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]

Pushing back against state overreach

Together was formed in response to the catastrophic overreach of government and authorities during the pandemic. The consequences of that episode need no repetition here, but the government’s smearing, censure and censorship of criticism, and the attempts to use psychology (fearmongering – as you have observed well) to assert its agenda was a grotesque departure from the norms of democratic society. Together launched a very successful campaign to reassert democratic control and freedoms, demanding the reinstatement of care workers sacked for their non-compliance with vaccine mandates. And they have since started a campaign to challenge some of the aggressively anti-car policies that local authorities have installed under cover of lockdowns, which will have a detrimental effect on freedoms, incomes, and health, despite seemingly being formulated in the interests of public safety. Climate Debate UK was launched at the end of last year, with the intention of informing debates relating to the Net Zero agenda. And so there was considerable overlap, and a joint project seemed like a good idea. I hope to be working with Together much more in the future.

Ben Pile in discussion with Laura Dodsworth.

Pushing back against state overreach is a perpetual battle of attrition that must be fought on many fronts.

7 comments to Pushing back against state overreach

  • Paul Marks

    Many people had pointed out over the years that such things as the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the United Kingdom Human Rights Act, were carefully written to give the vague impression of protecting basic liberties – whilst, in fact, not doing so. Covid very sadly revealed this to be the bitter truth in the United Kingdom.

    However, the United States Constitution and State Constitutions, which no where say “this does not apply in times of plague” (and plagues were common when such things were laid down) were largely ignored – Federal government agencies (which should not even exist – there is no Constitutional warrant for these agencies) gave orders and most States obeyed – thus disregarding both the United States Bill of Rights and their own State Bills of Rights.

    Even basic election laws were overturned in some States (violating the laws and Constitutions of those States) with “Covid” being trotted out as an excuse for what was really motivated by a desire to rig elections (and this did NOT stop with the rigged Presidential election of 2020).

    It is true that some States went into the madness for only a brief time, for example Florida (where the Governor sobered up quite quickly – understanding that the lockdown, far from doing good, was doing terrible harm), and five States just told the Feds to bugger off and did not have a lockdown at all (to his credit President Trump allowed them to do that – I doubt a President Biden would have).

    As for the toxic injections that governments and corporations (which are joined at the hip) have pushed – this is an on going scandal.

    Whatever may have been the case at first, it is now common knowledge that the injections caused terrible harm – that they were most certainly not “safe and effective” as was claimed in the United Kingdom and other lands. Yet the British government has not admitted any fault – and the American government is today (right now) still pushing the toxic injections – with utter disregard for human life. Just as various governments (including that of the United Kingdom) ignored or even smeared Early Treatment for Covid which could have saved so many lives.

    To bring things back to a British perspective…..

    There are two basic “issues” for want of a better word.

    Should the elected government have the right to remove all basic liberties?


    Is the elected government really in charge at all?

    I remember back in 1990 when Margaret Thatcher was removed as Prime Minister – without any election or trial for crimes. The establishment decided to remove her – and that was that.

    A British Prime Minister was shown to be more vulnerable than, say the Governor of South Dakota, and Prime Ministers know this (ask Liz Truss).

    I am sure that Prime Minister Johnson felt that he had to agree to “lockdowns” and so on, even though he knew the policies were utterly insane, because if he did not agree he would be removed.

    This is not a good situation – it is a situation where shadowy figures (who the public never voted for) make the decisions and the elected government has to do what it is told “or else….”

    And, yes, it is not just about Covid – it is about “New Zero” and many other matters.

    It is just not acceptable for the elected government to be treated as puppets – with real decisions being made by people whom the public not elected.

    The whole political culture, with politicians (at the local as well as the national level) getting endless briefings and receiving endless “training” (at various events) telling them what to think and what to do.

    In a democracy it is for the elected people to decide – officials and “experts” may give their opinions and present their evidence (as long as other people are also allowed to give their opinions and present their evidence) – but it is not for the officials and “experts” to make the decisions.

    Not on Covid, not on Net Zero, and not on any other matter.

    And the subtle hint of “you have to do this or you are OUT” is utterly wrong.

    As for the first question – should even the democratically elected British government have the right to remove all basic liberties? I would say NO – but I realise I am in the minority on that matter.

    Where we can, I hope, all agree is that officials and “experts” should not have any such power – especially officials and “experts” who work with international bodies (such as the World Health Organisation) these international bodies (including Corporate ones such as the World Economic Forum) being an attack on the national independence of the United Kingdom and other lands.

