Friday, 27 February 2009

Common Sense from the Information Commissioner

Richard Thomas, The Information Commissioner, has warned that surveillance is at risk of being hard-wired into Britain.

This warning is not premature.

He hits many of the main points - information trawling, fishing expeditions, loss of privacy and the rendering of every individual as a potential suspect.

Each time we revisit this issue I always wonder...are the Government being obtuse? Are they imbeciles unable to comprehend the loss of liberty? Do they just not care and see it purely in the dimension of their own convenience and revenue potential? Is it out of unbridled desire to manage and control?

Regardless, all those motivations and scenarios are wrong and the apparatus could be used for all manner of ills, if they are not being used already.

Huhne: Hypocrite and worse

Well, Chris Huhne, he who supported the refusal to let Wilders enter the UK is now prancing about for Civil Liberties.

In it he says:
The Liberal Democrats are determined to resist the slow death by a thousand cuts of our hard-won British liberties. George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four was a warning, not a blueprint. Yet the Big Brother society that he satirised is growing before our eyes. Our forebears who fought so hard for the rights we have had stripped away would be shocked at what we've lost.
Oh, really? Funny how you and all your LibDem MPs did not have the common decency to comment on or reply to the copies of 1984 you all received as part of the Libertarian Party campaign on November 5th 2008, copies, I might add, that had written in them the very term "a warning, not a blueprint".

You. Utter. Worm.

UPDATE: After reading the Bill, though it does do some things, it is basically tinkering. Why is RIPA not repealed? What is the point when the EU claims Sovereignty? What has been done about Statutory Instruments which can shove through draconian measures bypassing Parliament? With SIs, who needs an Erm├Ąchtigungsgesetz?

Thursday, 26 February 2009

Fred the Shred, Grabber Gordon and the Rule of Law.

I hear that Gordon is aiming to sue Fred Goodwin, ex of RBS and receiver of a mighty £650k/year pension*. I suspect it may be to act as a diversion over the Right Royal pasting Gordon has been getting from Mervyn King of the BoE at the Treasury Select Committee hearings. This, coming hot on the heels of a similar slippery-slopey-shoulderation from the FSA's greasy emanation Lord "Stomach" Turner.

As far as I can tell, to force this issue is to break Rule of Law - contracts. 

Gordon &Co are to blame for a lack of due dilligence...which about sums up the entire "toxic debt" debacle. THEY should pay, NOT the taxpayer.

One angle I would suggest is to see if the Remuneration and Compensation Committee acted improperly, THEN the contract could be deemed a fraud, THEN it could be torn up. Otherwise it will be sheer Robber Baronacy.

Apart from that, it will be interesting to see who comes out in favour of upholding contracts and who is in favour of the State in a fit of shame/envy/hubris tramping on the Rule of Law, and thu unlibertarian.

This event will sure flush out the fake Liberals and Libertarians for sure, who will be very happy to trample on the Rule of Law in a fit of pique.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! 
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? 
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! 
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! 


We have enough laws laid flat in the pursuit of terrorists, money laundering and the convenience of bureaucrats in Westminster, Town Halls and Brussels.


Maybe this will give some reminder as to the above passage. Some excellent force!




UPDATE: Seems Prodicus also quotes the same passage, but I had the beat.


* though the way things are going £650k might only buy him a new shell-suit.

Liam Halligan in the Telegraph Speaks Sense

Right here. One of the few anti-QE voices out there.

It is amazing that, AFAICT, all the comments are in agreement.

It is also regrettable yet unsurprising that the BBC just spouts the government line in some areas yet obsesses over other things like bonuses. No wonder, with Trot Peston stalking the earth.

Sorry, Mate, you are taking the mick.

It is no surprise that golf-club wielding, skull-cracking 'erbert Jack Tweedy, recently wed to Jade Goody is now, you guessed it, asking for his tag to be removed "so he can be with her when she dies".

Well, if you break curfew on the day, then I doubt anyone is going to be really fussed, and I would not be, for I would just say you add on another month, deal? But to think that you can now effectively end your sentence is another matter.

This is the problem with such arrangements. First he gets time off for the wedding night, now this, now the next. Squeaky wheels get the most grease in ball-pit Britain. Constant bleating. I wonder if certain papers who rail against multiple-appeal asylum seekers turn around and "support" this guy. Hypocrisy if they do.

This is an issue of Rule of Law. I'd rather Jack was in prison, because we are talking about an act of violence that could have resulted in death. Why is he on a tag in the first place?

Wednesday, 25 February 2009

Lambeth Logic FAIL - the shape of things to come?

Today I came across the following via the Libertarian Party unofficial blog.


A woman in Nottingham who owns a Toyota car was given a ticket because a white van was seen parked in a bus lane* with the same registration.

Lambeth automatic revenue vampire was swung into action with the default to "pay up or else". The fact that the vehicle type did not match was ignored or never even checked up on.

When the owner protested their innocence , the council, instead of looking at the facts - the van was using cloned plates - asked the lady to PROVE her ID and ownership. Now, the true ownership was already known, for how else did she get the ticket? Once the fact that the vehicle was a van and thus NOT her Toyota, the need to involve the owner would seem superfluous. Asking someone to "prove"? Prove what?

