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]
|
The Sunday Telegraph has commented on the latest and most worrying example of the Labour Goverment’s accumulation of power by controlling information. The good Dr Liam Fox, also the Shadow Health Secretary, alerts us to the fact that last week the Government effectively dismantled the UK system of medical confidentiality. Under new regulations, slipped in using procedural devices to prevent debate in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State will be able to demand that doctors hand over medical records – and fine them if, in order to protect your confidentiality, they refuse to do so. The language of ‘the public interest’ is used to assert the right to demand, and receive, confidential medical information. Boringly, the ‘public interest’ is defined as whatever the Secretary of State says it is….
Having worked as a doctor myself, it horrifies me that doctors will now have to choose between breaching their ethics and breaking the law. To make matters worse, the new law is not restricted to doctors: the behaviour of every health care professional to his or her patients will now be subject to the direct control of politicians. The new law places the administrative convenience of the NHS not only above the bond of trust between doctor and patient, but above the dignity and privacy of patients….the change marks the death of the principle of the patient’s right to give consent before identifiable personal data about them is shared. It is yet another restriction of our liberty – and one we have surrendered to with barely a whimper of protest.
My question is ‘why is this not on the main news but on page 22 in the Comments section….?!’
It seems the death of Dutch politician and media commentator Pim Fortuyn, which continues to reverberate in the blogosphere and elsewhere, has shed light on just how useless the words ‘left’ and ‘right’ are when it comes to making sense of the political and cultural landscape.
An article in the latest edition of the UK weekly magazine The Spectator by Melanie Phillips, makes an attempt to figure out how Fortuyn grappled with the issues of defending secular, liberal democracies against influences thought to be malign, like militant Islam. But she fluffs it.
Take this dumb paragraph:
“Above all we have to reassert liberalism as a moral project which does not pretend to be morally neutral. We have to acknowledge that liberal values are rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and sprang from British culture… Liberalism has to be rescued from the clutches of the libertarians, in order to defend liberal democracy from militant Islam on the one hand and the racist Right on the other. Fortuyn was never going to be the answer. He was part of the problem.”
Phillips’ attacks legalisation of drugs, voluntary euthanasia and same-sex marital unions, all causes Fortuyn championed, and avers that such “libertarianism” undermines liberty. Eh? Surely the common thread running through his stance on tax, public sector services, and social issues like drugs was support of arrangements arrived at by consenting adults and a general desire to stop Big Government getting in the way. His opposition to unchecked, massive immigration from largely non-Western societies was predicated on a fear that such freedoms were under threat. One can argue whether his fear was justified or not – I am not entirely convinced either way – but Fortuyn’s views struck me as entirely coherent.
As for liberalism’s roots in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, that strikes me as only partially accurate. Unlike some atheists, I do fully appreciate the contribution of this religious tradition to liberty (such as the doctrine of Free Will) but for starters, what about the heritage of Greece and Rome? What about the Enlightenment?
Phillips’ analysis is flawed because, ultimately, she cannot see how freedom can flourish without state-imposed restraints. Nowhere is there any grasp of how order and rules can evolve spontaneously from below, rather than be imposed from above. This is a shame because Phillips does have some good things to say, particularly on how Fortuyn has forced many commentators used to thinking of politics through certain prisms to sharpen up their act.
Deputies sitting in the Russian Duma are proposing a law that would re-criminalise homosexuality.
However, according to the BBC:
“At a time when President Putin is concerned about Russia’s image abroad, it is inconceivable that the proposed gay ban could be put on the statute book.
Yes, well, I do recall that it was the same BBC that assured everyone that Jean-Marie Le Pen had not a cat in hell’s chance of getting past the first round of the French presidential elections.
As part of the intellectually confused but nevertheless laudable Daily Telegraph project called A Free Country, Charles Moore, about whom I am rather ambivalent, writes an exceedingly good article called Rally on May Day to blow the whistle on the control freaks:
Whose job is it to defend freedom? The answer really is, everyone’s. In practice, unfortunately, that tends to mean, no one’s. The people who want to ban tobacco advertising or fur farming or dangerous dogs or drugs or the publication of a something they don’t like will seldom outnumber the people who would prefer them tolerated, but they will almost always out-organise them. MPs do not get round robins from the “Please let us get on with our lives” society, but from the thousands of groups that want to ban or control. “Stop X Now” is a far more common message than “Leave X Alone”. Politicians, who rather like exerting their power to stop things, are only too happy to oblige.
