Category Archives: Private Supply of Public Goods

From the unacceptable to the intolerable


by Richard North
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2012/03/from-unacceptable-to-intolerable.html

Note: In a libertarian society, there will be no public infrastructure as this is presently understood, because there will be no State. However, it is increasingly plain that the infrastructure privatisations of the Thatcher/Major Governments were fraudulent. They were transfers of monopolies built up with our taxes to various super-privileged corporations. We are compelled to do business with them, but no longer have any regular influence over them. There has been little meaningful investment in them. Much more than ever in the old days, they have become instruments by which ordinary people are exploited and members and clients of the ruling class are enriched. SIG Continue reading

NOW…that’s what I call an idea


Bioluminescent trees.

David Davis

Bet you 50p you’ll see this at David Thompson soon, on Friday Ephemera….

Conservatives ought to know better by now


David Davis

Over at Guido’s place, someone called Tim Yeo, described as a “Conservative”, writes in the Guardian about increasing spending on “green” projects, such as windfarms and the like.

There is nothhing intrinsically bad about writing pieces for the Guardian, if that gets your rocks off for you. However, most liberals in the classical sense are more like classical conservatives than Guardian readers and contributors tend to be: they are also more skeptical than not, about the next neopastoralist-fad-religion such as GreeNazism.

Yeo of course, as you shall see, takes  one position where the placing of wind-farms is concerned if it benefits his pocket, and quite another where it will affect him personally regarding a particular one. This is standard GramscoStaliNazi behaviour and has been seen on countless occasions to date, in others.

I do not view these people while wearing quite the same charity-tinted glasses through which dear Sean Gabb looks, when he talks of the Enemy-Class. The extent of his magnanimity towards them astonishes me. To my mind, there can be no really useful place for many of the “top people” in this group, once an approximately libertarian civilisation emerges and becomes self-sustaining.

A Libertarian Perspective on the National Health Service


by Sean Gabb

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 185
18th August 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc185.htm
|

The National Health Service:
A Libertarian Perspective
by Sean Gabb

 

 

 

During the past week, much of the English speaking world has been drawn into a debate on the merits of the National Health Service. For those unaware of this debate or its subject matter, I will say that the NHS, established in 1948, provides health care free at the point of use for everyone legally in the United Kingdom. It is paid for by the British State out of general taxation, and no account is taken, in treating patients, of how much they have paid or are likely to pay in taxes. The new American Government has proposed changes in the provision of health care that will move the American system to some extent in the direction of the British. This has been denounced by many Americans as a step towards an inherently sinister and inefficient system.

The debate has been joined by Daniel Hannan, one of the Conservative members of the European Parliament for the region in which I live. Speaking in America, he has said that to copy the British system would lead America towards bankruptcy “where we are now.”. He said further: “We have a system where the most salient facts of it you get huge waiting lists, you have bad survival rates and you would much rather fall ill in the US…. How amazing to me that a free people. . . should be contemplating, in peacetime, burdening themselves with a system like this that puts the power of life and death in a state bureaucracy.” ["Conservatives turn on MEP Daniel Hannan for anti-NHS tour in America, The Times, London, 14th August 2009]

These comments have, with some mild dissent, united the British political media and political classes in denunciation. The Labour Government of Gordon Brown has leapt to defence of the NHS. The Conservatives have joined in. Mr Hannan finds himself an isolated figure, facing accusations that range from a lack of patriotism to something that approaches blasphemy. Indeed, except no one has yet issued a fatwa, he is almost the secular equivalent of Salman Rusdie in his gleeful sneering at what many in this country regard as an object of veneration. Now, I am sure that he can do without my support. Even so, the scandal that his behaviour has raised in this country gives me the opportunity for speaking, as a libertarian, on the legitimacy and on the merits of the NHS.

At the most fundamental level of analysis, legitimacy and merits have no connection with each other. The NHS is funded by compulsion. I am forced, as a taxpayer, to contribute to a system that provides health care of a kind and at costings that, given any choice in the matter, I would never accept for myself and those who look to me. I am also forced to pay towards the health care of strangers. I have no objection to charity. I try to be generous to those I know. I am prepared to be moderately generous even to those I do not know, and whom I might dislike if I did know them. But so far as I am compelled, paying for the health care of others cannot be described as charitable. It is as much an act of theft as if I were to be robbed in the street. The whole present system, therefore, is illegitimate. If it were, as we are continually assured, the “envy of the world”,my opinion would not alter. It is in itself unjust. I resent its existence in my country. I join with Mr Hannan in warning the Americans not to accept it for themselves.

This, however, is the most fundamental analysis, and no discussion can be regarded as complete without some examination of its merits. And in examining these, I fell an obligation to be as fair as possible. I will begin with the quality of health care provided by the NHS.

Here, I must dissent from much of the American condemnation. There is no doubt that the NHS is inefficient, and that it rations health care by waiting list and by explicit refusal to provide certain kinds of treatment to anyone, or by refusal to provide certain kinds of treatment to those deemed unlikely to benefit from them given their cost. But rationing in one form or another is inevitable to any system of health care. The demand for health care is unlimited. There is almost no one so ill that his life could not be prolonged, or his condition while alive not improved, by some expensive treatment. The problem is always at what cost. In a broadly private system, demand will be rationed by price. In the British system, it must be rationed by cost and benefit analyses undertaken by the doctors. It is easy for American critics to point to how long someone over here must wait to have his haemorrhoids cut out, or that he may be denied some drug that will put off or ease his death from cancer. But their own system is hardly perfect.

In attacking the British system, these critics seem to argue that their own is based on individual choice and free from any taint of collectivism. I am not an expert on the American system, but it does strike me as so heavily regulated and cartellised as to have little connection to a free market. The professional associations have worked to limit the numbers of doctors and nurses, even as they have obtained the exclusion of the unqualified from the provision of medical services. The drug companies benefit from patent laws and trade protections that raise the price of medicines far higher than in neighbouring countries. The insurance companies are regulated in the interests of medical suppliers. I am told that forty million Americans cannot afford health insurance premiums, and that millions more cannot afford what most would regard as appropriate cover. These people, I accept, are not denied all treatment. But the treatment they receive is often rather poor. Even those who can afford to pay as they go find that it can take years for new medicines or medical procedures to be allowed by the authorities. In particular, I am told that many dying of cancer cannot obtain adequate pain relief. It is legal for opiates to be prescribed in America. But the regulatory framework is so ferocious that many doctors are frightened to write out the prescriptions they otherwise would.

If I contrast what I am told about the American system with what I know from personal experience about the British, the NHS is not really that bad. In December 2007, my wife needed an emergency caesarean. This was performed by the NHS. At all times, we were kept informed of our options and our legal rights. I was allowed to stand beside my wife in the operating theatre. I was then allowed to sit with my wife and daughter until gone midnight. My wife spent the next few days in a room of her own, and was left to make as many calls from her mobile telephone as her work and family duties required. While there were visiting hours, I was allowed to come and go as I pleased. The quality of treatment was first class. Apart from the flowers and chocolates and bottles of wine that I chose to lavish on the medical staff when we left, there was no final bill for any of this. About ten years ago, the father of my best friend died of cancer. There may be more effective cancer treatments than the medical establishment prefers to see provided. But within the terms set by the medical establishment, he had excellent treatment. When all else had failed, he was allowed to die in peace under a broad umbrella of opiates. Another of my friends was diagnosed with prostate cancer about seven years ago. He is a university lecturer with a good enough knowledge of statistics to discuss his chances on an equal basis with the doctors. He remains well and has no complaints about the NHS.

Perhaps these cases are exceptional. I am discussing the experience of articulate, middle class people. We know what we should ask for and how to ask for it, and we know how to show gratitude when we get it. Perhaps I should think of the newspaper reports of people suffering needlessly in filthy, open wards. On the other hand, perhaps not. Those who get bad treatment from the NHS are mostly poor and ignorant people. I pity them. But they are the sort of people who would also suffer in the American system. I do not think the American critics are comparing like with like. They are holding up the best aspects of their own system with the worst of ours. They also do not seem to have noticed that increasing numbers of middle class people over here do have private health insurance. This gives us the ability to switch back and forth to the NHS as we find convenient. I am writing this article on a railway train. If there is a crash and I must be cut from the wreckage, I shall be taken to an NHS hospital and be stitched up and reset as well as anywhere in the world. If, on the other hand, there is no crash, but, somewhere between Tonbridge and Charing Cross, I suspect the beginnings of heart disease , I can use my insurance and be looked at by an expert within two days. If it turns out that I need an operation, this can be arranged within a few days more. If, on the other hand, I need continuous medication, I can present myself and my private case notes to my NHS general practitioner, who will then prescribe the relevant drugs at a heavily subsidised price.

I will add that the NHS is probably not unsustainable in the long term. It costs about £90 billion a year to run. But this is about eight per cent of gross domestic product, and is about half the American level. There are more doctors per head of population in Britain than in America. British life expectancy is higher than American. [Facts: "The brutal truth about America's healthcare", The Independent, London, 15th August 2009] And much of this budget is spent in ways that even slightly better management could reduce. I recall attending a speech that Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute gave in 1986. For reasons that I no longer recall, but found convincing at the time, he predicted that the NHS would collapse under its own weight within three years. That was not far off a quarter of a century ago. And the NHS is with us still.

This should not be taken as a defence of the NHS. I am simply pointing out that is is no worse on balance than the American system. They are differently organised and differently funded. Each has specific advantages and disadvantages. neither has much connection with a free market. In both countries, however, the middle classes are able to get very good health care. In both, the poor and ignorant do not. The NHS is not a bad institution relative to the American system. It is bad for other reasons – and these may be bad reasons that apply in some degree to the American system.

What is so fundamentally bad about the British system – its compulsory principle aside – is that it nearly abolishes individual control over health care. Compared with the system with which we entered the twentieth century, all real power is centralised into the hands of the professional bodies. A hundred years ago in this country, the market in medical services was decentralised and diverse. The professions themselves were lightly regulated. Most doctors lived on the fringes of genteel poverty. Many sold their services directly to clients – rather as lawyers and accountants do still. Others worked for charitable institutions. A few worked for the State, looking after the inmates of the workhouses. These were the two extremes of the market. The British population of a hundred years ago was about thirty million. Those who could afford to buy medical services directly numbered a few million. Those who relied on private charity or the workhouse numbered perhaps another few million. Those in between relied on private insurance. This was provided sometimes by employers, but mostly by friendly societies and trade unions. These were strongly working class organisations. They were autonomous of the State, and prized their autonomy. Their elected officials had the job of picking and choosing among doctors and other health professionals, and stating the conditions on which they would do business. By modern standards, it was a very basic system. Most people died in their fifties, and of conditions that are often no longer listed in the medical textbooks. Then again, medicine itself was only just into its really scientific phase, and England was, by our standards, a very poor country. But the system worked and was improving.

The growing state involvement in medicine that began with the National Insurance Act 1911, and culminated in the establishment of the NHS forty seven years later, was largely a power grab by the medical professions. Doctors were relieved of having to do business with ordinary working class people, and could deal instead with officials and politicians of their own class. These officials and politicians had their own status enhanced by the ability to spend vast amounts of the taxpayers’ money. For the rich and for increasing numbers of middle class people, choice remained – if at a cartellised price. For ordinary working people, however, medicine became something that was doled out by their betters. This was attended by a great increase in the quality of health care – though this was improvement felt in all other countries regardless of how it was financed. But the result here was a growing apathy among the working classes. Where health care was concerned, they were no long active clients, able and willing to negotiate for what they wanted. They were passive recipients. They paid through their taxes for what they received. But their only input was to vote for politicians who promised better funding or better management of a system that was now insulated from direct pressure.

This contributed immensely, I think, to the decay of free institutions in England. Freedom owes much to historic evolution and to paper guarantees. It owes far more to a people who are accustomed to take responsibility for their own lives. The main difference between us and our free ancestors is that, unlike them, we find ourselves trapped within a system that provides the amenities of life but over which we have no personal control. If we want light or heat, we must rely on vast networks of energy distribution that interlock with other vast networks of energy extraction and transport. If we want our life and property to be secured, we must rely on agencies that claim a monopoly of force and that are only formally accountable to us. And for most people, it is the same with health care. Whether public or private – and there may be little real difference behind the names – these vast, impersonal networks do encourage passivity in the face of authority. When everything but housing and food shopping is provided in this way for most or all of a population, it is no surprise if these people stop being sturdy, self-sufficient individuals, suspicious of the claims of government.

