Nearly bed-time, but I see that the Stalinist DEFRA anti-traders have struck again.

David Davis

They have struck here. What a bloody saddo shower of nerdy (no, not nerdy, just evil and wicked) these “people” are. How can we share a planet with these buggers? They do not see the world, and existence, through our prism.

I’d really, really, really, sometime before I die, like to know something. It’s this:-

What under Heaven is it, that causes otherwise outwardly human beings to (a) want a job like a “DEFRA inspector”, (b) actively go out and get that job (for it does not come to you, you have to want it and ask for it, like any other job) and (c) then go about joyfully “delivering consumer confidence” by threatening a retailer with bankruptcy or a criminal record?

Are there actually real, living, breathing human beings on this planet, nay, in this nation (worse) who are actively anti-Libertarian? And who actively torment others, using the force of “law” with the “it’s not our problme, it’s yours, matey” line?

Perhaps I really am autistic. Because I can’t understand why anybody would _want_ to behave, and would _wilfully_ (and in public) behave like these people?

OK, so a EU-directive says something? Disobey the f*****g thing, like everybody else. It’s what it’s for. The EU has corrupted the very idea of “law” so let’s just go with the flow and get on with our lives, get out more, and sell the kiwis whatever. Who cares, for f***’s sake?

Why not either let him give them away, if it’s so crucial (then all the “consumers” have lost is nothing at all) or sell them to poor people for less?

 

Subj: [eurorealist] Fw: EU rules ban sale of ‘too small’ kiwis  Date: 30/06/2008 14:03:34 GMT Daylight Time From: peter@pwwatson.co.uk Reply-to: eurorealist@yahoogroups.com To: EUroRealist@yahoogroups.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

—– Original Message —–
From: “Bill & Ann Woodhouse” <office@tidemaster.co.uk>
To: “Ann Woodhouse” <office@tidemaster.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:50 PM
Subject: EU rules ban sale of ‘too small’ kiwis

> If you tried to dream up anything so silly to denigrate our new
> government in Brussels, no one would believe you but complain you were
> instigating another Euro-myth. B&A
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2199214/EU-rules-ban-sale-of-‘too-
> small’-kiwis.html
> EU rules ban sale of ‘too small’ kiwis By Richard Savill 26/06/2008
>
> A wholesaler has been banned from selling a consignment of kiwi fruits
> because EU laws deemed them too small.
>
> Tim Down, a market trader for 25 years, said he was not permitted even
> to give away the 5,000 Chilean fruits, each of which is about the size
> of a small hen’s egg and weighs about 60g.
>
> Mr Down said his family run firm would lose several hundred pounds in
> sales because of the ban.
>
> “It is bureaucratic nonsense, they are perfectly fit to eat,” Mr Down
> said at his stall at the Wholesale Fruit Centre in Bristol.
>
> Inspectors from the Rural Payments Agency, an executive agency of the
> Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), made a
> random check on his stall, and found a number of his kiwis weighed 58g,
> four grams below the required minimum of 62g.
>
> Mr Down said that 4g in weight was the equivalent of about one
> millimeter in diameter.
>
> He said: “They (the inspectors) went through a lot of my stock using
> their own little scales.
>
> “These regulations are enforced in the United Kingdom with a higher
> level of rigour than is applied in mainland Europe. There is not a
> level playing field.
>
> “This fruit will now go to waste at a time when we are all feeling the
> pinch from rising prices.” He said there would also be the
> environmental cost of taking the fruits to a landfill site.
>
> Mr Down said he was not permitted by law to give away the kiwis to a
> school or hostel and faced a fine of several thousand pounds if he did.
>
> Barry Stedman, head of the Rural Payments Agency’s inspectorate, said
> the consignment had failed to meet the minimum standards for saleable
> produce, in contravention of EU grading rules.
>
> “The inspector’s decision is consistent with RPA’s commitment to
> protect consumers, who must feel confident that the produce they are
> buying is of the right quality,” he said.
>
> “RPA’s role is to work with traders to provide advice and assistance
> to ensure that this happens and to help traders carry out their
> business within the law.”
>
> The agency said Mr Down has been given a number of options, including
> sending the fruit back to the importer.
>
> The European Commission said recently that it wanted to relax the
> regulations which prevented misshapen or underweight fruit and
> vegetables being sold.
>
> The rules have previously banished curved cucumbers, straight bananas
> and skinny carrots.
>
> “The inspectors visit us on a random basis, probably two to three
> times monthly and select items at random that they wish to inspect,”
> said Mr Down.
>
> “The latest inspection took place subsequent to the announcement by
> the EC that the regulations are being modified.
>
> “We have had many items rejected over the years, but this, for a
> variety of reasons, is one of the most nonsensical.”
>

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Does anybody here know what this means?

