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]

Fighting talk

It appears that not everyone in Britain cravenly rolls over when confronted by authority.

After being fined for a very trivial motoring ‘offence’, Leon Humphreys reponse was, ‘fight me for it’:

“A court has rejected a 60-year-old man’s attempt to invoke the ancient right to trial by combat, rather than pay a £25 fine for a minor motoring offence.”

Not surprisingly, his invitation was declined and the fine increased. Still, you’ve got to award the guy some brownie points for his sheer cojones.

From their own mouths

I am a fairly regular reader of New Scientist for its take on fast breaking technological news. The magazine does have a downside though. It is very… well… representative of UK “liberal” politics.

I have just finished an item in the 29-Nov-2002 issue, “I see a long life and a healthy one…” about entrepreneurial companies making genetic testing available to the consumer. One would think a science magazine would be praising them for taking cutting edge science and bringing it to the consumer in an affordable and appealing way while potentially creating many high paying jobs for scientists in the UK, generating yet another path for massive capital infusion into genetic and health research and adding to UK exports to top it off?

Naaah.

I’ll let these quotes from the article stand on their own:

British regulators were caught on the hop when Sciona’s tests first went on sale. No one had foreseen that consumers would suddenly be able to learn something about their genes without a doctor’s agreement, or even knowledge.

Another option would be to return control of genetic testing to the medical profession, banning companies from providing tests unless requested by a doctor. Companies say this is a step too far towards meidcal paternalism, and argue that people have the right to obtain genetic information about themselves. But [Helen] Wallace [of GeneWatch UK] disagrees: “We need to ensure proper consultation through GP’s to ensure that people understand the implications of taking a test,” she says

What could I possibly add?

As blatant as it gets

Who would you pick as your ‘Newsmaker of the Year’? Who do you believe has had the most significant impact in 2002? It is a tough one, isn’t it. So many candidates, some for good reasons, some for bad reasons.

However, on the assumption that you are at all interested in this kind of thing, then you might care to toddle along to the BBC Website where they have very helpfully published a shortlist of suitable nominees for you to consider:

  • Jimmy Carter
  • Bill Clinton
  • Louis Farrakhan
  • Alan Greenspan
  • Jeremy Hardy
  • Prince Harry
  • Ali Hewson
  • Henry Kissinger
  • Michael Moore
  • Christopher Reeve
  • Clare Short

Now I do not wish to appear overly judgemental or anything, and I am always wary about jumping to conclusions, and I realise that you must not go around accusing people of all sorts of things for no reason or putting two and two together and coming up with five, but I honestly do think that the BBC have an ever-so-slight left-wing bias.

Or do you think I’m being too hasty?

Loaded language from the right

As an anti-statist, free market capitalist libertarian, I am often ‘accused’ of being on the political right. Yet as so many libertarians will tell you, many of my ilk refuse to accept the statist left/right axis as having any relevance to us. One only has to listen to a pro-immigration libertarian such as myself and then listen to most Tories in the UK/Republicans in the USA to see an issue which shows the differences.

We often find that neo-conservatives agree with libertarian antipathy to Marxist and Keynesian state centred economics and the wealth & liberty destroying regulatory state. Yet to think that advocating laissez-faire makes us ‘right wing’ is to misunderstand just how large the cultural and philosophical gulf is between most true (i.e. capitalist) libertarians and most conservatives. Conservatives are about conserving, they are about continuity above all else… however libertarians are about liberty, conserving it where it can be found but also tearing down whatever impeeds it, regardless of whose sacred cows get gored in the process. We may wish to conserve what is objectively good but otherwise we are as Promethean as the Marxist left.

In the Daily Telegraph article Britain risks huge influx of east Europe migrants by Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor, we see loaded language even in the title: ‘risk’. How about calling the article:

‘Britain opens doors to those formerly oppressed by Communism’

or maybe:

‘Britain steals a march on Continental Europe in grab for east European labour’

But no. The thrust of the article is that only the wonderful Tories want to ‘protect us’ from the Eastern Hordes.

Ministers said that allowing migrant workers from these countries into Britain at the earliest opportunity would help the economy. But Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, challenged the Government to explain why it had not made use of the transitional arrangements. “We live in a small and crowded island,” he said. “Why does the Government consider it appropriate not to have transitional controls when other EU countries have imposed them.”

