Idealist eMcee - Treasure Coast Cubes
"I am by birth a free Commoner of England, and am thereby intailed or intituled unto an equall priviledge with your selfe, or the greatest men in England, unto the freedome and liberty of the Lawes of England." William Thompson, 14. of December, 1647
Either Monday or Tuesday the Senate will vote on a bill that allows the US military to imprison civilians with no formal charges and hold them with no trial.
The ACLU reports even US citizens wouldn't be immune as the legislation aims to declare national territory part of the "battlefield" in the War on Terror.
1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;
(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and
(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.
"The storming of the British embassy was the latest, and most violent, blow struck in a long-running battle of wits over Iran's nuclear programme. Diplomats had been expecting a major protest in Tehran on Tuesday to mark the first anniversary of the assassination of a senior Iranian nuclear scientist, Majid Shahriari, one of three killed over the past two years in the streets of the capital. "How can a protest, leading to criminal damage and a few FO workers being jostled be called 'the most violent blow', when, in the same paragraph, it notes the assassinations of various Iranian scientists?
Thousands of people, including women and children, are being illegally detained by rebel militias in Libya, according to a report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Many of the prisoners are suffering torture and systematic mistreatment while being held in private jails outside the control of the country's new government.Read the article here.
The summit will be held the week before the European Council heads of government meet formally to discuss plans for EU treaty change from Sarkozy and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, designed to strengthen central surveillance of countries' fiscal positions. These include European court of justice-enforced penalties for countries carrying excessive deficits.
The French have been trying to delay treaty talks, but may have to succumb to German demands in return for Berlin's co-operation on the development of eurobonds. A meeting this week between Sarkozy and Merkel appeared to agree on some form of treaty change.
Sarkozy is anxious to understand the British bottom line on what powers it would seek to renegotiate if limited treaty change within the euro-zone were sought. There have been hints that Britain would limit its demands to changes to the working time directive.
I think I can help Sarko out here. Britain doesn't have a bottom line. The Tory half of the current government may require something to wave to their deluded sheep-like, Stockholm-syndromed followers, but the British government will not require any substantial bribe, because they are true-believers in the EU project, and any significant change would force them into revealing their 'referendum lock' was made out of the same metal as Cameron's 'cast-iron guarantee' - i.e. tin foil.
"People have no idea of the scale of money British banks are owed by European banks. If the European banks start going it will be our banks that are on the line, our government on the line."Personally, if he's trying to scare me, he better try harder. Our government on the line? Cool. Fuck 'em. Who needs that bunch of chisling crooks anyway? Put the Duke of Edinburgh in charge for a while. At least he may sort out the looming energy crisis.
"Victory for the UK! Millions of pounds saved as EU budget contribution rises by just 2%... after Europe demanded 5%"Claiming a victory because we, the preyed upon tax-serfs of the sadistic Sir Humphreys and their degenerate political wards, are only going to be ripped off of £X million, rather than £X + £Y million is fooling no one. It's like claiming a victory because the burglars didn't shit in your bed when they ransacked your home.
"We recommend that researchers and organizations stop using the 23 times more toxic factoid because there appears to be no evidence for it in the scientific literature."This was written over a year ago, but the BMA - the sawbones syndicate - hasn't caught up yet.
"There's even a tendency … to say people keep rejecting pro-European propositions because they aren't proposed in a pro-European enough way."Really? A tendency? Well, there you have it. Our enemies don’t like being burdened by defending the status quo. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They don’t want to deal with the reality, but keep focused on the long-term goal of continent-wide Empire.
"In England and Wales, breach of the peace is not an offence, in the sense that it is not punishable either by a fine or imprisonment either at statute or common law and nor do proceedings for breach of the peace give rise to any conviction. In England and Wales, constables (or citizens) are permitted to arrest a person to "prevent a further breach of the peace" which allows for the police or the public to arrest a person before a breach of the peace has occurred. This is permitted when it is reasonable to believe should the person remain, that they would continue with their course of conduct and that a Breach of the Peace would occur."This is very important. We were told, through the media, that the arrests took place "to prevent a breach of the peace" NOT a further breach of the peace. If words have meanings, it is clear that the only occasion that someone can be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace is if they are already committing or have already committed such a breach.
