Emma West and the State – The State has its way (sort of)


by Robert Henderson

Emma West has finally been worn down. Eighteen months after she was charged with racially aggravated intentional harassment and racially aggravated assault , she has agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress with the original charges being dropped (http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/EXCLUSIVE-Emma-West-pleads-guilty-racially/story-19182717-detail/story.html#axzz2VKmkpyXr).  The lesser charge does not,  unlike the original charge,  mention  intent and is unlikely to result in a prison sentence.

Until she attended a bail hearing in May this year Emma West had resolutely maintained a Not Guilty plea despite the considerable pressure applied to her by the state. This included imprisoning her in the highest security women’s prison in England (Bronzehill HMP) “for her own safety” instead of granting her bail,  despite Mrs West’s insistence that she was in no danger. She has also had the constant fear that her young son could be taken from her.

At the bail hearing where she agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, this course of action was suggested not by the prosecution or defence but   by Judge Warwick McKinnon, the Recorder of Croydon, who feared the case was  “spiraling out of control”.

The report carried on the This Is Croydon website has a number of  extraordinary things to say. The reason for the inordinate delay in bringing the matter to trial is  attributed to the question of whether Mrs West was fit to stand trial. That is very odd because if she is deemed fit to plead guilty to this  charge (and to other charges of assault on her husband and police officers)  what possible reason could there be for her  not being fit to stand trial on the original charges?  A plausible explanation is that the prosecution (and probably the CPS) dreaded going to trial on a racially charge case where most exceptionally a Not Guilty plea was to be made and used Mrs West’s psychiatric history as an excuse to delay the trial until she was worn down enough to accept a lesser charge.

The interesting thing is Mrs West may have had solid grounds for being deemed not fit to stand trial. She  was admitted as a  psychiatric in patient  in 2011 suffering from depression. At the time of her arrest she was still receiving treatment as an out-patient.  As anyone who has tried to obtain  in-patient psychiatric care for someone who is patently severely mentally ill will know it is monstrously difficult to find  because so many residential psychiatric facilities have been closed since Margaret Thatcher’s Care in the  Community (Lack of Care in the Community in reality) policy was implemented in  the 1970s. To be an in-patient now suggests her depression must have been unusually  severe.  Such a condition might well have led to Mrs West being deemed not fit to stand trial or the DPP deciding prosecution was not in the public interest.   She has also been self-harming whilst waiting for a resolution of her case. At best,  the prosecution were willing to put a vulnerable person under considerable stress for the better part of two years.

During the time since her being charged and now Mrs West has picked up another couple of charges to which she has also pleaded guilty, assaults on a police officer and her husband whom she caused slight damaged to with a knife when he tried to stop her self-harming. It is conceivable that she could receive a prison sentence these offences, offences which only arose from the stress of being charged with offences which should not exist in a free society, namely, speaking her mind in public.

Mrs West will return to court for sentence on all three charges – the two assaults and the racially aggravated charge – on 1st July. 

Her defence counsel  made several  distinctly odd claims:

1. that Mrs West  had only maintained a Not Guilty plea because she was afraid of being labelled a racist. This is a straightforward nonsense because she has pleaded guilty to a charge which labels her a racist.

2. that her behaviour which led to her arrest was due to  ‘double the recommended dose of antidepressant Citalopram which had caused her to have “unusual” ideas.’  So there you have it, thinking mass immigration has been a disaster counts as  ‘“unusual” ideas.’  The only thing which Citalopram may have done is loosen her tongue, a drug version of in vino veritas.

3.  that Mrs West had been  “greatly distressed” by “Right wing groups such as the National Front and British National Party” adopting her cause –  support  which included sending her flowers and cheques – and that this had  “led her try and take her own life.”  In view of her forthright lambasting of immigration and its effects,  it is more than a little difficult to believe that she would have been “deeply distressed” by those parties’ views on race and immigration.

This is a deeply worrying case because it shows just how ruthless the British authorities are willing to be when dealing with someone who does not accept the consequences of mass immigration willingly and supinely.

About these ads

138 responses to “Emma West and the State – The State has its way (sort of)

  1. It also shows how gutless the white indigenous are. If you want moral leadership, look to a Muslim.

  2. Distant Observer

    But preferably not you, Claire, because you are mad.

  3. A sad and depressing case.

  4. I think I know what Claire means here. Read it, Claire and see if I am right? Are you actually saying that other rekigions don’t aggressively stand up for themselves? Would any of this have happened if the Church-FabiaNazis hadn’t got their teeth into the ankles of the English Churches of all kinds, many years ago (on purpose so as to bring all this about)? If Coggan or Ramsey or previous archbishes and Cardinals of Rome had stood up in the 40s and 50s and said “NONE OF THAT INFIDEL RUBBISH HERE! WE’LL GET THE BRITISH PEOPLE OUT OF THE CHURCHES AND ONTO THE STREETS OF YOU DO!” , would we have got to where we are now? (I’m not overtly saying that Islam isn’t a religion in the strict sense, but the hypothesis – that it is not – may be worthy of testing.)

    It is that Muslims have “no doubts” that they are right, because the believe that they are right, and they know they are right because they are right. If they are right, then everyone else must be wrong. In the dark-ages-desert, where there is _nothing_ , literally _nothing_ , except other male-band-groups’ animals and fertile women, if you didn’t behave as Mohammed merely codified (processes which must have been going on since the end of the last Ice Age) then you were deranged.

    No Muslim would have believed Mohammed for a second, in the civilisation that he and the first ones grew up in, if he’d uttered something so plangently counter-intuitive as “turn the other cheek” – unless Jesus Christ meant that we should drop our pants and “moon” at our enemies. Somehow I don’t think Jesus meant that at all: all the evidence points the other way.

  5. Edward Lud

    Most unlikely she was represented by counsel. Not that counsel don’t say daft things, mind.

  6. Nick diPerna

    Trail by YouTube.

  7. Edward Lud

    Just checked, and I stand corrected. She WAS represented by counsel. Mirabile dictu, and other phrases.

  8. Radical Rodent

    Emma West. Let us all hope that she does not go down in history as the first to be punished by the state for thinking wrong thoughts and expressing them, but as the last.

    Out of interest, what has happened to that black woman who spouted blatant racist comments on the train? No action taken? Now, why am I not surprised?

  9. Well, again, the increasingly prevalent and reprehensible phenomenon of the plea bargain. A particular characteristic of the slimy tyranny of the progressive state.

  10. “someone who does not accept the consequences of mass immigration willingly and supinely”

    I understand the desire to be eclectic, but it might be worth labeling anti-libertarian pieces lest they be mistaken for libertarian pieces.

    • No, Thomas, we will not label pieces according to ideological purity, unless they are unquestionably outside our coalition. Bear in mind how many in this blogging community insist you and your friends are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

      Re Emma West: The case is so shocking in itself and in its breach with past norms – and so under-reported by mainstream media and civil liberty organisations – that you need to accept a certain latitude of opinion from those who comment on it here.

      Oh, and mass-immigration is an open issue among libertarians. You would have a point if you complained about Robert’s partiality for trade barriers.

  11. “mass-immigration is an open issue among libertarians”

    No it isn’t.

    It is one thing to argue that politicians should be empowered to draw imaginary lines across other people’s properties and dictate, at gunpoint, who may cross those lines and for what purpose. It seems prima facie daft to so argue, but whatever floats your boat.

    It is another thing entirely to claim that that argument is, in any way, shape, manner or form, libertarian. It isn’t, it never has been, and it never will be. It is exactly the opposite of libertarian. It is authoritarian nonsense on tribal/nationalistic/racial stilts, and that’s all it is. Libertarians should stop coddling it and pretending that there’s even the slightest compatibility there.

    • Thomas – I beg to differ. If we lived in a stateless society, it would be an obvious violation of rights for any person or body of persons to start bossing others about. However, we are where we are. Mass-immigration, as we know it, has been made possible by coerced association laws and indiscriminate welfare. It empowers the ruling class and legitimises its tyranny.

      You should read some Kevin Carson. In a world of pervasive statism, not every dismantling of state control will take us closer to a just order of things. You might as well argue for the scrapping of old age pensions after decades of inflation and high taxes and a general constraint on earning potential for ordinary people; or against some state subsidy on healthcare without touching professional certification and privilege and the drug patent laws as they have been allowed to develop; or against special employment laws while leaving the foundations of corporate privilege untouched.

      We can all agree that border policing must go. The question is how far up or down the libertarian agenda it should come. I say it should come pretty near the bottom.

  12. Thomas,

    The only way to say that being anti-immigration is illibertarian is to use the argument that current nation states are illegitimate. That is valid in itself, since most of them were not formed by voluntary agreement, as such. But, they are what we have at the moment.

    It is simple to consider the Anarcho Capitalist thought experiment; in such a society, persons will form geographic hegemonies, by purchasing land. Perhaps many persons will form collectives by pooling their land, which is (arguably) the basis of the USA.

    So, does a land owner have the right to refuse others access to their property? Clearly they do. Such land hegemonies will be small nation states, and quite clearly the residents will be under no obligation to allow anybody in who cares to enter. People will have to ask your permission to immigrate onto your land.

    So, an anarchist society- the extreme (many believe) of llibertarianism- will not have open borders. There is thus no reason why one should presume that open borders are any obligation of libertarians. Quite the opposite in fact; the extreme propertarianism of a libertarian society will ensure that your borders are entirely under your control.

    In practical terms-

    America is famously a nation of immigrants. The only natives are the Native Americans; everyone else is an immigrant. This unfortunately means that domination of libertarian thought by Americans during the past century has led to an ideological support for immigration. Well, Americans are free to believe that they wish of course, but the reality is that this has caused a cultural disaster in Western Europe, where nations tend to map, at least loosely, onto “peoples”; Engliishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Swedes, etc. From a somewhat leftist perspective, it is hard not to believe that this policy has been a deliberate strategy by elites to crush the spirit of the lower orders and empower the State. A pretty prime example of that recently was that, thanks to immigration, a man got his head virtually hacked off in Woolwich High Street a couple weeks ago, and the State’s response was to arrest natives for saying angry things on Facebook.

