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

Fair Use Expiry Notificiation #1

THIS IS A NOTIFICATION THAT THE FAIR USE OF THE FOLLOWING TERM UTILISED BY THE LEFT AND OUR POLITICAL MASTERS HAS NOW EXPIRED; YOU HAVE ABUSED IT TO BREAKING POINT AND IN THE INTERESTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR THE CITIZENRY AND USERS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IT IS BEING REMOVED FROM YOUR USE: FURTHER ATTEMPTS AT DOING SO WILL BE CORRECTED BY YOUR BETTERS BY THE FOLLOWING NEW WORD OR PHRASE CAREFULLY SELECTED TO DESCRIBE THE ACTUAL CONCEPT YOU ARE TRYING TO EXPLAIN.

WORD #1:  Privatisation: Privatization is the incidence or process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency or public service from the public sector (government) to the private sector (business). In a broader sense, privatization refers to transfer of any government function to the private sector including governmental functions like revenue collection and law enforcement (wiki article here).

EXAMPLE OF COMMON MISUSE: Most common misuse today is to describe the actions of our government with regard to the rail network, e.g. here. The problem being that this is by no means a service that is run privately, i.e.  with complete autonomy over the running of there business, their routes and their fees, all of which are set by political diktat with little wiggle room. This concept is best exemplified by a fruit seller who is told he may only sell one particular type of fruit, at one particular price, irrespective of the cost or desire of the customer. This program is largely administered by corporate groups who know full well that without full control over the running of their business they are destined to fail - to this end they can continually rely on government support to keep them ashore - the benefit to the politico is they can blame "capitalist greed" for the failure of such a service; the "capitalist" themselves just keep taking the millions - the taxpayer just gets screwed.

Other examples of its misuse has been identified when describing (either fearfully or fervently depending on the group you are talking to) what is happening to the NHS or any of our social or welfare services under a Bory government. 

ALTERNATIVE WORD/TERM FOR IMMEADIATE REPLACEMENT: As this is, effectively, a means of politicos keeping control of something but diverting the vitriol of the public onto "private" business this will require a term rather than outright work - the recommendation for immeadiate correction of the misuse of the term PRIVATISATION is:

POLITICAL-FAILURE-MITIGATION

Users of the term "PRIVATISATION" are reminded that, with regards to the fair use of the English language, they will now be expected to use the new term to describe, accurately, what they mean when they describe what is happening to the railway network and, more extensively, what is happening to public transport in general in this country.An example of a private system used to great effect in many countries (and which has raised living standards in the developing world especially) is the "share-taxi" system. Any concept related to this, where the emphasis is on results and require minimal state intervention, may be described under the rules of fair use as privatisation.

tomorrow: Regulation.

Cross-posted here.

Real Life: 1, Satire: 0

Spotted at work Friday: -

Yes you too could have the distinct smell a thousand grill-jockeys have across the globe of rendered fat and ground beef products...

Sadly this is not a joke. Spotted at work on a cosmetics review paper (dont ask) talking about the counter release of "Gore", a fragrance being created by PETA that smells of rotten meat...

Oh and its spokesperson in the UK is Piers Morgan.

I'm going to lie down...

Seemed fitting...

...that I post this message I have sent to members of a facebook group I belong to to my blog so more people can get involved (if your interested in joining send me a message); the group is concerned with entreating our monarch to dissolve parliament. Read on:

Hi all,

If you have a spare few minutes please have a read of this; it is written by the leader of the Libertarian Party, Ian Parker-Joseph.

Of most interest is the following line:

"There are now 7 unelected members of the cabinet - Mandelson, Adonis, Malloch-Brown, Drayson, Scotland, Royall, Kinnock. This is very quickly becoming the executive of a Dictator."