"To those of you who will still be attending London in the morning to pay your respects, please make your way to Westminster and not Kensington as originally planned. We wish to remind you to conduct yourselves accordingly by dressing smartly (suit and tie if possible) and acting respectfully and responsibly. This is not an EDL march and EDL colours/hoodies and banners should not be bought along. Above all wear your poppy with pride!"This article discusses the government's proscription of Muslims against Crusades, so the plan to disrupt the poppy burners was no longer necessary. Thus, as far as I can see, the EDL had only one objective - to align themselves with the sentiment of Armistice Day, which dictates respectful behaviour. Getting into fights at St Pauls Cathedral would hardly be fitting. Also these arrests took place in Westminster, two miles down the road, outside the jurisdiction of the police in Westminster incidently.
Luciana Berger, MP for Liverpool Wavertree, said: 'I'm shocked that someone would come to Britain with the sole purpose of profiteering from the troubles this summer.Bollocks. The real story was that the riots were stopped by valiant citizens defending their properties and not allowing the scumbag looters to trash, burn and steal. Those who worship the state despise self-defence. They consider the disarmed victims of scumbag criminals to be a price worth paying to ensure that citizens can't defend their liberties against the biggest and most predatory criminal of all ...
'This kind of inflammatory rhetoric has the potential to incite violence and make our streets more dangerous not less.
'The real story of the disturbances was told - not by those who caused the damage - but by the hundreds of people who came out onto the streets in the days afterwards to clean up and take back their communities.'
The turning point came last week, when the elected prime minister of Greece was marched into an office and dressed down by the leaders of a foreign state. His plans for a referendum of the Greek people were scrapped. European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said he expected a government of national unity – one without any mandate whatsoever – to be installed with all the off-hand arrogance of an emperor. And so it came to pass, with Loukas Papademos, one of those technocrats which the androids in Brussels consider reliable, primed to take over the top job.Such would be a good thing. The arguments I have been making in favour of national independence and democracy should resonate with left-wingers, or at least are not in any way anti-left. Neither should left-wingers support the now-numerous occurrences of innocent citizens being abducted under the European Arrest Warrant and rendered unto foreign jails for long spells without a shred of evidence having been produced, and there's something faintly absurd to hear them denouncing a referendum on the grounds that it harms our beloved system of (un)representative democracy.
I found the following passage interesting from Livy's History of Rome (Book XLIV), written in the reign of Augustus. It takes place prior to the decisive battle between the Roman forces and the Macedonians in 168 BC. Perhaps my dear readers will agree."When Aemilius Paulus saw that the site of the camp had been marked out and the baggage collected, he first quietly withdrew the triarii from the back of the line, then the principes, leaving the hastati standing in front, in case the enemy made any movement. Finally he retired these also, withdrawing those on the right first, maniple by maniple. In this way the infantry were withdrawn without creating any confusion, leaving the cavalry and light infantry facing the enemy. The cavalry were not recalled from their position until the rampart and fosse in front of the camp were carried their full length. The king was quite ready to give battle that day, but as his men were aware that the delay was due to the enemy he was quite content, and he too led his men back to camp.
The following is taken from 'Epistemological Problems of Economics' by Ludwig von Mises, from the section entitled 'The task and scope of the science of human action; Science and value'.
I think it's worth reflecting upon, as the issue of economics being value-free, which is discussed here, comes up quite often, usually in my case as a defence against an accusation of heartlessness or of despising the poor, when arguing against a particular act of state intervention. The free market liberal position meets with a great deal of hostility, but I believe this is mainly due to a misunderstanding of what that position really is and is not. Certainly it has been misrepresented by its opponents, and no doubt poorly represented by its adherents.
I recognise grappling with epistemological problems is not for everyone - but someone's got to do it! With a proper grasp of the fundamentals, it is then possible to convey the arguments to others in consistent, coherent and simpler terms.
Science and Technology: Economics and Liberalism
Whether science seeks knowledge for its own sake or in order thereby to obtain information for the sake of action, or whether it aims at both ends at the same time, it is in any case permissible to make practical use of the results of scientific investigation. Man thinks not only for the sake of thinking, but also in order to act. There would be no need to repeat these truisms were it not for the fact that antiliberal, partisan propaganda in the guise of science day after day vehemently seeks to deny them.