    This is the reality of Immigrationism. It also, I believe, is a canary in a coal mine that those of us living in NotAmerica who seek a liberal society need to develop a distinctive libertarianism that is less dominated by American ideological fetishes.

    • Ian – I didn’t notice your reply before I sent mine off.

      Looking at America, you could observe that the last dominant people there who failed to police their borders were the Red Indians.

    • “those of us living in NotAmerica who seek a liberal society need to develop a distinctive libertarianism that is less dominated by American ideological fetishes.”

      That may be true.

      But what is also true is that no libertarianism, “distinctive” or otherwise, whether more or less “dominated by American ideological fetishes,” is going to encompass letting politicians order everyone around at gunpoint on the basis of magical invisible lines those politicians have drawn on the ground.

      Any ideology which does encompass such a thing is not only batshit insane, but by definition anti-libertarian. It really is just that simple.

  13. One other thing, Ian,

    Your examination of how things might play out in an ancap or other stateless society is interesting, but there’s a huge gap between what might happen in a stateless society and what should happen in a state society. I do not agree with Hoppe that it is okay to selectively (in order to cater to tribal prejudice) pretend that the state is a legitimate property owner.

    As far as the Indians are concerned, America is not unique in that respect. In fact, America seems to have been somewhat gentler than Britain with respect to invasion and genocide of the natives (unless I am missing a Pict reservation somewhere,).

  14. Britain is the result of multiple invasions, with a complex genetic and cultural history. But it seems from recent research that most of our genes date back to the initial settlers after the ice sheets receded. The Picts are among us somewhere, even though, like most tribes, they have faded into a greater mass, like all those Ammonites and Jebusites and so on in the Bible.

    Whether or not you agree with Hoppe is besides the point. My point was that there is no Libertarian imperative to accept immigrationism. The primary character of a voluntary society would be a lack of right to freedom of movement onto the land of others. That’s just a fact.

    I think part of the problem is that many libertarians define the State very narrowly, as the particular political structures we have now, with distinct politicians and the MInistry of This and That and headed notepaper. I don’t like them either; but I also believe I recognise that the State is a more subtle and ill-defined beast than that. If you have a Year Zero, property collectives will form, and they will evolve rapidly into state-like entities, if on a much smaller scale (at least initially). The voluntary has an unnerving knack of becoming hegemonic. And, inevitably, those land hegemonies will then want to decide whether to let anyone in, and say to dissenters “nobody’s forcing you to stay here. If you don’t like the rules, fuck off”. That is, the only natural right is to emigrate (a right we have now). Nobody is ever under an obligation to accept you as an immigrant.

    But then, this is one reason I’m a minarchist and not an anarchist. I believe that liberty describes the relationship between the individual and the group. You can have a libertarian or authoritarian nation, or business, or church, or pop band, or any other group enterprise. So what matters is whether those groups are strongly or weakly coercive of their members. And that, ultimately, comes down to whether the members themselves are individualists or collectivists. As such, if and when it becomes possible for libertarians to truly form libertarian micro-societies, it will be rather important to limit membership to others of a like mind. The last thing anyone will desire in such conditions is open borders. If your collective is swarmed by marxists, puritans, social democrats or other such authoritarian-minded persons, its liberty will fail. Demographics matters.

  15. Also, Sean-

    Looking at America, you could observe that the last dominant people there who failed to police their borders were the Red Indians.

    Indeed.

  16. djwebb2010

    Thomas, your pro-immigration views are just state propaganda. Is anyone and everyone allowed to intrude into your living room?

    We cannot be a free society if we allow cultural conflict to arrive in our shores – I think you will find John Stuart Mill pointed this out.

    You might want to argue whether the state should police the borders, or whether order citizens should be empowered to repell migrants. Look at Hong Kong: no visa controls, but as migrants cannot apply to Hong Kong welfare, and can only apply for jobs if they are genuinely qualified, Hong Kong is 97% Chinese.

    If you’re not sure that libertarians should oppose immigrants, we have a few thousand terrorist wannabes who would like to sleep in your front room.

    • “Thomas, your pro-immigration views are just state propaganda”

      My views aren’t pro-immigration. They’re anti-state.

      “We cannot be a free society if we allow cultural conflict to arrive in our shores”

      1) Who’s this “we” we are talking about?

      2) As soon as you start quacking about what “we” can “allow,” you’ve by definition given up any claim to represent the “free society” perspective.

      3) I don’t own any shores, nor do I acknowledge any claim on the part of any state to own any shores (or anything else). If you own some shores, feel free to do with them as you wish, but pray refrain from trying to make me, or the state, your real estate partner.

  17. djwebb2010

    I meant to write “ordinary citizens”, not “order citizens”

  18. Thomas, you are currently part of a State whether you like it or not.

    As to being “anti-State”, there is a libertarian argument that immigration controls empower the State. But what we’ve learned since the dogmas of the American liberal left gained hegemony is that open borders empower the State too; and in a far more toxic fashion, as we see with this case, since now the State assumes the role of “managing communities” via the definition of ThoughtCrime.

    As I said, you are part of a State; more, you are part of the State that invented the bullshit we term, loosely, political correctness, or “liberalism”, or whatever you want to call it. And in the Anglosphere, nothing in history has empowered the State so much as PC.

    You may not desire to be part of a State, but you are part of one. You have to judge policy within that context. As I said above, a world without States would be a world of arbitrarily closed borders. Somebody would own the shores, and rigorously police whose boats could fetch up on them. The “we” of which DJ Webb speaks is “us”; the members of the current collectives that actually exist. The anarcho-capitalist Year Zero would produce many different collectives, but do not be fooled into thinking they would disappear. However you apply libertarian principle- to the real collectives of now, or the imagined ones of Utopia, the fact of borders would remain. Because without borders, there is no property, and without property you cannot even exclude a man from creeping into your bedroom in the night, for it is not your bedroom.

  19. It’s a strange non-citizen who’s in the Marine Corps reserve for 11 years, and significantly involved in three presidential campaigns. Which non-state was Steven Wynn Kubby running for president of?

    • IanB,

      I’m not disputing that I used to be part of a state. Just not any more.

      I am no longer in the US Marine Corps. I no longer manage political campaigns. I am no longer registered to vote. I no longer have a state-issued identification card of any kind in my possession. And so on, and so forth.

      I am only “part of a state” in the same sense that I am “part of” [insert name of other street gang here]; that is, yes, I live on turf that that particular street gang calling itself “the state” asserts a claim on, and it’s always possible that I might run into their heavies and get mugged. But that doesn’t make me a member of said gang.

  20. Nonetheless, even living such a life, the State is the context we all live in. As such, that is what we have to deal with.

  21. djwebb2010

    ‘Who’s this “we” we are talking about?’ – well, you are a member of a society, and benefit from that. Industry, commerce, power, telecoms would all be impossible in a single-person society. If your libertarian theory posits that you are an individual in the world, and not a member of a society – it is a false theory. A free society – is still a society. You are no Man Friday – as proven by your access to the Internet, which is not possible in a Robinson Crusoe society. If you don’t wish to be in a society – go into the forests and live a totally unconnected life. Until you do so, you are part of a society, and ought not to espouse causes that destroy the life of the community and empower state intervention. Curious how you claim to be libertarian, and end up mouthing the Obama rhetoric. You’ll be howling “racist” next – convinced all the while it is not state propaganda!

    • I agree. I am part of a society.

      The state, however, is not part of society. It’s a cancer on society.

      To accuse me of “mouthing Obama rhetoric” is to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that you’re a fucking idiot. Hint: Obama’s regime deported more immigrants in his first 3.5 years in office than the preceding regime did in its entire 8 years in power. Between the two of us, one of us is drinking the Obama Kool-Aid about immigration and the nature of society. But it isn’t me.

  22. Edward Lud: Being represented by counsel in this type of case is a positive disadvantage because they will spend all of their time distancing themselves from the taint of racist saying things such as “My client may be the most disgusting human being you have ever met but you must not allow that to colour your judgement… ”

    Sean – I think it is a done deal that she will not be jailed for the tram event , but I would not bet the farm on her remaining out of prison for the assaults. However, she could well receive a suspended sentence. ..

  23. Edward Spalton

    The point surely is that we need the state to protect us from foreign invasion and colonisation. It is only recently that self-hating Western post Christians have stood that principle on its head and made it the state’s business to elect a new people – as New Labour undoubtedly did. At the same time they passed laws which gave their favoured in comers de facto superior legal status to aboriginal natives.

    A lady landed on our doorstep in a great state of distress as a result of RAT (Racial Awareness Training). She was ( and is) a level-headed, deeply Christian lady who worked for Social Services. The instructor had told the class that racism was a purely white phenomenon . She had disagreed politely, pointing out many cases of genocidal racism in Africa and elsewhere, only to be told “That is entirely different”. When she would not recant her heresy, the instructor said this just proved how deeply racist she was. Colleagues joined in the denunciation to earn Brownie points from the instructor. This was what had upset her most and why she wanted to calm down with us before going home.

    This is the sort of indoctrination received by social workers, police, prosecutors etc, so no aboriginal white can expect a fair deal in a case where somebody has made an allegation of racism. The Crown Prosecution Service’s discretion to upgrade a simple case to a “racially aggravated” one ( with far more severe potential sentence) is likely to be used overwhelmingly to “get whitey”.

    A friend, who left apartheid South Africa as a teenager because her family feared that her outspokenness would get her into trouble, tells me that she feels more and more in the position of the majority Bantu under Apartheid, living as a white Briton today.

  24. Well, indeed.

    One of the reasons that in various comments I keep pushing an historical analysis of our current form of statism as having roots in religious dogma (particularly, evangelical protestantism) is that our current situation is in many ways much more akin to living under an oppressive theocracy than a secular style of dictatorship. As such, negotiating it is much similar to some mediaeval personage avoiding getting into trouble for heresy.