7 members. Constitutional law states that a cabinet can only have 22 paid members - nigh on a third of the cabinets paid executive have never been subject to a popular vote, never had the scrutiny of the electorate during a surgery nor had to give answer to anyone despite being responsible for spending not only 50+ PERCENT of our salaries, but, with unfunded pension liabilities (in a nutshell, they've been taking public sector workers pension funds, spending it, and expecting the public to fund them), PFI (buying services off the private sector which enables some clever Enron-style off-balance sheet hijinks) and the financial/auto/charitable (pick any) bailouts they've been stealing from your children and grandchildren.

This cannot go on.

You have all signed this and there have been several instances in the media and calls for the Queen to dissolve parliament without the "advice" of this unelected, unmandated cretin who deems to ruin this nation, deny its sovereignty, and worse, erode personal responsibility, autonomy and liberty; giving it all over to unelected beauracrats in Europe (NOTE: for those who voted for your MEPs please note: THEY HAVE NO LAW-MAKING DECISIONS THEMSELVES! they simply vote on laws passed down by "the coleagues"; an unelected elite group who formulate laws on the basis of "expert" opinion groups and personal conviction- IT IS NOT DEMOCRATIC IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD).

I ask that you do 2 more things:

1. Spread the word - promote this group to others via Facebook, word of mouth, carrier pigeon...any means necessary. If people are not willing to join then fair enough - get them to send a letter to the queen to show her that the silent majority would be with her in this historic decision.

2. Please join LPUK's fight to end this madness:

http://lpuk.org/

If you find the idea of politics boring, think of politicians as being venal, corrupt and destructive and government as not being your friend then this is the political party for you; I am not saying we will put an end to corruption or the government or those who occupy parliament, no; what I am saying is that there is a natural place for government, for parliament and for its politicians, and that place is to serve at the behest of the electorate, to make laws based on protecting the individual and to protect the efforts, the labours and the rights that you hand to government, but of late they have abused horribly.

LPUK is the only party that does not believe in forests, only trees; whilst the other parties are willing to let a few trees be cut down for the good of some imaginary forest LPUK is heartily opposed to the practice, and will fight them, oppose them and ultimately overcome; there approach to "rule" is like team figure skating; once a few object the whole troupe fail.

Join up, donate*, or better yet take part; we are a small party that needs butchers, bakers, plumbers, pie-makers who understand they are not economic units to be taxed and squeezed for the benefit of the elite.

If you want to know more send me a message.

God bless,
T

If you yourself are interested join here:

Better yet tell others! You are on this site because you are looking for an alternative to politics and the sham that is democracy - you dont want the current bunch to tinker around the edges of the current state machine; the machine is broken and will not work until we re-establish just what we want the machine to do and what we want ourselves to do. 

Are You Part of the 46.4%?

Looking at the wiki page for Leeds West, the constituency in which I live, I come across a profound miscalculation - it states that John Battle (Labour) was returned with 55.5% of the vote.

This is profoundly wrong and misleading - this is only based on the number of people positively voting for labour out of the total turnout, as if those who decided not to vote somehow do not matter. If you weigh in the total number of available votes the figure looks considerably less impressive: 29.73%.

Less than a third of my fellow constituents returned the Labour party to power of their own volition at the last election.

Less than one in three people brought Labour back to power in Leeds West; less than a quarter brought them back country-wide at the last election - one in 4 people have empowered the Labour party to bring this country to its knees intentionally!

And all because 46.4% of you wouldn't, or couldn't, vote for those in power in my constituency.

There are 2 fatal flaws with democracy - the first comes when people stop voting consciously, allowing bad decisions to be made by flawed people; they cry "voting changes nothing" and make it true because nobody they deem to protect our laws is changed - that is how this present autocracy can rule with a mandate of 1 in 4 people.  The second comes when those self-same flawed MP's foolishly forget that their primary job is not to create laws (bad or good) but to uphold just ones instead; I believe that if LPUK is ever to achieve any real positive change in this country it must not forget this; that we champion the individualist, and by association, laws that let him thrive, above all else.