The fact that economics, as a science, is neutral with regard to judgments of value and that it can express neither approval nor disapproval does not prevent us from trying to learn from economics how we must arrange our action in order to achieve the ends at which we aim. The ends can be diverse. Caligula, who wished that the whole Roman people had but one head so that he might decapitate them at a single stroke, had different ends in mind from those of other mortals. However, such exceptional cases are rare; and their tendency to be self-destructive (Caligula, indeed, would hardly have long survived the fulfillment of his wish) makes an exhaustive concern with their ideals unnecessary. No matter how much their wishes, desires, and valuations may differ in details, men aim, for biological reasons, at the same basic ends. Regardless of world view, religion, nationality, race, class, position, education, personal abilities, age, health, or sex, they aspire above all to be able to pass their lives under the most favorable physiological conditions possible. They want to eat and drink; they seek clothing, shelter, and various other things in addition. Moreover, they are of the opinion that more food, clothing, and the like, is better than less.
Every individual desires life, health, and well-being for himself and for his friends and close relations. At the same time, the life, health, and well-being of others may be indifferent to him. Filled with the atavistic instincts of a beast of prey, he may even believe that others stand in his way, that they are depriving him of foraging grounds, and that the satisfaction of his wants must involve the killing and robbing of his fellow men. But the technology based on the cognitions of the science of human action shows him that this is not so. Work performed under the division of labor is more productive than the isolated labor of the individual. Even when superior men combine with those less favored in every respect and inferior to them in capacity for work and intellectual and physical abilities, both sides gain, as is demonstrated by Ricardo's law of association (usually called the law of comparative costs). Consequently, every individual is better able to attain his ends by the social cooperation of labor than by isolated work.
Social cooperation, however, can be based only on the foundation of private ownership of the means of production. Socialism - the public ownership of the means of production - would make impossible any economic calculation and is therefore impracticable. The absurdity of syndicalism is undisputed. As for interventionist encroachments, they prove - when judged from the point of view of those who advocate them - senseless and contrary to purpose, because they not only do not bring about the results desired by their supporters, but involve consequences that they themselves must deprecate.
Therefore, when one reaches the conclusion, strictly by adherence to the canons of scientific procedure, that private ownership of the means of production is the only practicable form of social organization, this is neither an apology for capitalism nor an improper attempt to lend the authority of science to the support of liberalism. To the man who adopts the scientific method in reflecting upon the problems of human action, liberalism must appear as the only policy that can lead to lasting well-being for himself, his friends, and his loved ones, and, indeed, for all others as well. Only one who does not want to achieve such ends as life, health, and prosperity for himself, his friends, and those he loves, only one who prefers sickness, misery, and suffering may reject the reasoning of liberalism on the ground that it is not neutral with regard to value judgments.
The defenders of the prevailing etatist and interventionist system completely misunderstand this. They think that the acceptance of liberalism, on the assumptions mentioned, presupposes a definite world view. Liberalism has nothing to do with world views, metaphysics, or value judgments.
We can imagine beings similar to men who would want to extinguish their humanity and, by putting an end to all thought and action, to attain to the unthinking, passive, vegetative existence of plants. It is doubtful whether there are or have ever been such men. Even St. Aegidius, the most radical advocate of asceticism, was not altogether consistent in his zeal for austerity when he recommended the birds and the fish as a model for man. To be entirely consistent, together with the Sermon on the Mount, he would have had to extol the lilies of the field as the embodiments of the ideal of complete abandonment of all concern for the improvement of one's lot.
We have nothing to say to men of this kind, consistent ascetics who by their self-denying passivity give themselves up to death, just as they would have nothing to say to us. If one wishes to call their doctrine a world view, then one must not forget to add that it is not a human world view, since it must lead to the extinction of mankind. Our science sees men only as acting men, not as plants having the appearance of men. Acting man aims at ends, i.e., he wants to overcome dissatisfaction as far as possible. Our science shows that aiming at ends is necessary to existence and that human ends, whatever they may be, are better attained by the social cooperation of the division of labor than in isolation. (It is worthy of note that no historical experience has been found in conflict with this proposition.) Once one has appreciated this fact, one realizes that no standard of value of any kind is contained in the system of economic or sociological theory or in the teachings of liberalism, which constitute the practical application of this theory to action in society. All objections to the effect that economics, sociology, and liberalism are predicated on a definite world view prove untenable once it is recognized that the science of action is concerned only with acting men and that it can say nothing about plant-like beings living with no thought of tomorrow, whom we can scarcely consider as human.
 E.g., Vleugel's "Probleme der Wertlehre," Archiv f?r Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, LXVIII, 227f. Liberalism has no thought of denying the existence of servilism and its world view. All that liberalism endeavors to demonstrate is that the realization of the goals of servilism would necessarily bring about consequences of whose inevitability its advocates are in ignorance and which, even in their own eyes, must appear as too high a price to have to pay for the attainment of their ideal.