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]
|
As many will have read by now, the British government has made substantial cuts to parts of the country’s armed forces, such as disbanding Royal Air Force Squadrons, cutting frigates, and reducing headcount across the board. As I would have guessed, this has prompted a lot of criticism from various quarters and no doubt some, if not all of it, is justified.
However, rather than get into fine details of whether Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon is a strategic genius, sensible manager or weak fool (I report, you decide), I want to pose the question as to what sort of armed forces a libertarian-leaning government ought to have in place. (Use of mercenaries, perhaps?). Well, given that the first responsibility of any government is defence of the realm against attack, it is at least debateable whether an island nation like Britain requires, for example, a big army, an extensive airforce, or even a large navy with lots of aircraft carriers, and so on. So one could argue that the kind of armed forces envisaged by Blair’s government might be appropriate for one restricted to a self defence role. (In reality I expect commenters to point out the many flaws in these plans. Please do).
However what is obviously strange about the timing and nature of the cuts is that they come from a government not exactly shy of projecting force overseas for its liberal internationalist ends. For example, at times Blair’s position on Iraq has been more to do with overthrowing thuggish regimes that attract his scorn rather than do so on the basis of Britain’s long-term self defence needs. Such a view surely requires rather a big army, navy and air force. It also makes me wonder whether Britain any more has the ability to act as an independent military power in any meaningful sense. I doubt it. A friend of mine who has recently left the RAF says it is almost unthinkable that a Falkland Islands operation would be possible with today’s force levels. Others I know who have served in the military tell me the same thing.
There is also, one final long-term worry that I have. These cuts will further deter bright and capable young men and women from seeking a career in our forces, which require ever-higher levels of technical know-how while also drawing on the permanent need for courage and endurance. The message from these defence cuts is hardly going to get young folk to think about a career. I dreamed once of following my father into the RAF as a flyer. Now I am glad I did not. A shame. I’d have looked pretty nifty in that flying suit.
Monday night, I and Samizdata editors Perry de Havilland and Adriana Cronin-Lukas went to the House of Commons in London for the launch of the Hansard Society’s new report on blogging. Pointing out what is wrong with the report will be tackled soon enough, but the overall message of the night is what really got to me – and not in a good way.
The launch was being held in Westminster Hall, where the Hansard Society has set up an exhibition called House to Home: Bringing Parliament and people together. The first thing about this exhibition – after the huge plasma screens showing shots from parliamentary debates and self-conscious, empty elements like stacks of chairs hanging suspended from the ceiling – that caught my attention was the large banner telling us that “Politics matters”. Not only that, but that “Politics shapes us as a society”.
You can imagine how we each reacted to that supposed axiom from the Hansard Society, the “independent, non-partisan educational charity”…whose exhibition just happened to be sponsored in part by the government’s Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Electoral Commission.
The information guide that accompanies the exhibition, copies of which were handed out to everyone present at the launch, contains even more such gems. First, some good news:
If politics comes on the TV the first reaction of many of us is to switch over…'[O]fficial politics’, the formal meetings and speeches that happen in Parliament and in Downing Street, is fast becoming a minority interest: and this worries us.
Glad to hear it. But did you know that freedom of speech – along with freedom of religion and freedom to protest – is something we only have because of the government? According to the Hansard Society:
Over time, Parliament has reached out to represent more and more of the people of the country, through the extension of the right to vote, to the granting of freedoms of speech, protest, religious practice and free education.
Hmmm. Which one of these is not like the other? “Free” education is something to which each human being is entitled just by virtue of having been born, according to the “independent, non-partisan” Hansard Society’s government-sponsored exhibition. The “educational charity” also informs us that it was the benevolent Parliament that recognised this in law – and that it was the benevolent Parliament that granted us freedom of speech, to protest, and to practice religion. What is more:
[I]t is possible we could lend Parliament even more power to speak up for us.
The Hansard Society has also provided a handy guide to “How to have your say,” including tips on how to solve the vexing mystery of which constituency you live in. The guide advises us to decide which candidate and which party is most likely to speak up for what we believe in. But what if the answer is “none of the above”? Well:
If none of the parties speak for you, stand for election yourself.
Hey, that is helpful.
Finally, on page ten of this pamphlet, the Hansard Society comes clean:
This project is about changing a mindset.
Indeed. It is about telling people that it is imperative that we “get involved” in the political process – because, don’t you know, we would not have any rights if it were not for the government! And it is about freedom of expression being something that only politics can enable. As the Hansard Society puts it:
[W]e need to explore ways to allow politics to give us greater opportunities to express our views.
