A lot has been made about the tit for tat calls for "cuts" in "public" spending by Badger and Cambo; gone is the rhetoric from both sides about ramping up public spending or keeping it on track as public opinion moves to being in favour of massive cuts, showing them for the cretinous headline chasers they are.
This is not the focus of this particular vent; again many people will most certainly overlook the most important point here: they are prattling on about how much they plan on stealing from your wallet in the next political round.
They are thieves, liars and corrupt to boot; let me put it another way; where they to come direct to your home and told you they were taking HALF your wages each month to pay for over a thousand busybodying quangos, an ineffective health and police service and for the feckless to find the time to keep these services occupied would you hand it over? No? How much less do you appreciate it when you could be thrown in jail for not doing so?
Mrs. DK has put it beat here:
This assumption is gigantically invidious, as it underpins every argument redistributionists and opponents of ‘privilege’ make about the state’s choice to reduce or remove taxation on particular bodies or transactions. And I speculate that most people do not, as I did not, even notice the presence of that assumption. We are letting them get away with it. And before long, it will no longer be an assumption that nobody notices; it will be a general principle that is taken for granted. Perhaps it already is.
Why, oh why, do we libertarians continue to allow our opponents to dictate the terms of debate in this way?
This mindset is what needs to be corrected; that our government exists by the whims of its people, not for the betterment if one group at the expense of another but so such actions can be proscribed an dealt with by the law.
We can't achieve anything if we continue to let them frame the debate with us in chains; we have already lost in that instance.
-- Post From My iPhone
8.9.09
Social Work: The Nuclear Option
Have just read JuliaM's thoughts on Edlington and social "care" in general; having landed in a part time job in a field not a hundred miles from social services I find this needs some comment from what I hope is a libertarian perspective.
Most libertarians I know are naturally predisposed to black and white rules applied across everyone; they (I) surmise (normally rightly) that greying the rules normally leads to plenty of areas for those with a collectivist mindset to hide, grow and cause damage.
As involved with children, with youth groups and my church as I am I have to say I agree with this supposition; lives may not be black and white but the rules governing them can be- hence I have often advocated that the best way to apply social care is to see it for what it is: a mix or choice between criminal and health concerns best left to the police and judicial services and/or a minimised health service designed to deal with crisis, emergency an long term care.
What the current situation illustrates is that the focus on individual rights, which ultimately are un-upholdable in the long term (the right to moneys unearned, healthcare etc), has led to ignoring the responsibilities these people needed to keep; to their kids, to society (i.e. not causing misery through criminal action) and so on.
I don't think the present setup is recoverable; we have children who come to our youth group from incredibly deprived backgrounds who, despite enduring horrifying things, are starting to go on the mend (if such a thing is possible) but such groups as ours are not only few but are actively thwarted by those in authority; fot example, it is hard to justify multiple-million pound budgets for drug rehabilitation when a bunch of volunteers and real compassion can achieve better results; best to constrain them in the hope if looking less bad.
Hence I propose this short-term solution, with an explanation that, though doesn't make it hold water against the libertarian ideal for individual freedom, at least explains a radical idea and compromise based on the following precepts:
1. We are paying untold benefits to people to behave like scum.
2. Scum are having children who in turn stand a good chance of not breaking the mold.
3. Biotechnology and fertility technology is advancing at a substantially fast enough pace to enable all sort of people previously unable to conceive to conceive, and for tissue samples to be preserved.
Hence my idea, the nuclear option if you will, to the problem of feral children and parents is thus: a precondition to remaining on long term benefits (say longer than a year) of any kind is the forfeit of your "right" to have children, implemented by chemical sterilisation with storage of egg/sperm/reproductive tissue prior to this. These rights would then be "restored" by the free provision of reproductive health consults and artificial insemination when they can present a "co-gaurantour" who will part fund that child's upbringing; forfeit of reproductive rights would be immeadiately compulsory to first time single mothers applying for child benefit, though the benefit would be higher than it is now (the extra perhaps being specifically proscribed in it's use).
This I aware is incredibly autocratic and as unlibertarian as it comes, but consider the following:
1. You have a right to children but their welfare is your responsibility: the welfare state has created a state of affairs where children are little more than currency, to be exchanged for beer, fags and a free house- this is only possible whilst the taxpayers agrees to this gouging.
2. is the alternative- unmitigated access to having children with no individual responsibily working out?: all the evidence of remedial care from social services indicates no to me, compounded by the states numerous attempts to undermine private initiative.