    Really, when we talk of “witch hunts” I think we’re being more literal than we realise.

  25. I wish I had the courage to say the exact words Emma said without the swearing, film it and post it on youtube. I have not the courage to do so, but it would be interesting to test the case to see if what she really said was a hate crime or free speech

  26. Thomas Knapp, it was free speech – and the content was actually correct. I don’t approve of woman using bad language, but she was substantially correct in what she said. The ideas were not stupid or crazy – although she was perhaps stupid or crazy to use that particular audience to vent her opinions.

    • I don’t care if she used “bad language” or not. The content was batshit insane stupidity, but people should be free to spout batshit insane stupidity even if they throw in some iterations of “fuck” with it.

      The real crime is that alleged libertarians would try to fraudulently pass off batshit insane stupidity like that as “libertarian.” But even that is only a crime in a metaphorical sense. The only punishment that should be levied for it is that it should be made clear that the alleged libertarians are no such thing.

  27. Batshit, insane, stupid? Really Thomas? West’s utterances, stripped of proletarian vernacular (they don’t like the vulgar speech of the proles, the ruling class, they really don’t) her assertion was that Britain, a previously generally homogenous nation, is now heavily populated with recent immigrants and that this is detrimental to nationhood.

    You may not agree with that- and as I said, it is hard for Americans, who are not a “people” to understand this feeling- but it is neither batshit nor insane nor stupid.

    • “her assertion was that Britain, a previously generally homogenous nation, is now heavily populated with recent immigrants and that this is detrimental to nationhood.”

      If that was the sum of her assertion, no biggie. But it wasn’t. The assertion implicitly included the assumption that authoritarian collectivist tribalism (“nationhood”) is a good thing.

      That is not a libertarian assumption. It will not become a libertarian assumption no matter how hard you click your heels together and wish for it to become a libertarian assumption.

      • Thomas – Where does Miss West show her implicit assumption in favour of authoritarian collectivist tribalism? She expressed a certain dissatisfaction with the other people on the tram.

  28. Thomas, you seem to be confusing libertarian with anarchism. They’re really quite different.

    Anarchism attempts to solve the tyranny problem by abolishing the collective. Which is basically impossible, because humans are herd animals. Some sort of collectives will arise.

    So, libertarianism is, I think, a pragmatic philosophy which seeks a minimally coercive relationship between the individual and whatever collective(s) they are part of.

    Humans are tribal. Libertarians are, ourselves, a tribe. What matters is whether the tribe uses force against you and to what degree or not it does so.

    As I said, we have a problem with Libertarianism being heavily influenced by American ideology at the moment- not the America of the Constitutional ideals, but of the lesser creatures who have inhabited it since. This is why I suspect that euro-libertarians are going to have to plough our own furrow. The American fetishes regarding, for instance (in this particular case) race just don’t map onto us very well, and the imposition of them upon us by the current ruling class are disastrous.

    Ultimately, I am not much interested in ideological purity as defined by others, even if it is sometimes interesting to debate the fine grain of an anarcho-capitalist ‘topia. What matters is the short term, and what is feasible for that short term. Europe is currently undergoing an unprecedented demographic challenge engineered by elites (heavily influenced by American “Liberal” ideologies) and that is what needs to be addressed right now. I’ll leave utopia for the future generations to deal with, thanks.

  29. That’s the problem Thomas, it’s not really libertarianism at all. It’s like an engineer tasked with designing the smallest possible mobile phone, and coming back and saying, “the logical conclusion of reducing the size is zero. Ergo, my design is no phone at all“.

    It doesn’t actually answer the challenge.

  30. Thomas, you may (or may not) find this article I wrote interesting-

    http://www.countingcats.com/?p=6541

    • IanB,

      I’m pretty sure I read that when you first wrote it, and registered my counter-argument then. You posit that anarcho-capitalism would just de-monopolize what the stated does now (coercion) and that it’s preferable to have a mythical, impossible state in which the monopolist limits itself.

      I happen to agree that there’s no non-coercive libertopia to be reached, but I don’t think that means we have to settle for the present coercive dystopia and pretend that it’s possible for it to magically become something it has never, ever, ever been.

  31. It’s only “not really libertarianism” depending on how you define libertarianism. For me, what defines it is the non-aggression principle, meaning libertarianism is anarchy.

  32. Well, let us use this situation as an example to test the An-Cap system.

    Suppose there is some other fellow on Emma’s tram- Mr X- who has purchased from a private sector agency a law system which defines racist language as an act of aggression. Now, Mr X says, “You have broken my law.” What happens now?

    Either

    A) Emma says, “I did not contract with you or your agency. Your law does not apply to me.” and ignores him. Or-

    B) Emma is compelled to attend his private legal proceedings to answer the charge.

    So, in case (A) his private law is useless, being unenforcable. Or in case (B), Emma is coerced, and punished, by parties with whom she has no contract, under arbitrary rules made by them. In which case, her liberty is restricted arbitrarily by every other member of society and she may be arbitrarily aggressed against by them.

    Whose law applies? Emma’s or Mr X’s?

    • “Well, let us use this situation as an example to test the An-Cap system.”

      And the result of your test is: Exactly the same thing happens in the An-Cap system as would happen under the state, except all the other passengers on the tram wouldn’t have been forced at gunpoint to pay for it.

      That doesn’t strike me as a very effective argument either for the state or against anarcho-capitalism.

  33. Correction: The This is Croydon report said Emma is married. All the other mainstream reports have her as unmarried but living with a partner. I also inadvertently put 1970 instead of 1980 for the Care in the Community programme.

    My apologies, I wrote the piece in a rush.

  34. djwebb2010

    Yes, nationhood is a good thing. Knapp previously reluctantly agreed he was part of a society – and not a Robinson Crusoe one-man band. A society has its culture and its identity – it would not be a good thing to be engaged in a war of all against all – and part of the identity of nations like the US is freedom/liberty, although that has largely been erased by the reality of an expanding state, boosted by immigration and multiculturalism, which allow the state to pose as “manager” of conflicting population groups. Without nationhood, no libertarianism is conceivable.

    Ian B’s explanation at 2.03pm was correct.

  35. You haven’t been very clear Thomas. Are you saying that Emma is found guilty and punished under Mr X’s law? And your only objection to that is financial?

    • “Knapp previously reluctantly agreed he was part of a society”

      There was no reluctance about it.

      So you prefer my great-great-great-great-great-great uncle’s “war of all against all” insanity. Sigh. We should have kept him locked in a room upstairs.

      I much prefer Tom Paine’s take on it: “Society in every state is a blessing,
      but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

      The only word of that I disagree with is “necessary.”

  36. IanB,

    “You haven’t been very clear Thomas. Are you saying that Emma is found guilty and punished under Mr X’s law? And your only objection to that is financial?”

    I’m not sure why you think I have an objection of any kind. I’m neither a statist nor an anarcho-capitalist (but I repeat myself). I was just pointing out that your argument against anarcho-capitalism is kind of silly insofar as it doesn’t make the state look much better than anarcho-capitalism, nor does it make anarcho-capitalism look much worse than the state.

  37. Well, maybe because you’re not really grasping why I’m a libertarian Thomas. I’m interested in a society of some kind (and honestly, I’ll consider anything proposed) in which Emma West is not a criminal. If under anarcho-capitalism (or some other proposal) she is criminalised, that’s no use to me. Because it isn’t liberty.

    Which is basically the point I made in the article; by focus on structure, theorists lose sight of the thing they were trying to achieve in the first place, in search of a theoretical ideological purity. This is useless to anyone whose actual interest is in liberty as a life people (will, we hope one day) actually live.

    I don’t give a tinker’s cuss who runs the damned courts. I care why people end up in the dock.

  38. There is a fundamental reason why mass immigration should be resisted by libertarians: if large numbers of people who will not or cannot assimilate fully enter a foreign territory they will create social tensions which result in greater restrictions on the native population, most notably in terms of free expression. In short, mass immigration generally means less libertarian societies.

    As for Sean’s point about free trade, that is not to be confused with free markets. Free trade can encompass any form of state control within each national territory. It has nothing to do with a freely operating market.

    The central lesson of economic history is that for a strong domestic economy to exist for long it requires protection. Globalism = instability. Thankfully the world is again moving toward protecting national markets..

    • Ian,

      I understand your argument, and I agree that Emma West isn’t a criminal (being a batshit insane idiot shouldn’t be illegal).

      I’m just saying that your argument against “anarcho-capitalism” isn’t a good argument for the state.

  39. If by definition, libertarianism meant the creation of open borders for any society which esposed it, then that would mean that libertarians, by denying their own right to interfere in the lives of others, would be constrained from being concerned by an invasion of those who would deny them their rights to live by their own libertarian values, or in other words libertarians were only concerned not to interfere in others’ lives and unconcerned at others’ desires to interfere in theirs’. That is nonsensical. Open borders are neo-liberalism not libertarianism.

  40. “There is a fundamental reason why free speech should be resisted by libertarians: if large numbers of people who will not or cannot assimilate to right thinking say the wrong things, they will create social tensions which result in greater restrictions on right thinkers, most notably in terms of free expression. In short, free speech generally means less libertarian societies.”

  41. Dr. Gabb,

    I read your comment the first time.

    Here is where we disagree:

    “In a world of pervasive statism, not every dismantling of state control will take us closer to a just order of things.”

    It may not do so in a straight line, but it certainly will do so.

    As an example, take mass immigration versus welfare statism.

    The anti-immigration whing is that mass immigration makes welfare statism more expensive and onerous, and that therefore mass immigration should be stopped until welfare statism is reined in.

    Setting aside the fact that the basic premise is incorrect (in the US, at least, immigrants subsidize the natives’ “social safety net” rather than draining it), the welfare state will never be reined in unless it becomes so expensive and onerous that it’s unsupportable.

    If mass immigration does not strain the welfare state, then the complaint invalid on its face.