Lets see what they said:

A spokesperson from Lambeth Council said: "We share Miss Keiller's frustration but it is important she sends us the requested documentation as proof as soon as possible so we can look to cancel the ticket."
This is just mindless application of bureaucratic protocol and procedure. It has no basis in logic or reason. The fact that Lambeth persists in this charade is absurd. 

I am intrigued as to the reasons why.

Is it because the Council functionaries are ignorant and are just following a bad protocol?

Is it because the Council functionaries might have an idea if they bothered, but could not care less either way?

Is it because the Council functionaries cannot work out the unreason of all this and so dig in?

Is it because the Council functionaries know they are at fault but have decided that they must not be seen to back down?

Maybe they think they are right.


Considering the illogic one sees these days, I think it is the last option.

As the LPUK unofficial blog points out, the lady was asked to prove innocence, even when the evidence was clear. Now, if the clone was the same make, model and colour, that is another matter, but in this case, the demand as to proof of innocence is utterly unwarranted.

Just think of all the other ways you and I will get snagged as a Database State is built. Oyster Card cloned? Mobile Phone? Someone wearing the same clothes seen near a crime? Being in a pub at the same time as a dangerous subversive anti-authoritarian gang of cut-throats?

Who knows. Remember, these databases will not just be used to confirm facts or build evidence about known suspects, they will be used for fishing expeditions and trawled with a very big and destructive dragnet. Innocent people will be pulled in, left on the deck gasping for god-knows-how-long until such time as they might be thrown back. In what condition?


* far more dangerous than beating someone up in the street or intimidating passers by for months on end, you understand.

On the Death of Ivan Cameron, David Cameron's Son.

A tragic loss for the family.

Though I have no desire to see Cameron as PM, I do not doubt him as a Dad. Dads don't have to be perfect.

Murdoch Hints at what may be "Unite and Conquer"

Over at Ian Parker-Joseph's PJC Journal, there is a story highlighting a message from Rupert Murdoch - no hermit he. His words are to be listened to with interest.

Basically Murdoch hints at exploiting the changes in the world, in the nature, role and position of Nation States and companies.

What is interesting is that in bringing countries together, creating a Supra-national framework one "unites to conquer". While this might seem contrary to the wisdom of "divide and rule", it does not when you alter your perspective. 

Zoom out a little. 

You started with fairly cohesive Nation States who tend to defend themselves against each other but also unite with others in an ad-hoc fashion when an external or common internal threat appears. Those who do not wish to get involved often, though not always - ask Holland and Belgium - can stand aside. This did at least enable a minority to get to work if the majority of Nations did not care or could not act for whatever reason. It meant that the Tyranny of the Majority did not operate at the Supra-National level. People could also flee a country, even though the necessity was an outrage.

By uniting Nation States or binding them via Supra-National bodies and agreements - ok, let's not beat around the bush, transferring Sovereignty to Supra-National bodies - you divide "the people" who were once united, because what constitutes "the people" has now changed. If you look at it in terms of the new scale of things, the Supra-National scale, all the people become subject to the Tyranny of the Majority across all the Nations involved. Where Spain might have said No, they will be forced a Yes if a Majority say so. The entire Iberian Peninsular could reject a proposal and still they would have to comply because the scale has changed and the country is no more, the Sovereignty is no more and the ability to reject, resist or go a separate path is no more.

Just as corruption and waste occurs far more in State contracts where the consumers are forced by legislation* to pay for and consume the output and the producer only has to win over the "representatives"**, so will this happen on an even greater scale in a Supra-National setting where only the Arbiters in those bodies need to be "convinced" instead of each and every Individual making their own choice to accept or reject. 

My gut feel is that it will be exponentially greater. The rewards for Corporations will be significantly bigger enabling a commensurate level of bribery to occur. The ability for individuals to move and bypass the problem will be greatly curtailed and the regional existence of rejection will not be immediately apparent, no example of a Country that takes a different path. No little boy in the audience to shout out as the Emperor walks by.


* as always, I do not consider such "law".
** in the broadest sense of the term - I very much doubt that Supra-National decision makers will be accountable and removable by universal mandate.

Tuesday, 24 February 2009

Purnell entrenching Corporatism, Fascism

Iain Dale has just been to listen to little boy James Purnell, MP, DWP oleagenate in chief over at the Cabinet War Rooms (how apt) blathering on about privatisation in the Welfare State.

The real problem with the way it will be privatised is that it will end up as a private monopoly running a State concession. Witness how the Sure Start initiative rapidly moved from local plurality to large monopolistic contracts by faceless corps. Witness how "polyclinics" are large enough to be a de facto monopoly and force out a plurality of GP surgeries.

This is the intention. Private companies operating a monopoly do not care much about making the people happy, just about making the Government happy. Their eager little faces pointed towards the State, like chicks in the nest with their beaks open.

It is about control. It is about nice contracts, sinecures, consultancies. Influence.

It is a breeding ground for corruption.

Dept of the Bleeding Obvious: Good Heads = good results.

It seems that Ofsted actually had to do a study to "find out" what common factors led to the turn-around in a number of previously "sink" schools.

Anyone with two braincells to rub together would, without a study or any form of Educationalist mumb0-jumbo, probably come up with the same answer.

A strong Head who kicked out sloppy and ill-disciplined teachers and disruptive kids.

What is certain is that, if left unchecked, the Satanic Embrace of the LEA and Teaching Unions would stop Heads and as likely as not hound them into early retirement or worse.