David Davis

I find this picture staggeringly distressing, and I can’t fugure out why. Perhaps the poor terrified bird has just shat on the Headette-of-State’s hand?

Yes!

You can take that as agreement with the Devil, about this stuff here.

David Davis

The sooner the better it will be, when “politicians” are identified, by real-people, for what these things really all are: which is poor, sad, to-be-pitied candidates for some sort of charitable outdoor-relief-system which channels their energies in a harmless and civilisation-enhancing way.

One which gives them meaningful, useful and mind-improving-work to fill their days (such as growing organic produce by hand, within … a two-hour bicycle-ride … of its place-of-consumption) plus emotional comfort and shelter to cover their nights.

Their lives will then gain meaning, and will be followed in their satisfied Old Age (NOT our Dark Age thank you!) by Christian burial in Consecrated Ground (as befits the innocent and harmless intellectually-challenged among God’s creatures.)

I had thought that they could perhaps build a bridge over the Bering Strait. But on second thoughts they are perhaps better to be shielded from real problems, which they could only make worse, and learn to grow turnips instead…

Thank you, Devil! You said it first.

 

 

David Davis, liberty, the stalinist-surveillance-state, and reading for a Sunday afternoon

David Davis

Here’s some fun stuff:-

	[eurorealist] Fw: Truly extraordinary times!!
Date:	29/06/2008 08:30:33 GMT Daylight Time
From:	terry.pendrous@btinternet.com
Reply-to:	eurorealist@yahoogroups.com
To:	eurorealist@yahoogroups.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Received this from an expatriot who lives in New Zealand!
Terry Pendrous
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: Truly extraordinary times!!

Left supports Right defending liberty

By Tony Benn
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 29/06/2008

Libertarians from the Left and Right sometimes meet in the middle against
an authoritarian state. In 1961, having served for 10 years as an MP for
Bristol South East, I was declared disqualified because my father had been
a peer and he had died. It was argued that I had inherited his peerage.

A by-election was called, and, despite my disqualification, I decided to
contest it to argue a point of principle. Winston Churchill, the former
Conservative Prime Minister, sent me a letter of support for which I am,
this day, most grateful.
I must be the only Labour candidate who has ever circulated 30,000 copies
of a letter from a Tory leader to my constituents. The law that prevented me
sitting in the Commons was later changed as a result of that by-election. So
when I heard that David Davis was standing in the Haltemprice and Howden
by-election, I decided to support him. I hope the Government’s move towards
42 days’ detention without charge, recently passed in the House of Commons,
will be stopped as a result of his campaign. The civil liberties issues on
which Mr Davis stands are important to the future of this country. Last
Friday I attended a conference organised by Lincoln Cathedral on Magna
Carta, an original of which they hold. Magna Carta had nothing to do with
democracy, but one phrase in it has registered worldwide: “no man shall be
taken [and] imprisoned. except by the lawful judgement of his peers.”
For many years the Labour government has boasted about the traditional
values and freedoms of this country; and yet, when its MPs voted to amend
the Terrorism Act and permit 42 days in prison without charge, they
effectively repealed Magna Carta. Such a law would mean that people could be
imprisoned for six weeks, then released without charge or trial but also
without ever being properly acquitted: a cloud of suspicion would remain.
It is also clear that anyone released after such a period would almost
certainly find their life destroyed, with their job lost and real risk posed
to any prospect of future employment.
There are two other critical ways in which liberties are being eroded,
both highlighted by Mr Davis. The first is identity cards. I have no
objection to them in principle,
because in the course of my life I have held many cards with my photo, name
and profession printed on them. What matters more is the huge database being
established in concert with ID cards, on which will be gathered every bit of
information that it is possible to collect. It may contain your financial
status, political opinions, email contacts and more – no one will really
know what is on that database.
Indeed, the information held may be inaccurate. When I recently renewed my
passport, I noticed that I am still described as a Member of Parliament.
If the Government does not know that I am not an MP seven years after I
stepped down, it does not inspire confidence that a more wide-ranging
identity database would be very reliable. The information may leak, and it
would be valuable for commercial and other purposes, including fraud and
terrorism. Despite the guarantees of
ministers, and regardless of whatever safeguards are promised, we know from
recent examples that information held by the Government can escape. Second,
the Lisbon Treaty diminishes the sovereign powers of British democracy,
which belong to the people and are lent to MPs. MPs have no right to dispose
of them to the EU.
The Irish have defeated the Lisbon Treaty democratically, and Britain was
denied a referendum on the Treaty only because it was clear that the
Government would be defeated on it here. Because the people are sovereign,
governments get their powers from us; we do not get our rights from them.
This issue is becoming crucial because the centralisation of power to
political elites is a threat to our freedom and democracy.
The Haltemprice by-election is taking place because Mr Davis gave up his
seat and possible position in any future Conservative government to seek his
contituents’ verdict on these issues.