3. Am I likely to be the first person to think this?: and is it likely the righteous in a position of power thinking along the same lines might omit to give them the option of children later on?
The present situation is untenable for another generation; with 1 in 4 (myself included) receiving one benefit or another and 1 in 6 children living in a household with noone working on more generation will push the strain beyond what the productive part of the economy can handle and it will up sticks and move to a more grateful and productive nation. This is still a reality even with such radical ideas- it would be irresponsible to continue supporting the production of children to parents who are unwilling to support under their own steam if at all, as is being aptly demonstrated of late.
Most libertarians I know are naturally predisposed to black and white rules applied across everyone; they (I) surmise (normally rightly) that greying the rules normally leads to plenty of areas for those with a collectivist mindset to hide, grow and cause damage.
As involved with children, with youth groups and my church as I am I have to say I agree with this supposition; lives may not be black and white but the rules governing them can be- hence I have often advocated that the best way to apply social care is to see it for what it is: a mix or choice between criminal and health concerns best left to the police and judicial services and/or a minimised health service designed to deal with crisis, emergency an long term care.
What the current situation illustrates is that the focus on individual rights, which ultimately are un-upholdable in the long term (the right to moneys unearned, healthcare etc), has led to ignoring the responsibilities these people needed to keep; to their kids, to society (i.e. not causing misery through criminal action) and so on.
I don't think the present setup is recoverable; we have children who come to our youth group from incredibly deprived backgrounds who, despite enduring horrifying things, are starting to go on the mend (if such a thing is possible) but such groups as ours are not only few but are actively thwarted by those in authority; fot example, it is hard to justify multiple-million pound budgets for drug rehabilitation when a bunch of volunteers and real compassion can achieve better results; best to constrain them in the hope if looking less bad.
Hence I propose this short-term solution, with an explanation that, though doesn't make it hold water against the libertarian ideal for individual freedom, at least explains a radical idea and compromise based on the following precepts:
1. We are paying untold benefits to people to behave like scum.
2. Scum are having children who in turn stand a good chance of not breaking the mold.
3. Biotechnology and fertility technology is advancing at a substantially fast enough pace to enable all sort of people previously unable to conceive to conceive, and for tissue samples to be preserved.
Hence my idea, the nuclear option if you will, to the problem of feral children and parents is thus: a precondition to remaining on long term benefits (say longer than a year) of any kind is the forfeit of your "right" to have children, implemented by chemical sterilisation with storage of egg/sperm/reproductive tissue prior to this. These rights would then be "restored" by the free provision of reproductive health consults and artificial insemination when they can present a "co-gaurantour" who will part fund that child's upbringing; forfeit of reproductive rights would be immeadiately compulsory to first time single mothers applying for child benefit, though the benefit would be higher than it is now (the extra perhaps being specifically proscribed in it's use).
This I aware is incredibly autocratic and as unlibertarian as it comes, but consider the following:
1. You have a right to children but their welfare is your responsibility: the welfare state has created a state of affairs where children are little more than currency, to be exchanged for beer, fags and a free house- this is only possible whilst the taxpayers agrees to this gouging.
2. is the alternative- unmitigated access to having children with no individual responsibily working out?: all the evidence of remedial care from social services indicates no to me, compounded by the states numerous attempts to undermine private initiative.
3. Am I likely to be the first person to think this?: and is it likely the righteous in a position of power thinking along the same lines might omit to give them the option of children later on?
The present situation is untenable for another generation; with 1 in 4 (myself included) receiving one benefit or another and 1 in 6 children living in a household with noone working on more generation will push the strain beyond what the productive part of the economy can handle and it will up sticks and move to a more grateful and productive nation. This is still a reality even with such radical ideas- it would be irresponsible to continue supporting the production of children to parents who are unwilling to support under their own steam if at all, as is being aptly demonstrated of late.
5.9.09
How Are These Scum Still in Power?
It appears that the Al Megrahi agreement was down to oil and business deals.
"The Justice Secretary said he was unapologetic about including Abdelbaset al Megrahi in the agreement, citing a multi-million-pound oil deal signed by BP and Libya six weeks later....
....When asked in the interview if trade and BP were factors, Mr Straw admits: “Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state.
“We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal.”
The (In)Justice Secretary is unapologetic to the 259 people who lost their lives in a terrorist attack; there deaths pave the way to palms being greased by big oil and business interests and a few extra pounds from their british registered corporate satellites into government coffers.
Brilliant.