    If mass immigration DOES strain the welfare state, then mass immigration is a far more sure path toward the end of the welfare state than a bunch of screeching about how we need to rein it in, when we know damn well we never will.

    • Thomas – You are wrong in your belief that every dismantling of the state will eventually lead closer to a just order. I think it was a bad idea for Britain to declare war on Germany in 1939. Given that this happened, however, I don’t think abolishing income tax and shutting down the armed forces in July 1940 would have produced a noticeably libertarian outcome. I repeat that abolishing the present subsidies on healthcare would not be a good idea without prior deregulation of the medical professions and a scaling back of the patent laws.

      Mass-immigration will probably bring about a collapse of welfare states – or it will in Europe, where the immigrants seem more inclined the ride the system than you say is the case in America. But state welfare in itself, though inadvisable, is not a great problem – not given the sort of work ethic and general public culture that existed in England before about 1980. Your belief that mass-immigration will put a useful strain on stare welfare systems is equivalent to digging up the foundations of a house to correct a bit of settlement. Long before the strain on welfare budgets becomes critical, mass-immigration will have justified the creation of an unaccountable police state. Of course, state welfare can then be abolished in any event, as its legitimising function will have become superfluous, and the class and generational consensus on which it depends will have collapsed.

      You cannot have open borders with the kind of welfare state we presently have. You cannot have it with the kind of ruling class we presently have. You cannot have it when the numbers of immigrants are so potentially unlimited, and their ways are so radically different. You are making a fetish of a means that will not, reasonably considered, produce your stated end. Its most likely ends are either the final empowerment of an anti-libertarian ruling class, or revolution from below, followed by ethnic cleansing. Neither strikes me as desirable.

  42. Thomas, it’s not an argument for the State per se. It’s an argument against anarchism as an alternative. In the same way as, if communism is posited as an alternative to monarchism, one can say “communism would be even worse”.

  43. Thomas, regarding your last argument, I think this is a fundamental problem American-style libertarians have. They (we?) see everything in economic terms, whereas many issues, such as immigration, or crime and punishment, while they have an economic dimension are not fundamentally economic arguments.

    The immigration argument is not primarily economic. Whether or not they place a strain on the welfare state or are an economic boon is really neither here nor there; what is at stake is a matter of culture.

    Culture is basically a matter of demographics. If your society has some particular culture, and it is swarmed by people with a different one, its culture will change (to at least some partial degree) to the one carried by the incomers. Pro-immigrationists see this in positive terms- as “enrichment”- whereas anti-immigrationists see it in negative terms, as loss.

    Of particular interest to libertarians though, I think there are good grounds to believe that “liberty” itself is primarily a characteristic cultural trait of Western Europe. The less European society becomes, the less liberty it will have, because the incomers have no cultural heritage of liberty itself. The current most worrying carriers of this anti-libertarian mindset is, I think most people feel, Islam, which is an intrinsically authoritarian ideology. And, one might add, intensely “tribal”.

    If you desire a society of individualist liberty, it is clearly counter-productive to fill one’s borders with authoritarian collectivists. But that is precisely what we are doing. It cannot be conducive to the aim of a more liberal polity. And that has very little to do with economics.

    • “You cannot have open borders with the kind of welfare state we presently have. You cannot have it with the kind of ruling class we presently have.”

      Correct.

      I propose to get rid of the welfare state and the ruling class.

      I propose to get rid of the closed borders.

      One of these proposals is libertarian. The other one isn’t..

  44. Damn, I wrote that wrong. What I meant to write was:

    I propose to get rid of the welfare state and the ruling class.

    You propose to close the borders.

    One of these proposals is libertarian. The other one isn’t.

  45. “If you desire a society of individualist liberty, it is clearly counter-productive to fill one’s borders with authoritarian collectivists.”

    True, but that’s secondary to another truth:

    If you desire a society of individualist liberty, it is clearly counter-productive to accept the idea of political “borders” in the first place.

    Once you’ve allowed yourself to be seduced by the fucking stupid idea that politicians should be allowed to draw magic lines on the ground and decree who may or may not cross those lines and for what purpose, you’ve already by definition given up on the idea of a society of individualist liberty and accepted collectivist authoritarianism as the foundation of your society.

  46. djwebb2010

    Thomas, in the US immigrants are heavy users of the social safety net. The work of George Borjas shows that the increment in GDP caused by mass immigration is wholly accounted for by their wages and benefits – with no benefit for the native population. You have been listening to Obama when you claim immigrants finance welfare.

    The strain immigrants place on welfare is not the only reason not to have them. They create a society that is not really a society any more – a totally divided population. As Ian says, it is a question of culture – they don’t belong and spoil our society by being here.

    Political borders are essential to protect a free society as a cultural entity. I see no validity in proposing ending the policing of borders ever. That is one very valid role that the state must always be there to do. It could do that by spending 7% of GDP as in the 19th century, and not 50% as now – but the trouble with the current ruling class is that it has effectively freed the borders in its own ends.

    Borders are not magic lines on the ground – they are borders demarcating the territory held by different nations, collectives with different cultures – the borders are real, because the difference in the cultures is real.

    • “You have been listening to Obama when you claim immigrants finance welfare.”

      Actually, when I did the analysis that established that (as well as the fact that in the US an immigrant is slightly less likely to commit a crime than a native), working from US Census data, US Bureau of Labor Statistics data, IRS data and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports data set, I had never heard of Barack Obama, and very few other people had either.

      I did that research pursuant to claims made by Pat Buchanan in the late 1990s, and at the time I was neither an anarchist nor pro-immigration freedom (I was at the time a fairly new member of the US Libertarian Party, who thought its “open borders” line was dangerous, and so I went to verify Buchanan’s claims to support my argument. It turned out he was not just wrong, but 180 degrees ass-backwards wrong.

      All of which is neither here nor there. If you object to the effect immigrants have on the anti-libertarian welfare state, get rid of the anti-libertarian welfare state instead of turning to anti-libertarian anti-immigration ideas. Or at least stop calling yourself a libertarian if you want more authoritarianism in order to counter existing authoritarianism.

      If your culture cannot assimilate immigrants, then your culture deserves to go the other way of failed enterprises. It’s not everyone else’s duty to put up with a police state because you’re afraid opera will be overcome by ska.

  47. Thomas,

    Putting aside the sneery rhetoric of “magic lines” drawn by politicians, you might recognise that borders are an essential feature of property. There’s a magic line around my back garden, and it’s there to let you know you can’t come in unless you get my permission first. Which is fundamental to liberty; demarcating ownership.

    There’s a magic line around my body as well. If you cross it, you’re guilty of aggression, or maybe rape. That’s the way liberty works. You can’t define a violation until you’ve drawn a line.

  48. Thomas, your figures are flawed. There is not country in the world where immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, as the “floating population” everywhere lends itself to criminality.

    More fundamentally, numerous statistics show that blacks and latinos commit crimes at a rate several times that of white Americans. I am including blacks and latinos born in the US in that. You might like to read vdare.com for details on this. Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance organisation has compiled the figures in The Color of Crime – available for free download in PDF at http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf .

    This is also the case in the UK – where Romanians account for 92% of ATM crime, blacks account for the vast majority of rape and gun crime, and Pakistanis are way overrepresented in certain types of crime (grooming of vulnerable children for sex). In Sweden, the overwhelming majority of sexual crime is by first- and second-generation immigrants – you can be sent to prison in Sweden for discussing this on the Internet, but the government’s own publications show this.

  49. There is a simple evolutionary reason for interlopers generally to commit more crime when they are in a foreign land: the social restraints on crime imposed by their own culture are missing and there is an us and them mentality which makes the foreigner think it is reasonable to exploit the majority who are not his kin.

  50. Ian,

    I do recognize that borders are an essential feature of property.

    What I don’t accept is the Hobbesian superstition of the “sovereign.” And neither superstitions nor their clerics (in their role as clerics) have special property rights.

    Or to put it a different way, while the line around your garden may be invisible, it is not magical if your claim on that garden is legitimate and sound; the state, on the other hand, is incapable of legitimate or sound property rights claims in almost all cases, and its invisible lines are therefore magical, mythical fairy tales.

  51. Robert,

    You’re only covering one side of that coin. The other side is that the “us and them” mentality also lends itself to crimes against immigrants by natives, and that that same mentality also often serves as an analogous weakening of social restraints against same.

    David,

    I’m certainly open to the possibility that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Department of Health and Welfare, and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports operation may produce flawed statistics. But the reason I used those statistics was that they were the ones Buchanan was using to make his claims. And as of the time he made them, what I found was:

    – Per capita, immigrants (documented and undocumented) pay slightly more in income taxes than native US citizens. This is especially true of undocumented immigrants, since they have income tax withheld under false names then can’t file returns and get refunds of overpayment, and since they pay Social Security taxes but are ineligible for the retirement benefits.

    – Per capita, immigrants (documented and undocumented) consume FAR fewer “social safety net” resources — see above on Social Security. They aren’t eligible for Medicaid. They aren’t eligible for food stamps. They aren’t eligible for WIC’s “milk and bread” program. And a higher percentage of them homeschool, or at least don’t send their kids to government schools. The single area in which undocumented immigrants use more “social safety net” resources than native citizens is in uncompensated hospital emergency room treatment, a number that is distorted in the native citizen comparison because a lot of those native citizens use Medicaid for the ER, thus technically making the visit “compensated.”

    – As of the time I ran the data sets, 19.x native US citizens per 100,000 were charged with crimes that appear in the UCRs. The number for immigrants was 17.x per 100,000.

    In the US, immigrants make the streets safer and make it more likely that grandma will continue getting her Social Security check for longer. They also lower our living costs, especially in the areas of food and construction.

    That’s what the figures said, and my subsequent experiences have tended to confirm them.

    I just moved away from the St. Louis, Missouri area, which is 10-15% Muslim (in large part because the US government relocated 40,000 Bosnian Muslim refugees there in the 1990s) and which has a growing Latino population, and frankly I felt safer walking the streets at night in the Bosnian, Latino and Indian/Pakistani neighborhoods than in all but the wealthiest “native” neighborhoods. Not to mention that those halal places make a better steak.

