Alter or Abolish?

For obvious reasons, I’m a fan of John Locke. Some people have asked me whether I’m descended from him, but unfortunately, all the so-called “authorities” agree that he had no children.

The times we live in today are much like the times he lived in. If you doubt me, read your 17^th-century English history. Civil War, Plague, Fire, Popish Plot, Judge Jeffreys, ... It was worse than we thought!

I want today to draw your attention to four of his quotes. The first, from the First Treatise of Government, paragraph 92:

“…but government being for the preservation of every man’s right and property, by preserving him from the violence or injury of others, is for the good of the governed: for the magistrate’s sword being for a “terror to evil doers,” and by that terror to enforce men to observe the positive laws of the society, made conformable to the laws of nature, for the public good, i.e., the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules it can be provided for…”

There has never been a better description of what government is supposed to be for. But he was guilty of an omission! Which he corrected in the Second and much more famous Treatise, paragraph 10:

“Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done, and some person or other, some other man, receives damage by his transgression; in which case, he who hath received any damage has (besides the right of punishment common to him, with other men) a particular right to seek reparation from him that hath done it. And any other person who finds it just may also join with him that is injured, and assist him in recovering from the offender so much as may make satisfaction for the harm he hath suffered.”

Yes! Criminals – real criminals – deserve not only to be punished in due measure for their crimes, but also to be made to pay reparations to those they wronged.

Locke, though, knew what law is for. Paragraph 57 of the Second Treatise

“…the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”

Oh, how badly our current slavemasters treat us!

Governments today don’t punish the criminals, but the innocent. All the political parties are the same; they reward their cronies (whether rich or “poor”), and punish productive, honest people who don’t accept their agendas,

Which leads to my last Locke quote for today, from paragraph 149:

“…yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them. For all power given with trust for the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security.”

Yes, and the criminals that made the bad laws should be punished and made to pay reparations, too!

Locke’s last point was even more memorably put a century later, in the US Declaration of Independence:

…that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

We’ve tried putting new faces in charge many times. It doesn’t do any good, does it? So, my friends, which is it? Alter or abolish?

Political Tolerance

Neil’s Note: I see I haven’t published a proper essay here for a few months now. This will rectify that. And it’s good to put down some thoughts on how – even without the involvement of extraterrestrials - we might make the transition from today’s political societies to Galactic freedom and justice.

I am in the throes of writing a Philosophy (with a capital P). One subject I have touched on is tolerance. This is part of what I have written on the subject:

“History is littered with intolerance of difference. Whites versus blacks, browns, yellows, and those of mixed race. Protestants against Catholics, both against atheists, and everybody against Jews. One nation-state or group of nation-states against another. Ruling classes versus middle classes, versus working classes. Men against women, “straights” against gays.

Now race, religion, gender, origin and accident of birth can still, indeed, be barriers to individual advancement. But in recent centuries, we have made considerable progress towards tolerance of difference. Except in one area. And that is, political tolerance.

As other types of intolerance have improved, it seems that political intolerance has worsened. Socialists, deep greens, religious and social conservatives, Eurocrats, warmongers, bullies, snoops, immigration and population control freaks, alcohol and smoking haters, drug warriors, energy haters, car haters, gun haters (in the US), freedom haters, business haters, success haters and many more; all have their agendas. All want to impose them on others, whether we like it or not. And democracy makes things worse, not better.

Today, you don’t even have to be different to become a victim of political intolerance; you just need to exist. The humanity haters – I call them the Political Intolerants, or PITs for short – are having a field day.”

Now, I’ll inject a radical thought. Imagine, just imagine, if in place of today’s nation-states and federations we had genuine political tolerance. Imagine if each of us could join, or at need form, organizations to provide us with the government we want. (Following Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I will call them “law societies.”) Imagine if each of us could choose which set of laws we should be governed by. Imagine if we could associate freely with our fellows who agree with our values, and could say “No” to those that want to use political machinations to force on us agendas we don’t want.

Now of course, there would need to be some agreements between the law societies. I see a need for at least three such agreements. First, not to make war against each other. And in the event of a war, to help the victims defend against the aggressors. Second, an arbitration mechanism for objective, just resolution of disputes between law societies and between individuals in them. And third, a clearing house through which, when a member of one law society causes objective damage to a member of another, the victim can claim compensation from the perpetrator.

With me so far? OK, I’ll make a few suggestions.

I’m no fan of geographically based states, but there is at least one group of PITs, the warmongers, that we definitely will need to allot their own physical plot of land. A tract of Mongolian desert would do nicely. To that enclave, we will deport all promoters and supporters of aggressive wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever else. No nukes, but we’ll let them take whatever other weapons they like – one each. Then they can use guns, bombs, tanks, drones and whatever else they can lay their hands on to kill each other. Without doing any harm to the rest of us.

The bullies can be dealt with too; simply by chucking them in with the warmongers. Bullies enjoy violence, don’t they? Well, we’ll give them what they want.

