Watch your arses (number-142a)


David Davis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10605328/EU-has-secret-plan-for-police-to-remote-stop-cars.html

A number of years ago, Richard Littlejohn wrote about the EU using this dreadful device in his novel “To Hell In A Handcart”. In his story, the people win. I’m not so sure about how reality will pan out.

Now, people, do you still want to remain in the EU after reading this? Expect the cars of all libertarian, classical-liberal and other anti-EU bloggers to be “remotely stopped” frequently.

Many years before this, in fact in about 1985, Bernard Adamczewski gave a talk at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, saying that the coming technological revolution (this was before the internet, remember) would free people from government tyranny. He seems to have become wrong about this.

(I know when it was, for I have a b/w photo of him and me talking there, on the wall of my Library. And I know which suits and tie I wore that year.)

About these ads

9 responses to “Watch your arses (number-142a)

  1. Come on, then. Let’s see the pic.

  2. Yes, once liberty supported as a PRINCIPLE (once everything becomes a “calculation of utility”) then everything, eventually, is lost. Not just when driving a motor car – but in everything.

    We are increasingly living in J. Bentham’s world – with his 13 Departments of state covering everything (and basic rights dismissed as “nonsense” even “nonsense on stilts”).

    The next step is the glass prison with people forced to undertake tasks (including people who have committed no crime – as the word “crime” was traditionally understood, i.e. a deliberate violation of the body or goods of others).

    And if Americans think they are immune from this sort of thing they are wrong. After all who is the modern philosopher most cited in American courts? John Rawls – a man for whom the private property based principle that are the foundation of the Bill of Rights were just toilet paper.

    Better Bentham (with his open rejection of both natural rights and natural law) than people like Rawls – with their turning of the very concept of a “right” on its head. so that it no longer means a limitation on government power, but now means an excuse for government power. For example, “rights” to education, healthcare, employment, “fair wages” (and so on) all from the E.U. and “international community” approved new Constitution of Tunisia signed on Monday (and celebrated as example of “liberalism”).

    Justice turned on its head (turned into Social Justice) – no longer meaning “hands off”, but meaning the “fair distribution” of the stuff of others.

    The “rights” of the E.U. (and the U.N. – thanks to E.H. Carr and Harold Laski) are often worse than no rights at all.

  3. I should have typed – once liberty is NOT supported as a principle.

  4. Damn you Paul Marks – how come you know so much about so much? Have you got a chip in your head connected to Google or something? I’m legally a US resident & I’ve never heard of John Rawls. And the only thing I know about J Bentham is that he had himself stuffed (after death I presume) and displayed in a glass case somewhere. The useful stuff just doesn’t seem to stick in my head. I know a lot about a few things but nothing at all about a lot of things.
    But I do know a bit about telematics – the remote control of motor vehicles. Alastair Darling first promulgated the idea of ‘road pricing’ in order to ‘relieve congestion’ on the roads. This was to be achieved by fitting each car with a transponder monitored by GPS, whereupon the owner would be charged according to which roads he used. Only it wasn’t GPS, it was Galileo, and the reason it has not yet been implemented is because Galileo (the EU version of GPS) is still on the launch pad.
    Depressingly, as usual, the media bought into the government line that this was all about reducing congestion, when anybody with an ounce of common sense could see it was all about monitoring who was driving where.
    Same with the London LEZ (Low Emission Zone) which bans older commercial vehicles – such as mine) from a zone approximately within the M25. Again, nobody seems to have noticed that the area covered is in fact the London ‘Region’ of the EU.
    And nobody seems to have noticed, either, that the only possible justification for spending millions and millions of pounds on cameras to enforce this zone is not to fine the occasional transgressor, but, again, to monitor our movements. These cameras record the licence plate of EVERY vehicle that enters of leaves the London Region.
    Unlike the Congestion Charge cameras, which are there to raise revenue, the LEZ cameras are a huge cost with no return.
    To get back to telematics; there has been talk of devices which will bring the vehicle to heel if the driver tries to exceed the speed limit. Again operated via Galileo. I am quite certain this will never happen. Think of the revenue the government would lose if nobody was allowed to incur a speeding ticket. Quite possibly there will be devices installed to monitor our speed and automatically issue speeding tickets, but telematic control of a vehicle also raises issues of liability. Who is driving the car?
    And anybody who rides a motorcycle will know the consequences of having the engine cut out in the middle of a manoeuvre.
    As always, however, the government will present this as a safety measure, the press will swallow the government line, and a docile public will applaud the government for being so caring about their safety.

  5. Chris Tame came up with the term “the safety-Nazis”. He got there first as ever.

  6. Hugo-

    Paul is a treasure of economic and libertarian history. I’ve long given up trying to find some factoid he doesn’t already know.

  7. No, I’m the one with the ‘factoids’. Paul is the one with the useful knowledge!

  8. Neither Left nor Right

    The language used in that article is so clearly against anti-EU is overwhelming, as if this would ever be formally introduced, the safety issues associated with this would be enormous, but then again, hard libertarians would just complain about the safety regulations existing in the first place.

    The bias the Telegraph has developed is honestly amazing, they just announce more ridiculous stuff so they can blast it in the papers as if the EU were trying to make it a human right. Next week the EU will be trying to force us to live with Romanian people traffickers and go to the JobCentre for them to claim their JSA all while they suck money from the queen for Jose Manuel Barroso to build a death star in Brussels to destroy the cotswolds and regulate the amount of red tape inside bananas.

    • Left Right Left Right

      Well, are the “Senior European Union Police officers” holding their meetings in secret or not?

      Are they planning and developing the technology to stop cars at their will or are they not?

      Was the proposal outlined as part of the “key objectives” for the “European Network of Law Enforcement Technologies” or not?

      According to the article, “Statewatch, a watchdog monitoring police powers, state surveillance and civil liberties in the EU, have leaked the documents”…which indicates to me that these things and proposals, above, are correct.

      If it is not taking place, not being mentioned in secret meetings amongst an “EU Police” (that should never even exist in the first place) and they have no intention to put some kind of technology forward that can achieve immobilisation aims, then why are they receiving a £484,000 grant from the European Commission in order to pursue these kinds of projects?

      Is that not a complete waste of time and money, if nothing else?

      It does not appear to be the telegraph being ‘ridiculous’, it is more that what they are reporting on is ridiculous and that the supporters of the EU project are just annoyed that their plans and lines-of-thought are being exposed and ridiculed before they are even close to be put into practice.

      It might irk the pro-EU crowd that the Telegraph has what they claim as ‘bias’ by reporting these ‘ridiculous’ issues, but at least it is reporting on them and giving people a clue as to what is being done in that tower of babel.

      This is what newspapers ought to be doing, reporting verifiable things that are going on in there and letting people make up their own mind as to whether it is ridiculous or not – and I am quite sure that there will be many other outlets who will quite happily ignore these kinds of things on purpose (compliance though omission) or just be ‘biased’ the other way and thus generally support the “EU police”, their aims and their ambitions.