At one school the benchmark - for what it is - of 5GCSEs rose from 18% to 80%. And no, they did not expel 3/4 of the kids*.

The Fabian entropic model has held sway too long - excuses for poor performance because the area is  "deprived", which is, frankly, poppycock. These people WANT a dependent underclass. Ignorant, sloppy and lazy. Damn them all.

Kids are, almost always, a blank sheet. They can all become responsible, thinking, caring individuals. If the area they grow up in a rough area, now called "disadvantaged with a multi-faceted nexus of urban ills", and their parents, for whatever reason, do not provide structure, routine, discipline and aspiration, it is all the more important for the school to provide it. I am not saying schools MUST by central fiat, but if you leave things alone enough parents and professional teachers will create those environments. Yes, society, not the State, will create the environment so that the disadvantaged can climb the ladder. The School can be an oasis of safety, stimulation, order, fun and reinforcement in such areas. Right now, far too many just reflect the degenerating, violent, turd- and litter-strewn streets around them.

This is not rocket science. Schools run as a tight ship need not be brutal dungeons that conceal paedophiles and sado-masochists. If you ask me the real S&M fiends are those who both meddle and stand aside in turn while year after year of children are condemned to a bleak, narrow and grey life where highlights are Celeb Trivia and a Bargain Bucket O'Wings (plus sides). To what end? Oh, I forgot, an endless stream of new "customers" for the Social Services and Educationalists to pick over.

LEAs. Close them all down. NOW.

* 5 marks if you show your working out.

Sunday, 22 February 2009

Gordon Brown: Tries to ban 100% Mortgages.

If you listen very carefully, you will hear the sound of a bolt being slid into place.

The horse has long gone, but we are now trapped inside.


The man is a control-freak and a stranger to reason. He is still banging on for Supra-national control in Berlin in their "pre G20" bean feast.

Where is our "Ship's Doctor" to certify the Captain madded?

Thursday, 19 February 2009

Yvette Cooper to "stop Harman"?

Now that is a turn up for the books.

Asking us to accept Yvette as an alternative to Harman is a false dichotomy too far.

It is like being threatened with having to muck out a dog kennel with your bare hands and then someone running up cheerily with the alternative - to muck out the cat cages instead. And the cats have the squits. 

NO NO AND THRICE NO.

Both of these USELESS people have been utterly destructive to the Nation for over a decade. I would not trust them to grab their own backsides using both hands in broad daylight with the use of a mirror*. Yvette seems incapable of answering questions, listening or communicating in a sensible way. I don't care if she appears clever - she might be the smartest person in the room, but look at the others in that room (the cabinet)!

In some ways it would be interesting to have a 2 Ball race, or a race with two Balls in it at least. Would make a change. Maybe that is the real agenda here - Mrs Balls acts to help secure the post for Mr Balls.

Personally, I think the up-coming election failure for Labour will see a split, or should I say Social Democrats going to the LibDems and Labour becoming more openly Socialist again.

* that might suggest that I consider Harman to be potentially even more stupid than Cooper, but I shall not comment on that one.

Jacqui Smith: Bare Faced Parasitism part 3

Further, the inestimable Leg-Iron over at Old Holborn's gaff muses the delicious irony that Jacqueboot may well be nailed by the very squeal-on-your-neighbour mentality she and her ilk have been fostering in this country.

In the comments, Mitch adds:
Closed circuit TV pictures of her going there just twice a week would have been the Cherry.
Well, that might be so, but to me the frosting will be far more achievable and certain - her Mobile Phone mast trace.

GOTCHA!

Wednesday, 18 February 2009

Channel 4 Whitewashes Quantative Easing

Maybe I misheard it, but C4 News, 7pm, 18th Feburary 2009, did not outline the actual impact of Quantative Easing, as in diluting the money in our pockets and bank accounts. It just said that the Bank of England will ask permission to buy Government debt "with cash". Even the idea of printing money was not nailed home as far as I could tell. Reporting FAIL.

It is as if you are a beer-maker and the Government pitches up at your warehouse in the dead of night with a truck of water and a truck of barrels. It waters down your beer and takes away barrels of beer for its own use. Because it gets first dibs on the barrels, those least diluted will be taken first. You wake up and count your barrels and all seems ok. When you come to sell your beer you find there is more in the marketplace and what you have is weaker, so the price you get is lower. Your beer is now less valuable and the State has beer - money - it never had. It is theft, pure and simple.

"I promise to pay the bearer"? What happened to that?

It is about time we had proper plurality in our currency - a fiat Sterling as now, a gold-backed Sovereign (not in note form to avoid fraud) and any number of currencies that private organisations wish to produce. This will keep the fiat currency and its controllers - the State - on their toes. Yes, it can be expanded if the economy expands, but as soon as it is being manipulated, people will leave it for Sovereign or Bank Money.


Jacqui Smith: Bare Faced Parasitism part 2

I am glad Ms Smith, the Second Home Secretary, is not off the hook over her expense claims.

Irrespective of the "law" or the "rules", any honest person, anyone with a shred of decency, would know that claiming a rented room as a main home so that one's actual home, owned, containing their partner, children and almost all personal belongings can be declared as a second home so as to gain larger amounts of cash is blatant milking of the system.

The Home Secretary cannot be allowed to escape this. Her behaviour is "conduct unbecoming".

Is there ONE member of the Cabinet that is not an utter disgrace? No, there is not.

Gordon Brown: "A grand bargain"?

