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]
|
If so then people will soon start lying, perjuring and deceiving if they wish to do so in Britain…
Increasingly people may conclude that is the only rational response if they ever find themselves in fear for their life some night in their own home. Barry-Lee Hastings found out what happens if you tell the truth. He killed a burglar in his house using a knife, stabbing him in the back after mistaking a crowbar in the criminal’s hands as a machete.
So if you find yourself confronted by an intruder and you live in Britain, generations of cultural logic tell you to not do what the state would have you do: retreat, surrender your property and realise only the state has the right to use force. No, if that person is British then they will understand that the correct thing to do is to fight for what is yours. They will defend themselves as is their inalienable common law right and if need be, kill the person who is threatening them.
…and so some British homeowner find themselves standing over the dead body of a burglar holding a crowbar.
But because they also read the newspapers, watch the television and hopefully read blogs, they will quickly realise that they are still very much in danger. Once they have calmed down, they will start to examine the body of the dead criminal and what they were holding… and they will make sure that the evidence of the intruder’s clear and present threat to their life is not just manifest but incontrovertible: if necessary they will cut themselves and arrange things to make the reality of their contention ‘hyper-real’. They will conclude there is no shame in defending themselves but they will also realise that it is not just the intruder they must defend themselves against, but also the state which would make them a neutered victim.
If the state wanted to encourage perjury and hostility to the judiciary, it could not have found a better way of going about engendering it. This is Britain’s future as the alienation between the commonsensical British expectation of law and the state’s law grows.
After presiding over Barry-Lee Hastings’ conviction for manslaughter, Judge Barker said:
No one can fail to have sympathy for a householder or visitor who without warning found himself in the position you did when you reached the front door.
Ludicrous dissembling sentiments. I rather doubt Barry-Lee Hastings will give a damn about Judge Barker’s worthless ‘sympathy’ as he rots in jail for the next five years. Well sorry, how is a crowbar in an intruder’s hands not a deadly weapon? The next time this happens, as happen it will, I wonder what the next householder with the bloody knife will tell the police? The unvarnished truth? I have my doubts.
The state is not your friend.
Whilst surfing the Internet I came upon a site purporting to show
What’s wrong with libertarianism. As I like to think I am always looking for a challenge, I though a little bit of fisking was in order given that most of what the site is critiquing is in fact libertarian influenced neo-conservatism, not actually ‘libertarianism’ at all. Also Zompist claims to argue on the basis of morality but in fact goes on to make an entirely utilitarian series of propositions.
When asked why not deregulate the economy, Zompist replied ‘We tried that and failed’… He then proceeds to actually make the libertarian case for us by arguing that in the supposedly unregulated past, the state would carry out ‘gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests’.
Of course one must have a significant interventionist state that owns gunboats and is structured in such a way to allow it to be manipulated by business in the first place… hardly an example of a ‘minimal state’ or perhaps Zompist thinks the Rockefeller family actually owned its own corporate logo’ed gunboats rather than the United States Navy.
Even more bizarrely Augusto Pinochet is held up as an example of an advocate of a minimal state! How does increasing the size of the security apparatus to impose the power of the state make a person an advocate of a minimal state? Duh. → Continue reading: How not to argue against libertarianism
183 people at least are dead, probably more as 220 Australians and 20 or so British remain unaccounted for. All the victims were civilians, mostly young backpackers on holiday or the Indonesian staff serving them. Yet judging by what I seen written by John Pilger or Robert Fisk or Noam Chomsky since September 11th of last year, I thought the reason terrorists are attacking ‘us’ was something to do with injustice in Palestine? Is Bali part of Palestine? How many Palestinians have the Australian Army killed?
I recall hearing that the WTC was attacked because it was a symbol and centre of exploitive capitalism and the US military industrial complex. And what exactly was the Sari Club in Bali a symbol of? Will the people on WarbloggerWatch or at New Stateman tell us how the forces of US imperialism have been thwarted by the death of so many young Aussies and others in a holiday resort?
What was that you said? It is all about oil? Ah, silly me.
