regulations) expands, so Civil Society (freedom – the voluntary networks of cooperation that make up civilization) declines.

    People who support the modern state are also supporting (although they normally do not know it) the decline and destruction of civilization – upon which, in the end, the state depends.

    The modern, unlimited, state is a lethel parasite – its growth will kill civil society, and without civil society (civilization) the parasite itself will eventually die.

    Oh and, of course, RAB is correct – lots of regulations will not prevent child abusers. After all they are the people most likely to be motivated to get the government licenses and to be interested in becomming the people granting the licenses.

  • Laird

    Great post, Paul. Very insightful.

  • jdm

    they are the people most likely to be motivated to get the government licenses

    I don’t think that this point can be under-emphasized. So much of the nanny state is dedicated to bullying those who are already, for the most part, law-abiding. Using arguments that good citizens nod and agree are justified (it’s for the children), the nanny state creeps toward a society in which virtually everyone on a daily basis breaks the law. The only issue is whether to prosecute.

    Note too, the vigilance required to push back is enormous (I’m thinking here primarily of the NRA and gun laws in the US). And without this vigilance, we find ourselves subject to fines and even jail time as various well-intentioned, “common sense” regulations are enacted.

  • tehag

    I don’t see a problem. Next election vote in new MPs who can then repeal these foolish “laws.” How hard can that be?

  • I don’t see a problem. Next election vote in new MPs who can then repeal these foolish “laws.” How hard can that be?

    Then you have not thought it through very deeply. What makes you so sure a majority will not be taken in by the “if it saves just one child” argument? Or perhaps you intend to just wave your magic wand to undo generations of propaganda and everyone will see the corrosive threat to civil society that pervasive regulation brings, ushering in a new golden age of limited government. I mean, how hard can that be?

  • Isn’t it the point I made?

  • Kim du Toit

    “Why don’t they just move [Scout Jamborees] to a free country?”

    Hey, consider Texas, where Rifle and Shotgun Badges are still considered high honours for Scouts (albeit, for many of the kids, superfluous). We could even get the NRA to supervise a Jamboree shooting event — as they already do here — and if that doesn’t drive some Scouts’ parent countries nuts, I can’t think what will.

    When my Son & Heir did his Rifle (.22) qualification, I was there as a range assistant. Best quote of the day came from another Scout, after looking at his target: “Hell, I would’ve done better with my Winchester .30-30.”

  • Paul Marks

    First – many thanks Laird.

    Now.

    Government (even when a new party comes into office) hate to admit error – so “repeal” of bad regulations does not often happen. What is more normal is for new regulations to be passed to try and fix problems the old regulations caused (thus causing new problems which lead to…..).

    As for passing crazy statutes in the first place…..

    Well Texas used to have a limitation on that – the Constitution of Texas (1876) lays down that the State Legislature only meets for a few weeks. Hardly enough time to pass a budget (i.e. to steal money from the taxpayers to keep for oneself or to give to one’s friends).

    In the past this Constitution saved Texas from many evil things. For example, when most States were busy castrating “mental defectives” or “moral defectives” and various other Progressive things, Texas was not.

    Not because the politicians in Texas had a better moral sense than politicians in other States – they just did not have the time to get the various Progressive statutes on the books.

    However, these days Federal regulations cover most things, and also the concept of DELEGATED LEGISLATION has grown.

    Delegated legislation is where a legislature does not pass a clear statute but passes a vague “enableing” statute – allowing Civil Servants to “fill in the blanks” as it were.

    Writers as far back as John Locke warned against “delegated powers” – but they have become very common indeed. In fact the modern (neo totalitarian) state, could not exist without the concept of “delegated legislation” – in Britain called “statutary instruments” (which make up the vast majority of “law” here).

    In case anyone thinks I am going too far by using the term “neo totalitarian” – read Chief Justice Hewart’s “The New Despotism” (1929) then times by 100 to get the modern situation (as outlined in the works of Richard North and Christopher Booker).