Gordon Brown is proposing a grand bargain...
“From the discussions I have had and am about to have... I think we are fashioning for the future a global deal, a grand bargain, where each continent accepts its responsibilities and its obligations to act to deal with what is a global problem that can only be solved with a global solution,”
Of course, this is more thinly veiled attempts to construct One World Government by the back door. You know, Communism. 

I have my own Grand Bargain for Gordon Brown: Resign now or risk swinging from a lamp post*.

Am I being a scaremonger over One World Government? Well, once you begin to impose global controls and regulations on financial markets, the ripples flow back into the Treasuries of each country. Sovereignty is lost. Such groups will grow. It is in their DNA. If they are no longer needed, will they shrink back? No. Will they continually explore ways to extend their remit? Yes. They are a bureaucracy. They will have budgets not directly accountable to the people. It is a recipe for total disaster, for the impoverishment and re-enslavement of Mankind.

Now, I do complain about the actions of individual Governments and our own in particular for not monitoring and managing the value of our currency, but that is a matter for the electorate to hold the Government to account, not for some supra-national entity to presume authority and step in. We must remember that we are dealing with a poisonous cocktail of Socialists, Marxists, Trots, Corporatists and the like, if the EU Commission is anything to go by, who think they know better how our lives must be run. Note the word "must". 

The Libertarian Party believes it has the least bad way to improve the lives and freedoms of people, but we only wish that people be given the opportunity to live their lives a certain way, no demands that people must behave, only that they must be personally responsible for theor own lives and decisions and not be dependent upon another without mutual, individual, non-coercive consent.

Lets see if the idea passes the LPUK Libertarian Test:Global Solution?

Test 1. FAIL - it is unaccountable, protects private interests and will almost certainly result in devaluation and thus theft of wealth and property.
Test 2. FAIL - Joseph and Mr Bean would find it useful
Test 3. FAIL - It is supra-national, a transfer of Sovereignty.


* Note that I do not condone summary justice, being a strong supporter of Rule of Law. The issue is that Gordon is playing with fire, risking the very cohesion of civilised society, for once the Genie is out of the bottle, all manner of chaos and destruction can occur far beyond the scope intended by many otherwise decent people driven to distraction.

Tuesday, 17 February 2009

Fusion Power: Horizon Disappoints

The latest edition of Horizon disappointed. No mention of IEC Fusion.

That said, the programme was spot on in a number of important ways.

We had the H-bomb, the  Z machine, Laser Fusion, JET and a proto ITER. 

It was good in that it albeit subtly exposed the reality that all the so-called "alternatives" really are incapable of replacing fossils because of the scale that would be needed to replace our energy consumption. Now, I know some Econazis want us to return to one bath a decade, hemp clothes and living in a mud hut on the banks of the Danube with only 500,000 people on the planet, but they are going to have go attempt to reproduce themselves and the horse they rode in on. It did rather pull the punch, as I do think so many people really need it slapped around their face before they snap out of the collective delusion of "weenoobles".

The ending was quite correct - the energy crisis is over if we really want it to be.

I do have a nagging doubt that the presenter, Prof Brian Cox, is a little too familiar with the State teat that is ITER. 

As we have heard in the past, the rumour is that the Tokamak, which is what ITER-esque Fusion machines are, was a cruel joke played upon the world by the Soviet scientists, as "its no damn good". It is also very expensive indeed. You know, CERN expensive.

IEC for me just makes sense. ITER is highly radioactive and requires all manner of nasty things like molten lithium shielding. IEC not so, being, IIRC, electromagetically contained, not just magnetically.

Still, the real message got out - fund Fusion, not ringtones. Hell, ol Slackjaw has thrown away £100bln this year on the Banks. Just think what that could get is if used as a series of PRIZES for successful Fusion milestones. Not funding, but prizes. Get people competing.

So, Prof Brian Cox, can we get some exposure for IEC next time?


Monday, 16 February 2009

Is Gordon going to bite?

I see that there are rumours that Brown is being tempted to head up the New World Order One World Government International Financial Regulatory Body which he has been crapping on about and hinting for months.

Brown is a Marxist. He has Internationalism and Monopoly in his DNA. He covets the very existence of such a monstrosity, let alone the opportunity of running the show. This is a very tempting offer for him. I always thought he was aiming to wreck the UK and hop to some sinecure if the men in white coats did not get him first. 

However, such a body will be the end of freedom and any hope of further mass prosperity for mere mortals outside of the Nomenklatura. Not only will we have to endure Nationalisation, over regulation, stifling protectionism and diverting resources to half-arsed eco/community projects and special interests, I suspect Gordon will end up pushing for a per-transaction tax and thus, oh-so-conveniently, demand the end of note and coin. Everything we do will be tracked, monitored, assessed for potential criminality (which we will have to explain in contravention of Rule of Law) and sold on to Marketeers who will pester us with their garbage.

So, Gordon to head up the very entity he has had a near masturbatory obsession over, or once he is utterly crushed at the Election, left with Snotseekers Allowance. 

I wonder which route he will take.

Friday, 13 February 2009

Peter Schiff on Goldman Sachs

"Everyone thought these guys were the smartest guys in the room. Maybe so, but there are alot of dumb people in that room." 


Back of the net!

