Manchester, 1965: aliennation

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Now for independence WITH the Scots

"How shall I be sad on my wedding day?" (at 48:40)

It's not business as usual today. As Professor Vernon Bogdanor said last night, there has been a collective rejection of all the major Westminster parties.

In England, this will tend to strengthen Farage's hand, despite the seethings of various independence/democracy purists who seem to hate UKIP as much as the Establishment does.

If, as now seems likely, the Scots have marginally voted No under intense cross-party Westminster political pressure (including reckless concessions re further devolution) - and with a biased and powerful news media - then we are on for Independence Royal instead of Independence Lite.

Alex Salmond has not shown signs of being able to ride the mighty horse he caught - keeping the pound and staying in the EU would tie Scots to a wider disaster still forming.

The idea that No - the status quo - is safe is almost laughable. Gordon Brown's gusty guff (where has he been these past four years?) lacked specifics on the security offered.

We are not secure.The UK's 90% government-debt-to-GDP is bad enough, but pales in comparison to our housing-soaked total national debt/GDP ratio of 500%.

And when some other place in the world - Frankfurt? Hong Kong? - gathers enough cheats together to replace the City of London, the golden goose in Britain's GDP flock will have been stolen from us - and what will be the debt ratio when that happens?

Everything is now in the pot, and we must play for all we are worth. The old arrangements and lazy political heirs must go for the sake of the nation as a whole.

Scotland, as so often before, we need you in this fight.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Scotland: the REAL question

If Scotland were an independent country today, should her people vote to give up self-government and be ruled from Westminster?

Your reasons, please.

Now replace "Scotland" and "Westminster" in the above sentence with "Britain" and "Brussels".


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Constitutional questions

"The Arrival of William III" by Sir James Thornhill. Original uploader was

Raymond Palmer at en.wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia;

transferred to Commons by User:Magnus Manske using CommonsHelper.

(Original text : South Wall of the Painted Hall, Old Royal Naval College,

Greenwich [1]). Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Email today from myself to Dr Andrew Blick, of the Constitution Society:

"Dear Dr Blick

Would you or anyone else from the Constitution Society be prepared to discuss the proposition that Britain's 1973 entry into the EEC was unconstitutional?

In particular, how do the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Monarch's Oath of Office bear on the issues?

(We leave aside for the moment the complications regarding the subsequent referendum of 1975, itself made questionable by the withholding from the public of intragovernmental legal and constitutional advice, and partisan misrepresentations to the public by the then Government, news media and other parties.)

Was our entry into the EEC in 1973 not ultra vires?

The debate must surely be more urgent as we face the consolidation of power in the EU by the introduction of majority voting in November.

Is there anybody who can provide authoritative comment?

P.S. Further, is it not the case that Magna Carta's significance since 1689 is purely symbolic, without any legal force whatever? King John may have agreed to bind "our heirs in perpetuity" (Clause 1 re the English Church), but did not the Revolution put the monarchy on an entirely new basis? MC may be our Pole Star, but not our pilot."

Dr Blick is on holiday, but I hope for a reply.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Magna Carta - the tree of freedom is plucked bare

Images adapted from: BBC, Saga's Cottage

 

We think of Magna Carta as a bulwark of English liberty against arbitrary State authority, and it was seen as that at the time:

 

From a list of inscriptions found in Tewkesbury Abbey:

 

309. In the Presbytery (the second brass from the south).
 

(Clare chevrons) Gilbertus de
Clare nomine primus

comes Glocestrie 6s et Hertfordie
5s Obijt 25o Octobris Anno dni 1230.
(pen) Magna carta et lex
caveat deinde rex (scroll).

 

Translation:

 

Gilbert de Clare, the first of that name, 6th Earl of Gloucester and 5th of Hertford, died 25th October A. D. 1230. Magna Carta and law, let the King henceforth beware.

 

That same inscription was quoted by Stanley Baldwin less than 80 years ago:

 

" "Magna Carta is the Law: Let the King look out."

So it has always been with tyrants among our own people: when the King was tyrant, let him look out. And it has always been the same, and will be the same, whether the tyrant be the Barons, whether the tyrant be the Church, whether he be demagogue or dictator — let them look out."

• Speech at Westminster Hall (4 July 1935); published in This Torch of Freedom: Speeches and Addresses (1935), p. 4

Yet very little of Magna Carta remains in force, as A P Herbert pointed out in his humorous "Misleading Cases" piece from 16 February 1927, "Rex v. Haddock: Is Magna Carta Law?" Albert Haddock is trying to get out of (or have reduced) a parking fine, but the judge says:

 

"... it was argued before me that at least that portion of Chapter 29 still has effect which reads:

 

'Nor will we proceed against a freeman, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.'