The fact that the Labour party has decided not to contest the seat
indicates that it knows that it cannot win the argument on 42 days. I
believe that Mr Davis’s stand may do something to restore public confidence
in politics and politicians. If, as is expected, he wins, it will confirm
the judgment he made on the 42 days and will also destroy the argument that
the public really supports these oppressive measures. If the Lords, as
expected, also rejects 42 days, it would be a constitutional outrage to use
the Parliament Act to enforce the will of the Commons on the second
chamber.
It is on the single, but vital, issue of civil liberties that I decided to
support David Davis.

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

 

More progress regarding the “Mouse that can’t get cancer”

David Davis

We reported this a while ago, under “The mouse that can’t get cancer”. Now, in today’s dead-tree-copy of the Sunday Telegraph there is a report that human tirals will shortly be used on transfused granulocytes, a variety of lymphocyte, that appears to be involved. I can’t find the online link to this yet.

As and when this is found to work, as I think it will, it’s probably too much to hope that the England-despising liberal-haters of the NhS and “N.I.C.E” (a good acronym) will allow people to be treated using it.

No blogging today, saving the world instead.

David Davis

I have to mow the lawns, and also build an amplifier for a man. Then I am working tomorrow Sunday 29th, so I may possibly hand down some Godly per-oration (on Sunday 29th June) pm but I don’t yet know what, so I don’t promise anything yet.

It does rather depend on what aspects of applied Gramsco-Marxianism (as applied daily by the British State to the people which are elected and dismissed periodically by it) that I decide to be irked by on the day. I may even then write about it, and about what ought to be done with the buggers, to ensure their re-socialisation as individual human beings living in a Market Civilisation.

BUT…………………………….

If you want a Rolls-Royce-version of a Williamson Amplifier, for your Hi-Fi, or if you would like a couple of single-ended 300B monoblocs, then talk to me. I will build them for you, by hand. And, you will love them.

Here are the comments on the BBC website, about Gordon Brown’s first year in office.

Most of them hope it’s his last, but that’s a vain hope. (Dark Ages etc.)

Here.

Strong language from the start….see my earlier post here.

A Libertarian Government of the UK will arrive to find many problems to fix. Of course, the first one will be to (a) take away or destroy all political machinery which could ever be used by ANY party (especially socialists) to regain control of people’s lives, and (b) deprive socialists of any Nazi persuasion, which is all of them, of the ability to proselytize or organize.

The following bit is censored: Ordinary people are all in favour of free speech, but not where it means the ability to deny the use of words, language and thought-forms to others (see “political correctness”.) Libertarians may here disagree with my “Boromir” moment, but there may be an instant where we have to “take the ring”.

Returing to reality: I would like a Libertarian Administration to not have to do those things which I described in the above (blue) paragraph. It is non-Libertarian, which is the point that Tolkien was making, by using Boromir for a very important purpose. But the central problem for Mankind to be able to proceed form here, rests on not being burdened, ever ever ever ever again, by collectivist Utopians and their pre-capitalist-barbarian nonsenses.

These buggers must accept, publicly, for many many years until all are gone, that they are useless wastes of space, with ideas which don’t accord with reality, and which nobody wants to follow. “The Science is Settled” – after all, they said it, not us. If they are very good and submissive and consent to either perform second-order-partial-differential-equations in front of students at circuses, or break rocks in the Pamirs on wireless tele vision, (they will be fed and clothed!) when paid so to do, then we will feed them and pay them.