EU Zone Unreason

We hear that there are growing complaints about the weakness of the Pound by Eurozone throats.
companies in Europe have complained that the pound's recent devaluation has left their exporters suffering, as businesses are switching to cheaper British goods.
Considering that the UK is to suffer more than most from the recession, our companies need all the sales they can get. The UK is an expensive place to do business as it is, and British products are hardly a by-word for value. However, the moment it stops being so, up go the howls from European companies who then pull the Corporatist chain linking them to their "representatives" to get them to bend things back to their advantage.

So, when the Pound is strong and the UK expensive, they reap the rewards, when the Pound falls, they still want to reap the rewards.

A falling Pound is one way the market automatically compensates. These Corporatists in Euope want to have their cake and eat it - at our expense. They even  manage to mobilise thier Chancellors to go and bully the British Chancellor. In a way you cannot blame them, as Darling does come across as a bit, how shall we say, malleable. 

Darling must tell these people to sling their hook. It is too late to moan about exchange rates only when it suits. Ideally, currencies should be fairly stable in value and any adjustments should be made to the advantage of the Nation, its people and companies, NOT foreign powers.

That said, I doubt Darling will. I expect he will be given another lecture on how Britain should be in the Eurozone. How they would "help" get us in "for a small price, a mere trifle...an offering of earth and water...a token, that is all".

How long before he yields, or has he yielded already and all these machinations are just part of the softening up process?

Thursday, 12 February 2009

Boris Johnson and Keith Vaz MP

Only 10 F's?

Keith should consider himself lucky he only got 10 when Boris caught up with him over his slippery behaviour in trying to divert attention away from Government failings over basic concepts of Parliamentary Privilege. Had he done that to me he'd've got that and alot more besides. In Sesame Street terms the conversation would have been brought to him by the letters W, C, B and S.

Keith, when buttonholed if he had recorded it, mumble-swerved. In such cases, a lack of a denial pretty much has to be a yes. That was illegal, Vaz.

Chris Huhne is no Liberal.

He supports the ban on Geert Wilders, the chap who created the film "Fitna".

As far as I can tell, Mr Wilders has not asked for the death of any group or individual. He may say things that others find objectionable, but then that would apply to the entire Labour Cabinet!

Huhne clearly cares not for Freedom of Speech, nor for the Rule of Law, yet was aiming to the leader of the Liberal Democrats. I doubt he was speaking on R4 today without some backing from Nick the Clegg.

Considering the discussions, below, isn't it high time that the LibDems dropped the term "Liberal"? As we know, "democrat" just means you support Tyranny of the Masses, so the label is theirs to embrace if they wish. They are in truth Social Democrats at best. Far too quick and comfortable to use State power to impose their opinions.

The Libertarian Party takes a very strong stance with regards to Fraud and misrepresentation. The Liberal Democrats are in danger of committing misrepresentation.

UPDATE: Huhne on C4 just now. He *almost* used justification that Geert himself was in danger but also blustered that in some way minorities might be targeted because he would be entering the country. Utter codswallop. No, he was banned I suspect, as otherwise it would make certain people bust a vessel and/or organise their own civil disruption not in support, but against - i.e. he was kept out because others would protest and the Police incapable, it seems of properly responding to Islamist* behaviour, would not be capable of maintaining law and order.

* i.e. not Muslim.

LIberal vs Social Democrat

An interesting question was put by Charlotte Gore over at her reluctantlylibdem blog.

Here it is:
Genuine Question: What's the difference between a 'liberal' (in the commonly accepted Lib Dem version of the word) and a 'democratic socialist' or 'social democrat'?

Is there a distinction that makes self-identification as both a paradoxical impossibility?  Are they mutually exclusive, or could you be both? 

What's the difference really?
I retain Charlotte's Orange for authenticity.

I replied: 
To me, the Classical Liberals ceased being so when they decided to use the State as the vehicle to pursue their aims instead of voluntary, mutual and personal action. This is when they become more akin to Social Democrats - this can be translated into "Collectivist and Redistributive Tyranny of the Masses".

As for the "Liberal" in Liberal Conspiracy, it is very much of the Social Democrat and "Too screwed up to admit I'm Socialist" crowd.
Charlotte gained other replies, some very introspective, one or two snide (intentional?) misrepresentations of Libertarianism and a few who clearly understand the situation.

After the thrash, Charlotte has posted a rather long reply, but it is most interesting, thoughtful and well worth a read*. Charlotte has a very robust, healthy and sensible disdain for Collectivism (in the sense of enforced-) and Authoritarianism and AFAICT the current climate inside the LibDems, which is far more Social Democrat than Classical Liberal, chaffs.

There is one part I do disagree with in particular and it is this:
So what I believe isn't liberalism, not any more. Liberalism's dead because it's indistinguishable from anything else. That's why our party can't really explain itself in a unique, distinct and simple way.
I would say that Liberalism is not dead, but the label has been hijacked. Classical Liberalism is what it is but the Fabians and Statists have wormed their way in via Entryism to destroy something that had the power to resist their wretched plans. They keep hold of the term "Liberal" so as to confuse and mislead.

As others have mentioned, there is less of a gap between Libertarians and Classical Liberals. A huge gap between them and "Liberals", a.k.a. Social Democrats.

*  I'll admit, it is because Charlotte for the most part agrees with me on this. Ok?

Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Fencepost No. 12: Religion replaces Science and Reason as a means of discourse

I just want to flag up another Fencepost - the acceptance by the Establishment of unreason and unscientific justifications to impose opinion upon all, to make it policy, to enact it in legislation (I do not call such things "law"). Religion, in all but name. This is as a result of back-to-back posts at Dick Puddlecote. Please read them. I joined the dots.

The religious mindset we have recently seen in the sphere of Anthropogenic Global Warming, now renamed to Climate Change (while pulling up the ladder to reason, inquiry, doubt and common sense, natch) has also existed in the temperance movement - the demon drink.

This has not been of such great concern in the past for, unlike the AGW mob - and they are a mob, happy to leverage the Tyranny of the Minority/Majority - the Temperance Movement has been almost purely about a religious standpoint. As such, it has remained a matter more of personal choice and conviction and as such easier to keep in its box. That does not mean it has not wished to get out of its box and force us all to comply, but I suspect over the years a Fabian approach was preferred.

Recently, however, they seem to have lost patience as well as reason and hijacked Science and we have the lobbying of various bodies growing. Others do it, so... The biggest bootstrapped scam is the "20 units per week" wibble. As Dick exposes, the head of Weatherspoons consumes 40+ units and the chap who came up with* the number, he suggests, did not believe it. 20 units of Stella vs 40 of Real Ale or Champagne? I'd venture that the latter is better for you. Units are meaningless, it is like saying "2lb of meat" not distinguishing between sausages and sirloin.

Into this mix we have the Anti-Smoking movement. This is an odd one. In some ways you could say it began as a true scientific health-based concern. It has mutated into a quasi Anti-Capitalist, Authoritarian thrust, (intentionally?) blurring the divide between anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism. Big Tobacco is a nice, easy, guilt-free punchbag for those of an anti-capitalist mindset, even though the actual stance would correctly be anti-corporatism. I wonder if some edge towards the anti-cap and away from anti-corp due to dissonance arising from Socialist views which tend to be happier with Corporatist activity.

All three contain loud advocates that use dodgy science, misleading and selective information and attack dissent with foaming, inquisitional fury. To them it is heresy to disagree.  It does not take much imagination to work out how they treat those who stand up to them. Reason, scientific rigour and personal choice are cast by the wayside.

So, the  Climate lobby never really used proper science and has now become a religion in all but name under the cloak of science. The Temperance Movement has rebranded itself, and is using made up figures and specious arguments but has also grabbed the cloak of science as a basis and to give it an excuse to become more aggressive and demanding. The Anti-smoking lobby has gone on a power trip of Authoritarian dimensions. Personal choice can go hang - all must obey. 

The Government has a duty to resist such snake oil. Yes, listen to reason and scientific evidence, but to begin to fund such groups to produce policy triggers? To not only listen but parrot their unreason? To pander to their desire for Authoritarianism and social tyranny? No. No. No.

As we know, however, our "Government" is chock full of de-educated Statist imbeciles. Authoritarianism and arbitrary control of the personal sphere is like mother's milk to them.


* polite term for pulling it out of his arse

Tuesday, 10 February 2009

Ron Paul unwittingly with the UK Libertarian Monetary Policy

Ron Paul talking about restoring the value of the currency (in his case the US Dollar). He suggests introducing a gold-backed currency in parallel, as otherwise the transition would be nigh on impossible. He also speaks about repealing the legal tender laws to enable this gold backed currency to fully compete. Private money would also factor, if I am not mistaken and this is basically the UK Libertarian Party position.

Hear Ron Paul speak below, just a few days ago - 30th Jan 2009.




Jacqui Smith: Bare Faced Parasitism.

There is really no other word for it.

Jacqui Smith stays with her sister in South London and pays her rent for a room which she now calls her primary residence. 

Her husband - paid £40,000p.a. by us, the taxpayer - sits at what is claimed as the second home. 

The Homes Secretary can claim council tax (IIRC), fit out, repair and cover mortgage interest payments for such a residence.

Anyone with an ounce of self-respect, honour, integrity and professionalism would class the room she rents at her sister's house as the second home.

It is not good enough to say that the claims conformed to the letter of the law. It is just as, if not more important to obey the spirit of the law. 

For such acts and attitude from any public servant is appalling. For it to be held by the Home Secretary is an outrage. She had the bare-faced cheek to demand that only one question be asked on the matter. Pure and simple she cannot cope with reality and wishes to avoid being held to account, to avoid freedom of speech and to manipulate the message. This, our "Home Secretary".

Jacqui Smith should be sacked, let alone be permitted to step down. However, we are talking about an administration that has not a Tesla, not a Weber in regards to the magnetic polarity of their so-called "moral compass". 

New Labour is morally, economically, ideologically and spiritually bankrupt.

Sunday, 8 February 2009

And now they track more of our movements

We hear there is a plan to build a database of all our travel movements. 

Of course, they say it is to fight illegal immigration...so why do they need to know if, when, how and with whom I, a citizen, travel?

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, defended the plans. “The UK has one of the toughest borders in the world and we are determined to ensure it stays that way. Our high-tech electronic borders system will allow us to count all passengers in and out and targets those who aren’t willing to play by our rules.”

Now, I think everyone will agree that Phil Woolas is probably one of the most odious lickspittles known even to the Labour Party. A nasty, spiteful piece of work with a voice suited to the role of Lord High Prod Nose.

How, Phil, is it "high tech" to keep a list on a disk drive, eh? Maybe it is "high tech" to the bunch of half-wits you keep hiring from "the usual suspects". If you are just keeping the records, then that is all it is to do, right? 

