Sunday, 29 April 2012
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Also, I note they're taking out the anti-smoking playbook, by turning it round on to 'Big Porno' - i.e., attacking the industry, rather than the consumer, with mock outrage that someone's making money from it.
Friday, 27 April 2012
Thursday, 26 April 2012
So we come to the case in point. A disabled, elderly man who suffered a stroke, when Camden Council sent bailiffs to rob him. The council officials will not care that one man's life has been so blighted, because they are scum.
The parking rules and the wheel-clamping rackets are an example of what happens in a society that allows its freedom to be taken away, salami slice by salami slice. If we were still an armed (i.e., free) society, I really don't think the wheel-clampers would exist.
Right. And ... what exactly has that got to do with internet porn, other than the obvious (i.e., nothing at all)?
Hey, it's all the internet, isn't it? Yet again it's the 'think of the children' argument, which should be more accurately rendered as; 'we think of you all as children'.
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Obama Ban on Youth Farm Chores Part of Larger Power Grab
Dredging up Dickensian horrors of child labor, the Obama administration has ordered the Labor Department to apply child labor laws to family farms. The new rules would make it illegal for children to perform a large number of labor tasks that have been performed by farm families for centuries. Traditionally, adults and children alike helped with planting and harvesting in the spring and fall, but the federal government is now determined not only to make this a historical footnote, but a criminal offense.
Under the rules, children under 18 would be prevented by the federal government from working “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials” and prohibited “places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”
In addition to making it far more difficult for families to work their farms, the new rules will revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA and replace them with a 90-hour federal government training course, the Daily Caller reports.
In other words, the federal government will forcibly insert itself in the business of teaching animal husbandry and crop management, disciplines traditionally passed on by families and local communities.
Government apparatchiks will now oversee the business of local farming the same way Stalin did when he collectivized farms and “socialized” production at gunpoint in the Soviet Union. Resistance by farmers and peasants to Stalin’s efforts resulted in the government cutting off food rations, which resulted in widespread famine (the “terror-famine in Ukraine” killed around 12 million people) and millions were sent to forced labor camps.
The Labor Department’s effort to further erode the family farm falls on the heels of an unconstitutional executive order Obama issued last year establishing so-called rural councils.
Sunday, 22 April 2012
No one doubts it is a huge cultural, political and behavioural challenge or pretends there is an easy solution. But if the answers, whatever they are, involve challenging corporate power and practices, legislating to improve the content of food or even limiting individuals' freedom to consume junk, then so be it. Only radical action will begin to win the challenge of obesity.Here we see encapsulated the strategy of the enemies of liberty. Firstly, we have the manufacturing of a public health crisis; the 'obesity epidemic'. Secondly, we have the identification of the enemy. Following the tobacco-control playbook, this enemy is the powerful corporations who must be curbed by the force of law. Thirdly we have the necessity to protect people from themselves, i.e., an attack on individual freedom 'to consume junk'.
Let us not waste time trying to reason with these people. They are the enemies of all that is good and true.
Saturday, 21 April 2012
Firstly, there's no bigger Goliath than the authoritarian state which they are working to aggrandise, and which provides much of the funding for their work. Secondly, they clearly have no problem with 'big pharma', which also bank-rolls their operations and benefits from the sale of 'medical' nicotine. Thirdly, their real battle is against ordinary smokers, especially those with the temerity to argue against them.
Personally, I have yet to receive any payment from 'big tobacco', but I'm quite happy to do so in cash or preferably in tins of Peterson's Irish Flake (see above), which is likely to keep far longer than our sadly depreciating paper currency.
"The far right want to destroy our democracy and stand for the elimination of our basic rights. They cannot be treated as a legitimate part of politics."That would scan just as well with 'far left' instead of 'far right', and as for the Gaia-worshippers, you could amend it thus:
"The greens want to destroy our economy and stand for the elimination of most of the population. They cannot be treated as a legitimate part of politics."As for 'progressives' in general, it's worth noting what exactly that term meant in the first half of the 20th century. By those standards, Hitler was incredibly 'progressive', given that he went further than anyone to implement their favoured eugenics programmes. He was also an early pioneer of enviro-mentalism, what with his new agey love of the 'sacred forests'.
