Fair Use Expiry Notificiation #3

Prologue: I believe fully that one of the best ways of combating the rampant "'new' new speak" that has been corrupting our land for the past century is to see it for what it really is and not to engage with it on its terms; the collectivists first mode of attack will be to wrest the grip on the language from everyone, leading to scarcity in free thought; which is why an 18th century welsh coalminer has a better grasp of the English language, its grammar and the breadth of language available than a modern A-level English student and why our universities are running fixer courses to make up the shortfall (though the damage is already done by this point; there is a great difference between recognising the misuse of the meaning of words and recognising their meaning outright).

It appears that our American colleagues have realised this also, and have sought to redress the balance; I for one salute their attempts and urge everyone who believes in actual freedom, not the faux freedom peddled currently, should take this battle to hand.

Now onto FUEN #3: -

WORD #3: Democracy: 

First point:

Would you want these idiots to have a say in how we run our healthcare, justice or welfare systems?

wikipedia has this to say of Democracy:

Democracy can denote either the power or complete rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (info)), "popular government", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos), "people" and κράτος (krátos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.

In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom. These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and have equal access to power. Additionally, all citizens are able to enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are usually protected by the constitution.

We have been led to believe that our current system is democratic, that it is more "equal" and "free" than ever before; we have been lied to - democracy in the context it is currently used simply means that once a sizeable majority champions one person, party or group they can very quickly override the legitimate actions of another; as I pointed out here in what is a fairly simple example, this "majority rules" arguement is profoundly wrong - less than 1 in 3 people can make decisions the other 2 have to live by; how is this a majority?

The American forefathers realised this and knew democracy when taken to mean everyone having a say over everyone elses actions would eventually lead to destruction - have you ever noticed that the original constitution does not mention "democracy" anywhere? 

So what then is the only legitimate task of democracy? Take this quote from Thomas Jefferson to heart:

"Laws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits. - Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813."

Government encroachment into "healthcare" (sickcare), the "welfare" (bribery) of its citizens (subjects) or aggresive actions against sovereign nations all lead eventually to tyranny, made up of an elitist minority with no real attachment to the world or people they are "serving".

ALTERNATIVE WORD/TERM FOR IMMEADIATE REPLACEMENT: If a minority can garner enough votes from a portion of the population whilst the majority abstain from voting for whatever reason they can effectively override individual freedom under the pretext of it being "the will of the people"; those whom they elect because there is very little incentive to look downwards - many people would vote for a turd with the correct rossette rather than realise they are voting for a turd - and so look upwards at those who can get them patronage, peerages and fancy side jobs in businesses with vested interests. taking the EU's faux-democracy into consideration we are actually ruled over by a relative few who care little about mass opinion. 

Hence the term we should use instead of "democracy" from now on is:

DESPOTISM BY PROXY

Democracy should be a means of protecting carefully laid down constitutional freedoms given by the people to our elected representatives to ensure all are dealt with equally above the law; I use this phrase because treating people under the law allows governments to build on these for the loudest complaining groups so as to create inequality.

Future references to democracy, democratic society or a related concept will henceforth be corrected to the above.

Dropping Timber Regulations

In all the crud going on over the last month, the poverty, the feeling of inadequacy and the unbearable repetitive questioning from well meaning friends and colleague perhaps the most depressing part is the gradual increase in weight I've been undergoing since my wife became pregnant; apparently it's something prospective dad's do along with their wive's subconsciously- personally I was just enjoying the larger amount of junk food my wife ws craving.

I've got myself fit before and, with help of my brother Buffrat,who is a fitness fanatic, get myself fit again.

That was until Leeds city council had other plans- apparently despite indepth knowledge of gym equipment, having been using it for over 15 years, and having a brother who could write a PhD thesis on personal fitness development, without a five minute indictiom course on safe use of Bodyline equipment whichhas to be booked in advance I cannot use the equipment. With limited time and money I find myself not able to go again for a while.

Worry about the state of the nations safety will kill the nations health.


-- Post From My iPhone

Michael Moore: Distilling Ignorance and Collectivist Bigotry Into Box-Office Gold

GAH! THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM: THIS IS PURE, UNADULTERATED CORPORATISM!

Without seeing it I cannot be certain of its content, but one thing is clear; both Michael Moore and his detractors are clearly misrepresenting this as free-market capitalism.