Well, it becomes a little "high tech" when the data is scanned proactively to see if there are any potential patterns. If a pattern is seen how soon with those involved be asked to "explain themselves" or become subject to covert surveillance or other investigations with or without warrant? How soon before presumption of guilt over innocence? How soon, Phil, you bureaucrat? How soon before this information is cross-referenced to other information? Very soon a department of proactive snoopers will grow, mark my words. It will. Anyone who says it won't is ignorant of the DNA of a State. A State wants to control, monitor, seek out, manage. It is what it does. "If only we had more or better information" they say. This is why the terrorist angle is so convenient, for then it gives a veneer of justification to demand people say who they really are and put a credible punishment to it - for if nobody is being defrauded, no punishment evaded by travelling under another name, then there is no crime. There still is no crime in law, but now we have "legislation" to make it so.

An administration run by the Libertarian Party would not even bother with the "non dom" issue, for Income Tax would be abolished so there would be no need to track chattel citizens. If you ever failed to "get" why abolishing Income Tax is so much better for freedom than, say, abolishing VAT, surely this now shows you why Income Tax makes you chattel, a cow to be milked, owned by the farmer. Surely this now shows you why the Libertarian Party is right to abolish a tax that gives the State first call on your earnings and in so doing makes them believe they own you and you owe them.

This is why the only people trusted to run a State are those who think it is an evil thing that is necessary if and only if it is the least bad way of doing things.

My movements should only be disclosed once a warrant has been issued. The State does not "own" me. I do not belong to the State, the State is there for my benefit, not for me to be some tax or vote farm for ITS benefit, so it can employ more like-minded parasites. 

The best way to achieve stronger borders isis to have a plurality of non government entities recording citizens data - private, mutual, listed, non-profit. The government wants to know about us? Go ask a Judge and prove you have probable cause to suspect a crime has or is being committed.

I am not one of the State's Gollywogs - as in rag doll toy representing a subservient human chattel, for colour is NOT the offence in relation to the doll - a black doll is not offensive per se. The perceived notions of slavery, subordination, cowed, whipped and oppressed soul enslaved and forced to dance to their master's tune is the issue with the Gollywog. Under a government such as this we all become Gollywogs - black, white, brown and yellow. That is how Socialist "equality" works. 

The colour of your face does not matter as long as the State boot is stamping on  it.

Friday, 6 February 2009

Information Sharing

Geoff "buff" Hoon protests that a Country - a sovereign entity - should have the right to withhold sensitive and private information from disclosure and sharing. In this case it is the United States of America and the information is in regards to the ghastly shameful business of prisoner interrogation.

Well, people are sovereign, despite the moonbat thoughts of rabid collectivists, and if you protest that an inert sovereign entity has such rights then so do individuals. Sharing sensitive information without permission is wrong.

I therefore formally withdraw permission for the State to share ANY information about myself without my express, formal and prior consent, including the sharing of that information between individuals within or without departments, Ministries or other structures. I also withdraw my permission for the storage or searching of said information.

"I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or NUMBERED. My life is my own."

Wednesday, 4 February 2009

Snow, Schools and Slush

Yes, it is setting a bad example for schools to be closed, especially when it is due to the over-cautious "we might get sued for Health and Safety" knee-jerk butt-covering.

This shows failures at many levels.

First, the underlying root problem that certain lawsuits actually get the time of day. If mercenary ambulance chasing and downright irrational cases were systematically given the brush, then even the predatory "Ambulance Chasers 4 Purple Ocean" would not bother with them.

Second, that schools are consenting to that form of bullying. Even if lawsuits were given the time of day, they should be vigorously resisted. Maybe some are. If the schools lose too often, then that is a failure of either their lawyers or the judges.

That said, there is still a failure of logic. A school should endeavour to open in case kids who are not total wusses make it in. Nothing more dispiriting for a child to trudge all the way to school only to find they had shut it, causing the kid to trudge home and in some cases force the parents to take a day off work and even jeopardise their very employment. Not a good lesson.

There should always be responsibility for ones own decisions. It works both ways. Schools should try and open, yes, but then each parent and even the child should be prepared to be responsible for their actions in trying to get to school. The school cannot be blamed for anything that happens en route. I suspect, however, that those making the decisions do not have the strength of conviction in their own reasoning and logic. That is a tragedy.

The scary thing is that schools have shown the lack of reasoning and backbone. Two things that schools should be helping parents to instil in our next generation.

2/10.  See me.

Yes, I wrote it in red, now go and blub your guts out in a corner yer big girl's blouse.

Tuesday, 3 February 2009

Boys and Girls

I noticed there was going to be a programme on Channel 4 showing a group of girls and a separate group of boys who are "home alone" (links when they appear).

If I recall correctly, this has been done before. Last time the obvious happened - the boys wee rowdy at first and then order set in, a hierarchy is established. The girls rapidly descend into cliques and intense, unrelenting psychological and often physical bullying follows.

I expect this will happen again.

You only have to have the misfortune to accidentally watch a few minutes of Big Brother to know that that occurs in adults too. Blokes argue, yes, they tease and rib each other and sometimes two "alphas" slug it out once, but it is the women who plot, bitch, isolate and feud consistently IMHO.