Because expressing one’s views can only come about through the good grace of politicians. The scary thing is, the government is taking our money to fund the “non-partisan, independent” Hansard Society’s efforts to spread this message. That is to say, British taxpayers are funding this “independent” propaganda machine.
Ah, well. It was a night for such things. Walking along Victoria Street from the House of Commons, Perry snapped a photo for me of one of my most loathed views in London – a government propaganda ticker that repeats the same message over and over: “London is getting safer…”
Still, the night was not all dispiriting. Leaving the House of Commons, I paused to admire a police guard’s impressive guns – two Glocks in the holster and a machine gun thingy (that is the technical name, I believe) in his hands. He was eager to show them off to me, and seemed happy to encounter someone who had respect for the weapons and his proficiency with them. It was enough to make a crunchy granola gun-control activist weep – which was more than enough to make me smile.
I swear I was not going to bash the Tories this week!
I was actually trawling the French news and looked forward to writing about some appalling corruption scandal. Well this [link in French] is close enough.
It seems that the European People’s Party (to which the British Conservatives belong) has done a deal with the European Socialist Party (to which the British Labour Party belongs) to ensure the election of a Socialist leader of the European Parliament: Josep Borrell Fontelles. In doing so they voted against the Polish former dissident Bronislav Geremek, who if this Communist denunciation is anything to go by, was obviously the right candidate to back.
So all the protestations that the Conservatives would defend British interests are a load of cobblers. These people are an insult to invertebrates.
It gets better, the French report says that the new President of the European Parliament (elected with the support of the European People’s Party) is a man who comes from the left-wing of the Spanish Socialist Party and who had to quit Spanish politics because of a series of unfortunate misunderstandings over large sums of stolen taxpayers’ money. I seem to recall that this was when the Governor of the Bank of Spain was filmed carrying suitcases of freshly printed bank notes to the Spanish Socialist Party Headquarters. The story was extensively covered at the time in El Mundo, the Spanish conservative daily newspaper. I forget if our new European Parliament President was personally involved (though the discreet shuffling of news reports suggests he may have been), but he certainly had to quit over that affair.
So the British Conservatives are fighting our corner within the European People’s Party? Nice one Michael Howard, I know exactly where we stand on the Conservative Party’s policy on Europe.
Support hard-core Socialists! Give fraudsters a second chance! Support even more European regulations and taxes! Vote Conservative!
Britain has been rocked this past week by shocking and totally unexpected revelations that have ripped apart the fabric of our national complacency and destablised our settled worldviews.
Prior to this week, it was an unquestioned given that the British National Party was an organisation that was fully committed, both in principle and practice, to multiculturalism and ethnic diversity.
But this article of faith has now been torn to shreds, thanks to the efforts of brave, crusading BBC reporter who went undercover to join the BNP and discovered (brace yourselves, please) that some BNP members are racist!!!!
The evidence he collected includes one BNP member, Steve Barkham, confessing to a violent assault on an Asian man, and a prospective election candidate admitting to a campaign of pushing dog excrement through the front door of an Asian takeaway.
I can hardly believe my own eyes and ears but I have to accept the terrible truth. We must be grateful to the BBC without whom we would all still be wallowing in ignorance and delusion. → Continue reading: You can take that to the bank
I have a confession to make.
In May 1990, I contested a local election as a Conservative candidate for Fortune Green Ward in the London Borough of Camden. Had I won, I would have been a Borough councillor representing about 4,500 electors as a Conservative politician.
It seems a Folkestone, Kent Conservative councillor also has some confessions to make.
He said his convictions included death by dangerous driving, indecent assault, drugs possession, carrying a weapon and forgery.
Richdale, an unemployed chef, confessed to using cannabis and amphetamines to control his alcoholic cravings, saying: “I am an alcoholic and I always will be but I haven’t had a drink for 11 years.”
He admitted having sex with a girl of 14 and said: “She told me she was 15 but she was 14. She stayed at mine (home) and I woke up to find her having sex with me.
“But I am not a sex case and I am not motivated by lust. I wish everyone was like me.”
Now I should point out that the lawful age of consent in England is 16, not 15 or 14. The language used by Councillor Robert Richdale in an interview to his local newspaper does not suggest the calibre of candidate that I would vote for. I also find the last two sentences of the quote completely at odds with any sense of personal responsibility. It never had occured to me before now that the closure of the Conservative Party’s youth sections over the past 15 years might be a good idea, as a way of preventing child abuse.
So next time a Conservative complains about the ‘loony’ ideas of libertarians I will not be thinking, perhaps we go a bit too far. The more I see them, the more I like my denunciation of “an unelectable shambles comprised largely of cretins, petty crooks, pompous buffoons and in-bred yahoos. I will take no lessons in morality or “coherent political philosophy” from a Tory.