CORPORATISM: A LOVE STORY

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

I feel a fair use expiry notification coming on, right after the vitriol dies down and I can bring myself to write about democracy.

Hang on - still incensed by this I thought I should ask Mike what the craiq is about this movie:

"Hi Mike,

Just wanted to bring to your attention a typo in the title of your next movie, Capitalism: A Love Story. You have inaccurately used the word "Capitalism" which is defined by wikipedia as the following:

"Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor."

This situation hardly describes the financial industry within the United States; if you wanted to use "Mixed Economy: A Love Story", or better and more accurate yet, "Corporatism: A Love Story" either term would be acceptable to describe the situation we find ourselves in.

I look forward to seeing your movie as I believe from the adverts the content looks accurate (in part) and look forward to hearing your "solutions" to the crisis.

Meanwhile I was wondering if you could give me a taster of this new movie as I will have to wait till October (at least) till I am able to see it in the UK and tell me whether you mention either the part the federal reserve has played in stoking this crisis of political interference from democrats in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act and its subsequent amendments all the way to the 90s?"

In the highly unlikely event he (or one of his minions) replies to this I will post his answer.

Taking The Queens Shilling

Less 4 years ago I found myself in a similar position as I do now; family troubles meant I could not cope with my postgraduate studies and I withdrew from a PhD (in truth had I not done this it was very likely I would've been pushed, my work was suffering that much).

I found myself with my last stipend (a portion of which I would later give back compounding things further), Christmas looming and a new and supportive wife taking her teaching qualification meaning money was incredibly tight. Things had not started out well.

In that period of time I found myself turning to various job agencies; all except the most obvious one, the JobCentre, infact. Even then, still young and unsure of where I stood politically I knew I didn't want to collect a dole until then I had not paid for or supported.

One agency called back - one that dealt with the NHS and public sector bodies - saying they needed someone to start work; several posts followed at varying NHS sites around Leeds, Bradford and beyond, when finally I was given a 3 month temporary contract in a busy department at one of the main Leeds hospitals, a contract that would be extended repeated for over a year. It was here that I received perhaps my best compliment for my work I have received ever; I was acosted by one of the doctors I worked for and asked if I were an undercover reporter investigating standards at British hospitals, thus was the standard of my clerical work and attention to detail viewed. My family situation also recovered through this period even to the point that one of the consultants discussed a potential postgraduate research position in collaboration with my former department, which they declined.

This work, in a period of great "prosperity" (I used the term to describe the feeling, not the underlying lie that we are all paying for), made me realise precisely what the NHS is for - what it is truly for: it is there to provide health and support to a sick nation; it is not there to provide a haven for the workshy - my contract was renewed despite efforts to get someone else in the role permanently precisely because I worked hard and realised that my actions, however meagre in comparison to the doctors and nurses in the department, contributed to patient wellbeing. 

Several years on, knowing more about the concept of libertarianism, having found my last company betraying myself and several others to maintain short term capital gains (for which I do not blame them; time will tell if this was the right decision), I find myself at the doors to the recruitment company I was at before, except this time there are no more jobs at the NHS; instead I find myself posted with another government body and I wonder if I am doing the right thing supporting the vast edifice I now find myself working for again, albeit this time with less of that feelgood factor.

I find myself rationalising it this way and that - that this is merely a tax rebate I am working (hard) for, that it will give me an excellent view from the inside. In truth with a little baby in tow, a mortgage and a wife who's career though taking off is still at an early stage (compounded by maternity leave) I find the simplest answer is that I must work in order to pay the bills. 

I start next week; I do not know if this is a non-job, if it is actually something worthwhile as yet because I do not have all the details; I do know that my needs must, my savings exhausted and that I will do this job with my utmost for the shareholders - all of us. I plan on performing my utmost in this position because of the principles that I stand for; that I, an individual, can, and will, make a difference

Until then I urge everyone to join and vote for a party that will make government non-jobs a thing of the past and put some dignity back into governance, rather than just throw money at it.

It is not, as many have tried to infer, a party wishing to destroy the government - we would then have to be called the Anarchy Party. We simply wish to put the business of government back on the correct footing and keep it there constitutionally; that a governments only task is to protect the rights of the individuals of the country it serves, punish those who infringe on anothers rights to freedom and defend the realm. Anything else should be consensual, not forced.