  52. Thomas, I can’t take part in a nonsensical conversation where I am required to presume that undisclosed figures compiled by you must have been compiled correctly. I have given you a link to a PDF with actual figures in. You don’t even realise that millions of US citizens are immigrants themselves. The white crime rate is a fraction of the non-white crime rate (see PDF – unlike you, I’m not making airy claims over non-disclosed figures). As for tax, once again a nonsense – many undocumented immigrants (= illegal immigrants in plain English) do not have recorded incomes at all – an idea that clearly has never occurred to you. I suppose you would claim that California is not a state in financial crisis, as the extraordinary numbers of immigrants all paying above average in tax have helped the state to record a healthy surplus? I won’t even both pointing out that immigrants generally get low-end jobs – not the highest taxpaying jobs. There is too little thought put into these posts of yours.

    • David,

      Yes, you’ve given me a link to a PDF, which I have read before. I generally only read such stuff once, since reading stuff written by racist slime like Taylor necessitates extensive showering, wire brush, etc. after each exposure. I gave VDARE several chances to prove it was anything but the Klan with its sheets and hoods hung up in the back of the closet, and it was unable to ever deliver.

      I doubt that I’m smarter than you. Presumably I’m just marginally less credulous when given a bunch of hooey designed to flatter my whiteness at the expense of others’ non-whiteness.

  53. I generally only read such stuff once, since reading stuff written by racist slime like Taylor necessitates extensive showering, wire brush, etc. after each exposure. I gave VDARE several chances to prove it was anything but the Klan with its sheets and hoods hung up in the back of the closet, and it was unable to ever deliver.

    This kind of thing is why I’ve come to the conclusion, stated above, that any progress in restoring liberty to the peoples of Europe will have to be based on a reformulation of liberalism (perhaps even rejecting the term “libertarian” if necessary) free of the American influence. The American fetishisation of race (and other “isms”) simply doesn’t map onto Old World cultures. America is a unique and, in a collective sense, basically insane country that needs to sort its own problems out. We can’t fight their culture wars in our significantly qualitativel different context.

    We don’t believe that Russia, China and India are all part of the same culture just because they’re all “eastern”. Likewise, the notionally western world is not monolithic and homogenous. As Europeans, we need to find our own path; currently we are trapped in a Mini-Me kind of a way in the never-ending struggle between the philosophical culture war of America’s northern puritans versus souther rednecks. It really has nothing to do with us, and we simply have to disengage.

  54. Pingback: Emma West and the State – The State has its way (sort of) « Attack the System

  55. Thomas – think of national territory as the property of the nation which resides there.

    • Robert,

      If I thought of it that way, what I would be doing wouldn’t be “thinking.”

    • Robert – Thomas doesn’t accept the notion that property can belong to a nation. It could be rephrased, however, as this:

      1. Most people, however mistaken they may be, believe that the territory occupied by their group is ultimately their property, and that individual property owners are tenants in fee;

      2. When enough people from another group move to this territory, and are sufficiently different in their appearance or ways, they will tend to believe that ultimate title has been or ought to be transferred;

      3. Members of the original group will tend to object to this new occupation, and their objections will be proportionate to the perceived difference of the newcomers;

      4. Members of both groups will need to be restrained from fighting with each other by an empowered and unaccountable state; or

      5. There will be civil war, followed by one group’s domination over the other, or by ethnic cleansing.

      This being so, it doesn’t matter what Thomas himself believes about national property or the essential reality of the lines drawn on maps. What does matter is the utility of not preventing different peoples from living as well as they can. Mass-immigration since about 1950 has improved the lives of an inconsiderable fraction of people from the third world, but has come close to wrecking places like England as stable and reasonably liberal countries.

      I do, however, agree with Thomas about the need to keep America’s borders wide open. The sooner his country has a majority electorate of Hispanics and blacks and Asians – who tend to be less interested than his own people are in telling everyone else how to live – the sooner the rest of us can go back to running our own affairs.

      • Dr. Gabb,

        The problem with the line I see here is that immigration is the only thing you want it applied to.

        If I suggested that free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of trade (other than trade in labor, which your policy position infriges upon), etc. must be subjected to state control because they otherwise imply cultural wreckage, most people who call themselves “libertarians” would rupture themselves denouncing me.

        But on this one single issue, we’re supposed to throw everything we think we know about the state out the window and pretend that the state isn’t the street gang that it is, and that it has the status of an individual with property rights when it comes to the matter of drawing lines on the ground and decreeing who may flip burgers or mow yards or rent an apartment on what sides of those lines.

        I supposed I could blame Hoppe for it, but allegedly libertarian thought seems to have suffered from this derangement since long before he showed up. He was just the polemicist who translated the loony garbage into a respectable-sounding argument.

        • Thomas,

          I tend to be called “Dr Gabb” by students fishing for better marks, or by people who don’t know me or don’t like me.

          I turn to your main point. People do, or should, have rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These are, or should be, absolute rights. In practice, however, they are only respected in places where enough people don’t feel that worried by what is being said or who is being worshipped. Arguments for liberty of worship, or even conscience, didn’t get very far in Europe during the sixteenth century.

          Mass-immigration as we know it is destroying the consensus on which toleration so far has rested. We aren’t there yet, but I can see a time when it will be necessary to lock people like Emma West away, because not to do so will lead to wild rioting in which hundreds die. Already, British newspapers do not publish cartoons derogatory of Islam. This is not because the law forbids such publication, but because the newspaper writers don’t want to be dragged from their gunless houses and butchered like that soldier in Woolwich.

          Mass-immigration got under way for all manner of reasons. Since about 2000, it has been welcomed by ruling classes as a means of legitimising absolute and unaccountable power. It may be factually wrong for libertarians to oppose mass-immigration for the reasons I suggest. It is not wrong in principle.

          As for free trade, the law of comparative cost is an almost self-evident truth. There are still times when it is not unlibertarian to support restrictions on foreign trade. It depends on circumstances. Among the assumptions of Ricardian trade theory is a reasonably stable world order. Take away this assumption, and the abstract case ceases fully to apply in the world as it is. For this reason, it is not unlibertarian to argue that British agriculture and some manufacturing should be subsidised at present and for the foreseeable future. This wouldn’t make the country richer, and subsidies are better than tariffs, because they show the opportunity costs more clearly. But to argue for subsidies as a kind of insurance policy doesn’t make one an economic nationalist.

  56. Sean, agreed. However, it seems that the USA is determined that the rest of us should precede them over the cliff’s edge. Hence, I think we have to learn to ignore them rather than wait for them to shut up.

  57. Thomas, stop doing this misdirection about “the State”. Peoples and nations and tribes predate anything you would recognise as a “State”. If all else fails, think of it this way; humans are herd animals who occupy territories, just as many other animals do. Chimpanzees do that. Chimpanzees do not having a recognisable State.

    It is something much more fundamental to the human condition than the post-Westphalian dispensation.

  58. Sean – I put the matter in terms of property because i thought it would appeal to Thomas’ libertarian love of property in all things. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people do not consciously think of property in the very broad application some libertarians give it.

    The reason why nations, clans and tribes (or any other coherent group) resist the invasion of their territory is because they are following the central biological imperatives, namely, to obtain as much of desired scarce goods such as food and mates with the eventual end of passing on the individual’s genes to the next generation,. The natural way of securing scarce goods is to occupy territory and that applies with knobs on where an organism is social. .

    With humans there is of course the added dimension of culture which humans will defend as a form of virtual territory.

  59. “You’re only covering one side of that coin. The other side is that the “us and them” mentality also lends itself to crimes against immigrants by natives, and that that same mentality also often serves as an analogous weakening of social restraints against same.”

    Thomas – It is morally reasonable for the native population to resist invasion: it is not reasonable (in moral terms) to invade. Of course both the invaders and the natives are merely obeying the biological imperative to gain more scarce resources.

    • “It is morally reasonable for the native population to resist invasion”

      … and morally insane to define non-military travel by generally peaceful individuals as “invasion.”

  60. “Dr. Gabb,

    The problem with the line I see here is that immigration is the only thing you want it applied to.

    If I suggested that free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of trade (other than trade in labor, which your policy position infriges upon), etc. must be subjected to state control because they otherwise imply cultural wreckage, most people who call themselves “libertarians” would rupture themselves denouncing me.”

    Thomas: Point 1) not all freedoms are equal in value.

    Point 2) any desired freedom must fit with the sociological and
    psychological needs of human beings.

  61. yes, Robert you are right.

    Freedom of movement of labour depends on the worker being prepared to adapt to and integrate into the culture he is moving to. We have found that certain cultures are incompatible – and the larger the number of people from certain cultures in England, the worse it gets.

  62. Thomas – the effect of mass immigration of those who cannot or will not assimilate is the same as forced conquest in the long term.

    • Robert,

      And the effect of me giving you a dollar every day and you taking a dollar from me at gunpoint every day in the long term, too. But one of those things is still not like the other.

  63. The outcome would be the same in objective terms. I would have the dollars and you would not.

    • Yes, the outcome would be the same. What’s important is how that outcome was arrived at.

      You all seem to be treating “culture” as some sort of collective property which force may legitimately be used to “protect.”

      My view is that it’s not, and that how it is “protected,” or how it changes, is important.

      If newcomers bring falafel and the sitar, and over the years Brits decide they like those things better than Yorkshire pudding and the harpsichord, I have no problem with that.

      I do have a problem with using the power of the state to decree that those damn sitar-playing falafel eaters must not be allowed to compete with Yorkshire pudding and harpsichord music — or vice versa.

      If “your” culture can’t thrive in or adapt to the presence other cultures brought to its locale through freedom of travel, and thus requires state protection from competitors, “your” culture deserves to go the way of the periwig, the auto da fe and the vomitorium.