 

But it was proved in evidence that in fact this method of condemning the freeman is the exception rather than the rule, and it was suggested that this portion of Magna Carta must be interpreted in the light of recent statutes, so that it reads:

 

'Nor will we proceed against a freeman, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land, or Government Departments, or Marketing Boards, or Impregnable Monopolies, or Trade Unions, or fussy Societies, or Licensing Magistrates, or officious policemen, or foolish regulations by a Clerk in the Home Office made and provided.'

 

The judge in that story also points out that notwithstanding Clause 40, the law is known for its delays - and expense:

 

"... much justice is sold at quite reasonable prices, and ... there are still many citizens who can afford to buy the more expensive brands."

 

What's left?

 

From the BBC:

 

"Only three of the 63 clauses in the Magna Carta are still in law. One defends the freedom and rights of the English Church, another relates to the privileges enjoyed by the City of London and the third - the most famous - is generally held to have etablished the right to trial by jury.

Below are the full translations of the relevant clauses from the 1215 copy of the Magna Carta held at the British Library.

1. Clause 1: The liberties of the English Church

"First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.

"That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

"To all free men of our Kingdom we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs."

2. Clause 13: The privileges of the City of London*

"The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs."

3. Clauses 39 & 40: The right to trial by jury

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "  "

How few leaves are left on the tree of liberty! And if so many have been blown away already, what guarantee do we have that the rest may not fall?

If we love the idea of liberty, we shall have to re-assert it, and there are new aspects that we might wish to address in a modern version, particularly the endless spying by the State on its citizens.

That's if we can call the State to account any more. After all, we are not powerful barons, nor (it seems) is the Crown in Parliament fully sovereign.

The 800th anniversary of Magna Carta falls on 15 June 2015. Should we do something for that day?
__________________________________________________

*See Graham S McBain's "Liberties and Customs of the City of London – Are There any left?" (2013) - www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ilr/article/download/28685/17142


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Police pornography

"Police... arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster said they took photos of the teen’s genitals against his will.

"The case was set for trial on July 1, where Foster said Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Claiborne Richardson told her that her client must either plead guilty or police would obtain another search warrant “for pictures of his erect penis,” for comparison to the evidence from the teen’s cell phone.

"Foster asked how that would be accomplished and was told that “we just take him down to the hospital, give him a shot and then take the pictures that we need.” "

- Washington Post

For more on absurd and invasive officialdom, see this article on Ron Paul's site.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

It's okay to be free, as long as you don't tell anyone

"City officials ignored her activities until she went public and discussed them with Liza Fernandez, a reporter for a local TV station."

What activities? Disconnecting from city utilities and using rainwater and sunlight instead.

(htp: Ron Paul)



Sshhhhh!


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

"Consumer choice" and liberty

A letter to the Spectator magazine, emailed to them today:

Sir: Your editorial (“People Power”, 20 February) welcomes Conservative proposals to extend consumer choice in schools and hospitals, and I hope this will open a wider debate about these imperfect and possibly outdated reifications of learning and health. For example, might we see less bureaucratic resistance to, and more financial support for home education?

But if the Conservatives have rediscovered their appetite for freedom and democracy, why, as Greece, fons et origo of those principles, lies tormented on the Procrustean metanarrative of the EU, are we denied a voice in the ultimate political question, that of national self-determination? Absent a referendum on membership of the Romantic and revolutionary project, we shall be limited-list libertarians, like council house dwellers selecting the hue of their front doors from officially-compiled colour charts.

Are we to be consulted, or must we refuse to vote at all in the coming General Election?

Alabamageddon

"People want to kill somebody, but they don't know who to shoot at" ...

Freedom and healthcare

I've just watched Daniel Hannan's address to Americans on the dangers of a nationalised healthcare system. I, too, want America to carry on holding up the torch of freedom and democracy that is being doused here in the UK, so that one day we'll be able to re-light ours from theirs.

But it seems to me that if you want private solutions for problems which all have (or will have), but not all can afford, then you must address the question of inequality of resources.

Peter Rogers, co-creator and producer of the Carry On film comedies, once remarked he would 'do anything for my actors except pay them.' Similarly, so much is done for us in the UK, perhaps so badly, in the way of health and education (to name but two functions), when it might work so much better if we had the money personally and could make our own decisions.

We are witnessing a concentration into ever fewer hands on both sides the Atlantic, not only of power but of economic wealth. Every dollar and pound is a vote in the daily election of goods and services. To use the terms of the French national motto, if we wish for liberty but mistrust fraternity, then perhaps we should contemplate some redistribution of wealth to restore a greater degree of equality.

