Tag Archives: rights

Another nail in the coffin of Free Speech

David Davis

I will start by saying that it is very juvenile, and also flies in the face of historical fact and actually existing records created in detail by the people-Immolators Themselves, to deny that The Holocaust took place. It is a pointless and futile act, in some cases I am sure designed only to get attention.

That said, it ought not to be a crime, anywhere at all, especially in Germany and Austria for the mmost clear of Classical Liberal and liberty-relevant reasons, to deny these facts. Mountebanks, idiots, and sad people with self-constructed axes to grind, ought to be allowed to say what they believe. Perhaps even a honing of the truth and a better understanding of it will come about as a result. Also perhaps not. But the liberty to say what one thinks is paramount. Sean Gabb did a large piece on holocaust Denial a while ago, here. It already has 243 comments.

But today we learn that an Australian person has been sentenced to a period in chokey for Holocaust Denial. I can’t see the point of this, can you?

Furthermore, what is Australia, a supposedly sensible and down-to-earth country, doing behaving like that?

The way to avoid States making laws that say things like Holocaust Denial is a crime, is for there to be

(1) less powerful States, and

(2) better people.

Unfortunately, people can only become better by

(a) knowing in advance what is good and what is bad, and

(b) staying awake more.

This all presupposes that there must be such a thing as Absolute Morality, and what I guess I’d call “Objective Good” and “Objective Evil”, and so it rather cuts the ground from under the feet of

(i) Socialists,

(ii) Other forms of moral relativist.

Afterthought….about the sort of people who make Holocaust Denial a crime: AND could the MPs’-expenses fleabag-bag-of-scumbags’ stories get any better? We hope so….and we await.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (2)…Libertarian Alliance Conference week celebration post 2

I no longer visit (modernised) English Libraries (whatever for?) and therefore I didn’t know about this…

David Davis

Seen by Edward Vallance, at the “British” “Library”. I bet they have “full internet access” (is there any other sort, pray?) and shelves only about 4 feet high. And ramps everywhere.

And lots of high plain walls. Dat ain’t no library. Coulda-been, once, if built before Stalinism came. Not now.

THIS is a Library……

And this……

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


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

MAGNA CARTA will be signed tomorrow, 15th June. Bookmark it today.

David Davis

 It is of course a disaster of Cosmic proportions, that no such event will happen tomorrow, in this year of 2008.

We are descending into a new Dark Age, and at present I cannot see what can be done about this. It’s the faulr of liberals, for being asleep while pre-capitalist Gramsco-Marxian “Liberals” took over the Universities, the Schools, the State (which was previosjly fairly minimal and declining in power) and the Levers of power. These people, being social misfits and hankerers-after-an-imaginary-arcadia-of-smiling-peasants-and-benign-overlords, have never had any attachment to the (actually-achievable) ideal of individual liberty in an environment with no observable tyrant present. The very idea of such a document as Magna Carta being conceived, let alone signed by a ruler, must be alien to them.

Very funny, from Mark Steyn on NRO

David Davis


And here…

Monday, May 05, 2008

Re: Vegetable rights and peace   [Mark Steyn]

Jonah, all we are saying is give peas a chance.

Actually, I think the Belmont Club has the best observation on Switzerland’s move to “vegetable rights”:

But who is really being “empowered” by the Swiss committee’s decision? Is it plants? No. It is bureaucrats. The point of vegetable rights isn’t to give plants dignity but to transfer yet more individual human freedoms to activists and government officials.

They’ll make vegetables of us all yet.

I’m reminded of a Brit joke from the Eighties: Mrs Thatcher and her all-male cabinet walk into a restaurant. The Prime Minister orders a steak, and the oleaginous waiter asks, “And for the vegetables?”

“Oh, they’ll have what I’m having.”


(NOT) defending a DNA database in the UK ….. Why do people want this monstrosity?

David Davis 

Yesterday Sean Gabb published a rollicking press release from the Libertarian Alliance, laying out the prime reasons why such a state database is a dangerous object, and some mild thoughts as to what ought to be done about it. No other nation on the planet, so far as I know, is having public discussions about this idea, or is having them at such a seemingly advanced stage – nor has such a large existing database…..nearly 4 million people….what for?