Ken just doesn't want people to see how close the BNP's policies are to his own, and the greens want to sneak into the mainstream of politics, even though, if they ever got the chance, they'd be far more extreme than any of the other parties. As for the other two establishment types, it's likely they'll pull out. Boris will claim a prior engagement, and Brian will bottle it, as without the other two, he'll have nothing to say. No problem. We will then have the opportunity to hear from the UKIP fellow and the independent woman, from whom we note:
Despite those withdrawals, a spokeswoman for UK Independence Party candidate Lawrence Webb said he was still planning to take part.
"We are going to take every opportunity to talk to Londoners, particularly as we are fourth in the polls but are being treated as an also-ran."
She said it was "pathetic" to pull out of the debate over the BNP adding: "Are there any toys left in their pram?"
Independent Siobhan Benita said: "For me it's just really disappointing because this was the only platform the BBC had given me alongside Boris and Ken.
"My feeling is all seven candidates have been selected, all seven should have a voice."
Friday, 20 April 2012
Hat tip: Lew Rockwell.
Read the whole article by Eric Peters here:
After a certain point, it’s not paranoia.
The latest brick in the wall is the predictably named “Moving Ahead For Progress in the 21st Century Act,” also known as Senate Bill 1813. (See here for the full text of the bill itself; the relevant section is 31406.) This legislation – already passed by the Senate and likely to be passed by the House – will impose a legal requirement that all new cars made beginning with the 2015 models be fitted with so-called Event Data Recorders (EDRs). These are the “black boxes” you may have read about that store data about how you drive – including whether you wear a seat belt and how fast you drive – ostensibly for purposes of post-accident investigation.
These EDRs are not new. GM and other automakers have been installing them in new cars for years – in GM’s case, since the late 1990s. What’s new is the proposed federal mandate, which would make it illegal to not have one – or (in all likelihood) to remove or disable one in a car required to have the device.
The question arises: why?
Several possibilities come to mind:
First, the EDRs could – and almost certainly will be – tied into your vehicle’s GPS. (Most new and late model cars, conveniently, already have this, too.) Then data about your driving can be transmitted – as well as recorded. To whom? Your insurance company, of course. Progressive Insurance already has such a system in place – voluntary, for the moment. (See here for more on that.)
When EDRs are mandated, you will no longer have a choice.
We’ll be told it’s all for the sake of (groan) “safety” – just like the old 55 MPH highway speed limit and every radar trap in the country. Of course, it’s really for the sake of revenue – the government’s and the insurance company’s. Your rates will be “adjusted” in real time, for every incident of “speeding” or not buckling up. It’ll be so much more efficient than using cops to issue tickets. After all, so many fishes escape! With an EDR in every car, no one will escape. Your “adjusted” premium will be waiting for you when you get home.
You’ve got mail!
Whatever disutilities one can associate with billboard advertising, they pale into nothing compared to the disutility of having cunts like Lawson spreading their venomous and putrid swill. The agenda Lawson is pushing represents an attack on not merely individual liberty and responsibility, but the very notion of adulthood. On top of this is the repudiation of private property in favour of the collective - a collective, which according to Lawson's despicable view is made up of mindless drones in thrall of whatever advert they last saw.
By the way, the title is ironic. I don't want to ban Neal Lawson, because, unlike Neal Lawson, I'm not a jackboot-licking piece of trash, and I have more than two categories - compulsory or prohibited - for the things in this world.
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
One such professional collectivist is union boss Graham Black, writing in the tax-funded (by state sector job adverts) Guardian newspaper. This line especially sticks in my craw:
In Britain, we have a remarkably compliant tax population that knows taxes are a price we pay for a decent society.Talk about taking the piss.
Hat tip: Tim Worstall
His case is premised on a falsity; that the Tory Party is 'eurosceptic'. It is not. It is staunchly pro-Brussels, and always was, notwithstanding the instincts of a large section of the party, including such as Hannan, who remain in the party in spite of this neon-flashing truth.
Neither is the question of national sovereignty the only one of distinction. Those who consistently attacked the puritanical authoritarianism of New Labour, not to say its criminal military interventionism, have nothing to praise in the current government. On both these issues UKIP have taken the right stance.
It is not for UKIP supporters to join the Tories, but the other way around, to get out of the Vichy Party and join the resistance.
Hat tip (again): DK
Update: Right at the end of this clip comes Nigel's (pre-emptive) answer to Daniel.
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
I'm just glad I didn't vote for the government that is so far up its own arse that it thinks spending our money on a 'Behaviour Czar' is a good idea.