For example, how about some form of credit card (funded from general taxation and directed to individual accounts) that can only be spent on defined areas of need, but the holder to determine how to use his/her budget to best effect? Something like the educational voucher idea, but radically extended?

Liberty: a debating point

We've been arguing liberty vs addiction recently, and my own latest comment is:

Libertarian laissez-faire needs to mean more than simply standing aside and watching the rich and powerful cock it up for everyone. Paradoxically, libertarianism implies some kind of rule-setting and limitation of power.

Does that seem reasonable?

Addictive behaviour is the West's major challenge

"I finally decided to give up", say some. Yet I made that decision about smoking many times, before the last time (1977) that worked. I haven't seen an account of how to make a decision that sticks. Otherwise most of us would be slim, fit etc.

Gerald Durrell, in "My Family and Other Animals", tells how as a child he let his sister take care of some orphaned baby hedgehogs while he was away. He told her to be strict with the milk, not to overfeed. When he came back, he found that she'd fed on demand and they'd all died, because they couldn't stop demanding.

We live in a society that has plentiful cheap food, readily available and aggressively marketed alcohol, easily obtainable tobacco, easily found illegal drugs (and glamourised a thousand times by the media), computer games everywhere. It's surprising that anything gets done.

Some argue for decriminalisation of "harmless" drugs like cannabis, contrasting it with the undoubted dangers of alcohol. I agree with them in a way they won't like: alcohol is far too easy to get hold of.

Libertarians overestimate the amount of control we have over our behaviour, I think. Sartre argued stubbornly against the theory of the unconscious, because it undermined his philosophy of existentialism. I incline to the Buddhist analysis, that we continually form strong attachments and only the most determined can break the chains. Few manage it on their own. Some would say only 5% per year break free of alcohol, and perhaps a far smaller percentage stay off it permanently.

In our debates on liberty, should there be some discussion about restrictions that make us more free?

1984

It hasn't happened the way Orwell said it would, they keep saying. Yet:

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV supervision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

(htp: Mark Steyn)

Soon, I shall wake up and discover it was all a dream.

What the blackbird said

Every morning, a blackbird in our neighbourhood starts to sing. It begins with two distinctive melodies, and then (like Eric Clapton in his Cream days) improvises beautiful, complex variations on these themes.

We do the same. We complain of encroachments on our liberty, the debauching of our currency and national wealth, the weakening of the bonds that tie society together, and so on. And we do it many times, passing judgment with our "wise saws and modern instances", like Shakespeare's magistrate.

We're not alone. In a well-worth-reading article today, former Tory minister Neil Hamilton tells it like it is now with our rulers: democracy is dead (not that it was ever much alive). It's especially disturbing that senior politicians will say this now, not just the cranks among the public.

But why are we singing? Simone de Beauvoir said, "Every good book is a cry for help"; who do we hope will make speed to save us? And why does he have a sword and sceptre in his hands? Because to ask for help is to surrender power.

So let us combine against the oppressor. But who will lead us? And how will they mutate as they convert our assent into fresh authority? Is a libertarian party ultimately doomed by its oxymoronic essence?

George Orwell said, 'All historical changes finally boil down to the replacement of one ruling class by another. All talk about democracy, liberty, equality, fraternity, all revolutionary movements, all visions of Utopia, or "the classless society", or "the Kingdom of Heaven on earth", are humbug (not necessarily conscious humbug) covering the ambitions of some new class which is elbowing its way to power ...'

Like charity, liberty, wealth and happiness begin at home. Let us waste no more of our dreaming time on the puppets that wish to master us; in a Berkleian way, they are created and maintained only by our perception. Neither vote nor revolt; ignore. Trying to change society is like sending flowers to a soap opera wedding.

The revolution is personal. How much of your time and money could you save, reorganise, invest to make you and yours happier? "Il faut cultiver notre jardin."

And in our garden, the birds will sing.

Off with his security pass!

Jim Fedako argues that the point of democracy is not to serve the people, but to allow ousted leaders to lose their jobs while keeping their heads.

Does liberty mean no more than this?

Fight

James has posted on liberty recently - an issue that underlies and will outlast all the economic turmoil of the recent and soon to come years. The prophets foretold this a century and more ago - the langorous and progressively enfolding embrace of the octopus...

Would it even be possible to hold the American revolution today? The Boston Tea Party? Imagine if George III had been able to sit in his palace across the ocean, look at the security-camera footage, press a button, and freeze the bank accounts of everyone there. Oh, well, we won’t be needing another revolt, will we? But the consequence of funding the metastasization of government through the confiscation of the fruits of the citizen’s labor is the remorseless shriveling of liberty.

Read more from the excellent and usually sharply funny Mark Steyn.