Well it just so happens that the Telegraph article I am quoting from actually links to an article here on Samizdata.net from the Telegraph external links sidebar (cheers, guys!) called Why do people think that Britain is overcrowded? It really is not overcrowded and the idea we are somehow not going to be able to assimilate other Europeans is laughable. Oliver Letwin does not really care about providing the British economy with high initiative eastern European workers and entrepreneurs, he is just concerned with playing politics and attacking anything the dismal Blair government does, even when it is entirely correct.

Real news need not apply

I’m watching the evening news while I eat… or perhaps I should call it the evening non-news as there has been very little time allocated for News tonight. With Iran in the midst of potentially historic changes, demonstrations against the dictator wannabe in Venezuala and with the Iraq situation moving towards endgame…. we get the Blair’s family business. The top news in the UK is whether the wife of the Prime Minister had help on a family mortgage from a con artist who was going out with her best friend. I’d like to know: “Why on EARTH should I give a flying f**k?”

Journalism has across the board sunk to the depths of super market rags. No garbage is too insignificant to be turned into a headline.

Minutes later: I give up. Television off. Garbage news on two channels, journalists rabbiting on about the importance of the utterly banal and unimportant. If everyone just turned the telly off now and told them how idiotic they all sound, I wonder if they’d get the point and give us News?

Thank god for the internet where I can go find news that actually matters.

Gordon is Lying

Paul Staines says that British Chancellor Bordon Brown is, to put it bluntly, full of crap

I try not to bore Samizdata readers with shop talk, but the markets are saying that Gordon Brown is a liar, all the research I get (for what it’s worth) is saying blatantly that Mr Brown’s underwear is warm. “Liar, liar knickers on fire” goes the old English schoolground skipping rhyme. Typically:

“Sterling had a weak start in NY trading on a combination of overall dollar buying and the IMF report just released on the UK, expressing the Fund’s cool reception to last week’s pre-budget report on the grounds that it is “weaker than previous reports , causing it to affirm its 2.25-50% GDP forecast for 2003, which is below the government’s own forecast of 2.5-3.0%. The IMF criticized Chancellor Gordon Brown’s assumptions, which laid out the foundation of his revenue projections. The Fund noted an especially skeptical note on Brown’s decision to finance his revenue shortfall through borrowing.

UK November retail sales rose 2.0% year on year at their slowest pace in 2 years, following October’s 4.9% jump. The British Retail Consortium attributed the weak rise to unusually strong November sales last year, adding a hopeful note that that the poor figures may entice the BoE to cut rates. Unlike, the Fed, ECB and BoJ, the BoE has not eased its monetary policy, since last November.”

The British state is, pre-election cycle, going to raise government borrowing to finance a spending binge without raising taxes (too much for voters) and everyone knows Gordon is lying.

Paul Staines

UK opens discussion on missile defense

The Ministry of Defense released a paper for public discussion (pdf) on missile defense today. Mr. Hoon would like the public debate on the issues to begin now because deployment will take many years here from the start of such discussion.

The media reports claim there is currently no threat. I was surprised not even Mr Hoon pointed out how even an existing short range ballistic missile can be fired from a tramp steamer outside of the UK territorial waters.

I hope to find some mention of this in the aforementioned document which I have not yet had a chance to read.

You may email your comments to the UK MoD on this subject at:

Missile-Defence@mod.gsi.gov.uk


Dec. 3, 2001 Prototype Kill Vehicle
launch from Mecklin Island.
Courtesy US DOD

Police non-response times

Self-defence is not necessary because we have the police to protect us, right. That’s their job. That’s what we, the tax-payers, pay them to do. So, we can all sleep safely in our beds at night, knowing that the agents of the state will keep us safe from those who would do us harm.

That’s the theory; this is the practice:

“Police have launched an inquiry into why it took officers an hour to respond to an emergency call from a Jewish couple who were the victims of a terrifying burglary at their Southgate home.”

Well, as long as there’s no ‘hate speech’ involved, it probably isn’t a real emergency.

“Officers eventually arrived at 6:40am, long after the intruders had driven off with their haul in the couples’ two Mercedes saloons.”

Laughing their arses off, I’d wager.

““Although I am disgusted with the police who should have been there to help us, they have been very supportive and efficient since. It was just a break-down in communication and it shouldn’t have happened.”

‘It shouldn’t have happened’!!. Oh, that’s all okay then. As long as this kind of thing ‘shouldn’t happen’, we can all go back to sleep again.

The success of gun-control

A police officer was shot and seriously wounded after stopping a motorist in North London.