Not that I think that Al Megrahi is guilty, but if you think about it releasing him on the grounds of pseudo-clemency (i.e. he recanted on his appeal in order to be released earlier than an appeal hearing would keep him so he can enjoy the last few months of cancer ridden life he has left) kills 2 birds with one stone:
- Britain gets a business deal with a nation with proved oil reserves.
- No appeal and the assumption of guilt through psuedo-clemency; no awkward questions about the Iranians, the Syrians or the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3rd 1988 by the U.S. Navy’s missile cruiser USS Vincennes or how this figures into the run up to thefirst Gulf war.
Any investigation into this whitewash would have tarred Labour, Tory, SMP and US officials in the process. Yet again though we witness an elite whose actions are ignored by a compliant sheeple who will simply "retaliate" on the most recent shower of bastards by voting for the other turd with a rosette in the next election.
BUT THERE IS ANOTHER WAY!
LPUK wants the individual to be at the centre of policy; hence we would support a minimum state to support the plethora of diversity amongst individuals - we would not, I repeat, NOT, sacrifice people on the altar of big business nor for political expediency; YOU ARE ITS MASTERS AND THE GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO SERVE YOU, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Remember that if you vote for the same, you get the same.
Capitalism Works: The Case for the Abolition of the DfID
Via guido I found this wonderful invention, and a call for more efficient spending of DfID funds on such ideas.
I have a considerably simpler idea on how to achieve this goal: abolish the DfID outright, and use the money as a drop in tax from which we can donate to charity ourselves.
It appears over the last decade they have had enough spare cash to indoctrinate our children and engage in pure politically motivated activities; taking that back alone would give us enough money to buy over 800000 units per year which as they can filter 6000L of water and an average human male requires ~2L a day would last 3000 days or a little over 8 years by which point replacements would become commercially viable for a healthier African population.
Does anyone know how to create a transferable web badge? I want to start a campaign to abolish the DfID and include a pledge to use the money saved in lower taxes to donate to worthy charities of our choice; charity not only begins at home but also flows from there; government cannot be "generous" or "charitable" because by definition it does not have any of it's own money- I would not be considered a charitable giver by the judiciary if all the money I gave was stolen/mugged from other people- why is government different?
I have a considerably simpler idea on how to achieve this goal: abolish the DfID outright, and use the money as a drop in tax from which we can donate to charity ourselves.
It appears over the last decade they have had enough spare cash to indoctrinate our children and engage in pure politically motivated activities; taking that back alone would give us enough money to buy over 800000 units per year which as they can filter 6000L of water and an average human male requires ~2L a day would last 3000 days or a little over 8 years by which point replacements would become commercially viable for a healthier African population.
Does anyone know how to create a transferable web badge? I want to start a campaign to abolish the DfID and include a pledge to use the money saved in lower taxes to donate to worthy charities of our choice; charity not only begins at home but also flows from there; government cannot be "generous" or "charitable" because by definition it does not have any of it's own money- I would not be considered a charitable giver by the judiciary if all the money I gave was stolen/mugged from other people- why is government different?
2.9.09
Thought For The Morning
Via Snuffy (will link when On proper computer):
"'Well, you're of the right, and I'm of the left.'
Come again?
Such a statement coming from a lefty means something like 'You are an evil right-winger who is only interested in stealing from the poor, whereas I am decent and wish to help them.' It says, 'this conversation is over'. Down come the shutters. Bang. There is a barbaric deliberate refusal to seek to know more from someone, who let's face it, thanks to her profession, her experience, her obsessions and constant thought on these matters, just, well, knows more."
Now I don't think of myself as either left or right wing but just wanted to point out; if righty's do indeed want this isn't their business plan a little flawed? The poor aren't known for their wealth.
Just saying is all.
"'Well, you're of the right, and I'm of the left.'
Come again?
Such a statement coming from a lefty means something like 'You are an evil right-winger who is only interested in stealing from the poor, whereas I am decent and wish to help them.' It says, 'this conversation is over'. Down come the shutters. Bang. There is a barbaric deliberate refusal to seek to know more from someone, who let's face it, thanks to her profession, her experience, her obsessions and constant thought on these matters, just, well, knows more."
Now I don't think of myself as either left or right wing but just wanted to point out; if righty's do indeed want this isn't their business plan a little flawed? The poor aren't known for their wealth.
Just saying is all.
31.8.09
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?
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.
30.8.09
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
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
22.8.09
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.
21.8.09
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.
Anyway this post is brought to you via it's almighty awesomeness- expect more to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)