Late In The Race...

...but have finally got myself an iPhone. Before you can ask how an out of work hobo can afford such a thing my brother, Buffrat, gave me his 8gb model when his work gave him a shiny new 32gb model. Fun time.

Anyway this post is brought to you via it's almighty awesomeness- expect more to come.

Rough with the Smooth

Just brough my new baby daughter home...

...And become another statistic amongst the unemployed within the same day.

I've been in this place before and now I have all the better the incentive to get looking for work, and fast. Here's hoping that amidst all the gloom that there are things that employers still need employees for.

For those of the praying persuasion, a little help in that department would be appreciated.

T

He Just Doesn't Get It

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to call a general election immediately.”

Details of Petition:

“The last two local elections have shown that the people are no longer prepared to tolerate Nu-Labour without a mandate. Gordon Brown is a spent force and MUST now immediately go to the country - anything less will be be outright political fraud and maintenance of their expensive troughing lifestyles at all cost.”

Read the Government’s response:

Thank you for your e-petition.

As you may be aware, a general election must be called before June 2010, when the whole country will have an opportunity to express their point of view.

In the meantime, you may be interested to read the Government’s recently published plan, Building Britain’s Future. The document sets out a radical vision for a fairer, stronger and more prosperous society for all. 

You can read the proposals, and take part in the debate about the country’s future, at the following website

http://www.hmg.gov.uk/buildingbritainsfuture

We do not want you to "build Britains future", we want you to leave us to clean up the damage you have already caused and try our best to rebuild despite the illiberality, despite the madness, despite the penury - you have proven time and again you are INCAPABLE of saying your sorry, let alone fix the problems you have created, preferring to indulge in bunkered down Hitleresque fantasies about how the world loves you and your "doing this for our own Good".

So I wont be accused of mincing my words Gordo, you, your fascist, swivel eyed yes-men can take your "future" and shove it firmly up your rectum.

In the Name of God Go!

The Kirkstall Festival

Was persuaded by my very rotund and frustrated wife to break our normal Saturday malaise with a trip to the Kirkstall Festival this afternoon - weather was nice and I was not much in the mood for housework, so we went, along with our pet labrador, Bonnie.

Amidst the many tents selling their wares for various causes I noticed the following:

• The Labour Party.
• Solidarity With Cuba (replete with Che Geuvera merchandise).
• A group calling itself "Green Labour".
• The UK Communist Party.

Walking along the rest of the Abbey I noticed there was not a single advocate of conservatism, liberalism or libertarianism, and I ask myself why political dialogue was confined to rabid, left-wing ideology.

What was most striking about the event was that these stalls were in the order above as I passed them; reading up on the similarities and differences between the 2 before coming to write this I found the following article; this in particular is telling:

"Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism."

Compare and contrast:

"Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialisation may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same."

I will be in contact with other members of LPUK next year to see if we can organise something to appear at this and other local fairs; if you like me are few up of a closed-off narrative that merely offs varying levels of theft from your pocket for varying reasons. Then try something different; try LPUK.

One Death Is Too Many

Driving home from work last night I often turn on to Radio 4 to listen to Eddie Mair- he tends not to give politicians an easy ride, which is why they must be lining up to take on his standin Carolin Quinn in his absence.

Yesterday evening Rita Donaghy talked about her enquiry findings into fatalities in the construction industry and how they amounted to an equivalent of 1 per day in the UK. She recommended greater protections for workers and the responsibility for good health and safety planning given to the director of any building project, making him prosecutable if the worst happened. Good, I thought. You can read the report here; 365 deaths stopped a year is a noble goal but in the running of things this is quite a good record considering the nature of the work.

It got me thinking about something I read last year here. According to a TPA report based on WHO data were the NHS to have the same “mortality amenable to healthcare” as the average of the other European countries studied (Germany, France, the Netherlands and Spain), there would have been 17,157 fewer deaths in 2004, the most recent year for which data is available.

1 death per day in the construction industry attributed (but not proven) to bad health and safety management.

vs.

47 deaths per day (at the last count) caused by poor management of disease and by a system that champions scarcity & rationing as a virtue over good healthcare outcomes - you need only look at Jade Goody's case to understand how this comes about.