Add to this the fact that the NHS employs over a million people. It is not the only bureaucratic mass-employer in this country. But it is the largest. These institutions impose values of hierarchy and obedience on those within them that are hostile to liberty. People who are regimented in their working lives – and who do not rebel against this – will tend to accept regimentation in their private lives. They will accept it for themselves. They will vote for politicians who promise it for everyone. They will spread these values directly to others so far as they have contact with the public as providers of services.

Paragraph here deleted. I don’t withdraw from the position advanced, but feel that it is irrelevant to the main point of the essay

Certainly, we are lied to and oppressed in ways that English men and women before about 1940 would have thought unimaginable. Let me return to the NHS. Last month, while in Slovakia, I was called by the BBC to comment on the case of a young man denied a liver transplant on account of his drinking. I was supposed to denounce this as more NHS fascism. When the details were explained to me, I had to give a less forthright response. Apparently, this young man needed a liver transplant if he was to live. However, the doctors had told him that the transplant would have little chance of success unless he could stop drinking for six months. Because he was not able to give satisfactory guarantees, the doctors decided to give the liver to someone else. Undoubtedly, this was not a pleasant choice. Even so, there is a shortage of organs for transplant. And given that the NHS does not ration health care by price, this was the most rational use of resources. For all I know, private insurance companies in America make similar choices by way of setting premiums or authorising treatment.

But this is not the limit of how the NHS is coming to ration health care. Superficially analogous arguments are being used to regulate general lifestyle. For a generation now, the anti-smokers have been arguing that smokers place heavy additional costs on the NHS. The reply has always been easy. Whatever inflated figures are fabricated to show how much smokers cost, they never match the amount of extra taxes paid by smokers. And there is the alleged fact that smokers die younger, and so save on pensions and long term care. But facts never get in the way of an argument for oppression. And what began as an argument for higher taxes on tobacco has insensibly changed into an argument for the creeping prohibition of cigarettes.

Smoking bans are being justified on the grounds of saving money. And assuming the facts are as we are told – they are not, but let us assume they are – the argument may be a valid one, given the system we have in this country. The NHS involves a coerced pooling of risk. Given that the costs of the NHS are high and rising – and assuming that costs cannot be controlled by better management – it makes sense for those who spend our tax money to insist that those most likely to call on large amounts of that money should be required to change their lifestyles. Of course, by the same argument, homosexual acts should be recriminalised to reduce the incidence of AIDS and hepatitis, and all women over the age of forty should be sterilised to save on the costs of treating pregnancy complications. Equally, the athletic should be prevented from taking vigorous exercise, and  Asians should be forced to give up on spicy food. For the moment, political correctness stops these arguments from being put. But lifestyle regulation is a valid secondary principle to be derived from the primary principle of the NHS. Let there be a compulsory pooling of risk, and those who place themselves at higher than average risk become fair targets for oppression. Smokers and drinkers and the obese are current targets. It is only a matter of time before an increasingly degraded political culture allows other targets to be found.

I believe that similar calls for lifestyle regulations are being made in the United States. Many companies that contribute to the insurance premiums of their employees are already insisting on contractual agreements not to smoke or to drink excessively. Given that American political culture is hardly less degraded than our own – if for slightly different reasons and in different ways – this is a consideration for those Americans who oppose the changes currently proposed by their government.

Now, I have said what I, as a libertarian, dislike about the NHS. It should be plain what I am not proposing. But since misrepresentation of opinions is so common in any discussion of health care, let me be explicit. I believe that the NHS should be dismantled and replaced with a more diverse, private system. This does not mean that I want to cut off health care for millions of older people who have made no alternative arrangements. It also does not mean that I want to cut off state funding and leave the current system of cartellised and regulated health care otherwise unchanged. I believe in a radical attack on all state involvement in health care, and this includes an attack on all state-created and state-upheld monopoly in health care.

I believe that all drug patent laws should be repealed. These do nothing to encourage innovation, but are simply a means by which well-connected drug companies extract huge rents from the rest of us. I believe that there should be no controls on who can practise medicine. State regulation does less to weed out medical incompetence and fraud than to guarantee high incomes to middle class graduates who have learnt the approved techniques of medication. The common law of contract and torts is enough to deal with incompetence and fraud. I believe there should be no controls on the development and provision of medical products. The existing laws did not prevent Vioxx and Prozac from coming to market. Again, the common law is enough to ensure some standards of propriety. I believe there should be no controls on the advertising of medical products or services. The present restrictions simply prevent ordinary people from learning what options may be available to them. Again, the common law is all we need to deter inflated and fraudulent claims. I believe that everyone should have the right of self-medication. This means the right of any adult to walk into a pharmacy and, without showing any prescription, to buy whatever medical product he desires. If many people will buy and use recreational drugs, they can do that already if they know the right street corner – and it is not the business of the State to tell us how to live. Most people will have enough common sense to take some advice before swallowing or injecting their medications. The rest should have the right to experiment. If they fail, they will have themselves to blame. If they stumble across some truth so far unknown, they will deserve our thanks.

These reforms would bring down health care costs at once. They would also clear the way for the information technology revolution to transform the market in health care. I will not try to predict how all this will be funded, though it strikes me as reasonable that it will fall into the same pattern of direct payment, charity and voluntary mutual assurance as was common before the State took over. And when I speak of mutual assurance, I mean both for-profit insurers and not-for-profit organisations. The idea that only profit-seeking organisations are consistent with libertarianism is to take a shockingly arid view of the ideology. What libertarians should like about commerce is not its taste for profit but its distaste for compulsion. What legitimises markets, in libertarian terms, is that they are structures of voluntary association. This is what brings the friendly societies and much trade union activity, and so much of what in Victorian times was called “socialism” within the heritage of the modern libertarian movement. Health care reform should not be about providing yet more money-making opportunities for state-licensed professions and state-privileged corporations. It should be about disestablishing statist structures and allowing free people to associate for their mutual benefit. If some people make a lot of money from providing services that others want, good luck to them. But the key objective should be free association. Be assured – it will be the most solid foundation on which medical progress can rest.

I will repeat – cutting off state funding all at once, and leaving in place the present system of monopoly, would be cruelty and folly. It would easily result in a step away from liberty rather than towards it. But reducing this funding over several years, as part of a general attack on monopoly, would be a blessing, the fruits of which were plain even before it was complete.

And this would apply as much to America as to England. As said, the American system is hardly the sort of free market any libertarian would recognise. But if the Americans do follow our example, I agree with Mr Hannan that they would deserve to be pitied. Worse – we adopted our system before its faults had been fully realised. Anyone inclined to copy it now deserves as much contempt as pity.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

 

 

MPs and expenses… Lavoisier was beheaded for less than this. Should we be happy or sad?


David Davis

How is it possible to overclaim for tax paid, whe you, er, had to pay tax?

I am beginning to be not able to figure out quite what these people think they are entitled to.

Enemies of What State? « Little Alex in Wonderland


 

Enemies of What State?

Posted by Kevin Carson on 29 March 2009

Kevin Carson

On the economic fascism of  crony capitalism and irrational American common sense.

19 Mar 09 | C4SS

There are all too many people in American politics whose real concern, concealed behind all the “free market” rhetoric, is not so much “statism” per se as statism that benefits the wrong class of people. A good example: it was quite amusing to hear some Republicans, during yesterday’s Congressional hearings on the AIG bonuses, wringing their hands over the prospect of “interfering with the management of private business” and “altering the terms of contracts.” Last night Rachel Maddow ran clips of some of the very same people, last December, crowing about how they were forcing the UAW to renegotiate it’s contract and accept lower wages in return for bailout loans to the auto industry.

Another example: I don’t advocate Social Credit or greenbackism, but I don’t understand the reasoning of those who object to either as an increase in statism over the present system.

By way of background, Social Credit is a proposal to remedy corporate capitalism’s chronic tendency toward overinvestment and overproduction by periodically depositing a sum of interest-free new money, equivalent in aggregate to the demand shortfall, in the citizenry’s bank accounts. Greenbackism is a proposal that countercyclical deficit spending, rather than being financed by interest-bearing debt in the form of government bonds, should simply take the form of directly spending money into existence by the Treasury.

It seems to me the sticking point, if there is one, should be at the idea of government as regulator of the money supply by creating fiat money, or of deficit spending to meet demand shortfalls, in the first place. But these things are overwhelmingly accepted in principle by the mainstream public. So the sticking point about Social Credit and greenbackism can only be the sacred principle that the fiat money must be specifically lent into existence at interest, and that deficit spending must be financed by government bonds.

The problem is not the function itself, but only carrying it out in a way that doesn’t enable a class of coupon-clippers to skim the cream off the top.

It also seems to me, on the other hand, that if these basic functions are accepted in principle, it makes it more statist–not less–to compound the injury by doing it through private accomplices, and empowering them to charge interest for the function, rather than simply doing so directly.

It’s just another instance of a broader phenomenon, what the Libertarian Alliance’s Sean Gabb calls “economic fascism.” Economic fascism is his term for the phony regime of “privatization” advocated by such organizations as the Adam Smith Institute. It doesn’t get government out of the business of performing particular functions. It just delegates the function to nominally “private” corporations that perform the function with public money, with government protection from free market competition, and with a guaranteed profit for performing the function (on the regulated utility’s “cost-plus” model).

Under this vulgar libertarian model of “free market reform,” the only thing that matters is the comparative percentages of functions which are carried out by nominally “private” and nominally “public” organizations–not the substance of things. But it seems to me that if a corporation receives its revenue from the government, is protected from competition by the government, and is guaranteed a profit by the government, it IS the government. The only significance of the entity’s profit is to increase the overall cost of performing the function, and thus increase the total injury to the taxpayer.

And while we’re at it, let’s be honest about something. Given the existence of a corporate economy on the present model, countercyclical government spending is absolutely essential to prevent its collapse. Those who advocate a return to the Reaganism and Thatcherism of the ’80s, or the cowboy capitalism of the ’90s, absent high government spending, are either delusional or disingenuous. Reagan was the biggest Keynesian of them all.

There are only two alternatives: to eliminate the existing–statist– structural causes of overinvestment and underconsumption, or to continue adding new layers of statism to counter the chronic crisis tendencies. Either more and more statism, or forward to anarchy.

The American corporate economy has been statist to its core since its beginnings in the late 19th century. There wouldn’t even be a national market at all, or national corporations serving it, had it not been for the land grant railroads and other subsidies to long-distance shipping that made possible artificially large firms and market areas. There wouldn’t be stable oligopoly markets had it not been for the cartelizing effect of patents, or the stabilizing effects of the Clayton and FTC Acts’ restrictions on price warfare.

To repeat, the system was statist from its beginnings. There are all too many on the Right who like to refer to a mythical “free market” system that prevailed before 1932, and to pretend that the “statism” only began when government started intervening on behalf of workers and consumers. But in fact, all the “progressive” interventions of government under the New Deal were secondary, aimed at ameliorating the side-effects of the prior interventions that created corporate capitalism in the first place. Had it not been for the secondary, ameliorative interventions, corporate capitalism as we know it would have collapsed in the 1930s.

Returning to my earlier point: if we are to have statism at all, and we are reduced to quibbling between Democrats and Republicans over what kind of statism it is to be, I make no secret of the fact that I prefer the kind of statism that weighs less heavily on my own neck.

If phony “free market” Republicans accept NLRB certification of unions in principle, and only want to quibble over the Employee Free Choice Act because it makes it easier to certify unions without harassment, intimidation and punitive firing of organizers–well, why would I, a worker, prefer a system of certification that suits the bosses’ interest?