We ought to examine the reasons why, in Britain today, there is so little popular AND principled opposition to this idea, or that nobody is rioting due to there being so many, many individuals already on it.

“Tools” such as a DNA database – or indeed any state-run database of private information, ought not to exist – or if they do, should not be left lying about. They exist because if information is able to be collected, then bureauphiles will demand its collection. Perhaps it’s something to do with a bureauphile’s mindset; Samizdata had something worthwhile about this problem a few weeks ago.

We can bet at least 40p, moreover, that a disproportionately large number of these poor listed sods are “young black males”. But where is the supposedly inevitable chorus of howls from the “race relations” industry, or from these people’s “community leaders”? Not a peep. Not really, not interested. Told you so ….. 40p please! There is something fishy going on here. Granted that we all know why these poor young “black” chaps seem unfortunately to draw the Gestapo’s and the Kriminal-Polizei’s attention to themselves – due mainly to Nazi-imposed multiculturalism and deliberately-Stalinised education in the UK, they get into trouble with the “FUZz” rather a lot – but that is another (related) issue. (From “first principles”, the “Fuzz” are supposed to detain villains – if you become a villain due to being desocialised by socialism, then in the first instance it is your problem….in the second it is ours, for we have to get rid of the socialists who have enabled you to feel it is right to be the way you are ……this is another post later.)

So!  What data could a state hold, justifiably, on ALL its subjects/citizens (whichever you prefer)?

In a minimal state regulated by classical liberal tenets, it is reasonable to suppose that a state ought to be allowed names and addresses for taxation purposes. This is not ideal, but conservatives, which is to say liberals (I do not share the US definition of political “liberal”, finding it as I do rather unhelpful since it defines specifically lefties such as the awful Clintons and Michael Moore etc) know that we do not live in an ideal world. But I suppose we could allow it, under condition of a limited bureauphiliac establishment, which is itself disenfranchised out of legal and manichean necessity – a condition of being paid to administer a state.

In a world in which Western civilisation is under mortal assault for the forseeable future, defences need to be organised, enemy personnel need to be watched, thwarted or preferably killed silently, frequently and in ways designed to discourage further attacks. All this costs money, for not everybody can be eligible to be in the SAS or become James Bond - it is probably less inefficient to perform the tasks with collective funds raised by taxations. I don’t agree wholeheartedly with taxes as a principle, but there it is for now; presently we live in an emabattled real world, bounded by practical politics, and beset by enemies.

Insofar as a state is still “responsible” for providing what passes laughably as “health care”, I suppose that some “records” ought to be kept. But this again is not ideal – both for confidentiality reasons and because states have no business ultimately in interfering in the health of subjects, or their habits. The monster can all to easily mutate into a machine for coercion, such as interfering in smoking, drinking, eating, walking/driving habits, and the like. The proper custodians of one’s medical records are one’s doctors, but in a degenerate state-directed system one does not know who these are, and whichever one is seen has no obligation to know one closely or at all – so the status of the records is necessarily public, for all practical purposes So no, state medical records won’t do, I guess.

Education records? States have no justifiable interest in these at all. As the badge used to say, “people should not learn about the government in schools taxed-for and run by the government.” End of story.

Crime? Everyone knows that the strongest drivers of crimes are the criminals’ individual decisions to commit them. I suppose one could justify letting the Police bring prosecutions on the basis of fingerprints found, but what then happens to these things? I hope they are destroyed when convictions are spent, but I guess not. The compulsion to hold onto such potentially useful stuff must be strong, and given that 99.9% of criminals are under about 30, and a few % may go on to re-offend after this age (thought I guess not many, since crime is a young man’s profession) it is tempting to hold onto the dabs.

But enter “SCIENCE” ….. along comes a new technology, supposedly allowing us to know “all about our own genes”, and to allow people seemingly to be distinguished absolutely one from another. Enter now the state!

“We ought to collect this data, on people, don’t you think, Tristan?”…..

…..or whatever your chum at Oxford was called, before you both sat and passed the “Civil Service” with those flying colours and glittering prizes! Both of you probably had the odious, self-regarding Terry Eagleton as your Tutor.