Saturday, 14 April 2012
Greg Barker, energy minister and chairman of the influential 2020 group of modernising Conservative MPs, also insisted that the changes which started under David Cameron will continue. “It is a one way street,” he said.A one way street to oblivion, let us hope. It's very clear that the Conservatives are at least as bad as Labour in government. They have continued the puritanical authoritarianism. They have continued the hand-over of power to Brussels. They have continued the Blairites' war-mongering and blood-spilling, most notably in Libya (I wonder how things are going over there? We don't hear too much about the place these days). They are continuing the aggrandisement of state power over our privacy. In summary; same old shit, with slightly plumbier accents.
Fuck the Tories. UKIP are far from perfect, that much is true. They're wrong on some things, but at least they're right on some other things, which gives them a unique selling point when compared to the indivisibly and atrociously cuntish three main parties.
Friday, 13 April 2012
If anyone wants to persuade me one way or another, feel free.
Nevertheless, there is no reason for the various strands of libertarianism to fall out. I would say the time for that would be when the ‘night-watchman’, minimal state has been achieved, and until that time, the disputes amongst us are largely academic. We are lumbered with the status quo, and that includes a big state and heavy taxation. But, by accepting the fundamental injustice of taxation, it does at least free us from seeking after the will o’ the wisp of a ‘fair’ system, a ‘neutral’ system, and instead lets us focus the mind on reducing taxation in general and the very heart of the matter; government spending.
Whatever the theoretical destination may be, the only way to get there is by little steps, just as long as they’re steps in the right direction. Bringing in new taxes, even with the intention that they will replace other ones would seem to be a mistake, with the risk that we’ll wind up with the old ones and the new ones. Better to freeze the system as is, and then start chipping away at it, piece by piece.
Some taxes seem more pernicious than others. An example, in my view is Inheritance Tax, or Death Tax, as it should be known. Not only does it visit injustice upon the heads of the bereaved, it causes sub-optimal decisions to be taken by the individual while still alive, in order to minimise the bill. Nevertheless, an attempt to abolish it will provoke political opposition with the accusations that it is helping the rich – the implication being that anything which does so, harms the poor. This brings us to the issue of political expediency.
If the possibility arises to cut taxes, it would seem sensible to ‘spread the joy’ as widely as possible. I would target VAT on fuel, alcohol and cigarettes. The justification for this would be that each of these is already subject to a separate duty. A reduction of the cost of fuel would benefit everyone, either directly or indirectly. Not only this, it would be visible. Other targets could be the aforementioned Death Tax and Employer NI. This latter seems a singularly foolish levy on employment, and its abolition could only improve the jobs market. No doubt the left would demand the saving be passed on to workers (a quick way to nullify the point of the change), but it should not be difficult to make a convincing political case for ending Employer NI.
Reducing the size (not to say sheer weight) of the tax code must also be a priority. I suggest setting a target that it should be no bigger than ‘War and Peace’ would be a good place to start.
In summary, a libertarian programme of tax-cutting, whether premised on the inherent criminality of tax or a more moderate position, should avoid attempts to find ‘fairer’ means to provide loot to the government (such as ‘shifting the burden’ onto the rich), but should rather seek to freeze the system as it is, and then proceed to dismantle it little by little, through across-the-board reductions or when possible the abolition of particular taxes. There should be no new taxes (with one possible exception: cannabis!), and an overtly populist tone should be struck, with the stress on giving the people back their money.
(Cross-posted at Libertarian Home, where you can read my responses to someone advocating a large increase to the income tax threshold, rather than across-the-board tax reductions).
Monday, 9 April 2012
The plan itself, which involves the state preventing people replacing their household boilers or undertaking home improvements unless they hand over additional money for 'green improvements', such as additional insulation or whatever else these delusional regulatory fetishists deem appropriate.
It is, I would say, very clearly not the work of the current government, by which I mean that collection of jostling egos at Westminster, but rather the permanent government which we rarely see - the zealous control-freaks who festoon the ministries, who never need face the people, who take their orders not from us but from the next highest lacky in their insulated demi-monde. Certainly the hand of EU can be seen, no doubt with the usual mailed glove of British government 'gold-plating' - the term used to euphemise taking ludicrous rules from Brussels and amplifying them to show additional contempt for the people of this country.
My advice to the Tory MPs; go back and read a few of the statements you made in opposition. Refamiliarise yourself with the image you then wished to portray. Note the references you no doubt made to small government, reducing bureaucracy, standing up to Brussels, even, some of you, individual liberty, because it is such phrases as these which will be your indictment and, hopefully, your epitaph.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
What NBC broadcast:
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”What was actually said:
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy – is he white, black or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”
NBC have apologised and sacked the producer, since being caught.
