Once you give power to the government it is nearly impossible to get it back, and it will be used in ways you cannot expect.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
11 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Never was there a truer observation
Not just in ways you cannot expect, but also in ways you do not want and most definitely do not need.
Anyone remember RIPA?
Supposedly for terrorism, ended up with councils spying on dust bins…
Power given will be used. It’s primary use will be to extend its scale and scope.
It’s why we think the only reason power should be given is to prevent power from being taken.
Extra powers for government usually means more government employees.
And they cling to their well paid, well pensioned jobs without caring if they are doing any good or not.
They have egos and kids to feed, mortgages to pay.
I wish we could make images appear here, but we can’t, so click on this instead.
(It’s funny, and safe for work.)
bobby b
That might be, depending on authorship, some slight glimmer of evidence that libertarians can be self-aware.
Coming back OT, Mr Kasparov is a very brave man. He has taken considerable person risk in standing up for freedom in Russia, although his status would make him hard to murder for political reasons even in present-day Russia. One thing about him that troubles me is his apparent fondness for Hilary Clinton. I like this section of the OP particularly:
It is a very true quotation.
A classic example is the “evolution” of the American Federal “Justice” system – and, to a great extent, the British one to.
Each “reform” was justified by strong arguments – it was necessary to fight the Mafia (or some other worthy objective).
But the end result is a nightmare – a “conviction machine” where, once someone is targeted by the Federal Government, they are almost certain to be made to plead guilty or be convicted – of something. Even if their “crime” is nothing the Common Law would recognise as a crime, and the procedures they are undertaken are totally warped.
“We must allow government to evolve, we must allow the law to evolve” that has been the mantra for a very long time – and it is FALSE.
What is needed is clear-rules-of-justice that are NOT subject to change – even if this means that “Mafia bosses” go free, and YES even if means that terrorists murder people. For changes that are justified as for being to deal with “the Mafia” or “terrorists” (even if this is meant entirely sincerely) end up being applied to everyone.
No to “pragmatic reform”.
I don’t know about that. Boris Nemtsov has at least as much status as Kasparov, and he was murdered on a bridge right in front of the Kremlin.