|
|||||
|
As US legislators act to make covertly installing spyware on computers illegal, I would be curious to know why Ron Paul thinks otherwise? Surely installing unrequested spyware is no different than any other unauthorised intrusion onto private property? Is it any different from inviting a travelling salesman into your house only to later discover he covertly installed bugs and hidden cameras when you were not looking so that he could monitor your behaviour for his own benefit? October 10th, 2004 | 27 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Such as the Department of Trade and Industry, or the Department of Education, for example. Yes, I know it is an old joke but… is it really a joke? October 10th, 2004 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
I have always liked J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series (though I must confess I have only seen the movies and not read the books). She writes about wizards and magic and yet the world she creates is populated by characters who still act like real people. Moreover she is the anti-thesis of the sugar coated Disney pabulum of recent years. Not only do her characters act like real people, when the story calls for it, they die. l have long loathed Disney for presenting some of the classic children’s stories of Western literature in such a sanitised and castrated form that Disney’s use of the titles is close to being fraudulent (such as the completely inverted ‘Little Mermaid’). J.K. Rowling is made of far sterner stuff and she realises what the focus-group addled hacks at Disney do not… children are also made of sterner stuff. October 8th, 2004 | 17 comments - (Comments are closed)
A British muslim in the Royal Air Force has been successfully prosecuted for going AWOL after claiming he did not want to help kill fellow muslims in Iraq. It seems to me that an excellent reason for refusing to join a nation’s military is the simple desire to not shoot at, or facilitate shooting at, people that you might not feel should not be shot at. If you have a goodly distrust for the wisdom of the state to begin with, taking the view that you are not going to kill someone just because the government wants you to is a very reasonable default position to adopt. Now of course all states and their militaries are not the same. If you voluntarily contract to do the bidding of the government of Sweden or the Vatican or Switzerland or Costa Rica or Swaziland or Belize or Luxembourg… nations who are certainly not ‘military extroverts’… then the range of things you could reasonably expect to be asked to do will generally not include going to far off places you had never previously heard of and dropping bombs on the locals. However… If you do elect to join a military in circumstances other than fighting off the clear and present danger of an invasion, it seems to me that you are offering to allow the state make the decision for you of when it is appropriate to shoot and at which particular people. Moreover, if you join a military of some place like Britain, France or the USA, i.e. states who frequently sent their soldiers off to kill folks in far off lands for all manner of reasons other than the direct self-defence of the homeland, then it seems a bit rich to take the state’s pay checks for several years but then act surprised if you get asked to, well, help kill folks in far off lands. Read the damn job description before you take the shilling. October 7th, 2004 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
For those of you interested in business oriented blogging, I have written an article called Business Hippos and Blogging Birds over at the Big Blog Company. I have always seen business blogs as the best manifestation of the whole Cluetrain vibe.  October 6th, 2004 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
That essential source for civil liberties issues, vigilant.tv is showing signs of life again after a long absence from the blogosphere. That can only be a good thing. October 6th, 2004 | Comments are closed
There has been a disturbing development in which PayPal seems to be threatening to withdrawn its services from blogs which violate their acceptable use policy. Fair enough on the face of it, as it is certainly PayPal’s right to offer to do business on whatever terms they wish. But then take a look at what those terms are:
So… write about or show pictures of the victims of a terrorist atrocity, or show pictures of Osama bin Laden and suddenly no more PayPal for you, as Bill Quick of Daily Pundit has found out. They do not want to do business with Bill Quick? Well I am not so sure I want to continue to do business with PayPal then. Clearly Samizdata.net is going to have to review whether or not we will continue to have those PayPal buttons you see at the moment in our sidebar. September 25th, 2004 | 16 comments - (Comments are closed)
Christy Davies has an interesting article on the Social Affairs Unit blog which looks critically at one of the educational ‘given’ of our age:
Interesting stuff. Read the whole thing. September 24th, 2004 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
The socialist charity and political lobbying group Christian Aid, has a new campaign called Vote for Trade Justice.