  64. If “your” culture can’t thrive in or adapt to the presence other cultures brought to its locale through freedom of travel, and thus requires state protection from competitors, “your” culture deserves to go the way of the periwig, the auto da fe and the vomitorium.

    And the indigenous Tasmanians and Moriori, presumably, who also no doubt deserved their fate.

    Also, vomitorium is just a latin word for an exit from a large building. You visit a sports stadium today, you’ll be leaving via a vomitorium. They haven’t gone anywhere. You don’t believe that piffle about “throwing up rooms” do you, Thomas?

  65. Thomas–some time ago you (I think it was you –forgive me if I am mistaken) wrote a paragraph where you extoled the joys of your multi-culti US dream–Mr Singh in his corner shop, Mr Hernandez with his garage etc –all peacefully living side by side and serving each other to mutual benefit. And it is a fine dream to be sure.
    Now let us suppose that I ( and many more pale wonders like me) seeking a better life since the Old Country is fucked, start arriving in your neighbourhood mob-handed. Soon we are buying up whole streets and suggesting to “native” holdouts that they might want to move elsewhere. Soon, our boozers (pubs if you like) are everywhere and drunks are puking and brawling up and down the streets in our time-honoured fashion. We breed and soon you are a minority in a British zone. Then you see notices going up on lampposts saying “British Zone/British Rules Mate”. Then you notice skinheaded gangs “patrolling” the area. At last, you yourself are fronted by 6 or 8 young yobs “Oi Mate–British rules here–lose the pouffy cowboy hat and get a shave–we don’t like beards. Also–we can’t see your woman’s legs, right. No long skirts, no fuckin’ trousers–we want to see her legs all the way to her arse, right?”. No violence is offered directly during this encounter but the message is clear–unless you conform to “British Rules” neither you nor your woman will be safe. Of course this is a mere foolish allegory and the “values” spoken of above may well be inversions of other such now circulating in the UK.

    Do you think that the above is the kind of society you would like to have in your neighbourhood Thomas?.

    • “Do you think that the above is the kind of society you would like to have in your neighbourhood Thomas?”

      It’s not about what I’d “like to have in my neighborhood.”

      It’s about what I’m entitled to use or threaten force (by myself or through the state as proxy) to require or prohibit in my neighborhood — and right up to the threat of violence, the answer is “nothing at all.”

  66. The PRISM programme is just the flipside of multiculturalism…

  67. Nick diPerna

    Mr Ecks. The ‘zone’ you describe sounds like paradise. When can I go there? :-)

  68. So you are seriously telling me that, so long as no one actually lays a hand on you(despite the clear implied threat to do so at some point in the far from distant future if you don’t follow the norms being put on you) you would be happy to inhabit a zone of threat and menace such as I have described. You would be happy to watch your cherished values (multi-culti “tolerance” in your own case but whatever ) trampled underfoot and replaced with “values” that are against almost everything you stand for. And esp If your own money, stolen under threat of violence, was being used to promote the entire caper by the scummy state?.To the degree that it would not be happening at all except for the actions of said scummy state. Your commitment is so great that you would be willing to see everything you cherish destroyed in the name of a “liberty” that has nothing to do with liberty other than the freedom of thieving statist, leftist scum to engage in totally destructive social engineering using your own money against you?

    • “So you are seriously telling me that, so long as no one actually lays a hand on you”

      Um, no. You might try reading what I actually wrote instead of replying to what you wish I had written. Is there some part of “threaten force” that you don’t understand?

      “You would be happy to watch your cherished values (multi-culti ‘tolerance’ in your own case but whatever ) trampled underfoot and replaced with ‘values’ that are against almost everything you stand for.”

      The value I cherish is freedom. I cherish that more than I cherish the power to forbid people to eat falafel and listen to sitar music. Your mileage may vary — but to the extent it does, you aren’t a libertarian.

      “And esp If your own money, stolen under threat of violence, was being used to promote the entire caper by the scummy state?”

      You’re looking in the wrong direction. It’s the people whining about “mass immigration” who are asking for the state to “protect” them from the falafel eaters.

      Absent such “protection,” the only thing standing between your culture and its domination or absorption by other cultures is just how good your culture is at competing in the marketplace of values. To demand said “protection” is to confess that it doesn’t do so very well.

  69. “You all seem to be treating “culture” as some sort of collective property which force may legitimately be used to “protect.””

    Indeed I am at the last ditch, Thomas, indeed I am…

  70. Follow your own advice about reading what was written. I told you very clearly that their would be no mass immigration to this country were it not for the actions of the scummy state. That immigration is being enabled and promoted by just such political/bureaucratic scum for leftist reasons of their own. Anyone native who thinks the state is going to take their part over an immigrant is a fool.
    As for the benefits of my culture vs others–well that depends on what you believe: my culture produces implements for vibrating a women’s clitoris for the purposes of inducing pleasure, the competitors produce implements to cut off clits to ensure women don’t get any. Who do you think would win on a level playing field?. Hell, we have won–only the scum of the state is in there pitching to turn back the clock.

    • “their would be no mass immigration to this country were it not for the actions of the scummy state.”

      There might be, or there might not be.

      But you are certainly asking the state to guarantee the opposite — to prevent people from moving across magical imaginary lines that do not represent any legitimate property marker, without respect to the desires of the actual property owners who might want to hire them, rent them apartments, sell them groceries, etc.

      You may or may not be at the last ditch, but you certainly are at the first resort of statists.

  71. I don’t have a problem with some immigrants. Mass immigration, encouraged by social security handouts paying for ( often work-free) a far better lifestyle than found in the old country I do have a problem with. Migrants organising themselves into power blocks who pressure scummy polits to allow and enable the promotion of alien and just plain bad “values” I do object to. The state can’t stop people crossing “borders” despite its attempts to do so. What the state can do is stop stealing my money to provide bounty to encourage migrants who would otherwise not bother.

    • “The state can’t stop people crossing ‘borders’ despite its attempts to do so. What the state can do is stop stealing my money to provide bounty to encourage migrants who would otherwise not bother.”

      On this, we are in 100% agreement.

  72. Thomas

    The problem is, it’s not about trivia like falafel and sitar music. Nobody gives a damn about them. It’s about deeper values than that. Like, respect for liberty.

    So, it comes down to this basic problem; if you have a libertarian community, and it gets mobbed by non-libertarians, it will cease to be a libertarian community.

    I think part of the problem is that many libertarians, particularly American ones, think of the State in a (Platonic) Essentialist sense. Since “The State” restricts liberty, if you somehow abolish The State, then by definition you will have liberty. But this is not how it works. The modern State is simply an institutional articulation of illibertarian desires by groups of people. The State has no mind, and no will. It does what those people who seek to control it want it to do.

    For instance, it appears that draconian censorship is descending on Britain right now. This is not because of the “State”. THe State will simply implement it. It is happening because organised mobs of people- Feminists and their Femiservative counterparts- are not libertarian. They are authoritarian, collectivist puritans and cultural marxists. You might say, “well it’s still The State doing it. If we rid ourselves of te State, they won’t be able to impose their rules.”

    But.

    If your society is infested with such people, they will create a State, and you will be powerless to stop them. Just as, the USA, despite a liberal constitution, now has a massive state. It was because there were too many illiberals in your society.

    So, if you ever do get to create some libertarian society on Earth, you will have to control membership. Because what State that society has, and what that State does, is a consequence of the beliefs of its individual members/citizens/constituents/whatever.

  73. Ian,

    “So, it comes down to this basic problem; if you have a libertarian community, and it gets mobbed by non-libertarians, it will cease to be a libertarian community.”

    But that’s not relevant. Neither the US nor the UK are “libertarian communities,” nor will they get any closer to being “libertarian communities” through vestiture of more power in the state.

    “I think part of the problem is that many libertarians, particularly American ones, think of the State in a (Platonic) Essentialist sense. Since ‘The State’ restricts liberty, if you somehow abolish The State, then by definition you will have liberty.”

    It’s true that some libertarians fallaciously reason in the manner you describe.

    I’m not one of them.

    I don’t expect utopia, nor if I did would I consider abolition of the state to be sufficient to achieve it.

    It does not follow from that, however, that I think giving the state more authority, more power and more control can plausibly serve libertarian goals. It can’t.

    • In a sense, this debate is not going anywhere. All we have on the surface is a “Yes it is” – No it isn’t!” shouting match. I will also observe that one of the reasons Thomas is putting up what looks to us a very feeble defence of his position is that he’s having to argue with five people at once, each of them with a slightly different objection to mass-immigration.

      In a deeper sense, however, the debate is one of the most productive this blog has hosted. One of the reasons were are stuck at go is – as Ian B said about a dozen postings back – that each side is arguing from different assumptions that have not been explained to the other. Indeed, we may not have fully explored them in our own minds.

      Let me speak for the English side in the debate, and I do ask people to bear with me while I set out the case. For us, the highest value is not liberty in the abstract, but England. Because, for obvious reasons, we tend nowadays to express ourselves in the language of American libertarianism, and because the two values are so close that they generate the same answer to most questions, we normally get along with the Americans. One of the different answers, though, is on immigration. We believe that England should be as it was in the good old days – rather, we believe it should be more like it was in the good old days than it actually was. We believe in freedom of conscience and speech, and in general toleration, and in freedom of enterprise, and in limited government and due process of law. We also happen to believe that the overwhelming majority of the population of England should be English as reasonably defined. For us, England without freedom is not really England. At the same time, England without the English wouldn’t be England either. Freedom is good for all manner of reasons – but ultimately because it is part of our ancestral ways.

      You can denounce this view with whatever epithet comes into your mind. But that is how it is. Moreover, since all libertarian doctrines are a refined and intellectualised account of our ancestral ways, I think we have a right to be left to believe as we do without being called names for it.

      Moreover again, I am not sure that the American libertarians can really claim that their highest value is liberty without particularist attachments. A few posts ago, I responded to an accusation from Thomas by saying that, while true in the abstract, the law of comparative cost may not wholly apply in the world as it is. He didn’t jump up with aggressive accusations of crypto-protectionism. He turns self-righteous only when the rest of us disagree with him on open borders.