It is my hope that at the next election - whether that be in 2 or 18 months time, depending on who you believe - I will stand for Leeds West as LPUK's PPC; I have just forwarded my details on to the coordinators to start the ball rolling. In the interim I ask the following:

• If you dont vote, do: if you yourself, or anyone you know, doesn't vote, please do - I am not suggesting you vote for a party you hold only contempt for - in that case vote for all of them; I will be doing so in the upcoming Euro-elections; would the winning party be able to hold any kind of valid mandate if the number of spoiled votes was greater than what brought them into power? Look at it another way - you vote by proxy for the winning party when you do not vote at all.

• If you do not vote because you believe that voting changes nothing, it is because you have voted away too many of your freedoms? I recommend you watch the following videos to understand this; your rights and freedoms aren't given by government - they are yours, and the government exists to serve them and you - anything more, and as we are fast seeing, we become slaves to it. LPUK came into existence to ensure this fact isn't forgotten and government is put into its rightful place, championing liberty, not granting it.

Running a campaign for election is expensive; there are several candidates for LPUK so if you are interested in helping please donate here:

Better yet, join up to make a positive change for Britain:

And if you think you know someone who doesn't vote - tell them about LPUK, show them the website if you have any of the business cards hand them out:

Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on all issues at all times. We don't say government is too big in one area, but then in another area push for a law to force people to do what we want. We believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on all issues at all times.

LPUK: a party that speaks for the silent majority.

Cross posted here

Expensives

Caught you, you thieving toe rags

Glad to see a member of the MSM doing something right for once, but do not think this is entirely down to their efforts; Guido offered some money to the chap who had the uncut expenses data which has no doubt led to the telegraph's "poop or get off the pot" actions, neither would it have been possible were it not for a few independent journalists hounding them, expecting answers as to how they spent other peoples money; our money.

I cant help but wonder what it is that most bothers me about this; for what we are paying MP's, ministers and their associated hangers on it must be tiring work - no decent employer would expect slave hours for slave wages, nor would they expect them to be transported hundreds of miles for long periods of time without sufficient compensation and provisions. No - what I think annoys me most is the lack of honesty in their dealings with their employers; and Young Mr. Brown appears to agree with me on this. Few employers would agree to such terms - "hand over this money for "expenses", no questions asked" - we are not given this ultimatum on such "civil" terms - "you will hand over this money for "expenses" and you will not ask questions or we will put you in chokey"...Now we've found out what they are spending our money on and you can be sure many of them will lose their job over this, come the election; there is only so many times that people will vote for the rosette when they are (finally) paying attention to the turd that it is attached to.

Many of these same MP's will use the other defence of "not being paid enough for the job" - I, as would most people say when they catch an employee with their hand in the till "supplementing" their wages, would tell them to seek alternative employment where there wage requirements can be realised.

They do have a point here though and this is what happens when you fix the price of something so that it doesn't follow the natural cost of that item; Wat Tyler covered this some time ago in relation to national pay scales and its consequences*. Which is why I offer the following idea up for scrutiny: in an ideal world wages would be set by the market in which they operate - teachers in education, nurses/doctors in healthcare, fruits scones in baking etc - MPs operate likewise in another type of market - the general election market - as such they should name their price (wages would henceforth be paid out of council tax) and terms of contract alongside their policy interests and CV; this would have the double blessing of focusing the MP's mind on local issues throughout the year and focusing the minds of the electorate on the true cost of their representative an thus worth. Better MP's who are shown to be consistently good at their jobs would be able to negotiate higher wages whilst moderate ones would be open to haggling and improving their behaviour in parliament and their contact with their constituents. Ministers would be paid a stipend on top of this to ensure compensation for additional work which would be fixed and paid out of central funds. Combined with a robust and open expenses scheme identical to private industry you would ensure competition thrived.

A worker deserves his wages, but let them examine their own self-worth.

There was a time...

This is what passports used to be for

...when your passport was primarily not a document used to identify you, lest you try to enter a country or plane under false pretences and commit a criminal act, but a document that illustrated your right to seek refuge, assistance or protection against injustice. Then, somehow, once Labour had cheapened the entire fiasco that was getting one, an event in which you were vetted fully, and allowed anyone and everyone to get one in the name of "inclusion" (read= vote buying, or worse, gaining political pull), the document was deemed useless, in fact, suddenly you could no longer rely on it being enough that security services could do their job in tracking down criminals or monitoring their movements; they had to pin your identity to a piece of paper, in the name of security.