 

The pot calls the kettle black: … The EU comments on the Southern Rhodesia elections

David Davis

Ho ho ho ho ho.

The EU is not currently known for its propensity to agree to the results of plebiscites, which are elections in all but name.

The Irish People recently trashed, comprehensively, the EU’s plan to abolish their country. But they are to be given a “period of reflection” while “Europe” proceeds with ratification of Lisbon. Hmmmmm.

And this is very very funny and mendacious, and worthy of John Cleese (a rather strange man whose “humour” I could never get to grips with) from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (sic.).

Where did it all go wrong? … cry the Polly Toynbees and other stalinists…

Here’s where. ZANU-Laborg made the deeply, deeply iniquitous moral choice to be, at one and the same time, deliberately-wrong-and-evil, plus listening-to-metrosexual-PR-men-and-other-spin-doctors.

David Davis

We however are now, at one and the same time, both heading for a New Dark Age in Britain (especially and deliberately caused on purpose by the above buggers (q.v.) if we are not careful and vigilant, and also possibly for the first true Libertarian Government of a state … if they play their cards right and don’t tell lies in manifestos. The mob in the link are my friends, ideologically-speaking, so I’m sure they won’t do porkies.

But they will have, from about 5.00 am on DAY ZERO (socialist imagery, but the Devil has all the best lines) a hard task of pruning, or perhaps chain-saws would be better. the New-Laborg-Votariat of state-stipendiarized dictocrats will have to be neutralised before any state-reducing-measures can be effctively carried to competion, or they will be stopped.

Yes, you can close and lock their buidlings, shred all their records (of themselves - and of us, created by themselves) steam-roller all their hard disks, terminate their “salaries”, and the like. But insurance has to be taken out against not just a socialist party and executive coming back (ever), but also a socialist mind-set (perhaps we’ll have to clear out the school and minicipal “Libraries” and start again?)

You see, the eternal back-and-forth ratcheting-and-reversing, between socialism advancing and a sort of Heath-Robinson-temporary-reversal of (some of) the damage done by the lefties, that we have to devote resources to and allow for, is just so damaging and wasteful. Worse, it interrupts and degrades, over time, English liberalism - the only civilisation and culture that properly reflects what human beings are and how they behave in co-operation, and which teaches the world how to live.

Even a few, desultory, Heath-Robinson liberal measures to mitigate the baleful results of 70-odd years of socialism, as under Margaret Thatcher, show how effective liberalism, liberty and the Market can be. But it’s all so distressing, time-wasting and unnecessary. This time, a final reckoning has to be had, and socialism has to be rubbed from the face of the planet (along with Al Gore’s paperwork, copies of his silly film, and records. the gold from his Nobel “Peace” “Prize” medal could be recycled into teeth, for poor-people who have to drive cars for a living.)

No, the first task of a Libertarian Administration will be to zap away the levers-of-power which can be used by the opposition.  The second task may be to agree an enlarged Defence budget, as I don’t expect that these measures will go down well when viewed by collectivist states in the light of their own foreign policy. But I hope that’s not the case: however, we should Praise the Lord, and Keep our Powder Dry.

ThEU mEUst astEUnishing VidEU I sEU tEUday

Please note: if this video gets taken down by the EU commissars, then there’s another copy on a US server on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLMHYP3Gfk&feature=related

The important thing to remember about the EU is that (as Sean Gabb often says) although it could be a real problem for liberty, it is not THE _main_ problem for liberty in the UK – or Britain, or England, or whatever might survive as the residuary legatee of liberalism in these Islands.

No, liberty’s problem in these Islands is different. It is the burgeoning-and-over-burgeoned bureaucratic socialist class (which Sean Gabb correctly calls “the Enemy Class”.) This class lives by Gramsco-Marxian analyses of what it sees as “our” problems, and therefore it is utterly inimical to English (in _particular_) culture, historiography and civilisation. It therefore _uses_ the EU (a specially-created weapon to oppose individual liberty, following as a quick emergency-measure after the unplanned defeat of Hitler) as a convenient battering-ram to undo centuries of built-up consensus about how people ought to live, and thus to continue the “project” (that is to say, international socialism.)