      Now – and Ian B is better on this than I am – Americans have a very weak sense of nationality. Even before the mass-immigration that began around 1890, the country was composed of radically different groups that got on only because of the vast spaces between them, and that, even so, had fallen into civil war at least twice since 1776. Such American patriotism as does exist is mostly loyalty to a distant and unaccountable Federal State – loyalty that has been produced only by endless propaganda. They have no language that is specially their own, nor any sense of peoplehood that stretches back into the mists of time.

      One thing that does unite Americans, though – white Americans, I emphasise – is an almost paranoid guilt about the genocide that created the initial space for America, and about the slavery that remained there long after every other civilised country had abolished it. Indeed, I think it fair to say that the abolition of slavery in England in the early 1770s did far more to bring about the colonial rebellion than the stamp taxes. Today, about the only Americans who don’t feel guilty about negro slavery are those who’d like to bring it back.

      Therefore the obsessive PC view on immigration even of Americans who are not cultural Marxists. For Thomas, immigration control means the privileging of one group over others. That leads in turn to thoughts of segregation, and petty apartheid, and men in white hoods running about with burning crosses, and so on and so forth, all the way back to the bits in the American Constitution that entrench slavery and the slave trade.

      In fairness to Thomas, because his people have so weak a sense of nationality, it’s natural for him not to feel the same discomfort when whole areas of the country change from what they used to be. We must also bear in mind the liberal hospitality a people can afford when there is almost unlimited empty space yet to be filled up. It’s unreasonable to expect him to share the concerns of people who conceive themselves as children of the soil on a rather densely-populated island.

      Ian B has suggested that those of us who live in “NotAmerica” should stop calling ourselves libertarians. I don’t think that is necessary. But it would be helpful if we could stop calling each other deviationists and hypocrites when we disagree over the precise applications of libertarian principles.

      • Sean,

        You write:

        “Moreover again, I am not sure that the American libertarians can really claim that their highest value is liberty in the abstract. A few posts ago, I responded to an accusation from Thomas by saying that, while true in the abstract, the law of comparative cost may not wholly apply in the world as it is. He didn’t jump up with aggressive accusations of crypto-protectionism. He turns self-righteous only when the rest of us disagree with him on open borders.”

        I think you are misinterpreting that. If you’re suggesting that I am OK with economic protectionism of types other than “keep those cheap-working foreigners out so we don’t have to compete with them for jobs” type, I am not. I just had to decide whether to keep my eye on this particular ball or to start breaking out the difficulty of unitizing and propertizing cultural values for a comparison of cost in the first place, and decided to go with the former.

        Just to be clear here: There is nothing that the state does which I wish it to continue to do, at all, ever, period. There are some things the state does which I want done. I just don’t want the state to do them. There are things that I’m grudgingly willing to contemplate pushing the state to do less of, but only as a stop-gap measure; I’d rather it didn’t do them at all.

        [One area in which this may seem counter-intuitive is marriage. I support marriage freedom, which may look like what I want is for the state to license more marriages than it does now. In fact, what I'm really after is having the state place fewer restrictions on the thing it's licensing; the fact that there would be more licenses is just a side effect of that; and my clear preference is for the state to get the hell out of the business of "licensing" or "recognizing" marriages altogether]

        “Americans have a very weak sense of nationality.”

        That may be true, but a counter-point to it is that while the English have had a sense of nationality for centuries, the United States is only 237 years old, only began coalescing into a monolithic national political entity 150 years ago, and only began to develop real “nationality” at the individual level with the New Deal (when the federal government took on a much larger role) and World War II (when 16 million men were put under arms and told they had to speak the same language, eat the same food, wear the same clothes and haircut, etc.). Since then, “nationality” has been an accelerating trend.

        “Today, about the only Americans who don’t feel guilty about negro slavery are those who’d like to bring it back.”

        Interesting proposition, but it seems to indicate that you detect “nationality” in the US — because only a nationalist, who buys into some sort of collective continuity, would feel guilty about something that came to an end 150 years ago and that he or she could not possibly have been involved in. Ditto the interactions with the indigenous tribes.

        I suspect much of the divide may be less a matter of inherent sense of belonging to a “nation” — or the lack of such a sensibility — and more a matter of historical divergences. You guys kept Burke and gave us Paine. You got Bentham and Mill, we got Spooner and Tucker. And so on, and so forth.

  74. “Interesting proposition, but it seems to indicate that you detect “nationality” in the US — because only a nationalist, who buys into some sort of collective continuity, would feel guilty about something that came to an end 150 years ago and that he or she could not possibly have been involved in. Ditto the interactions with the indigenous tribes.”

    Thomas – absolutely not only a nationalist. The Soviets were pretty good at persuading people generally that the bourgeoisie were guilty and persuading many of the bourgeoisie themselves that they were guilty, especially those not living in the workers paradise of Stalin’s Russia but in comfortable European middle class homes. . It should never be forgotten that most of the leaders of the Russian Revolution, including Lenin, had bourgeois antecedents.

    All that is required to make any population buy into, at least at the level of fearing saying anything different, the elite version of who is good and who is bad.

  75. “There is nothing that the state does which I wish it to continue to do, at all, ever, period” – that is anarchism, not libertarianism.

    Defence of borders is a legitimate role of the state.

    Property ownership – which is not absolute – is only possible within a society that recognises it. There were no freeholders before there was a state. This is because allodial title is held in the Crown in England – corresponding to eminent domain in the US – society as a whole has the absolute title, and tenancy in fee simple is not allodial title. So national territory is a property holding, held by the Crown on behalf of the whole of society.

    The whole territory of England is vested in the Crown – the Queen has allodial title to every square inch – so it is a property holding. Freehold is a subholding from the Crown that developed out of subinfeudation. The magic lines in the ground – which are sea borders in the case of Great Britain – are the borders of the allodial holdings of the Crown.

    • “The whole territory of England is vested in the Crown – the Queen has allodial title to every square inch – so it is a property holding.”

      Interesting superstition, but even if I lived in an area where it prevailed, I doubt I’d attend its church. I’m also not much on transubstantiation of the host or faeries in the garden.

  76. Sean – the fact that Thomas is having to argue with five anti-mass immigration advocates and with so few coming to his aid on the pro-immigrant side says a good deal in itself about where most libertarians stand on immigration.

  77. “The whole territory of England is vested in the Crown – the Queen has allodial title to every square inch – so it is a property holding. Freehold is a subholding from the Crown that developed out of subinfeudation. The magic lines in the ground – which are sea borders in the case of Great Britain – are the borders of the allodial holdings of the Crown.”

    Amazing as this may seem it is quite true. There is no absolute private property right in land in England.

  78. Not really, Robert. It just means that Thomas hasn’t come here mob-handed. I think we should bear in mind that he is outnumbered and behave with strict fairness.

  79. This shows why I gave up on UK ‘libertarianism’. Its mostly a bunch of well off white dudes who are upset their hegemony is over and who are terminally afraid of the ‘other’ (despite the great history of free immigration into the UK which has so greatly enriched our nation).

    There is no way to be consistently libertarian and support war or restrictions on the movement of people. The free movement of capital whilst restricting the movement of people is one of the great injustices we suffer from.

    I am English, but part of that is having italian, russian, scottish and irish ancestors the first two allowed in in better days of free immigration (known has the halcion days of pre-WWI to some people here).

    Immigration may cause some problems, but so many are bound up with the injustices of authority and the state and the long history of oppression by the ruling classes.

    It is hilarious that people think that anti-anti-immigration people are brainwashed by the ‘state’. Its the state which is forever making life difficult for immigrants, which treats them as inferior, especially if they happen to be from poorer countries.

    I suppose though I’m a ‘marxist’ in the sloppy terminology of the reactionary right which frequents UK libertarian forums.

  80. If you possess anything that is of value, you will find that others wish to take it from you. If you do not resist them, they will usually take it without initiating force. If you do resist them, but they believe nevertheless that they can overcome you, they will use force to achieve their aims. Either way, you lose what you once had.

    You may be able to build a community whose members are agreed upon a given construct of how people should behave and react to one another, be that within the framework of a set of libertarian axioms or otherwise. But unless you protect your community and ensure that those who do not accept its values cannot simply conquer and subjugate it, your community will fail very quickly.

    In other words, everything that has value requires defence. That defence must be multi-faceted, so that it not only counters present and future threats, but also ensures that the integrity of an ideology within the community is preserved against counter-ideologies so that it can pass intact to successive generations. This requires both an awareness of a cultural inheritance and a deliberate effort to maintain it in a relatively undiluted form. In a successful society, change and conservatism are held in balance, and harmful ideologies are discredited so they do not take hold.

    The particular vulnerability of liberty is self-evident. If recent history teaches us anything it is that liberty is extremely easily lost, whether to tyrants without or to cultural change within. History does not show that liberty is a passive quality that will automatically flourish in the course of human affairs. That is not because the majority do not accept liberty’s value but because they are powerless to protect their liberty sufficiently when faced with overt or subtle aggressors against it.

  81. “Thomas hasn’t come here mob-handed.”

    Neither have the the anti-immigration side in the sense of acting as a group, Sean. . They have simple emerged from the general readership of the LA blog. What is telling is that from that readership there has been so little response from the open borders side.

    As for treating Thomas with courtesy, I think everyone has more or less done that.

  82. Tristram – I’m surprised you did not include the odd ancestor or two from Africa circa 150,000 ago…

  83. I just posted this to Facebook and elsewhere:
    American libertarians tend to have a self-destructive, illogical postion on immigration. British libertarians are refreshingly sensible on the subject. For a helpful debate on the issue, go here:

    http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/06/immigration-british-libertarian-view-vs.html

  84. “If you want moral leadership, look to a Muslim”??? If Claire doesn’t mean by that that we submit to Islam (a “moral” guide to living, or to dying a slow death as a Muslim cipher?), or get whacked, as Lee Rigby was, what could she mean? Yes, one of the tools of the State is to wear down its critics and opponents. Emma West was worn down. She had no proper, rational moral guidance from anyone who could tell her that she was right to rant about what was happening to her country. And I doubt that her life has left the realm of risk. She’ll be hunted down by Muslims and harassed and possibly attacked. It seems that justice is a vanishing phenomenon in Britain.