And that is before I look at the deplorable results in the by-elections tonight, where the Conservatives have made no headway whatsoever against Labour in the Midlands. The Conservatives cannot get one fifth of the vote in a Birmingham constitutency and cannot remotely challenge in Leicester, a city where three out of four MPs were Conservative during the 1980s.
Over at the Social Affairs Unit, there is an interesting digital publication called Butler’s Dilemma: Lord Butler’s Inquiry and the Re-Assessment of Intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, by Professor Anthony Glees and Dr Philip Davies.
Although the Butler Report comes out tomorrow, this interesting analysis actually explains the issues at hand. The first section is called The Whitewash Blues…
I wonder what that would be in Latin?
Eamonn Butler on the Adam Smith Institute blog makes some interesting points about so-called consumer watchdog groups set up by the state. On one hand the state privatises because markets work better… and on the other it actually refuses to let markets do what only markets can do.
As the sort-of unofficial Samizdata consiglieri, I have occasionally had to advise the editors about the laws that govern them things we can and cannot say. Fortunately, we have managed, thus far, to steer clear of unwelcome attention from the authorities.
However, that task (and my sort-of job) could be about to become a degree of magnitude more difficult:
Inciting religious hatred is to be made a criminal offence under plans unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett.
The government failed to get laws introducing the offence passed by Parliament in the wake of the US terror attacks in 2001.
In a speech in London, Mr Blunkett revived the proposals.
He said he was returning to the plans as there was a need to stop people being abused or targeted just because they held a particular religious faith.
As mentioned in the linked article, this proposal was first hastily put forward by David Blunkett as a knee-jerk response to the WTC attacks in 2001 and justified as necessary measure to counter the whirlwind of anti-Islamic hatred he believed was about to blow (but which never actually did).
At the time, an outcry made him back down but once these ideas get into gear it is next to impossible to prevent them trundling forward. They are like cancer; you think you may be in remission only until such time as it comes creeping back.
I have yet to see the draft legislation so I consider this to be an interim condemnation. However, if recent history is anything to go by, then the laws that finally get embossed onto the statute books will be badly drawn, inchoate and so indefinite in scope as to be open to alarmingly wide interpretation by a now thoroughly politicised police force and judiciary.
Nor can we expect enforcement to be anything like fair (insofar as I am able to use that word at all in this context). Again, precedent indicates that it will range from selective to chaotic with the really nasty creatures going unscathed while the unlucky and politically easy targets have the book the thrown at them.
As much as anyone, I love to lampoon the ‘PC’ culture but I don’t much feel like laughing anymore. Current public discourse is already sufficiently timid and amaemic without further legal mechanisms designed to lock up our minds and sterilise our conversations. I do worry that the effect of all this will be that people eventually turn inwards to small groups of family and trusted friends, eschewing any sort of public life or discussion altogether for fear that it is just too risky.
I realise that some may find these concerns a little overwrought but just as it takes time to construct the machinery of public control, so it takes time for the effects of that control to manifest themselves and a nation where people have to speak in whispers or codes is a despotic and unpleasant one regardless of how bouyant the economy may be.
This is not what the future should be.
The wife of British footballer, Ray Parlour (of Arsenal) has won a landmark court award giving her an unprecedented right to take half of his future wage earnings. Already comments are flying out to the effect that this ruling makes a mockery of marriage arrangements, giving further amunition to gold-digging spouses with an eye on their partner’s wealth.
I do not know about the full particulars of the Parlour case – for all I know the ex-Mrs P. may have justice on her side – but developments like this make me fear for the future of marriage. Rulings like this give out a bad message, telling people that marriage is even more of a lottery than before and that a man or woman who hit difficulties in their relationship can endure heavy demands on their income for years to come. Given the pattern of child custody arrangements after divorce, I can predict that most of such heavy wage demands will be borne by men (though women could also be affected if they were divorced from a former “house husband”).
I would like to know what those with legal knowledge think about this ruling. Does it really fundamentally alter the marriage contract, and will it put potential super-high earners off marriage? What is for sure is that pre-nuptial agreements currently have no legal standing in Britain, as they do in some other countries, such as the United States.
In my view, couples should be able to make whatever kind of marriage agreements that suit them best, such as pre-nups and the rest, and the State should be kicked out of the field. Another part of our life overdue, I feel, for a dose of Thatcherite privatisation.
The annual London Gay Pride march took place earlier today.
Typically, I pay no heed to the occasion. This is partly due to the fact that I have no strong feelings about it one way or the other but also because it has now become just another piece in the cultural jigsaw of London life. A part of the social furniture really.