A third group also will receive their own territory; the immigration control freaks. We’ll give them a ring-shaped territory, completely surrounding the warmongers’ enclave. And we’ll give them the job of not letting the warmongers out. Not even one of them, not even once, not ever.  For once, immigration control freaks will serve a socially useful purpose! For the brief time the warmongers’ and bullies’ enclave survives, at least.

The rest of us, hopefully, should be able to get along well enough not to need borders or political governments.

Socialists, for example, could have the communal ownership of the means of production, and the subordination of the individual to society, which they so greatly desire. They could, if they wish, tax the productive out of existence for the sake of the lazy and dishonest. Within their own communes, of course, and without affecting anyone else. How long those communes would last, is a subject for debate. The history of New Harmony, Indiana, may be a pointer.

Greenies could have their own communes too. They could hug trees as often, as hard and as long as they like. They could give up all use of energy and mechanical transport, and could wear masks to sequester the carbon dioxide they breathe out. If they wish, they could also wear green pointy hats with the word “Denier” on them. And population control freaks could be allowed a special right to kill themselves and their children without further penalty.

Religious conservatives could have their own rules – no pork, no alcohol, no abortion, fish on Fridays, no trade on Sundays (or was that Saturdays or Fridays?). And all of these, without affecting anyone else. And if they like, they could eschew contact with those of other religions (or no religion).

Social and economic conservatives could have a system in which the well-connected get rich, and everyone else is poor. (Oh dear, that’s no different from the socialists, is it?) But no-one would be forced to belong to their system. And Eurocrats could enjoy a Europe without borders – and without bureaucracies, either.

Health freaks could have their non-smoking enclaves. Drug warriors could prohibit plants like marijuana from being grown in their gardens. Car haters could have their (individual) car-free zones on their property. Snoops could enjoy their right to snoop on each other (but not on anyone else). Class freaks could reject contact with anyone not in their particular favoured class.

Meanwhile, those of us who favour individual freedom, free markets and the rule of law and justice, could have what we want too. A peaceful society of live and let live, where each individual takes responsibility for his or her own life. A society where everyone is free to develop themselves to the maximum, and to strive to make themselves as rich as they wish through honest business and trade.

Now, my friend, answer this question: Which of all these societies do you think would be the most sustainable?

The Huhne Tune

I’m still coming down from the high of hearing about the recent discomfiture of Chris Huhne. It couldn’t have happened to a better advertisement for politics! So I offer another little ditty, which hopefully some may find amusing.

(To be sung to the theme tune of the ‘60s radio show “I’m Sorry I’ll Read That Again.”)

My name is Chris Paul-Huhne,

 and I favour policies to force people out of their cars,

My name is Chris Paul-Huhne,

 and my deepest yearning is to force people out of their cars.

And that’s such a blast,

 ‘Cos I love to drive - fast!

 And I thought they would never catch ME.

My name is Chris Paul-Huhne,

 And this is the tune,

 Of justice being done, J-U-S-T-I,

 Soon they’ll put me be-hind bars!

Clunk-click, Chris.

In Memory of Chris Huhne

There was once a politico, Huhne,

That fiddled an anti-car tune.

Yet it drove, in its car,

Far too fast – and too far!

But from justice, it wasn’t immune.

See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-trial-right-to-the-end-chris-huhne-thought-his-lawyers-could-get-him-off-8480735.html

and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273555/Hypocrisy-hubris-man-played-family-card-How-Chris-Huhnes-attempt-avoid-points-defines-political-ambition-lack-judgement.html

On Positive Feedbacks in Climate

Neil's Note: I enjoyed writing this one. The "global warmists" tell us that any warming or other climate change we cause will be amplified by effects as yet undefined; so let's take them at their word!

(Hat tip to Augustus de Morgan)

Great heats have lesser heats which grow before to cause ’em,

And little heats have lesser heats, and so ad nause-ausam.

The great heats themselves in turn cause greater heats in future,

And greater heats give “reasons” for politicals to loot yer.

(You can substitute “droughts,” “rains,” or “colds” for “heats” in the above).

Neil's Climate Carol Book

Warm Christmas

I’m dreaming of a warm Christmas,

Just like the ones I used to know,

Until strong declining in our Sun’s shining

Brought on a time of ice and snow,

I’m dreaming of a warm Christmas

With every thought that I can form.

May you keep from cold, snow and storm!

And may all your Christmases be warm.

O Come, All Ye Faithful

O come, all ye faithful,

Greenies, leftists, journos,

O come, all believers in agendas green.

See droughts and storming?

Preach “That’s Global Warming!”

O come hide the decline,

O come hide the decline,

O come hide the decline,

God! It’s cold.

Deck the Halls

Deck the halls with lots of lolly,

Falalala la, lala la la.

‘Tis the season of green folly,

Falalala la, lala la la,

We’ve just got a fat new grant,

Lies to tell and fear to plant,

So we’re feeling rather jolly,

Falalala la for Climate Change!