But this is a fun video, hilarious if its implications were not so sinister. I don’t like the look of the security men. I would have to kick their teeth in, in a dark alley, to get away. (Or not.) They look a bit like I imagine Stalin’s boot-boys did at Katyn, and other such places. I am not suggesting, like Auberon Waugh would happily have done, that we should have all these EU guard-buggers shot today, but perhaps Libertarians might agree to deprive them of the Franchise for the rest of their lives in any country or jurisdiction whatsoever where they might flee to (even in Venezuela and Southern Rhodesia) as a public penalty – to bear in front of others - for agreeing to take such jobs in the first place.

God gave Men free will. Men did _not_ have to serve socialists: they were _not_ forced to, nor were these guards, or the MEPs who hid from the camera, etc.

People who love liberty, even libertarians, who love it quite a lot, _must_ in the end, come to terms with what I want to call _the will to inflict defeat_ … People who have deliberately chosen the path of socialism will need “purgatory”, which is to say: to suffer, in life, a kind of moral living death: the sort of things their philosphers have inflicted on countless millions of others, even unto physical-death.

I would not do the physical-death thing: apart from anything, as I do not have the right to inflict it on anyone, then I believe that no Libertarian State (a tautology?) could exercise it on my behalf. It is more important to have all prominent socialist “proselyt-izors” suffer social and interactional humiliation, throughout artificially-prolonged lives, medically if necessary, for the harm they have done.

Libertarian Alliance Showcase Publication no 17: Animals don’t have rights

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn062.pdf

Ingemar Nordin, Animals Don’t Have Rights: A Philosophical Study, 2001, 14pp
ISBN: 1 85637 526 9

mEUre abEUt the EU, and the position of hEUr mEUjesty the quEUn

I came across this letter earlier. it won’t make any difference of course, and i’m sure the writer and his blogosphere all knew that: it would just make them feel a little bit better for a day or two. The time for pointing out in a civilised manner to otherwise-civilised heads of state with no power, and the crazed Stalinist mountebanks which are currently manipulating them, is past.

David Davis

It’s quite good and to the point. Why indeed did the Queen (should she, perhaps, be a quEUn now?) have to assent the Lisbon Treaty into law so fast? Was she told something we were not? Or was a gun put to the head of William’s chances of “succession” (succession to…what?)

From: britsattheirbest@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:15 AM
Subject: LETTER TO THE QUEEN

This is the letter I sent to the Queen yesterday.

Madam,

I was surprised that Your Majesty gave your Royal Assent to the Lisbon treaty bill so hurriedly.

When Your Majesty swore the Coronation Oath in 1953 before God and nation, Your Majesty pledged to defend our laws and customs. This is because Your Majesty is a constitutional monarch and part of that constitution is the Coronation Oath. Consequently Your Majesty has a constitutional duty to defend our laws.

The Lisbon treaty is a very contentious issue. Your Majesty must know from all the letters and postcards and from reading the newspapers that there is informed and passionate opposition to it across the nation. Your Majesty must also be aware that all three political parties promised a referendum on the EU constitution, which is virtually identical to the Lisbon treaty. Furthermore, I am sure that Your Majesty was told that Stuart Wheeler had challenged Your Majesty’s government over not providing the promised referendum, and that High Court judgment had not yet been given.

No matter what Your Majesty may have been told, the Lisbon treaty will take away the last vestiges of Britain’s sovereignty. Many of us had thought that under these circumstances Your Majesty would have taken the Coronation Oath seriously and would have refused assent to the treaty, or at least have delayed giving assent. That is Your Majesty’s constitutional right and duty and would have defended the people’s constitutional liberties. That you have not done so sabotages not only our freedoms but Your Majesty’s right to serve us.

Hitherto I have been a loyal subject and a great admirer of Your
Majesty’s grace and fortitude. Your Majesty’s action has placed me in an untenable position. I cannot be either loyal to or a subject of a

constitutional monarch who has contributed to the destruction of the constitution which she swore to defend, and which is the Sovereign’s source of legitimacy and purpose.

I am sincerely yours,
David Abbott
Kingsmere Meadow
Shawford
Winchester S021 2BL
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Copies:
HRH The Prince of Wales
HRH Prince William

EUseful EUstuff frEUm the EU

David Davis

For those of us who don’t read Private Eye, here’s a couple of goodies:-

(Here’s their own site too.)