However, now into my 3rd year as a blogger, I find that I have a heightened sense of curiosity so I wandered over to have a look at the promotional website.
I rather regret bothering to do so as it makes excrutiating reading. Apparently as much devoted to disabled and asylum-seeker ‘rights’ as homosexual ones, every page drips with exquisitely pitched right-on-ness. In fact such is the extent of the dogmatically po-faced sincerity that some of it is unintentionally hilarious. For example, the line up of guest speakers includes:
Ida Barr, artificial hip hop from Music Hall Veteran and Rally Compere.
Now that means that Ms Barr plays hip hop music that is not genuine or does it mean that she merely hops around on an artificial hip? If the latter, then that is not what I call entertainment.
Julie Felix, singing against inequality, injustice and war for the last 40 years.
Clearly the number one choice when you really need to get the party swinging.
Wesley Gryk, Solicitor for the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group Gay Asylum seeker.
If I made up a group called ‘Gay Asylum seeker’ (and I consider myself somewhat remiss for not having done so) then not only would I not be believed but I would also be pilloried for exaggeration and hate speech.
There is no mention anywhere of any stop-the-war or anti-globo ranters but given their leech-like ability to latch themselves onto any passing warm-blooded creatures it would not surprise me in the least to find out that a whole sackload of them had tagged along for the ride as well.
There is nothing here about pride, much less freedom of association or individual sovereignty. This is all about group-think and the fostering of grievance cultures. What was once an understandable public protest against unjustifiable persecution has become a portmanteau of victimologies. It is as if the organisers are seeking to stitch together some coalition of alleged unfortunates with the thread of an earnestly cultivated sense of self-pity.
There was a time (and not all that long ago either) when homosexual men in this country were unfairly treated by the state so I fail to understand what is so attractive about revelling in an alleged pariah status that is demonstrably no longer the case. If homosexuals who are inclined to buy into this sophistry could learn to chuck it off and just live their lives, then that really would be a liberation.
The animal welfare charity, the RSPCA, wants lawmakers to ban ‘non-official’ firework displays and outlaw sales of fireworks which make very loud bangs, due to the distress this causes to dogs, cats and other animals, including livestock.
Now, it would be dead easy for we libertarians to immediately characterise this sort of thing as the obsession of a bunch of control freaks who want to remove our fun. I can certainly see that point. As a kid, I loved the annual Bonfire Night firework display of November 5, when my dad invariably built an enormous fire at our farm and let off vast numbers of fireworks.
But libertarians are also conscious of the issue of property rights. If I am a dog owner, and I do not want my canine companion to be traumatised by loud bangs coming from my neighbour’s property, can and should I be able to find a way to get the noise stopped? Do repeated loud noises constitute an invasion of my property rights? Or should I be able to make some kind of agreement, perhaps even involving money? For example, the firework lovers could offer a neighbour a cash sum, or offer to take the neighbour’s pets to a kennel home (soundproofed!) for the evening?
Sound ‘pollution’ can be hard to enforce via property rights, but that does not mean it would be impossible to do so. So at the risk of attracting the ire of firework nuts, I sympathise with this particular RSPCA cause, but obviously vastly prefer solutions which mean that enthusiasts of firework displays, both amateur and official, can enjoy a party while their neighbours’ pets are not sent into agonies.
A new study, based upon the census date from 1991 and 2001, has concluded that New Labour’s redistributive policies and demands for social justice, have failed to halt the long-term trend towards greater inequality. If you live in the South, in the countryside or the suburb and are well-educated, you are likely to be richer and healthier.
In our post-Christian society, the researchers have still taken the biblical warning that the poor will always be present to heart. Of course, they now have to redefine the poverty in order to substantiate their conclusion that Britain is more unequal:
The poverty measure used is the Breadline Britain measure
This defines a household as poor if the majority of people in Britain, at the time of calculation, would think that household to be poor
Britain is more unequal because the majority of the population have concluded that it has become more unequal. Hmmm…
Nevertheless, there are stretches of genuine poverty in Britain where families will go hungry for the sake of their children.
The research appeared to confirm other reports earlier this month which showed that about half of Glasgow’s population lived in deprived areas, with many parents going hungry in order to feed their children.
The actions of parents in such straitened circumstances are admirable, but their sacrifice is surely unnecessary. It is another example of socialism condemning the past and endeavouring to repeat it.
Shouldn’t advocates of social justice campaign for the abolition of the Common Agricultural Policy and the removal of all EU tariffs on agricultural products, providing cheaper food for all, especially the deprived of Glasgow, who are going hungry in the 21st century?
|
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.
|