If we’re going to talk about a genuine free market labor regime, then let’s eliminate the Wagner Act–and with it Taft-Hartley’s prohibitions on sympathy and boycott strikes, and its mandatory arbitration and cooling off periods. Let’s eliminate the Railroad Labor Relation Act’s provisions that prevent transport workers turning local and regional disputes into general strikes. In short, let’s eliminate all the legal prohbitions on the tactics that unions were using to win before Wagner was ever passed.

But if we’re going to have government certification of unions, let’s have a form of certification that fulfills its stated purpose–determining the intention of workers–as accurately and automatically as possible.

Likewise, if we’re going to have a welfare state, let’s eliminate the costly and intrusive welfare bureaucracies and spend the same amount of money on a guaranteed income. If we’re going to have a regulatory state, let’s eliminate all the agencies and replace their functions with pigovian taxation of negative externalities.

My goal is the abolition of the state. I would welcome all these things tomorrow, if I thought they were genuine steps toward the abolition of the state altogether the day after tomorrow. They certainly wouldn’t be net increases in statism.

C4SS Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective, both of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.

Enemies of What State? « Little Alex in Wonderland

If in doubt….PAYRISE!


Fred Bloggs

In the face of the current economic crisis (some might say fiscal armageddon) the goverment has devised a plan, which consists of, briefly, giving themselves a 60% pay rise. No doubt this “plan” will solve all the economic problems in the world, feed all the starving Africans, raise Atlantis, and with all its well-crafted majesty, scare the Russians so shitless they’ll give Lenin a haircut. Or, well, maybe not.

Apart from the Atlantis bit.

Find out more Here.

Death by paper cut.


Mummylonglegs

It’s Me, Mummy. Mr D has only gone and asked me to rant on here as well. This Mummy is very, very flattered. So here is my first post on The Libertarian Alliance : BLOG.

Who does this sound like?………..

“It is unacceptable that the pursuit of targets was repeatedly prioritised, alongside endless managerial change and a ‘closed’ culture, which failed to admit and deal with things going wrong.”

Sounds like a description of the Labour government to me. Unfortunately this is a description of Stafford Hospital which is run by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. The actual statement said……..

“It is unacceptable that the pursuit of targets – not the safety of patients – was repeatedly prioritised, alongside endless managerial change and a ‘closed’ culture, which failed to admit and deal with things going wrong.”

Can you spot the difference?.

This is a shocking but not very surprising story. What the hell did Alan Johnson expect? For the last 12 years Labour have messed around with the NHS and have just about destroyed it. Why? How? Because they could. No other reason really. Because they are control freaks. Because they think if you set a target and tick a box every thing will be just fine. Because they think that the NHS can be run like a private Doctors surgery, maximum profit for minimum out put. Because tax payers money/NI contributions are an endless pot to be dipped into, as and when you need it. Because not one of the idiots that dreamt up the million and one targets/tick boxes/schemes/ideas/drives that will bring this institution to it’s knees has ever set foot in an NHS hospital, let alone been treated in one. They don’t use NHS GP’s, NHS Polyclinics, NHS Nurse Quacktitioners, NHS Direct, NHS Dentists, NHS Paramedics, NHS Ambulances, NHS Midwives, NHS Mental Health Services. In fact they don’t use anything NHS at all. They go to Harley Street, they go to The Priory, they go to The Portland Hospital, they go to the States, they go private, they go anywhere but to the NHS. I wonder why?

Lets fisk shall we………….

It said there were deficiencies at “virtually every stage” of emergency care and said managers pursued targets at the detriment of patient care – Managers, not Doctors, not Nurses. Managers chased targets. Managers forced their staff to obey these targets, regardless. Targets set by who? ah Labour.

Mr Johnson said: “On behalf of the government and the NHS I would like to apologise to the patients and families of patients who have suffered because of the poor standards of care at Stafford Hospital”. - Sorry seems to be the word of the week. Nice of you to apologise on behalf of the hospital, Mr Johnson, How about apologising on behalf of all those that ‘Targeted’ this Hospital right into the ground?

“There was a complete failure of management to address serious problems and monitor performance. This led to a totally unacceptable failure to treat emergency patients safely and with dignity”. – It’s them pesky Managers again.

Its report cited low staffing levels, inadequate nursing, lack of equipment, lack of leadership, poor training and ineffective systems for identifying when things went wrong. – Let’s look at this bit here. Low staffing levels – Why?, you have money, employ staff. S*** nursing – that’ll be because Nurses don’t nurse anymore, they quacktition. So nursing is left to Non-nurses aka Plebs. Lack of equipment – again why? Lack of leadership – that’ll be even worse now, since you sacked most of the Doctors (MTAS etc). Poor training – well what can I say, we have Plebs doing nursing, Nurses doing doctoring, Doctors doing nothing cos they can’t get a job and Sally from accounts running the whole s*** and shebang. They are all trained, but they are doing jobs that don’t relate to their training – duh, it’s not rocket science.

It said that:

  • Unqualified receptionists carried out initial checks on patients arriving at the accident and emergency department - Receptionists are not Nurses.
  • Heart monitors were turned off in the emergency assessment unit because nurses did not know how to use them - What Nurses?, they are too busy being quacktitioners, I think you mean Plebs.
  • There were not enough nurses to provide proper care - All the Nurses were on 4 week courses learning how to do the job of a Doctor, can’t blame the Nurses, they weren’t there. So it must have been the Plebs (or the Managers).
  • The trust’s management board did not routinely discuss the quality of care - Who would they discuss it with, the Doctors are unemployed, the Nurses are on quacktitioner courses so that just leaves the Plebs. And most of them don’t speak English.
  • Patients were “dumped” into a ward near A&E without nursing care so the four-hour A&E waiting time could be met - And who’s fault is that. Did the Managers, Doctors, Nurses or Plebs come up with these targets. No. Labour did.
  • There was often no experienced surgeon in the hospital during the night - There was often no experienced ANYBODY in the hospital at night. Or during the day for that matter. You could have had a squillion surgeons but with no Doctors or Nurses to make initial diagnosis they would have been pretty idle.

The trust’s chairman Toni Brisby and chief executive Martin Yeates resigned earlier this month. The interim chief executive, Eric Morton, said lessons had been learned and that staffing levels had been increased. - It appears that neither Tony or Martin were Doctors, I am certain if they were they would have had Dr before their names, but they may just be shy. If so Eric is the shy type aswell. He doesn’t appear to be a Doctor either, but hey, that’s cool. You don’t really need to be a Doctor to understand how to run a medical facility do you. As long as you hire more Plebs staff it’s cool isn’t it.

The health secretary added: “The new leadership of the trust will respond to every request from relatives and carry out an independent review of their case notes. This will be an essential step to put relatives’ minds at rest and to close this regrettable chapter in the hospital’s past.” - Oh, with 400 cases on the books, and quite possibly many hundreds/thousands more to come it sounds like Eric isn’t gonna have much time left to actually run ANYTHING.

So, what have we learnt from Mummies Fisk. Well I think it is safe to say that Labour has F***** the NHS. Big Time. I could extend this fisk to all other aspects of the NHS. GP’s, Dentists, Emergency Peeps etc but it would just take too long.

I know that out there in the blogosphere there is a list of pointless NHS jobs, many peeps posted it up a while ago but for the life of me I cannot find it now, Sorry. If some one has this link, please could you give it to me. After 12 years of Labour the NHS has a multitude of Managers and Plebs but not many peeps that understand the whole medical/caring side of the NHS. And it is very sad, and it results in stuff like this.

I am not a medical person, but I got into blogging via the likes of

Dr Crippen

Tom Reynolds

Stuart Gray

Mark Myers

Spence Kennedy

and of course last, but by no means least, the very lovely, very funny, very georgous in pink tights,

Kal

These guys are on the Front Line of what is left of the NHS. Every day and every night. If you take a moment to check their Bloggs you will find out that this problem is not just in Stafford Hospital, it’s in the NHS as a whole. Those that work the Front Line hate it. Those that work the Front Line get up every day to do their jobs. They do it because they care. And no amount of Managers, Quacktitioners or Plebs will ever be able to replace those Front Liners, so please Labour, stop trying to.

Nice Message to Mr D – I hope this is ok. If there are any problems with this please edit as you see fit, I reckon the only bit I may have messed up was the Do it in Dark Blue, Italic.’ I couldn’t understand this bit so I put my name, Mummy, made it Italic and then linked it to my blogg. If this is not what you meant, please change it. Thank you for letting me be a Guest Blogger here. I hope you will ‘have me again’

Mummy x

p.s I think I remove all the swear words.

Mexico coming undone at the seams: why ALL drugs should be legalised absolutely everywhere.


David Davis

We stand aghast, at the possibility of “military intervention by the USA” against – of all places – Mexico. We know that, since “drugs” are grown in Latin America, and since Mexico is in the way of their transfer to “Film Stars” and wannabes in British North America, where these things are officially illegal to have or trade, that therefore mexico will be on the road of transfer.

This is all very well and ought not to matter. Cars and lorries carrying cocaine and other stuff whose names I can’t remember ought to be able to cross Mexico as though it was anywhere. The problem arises because – and only because –  it is locally illegal to have, sell or use these substances, in the points of destination.

This has several effects:-

(1) It makes the substances themselves more desirable in the eyes of certain people. They will want it more because “The State” says they shouldn’t have any at all at all at all, for their own good at all at all at all .   Nsty useless Hollywood delinquents film stars will leak details of their use of it, and because they are pretty and shaggable (and that’s just the men) you will want to do it too, as you are sheeple because the liberals Stalinists have told you to become so.

(2) It makes it risky and unprofitable and demoralising, for legitimate businesses to supply the stuff. If you wozz an off-licence, would YOU want to supply cocaine to any willing buyer, if you got raided every week by the rozzers for doing it, and had your shop smashed up by them (rozzers) and were put in jug?

(3) It makes the risks of supplying it worthwhile, for shysters and hoods, who don’t mind having to shoulder the boring business of killing people including police and soldiers, in the course of securing their hold on the distribution of of their stuff, to you. The £5-a-day habit, if the stuff was legally sold through chemists even including the impost of State Taxation, becomes the £100-a-day habit if you have to buy it through hoods who have to insure themselves – at your cost –  for their own risk against both the State and against other hoods who want to compete, for what is really a rather small niche sector.

(4) it makes jobs for Police rozzers. Rozzers are inherently tormented people, who ought not to have got like that; they need psychiatric help, and quickly.  Just as you ought not to want to be a criminal, also you ought not to want to be a policeman in the 21st century: what does that desire say about you, and your morals, and world-view, as a person?

So the way forward is quite clear. ALL drugs have to be legalised, in all jurisdictions, preferably by yesterday. This will have a number of good effects:-

(1A) The “Police”, currently a pantomime collection of gamma-minus droids unfortunately increasingly supplied with real guns as opposed to things that shoot out a flag which says “bang”, and who are “employed” by their “states”  not in chasing real muggers, robbers, burglars and killers but in harrassing “drug dealers”, “motorists”, “paedophiles”, “racists”, “terrorists”, “non-payers of council tax”, “TV-license-evaders” and “climate-change-deniers”, will find that their workload is decreased alarmingly. We will “need” fewer of them. Good.

The main solution to civilisation’s ills is

fewer Laws,

and more and better people.

There may even be “calls for” “FEWER POLICE ON THE STREETS”. I think that in a civilised society, the police ought to be invisible: see poll below.

(2A) The use of “drugs”, which is to say substances currently classified as drugs”, by all people, will fall dramatically. or it may not: I do not know. But I think it will fall.

(3A) The legalisation of “drugs” will mean that Galxo-Smith-Klein, Schering-Plough, Ciba-Geigy, and all the others, will be abot to compete legally for whatever market they think they can get. Adverttisisng will be allowed. Advertising is the best way to garotte bad stuff fast. The purity and quality of products will thus rise, and the price will fall to the point where the “State” will come in.

(4A) The “State” will take a take. Where GSK wants to sell you your Ecstasy for 50p a go, via the chemist down the road in Shaky-street (PR8  . . . ) , the State will take £4 or so, making it about the price of 20 fags. What’s the point of going and doing crime, if it’s only that much? You can get it from your dosh you that get “on the sick”.