With rampant new biotech firms springing up out of the grass, eager to get fudgepacked by the state, so as to get money to develop and sell it quick DNA-recovery and amplification techniques, it seems a simple and cheap matter for tristan and his chums in the “Home Office” to get the Police to collect DNA from every passer-by who has the bad fortune to enter the “Station” after a good night out, and a bit of slapping.

So, the thing grows. And grows.

Then, since the weeping, distraught parents of murdered underdressed pretty young things who insist on either walking home at 3am after snubbing someone in a “club”, or getting lifts with strange guys, or (worse!) jilt their rough-tough unsocialised boyfriends, make “GOOD TELEVISION”, personal tragedy gets translated into “public calls for” a universal DNA database.” I am sorry, but I deem such weeping parents – WHO AGREE TO BE WIRELESS-TELE-VISULAISED WHILE IN THE ACT OF GRIEVING (which ought to be private) - to be utterly without personal pride or self-respect, and to be a detrimental instrument in the body-politic. Being a parent, I would not begin to want to undergo the same grief they suffer – I can imagine exactly what it would be like, and I wish fervently, under God, never to be in their position. But their grief is a private matter into which the grotesque, evil, smarming, Godless and hell-begotten Wireless Tele Vision monsters ought not to intrude, for it to be broadcast to millions who do not know them, and which is definitely NOT anyone else’s business but their family’s and friends’.

(Why is it always the dead girls who make it so very publicly to the News?) DISCUSS…….. 

“If the database saves one life, it’s worth it” is what we hear, from the Tele-monster journos. Chris Tame’s “safety Nazis” have indeed now struck, in a big way, and the public acquiescence to the idea of a DNA database is being built up.

Then, people in the West are these days not much interested in defending individual rights. This much ought to be obvious from the reports of daily encroachment on normal abilities to do almost anything that did not cause harm to others – coupled with the blurring of the boundaries of what criminals are allowed to get away with.

This is what they’ll say:

“DNA database? And so…? What’s it to me? I’ve got nothing to hide, so I’ve got nothing to fear!”

And so the monster will creep on, and on, and on, until it’s too late and someone has to go in and take it down.

Political Correctness – more on this and the enforcement thereof. Degrading of property rights in the UK by stalinist government

In today’s TIMES, we have this;

Here is a summary if the link breaks;

Greater powers for official ‘snoopers’
Jill Sherman, Whitehall Editor
More than a dozen Bills going through Parliament extend

the powers of state inspectors to enter
people’s homes, the Government has admitted.
Despite a pledge by Gordon Brown last October
that he would limit powers and introduce a liberty
test, he has extended the right to enter property in
planning, crime, environmental, education and
health legislation.
A parliamentary answer obtained by the
Conservatives shows that nine Bills and one draft Bill contain
new powers of entry, with three others entrenching
existing powers.

“The fact that Gordon Brown is entrenching and
extending powers of state bureaucrats to enter
people’s homes makes a mockery of his so-called
review into powers of entry,” Eric Pickles, the
Shadow Communities Secretary, said.
The Counter-terrorism Bill and the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Bill, for example, allow entrance to
properties to enforce “social disorder” and
anti-terrorist laws. The Education and Skills Bill
allows the State to inspect private schools and the
Climate Change Bill allows officials to enter homes
to enforce black bin charges and to monitor
carbon-trading schemes.

Mr Pickles, who said that there was a need for
measures to tackle crime and terrorism, added:
 “Yet this uncontrolled extension contradicts Gordon
Brown’s empty promises on liberty and is another
worrying sign of the surveillance state.”
A survey of state powers to enter people’s homes
by the Centre for Policy Studies last April highlighted
a significant expansion of entry powers under Labour.
The spokesman from the Home Office said that all the
Bills would be included in the review of powers
of entry. The spokesman added that it was inevitable
that some new powers had to be included in the Bills
to ensure the laws were enforceable.

[This is a typical response from a person stripping you of your
liberties, and a somewhat lazy and casual one at that -Christina Speight] (see her blog)

There comes a point where, if we consider what property rights are, the line dividing them from the “rights” (temporal) delegated by consent to a “state” becomes stepped-over, and not by us but by the “state”.

We have to begin putting the word “state” in parantheses, to indicate our further and further sundering from it and its now avowed objectives. This is despite however in favour we were formally, even slightly, of a minimal “state”, as minimal-statist libertarians (there really are such people!)