Do not get me wrong; I have several friends in the health service who do many difference jobs; doctors, nurses, admin (in my younger days I temped in admin roles in many hospital departments - at one point for over a year in one) and in many of these cases deaths are not always down to poor treatment; the reason for these death I believe are 3 fold:

1. Risk is supplanted by regulation; regulation leads to more i's dotted and t's crossed but dont account for the rules not covering every possibility that good common sense would; frontline staff merely wish to avoid incurring the wrath of the clipboard wielders and, as our MP's expenses scam proves, it so much easier to state you were playing "within the rules".

2. As far as users of the NHS are concerned it is a free service; you dont have to pull out your wallet to pay for treatment ergo it must be free. This assumption is not just an oddity within the NHS but widespread socialist consensus-think has taught us - that nothing important in this country can function without the government sticking its oar in. Thus we do not value our own health or the services which help us when we are sick.

3. The governments attempts to use the private sector as a means of palming off responsibility which rightfully belongs to it (it deeming to control our healthcare system after all) in areas like cleaning, or the more insidious use of PFI or "management consultants" to reduce levels of nursing and support staff leading to faster turnaround for beds and greater risks of infection.

In all 3 cases it is the system that is at fault; you are compelled to buy into 1 system at the barrel of a gun and treated as a right-wing nut when you question the percieved wisdom that 47 deaths per day is a worthy sacrifice to keep this "wonder of the world".

BUT THERE IS ANOTHER WAY

The Libertarian Party manifesto for health is deceptively simple; government doesn't hold the key to the best healthcare system; you do - if you care about your life then you need to take responsibility over it. Understanding your own mortality, accepting it and the cost it takes to keep you healthy in terms of what you do to yourself and how you mitigate the risks when the worst happens is part of that.

For me I believe the best outcome would come from combinatorial medical savings accounts and insurance; considering fully comprehensive insurance for me, my wife and the little one due to arrive any day now would be approximately £80 for all of us (compared to roughly £200 each from my wife and me for NI contributions, considering our employers double these) the cost to offset our insurance against a tax free medical savings nest egg we could take to any provider would ensure the best outcome; the one we want. For those of us unfortunate to have long term ailments this could be covered by a fairer national insurance tax which also covers emergency and maternity services (accidents and healthcare for people who have had little say in needing it should not be forced to pay for it); the costs of these relative to other sections of the NHS are relatively small and manageable.

For a better idea of how this would work; look here.

Fair Use Expiry Notificiation #2

WORD #2: Regulation: the wiktionary describes the term "regulate" in the following way:

To dictate policy; To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law; To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature; To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning; To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits

Regulation should be an extend from our negative liberties, i.e. be the consequence to infringement on the rights of another, i.e. prison for a thief or murderer agreed upon by all as a means to resolve issues.

EXAMPLE OF COMMON MISUSE: Many believers in the sovereignty of government over our lives rather than over our laws believe that regulation to be a means of correcting "inequality"; this comes from the mistaken belief that laws should be formed to enable positive liberty and/or "equality" - that is "equality of outcome" rather than "equality of opportunity". They develop "regulations" which deprives wealth creators of the fruits of their labours in order to distribute these to others less able.

More so they erect "regulations" which impede the ability of the better able to create wealth so that the less able are led to believe they can compete, ignoring the obvious caveat that it is not through their own ability but by their recognition with those in authority as being less able, or worse, being a group with pull in political circles.

ALTERNATIVE WORD/TERM FOR IMMEADIATE REPLACEMENT: Regulation should form the bedrock of our liberty and should give us all an equal footing to pursue justice; if a manufacturer knowingly hides a fact about their product which lead to a persons injury or death, or a company pollutes land that does not belong to there should be a means of pursuing justice within the court; it is not a perch for others to gain a foothold over others, such as is happening with the CFP, CAP, the BPD or REACh; all of which enable certain groups to gain advantages over others without having to rely on their own natural abilities, but government pull. Regulation at the point of a gun is no longer regulation - it is: 

DICTATULATION

i.e. "You will behave have in a certain way in order to constrain your natural ability, so that others less able and/or with better political pull will be able to compete with your reduced ability rather than their equal one; your ability to create wealth is less important than our pursuit of "equality"."

From now on, any use of the word "regulation" when describing a means of constraining human activity where it does not necessarily infringe upon anothers liberty or "equality of opportunity" shall henceforth be corrected with the above term.

Next time: democracy

cross-posted here