And that is indeed the problem: we must change the frames of reference. Time to start refusing to tolerate force backed intolerance just because it is sanctified by some notion of democratic legitimacy.
Dale Felber writes in and tell us that he has seen the future.
I smoke. Some years ago the government decided that smoking was bad for me, so they began to tax cigarettes. Law suites began against tobacco companies. Warnings were placed on cigarette packs.
Now the government says that the number one health hazard is obesity! I saw on the news today that California will start taxing soda to fight obesity. Can taxing hamburgers and french fries be far behind? Law suits against McDonalds?– “I didn’t know a BigMac was bad for me… McDonalds owes me $100,000,000!”
The number of products to tax and the companies open to law suites are almost endless. Watch your investments in “Junk Food”. If you don’t believe me keep an eye on OverLawyered.com and remember what happened to big tobacco.
Everyone looked down on me and the other 25% of the population who smokes. Now it’s their turn… the government will divide and tax.
Dale Felber
http://www.businessbay.com
Yes, I think that’s what they call it: being ‘ahead of the curve’. In this case, the ‘curve’ that I am ahead of is The Times in an article warning of the dangers of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, the UK government’s grand apparatus in the already-discredited war against ‘money-laundering’.
The writer adopts a more conservative (some might say measured) tone than I did. The piece reeks of unctious solicitude much in the manner of a senior Civil Servant advising a Minister that his decision is ‘courageous’ but it does taper to a fine point:
“The legislation needs to be framed in such a way that it does not deter honest businesses from consulting their professional advisers on grey areas, where they may need clarification of their position in order to be able to rectify it. Otherwise the very professional confidentiality that has created a healthy climate of compliance in the UK will be undermined. This is likely to lead to more criminality, not less.”
Precisely the point I made (among others) nearly a year ago(1).
Still, my natural desire to gloat must be tempered by my satisfaction that some serious people in serious places are starting to get the message and, more importantly, are broadcasting it.
(1)= (link requires Adobe Acrobat Reader which can be downloaded for free)
My friend Kristine Löwe, a Norwegian now living in London, is deep into that post-university battle to get started in Real Life, and I want to give her all the help I can. She’s just had a piece about European drugs policies published in the electronic version of the Guardian.
“Not very exciting stuff” she says modestly in her e-mail to her friends and contacts, and a ringing cry for total legalisation her piece definitely is not. The story is of a shift from treating heavy drug users as criminals to treating them as medical patients, and I don’t know which idea depresses me more. Nevertheless, this is a useful way to learn the latest about the official drugs policy mindset this side of the Atlantic, and next to Kristine’s piece you’ll find further links to other interesting drug-related stories from the Guardian’s electronic archives.
Lagwolf witnesses the Sith Parliament at work abridging civil liberties
I was involved in the pro-hunt protest outside of the Houses of Parliament today. It was a well behaved and good humoured protest which occupied the road outside the building. At 3pm sharp the protestors left the road and gathered in the protest area on Parliament Square or the nearest pub. Alas our efforts were rather less than effective and the parliamentarians voted to ban hunting. It is now up to the Lords to protect this quintessential English freedom.
The fact there are Conservative MPs who voted for the full ban is most distressing and deserve all the derision decent people can muster. That Ann Widdecombe MP voted to ban is telling of how the Tory party has members who do not believe is anyone else’s freedom besides their own. Her own dubious sexuality makes this more offensive. Her “do as I say not as I do,” mentality is most galling. I hope that any Tory MP who voted for this ban is deselected at the earliest opportunity. You either believe in freedom or your don’t. Anyone who voted for a ban on fox-hunting does not believe in freedom…full stop.
Lagwolf
Russell Leslie wrote in to disagree with David Carr‘s article Buddy, can you spare a lime?
“Even a child knows that nobody ever died from eating vitamins or herbal supplements.”
To which Russell writes:
Actually – people (specifically asthmatic children) die from the common alternative remedy “royal jelly” on a regular basis. People think of royal jelly as being a wonderful natural remedy but it does kill people.
Vitamin A, a fat soluble vitamin, will kill in excessive concentrations. Though generally the people that have died have been people that have eaten the livers of sharks, seals and (ooh! gross) dogs – rather than store bought vitamin supplements.