We ought to consider what remedies can be taken, against this increasing tide of forced entry and (inevitable) turning-over of our private possessions, including our rubbish (which ought also to be private, for quite sound reasons.) So you green-nazis you can go stuff this new stuff up your jacksis – look it up if you don’t know what a “jacksi” is (and I bet you won’t find it on any wiki either.)

Suppose I wanted to dig a coal mine in my back garden, here? I will have to go quite deep, at least 11,000 feet as the “Wigan-Nine” – that great and renowned seam which drove the Battle of the Atlantic in WW1, and which probably does still yet underlie me here, had its shafts about 20 miles east, and tilts west at a gradient of about 1 in 11. Apart from the problem of disposing of the spoil (a simple matter of property rights and contract) why can’t I do it?

The boundary of property rights between the individual and the “state” stops at the individual’s fence. If we allow “states” to tax fixed property (and there are reasonably sound minimal-statist arguments for allowing a limited measure of this, as opposed to “direct taxation of income” which can be corrupted and get out of hand as is now the case) then in return we must have rights of limitation of allowing Nazi bureauphilia-crazed loons to trample unannounced all over our property. If there is no private sphere (the Englishman’s Castle) then we live in Cuba or North Korea and we might as well go there.

Defending animal testing: Rights and Duties, in man and animals – NOW UPDATED Thursday 31st Jan with breaking news about the ubyssey.ca writer’s building…

24th November 2008…..thought I’d put this in from the Daily Mash.

Updated again….25th March 2008 … this post has got so many pageviews that I think a really proper article from the Libertarian Alliance, about this immensely important subject, examining the whole subject of Natural Rights, and whether these apply to “animals” as well as Humans, ought to be produced. AS we are unpaid amateur bloggers, I can’t guarantee when it will appear, but appear it must.

David Davis

[  UPDATE BIT INSERTED  ] The biological sciences building at UBC was “locked-down” (I guess that means closed off for security purposes) by Police, in response to a “threat”. I don’t know about you, but for me that means I bet you 5p it’s the “animal rights” terrorists wot dun it to this seemingly fine university, with a blog run by sensible, down-to-earth students….. I rate these ALF-type people as far, far, far more dangerous to the future of Man in the universe, and something serious will have to be done about them ,or we are f****d.  They are, in strict temporal-comparison terms, far more immediate and nearby, chronically underestimated, and potentially lethal to civilisation than the IRA, the “Palestinians” (whatever those might be,) the EU itself (which shall of course implode eventually) or “Radical” Islam. This latter one does not even get off the starting block for me, if you look at the long term effects of i-ware, pop bands, MacDonalds and fully-available-plus-half-naked-Euro-totty (mostly very nice too, wish we’d had some of this for ourselves in the 50s and early 60s) on “young Islamic men”. I might write a piece entitiled “HOW THE c-THRU CROP-TOP WILL SAVE THE WORLD.”

And now, here’s the original, unupdated post………………!

I chanced accidentally, via Mark Steyn (a bumpkin’s daily must-read, to banish the creeping, all-miasmic socialist-induced depression about the world and man’s fate) on the UBC commentary site, which approximates I guess to a student blog. The link I followed logged stuf about Mark’s and Ezra Levant’s battle with Modern Nazi Canadian Sondergerichte thingies, known as “Human Rights Commissions”. There is of course no place at all, for these wicked fascist organisations in free, grown-up nations such as Canada: a nation which, along with Poland and the rest of the British Empire, fought precapitalist-barbarian-leftism from the first day to the last in 1939-45 (and incidentally in 1914-18 too…) “People” who “staff” these grotesquely evil outfits, ought either to seek help for neuroses, or perhaps they ought to read some good history books. Then, if they refuse these two quite painless courses of help, then they ought to be asked whose side they are on in the present titanic struggle of Civilisation against…well…its opposite, and have to choose sides and fight for it.

But now, to animals!