Now they are pinning it down to plastic; do not be fooled for a minute - the scheme is being rolled out as "voluntary". Remember that word "voluntary" when they come to fine you over your non-conformance or ask why you haven't dont your "mandatory voluntary" work without a single hint of irony in how those 2 words just do not fit in the same sentence.

What is more sickening is the way that the media, especially the BBC have treated this story; radio 4's morning and afternoon presenters (and I normally quite like Eddie Mair) completely evaded the point regarding this huge slap in the face of our civil liberties, instead pointing out that the cost of the scheme is mainly rolled into the cost of the new biometric passport system - the "you've will pay for it one way or another" defence just doesn't wash.

It is a common theme for the left to turn the meaning of things on their head; to downright distortions if not complete inversions of the truth of things - journalists should remember that when they next ask a labour minister what a passport or ID card are for - our protection or theirs?

Compare & Contrast...

This*...

"Local government officials in China have been ordered to smoke nearly a quarter of a million packs of cigarettes in a move to boost the local economy during the global financial crisis....

...China has 350 million smokers, about a million of whom die each year from smoking-related illnesses. Despite anti-smoking campaigns, cigarette taxes form a major component of China's annual tax-take at local level."

with this....

"...Gordon Brown has said he wants to create around 100,000 new jobs through a programme of public works with echoes of the 1930s US New Deal.

School rebuilds will help struggling construction companies while investment in superfast broadband will be the modern-age equivalent of 1930s America's focus on road and rail links.

"I want to show how we will be able, through public investments and public works, to create probably 100,000 additional jobs over the next period of time in our capital investment programme - schools, hospitals, environmental work and infrastructure, transport," the prime minister told the Observer newspaper..."

What am I driving at? This. In both cases you have soft totalitarians taking money from the productive class and giving it to the unproductive; you think one penny spent on those 100000 new jobs will be for anything useful? Expect more "diversity coordinators" (read "bribed labour voters") and crumbling infrastructure.

Heed this warning; for every pound the government spends on public services it has taken £3 of yours to pay for it - actually its no longer spending your 3£, but your child's.

* I'm aware that the chinese authorities have "stubbed out" this rather elaborate means of burning money; let us hope that Gordo will do something, anything, likewise.

Booze Me Up, Buttercup...

To:HM Treasury
Subject: Tax on drinks

I would ask you to protect ordinary people like myself, who are already struggling with rising prices in this downturn. Also, I would ask for your support in protecting businesses in Britain, many of which may suffer unnecessarily if drink prices are raised further.

All of us are aware that there are a small minority who misuse alcohol but it is not fair if all of us are punished. I would ask you to put pressure on other Government departments to ensure that existing laws to crack down on problem drinkers are enforced. This is far better than pushing through a blanket measure that will only sting ordinary drinkers and do nothing to tackle alcohol misuse.

(*and my own personal addition*)

Additionally I want an answer to the following: by what right do you take this money? Your ministers and civil servants tell us it is "a good revenue stream" like that is a legitimate reason, but then a burgler or common pickpocket could use the exact same phrase to describe his criminal actions - what are you giving us in return for taking money and threatening us with jail if we refuse to give it to you?

I look forward to your reply. 

Thank you.

Send your own here

Want to ask a question...

...If individual freedom to control your own life, your own liberty and your own property, is not something we should give people completely and wholy, with governments only task being to protect those infringements on those rights from within and ouside of the country, then what is the point of voting? 

How can a socialist government (for that is what Labour is) be so intent on securing the right of the great unwashed that it has so intently dehumanised, infantilised and disenfranchised elsewhere?

Ask yourself that at the next general election when someone tells you we need to curb the behaviour of benefit scroungers or fat cats, yet considers their right to vote sacrosanct.