Evil-white-male and immodest un-Islamic
Australian woman flee Bali attack last night
The Jemaah Islamiyah organisation, which is part of the Al Qaeda network, has killed around 180 people, mostly Australian, American and British tourists in the Indonesian holiday resort of Bali. I have been to Bali myself and it is a glorious place. Although Indonesia is the worlds most populous Muslim nation, Bali has a majority Hindu population.
People are already asking what can be done about the ‘root causes’ of this horror. Well sometimes the ‘root cause’ of violence is a justified struggle against injustice. To deal with the ‘root cause’, one should therefore work to remove the injustice. But sometimes the ‘root cause’ of violence is the unjustified defence of a collective order against those who would reject it. In such cases the way to ‘mitigate’ that violence is by putting a 7.62mm hole in the head of those who would perpetrate or enable such acts.
Find the people who planned this, the people who carried it out and the people who support them. Find them and you find the only ’cause’ that matters. Rip their ‘root cause’ out by the roots and apply a blow torch. Kill them. I don’t give a damn what their grievances are. Just kill them.
The only rational response
After periodic, and if the truth be known, inevitable paedophile scandals in Britain of the sort that occurs in every school system in the world, checks on the backgrounds of teachers have been stepped up and made more rigorous. No problem there as if someone has a history of paedophile activities, it is entirely reasonable that a potential educational employer should want to discover that.
But then why does the state insist that as part of this information gathering process, that the prospective teacher reveals their banking details and how to access their secure password to get at their financial details?
It is because the Panopticon state regards privacy as in and of itself a cause for suspicion.
In what can only be the yet another indication the the EU intends to ignore even the semblance of democratic norms when it does not suit them, whilst at the same time wrapping themselves in the cloak of legitimacy that the European ‘Parliament’ allegedly brings:
Günter Verheugen, enlargement Commissioner, said on Wednesday, that it would be difficult to interpret a second No by the Irish: “If a treaty is rejected twice in a country and that country knows exactly that this treaty is a precondition for the conclusions of enlargement negotiations, the outside world cannot make the judge whether the rejections means enlargement or something else.”
So if Ireland votes NO to EU enlargement, Günter Verheugen feels it might in fact mean something other than NO to enlargement. I suspect I understand the source of the misunderstanding: When translated by official EU translators from Irish accented English, into Greek and then into Danish and then back into English, the result was:
A pint of Guinness please
However when translated by official EU translators from Irish accented English, into German and then into Swedish and then back into English, the result was:
Top of the morning to you, Mrs. Murphy
Yet when translated by official EU translators from Irish accented English, into Portuguese and then into Italian and then back into English, the result was:
We are just a bunch of Paddy jokers, pay no attention to us
No wonder poor Günter Verheugen is confused as to the meaning of the word NO.
Not surprisingly the UK and Irish media are filled with the rapidly developing crisis in Northern Ireland. On the face of it, the situation is fairly simple: Following a lengthy investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, culminating in a high profile raid by uniformed officers of the PSNI on Sinn Fein’s offices at Stormont itself (the seat of the Northern Irish assembly), Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, has been caught spying at the highest levels of the Northern Irish coalition government of which they are a member. The Ulster Unionists are outraged, the British and Irish governments are stunned and the Northern Irish peace process stands on the very brink of collapse.
And yet…
Can it really have come as a surprise to anyone that Sinn Fein, a Marxist party dedicated to the end of British rule in Ulster and the stripping of the Protestant majority’s democratic political power, would be using the fact it is in a coalition government to compile information on its British and Protestant Irish political enemies? Clearly anyone with at least half a brain would expect them to use whatever means presented themselves to acquire information to gain political advantage. The leadership of Sinn Fein are also the leadership of the IRA, which is to say they are people who have gained their place at the very heart of Northern Ireland’s government because they have ordered large numbers of people killed over the last few decades. Are these the sort of people who would not use covert means to continue to advance their political agendas?
So if that is hardly unexpected behaviour from people who have got where they are now by the successful use of violence, then why the shock and outrage? Also, are we really to believe that all this information has only now come to light in spite of the fact Ulster is riddled with informants and undercover assets of Britain’s rather effective security services? Nonsense. It just does not add up.