  85. I see the excellent John Derbyshire has called border defence in a free society “libertarianism in one country”. See http://www.vdare.com/posts/radio-derb-is-on-the-air-18

  86. Libertarianism in one country is precisely what libertarians should be supporting, because only homogeneous societies will host libertarian ideas for the simple reason that a heterogeneous society inevitably leads to conflict between different racial and ethnic groups. Of course, Libertarianism in one country does not mean on one country may be libertarian. Any number might be. It is the ethnic/racial content of a society which matters.

    • “Libertarianism in one country is precisely what libertarians should be supporting, because only homogeneous societies will host libertarian ideas for the simple reason that a heterogeneous society inevitably leads to conflict between different racial and ethnic groups.”

      Conflict is inevitable in any society.

      “It is the ethnic/racial content of a society which matters.”

      There’s a name for that philosophy. That name is “racism.” And while some hold that racism and libertarianism might be compatible, it’s batshit insane to hold that racism and libertarianism are one and the same thing. They’re not.

  87. That is not what I am saying, Thomas. My point is that no heterogeneous society can be, not may, but can be libertarian because the tensions produced by heterogeneity preclude it.

    • “My point is that no heterogeneous society can be, not may, but can be libertarian because the tensions produced by heterogeneity preclude it.”

      That’s not a point. It’s an assertion. There’s a difference. Homogeneity doesn’t seem to have performed any better at producing libertarian societies than heterogeneity has, so some pretty strong evidence would be required to prove the assertion that heterogeneity is a major part of the problem.

  88. yes, Robert, you are right there – that is exactly the point. It was also the point that J S Mill made in his On Representative Government, chapter 16.

  89. John Jay in Federalist Papers No. 2 made the point in 1787:

    “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

    This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”

    Homogeneity is not a guarantee of a free society – China is homogeneous but unfree – and so it is clear that liberty is rather a feature of Anglo-Saxon society in particular. Immigration weakens the situation where Anglo-Saxon societies “speak the same language, have the same ancestors, have the same libertarian principles of government”.

    • DJ,

      Did Jay write that when he was senile, or was he lying for some polemical purpose.

      Hint #1: The Declaration of Independence was printed in English, German, Dutch, French and Spanish, because all those languages were spoken in the colonies.

      Hint #2: As of the Declaration of Independence, a variety of religions, including but not limited to CoE, Roman Catholicism, German Lutheranism, Quakerism, Judaism and Islam were practiced in the colonies.

      The idea that the US was every anything close to homogeneous is preposterous. As late as the US Civil War, there were entire US army regiments grouped by language (“I fits mit Sigel!”), and it wasn’t until the 20th century — starting with suppressive legislation to forbid schools to teach in non-English and culminating in World War II’s massive impression of English on 16 million military men and women — that English became anything like a de facto “national language.”

  90. Thomas, this is getting rather silly. The US was formed by people overwhelming from Europe and Christian. The slaves were not accorded equality, as you know. The Indians were quasi-foreign nations in US law. The Americans who founded the Republic were all white Christians – the country they founded was not multi-racial or multi-faith. There were a number of different strands within that – German vs English, Lutheran vs. Anglican vs. other Christians (and with a large contingent of Deists) etc – and in general it was not worth stressing very minor differences in European ancestry and religious traditions. Broadly speaking, the country was founded as an extension of Western Europe.

    • “There were a number of different strands within that – German vs English, Lutheran vs. Anglican vs. other Christians (and with a large contingent of Deists) etc – and in general it was not worth stressing very minor differences in European ancestry and religious traditions.”

      Are you fvcking kidding me? “Very minor differences?”

      The American Revolution occurred less than 150 years after The Thirty Years War and Cromwell’s puritan Protectorate, less than 100 years after England’s “Act of Tolerance” lightened up a bit on Quakers and other Protestants — but not on Catholics — and less than 50 years after Janet Horne was burned at the stake for witchcraft. France’s “Act of Tolerance” didn’t formally end the persecution of the Huguenots until 1789.

      And all of THOSE things occurred AFTER the creation of the first MUSLIM cemetery in America (when New York was still called New Amsterdam).

      In point of fact, a large number of Americans were Americans because they had fled the centuries of mass killings that surrounded those “minor” religious differences.

      “Diversity” may have taken on undesirable political overtones in recent decades, but the simple fact is that if America was a dog, it would be a mutt. They are slowly disappearing, but there are still large neighborhoods where you can walk for blocks without hearing a word in English … and there always have been such neighborhoods in America.

  91. Edith Crowther

    Libertarianblog

    From Wiki:

    “Section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) creates the distinct offence of racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress.”

    This Offence is the one described at section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, but with the words “racially or religiously aggravated” added to it.

    A person guilty of this Offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. It is a very minor Offence indeed. But that is not really the point, as this excellent article says..

    It is necessary to commit this Offence in order to defend the Liberties we in this country have fought for over centuries (we and our ancestors). More people should commit it – millions should commit it, because it ought not to be an Offence when committed by a defending Native. It ought only to be an Offence when committed by a Coloniser or Settler – e.g. the British in some cases when we colonised other lands. In our own land, we are not the Colonisers. Doh.

    The failure – deliberate I would say – to grasp this simple fact undermines all those in authority throughout the land. In fact “undermines” is too mild a word for what it does. In truth, this failure by the authorities shatters respect for them into smithereens which cannot ever be pieced together again.

  92. Edith, I wouldn’t encourage people to put themselves in the situation where they will be framed for non-crimes by the police. That said, I would stand by anyone who committed the “offence” of free speech! Discussion of the demographic changes in our country is much more fruitfully held with other English people – not with the beneficiaries of such change themselves.

  93. Edith Crowther

    Very true. I was a tad intemperate. But it is hard to keep your cool when you are at the bottom of the pile, and the defence of provocation does not seem to be available – although it is surely extreme provocation to dump thousands of migrants on top of people who still have not made it.

    It is also hard to be married to a lad who cannot make it, and to have to work in a job allocated to women like dental nurse. The migrants overtake you because they are fresh out of young countries where they had strong families. Once that happens, all hope vanishes for ever. It is hard to keep remembering the migrants themselves are not to blame – and anyway, they are a bit callous, the way they turn a blind eye to the obvious plight of many native Britons. I suppose they are too used to seeing Britons living high on the hog abroad in other people’s countries – but really, how long is it going to take them to wake up?

    • Edward Spalton

      Edith
      “where they have strong families”
      I would argue that it has taken at least fifty years of determined state activity here to destroy our strong families and that SOME Libertarian thought has accepted this and assisted the process .
      The latest manifestation is homosexual (so-called) marriage, promoted on behalf of the Council of Europe by Mr Cameron “because I am a Conservative”

  94. Edith Crowther

    Yes, Liberty is a funny old thing. You can’t give it totally free rein, because “the Wolf and the Sheep are not agreed, upon a definition of the word Liberty”, as Lincoln dryly observed towards the end of his life.

    One person’s Liberty is often another person’s chains – somewhere out of sight, usually, so ignorance can be pleaded, perhaps with some justification.

    It is obvious that the happiest people are those who choose to stay “on the straight and narrow” in all things – so I am not sure if we can blame the government for leading us astray into diversions from the straight and narrow, any more than we can blame a company or its ad agency for making us buy something that turns out to be a con, or bad for us in some way. Caveat Emptor!

    Negligence is a different matter – a snail in your ginger beer is not on, and the beer company must pay (Donohue v. Stevens). Distinguishing between negligence and unintended consequences is difficult, though. Also, who will pay the damages if the negligent Tort Feasor is the Government? Taxpayers of course, so the whole complaint becomes a nonsense.

    Negligence is the Law’s solution, not an ideal one except for a few gross and glaring instances. Theologians are more useful, they recognise the role played by Temptation, and are quick to condemn Tempters, with Lucifer obviously being the main Tempter and Deceiver.

    Insofaras governments tempt people in the wrong direction, then it is fair to blame them. They do spew out a lot of propaganda which gets swallowed whole – mainly these days about the benefits of “Growth” which are non-existent in a post-industrial society. Growth is a dis-benefit once a society reaches a certain level of development.

    A good old-fashioned Family goes against “Growth” in its present manic (and toxic) incarnation, because one parent must stay at home full-time, and also the whole Family has to be thrifty and self-sufficient, like the Waltons or indeed Abraham Lincoln’s grandparents.

    This runs counter to the latter-day addiction process called “Growth” and praised by all except those who support De-Growth or at least a Steady State Economy (SSE).

    Ferdinand Mount once wrote a book called “The Subversive Family” – I have not looked at it for about 20 years (it came out in 1992). I must have another look because the title alone, never mind the content, was unusually perceptive about why Governments don’t like real Families.

    Mount also argues that religions don’t like Families either – but 20 years ago I thought he went off the rails at this point, quite badly, and should have stuck to his brilliant case against Governments.

    What Religions don’t like, are Families that don’t look after themselves and don’t generally run the straight race, and therefore can’t contribute to the community (thus making it a real community, not the “Community” that Governments speak of at every opportunity). Christian religions, and indeed most religions, are highly paternalistic – this is crucial to the successful Family. And religions like Families to be selfish up to a point – because only when you look after your own self, can you be useful to others.

    So I really wish Mr Mount would rewrite his book, if he is still alive. Or his son Harry Mount could do it for him, perhaps from a completely fresh angle along the lines of that gem, “Father and Son” by Edmund Gosse.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_and_Son_(book)

    The fact that Gosse’s book has dropped out of sight, kind of says it all about “The Way We Live Now” (another book, by Trollope, that has dropped out of sight, apart from a brave dramatisation about 20 years ago by the BBC).