So, scrolling down, I caught the fag-end of a debate about testing of drugs and the like, on animals. The article on the ubyssey.ca site was written by a 3rd-year Biochemisty “major” (so I guess I must have been one too, once! I still teach the stuff, and am amazed at what now is considered by today’s youngsters to be a matter of fact when we had no blinking clue earlier) who also incidentally does the site’s cartoons from time to time; it is common to find curiously polymathic scientists, the world over. His thesis is that (1) he thinks humans are more important than animals, then also (2) in order to minimize human suffering and danger in the advance of treatment for ills, it is necessary although not perfectly ideal morally to use animals, and (3) animals’ physiology and biochemistry approximates to living human systems, so minimizes the risk of error and failure to spot harmful side-effects of treatments.

I agree totally with all this. However, he has missed vital points.  If these processes violated “animal rights”, then we should have to deduce that IF animals have rights, that they also have duties – and the innate understanding that goes with identifying these. Since animals clearly owe no duties to anyone or anything identifiable (caring for the young even in “higher” (bad term!) animals is not a conscious obligation, merely a result of fully-formed largely helpless young being born in small numbers, and also some selection for survival-behaviour) then they can have no “rights” as defined in human terms, which have evolved and crystallised into our modern views of natural rights of Man.

That of course does not absolve thinking humans from the obligation to protect animals in our charge from unnecessary harm or pain. As animals, not being humans, can therefore be Man’s property, this provision allows the killing of animals (as painlessly as possible – I guess it’s curtains for “halal” meat, then…???) for food, and also the use of them for checking what happens when we give them new drugs etc. Had for example, the testing of drugs on PREGNANT mammals, for teratogenicity, been routine in the 1950s and 60s (naturally, it now is) then thalidomide would never have been licensed for use as a morning-sickness palliative for women, and would never have been described as being “entirely without  known side-effects”. (It was.)

Socialists, tree-hugging dropouts, hunt-saboteurs, social failures, and others who are viscerally-disposed to defend animals’ corner against man and his needs, ought to consider whether they are right to argue that Man is “for the planet”, or whether instead they are mistaken, and in fact “the planet is for Man”. No possible amount of the wearing of Iraq-1 (or even Iraq-2) faux-camouflage day-leisurewear (made in Vietnam) in the shopping-precincts of Bootle – or elsewhere, even when “doing hunts” - will increase the credibility of these people.

In the end, all the motives of such people come down to a kind of neo-pastoralist lament, supposedly for some past “golden age”, when Man lived in harmony with “his surroundings”, had no influence over them whatever, and “the Lion lay down with the Lamb”….I notice it was never “the Spider with the Insect”. Does anybody consider the rights of insects (animals too, see below) in respect of spiders (also animals?)

Does it always have to be Man who carries the can? If so, then why?

Do “animals rights” “activists” consider Drosophila Melanogaster (the Fruit Fly) to be an animal? It is. To a first approximation, mathematically, “ALL ANIMALS FLY”. Do they know that? Have they done the sums? Animals are not just comprised of furry brown-eyed mammals, and nought else. Many entire phyla of animals have eaten each other, in the normal course of their business, in the most contemporaneously-horrible ways, for hundreds and hundreds of millions of years, before we even arrived.

Finally, no scientist I have ever known wants, or has ever wanted, to be gratuitously cruel to animals.  My father was a scientist for the MAFF for 35 years after the war, and supervised among his other responsibilities (when MAFF was useful for something, such as helping farmers to extract more tons per acre, not like DEFRA now) a “room” and its own staff, which (room) I saw often, and which was full of quite large cages of white rats and mice, all carefully labelled and logged. The temperature was monitored 24/7, the staff knew exactly how old all the creatures were, and where, which cages had to be cleaned when, what amounts of food and water where to be given to what colonies at what hour, etc. I was even allowed to ” privately own” some of the creatures from time to time if I was a good boy, and I kept them at home, looking after them myself in my own cage system, and selling the babies in pairs for 2/6d a pair….if I thought the new owner was a responsible keeper. Yeah yeah whatever, slavery mumble groan knickers. I bought dinky Toys with the proceeds. And Mecanno. And Bayko rods and the like. (Floors are almost unobtainable these days.)

But neo-pastoralist lefties, posing as “scientists” (what a staggering corruption that was) such as Joseph Mengele both authorised and carried out personally the beheading of living human children, for “experiments” on “brains”.  I don’t think you’d get scientists doing this to animals, let alone humans, See and wiki their henchmen, Walter Darré, Adolf Hitler (who loved dogs) and Baldur von Schirach, those great reforming neo-pastoralist European socialists, who were all “kind to animals”, and also had strong views about “people” – particularly those whom their twisted, barbarian precapitalist strain of neopastoralism, led them  to regard as animals.