    If an official or corporate manager says “I will go to Davos if I want to” – the answer should be “of course you have the right to go to Davos, or anywhere else, but do not come back to the office afterwards – because you are dismissed”.

    The loyalty of officials must be to the elected government not to international bodies, and the loyalty of corporate managers must be to the shareholders not to international bodies.

    If officials and corporate managers do not accept that – they must be dismissed.

    Sadly this problem starts in the education system – where the “Mandarin class” of officials and corporate managers are taught a lot of vile stuff, especially in the United States, but also (to some extent) in the United Kingdom.

  • Stonyground

    Wasn’t democracy originally a damage limitation exercise following the French Revolution? The American Constitution was written around the same time by people who had a problem with European governments imposing the state religion on their populations. But in Europe, the powers that be were worried that the penchant for decapitating the ruling classes might spread.

    It has taken a couple of hundred years but it seems that the powerful have finally managed to despose of the irritant of democracy and return things back to how they were, while giving the plebs the illusion of a democracy.

    People are much more civilised now and far more reluctant to resort to violence but I’m sure that they still have their limits. Of course, if a significant proportion of the populace simply refuse to do as they are told, that can work too.

  • Rich Rostrom

    Paul Marks: I remember back in 1990 when Margaret Thatcher was removed as Prime Minister – without any election or trial for crimes.
    There was an election, in 1987. The MPs democratically chosen in that election voted to have Mrs. Thatcher as PM, and later to remove her, as was entirely in their power. This is a feature of parliamentary government, not a bug. It allows for immediate change in the executive, without waiting for a fixed term to expire, or requiring a finding of criminal fault by anyone.

    Is it better than a fixed term for the executive? It’s more flexible, and avoids the danger of a rogue chief executive being elected by plurality or succeeding by accident, and then ruling in defiance of a majority. But it is also prone to instability, e.g. the Fourth Republic in France.

    It is not, however, more or less democratic.

  • Paul Marks

    Rich Rostrom – I am older than sin and twice as ugly, I was there in 1990, and I can assure you that nothing about the removal of Margaret Thatcher had anything to do with democracy. There was nothing democratic about it.

    The removal of Liz Truss was not democratic either – not her removal as Prime Minister or her removal as Leader of the Conservative Party.

    Neither was voted out by anyone – they were “asked to resign”. There was no vote to remove Margaret Thatcher (indeed Margaret Thatcher actually WON the only vote that there was) and no vote to remove Liz Truss (although a social conservative would know the latter as Elizabeth O’Leary).

    “Parliamentary government” that, if it ever really existed (and I remind you Sir, Parliament is supposed to be a check-on the government, no one claims that it is the government) has been in decline since Sir Charles Trevelyan (and others) created the Civil Service for the purpose of undermining the influence of Parliament – and for the purpose of undermining the influence of ministers who are accountable to Parliament.

    Indeed “ministerial responsibility” where a minister is “responsible” for the acts of officials that the minister did not hire and can not dismiss, is an absurdity – a sick joke.

    As for Margaret Thatcher – officials systemically lied to the lady over Rhodesia in 1979-80 (we had pledged in 1979 to recognise the internal settlement in order to keep out the Marxist Robert Mugabe), over the Race Relations bureaucracy in the United Kingdom itself (which were pledged in the 1979 election to get rid of), and officials systemically lied to Margaret Thatcher over the “Single European Act” of 1986. Margaret Thatcher was told this was free trade agreement – it was actually a power grab by the officials of the European union.

    Oh yes – I was around even in 1979.

    So, no offence meant to you Sir, but please do not talk to me about “Parliamentary government” – there is no such thing.

    The idea that the various “Independent Regulators” and so on care what Parliament thinks, or cares what ministers think, is just not true.

    By the way on Parliament – for my sins I talk with to various Members of the House of Commons, so I can tell you (for example), that the House knows, for example, that Sir Christopher Chope and Andrew Bridgen are telling the truth about the Covid injections.

    They, the Members of the House of Commons, already know all this (they do not need these two men to tell them) – and they also know there is nothing they can do about it.

    Indeed the question on most minds is “why do these two men keep talking as if we make the decisions – they have been Members of this House for years, do they really not know that such decisions are NOT made here?”

  • Paul Marks

    By the way – in 1979 we were pledged to sweep away the “Independent Regulators” then known as “QWANGOs” – a few were abolished, but many were not (including the “equality” bureaucracy – and the Home Office had Marxist academic advisers even back in the 1970s), and various Corporate State bodies have been created over time.