OK so the “State” wins, win-win in the short run. But it’s got to justify how it needs to spend so much less on policing, since there’s so much much less less petty crime going on down.

That in itself will be tremendous fun to watch.

As it gets colder, and sterling becomes toilet-paper, we shall be glad to be able to have chip-butties.


David Davis

I have even met builders, with whom I worked a bit last summer as a second-fix trade-polisher on a housebuilding job, who had crisp-butties for their tea-breaks (many.)

The Landed Underclass tells us, I am happy to relate, that the Vegan stuffed vine leaves are off in 2009 because of Sterling’s continuing fall. I can’t say I’m very sorry about that, although I do like stuffed vine leaves, preferably full of a nice lemony mixture of minced lamb, rice, pine nuts, coriander and other poncy (but scrumptious) Wireless Tele Chef type comestibles. However, his main point is the most cunningly marvellous exposition about foods in general by a proper doctor, the kind who knows about war and stuff. We’d all really prefer to get treated by guys llike that whom he describes, if push came to shove: and not the sneering hectoring sub-types of “professionals” like State “dieticians” whom I met in a certain famous children’s hospital not 30 miles form here, a few years ago when our new-born (now five) was rather less well than he orta-av-been.

The problem arises of course where the State, whether nanny, jackbooted or otherwise (I can’t tell the difference) steps in. I quote from landed’s quote from the Daily express:-

Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum said …: “As prices rise and incomes fall, people will be drawn to the cheaper, less healthy processed foods, which are precisely the sort of things we are trying to wean people away from. Once habits change, it becomes hard for people to go back, especially because cheaper junk foods are so seductive.”

I have not previously heard of the “National Obesity Forum”, but I bet it’s (a) not a national movement and (b) it’s anything but a forum in which people engage in civilised discourse.

The libertarian issues are as follows:-

(1) If people are to be “weaned” off certain foods, and forced to eat others which they desire  less, then they are the state’s farm animals. I do feel quite sure that this is what “Tam” “Fry” does truly intend, although he’d not see it like that. he’d be “helping” people. Like Stalin did.

(2) If there was a real market in food, then the price of Vegan stuffed Vine Leaves would reflect demand and also the affluence (or otherwise) if the clientele that would go for it.

DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Peter Davis

Within the last hour of this post, the value of the Pound Slerling has gone below the value of the EURO!!

this is a terrifying prospect, but as of 23:11 GMT, £1 is worth 0.72 Euro cents (my keyboard cannot do euro signs, funny though, because it can do everything else though, even these: Ψ Φ ♦ ♣ ← ↑ → ↓↔ θ Ξ ¿)

“RAMBLERS”, walkers, theft of property by government. I’ve thought of a solution which will please all lefties.


David Davis

Earlier, we wrote here about the State Plan to steal nationalise open for all to enjoy, a 10-metere-wide strip of coastline all round the British Isles. (Bet they won’t include Ireland.)

I have thought about hbow to deal with this, so as to satisfy the nazis RSPCA and the Gramsco-Marxian anti-farming-brigade the Greens.

In return for their property being stolen opened for the outdoor enjoyment of all, people who have been defrauded have willingly handed over their property rights will be allowed to breed or sponsor the introduction of wild bears, wild wolves, pumas and fierce predatory dogs, or other large vertebrate predators that they might care to specify, which will be allowed at all times to live freely in the “zone”.

I presume it will be fenced?

Otherwise, how will the “ramblers”  know where their ill-gotten gains end, and real human beings’ property begins?

Quite funny


From A Nation of Shopkeepers. Truly, we are in the shit, and it’s ‘coz we have just been rather asleep and have not been paying attention to what the buggers were up to in the undergrowth.

Climate Change Terrorism: the sub-human homophobe-droids (who hate real humans and everything we stand for) are starting to turn nasty…


UPDATE: and here’s some stuff I said about these protest-droid-guys a long time ago….

David Davis

This just in. I guess they’re just practising for Heathrow and Gatwick, right now, but we shall see more of them later. Hopefully famed in gunsights, but maybe not.

I wonder why they are not doing this at Peking or Moscow-Sheremetyevo….or even O-Hare?

The comments by some of the “pro testers” are illuminating and humorous. One Lily kember, a 21-y-o “Third year” “Anthropology” “student” at Edinburgh University (what’s she doing down there not studying, when she should be up there?) thinks “that is so much CO2″……

They should stick to hugging trees. Less harmful and less irritating: and people with business to do can then ignore them.

But I think it will get worse.

Gordon brown will “give back” some of our money with one hand…


…but take it back with the other. And Gerald Warner gets it quite right here.

David Davis

Spotted here about five seconds before I was going to write about it. But perhaps I don’t really need to convince people on here that the modern British State is a giant money-hoover, attached to a shredder, which then blows your money out again at you, prior to resucking it in for “recycling”.

It would be a fine day when “the masses” wake up and spot how they have been had all along, by Fabian tax-grappers and redistributionists. But I guess it won’t be that soon. Here’s the Westminster Waltz, by Russ Conway, then:-

Some of that will be nice too:-

Well, the Guardian is happy, anyway, that “top earners” will be clobbered for another seven-and-a-half-grand…I wonder how many of the really milkable ones will simply, er, go away…..again.

“Das Kapital” to be turned into a Manga comic (…er, what’s a Manga”?)


David Davis

Hey, man! Cop a load of this nonsense!

Oh, by the way, we comment on the spoilt and wicked Marxist neo-murderer “Ché” Guevara here. You youngsters might appreciate it.

Destruction, failure and death, for the children

Destruction, failure and death, "for the children"

I don’t yet know what a Manga is, but I guess I could read up about it later tonight. Wonder if it’d be a good format for “The Wealth of Nations”, or “Atlas Shrugged”?

The wiki article about the great bullshitter does not seem to find room fo a mention of his son, fathered by him with his wife’s maid, and who went to work for the Great Northern Railway, as a blameless young man who was brought up by his mother. It’s all in Paul Johnson’sEnemies of Society” under the chapter “howling gigantic curses”. Karl Marx…the killer of so many millions….I wonder if the poor wretched maid loved him perhaps?

Not that I care a toss if he shagged his wife’s maid (in their house.) It’s his life after all. And presumably she must have liked his black moustache, or perhaps he was great in bed. I do not know.

But it sort of kind of, er, makes him somewhat hypocritical, since he was slagging off those kinds of people who made a practice of the very same thing, on the side.

For freedom to flourish, we need liberty (as I keep saying.)


David Davis

Hayek particularised this relationship between whatever “State” authorities there may be, and individuals, by stating that “to be controlled in one’s economic pursuits…..is to be controlled in everything”.

Today we learn that the Forestry Commission, a body statist to its very fibre (no pun intended) from its inception to its present activities, is to terminate ancient rights of individuals to collect fallen timber and dead wood for any purpose, on the grounds of “health and safety.”

I am not convinced that the right is enshrined in Magna Carta, as my copy does not appear to explicitly state it. But the point is that this is a symbolic act by a “big statist” QUANGO, designed further to separate individuals from victimless rights, which is to say natural ones as we have always described. it is nothing to do with “political correctness gone mad” – as if PC was something designed to help civilisations operate sanely and rationally anyway.

No: the plan to forbid people from gathering their own dead wood, instead “licensing” “local timber merchants” to sell it to them, merely is another act in the sordid sham of “bringing government closer to the people it serves”. Just like death-camps “served” the Jews and others under another socialist state I shan’t mention: government was brought closer to them than was good for their health and well-being.

Like my post the other day, on the true importance and meaning of revising history with regard to Agincourt (and why what the French revisionist historians are doint is TOTALLY relevant to the fight for liberty) what the Forestry-gauleiters are up to is yet another little detailed skirmish in the long retreat of liberty from the lives of ordinary people.

This gradual confiscation is designed to make it harder and harder for us to climb back out of the Dark Age in store for us, to a state where real Natural Rights can again be exercised in a minimal-statist environment. Successful conferences like ours which has just closed in London last night, will do great good in firing up the officers of libertarianism for the future. But officers are no use unless the “lesser folk”, for whom it is all about in the end, and of whom there are many many millions, understand what’s at stake, and how to use liberal philosophy to combat petty local assaults on natural rights.

Grand think-pieces will not be forgotten. But, in the even grander strategic context of British libertarian thought and tactics for re-engineering liberty for humans, this blog will increasingly take the role of exposer of petty, nasty, bureaucratic destruction of liberties, especially ancient ones.

Ahhhhhhh….so that’s it then. How stupid of us not to see it….


David Davis

The continual and extending sexualisation of free-people’s children was written about earlier on here. Now, Trooper has made the connection with earlier but still fairly modern fascist Utopian literature on the subject, which could give us reasons why our children are all being sexualised by the State.

This may or may not have anything to do with why I, running this blog, now find it useful to outreach previously un-libertarianised groups in British society and elsewhere, such as young British men.

There’s nothing wrong with sex. I even agree with the horrible Paul Ehrlich that it’s nice. It is the reward, programmed into the operation of our bodies, and contrived from first principles for us by our genes, for us being successfully able to pass them on before we fry. They (our genes) are toast, otherwise. Er, that’s why it’s nice. Otherwise we wouldn’t be programmed to spend time working out obessively how to do it with someone.

But what he forgets is that the tragedy of civilisation, language, morality and goodness versus evil has crept into the woodwork. Matter has at last reached the state of consciousness where it contemplates its own existence, its origin, its possible fate, and what it ought to do in the meantime.

Thank God I still dont look like that,

Thank God I don't yet look like that...He's had too much sex, clearly. (Terrible hands.)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism…Libertarian Alliance Conference week celebration post 6 :Milton Friedman on slavery and colonisation


David Davis

There appear to be 40 eco-dilemmas…..


David Davis

…..and you can read all about them here.

And we ought to watch out more for these guys:-

Graphs and things


David Davis

here’s a good one. Hat tip Burning our Money, via The Landed Underclass.

The trouble with socialism is that what it does is a parasitic/evil reflection, a sort of anti-chimera, of Christian charity. Just as Morgoth made orcs in corrupt imitation of elves.

Just as orcs cannot ever, ever emulate elves in any way, (see The Silmarillion,) big States and bureaucrats cannot ever, ever begin to “solve” “problems” of “unequal distribution of opportunity, wealth and access to public services”.

People go along with it, because (a) it looks sort of charitable and “big” (ie it might work, sort of, and they have not time to scratch their arses anyway, let alone give a few dollars to someone today) and (b) the statists have GUNS.

Beautifully-made stalinist clap-trap, which deserves a re-airing


David Davis

I meant to go to bed but the Libertarian Alliance’s video research Officer came up with this lovely-jubbly stuff:-

And this one too…Boris Johnson on the origin of table-tennis, and loads of other stuff which I can’t be arsed to listen to:- (Bloody politicians, even the good ones can’t get that we don’t really care and just want to get on with our lives.)

Good answer, from Angry Economist


David Davis

Go on, you know you want to….

The “New Scientist” has been the “old pre-renaissance/witchcraft-pagan-preChristianphilosophy GORE-RAG” for some time now. I stopped reading it regularly about 1998, although it was prime reading for us boys at school in the 1960s, and the school even paid for it to be in the library in enough quantity for us even to take ti away, along with “Nature“, and for the nerds, the “Scientific American” (which I still even like sometimes.) Funny how that’s somehow near where the Blairwitch came to power.

Here’s what the article says: I only want to be fair and even-handed. Judge for yourself.

More on metrication, the EU, and British home-grown fascists


David Davis

Earlier today I just flagged this up. I now have time to say something. (The original post is not only lower down your page but also here.)

The EU, with its usual disarming frankness about objectives, has gone on record as saying that it’s not really important if people here (or by inference elsewhere) go on using pre-metric, which is to say “Imperial” measurements. For one thing of course, these are still commonly encountered in all sorts of places on the continent of Europe.

The real subtext of the assault on “Imperial” measurement use in the UK is of course, and always has been, ideological and manichean. It is obvious, now that we know the facts. Those kinds of people who so publicly have championed “metrication” (and that also included the quite un-necessary and politically-motivated “decimalisation” of our currency) share a fully philosophical objective: what is this objective, then?