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Personally, I don't care if they don't pay a penny to the thieving, murderous British state. I'd do the same if I could. Here's the line that launched this post:
"The Guardian asked Amazon why it paid no UK corporation tax on the £3bn it takes out of the economy. "What is this, the 18th Century? The Graun might not have noticed, but Amazon has not just taken that money for nothing in return - like the state does - it has provided billions of pounds worth of books, and if, by minimising its tax from the greedy bastards at the Treasury, it can do it cheaper than anyone else, good. To say this is not fair on other, less mobile, operations is like complaining that its not fair that a slave managed to escape, when the others are stuck on the plantation. The injustice is not the one that got away, but the imposition of the business-killing burden of our bloated, fascistically-inclined state. E.g. this, from the article:
"Amazon's UK operations are also poised to benefit from Luxembourg ownership in the battle for the lucrative and fast-growing ebook market. Being based in Luxembourg means it can charge VAT on ebook sales at the local rate of 3% rather than the 20% VAT imposed on British-based ebook retailers."Rather than sending in the goon-squad, the Treasury should deal with the root of the problem, and if it's not sure how to do that, may I suggest taking a mirror and looking in it.
After a year’s virtual silence the man who claims to be the leader of a party which claims to be libertarian has finally made a statement.
Most notable was the absence of any word of apology. Instead he provided an implausible narrative of how elements within the party had launched an attempted coup and engaged in all manner of dirty tricks in order to destroy the party.
Those who have any personal knowledge of these matters, know how nonsensical his account is, and what lacunae lie in the story, such as the episode when he resigned along with his faithful chairman and they tried to de-register the party. The ‘coup’, therefore refers to the NCC meeting held after his resignation, as at least one of the current rump NCC knows, because he was present and voted for the replacements to fill the vacant positions.
He skates very lightly indeed over the central bone of contention; that being his refusal to hand over the party accounts for inspection – accounts which he should have already surrendered to the treasurer at least four months previously.
Had he done this, and had there been nothing untoward, had he had the courage or the sense of responsibility to face the party members, although he may indeed have had to give up the leadership, he could at least have left with some credibility intact.
Instead of this, he decided to lay low for a year, issuing the occasional cryptic message via his blog and waited until all the people who actually cared were no longer members. In this way, I suppose, he has won, and whatever it was he was so desperate that ordinary members, such as myself, could not see remains a secret.Still, life goes on, and we have bigger fish to fry.
Monday, 2 April 2012
- Every year or so in England, a new "anti-terrorism" law is made. Every time, we are told how this is absolutely needed to protect our way of life, and that it will be used only against terrorists and other very bad people. Every one of these laws is mostly used against ordinary people. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for example, is largely used by local authority snoops to see if people are following the recycling rules or living where they claim to live for school allocation purposes. The American extradition treaty is mostly used to deport men who have broken no law in this country to stand trial in some of the most corrupt and depraved jurisdictions in the common law world. There is no doubt this law would be used to enable persecutions of men who are, by no stretch of the imagination, terrorists.
- The police state that has been built up in England is almost uniquely incompetent. Any data about our communications aquired by the British State would certainly be put on unencrypted memory sticks and left on railway trains, or stolen by or sold to organised crime gangs and foreign security services. All promises of confidentiality should be regarded with the contempt they deserve.
- We are already living in a state of "anarcho-tyranny." Criminals who should be caught and locked away are kept out of prison, or undeported, in the name of human rights, and are given lavish financial support at our expense. The rest of us get taxed and regulated and spied on, and generally treated like the slaves of an absolute and arbitrary police state.
- We are told this new law is needed in a year that will see both the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth the Useless and the Olympic Games. Since the law will need to go through Commons and Lords, it cannot be ready in time. The stated excuse for the law must be a lie.
- In general, we are told that our masters need a police state so they can fight the "War on Terror." Really, they need the War on Terror as an excuse for the police state that have wanted since at least the 1970s.
Oops! Someone should have proof-read that last line before sending it to the printers. It should of course read; "We believe that your personal information belongs to the state, not you."
New Labour has excessively relied on mammoth databases and wide powers of data-sharing, on the pretext that it will make government more effective and the citizen more secure. Its track record demonstrates the opposite, with intrusive and expensive databases gathering masses of our personal information – but handled so recklessly that we are exposed to greater risk.
A Conservative government will take a fundamentally different approach. We believe that your personal information belongs to you, not the state.