    In theory Parliament could rise up and destroy the “Administrative State” – the Corporate State. But Parliament is not a collection of independent landowners – the House of Commons is made up of people who are members of political parties, parties that have to take account of the line of the powerful forces that make policy. Regarding Covid injections and many other matters.

    This does NOT mean that elections are totally meaningless – but parties operate within limits, limits that they themselves do not set.

    I repeat – an American State Governor, even in these days of the terrible decline of liberty in the United States has, in some ways, more autonomy than a British Prime Minister.

    If a British Prime Minister offends powerful interests too much (they can to some extent – but if they do it too much…) – these interests will remove that Prime Minister (ask Elizabeth O’Leary – Liz Truss), and, no, it is nothing-much to do with Parliament.

    Most people in the United Kingdom do not even know the name of their Member of House of Commons. Why should they?

    By the way Americans should not sneer too much.

    According to official figures (most likely exaggerated – I know that) over a million Americans died of Covid.

    There were always effective Early Treatments for Covid that could have saved most of the people who died.

    Effective Early Treatments for Covid were systematically smeared in the United States and other lands. Medical doctors who committed the “crime” of saving the lives of their patients with Early Treatment were systematically persecuted.

    Who gave the orders for that smear campaign?

    It was not President Donald John Trump – he did not order the smear campaign, indeed he was one of the victims of it.

    And it was not even the people in the Senate and the House of Representatives – they did not give any orders for a smear campaign, or to punish doctors to committed the “crime” of saving the lives of their patients.

    Who gave the orders to maximise (yes – maximise) Covid casualties?

    Who is really in such a position of power in the United States of America?

    Even if we say that the official figures double the real Covid death toll in the United States, that it was half a million, not a million, dead, that is no small thing.

    Half a million people killed – to push a political and corporate agenda.

  • Paul Marks

    India may indeed have many faults – the British “Raj” was a lot less free market than some people seem to think it was, even property in land was not secure, and the Fabian socialist “Permit Raj” that replaced the British in the 1940s was a disaster – strangling everything in its Red Tape. It only started to be rolled back a few years ago.

    However, India is today a, basically, democratic country.

    Politicians national and local make the decisions – and officials (and “experts”) obey their orders, or they are in very serious trouble indeed.

    Corporations might well offer bribes to politicians – but they would not dream of giving an order to politicians.

    Corporate types who started to give orders or threaten political leaders would find themselves in very serious trouble – at best the police would come for them, and it might even be an armed mob who came for them.

    Someone like William “Bill” Gates screaming “you can not hit a man in glasses” would have very little chance of moderating the sort of armed mob I am thinking of – which is why Mr Gates, being an intelligent man, would not “throw his weight about” in India as he does in Britain (see how Mr Cummings casually admitted that he took his line from Mr Gates – NOT from Prime Minister Johnson) and the United States.

    Pfizer can kill people in the United States with its toxic products – but in India it would be very unwise for executives of Pfizer, or any corporation, to behave in such an arrogant way.

    India does not generally like the idea of Corporations wielding political power, even political power as “partners” as in Agenda 2030 and the general Corporate State doctrine, as they do in the modern West – perhaps partly due to the history of the East India Company in India.

    Indian law is also rather strict on “charitable foundations” – the sort of things that are used by people in the United States, for example Mr Mark Zuckerberg (the founder of Facebook – who spent 400 Million Dollars helping to rig the 2020 Presidential election in the United States, although many others were involved in this), to push their political agenda.

    And lastly, and this does have to be said, it is a bit harder to rig elections in India that it is in the United States.

    Even taking account of the differences in collecting statistics – the death rate from Covid in India was a tiny fraction of what it was in the United States. And India is a much more densely populated country – its death rate should have been higher, but it was vastly lower. Although it is not true that all Indian States went in for Early Treatment – some did, and that was very important.

    The sort of mass slaughter that occurred in the United States would not have got the same passive-conformist response in India. The Indian population would have become irritated – and would have shown their irritation rather graphically.

  • Paul Marks

    A minimum condition for it to be said than an area is a democracy is that the people, either directly (as in direct democracy) of via their elected representatives (representative democracy) decide the level of taxation.

    Some years ago an unelected judge in New Hampshire decided to increase taxes because he (the judge) believed that not enough money was being spent on government schools.

    He was meekly obeyed – taxes were increased, he was NOT dragged from his chambers, stripped naked, tarred-and-feathered, and hung by his neck from a tree.

    Once in America he would have been.

    The left in both the United States and the United Kingdom use mob violence – but “the right” know they will be punished if they use mob violence.