It is the exemplary punishment of Britain: especially, it encompasses an objective of the destruction of a place which they view as “England” – together with all its customs and traditions which act as a sort of conservative glue. The whole idea of “England”, historically, is essentially conservative. England’s history returns almost like clockwork, to a theme of looking to tradition and custom (as understood at the time of decision about the future) to decide what to do. This is mortally dangerous to gangsters like Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Gordon Brown, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il (who will continue to remain dead), Huggy the Chav, Ken Livingstone, Castro (who has been dead for some time) and whoever that bugger was who ran the Sendero Luminoso (I hope there won’t be a pop group called that any time soon.)

This stuff, this conservative glue, hard to create over the centuries, but easy to abolish with a Gestapo-sweep of A4 paper containing “enhanced statutory requirements”, holds a free people in friendships and relationships in a comfortable place, and confers order on civilisation. This of course is quite inimical to the fascist/stalinist concept of “more and faster change”, beloved of “management” “consultants”, or one of the other ones, which is “best practice in health and safety”.

Most importantly, it is because an essentially conservative civilisation is all that stands in the way of the intended destruction of what helps ordinary people to live and get better and better as time advances – that destruction which is crucial for the survival of wreckers, murderers, fascists, socialists and other theoretical idealists who have never inhabited anything more important (such as a factory or a mine or a ploughed field) than a room at a university. These latter groups know, with every fibre of their being, that their usefulness and significance diminishes visibly and fast, with the arrival of every person who can make his own way and decisions in his life.

You can’t, if you are a statist, allow people essentially to better themselves and their lives…and then you just go home and grow stuff or watch TV. The hog won’t slaughter itself.

There will come a time when they won’t need you or your “help”, and they will be able to know it. If they are armed, then you are toast already (so you’d better have got their guns off them quite early on.) If they are unarmed, then you will still have a difficult time, and you may have to shoot the right people (they didn’t in this case), but you may get through if you can manufacture a scare or two, preferably together, and hobble them further.

I think that British statists, being cleverer and more (what Stalin called) “serious” than continental ones (their weather is better and the food and girls are nicer, so they don’t really have to concentrate so hard) are far, far more finely-tuned to the threat of incipient liberty arising in a population, than their European conterparts.

I shudder to think with what ruthless efficiency the Police authorities in the UK would have complied with Nazi orders to round up people and have them “resettled”. Anti-Imperial-measure-police-and-Soviet-staff are merely taking a “directive” at its face value, and applying it to the letter, together with their own ingrained (ought I to say “institutionalised”?) racism against a civilisation which they (rightly) see as the one which has done most to try to make them as redundant as possible.

The sum total of these three accidentally-juxtaposed headlines is…we have lost (for now.)


David Davis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3176088/Financial-crisis-World-leaders-pledge-to-part-nationalist-swathes-of-global-banking-system.html

So banks will all do what the GramscoMarxiaNazis will tell them to, and not what their customers want them to.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/3179335/US-to-remove-North-Korea-from-terror-list-after-nuclear-deal.html

So the dear leader, who is so ronery, is now our friend. We really didn’t think he was a problem all along, of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/3178749/Zimbabwe-Robert-Mugabe-hands-key-ministries-to-his-Zanu-PF-party.html

So the fascist pig Mugabe, who is entirely without any redeeming features, like Mao Tse Tung was, can do what he says he wants to. It was noble, and right of him, to destroy his people’s ability to produce any food at all, for instance.

Honestly, I sometimes don’t know why we good-people carry on trying to save the world. It seems as though there is something perpetually trying to stop us.

Am I too pessimistic about the future of mankind? Discuss.

….and what will the buggers do next?


David Davis

Anti-“war on terror” “laws” are being used to upset the normal course of events in the sorting out of an Icelandic Bank which has a little local difficulty. Hat tip Guido, who spotted this in the FT.

If “states” are going to start squabbling over stuff, as if it was post-war-rationed-sweets, like tantrumised children outside a playground in 1948, then we truly are in the poo. This is socialism “triumphing over all the world”, as someone called V. I. Lenin said it “must”.

(Thieving, murdering bastard, and good-for-nothing waste-of-space. Good that he started to smell and had to be replaced by a waxwork. Hope they burnt the remains while nobody was looking, sensible guys. Perhaps Lenin didn’t exist at all, and had to always be played by a body-double, like “Jacqui” “Smith” … in my saner moments, I can’t believe that such a person exists.)

Enough said already


Sent from a friend.

Global stalinist bank meltdown…no money…F1 “chiefs” voice fears


David Davis

Formula -1 is, in the final analysis, a quite libertarian sport. Not like the Stalinist collectivist flag-waving “olympics”, in which States pretend to idolize individuals, but don’t mean it at all, for there is no champagne or cups. The regulation bureaucrats, such as the “Regional Prime Minister of upper-Thuringia-Alsace” (er…I made it up, but he probably exists) troop on but are relegated mercifully to secondary supporting roles, like handing up the cup.

In the end, it’s this. It comes down to how good a driver or his engineers, or his computer-techies, are. I would like it to be cleaned up just only a little bit, so that we could have some more excitement while yet preserving the individuality.

Gerhard Berger, great guy, good driver, thinks this. I think so too. if the buggers want £300 million a year for a couple of engines and about 8 tyres and a driver and a petrol hose, then right now it’s not going to happen like before. Especially if half the banks who used to sponsor them don’t exist or are bust.

The whole sport should gird itself up, grit its teeth, and follow our new suggested model, which will both make it cheaper to enter and also more fun.

Defending [a] Libertarian nation[s] from such things as protests about “unfair tax competition”, and other marxist twaddle


David Davis

We haven’t done ship stuff for a while – except to mention that the RN now has more admirals than ships (and we didn’t mean “big” ships either – we’ve included the lot….and admirals still come out ahead.

Well, it’s an excuse for some big-ship pron:-

Thsi one has a pretentious and irrelevant sound track, but is technically interesting:-

This is educational regarding a famous class of ships:-

Good archive photos of Warspite, but says little about individual actions portayed:-

And here’s some American stuff, probably more recent. Must be a practice of some kind as it’s too stately for reality:-

Whatever, if a libertarian nation was to come into being, I imagine it would face immediate threats from most quarters. Its very existence would expose, mortally, the now-dangerous hideousness of ordinary modern states, with the previously-usual machinery installed in them such as “taxation”….”surveillance”….terror-police….identity cards….”enviro-crime”….”the national curriculum”….”citizenship” classes in schools….”public-private-partnerships”….”social workers”….and the like.

All the above machines would be next-to-useless today, but the fledgeling libertarian state would need some kind of credible way of defending itself, at least in the initial stages of its existence when old-type “Big-States” still think it can be overpowered on some pretext, before their own slaves notice it and all try to do a runner.

I think that defensive power greater than any combination of two or three Big-States that decide to gang up for a mugging, would be needed. Then, we could afford possibly to wait out the period in which they fall over, just like the USSR. It would be shorter than the cold war, as we would be VERY libertarian, instead of just vaguely-capitalist/corporatist-with-a-thin-veneer-of-liberty….and the contrast would be striking, and (for a little while yet) the internet exists.

Four cheers for the devil …


David Davis

… for standing up for individual property rights. More important, even, than clean drinking water for all the world’s children, as advocated nobly and forcefully by Bjørn Lomborg (or is it Lombørg? I don’t know.)

The Devil was merely getting at Private Eye. But the strategically-underlying point he makes is seminal (this is a un-PC banned-word now.)

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE ESSAY PRIZE (£ 1,000 ): IS BIG BUSINESS PART OF THE FREE MARKET?


Sean Gabb
The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties
policy institute, today announces the title for its 2008 Chris R. Tame
Memorial Essay Prize competition.

This Prize is funded by a generous grant from The PROMIS Unit of Primary
Care and is in honour of Chris R. Tame (1949-2006) Founder and first
Director of the Libertarian Alliance. The Prize is worth £1000.

The essay title for 2008 is:

“Can a Libertarian Society be Described as ‘Tesco minus the State’?”
Essay Length: 3,000 words excluding notes and bibliography
Submission Date: 10th October 2008

Explanatory Note

The purpose of this year’s essay title is to draw wider attention to a
debate that has been taking place within the libertarian movement for
over a century, and that is now more relevant than ever: is big business
really part of the free market in which libertarians believe? Or is it
just the “third way” between free enterprise and socialism?

Many socialists and conservatives regard libertarians as cheerleaders for
big business. Our belief in free enterprise is understood as support for
the bigger, and therefore the more successful, corporations – General
Motors, Microsoft, HSBC, Tesco, and so forth – and for an international
financial system centred on the City of London.

Some libertarians are happy to be so regarded. They dislike the way in
which big government provides opportunities for big business to acquire
privileges that shelter it from competition. Even so, they believe that a
world without government, or a world with much less government, would be
broadly similar in its patterns of enterprise to the world that we now
have. It would be much improved, but not fundamentally dissimilar.

Other libertarians disagree. They regard big business as fundamentally a
creation of big government. Incorporation laws free entrepreneurs from
personal risk and personal responsibility, and allow the growth of large
business organisations that are bureaucratically managed. These
organisations then cartellise their markets and externalise many of their
costs. The result is systematic distortion of market behaviour from the
forms it would take without government intervention. These libertarians
often go further in their analysis by denying the legitimacy of
intellectual property rights and ownership rights in land beyond what any
individual can directly use.

Where do you stand in this debate? Are you broadly comfortable with a
global capitalism that is raising billions of people from starvation
towards affluence. Or are you a radical with a vision of a society that
has never yet been tried and is as alien and even frightening to most
people as anything promised by the Marxists.

The winner of the 2008 competition will be announced at the London
conference of the Libertarian Alliance, on Saturday the 25th October at
the National Liberal Club.

Full details of the Prize at

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/prize08.htm

Full details of the Conference at

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/conf08brochure.htm

END OF COPY

Note(s) to Editors

Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. His latest
book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England,
and How to Get It Back, may be downloaded for free from
http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3. It may also be bought. His other books are
available from Hampden Press at http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.

He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at
sean@libertarian.co.uk

Extended Contact Details:

The Libertarian Alliance is Britain’s most radical free market and civil
liberties policy institute. It has published over 800 articles, pamphlets
and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms.
These are freely available at http://www.libertarian.co.uk

Our postal address is

The Libertarian Alliance
Suite 35
2 Lansdowne Row
Mayfair
London W1J 6HL
Tel: 07956 472 199

Associated Organisations

The Libertarian International – http://www.libertarian.to – is a sister
organisation to the Libertarian Alliance. Its mission is to coordinate
various initiatives in the defence of individual liberty throughout the
world.

Sean Gabb’s personal website – http://www.seangabb.co.uk – contains about
a million words of writings on themes interesting to libertarians and
conservatives.

Hampden Press – http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.- the publishing house of
the Libertarian Alliance.

Liberalia – http://www.liberalia.com – maintained by by LA Executive
member Christian Michel, Liberalia publishes in-depth papers in French
and English on libertarianism and free enterprise. It is a prime source
of documentation on these issues for students and scholars.

Useful stuff on the worsening USSR/Georgia/USA crisis, from sec. Gates


David Davis

http://www.dodvclips.mil/?&fr_story=FRdamp290290&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.samizdata.net%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2008%2F08%2Fgates_on_georgi.html&autoplay=true&skin=oneclip&rf=ev

Samizdata quote of the day (yup, let’s all be horrid to Polly Toynbee, again, as is right!)


Great quote via Brian Micklethwait, on Samizdata:-

My dad was a newsagent, I went to state school, I’m Asian, I work in the city and I earn loads of money. I do it so my parents and future children can have something close to the only kind of life Toynbee has ever known. Me explain my position? How about she explains her right to speak for the poor?

- Peter Hoskin singles out that comment by Raj Chande on an excerpt from Polly Toynbee and David Walker’s book entitled Unjust Rewards

AND HERE is a great aside by The Remittance Man, about socialism, Polly Toynbee, and camel trains….of all things! I wish I had either the ability, or the time, to compose essays, be they ever so short, like his.