In the West Midlands, two men have been fatally shot in separate incidents.

Just what is wrong with these people? Don’t they know that guns are supposed to be banned in Britain?

Lawful killings

A British court today has ruled that Darren Taylor, a burglar who was stabbed to death with his own knife by homeowner John Lambert, was lawfully killed.

Taylor and his accomplice, Ian Reed, both high on drugs and drink, burst into the Lambert’s home and held a knife to the throat of Mrs Lambert, demanding £5,000 from the couple. In the ensuing melee, John Lambert managed to kill Taylor and drive off Reed.

When the police finally arrived, they arrested Mr Lambert for murder, although all charges were later dropped against him whilst the surviving criminal, Ian Reed, was sentenced to eight years in prison for robbery.

It would be nice if there was a presumption of innocence when the cops show up and see situations such as these. After all, when the cops shoot a man dead for no good reason at all, it is just taken as a given that it was lawfully done. In John Lambert’s case, his rights were ultimately upheld but it is hard to escape the feeling that there is one rule for agents of the state and another for its subjects.

RKBA – UK

I don’t recall ever having reproduced an article in full on this blog and, only on the rare occasion, will I publish a letter in full. This is one such occasion and the quality of the letter merits it:

Modern changes ignore old gun laws

“Sir – Alan Judd is hesitant to advocate a “firearms free-for-all” (Comment, Dec 2), but one might recall that, before the First World War, when almost any British citizen could possess and carry any gun without a licence (and frequently did so, for there was a massive domestic firearms industry), armed crime in London ran at only two per cent of what it is today.

In 1946, the year the Home Office first moved against the licensing of pistols for self-defence, there were only 25 armed robberies in London: today, we have more than that every fortnight.

Confusion over our right to self-defence has not arisen because, as Mr Judd at one point suggests, we have “renounced” that capability. It is a right enshrined in our central constitutional document, the Bill of Rights of 1689, which is still in force as statute law. The right to possess arms for self-defence was one of only two rights of the individual guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and was indeed the ultimate surety of the subject’s other liberties.

While it had been the Restoration disarmament of Protestants that provoked the arms provision of the Bill of Rights, the equal right of Catholics to self-defence was guaranteed in the same year, and case law upheld the right to bear arms for self-defence through to the 20th century.

When the first Firearms Act was introduced in 1920, it was recognised that the normal justification for owning a revolver was self-defence; it was only in 1946 that the Labour Home Secretary indicated that this would no longer necessarily be accepted as a good reason.

When the Home Office advised Lord Cullen, in the prelude to the pistol ban of 1997, that “as a matter of policy” British law did not permit the citizen any weapons for self-defence, it was therefore asserting a new policy without legal foundation that simply chose to ignore the Bill of Rights.

It is the text of a letter written to the Daily Telegraph by a gentleman called Richard Munday whom I know not but admire much, not just because he is correct, but also because he has not forgotten his heritage.

Unlike our political rulers and most of fellow citizens who have shed their birthright like dead skin in the headlong rush to serfdom. But despite having been so outrageously and cynically trampled underfoot the 1689 Bill of Rights is still the law of the land and it does, indeed, bestow on every citizen the right and ability to defend their life, liberty and property.

However, the Bill of Rights is an Act of Parliament and, since no parliament can bind its successors, it could easily be repealed by another Act of Parliament. The fact that it has not yet been so repealed is doubtless due to the Old Bill being more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

So dragging the glorious old Bill of Rights from its musty chest and waving it in the face of the policeman who will come to arrest you for exercising your rights is all very back-stiffening in theory and may earn your day in Court to shout your case. But, in practice, the merest hint of any such happening would spur HMG into passing a repealing Act which would sail smartly through the House of Glove Puppets with nary a whisper of dissent nor a turn of a single hair.

And that would be that. Back to square one.

Still, the publication of Mr.Munday’s most righteous missive brings a twitch to my jowels. It proves that some people have not buckled to the maladies of crass hysteria and infantile paranoia. Some people remember what freedom really means and more and more of them are prepared to shout it from the rooftops.

It’s all about tax-cameras

In addition to being miserable, it seems that the British (or a few of them anyways) are also getting a bit uppity:

“Police have issued a nationwide alert after discovering a deadly explosive device attached to a speed camera.”

No-one has yet claimed responsibility but I think it is safe to pretty much rule out the Islamofascists.