If proper classical Science was taught to 7-year-olds onwards, we owuld not have the problem of violent disputes over “animal” “rights”. Does anyone know if other advanced nations have such a problem?

Surveillance cameras: what is to be done about this imposition?

Samizdata has an interesting analysis of the problem of the UK being the most state-videoed nation on the planet, and yet our crime statistics are not good. They put us somewhere near outer-Jipoo-poo-land, where the guvmint lives behind mined and wired walls and rides about in “Mercs-4-Jerks” so it does not matter to them.

The point made is that “criminals” live by one set of rules, which they understand perfectly and which the criminal-processing-bureaucracy also understands. Camerae are of no deterrent value whatever, for the criminals know what to say at every turn, and the law-abiding with lots to lose fear to get tangled up. Samizdata contends, probably rightly, that while camerae inconvenience us since we would not want to brush with the state and indeed do not know how to, they do not inconvenience the Wicked Classes, who have taken a decision to be like that.

I wonder if it’s time to get tough universally on criminals? That is to say, people who violate the Natural Rights of others? Yes yes yes I KNOW bureaucrats do this too, but that’s a different battle, where we’d choose different ground to fight on….

A criminal taking or dealing in drugs would not concern us since he is probably not harming anyone at this moment – merely degrading his own life (I think all drugs ought to be legalised by the way.) A criminal stealing our car, or rummaging in our garage, or mugging our wife, is a different matter.

It is becoming increasingly clear that bad laws ought to be, indeed must be, broken, and broken and broken again and angain and again, on the wheel of reality, until they are no more. It must now beocme the duty of good-people to break laws that give advantage to bad-people, given that it will take two or three (or more) generations of time to eradicate the socialist-driven production of bad-people, and we can’t just go out today and kill all the bad-people (even if we mostly know who they are, and where they live….)

Bad-people who, say, mug us, or break into our houses and cars to take things that belong to us and not them, ought to not complain if they find themselves partially-dismembered or punctured in the chest with a handy pen-knife, and left to bleed to death, or shot in the face at less than a yard with a b-b-gun, and blinded. Further, we might then need to confiscate their mobile, while kicking them repeatedly in the balls, so they can’t ring for the police or an ambulant thingy. They have interfered with our Natural Rights (there are no others as we all know.) We might then stamp all over them and put them in the wheelybin, or bury them in the back garden. The more of such people who would disappear without trace, the more word would get round that it may not be as profitable as was thought, to be like that. I can’t see that the “police” need to be much involved at all, since their attentions only end up a hinderance to the law-abiding  – under the current settlement about law and crime. (An interesting development would ensue when the Wicked Classes begin to inform the Police of their own whereabouts when just about to commit some nefarious deed….then we will know we are winning.)

Heriot and Mortuary. Do we really, really want to live in a country which still practises these, er, pre-capitalist and barbaric practices?

I refer you all to David Carr’s grand post below. In pre-capitalist times, here (and I expect it was worse in “Europe”, for most things are) it was the custom of the local Church, and of the local warlord, to come round at your death, or send his/their agents, and mug your grieving relatives of “the best beast” for the Church, and a portion of specie for the Lord. It was reckoned, from as early as the 11th century and probably rightly, to be a good moment to do that since the TV crews had not yet got their act together to provide “Good Television” of the family’s collective grief.

Magna Carta went a little way towards rectifying the injustice in principle (to the disgust and horror of Philip the Fair and of Louis of France) but not very much. And of course, initially, only for the “Barons”, who had most to lose to an autarkic state since they more or less voluntarily positioned themselves closest to it – really, in real terms! A few feet away most of the time, as it constituted a wooden box or boxes called the “exchequer”….

Now that the State is supposed to be “limited”, there is no rational explanation for mugging poor grieving people of their departed’s wealth. It is not a right that grievers themselves possess, and that is pointed towards the property of other grievers. Therefore, not possessing such right, they cannot delegate it, either to others or to any agency.

Therefore there can be no IHT.