Comfrey can lead to internal bleeding in excessive doses (there are some reports that Calendula can do this as well, though I am not clear on how reliable these reports are).
Herbal remedies are fine when intelligently used – unfortunately some people do not have the mental wattage to do anything intelligently. It is not to protect the intelligent that some form of controls may be needed – only the truly stupid need protection – but no one wants to admit that they are stupid. It is difficult to devise a system of controls protects the stupid but that doesn’t get in the way of the skilled or intelligent.
However whilst Russell makes some good technical points, I think he asks a very leading question: how do we protect the ‘stupid’ from the consequences of their own actions?
This seems to accept as axiomatic that, firstly, people who take ‘excessive’ doses of vitamins or herbal supplements are necessarily stupid… and secondly that anyone has the right to ‘protect’ said ‘stupid’ people from their own actions. The first point is highly conjectural and the second is morally dubious to put it mildly. Surely the best way to induce sensible decision making to not to insulate people from the consequences of their actions, be they the people who take alternative remedies or the people who market them.
I do not often post about specific bits of government legislation as it makes for awfully dry subject matter but I am unable to resist publishing this example of incandescent lunacy.
A year ago or so I wrote an extensive piece for the Libertarian Alliance about the nature, scope and effects of the UK Money Laundering laws (soon to be codified in the Proceeds of Crime Act).
One of the offences specified is that of ‘Tipping-Off’. If a banker/lawyer/ financial adviser suspects a client of money laundering then he is obliged to report the matter to a responsible officer within the firm who must then decide whether or not to make a report to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. All this must be done in secret because the client must not be told that he is under suspicion (in case he flees the jurisdiction). To spill the beans is to commit the offence of ‘Tipping-Off’ (maximum sentence 2 years in prison).
Well, as if destroying the principle of client confidentiality and trust is not bad enough we all now have to contend with Section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998 which requires all companies to disclose all internal memoranda to their clients upon demand, even those voicing suspicions of money laundering and, hence, tipping them off!!
One law now forces lawyers/bankers/accountants to break another law!! How long can it be before one is liable for prosecution just for turning up at work in the morning?
Do we have a Government or do we just have a Random Regulation Generating Machine up there?
Take a look at a fine article defending the ancient British sport of foxhunting by former Labour MP Brian Walden in today’s Daily Telegraph titled Ban on foxhunting would be a triumph for the mob. I cannot do better than Walden in laying out the case as to why a proposed ban on hunting with hounds is a monstrous attack on liberty, which libertarians, be they meat-eaters or hard-core vegans, should reject.
How could I pass on such a friendly challenge?
I remember my mother telling me a story from her childhood. There was a woman just up the block, a sad case no one spoke of very much: a Morphine addict. The family kept her at home, got prescription “medication” from the local pharmacist… and tried to keep the whole thing as quiet as possible.
I imagine her life was pretty much a waste. I have no way of knowing the when of this. It was in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, some years before well intentioned people tried to “put an end” to such misery.
Some 60 years of drug prohibition later, I was a young Libertarian activist appearing on radio talk shows. Good intentions had resulted in a human disaster beyond the imagination of those unwittingly responsible for it. The percentage of the population using hard drugs hadn’t even changed. But the total population had grown and with drug users concentrated in ghettos it seemed as if drug use was an epidemic.
I made the comparison to the interviewer of that woman’s life sixty years ago versus what it would now be like for her.
She’d have left home and cut all ties with the famiily after having lost her job and alienated all her friends by begging and stealing money for her expensive criminalized habit. She’d be living in total squalor in an inner city squat with her pimp boyfriend. He’d be beating her for not turning enough tricks and they’d both be robbing houses, shoplifting and commiting other petty crimes to feed their habits. Their pusher would get it all. They’d have to dive for cover when the pusher’s gang fought gun battles in the ‘hood to protect a valuable territory against rival gangs. The local cops would be on the take from the gangs. Wholesalers and importers upstream would take care of the bigger payoffs to the DEA, the Coast Guard and governments of third world countries.
The couple would be re-using dirty needles and shooting up heroin of uncertain quality and random cut. Overdose, poisoning, hepatitis, violence, withdrawals on bad days… they’d be lucky to live to be thirty.
Little needs changed to update the description by twenty more years. In 2002 the couple are probably HIV positive; and the heroin importers are financing terrorist networks and buying nukes.
Yeah, the prohibition of hard drugs sure did improve the world…
|
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.
|