I put it down to the historic, primordial division of labour between men and women. Men hunted, women foraged. Men who bitch, hold grudges, feud and plot end up with less meat and the chance of dangling off the end of a mammoth tusk. Women can form cliques and exclude other women so their "enemy" is denied the gossip about the best food or resources without such risks. Men need to sort it out fast and then rebuild ultimate life-or-death trust again and bond. Women do not have to do that, in fact I suspect in a foraging environment, such cliques may be advantageous to the clique.

I am a bloke, so I prefer the male way of doing things. Sort out the argument...and GET OVER IT. I also think this is why soap operas are mainly for Women, for they are all about grudges, bitching, gossip, secrets held then opportunistically let out the bag, backstabbing and historic feuds. Men like war films - big fight, sort it out, win or lose. New King. Over*.

I suspect the new programme will show that Girls and Boys are very different at a deep psychological level in how they play and fight. They say if the world was run by Women there would be no war. Watch the programme and see that you would get 1984 and worse. New Labour is heading towards that.

Of course this is not strictly about Men and Women or Boys and Girls, but Feminine and Masculine. We are all a blend of each trait. Right now, New Labour is, IMHO, the most Feminine political party outside the emasculated LibDems. It is not a nanny state that lies ahead, but a harridan state that wants to proactively control, to "protect" and "prevent". Men tend to want to "defend" by a pre-emptive show of force and capability and the will to retaliate only if a transgression occurs. Look at Elephant behaviour and the parallel is there. 

When boys have no father the male testosterone meets only the Feminine example of "protection" and I wonder if this is why we get a rise in pre-emptive action, violent behaviour and gangs?

Lets see how the programme unfolds.

* I hate the term "end of", btw.

Monday, 2 February 2009

"British Jobs for British Workers"

We now see protests spreading because a company hires a contractor who then, it is alleged, wishes to hire the people it wants to.

What would happen if a UK company was hired to build a bridge in Germany and the German government says it cannot bring over Brits to do the job? The Unions would be out protesting about the UK company using "cheap local labour" instead of employing Brits and shipping them over - "turning their backs on our lads".

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

This is not a matter for law. Law in this case makes for a mess, red tape, central control and eventually prices going up and things here getting less competitive.

Now, I am all for transparency, so if a company will not hire, that should be open to question. It should also be possible for people to have the right to ask if a company uses contractors that will not bother to hire locally, but instead brings in its own people. Companies can refuse to answer, of course, but then what does that say? If the companies lie, then that is a matter of fraud or misrepresentation. No need for new legislation.

Accountability, self responsibility.

The real issue is about the high cost of living in the UK, the hopeless de-education that occurs in "State" Schools, the high levels of tax and waste at all levels of government.

The answer is not protectionism - which I suspect is being called for by the same useful idiots, self-loathers and Fifth Columnists who wee moaning about the prospect of US protectionism - but to make the UK an efficient place to live and do business. Cut taxes, remove unnecessary red tape and regulation, get the State out of Education. It almost goes without saying that a country should not have to go cap in hand to some foreign entity to ask permission to do all this, so out the EU we must be.

The only party that is proposing all the above is the Libertarian Party. All the rest are just window dressing.

A beautiful example of pwnage.

JuliaM beautifully pwned "Morus" over at The Devil's Kitchen regarding the (suspected) fake charity Banardo's and its creepy box-ticking advertising.
Morus: "This is so much bigger a cultural thing than just Bernardo's, and I'm loathe to hold it against them when almost every public, private and third secotr organisation does exactly the same." 

'Everybody else does it!' went out as a good reason to do something when I was five.
What JuliaM did not mention is that the PC culture operates as the mind of a 5 year old. Period.

London Snow: An observation


In a really rare event, even Central London has snow. As of 1am Sunday, Most roads are a mess. The south circular was a crawl and the Hammersmith Flyover on the A4 looked like it was going to be touch and go and lo and behold, when I went around it, the descent was empty of vehicles, which suggests everyone had got stuck on the up ramp!

The most annoying thing was one or two morons who seemed to think that vehicles could react (as in slow down, turn or generally avoid their last-minute changes of speed or direction) as per a normal day. Of such attitudes, bent metal is made.

Only one collision was seen - Gunnersbury between some MPV and a couple of bollards. Vehicle in a sorry state. Hope nobody hurt.

What was plain from empirical evidence was that BMWs with low profile cars are absolutely PANTS in the snow. Beemer after beemer struggled. Even my tail-light Merc did significantly better. In fact, most cars with low profile tyres with big engines controlled by small brains were fishtailing about or just in the gutter.

I did, however, get momentarily stuck at the top of the hill of Bromley Road as it meets the A21, but two surfer/grunge dudes gave the beast a shove and I was on my way (thanks guys!). I did know the drill, but a slight drift got my offside into deeper snow so the extra drag caused my car to rotate into it despite my best efforts. I am certain my old Saab 96 V4 would have had a whale of a time with its narrow, tall tyres, massive ground clearance, front wheel drive and flat underbelly. In, I think, 90/1 we had ALOT of snow and it behaved very well.

Come to think of it, that might have also been the last time that Central London got a deep coating of snow.

Alas my proper camera is off station with Mrs Thornhill, so I am unable to get out and take some good quality pictures. So many roads and spaces look absolutely charming, but one realises that it is important to get home and put the car to bed. Tomorrow will be a commuter hell in a City that does not normally experience such wealther. I bet those in the North are going to have a chuckle at the Southerner's expense.