Not the end, as long as you and I breathe

Looks like the US is in the process of nationalising the banks and the stockmarket, loosely speaking, and the UK is following suit; now Mish says Russia and China are doing the same. All is falling into government hands.

I've been wondering recently: if, in the idealistic pursuit of universal peace and justice, we ever did manage to establish a World Government, and it became (as all human institutions do), inefficient, bureaucratic, undemocratic, corrupt and more or less evil, how would anybody escape? Where could we go to?

And Denninger is now singing a requiem for American government and democracy; perhaps prematurely - hasn't the often-mocked blogosphere uncovered a depth of feeling among the people in favour of liberty?

Liberty

The greatest liberty is the right to change yourself.

Recently I've put on a few pics of women, the lovely creatures, and get concerned comments from Nick Drew and Pej. This is entirely a natural response, but it is also an example of what I call the homeostatic principle. You know: try to lose weight and people say you're not fat, just pleasantly plump; forswear alcohol or tobacco, and they advise you to cut down a little instead, but just for now go on, have one etc.

We worry (rightly, of course) about the tyranny of big government, but there is also the long, slow, grinding tyranny of the small (and small-minded) community, and the dysfunctional family. And we, too, are so often, unconsciously and instinctively, the oppressors.

Simone de Beauvoir (who was led a dance right royally by her liberated lover Sartre) said that every book is a cry for help. Mostly, that cry will go unanswered, and few will rally to your home-made flag. We enjoy our blogging, but delude ourselves if we think the world will change much as a result, or perhaps should change much.

If you want a major, exhilarating change, go for action direct: change your own life. And if you are a libertarian, watch for how even you try to hold others back.

Liberty Marr'd by its Champions

A gentleman writes, that Mr Andrew Marr, the news-reporter and erstwhile foe of judge-made privacy law, now desires to be kept privy not only certain information concerning himself, but also the knowledge that he has secured an injunction to that effect from the court.

If any correspondent should care to illuminate this dark matter, he shall find us all ears; though we grant, that ears cannot see.

Might it be item 35 here? As revealed by Guido in January?

UPDATE: Another gentleman writes in defence of Mr Marr's right to privacy

*** 2009 UPDATE: Alastair Campbell implies exposure of Andrew Marr