Here is what I think is happening:
- Tony Blair can pretend to Labour dominated Parliament and the readers of the Guardian that the IRA has decommissioned more than a tiny fraction of its weapons and they it had stopped using violence within the Catholic communities of Ulster to maintain their authority, but no one in Northern Ireland really believes that.
- Yet Tony Blair was so loath to see his peace process go down the toilet the way of so many before it in Ireland had, that he would overlook almost anything the Republican side did if that was what it would take. As a result Sinn Fein could see all their dreams coming true, in gradual incremental installments.
- The Ulster Unionists had been making it clear for quite some time that they have had enough. David Trimble was facing progressively more discontent from within the Ulster Unionists and the crunch point was fast approaching: if he intended to remain as the party’s leader, given that the British government of Tony Blair did not have the stomach to face down Sinn Fein, Trimble himself was going to have to pull the plug on the Northern Irish settlement unless Sinn Fein actually lived up to its promises. This would involve him in effect taking the settlement and telling Tony Blair to stick it up his arse.
Result? Tony Blair gets the blame and is shown to have simply been too weak to force Sinn Fein to do what it had promised for real… Political disaster for Labour of the highest magnitude.
So… Given that consummate politician Blair has realised that nothing can now save the Northern Irish peace process from exploding, he decided the only way to minimise the political damage that Trimble would inflict on him is to blame the whole thing going down the crapper on the bad faith of… Sinn Fein. Thus all the information that Blair has in reality known about for years is suddenly ‘discovered’ following a high profile raid, he washes his hands like Pontus Pilate and says “It’s not my fault, oh if only those wicked Sinn Fein people had just been as honest with us as we had been with them”.
Of course if Tony Blair, like John Major before him, had not allowed the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to get away with telling a never ending stream of porkies for years in the hope they would eventually ‘play nice’, we would perhaps have seen a more stable agreement reached… but the fact is there was bad faith on all sides.
That veritable taste sensation and Slavophile angst muffin of the blogosphere, Shannon Okey needs help from you technical engineer types… so surf on over and see if you can lend a hand.
Shannon wants you badly
Graham Turner asks in an article in the Telegraph Can the Conservative Party recover?… and of course the answer I would give is no. It is fascinating to watch the Tory Party Conference. I have not enjoyed myself as much since I last saw Dawn of the Dead.
The new Tory manifesto is starting
to take shape nicely
Iain Duncan Smith continues to amaze me with his triviality and casual insults to potential supporters. The latest thigh slappingly funny remark is that he dislikes the ‘doggerel’ found in Roman Catholic Masses. Not in and of itself a momentous observation, but then please keep in mind that this is the man who would presumably like Catholics in Britain to vote for him so that he can be the one plundering private assets instead of those nasty labour people.
Did anyone hear front bench advocacy for
genuine capitalist solutions and free trade over
all the blather about ‘public services’ being paramount?
And when IDS finally implodes, or more likely people just forget his name, it seems that chubby paleo-statist Kenneth Clark still hankers after party leadership so he can revive the glories of the Ted Heath era…
Now this is almost better that Evil Dead…
Kenneth Clark’s supporters were much in
evidence this year
 Update: I have now sobered up and I would like to apologise to all of our readers who happen to be undead… in no way was I implying all zombies are members of the Conservative Party. 
Alice Bachini has posted an interesting reply to my recent article called The world is a messy place. Alice writes in When is violence OK?:
Bashing people for the purpose of communicating something moral might sound like an oxymoron, but I don’t think it is. I think the idea “No to badness!” is expressed usefully, and anyway, sometimes the only alternative is between that or “Yes to violence!” in the non-bashing alternative. It might seem generous to absorb the other person’s nastiness by taking it on the chin and walking off in silence, but unless they interpret this in the right spirit, it’s worse than useless.
I could not agree more!
Now at some risk of provoking an adverse response, I am going to have to raise a point regarding what is and is not a reasonable view regarding violence.
Although we have written many articles about the subject on Samizdata, I am not talking about self defence this time, which to most libertarians is a ‘no brainer’… if you are threatened with violence, you may defend yourself. Nor was I talking about the legitimacy of war against Iraq, which though more contentious is, I think, also a legitimate use of violence.