Ok, so let me get this straight… Western farmers, their operations subsidised with other western taxpayer’s money and their own domestic markets distorted by ‘protective’ tariff barriers which increase the price of imports, sell to African countries and that is… Free trade? FREE TRADE? What the hell is free about it? Western agricultural producers are a nightmarish mix of tax subsidy and production quotas, with bizarrely priced surpluses that are occasionally and erratically dumped on Third World markets… and at the same time western consumers are denied access to both First and Third World products at their true economic cost by a vast raft of arcane state and super-state imposed regulations. Please explain who exactly is engaging in laissez faire here. The only intelligent bit is calling it “so called” free trade. The problem is that vested economic interests (big business and big labour) have zero interest in free trade. They do not give a damn about the Third World, all they see is the extremely low labour costs in the developing countries and what that implies for their own narrow sectional interests… and they have the state to protect those interests with laws. So is Christian ‘Aid’ screaming “Remove all tariffs to imports NOW”? Of course not. They are calling for an end to “Free Trade”. What is needed is not democratically sanctified politically managed trade (which we have now) but real, genuine, non-government regulated free trade. The fact that Kenya actually does manage to sell significant quantities of very high quality green beans in Britain is a testament to how some people will succeed in spite of western regulatory systems which would rather their producers just lived in abject poverty and that westerners pay more for their food than they need to. If Christian Aid really cared about people in the Third World rather than just posturing for their own self-important gratification, they would be demanding true laissez faire free trade in which low labour cost agricultural nations could take on the western open air industrial chemical factories, sorry I mean farms, without having the state/super-state controlling access to the target market tilt the scales against them. Demand for more ‘organic’ produce increases by the year and many Third World countries are well suited to serve that premium high margin market. That is where the foolish self-appointed Paladins of the Oppressed should be directing their attention rather than calling for mere tinkering with the statist system of trade controls that is so integral to the problem in the first place. With friends like Christian Aid, people in the developing world do not need enemies.  September 23rd, 2004 | 43 comments - (Comments are closed)
Constrained democracy can be a splendid check on state power but unconstrained democracy just shifts the locus for where the seat of tyranny lies. September 22nd, 2004 | 3 comments - (Comments are closed)
The stunt pulled by pro-hunting protestors of intruding into the inner sanctum of the House of Commons has produced a large number of very predictable responses. MPs and other establishment figures harrumphed that “Parliament’s privileges have been infringed!” and “This is an attack on democracy itself!” and “We must protect this most important of our institutions!” and “The protestors must not alienate people by acting so despicably!”… Well I have a suggestion for the pro-hunt protestors: ignore all those remarks because the only way to win is to fight your battles on ground of your choosing. As David Carr pointed out earlier with regard to when one of the protestors in the Commons shouted “This isn’t democracy. You are overturning democracy.” – Wrong. This is democracy in action and you are on the receiving end of it. What they really, really need to understand is that the majority of people in Britain are urban folk who are at best utterly indifferent to the protestor’s concerns and frequently somewhat hostile to them. The hunters and their supporters cannot hope to convince a majority that hunting is something that is either important or even needs to be tolerated. Do not waste your time making arguments about ‘country livelihood’ or ‘managing pests’ because not only do most people not believe you (such as me, for example), most simply do not care because they feel no particular affinity with you. It is preposterous to argue that the only effective way to put down vermin is to chase them on horseback with hounds. It is simply not a matter for highly questionable utilitarian arguments but rather for arguing for free association to do what you will on private property. That is the only coherent and more importantly resonant argument to make. If gay men can congregate together in clubs to do things the majority of people find deeply distasteful, without having to worry about being raided by the fuzz, why cannot foxhunters congregate together to do things the majority find distasteful without worrying about the Boys in Blue showing up? Successfully point out to gay rights activists that making the prejudices of the majority the law of the land is not something they should be comfortable with… and suddenly the class warriors behind the hunting ban might find it much harder to ‘bash the toffs’ as the implications of where this is clearly heading starts to dawn on altogether different groups. In short, stop making invocations to the graven idol called ‘Democracy’ because it will not hear your prayers. Accept that you are a heretic and raise up an idol of your own. Call it, say, ‘Liberty’ and then challenge your enemies to denounce it. If you want to defend your liberty to do things in free association with likeminded folk on private property, you will have to come to some very sobering realisations. → Continue reading: Confronting reality September 18th, 2004 | 77 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
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. |
|||||