Georgia can fall, and then the rest. A moral case for going to war against Russia


David Davis

What appears below is the substance of a riposte that I have just placed on an anti-EU newsgroups called “eurorealist”. This was in response to a slightly shallowly-thought-out question about what quarrel we have with somethng called the “Russian People”. The point I try, inexpertly, to make, is that there is no such quarrel: the problem lies within the institutionalised Russian State – and there is no solution except revolution…what I think we in the Anglosphere call euphemistically, “Regime Change”. Here goes…

First. we should make the DISTINCTION between the People of (poor, oppressed) Russia, and its GOVERNMENT. Russia, wretched, ground-down country, has no tradition of secular liberal political democracy. None. None whatever – not even folk-memory of it.

The Russian Administration (and I said this in the Torygraph comments on the article (front page) yesterday) behaves no differently from its medieval, Czarist and Communist forebears. Why ought it to? What advantage is there for it? The Russian people are there for it as a “human resource”, often turned by it into “human remains”, but as Stalin said, “one death does not matter very much”. As the unspeakable pig Yezhov said in 1938, “if we shoot 1,000 people too many in any monthly plan, it’s no big deal”. (I’m not making this up, by the way.)

WE are fighting Russia, because we want a world in which such tyrannical, pre-capitalist/barbarian/sub-human attitudes to other people and their wishes, have no place. Russia’s present governmental structures are savage and pre-capitalist/barbarian, and they have NO place in the world that we and Ahmet want.

Russia’s regime will HAVE TO GO. Just that, very simple. The Russian Foreign Monster said in today’s torygraph that “Regime Change is a Western concept that we do not use…..” I bet you mean that, mate, but not in the way you thought.

If we do not do, in the West, at least some warlike things, over Georgia, the following things will happen:- (i don’t care about the oil or gas anyway – we should not buy oil from tyrants, nor give them money for theyr services. we invented nuclear power, let’s just Do The Right Thing and USE IT.)

(1) Georgia will disappear, rent apart piece by piece, just like Czechoslovakia in 1938. This incident is a virtual re-run of the Hitler-Henlein-Sudetenland script.

(2) Putin will then go after the other Caucasian republics which are “faraway counteis of which we know little”. these have less firepower than georgia could even muster.

(3) Putin will then dismember Ukraine by hoovering up the Trans-Dniester.

Of course we will do nothing – what do you think we now are? We are the modern West, trained by home-grown, wicked and ingrate internal Gramsco-Marxians to take weak relativist positions on everything that reflects well on our past absolute moral greatness and rightness: these days, we now must glorify and salute the betrayal of our friends, by our masters who arrived while we slept, and betrayal of those who see right and would emulate us, but for now need our strong arms against evil ones who would expunge them.

It always has been, is now, and will be, the job and duty of Anglosphere nations to go to war not for their own interests, but for simple principles of right and wrong. For example, Britain had no possible or conceivable foreign policy interest in defendingeither of the following:-

(1) Belgium’s neutrality (we only undertook to because we signed a 19th century treaty that said we would – the Imperial General Staff excuse that we could not allow the French Coast to fall into German hands is more plausible, I admit)

(2) Poland’s territorial integrity in 1939. Again, we had merely given our word (is not that something?) that we would do so. I am publicly on record, seven times in 19 years, as saying that we could no more defend Poland by force that land soldiers on mars, but that’s not the point. The point is to Do The Right Thing, as described by example in the Gospels (specific and empirical) and positively enjoined (as generalities for modelling) in the Mosaic decalogue.

Of course we will blink first if it comes to a standoff with Russia. Don’t worry, You can sleep easy in your beds for a few….months?….years? What difference does it make? So yes it WILL get worse, because we did not react correctly (for the defence of Good against the machinations of the Wicked) before it was too late. It was too late before this South ossetian nonsense.

Why do you all think Bismarck sprayed Imperial German passports all over Schleswig-Holstein, before marching in and chopping it off Denmark? Look at what the Russian State (not the Russian people!) did all over South Ossetia.

It’s too late to do anything but “declare solidarity with Georgia”. That’s honourable, but insufficent to save it. By not preparing for war, you will all now get it. not now, but when it’s almost too late and you’ll have to hope to survive by the skin of your teeth.

Much, much more should have been done, by the West, INSIDE RUSSIA, in 1991. That was the time, and we could do no wrong in the eyes of the world. The moment was lost, and we let all the vile fascist left spiders and their friends crawl surreptitiously out of the woodwork, and slime back into almost their original positions.

Yep, the moment was lost. We were so drunk with rejoicing over the Berlin Wall and Gorbachev and Yeltsin, that we forgot to look under the flagstones in the cellar, and shoot anything that moved, before moving in with the bulldozers.

Look, WE KNOW how to build libral pluralist civilisations with Free Institutions. Having taken 15 centuries to learn it the hard way, we ought now to be able to do it the easy way. What we propound accords with Human Nature: socialism does not – it is the specific and major difference, which is why its experiments always and invariably fail bloodily, with colateral damage. WE SHOULD have “done” Russia while we could do it for no cost in either blood or treasure…..but we didn’t, and so you will all pay now.

Well, there you are. Who’s next after Abkhazia, Armenia, Ukraine….The Baltinc States? Or…Poland again, anyone?

DD

 

 

In a message dated 11/08/2008 13:26:42 GMT Daylight Time, ukfizwit@yahoo.co.uk writes:

 

[eurorealist] Re: [Fwd: WAR ALERT!!!]

Date:11/08/2008 13:26:42 GMT Daylight Time

From:ukfizwit@yahoo.co.uk

Reply-to:eurorealist@yahoogroups.com

To:eurorealist@yahoogroups.com

Sent from the Internet

 

 

 

Given that they aren’t commies any more, why are we still fighting Russia?

Of course this sums up the whole problem.

When Russia abandoned the Warsaw Pact, it was on the understanding that

NATO would not move in. Why should it? It had always claimed that

Communism was the threat; not the Russian people.

What happened next? The German Wall came down as requested by the US.

Then NATO moved into East Germany. “Well why not”? “It’s all one

country now” they said. After that it was Poland et al.

No bloody wonder Russia’s worried.

Ted

— In eurorealist@yahoogroups.com, “vtam370″ <vtam370@…> wrote:

>

> Even if Georgia WERE a Nato member, I am sure their

> European allies would find many excuses for not going

> to its rescue. Remember what happened in the Falklands

> war?

>

> The Russians appear to think that the Georgians were

> egged by America and Turkey because those two countries

> had been training Georgia’s army and supplying weapons.

> They issued some paranoic-sounding warnings in the past

> few days. They don’t want either Georgia or Ukraine to

> be considered for Nato membership. Frankly, I have

> greater respect for Russia than our former allies in

> Europe. Given that they aren’t commies any more, why

are we still fighting Russia?

 Ahmet

American mass culture is a force for good in this world …


… But would you miss “Starbucks”?

David Davis

I have to confess something: I have just had to have it explained to me what a “Starbucks” is, and what a “Latte” is also. (I thought it was pronouced “LATT” and was slang for a lavatory…as in “They never use the lats, they do it in our hats, thank God we’re not the P.B.I*…!!!)

Whatever is happening to Starbucks, the point is that:-

(1) The USA, through the benign influence of the Anglosphere and freedom of communication and trade (mostly) has been the father of mass cultural and brand identities which give happiness and daily solace to chiefly poor-people who have no time for, or have been deprived of (through the deliberate devices of Fabians, vulgar-leftists and other Nazis) otherwise available opportunities to learn about such things as “high culture and high art”.

Here are some examples:-

Ford cars. Western pop-music (whatever you say about the Beatles/Stones/Shadows/all other Brits etc, the USA invented it. Coca-Cola (and Pepsi). MacDonald’s. Burger King. KFC. Hollywood movies (without the new-lefty-slant, from now on, please!) Jazz. Colour television (HOW long did it take the Booby-See and ITV to get it going here?) We could all name more.

(2) By contrast, the rest of the world with the chief exception of Britain, plus a few laggard European hangers-on, has contributed close to f***-all. What mass-popular, mass-cultural, all-uniting concept, that is freely-available via the market, has been exported from …. Saudi-Arabia? Or …. Russia?

Never mind about Starbucks: I didn’t even know what one was. But when we see MacDonald’s outlets closing, it truly will be a cultural bad sign.

*”Poor Bloody Infantry”

More about capital punishment


David Davis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

First, tobacco. Then travelling freely. Now it’s alcohol. Food’s next.


You just HAVE to see this, from Moonbattery. If these “Vegans” weren’t simply the unfathomably evil and deliberate destroyers of Man which they are, eating (as they must undoubtedly do) LOVELY tasty greasy bacon sandwiches in the night by the light of the fridge while nobody is looking, then they would be just funny.

They are not funny, not funny at all. We should fear them, and expose them, like the Ringwraiths which they are.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/05/vegetarians_tak.html#trackbacks

I’m not at all sure what ought to be done about these people. Trouble is, they make the subject of “good” Wireless Tele Vision, and others will pay them attention, reinforcing their belief that they are thus right.

GUNS telechefs food gordon ramsay jamie oliver rick steyn garry rhodes delia smith that other chap whose name I can’t remember two fat ladies diet stalinism


David Davis

The gunnery-director of REVENGE will, in due course, “shift target to next-ahead”, from telechefs to, er, something else. Not quite sure what, yet, I have not decided. But they are food for thought for some posts yet. 

I really do feel like savaging these guys (and they mostly are guys, God Blast them) for some days. Poor old Delia Smith, and all she wants to do is tell you how best to boil an egg, for God’s sake, is sheer harmlessness by comparison.

Long live female telecooks. Great chaps they are. (Not that Tamsin-thingy-woman who is a poseur, because she has a rather large garden which telly-wireless queers want to wet themselves in, while filming, and thinks she can tell people what to eat as she is quite rich, like poor mad tortured Prince Charles who is a socialist although he genuinely believes that he is not. I don’t know what to suggest that we do about him: poor, good-natured and honest, tortured man that he is. He can’t be engaged as a KIng, for sure, it would be too dangerous in the present world political climate. His mind is not focussed on real threats to the Anglosphere.)

Sorry. I don’t really watch the wireless tele vision. I don’t even remember what these people are called. She might not even be a Tamsin, even.

Fog and smoke in battlefield area. Probably not any good to poor sad dead Heath Ledger, though, for you can “search site” for that one post where we got roasted by someone who said “f*** you!!!!!!” (We don’t print 4-letter-words on this blog. I don’t allow it. No. Not. Nada. Zilch. Only in the comments, put in by others, to show who we are, and who the enemy are.)

Oh, and “Two Fat ladies” are great, even though one of them is dead.

“What about the poor?” At last, a masterful rebuttal of socialist claptrap in under 300 words…awarded “Quote of the Day” status.


David Davis

Everybody ought to read Samizdata every day. “That’s how it’s done, that is the real thing” (as an Israeli General said while regarding British squaddies quelling unrest in somewhere-or-other by simply looking smart, well-turned out, polished and armed, very businesslike, and nice to the locals – and no poncy sun-specs!) That red stuff’s not a link by the way – I could not find one in time, I just wanted to say it loud.

Jonathan Pearce does what is needed for dealing with the “what about the poor starving in the streets” obstacle, which lefties – and even those good-hearted people who you could never describe as “left”, just “worried by inherent uncertainty” – will always begin with whe  they encounter you, and find you are some disgusting cold-and-bright freemarketeer capitalist toad.

Good for you. Quote of the day coming up:

As history has shown, mutual aid and philanthropic societies typically thrive because of, not in spite of, a powerful pro-freedom, pro-free enterprise culture. The belief that we are entitled to pursue our self-interest (so long as it does not involve aggression, theft or fraud) does not clash with the idea that it is good to be generous and helpful to those who have been dealt a crap hand in the cardgame of life.

As we in the Alternative Bookshop used to say: “Liberty is the mother, and not the daughter, of order.”

Passive drinking …. here we go down to the cesspit again! Next, it will be “passive driving”. Wonder when we will have to admit to “passive sex” as a way of reducing “teenage pregnancy”?