No, I am discussing the use of violence in everyday life. Now this is still a subject many have written about on this blog, usually with regard to violence and coercion directed at children as one of our contributors is the redoubtable Sarah Lawrence of Taking Children Seriously fame, and two of our frequent guest writers are supporters of TCS.
But I am not really talking about whether or not a child should be hit by their parents specifically but rather whether it is ever justified to use force outside the context of self-defense. When discussing the use of coercion against children, I was once asked if I would ever use force against an adult just because I disapproved of their behaviour in non-self defense situations. My answer was that whilst I would agree that as a general principle I am indeed against the use of force, there are indeed situations in the real world in which violence in the only way to communicate meaningfully.
About 18 months ago, I was crossing a street in Battersea with my 81 year old grandmother. A driver recklessly rounded a corner and only just managed to slam on the brakes in time to avoid running my grandmother down. Far from apologising for his reckless driving and the fact he nearly killed her, he blew his horn and abused her.
There were no witnesses to hand, meaning a formal complaint would just be our word against his, and as he was clearly about to drive off, I was faced with either doing nothing or expressing my displeasure forcefully. I reached in the open window, dragged him out of his car by his collar and punched him in the face. Although we did not discourse at great length, I can say with some confidence that I am sure he understood the causal links which had lead to his face and my fist coming into close proximity.
Do I recommend this as method of communication? Generally no, but the choice I had was simply to allow him to drive away after having nearly killed my grandmother or use force to demonstrate that such behaviour in entirely unacceptable. If there had been witnesses to hand I suspect I would have noted his licence plate and called the police but that was not so… I chose to react forcefully and would do so again in similar circumstances. It may not have been the legal thing to do but I would contend it was the correct thing to do.
The point I am trying to make is that in the real world, sometimes people act entirely unreasonably and thus to try and reason with them is unlikely to achieve much more or less by definition: they are unreasonable. 99 times out of 100 violence is not the answer. On that 100th time however, some level of violence is the only meaningful reaction. The world is a messy place.
LIBERTY 2002: the European conference of The Libertarian International and Libertarian Alliance
Saturday 9 November – Sunday 10 November, 2002
10.00am-6.00pm
The National Liberal Club
Whitehall Place
London
SW1A 2HE
England
Speakers:
- Professor Norman Barry – Business ethics and regulation: A libertarian view
- Stefan Blankertz – Nature or Nurture: A libertarian perspective on the Debate on Intelligence
- Professor John Burton – Why libertarianism is losing out
- Dr. Eamon Butler – ‘Third Way’ interventionism in the UK and its lessons
- Professor Antony Flew – A critique of welfare rights
- Alan Forester – Why libertarians should take children seriously
- Professor Terence Kealey – Science is not a public good – and requires no public support
- Sarah Lawrence – The semblance of consent: how tyrants use the illusion of freedom
- Professor Tibor Machan – Are political principles stable?
- Richard Miniter – The reality of the Middle East and libertarian policy dilemmas
- Dr. Ken Minogue – The chameleon servility and its contemporary camouflage
- Robin Ramsay – In defence of paranoia: myths and realities of “conspiracy theory”
- Francois-Rene Rideau – Government as the rule of “Black Magic”: On Human Sacrifice and Other Modern Superstitions
- Panel Discussion: Libertarian Iinternational and Libertarian Alliance Representatives – Liberty and Strategy in International Context, Chaired by Hubert Jongen, Chairman of The Libertarian International.
- Panel Discussion: Mark Littlewood, Dr. Sean Gabb & Dr. Chris R. Tame – The Destruction of Civil Liberties in the UK and its lessons
The £75 conference fee covers conference attendance, morning and afternoon tea and coffee, and the closing Banquet (but not accommodation – see below for a suggestion on this).
Are you going to attend the LIBERTY 2002 conference? Several members of the Samizdata Team will be there, so ask around and I am sure you will be able to find us. → Continue reading: More on the LIBERTY 2002 Conference
|
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.
|