Back to the Constitution - and its underlying principles

A fine rhetorical performance by Bob Basso (htp: Karl Denninger), reminding Americans that the issue isn't money, but liberty and national integrity (as in holding the pieces together).

I agree with everything before the tea-bag (never as good as leaves, old chap) and the call to buy guns; some might go further.

Does the tree of liberty need watering?

How Britain became a police state

Here is an extract (presentation altered to make visually clearer the catalogue of the State's crimes against liberty) from Philip Pullman's recent article on freedom in the UK - strangely, suspiciously, perhaps tragically and symptomatically, censored from the Internet by The Times:

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as:

the Protection from Harassment Act (1997)
the Crime and Disorder Act (1998)
the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000)
the Terrorism Act (2000)
the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001)
the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001)
the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002)
the Criminal Justice Act (2003)
the Extradition Act (2003)
the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003)
the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004)
the Civil Contingencies Act (2004)
the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005)
the Inquiries Act (2005)
the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005)

... not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

For the full article, saved from the memory hole by alert patriots and lovers of liberty, please see here.

By what damning irony is it, that The Times itself should have published this noble extract on June 10, 1788:

THE PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN ENGLAND
From Mr Pratt’s Poem on Humanity

MARK by what gradual steps Britannia rose;
As the small acorn to a forest grows;
By what variety of adverse fate,
Terrors of war, and anarchies of state,
What direful griefs by foreign fury bred,
Rivers of blood, and mountains of the dead;
She passed advent’rous, e’er her wrongs were o’er,
Complete her triumphs, and confirm’d her pow’r.
When but to look, was treason to the State
And the King’s nod, like thund’ring Jove’s, was fate.
[...]
Thus, in the earliest hour of Britain’s morn,
A Briton’s hate of tyranny was born!
Abhorrence sacred, to repel the hand,
That dares to wrong the charter of the land:
Our sturdy ancestors, tho’ oft subdu’d,
But breach’d from war, and strait the charge renew’d;
Now dres’d as victims, now as pris’ners bound,
The blood of heroes deluging the ground.
In each extreme our brave fore-fathers prove,
Their native courage and their country’s love;
Fierce for hereditary claims they fight,
And ev’n till death maintain a Briton’s right.

Hence rose our liberties, a common cause
To these succeed, their best support, the laws;
Bonds, conflicts, murders, massacres ensu’d,
And many a Saxon, Danish sword embrued
In English blood, and many a Monarch’s life,
And many a Monk’s, submitted to the strife,
E’er Laws were form’d, as now sublime they stand,
The shield, the spear, and buckler of the land.

No wonder they have all but abolished the teaching of English history and literature, as we once knew it.

Drugs: a rope to hang ourselves with

Unity at the Ministry of Truth offers 15,000 words to justify the legalisation of drugs, and is cheered on by Devil's Kitchen and (or am I mistaken?) by James at Nourishing Obscurity.

On the other hand, ex-Birmingham prison medic Theodore Dalrymple points out that no-one has ever died from coming off opiates; de-addiction can be achieved in a limited time; and it's criminals who turn to heroin, not heroin-users who turn to crime.

"Ah, but we only want the same treatment as smokers and drinkers," will be the cry. Well, seeing the damage that fags and booze did to my 20-years-too-early departed parents (and friends and acquaintances, and Looked After Children I've worked with), I'm inclined to agree; but not in the way the libertarians wish.

I'd be interested to know all the costs, expressed financially, of the harm done by "cigareets and whisky". I very much doubt that the tax covers the expense of the disbenefits. Here's an example, relating to alcohol: "For the UK, the external costs are likely to be in excess of the £20 billion figure and indeed taking loss of life into account and using more usual figures to value this loss could bring the total closer to £45 –50 billion for the UK as a whole. This is clearly way in excess of the revenue yield of £12 billion in 2000/01."

Instead of battening on the addictions of its citizens, the government could easily forego the £18 billion revenue on tobacco and alcohol - that's only the same cost as the ludicrously expensive and probably unnecessary NHS IT project, "Connecting for Health". Then, freed from this compromising financial interest, it could begin to tackle the problems seriously - not through the unimaginative approach of Prohibition, but through better education, and limiting the outlets of these harmful substances, as I have already suggested here.

As for other drugs, what is this campaign to encourage us to spend half our lives in a doze, daze or haze? Is there a plan to subvert society, to leave us in the land of the Lotus Eaters? Are we to sleep like the hare, while the Eastern tortoise wins the race? Is the opiate of the masses to be opiates?

B*lls to the Politics of Ecstasy; it's just an excuse for the spoiled end of the middle classes to indulge themselves further, leading (like the Pied Piper) hordes of less safety-netted proles into oblivion.

And why should libertarians support addictions, which imprison the will and distort reason?

Don't write it, think it