David Davis

Here we go. The stalinist bastards have got out of bed before us, as ever (‘coz they izz boring turds who don’t write computer-games or run silicon-valley firms.) Perhaps we should design less comuter games, and have less long hair and lip-piercings; and instead carry more real guns and point them while loaded at bureaucrats who have no sense of humour.

Why don’t bureaucrats laugh at anythng? When did you last see a “public employee” laugh?

I though so.

Here’s some of it:-

 

The war on ‘passive drinking’

Posted by Bruno Waterfield on 17 Apr 2008  at 21:27 
Tags: 
Crime, EU, public health, Alcohol

 

European Union and United Nations officials are plotting to make drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.

 

Your drink could endanger others, claim UN and EU officials

Hectoring campaigns over “passive smoking” are credited for Europe’s almost total smoking ban. Now alcohol is in the sights of the public health miserablists and they have invented the concept of “passive drinking” as their killer argument.

The Daily Mail takes up a report in New Scientist to trumpet a new “guilt campaign” that is heading our way. “The World Health Organisation’s global strategy will aim to match the success of campaigns which have made smokers feel guilty about the harm second-hand smoke does to others,” says the report.

Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians is wheeled on to confirm the new approach. “The tipping point for banning smoking in public places was third party damage,” he said.

The EU public health brigade are not far behind, in fact Brussels miserablists in the European Commission’s DG SANCO have been trying to poison the drinking debate with this new assault on reason for years.

I took up the EU “passive drinking” debate around two years ago in response to strident claims, in a Commission report, about the high environmental or social toll of alcohol, the “harm done by someone else’s drinking”.

“The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU society in 2003 was estimated to be €125bn (€79bn-€220bn), equivalent to 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found recently for tobacco,” said the report written by Dr Peter Anderson, who has a background in the World Health Organisation (WHO) and who played a leading role in Tobacco Free Initiative Europe.

“The intangible costs show the value people place on pain, suffering and lost life that occurs due to the criminal, social and health harms caused by alcohol. In 2003 these were estimated to be €270bn, with other ways of valuing the same harms producing estimates between €150bn and €760bn.”

On Thursday, at an informal meeting of health ministers in Brdo, Slovenian Health Minister, Zofija Mazej Kukovič dusted off the report – and its language.

“Harmful and dangerous alcohol consumption causes more than seven per cent of the premature morbidity and mortality in our countries. The annual costs stemming from this have been estimated at as much as €125 billion for the EU as a whole. However, the harm caused by alcohol is still underestimated,” she said.

The figures are meant to be pretty scary. Drink is responsible for 2,000 homicides, four out of 10 of Europe’s annual murders. “The economic cost of alcohol-attributable crime has been estimated to be €33bn in the EU for 2003….while the intangible cost of the physical and psychological effects of crime has been valued at €9bn – €37bn,” said the Anderson report.

Children, too, are passive victims of drinking. “Many of the harms caused by alcohol are borne by people other than the drinker responsible. This includes 60,000 underweight births, as well as 16 per cent of child abuse and neglect, and five to nine million children in families adversely affected by alcohol,” says the EU report’s summary.

 

The link made by between alcohol and crime today, whether violence or child abuse or other social ills, follows not from hard facts but from an outlook that sees human characteristics as damaging in general. And if human beings, particularly when under the influence of stimulants, are destructive, then, the argument goes, social intervention must follow. The idea that almost any activity – drinking, eating, speaking, even thinking – can cause harm is often blown out of proportion and used to generate frightening figures and policies.

The sheer absurdity of the idea of “passive drinking” would be funny if the public health lobby was not so powerful and unpleasant. I found that in a twist of irony, probably lost on po-faced public health types, that the expression “passive drinking” seems to have originated as a spoof in two Peter Simple columns in the Daily Telegraph in 2002 and 2003, written by the late Michael Wharton.

Mocking the rise of nonsense research to justify social measures, he wrote about research work being carried out by “Dr Ron Hardware of Nerdley University”.

“They were the first to discover the scourge of ‘passive drinking’, showing by painstaking experiments and finely adjusted statistics that it was just as deadly as ‘passive smoking’ and equally capable of causing cancer and innumerable other ills,” he wrote.

It is no longer a joke or satire – do read more here on Spiked.

We need to stand up to these people.

Posted by Bruno Waterfield on 17 Apr 2008 at 21:27

 

 

 

 

 

Libertarian Alliance – Latest Publication – the first Chris Tame Memorial Lecture


Sean Gabb

The full text is available at this link:-

‘Slimming Down Government':
The First Chris R. Tame Memorial Lecture,
held at the National Liberal Club, London, on the 18th March 2008
Professor David Myddelton 

Personal Perspectives, No. 23

ISSN 0267 7156                  ISBN 9781856377478

An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
Suite 35, 2 Landsdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL.

© 2008: Libertarian Alliance; Professor David Myddelton.

Professor David Myddelton is Emeritus Professor of Finance and Accounting at Cranfield University, Chairman of Board of Trustees of the Institute of Economic Affairs and Chairman of the National Council of the Society for Individual Freedom. In the late 1960s he was involved in the Young Libertarians along with the Libertarian Alliance’s founder Dr. Chris R. Tame..

The views expressed in this publication are those of its author, and
not necessarily those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee,
Advisory Council or subscribers.

FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY

We originally billed this as “how to cure Government Obesity” – but in promoting it now to a wider audience, we applied a less flippant title!

Today we got……


…..seen by:

“Nazis + Green Police”

“Green police + nazi”

“Why you should smoke”

I love the smell of Google in the Morning! (What was that Vietnam movie called again? I can’t remember just now – oh, “apocalypse now”, yes?) I never watched it in full, but it is so famous that I can imagine exactly what it would have been like, such as if I had been shagging (a somewhat younger) Elizabeth Taylor.

Chris Tame would be proud of these search strings.

Natural England (a fascist pre-capitalist barbarian quango) gets money from the EU via DEFRA (department for Ending of Farming and Rural Affairs…not the sexy kind where you can f*** your near-neighbour’s wife and she won’t tell…)


This came From Outside today:

Original Message —–

From: JKelly8543@aol.com

To: MrGrahamBooth@aol.com

Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:30 PM

Subject: Natural England (this is the Wiki-page – ed.)

All in SW

The issue of Natural England and its possible/probable funding from the EU has been raised, and Steve Reed in Brussels turned up what he thinks is the appropriate budget source – LIFE+

Have a look at these 2 links and see if any of it gels with your own knowledge/experience in this area. John Kelly

Hi Bernard, “Natural England (NA)” [THIS IS ITS OWN WEB PAGE - ed.] the quango that wants to turn England into a saltmarsh has received £2.9 billion from Defra to assist this aim and in turn DEFRA got this sum from Europe.  NA make the claim to be independent of the government but this is obviously a false claim and NA seem to be the masters of the Environment Agency. According to the website, NA also gets £400,000 a year for its administration. If this rogue quango of environmental anoraks is not restrained, it will have a very counter productive effect to rising sea levels and sink the population ahead of any natural consequences. It seems to me we are all sleeping while this quango is given excessive powers to interfere on planning applications as a statutory consultee etc. with a very prejudicial interest and objectives. In short, this quango needs to be discredited for what it is doing at our expense and I am hoping your colleagues in UKIP here and abroad can provide some further evidence that supports my perception. See the weblink http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/press/releases2007/061207.htm

I feel I have to comment here. “Natural England” has been also doing stuff round here in the North West where we live. What it proposes is entirely destructive and you can get my views by looking at correspondence on this group,  eurorealist@yahoogroups.com for earlier today (11th Feb 2008.)

If DEFRA really stands for the “Department for Ending of Farming and Rural Affairs” (and I think it’s now called “DERA” which indicates that it thinks that “farming” has ended in the UK or at least England, which is about right) then all this makes sense.

If you are a socialist, and an intelligent one in a liberal Western nation which you hate for what it did for the rest of humanity (so these people could not become your supplicant-clients, for they were already freed by your enemy) then you probably have an Apple laptop (and you hate Bill Gates – OK OK it does not matter, your friends have got their teeth into his ankles for his money and he will now learn better at your hands, while he and his wife are thinking they are doing “big charity” – you will waste his money for him while the poor Africans wait and die.) 

Moreover, lots of you type on an apple, (you guys will end up being made to type outside in the cold, or in the alleyway next door, by us Intel/AMD-Windows-PC-ers….. like the poor smokers, eventually, were made to stand outside by your lot.) Just you try doing the mouse-thing in a hurricane in Lancashire in January, in an alleyway, on an apple. 

You think that “people ought to live off the land” (I have been told this by more than one of you)  and that “intensive farming” is “destroying the countryside”. You can say this and seem to get away with the falsehood, for you ……

(a) control the UK GCSE geography syllabus, and

(b) also you can afford to buy shitty, muddy “organic boxes” of mixed roots of indeterminate colour and dryness, covered in mud and rather shrivelled, delievered by a cheery lad in a van who knows the colour of your money and has an Apple-website like yours, or else you can get stuff flown in from Peru via Tesco (I LOVE TESCO! Strawberries in winter!) You even pretend you want to eat the stuff….and even feed it to your children (God help them) –  devotion to duty if ever there was.

(c) you have suborned all the “science” teachers under about age 42. (That was a clever move – I take my hat off to you. I now have to look to Chindia to save us from your efforts.)

If one wanted to abolish or emasculate an entity called “England”, then one plank of strategy would be to (a) remove its ability to control the extent of the coast line, and (b) to diminish the amount of productive farming that could go on anywhere. I rest my case.

Libertarians should be concerned, and oppose whatever DEFRA, or DERA indicates, since it seems designed to reduce this island to a state of food-dependency on some other outside agency – whether this be the EU, or “suppliers” (who can be leaned on). This island was the birthplace of liberalism – not a dirty word at all, just hijacked by the stalinists in the USA – and this supposed attack is just part of our punishment for doing what we did to free people. They want to demolish, or render unproductive, or at least inundate from the sea, our Land.

Perhpas they would just like to say they want to come and sow it with salt? Then, we will all know where we are.

“The Remittance Man”, added to blogroll. Very active English liberal blog. Also we welcom “The Bewilderness” who turn out to be friendly too


Here.

Can’t think why I didn’t spot the bugger before. A great read, recommended, interlaced (sorry for the pun) with nicely chosen crumpet.

I can’t imagine when he finds the time to do any mining.

Also see The Bewilderness

Wish I had the time to write as often as these people!

“COMMUNIST WORLD WITHOUT TESCO”. SCARY IDEA. Yeah, I thought you’d wonder about that one.


David Davis 

This missile (see above) collided harmlessly with the armour-belt abutting the port-side of the blog yesterday, in a heavy following sea. It was swiftly and quietly made safe by a bolg-operative (able, second class) who climbed out to the stats page and retrieved it for examination, under enemy fire. He will be mentioned in dispatches (from a dying country.)  (Check this one out.)

What is it, exactly, about TESCO, that upsets and riles lefties? I’d love to hear one of them actually tell us something about this matter. After all, Wal-Mart (American) and Carrefour (French, I think?) are both bigger in global sales value terms. I do not find on the internet, unless I have been purblind and stupid, Walmart (say) coming in for the execration that Tesco gets, daily, in the British media. If one is a fascist-lefty-food-denier-to-poor-people all over the planet, such as certain British male tele-chefs make themselves out to be, then surely one ought to attack the biggest target first?

The identified poor-people may be schoolchildren in Scunthorpe who just want their native foods, or sub-Saharan sand-scrapers (who’d like any food at all) suffering from a surfeit of Bob Geldof, various other “pop singers”, and their friends the Jerks-in-Mercs (they may be wearing sunspecs and medals, so approach the “jerks” with caution.)

Is “cheap food” a problem – as the Prince of Wales is on record for describing this as an “obsession”? (It’s all right for him as he runs a large commercial concern very well and properly(and there’s nothing wrong in that) in which many of the operatives are his colleagues and friends, and who will not let him and his starve – nothing wrong in that either….but he is insulated, sort of, from the consequences of his own statements.)