PRIVATE EYE 1213    27/6-16/7.08

==============================

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+

Number Crunching

47.9% Vote against Mugabe in Zimbabwe elections, which EU described as ‘travesty of democracy’ and supported MDC decision not to stand in second round.

53.4% Vote against Lisbon Treaty in Lisbon Referendum , which EU ‘regrets’ and would like them to run again a second time

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+

EU-phemisms

“Well, of all the EU member states only Ireland voted ‘NO’”

Translation:- “Of all the EU member states only Ireland voted”

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+

BRUSSELS SPROUTS

It seems our MEPs are so busy amassing personal fortunes they have forgotten the reason they were elected in the first place.

Having successfully blocked attempts to publicise their own dodgy expenses estimated at around £140m, they are now hastily trying to wipe out the last vestiges of dissent among their ranks. 

Not only did they vote to ignore the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty , but they have refused to allow an independent MEP even to talk about it.

Although MEPs are allowed at least one minute to voice their opinion, MEP Ashley Mote was almost drowned out completely as he tried to talk about bullying and intimidation before the Irish vote on 18 June.

Undaunted, Mr Mote strove on with a quote from Edmund Burke, “The people are the masters – not you.  You ignore that – and ignore the rule of law – at your peril”. 

Needless to say, his words fell on deaf ears.  And next month MEPs will vote on the Faustian proposal of Europhile Richard Corbett to wipe out all independent MEPs and minority parties by raising the threshold for political groups in the parliament – that way everyone will agree about everything!

More on compulsory voting: who actually ought to be entitled to vote?

David Davis

Sean Gabb earlier debated with Simon Hughes here, about the matter of state-forced-voting. Some of the commentariat rightly raised the point about, not only the whys and wherefores of compuslory voting, but if all persons ought to be allowed to vote at all, without preconditions.

In my humble opinion, the following ought to be the case:

(1) NO person in receipt of all his received money from the State (either) in the form of “benefits” (or) “salary” can be allowed to vote. (This is no different from MPs “having to declare an interest” in a firm for instance.)

(2) NO person (either) employed directly by the State (in any capacity at all) can vote while so employed.

(3) NO private subcontractor, however libertarian in outlook, may vote, while discharging contracts for the State.

Additionally, it would be right and proper to restrict the franchise to those (in private employment only, of course) who actually own taxable property. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, and also its true corollary, ought to apply. This stricture would apply only so long as any kind whatever of State taxation is in force. Once all of it is abolished, this limitation on the Franchise can of course be removed, and “everyone can have the vote” again.

I would not favour discriminating about the franchise on the basis of IQ, race, religion or any of those eugenic-hingy-stuff-whatsits like that. Bozos, terrorists, gamma-minus semi-morons, nazis, trotskyists, gramsco-marxians and other forms of mentally-subnormal droids ought to be allowed to vote, exactly like anyone else who owns taxable property for the duration of statehood on earth. I’m not sure that, under such a civilisation, there would be any parties standing that would please them. they might have to invent one: it would be called the Monster Raving Socialist Party, and it would lose its deposit every time.

Poor old Martha Stewart barred from UK (she’s a criminal, you see, thicko!)

David Davis

Can’t see why. All she did was take some good decisions about buying and selling shares. In the meantime, real ones get in. About 15 years ago, I had a Moroccan lodger, called “Toby”. “Toby” was an agreeable, funny, and rather flaky guy. He’d had a run-in with the French authorities (he had somehow acquired a French passport, possibly by “Marriage”) He finally disappeared in Brixton in mysterious circumstances in 1995, but it turned out that he’d got “previous” in France for buying video machines from their equivalent of Dixons on credit, and then not paying for them…and that he’d been doing the same thing here too. It took me months to sort out the credit rating on my address.

Is this worse than “insider trading” – a state-manufactured-crime if it’s anything? Discuss.

Oh, i know – I forgot – silly me! We have to make room for all those convicted terrorists!

Sean Gabb debates with Simon Hughes, about compulsory voting

David Davis

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/multimedia/2008-06-24-vote-sig.mp3

I didn’t listen to it, but i can’t imagine that Sean was in favour of making ballots compulsory. The idea stinks.