If the Market can produce cheap food, then why ought it to be made more expensive by decree? Perhaps I will soon have to write that people who want to prohibit, or ban, or otherwise inconvenience supermarkets, are actually mass-murderers (not only murderers of Scunthorpe kids who want to eat chips, bacon-barms and butties for lunch, but also are murderers of Africans.)

Perhaps I will anyway, to see what happens.

AND…………..your Che Guevara T-shirt is EVEN LESS COOL than I said it was yesterday, so take it off and burn it, you immature ass.

The Police, crime and the liberal ideal. Detection rates fall as police spend rises. There is another way…..


David Davis

And so, we have…….

More police. More body-armour (but not for the soldiers at war.) More helicopters and more computers. “Terrestrial Trunk Radio” (isn’t that just a fancy-sounding dictocrat-type name for a secure dedicated mobile phone network for the fuzz? What was all the fuss about the other year, and why was it so expensive and useless? What are they using now?) More “ersatz” Police, even. And worst of all, four million video cameras, almost as many people as are now on the UK’s State-DNA database. (Or is it 5 million by now? The argument is not changed either way.)

The Police now cost nearly half as much as the (falling) defence budget and they are catching up. In a country with a historically low homicide rate, and which has until recently been a model of liberty and observance of Law, this would be humorously preposterous if it was not both sad and terrifying. We now have the satirical situation of a Police Force behaving like an occupying army in an unthreatened home nation, while underequipped and underpaid soldiers fight real enemies of our civilisation in faraway places. (The rest of the Libertarian Alliance knows that I have always supported Blair’s Iraq and Afghan ventures, the only right decisions in his life, that I have criticized the puller-outers, and I have never failed to be their foe. But the inversion of reality, manifested by increasing Police persecution of, say, motorists who drive fast and well in many kinds of condition, and retaliating householders who shout at evil unsocialised yobs, in a country full of real criminals, is getting ridiculous.)

Let’s do a sum, in pure maths language.

Let the current spend on policing be called “£10 billion”. Let it be assumed to rise at, say, 5% per year in real terms. This is about right. Let the year be 2008. Then, in 2009, the spend will be £10.5 billion.

Let there be assumed to be no taxation load (for policing purposes) on the revenue from corporate and excise taxation. The let all taxaion for policing be assumed to be paid out of personal taxation of incomes. Let the nett number of households that contribute a nett positive tax take to be 12 million (it’s a bit conservative and I don’t know the figures.) So we have to raise 10.5 billion from 12 million households. That’s 10.5E+9 divided by 12E+6, which gives £875 per household in 2009.

Let HM Treasury now instruct the Revenue to stop collecting this amount from households forthwith, and tell households to pay for policing and security themselves.

Let is be assumed that a mean of only one third of households will contribute the whole or part of the £875 that they are not now being mulcted for by the government. This will yield £3.5 billion. (The proportion will rise very quickly after a few weeks as people realise there is no infrastructure in place at all.)

There will be also now hundreds of thousands of unemployed Police personnel. Some will become minicab drivers, which will be useful, or bouncers, but on the whole this will drive down wages in the now-to-expand private security/criminal-arresting/property-protection sector, which can now expand quickly at little cost. Since video cameras have been proved useless at deterring street crimes, they can be taken down and sold for scrap to China, which will yield a few million £.

There will not be a lot of “diversity-awareness” in the new Private security forces. Therefore, the percentage of real criminals actually arrested, charged and put away uncomfortably for various periods, in initially quite insanitary and dangerous conditions, will rise. “Anti-racist” groups, and those others whose interest is not individual liberty of the law-abiding but instead is the destruction of civil British society, will find many difficulties in communicating with the criminals, whon they have hotherto used as sticks with which to beat the rest of us. They will find the “receptionists” who now work in criminal-arresting companies strangely immune to their blandishments.

Additionally, tax-breaks might be offered for (property-owning) householders who agree to take and pay for firearms courses. Guns are no danger at all in proper, trained hands, of those who have something to prpotect such as a family, and in these conditions tend to inspire respect and awe of the weapon and not light-headed use. A sum of say £500 per year tax allownance might be given for keeping a non-repeating, short gun at home, in regulated conditions whereby it is easily available to the householder in an emergency.

Let this legislation be widely publicised. Criminals can read things they need to read, even if they and their socialist probation officers pretend that they can’t. Sorry, but it’s a fact. The strongest motor of crime is the conscious decision to commit one.

Drunk out of skull? Bah, humbug.

“I just lost it…” Bah, humbug.

“He just did my head in”…Bah, humbug.

“He were lookin’ at my girlfriend…” (‘Course he was, prat. I would too. Why d’you think you go with her? Because she dresses like a nun?)

“I was trying to run away…” Bah, humbug.

“I didn’t mean to kill him, I just wanted his i-phone and he resisted and the knife slipped” Bah, humbug (as a barrister, you ought to know better on this one at least, you evil, expensively-educated stalinist prat. But I DO think that you should let a Jury decide, having shed your crocodile-tears for the useless waste-of-space whom you have to defend.)

There are lots of things that an initially ruinous but rapidly-privatizing police service would need to learn and could achieve. but I think the results would be better in the long run, for less waste of resources. the protected would be customers instead of a sociallly-segmented, persecuted or ignored proletariat.

Happy New Year 2008 from the Libertarian Alliance. The bastards are still in power (everywhere) but WE and YOU are still alive, and therefore there is hope.


David Davis 

Happy New Year. Some news is good. Gordon Brown, described as a socialist, is wallowing in mire. He can’t seem to get out, and his hair grows greyer by the day – have you noticed? He will look like Tony Blair, and soon, only bigger (is this worse?)

Nicholas Sarkozy has a new girlfriend, a very pretty young Italian woman, and highly shaggable too by the look of things. Good for him. Presidents of France should have sex a lot, and with very pretty and slightly younger women, for it is their real job, and I think it will keep their very delightful and nice country (which I do love despite my posts) out of trouble, since they will legislate less, getting up later as they then will. Poor old stuck-up anal “de Gaulle”, patriotic as he undoubtedly was, did not look like a male hominid at all, just some sort of, well, I don’t know what – at least he kept us out of the EUSSR for a bit. The fascist pig Mitterand at least had the grace to have illegitimate children (a creation,) a saving grace that some other fascist pig, a rather small and insignifiacnt one, called Hitler, will not be able to adduce in front of the RECORDING ANGEL, on The Day.

Pakistan’s news is less good. At least they have appointed some young lad from the right University. I’m sorry about his mum and send condolences: I knew her very slightly at a distance then, when she was at LMH. She went to grander parties than I was invited to. But I’m sure they’ll sort it out. Better not say what I had just typed and deleted, re nuclear war due to “inadequate control of weapons” – say you’re safe and the devil will get you next day.

Do we care about a failed socialist “bank” which costs us £57 billion to bail out? To save votes and seats in the English North East Soviet?

Nah. We will DRINK £57 billion of lager alone, next Thursday morning. It’s OUR job (see Nicholas Sarkozy, above.) They have sex, we get drunk and sing and shout. But I hope he spanks the bottoms of the enarques a bit.

Liverpool’s  “European capital of culture 2008″ is going to go DOWN THE DRAIN, in socialist ruin, and indescribable corruption. (Remember I am the “Director of Northern Affairs”  …….  and YOU SAW IT HERE FIRST  !!!  ) I bet you all 5p. Each…………Every reader of this post who takes on the bet. NB! This does NOT mean I am happy about it; all that money, taken especially from poor-people, even lots of poor-people in Liverpool, and everybody taken in by a scam to rival the Olympics, and nothing to show for it except a few thousand bureaucrats, many of which are ill on sick-leave. Like the chief-finger-man Jason somebody-or-other.

Can’t think of anything else to sound lugubrious about right now, perhaps it’s the champagne working. 

Anyway, We at the LA all wish you, our readers, all that you yourselves would wish for you and those whom you love, which is what is really important in life. Socialism statizes love. This is destruction writ large.

If the STATE “does love”, which is to say “care”, then nobody has to love anybody, and that road leads to disaster. That’s the one and only thing I want to put for 2008, to kick it off.

Anybody who thinks anything else has ROCKS in his head. Happy new Year !!!

“Political Correctness Gone Mad”. I wish…God, how I wish, that it was just some sort of madness…..


  David Davis

……and that this was true and it was just a bad dream, and not a misrepresentation of what “PC” is really for. How many, many times do you read in the papers about some poor, sensible human being, tormented by The Forces of Darkness in the form of officials of some British Soviet or other?

A nice old lady who is forbidden to tidy her grass verge outside her house and plant plants on it, because she must wear a hard hat and a yellow-fascist-jacket, and have cones to stop the traffic?

The Soviet of a large British city which celebrates “winterval”, whatever that is? (Must be Nazi….it sounds sort of neopastoral/Nordic/pagan.)

The (many) schools which do not stage a Nativity Play any more (it’s supposed to be “offensive” to other “faiths”) and in a Christian Nation?

I could go on. You know them all, for you – and the entire civilised world – are all irritated by the supposed need these threatening leftist busybody stormtroopers have for upsetting ordinary conservative people, as some sort of displacement activity to make up for their staggering lack of social graces, or of educational/cultural qualifications of any actual value whatsoever.

“Political Correctness”, as a phrase, shows all the marks of self-regarding intellectual arrogance plus an assumed monopoly of the truth. (And I thought the fascist left derided monopolies?) We liberals, being not (infantile or grown-up) leftists but on the “extreme-right” (their term for our position, not ours!) by contrast know that we ARE correct. This is because history bears out the truth of our hypotheses, about how and why the world and civilised human society functions as it does.

Moreover, we do not distort the terms of civilised discourse by banning the use of certain words that we think can define concepts with which we disagree.

To associate the English word “correct”, with (a) political discourse, and (b) the censorship of words so as to lead to the censorship of ideas, is a crime. I only have to wonder for how long a War Crimes judge will send each of these min-Gramscians to prison for, when we finally get our teeth into their bollocks, in return for all the harm they have done to people.

Merry Christmas, and peace and goodwill to all men – but not to you buggers who are trying to destroy our civilisation. I’m sorry, but I can’t make myself extend the Forgiveness of God at this Christmas time to you bastards. There is too much at stake, too many defenceless people alive whose lives you plan to ruin,  and your gloves have been so very, very off, against us, for so long now, and we have run out of patence with you evil imbeciles.

You understand force and threats and death and abolition of cultural ideas you don’t like; so be careful that your ideas don’t end up perishing in the same way. Better just to become real liberals and forget all that childish Marxist stuff, before it’s too late for you to recant.

As the New Dark Age closes in, non-domiciled newsmakers of conservative disposition will buy blogs and run them outside Nazi jurisdictions, or even from space. How much is this one worth?


David Davis 

Found on Guido, someone asks on the right sidebar “How much is Drudge worth?”

 Of course the LA Blog is not yet in that class, for estimates for Drudge wallow around $10-$40 million, but it’s nice to dream. We’d have to continue to write, I guess, otherwise the buggers would’ve wasted their money.

If Rupert Murdoch is watching, you were at my old College, matey!

What’s to stop a blog being hosted on a geostationary satellite? The costs of bringing one down in flames will be enormous, and beyond the reach of most of this coming century’s moribund collectivisms. The costs of sending up material to it, for relaying down again, will by contrast be nugatory. A few thousand dollars, a tame tech-geek, and someone could do it from the moss-lands round here.

Only the finest blogs will be offered for. These will contain the most organised and most professionally-driven writers, with the sharpest takes on the encroaching destruction of language and thought – who also intend to stay on in the dark.

Perhaps there is some point to knowing about electronics and comms after all, long after we are all expected to not want to.

HOW LIBERTY DIES…REMOVED YOU-TUBE VIDEO ON SEAN GABBS LAST POSTING TODAY IS ON http://devilskitchen.me.uk


IT’S CALLED   >>>  HOW LIBERTY DIES  <<< RIP IT    RIP IT    RIP IT

Ghastly, sick socialist behaviour by the Gauleiters and “ushers” of the “Europarliament”, against a very very large and loud protest IN THE CHAMBER by EuroMPs.