More about capital punishment

David Davis

My esteemed LA colleague from Scotland wrote a piece the other day, here. This was, _inter alia_, referring to the issue of capital punishment as ought to be able to be inflicted on unfriendly intruders onto one’s property, none of whom can have one’s interests at heart while they are where they are.

He and I are both iffy about the possibility of the “State” being able to dispense such punichment. History shows that in almost all cases, we are right. This is of course, as everyone will agree, with the absolute exception of Britain and the British Empire and the Anglosphere. Elsewhere, this dispensation has been unsuccessful as the buggers-in-power have never been able to be trusted not to abuse such a delegated right. Or, indeed not to simply usurp that power unilaterally, for various spurious doctrinal Utopian reasons.

However, “polls” show a consistent majority of British people in favour of a return to capital punishment. This is all very well, but they want the wrong solution to the wrong problem, although they think currently that it’s the right solution to the right one.

The problem is that violent and “medium” crimes are out of control because the British socialist state does not want to reduce or control them. It is convenient for it to have a monopoly of force and power of arrest, and for no weapons of any consequence to be held by anyone who cowers in terror, which is most of us – excepting real criminals who don’t mind hurting people in the course of ordinary business.

This is excepting knives, which will be hard to eradicate and ban the possession of, given this British Socialist State’s obsession with forcing us all to eat what my wife calls “unprepared food” – that is to say, stuff that you have to peel and boil (without salt) or even grow, if you are unfortunate enough to be a farmer. Apart from knives, everything else has effetcively been cleared away from all those who most need the gear. I expect that compressed-air-weapons will be next. The number of staged “accidents” involving “boys” is rising.

The State made a contract to propect individuals from harm, crime and loss of property or llife, in return for us surrendering our right to exercise force in the defence of those rights. It has failed, and has signed away our right (delegated to it on our behalf) to kill serious evil-doers. I am therefore not (at this time) in favour of the death penalty returning, unless the reciprocal right to harm or even kill an assailant (vested in an individual) is returned to individuals.

Then, we can properly re-delegate the exercise of that right to a State, in absentia. but we can’t do that, unless we previously have that right ourselves. Discuss!

 

To cut accidents, cut driver confusion! (Obvious, really.)

David Davis

I saw this just now. Frankly, being expected to drive exemplarily well, while also paying heed not only to myriads of road signs, state-commands, barriers, sleeping policemen and other “street furniture” such as cameras which fine you for sneezing while your foot in on the accelerator,, is now a chore and a bore.

I seem to remember that there was a Dutch town which tried the same thing a few years ago. i wonder what happened to that?

“Conspiracies of Rome” … referred to earlier this year on this blog. Positive review by “little man what now?”

http://www.littlemanwhatnow.com/2008/06/book-review-conspiracies-of-rome-by.html.

 

We also spotted it, here.

Capital Punishment

I’m a wee bit ambivalent about capital punishment. I’ve got no problem with a householder using lethal force against a violent intruder. And, like in Texas (I believe), the said householder should be regarded as a hero. Furthermore, I’d suggest a suitable reward like not being liable for Council Tax for ten years.But I’m not so sure about the state using capital punishment. It’s not like the state gets most things right. Perhaps an exception could be made when the accused has been caught in the act by a large number of very reliable witnesses as well as being recorded on CCTV. It’s not like we’re short of cameras…But here in Edinburgh I note that someone has evaded our local form of capital punishment:

A BUILDER of up-market flats has sparked protests by moving the social housing element of its scheme two miles down the road to Leith.Council housing chiefs have been criticised for allowing Dutch developer MaB to build the affordable flats near the dock’s former red light district rather than in Trinity.

Note the weasel words.By “social housing element of its scheme” they really mean the properties that will probably be used to house unsocial people. And what about “affordable”? This is code for affordable to those who vote the right way. The houses in Trinity are affordable. To their buyers.In fact, I’m beginning to think that use of the word “affordable” may justify capital punishment.Along with “appropriate”.This nonsense is even affecting Ayr United’s plan for a new stadium:

A spokeswoman for South Ayrshire Council said the council was “fully supportive” of Ayr United. She said consent had been given for the Heathfield stadium but complications regarding affordable housing provision due to be built on the Somerset Park site had delayed the signing of the legal agreement.

Enough of this.Jane Jacobs explained why the state should be kept quite separate from the market. Let the state catch the criminals and let the market house the people.