Hark! The Warmist Chorus Sings

Hark! The warmist chorus sings,

Praise to Michael Mann’s tree-rings.

So they say, these demonstrate

Warming at alarming rate.

CO2 they say’s the problem,

6 degrees and more per double’em.

So we must shut down the West,

And give trillions to the Rest.

Hark! The warmist chorus sings,

“We will tax you till it stings!”

But Reality intrudes;

Slowly, slowly, babes and dudes

Come to know the warmist meme

Ain’t as truthful as may seem.

Honesty is re-asserted,

Science is no more perverted,

Human progress is resumed,

Gone’s the thinking “we’re all doomed.”

Hark! We human beings say,

We can find a better way.

Broadcast versus Internet

Like many people in the UK, I have come to despise BBC TV. The other TV channels, too.

I haven’t watched TV at home for two years. Besides which, during that time, UK TV switched to digital, and my two dinosaur TVs are 22 and 16 years old respectively. So, I recently responded to a licence demand for £145 with “I no longer watch TV at home, and I do not have at the above address any television set capable of receiving digital transmissions.”

Now, I’m not too worried about the Jimmy Savile affair; such things happen. Surely, p(a)edophiles knowingly violate the human rights of their victims, and so are criminals. But they’re not nearly as bad as, say, soldiers that murder innocent Afghans or Iraqis in aggressive war. And producers that overlook indiscretions aren’t nearly as bad as politicians that make wars, taxes or bad laws on the basis of nothing but a crock of BS.

The Lord McAlpine scandal was a little different. Lord McAlpine must have looked, at first sight, like a perfect witch-hunt victim. A stuffed-up Tory (and so a favo(u)rite target for the BBC). Turning his back on political correctness (worse). And living outside the UK, too (in tax exile? Worse still). How to “get” him? Easy; accuse him of being a p(a)edophile. The masses will believe the BBC not the facts, and will excoriate him!

But Lord McAlpine was not such an easy victim after all. Not only was he innocent of the charge laid against him, but he could prove it, too. Furthermore, he had on his side what is left of the old ruling class; so his voice was heard.

Then there is the affair called “28gate.” Now the BBC is supposed, according to its charter, to be unbiased. To follow the facts, wherever they lead.

The BBC has long peddled green propaganda. And it has claimed again and again that human activities cause potentially catastrophic global climate change. That idea is, to say the least, dubious. But the BBC moved to full bias mode after a seminar held in January 2006.

According to a 2007 audit report by the BBC Trust, the BBC “has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.” In other words, if you don’t agree with the “WE are causing catastrophic global warming” orthodoxy, your view won’t be broadcast, so won’t be listened to.

But who did most of those 28 “experts” turn out to be? Greenpeace. “Stop Climate Chaos”. Church of England. “International Institute for Environment and Development.” Tearfund. (Who are they? Ask Google). Oh yes, and BP had a representative there too. And “Npower Renewables.” There were, it is true, a few scientists included; but they were all supporters of the orthodoxy. There wasn’t a skeptic in sight.

Best? Scientific? Unbiased? Tirez l’autre.

The sting in the tail is that the BBC recently spent lots of money on lawyers to oppose a Freedom of Information request for the names of those attending that 2006 seminar. The BBC won the case, but a few days later a blogger discovered that list – and more – on the open Internet. Praise be to the Wayback Machine!

And it isn’t just the BBC whose broadcasting I have rejected. I have rejected advertising, as well.

For years, regardless of channel, I have switched off the sound when TV ad(vert)s came on. Now, I remember a long-ago time when some of them were actually fun. From my visits to the US in the ‘80s, I remember “Nothing works like a Chevy truck” and “Where’s the Beef?” I enjoyed those; though I didn’t buy. The last ad that didn’t turn me off was the Energizer Bunny of 1989. Now? Ads are mostly evasiveness and misdirection.

And I have rejected TV news. Now, I confess that I have “previous” in this area. Even in my teenage years, I would usually go out of the room when my parents put the news on. For I have always been quick to recognize bullshit and spin. And I am well aware that few, if any, of the stories on TV news are the whole truth – or even “nothing but the truth.” In the US, most news is biased according to the political beliefs of the faithful of the particular channel. Elsewhere, it is biased towards political correctness and away from facts and independent thought.

But “modern” news is even worse – it is so intrusive. For me, “breaking news” becomes broken news at the first repetition.

Things are hardly better with “entertainment.” There was a time – the ‘70s, and a little way into the ‘80s - when I found some entertainment program(me)s to be, for want of a better word, entertaining. No longer. Today’s “entertainment” seems to be no more than a series of “celebs,” most of whom I’ve never even heard of, behaving badly towards each other and the rest of us.

The one thing broadcasting does well is to relay the atmosphere of a live event – for example, a football match. But I don’t need to watch that at home – I can go to the pub, can’t I?

Reading what I have written here, you might be forgiven for thinking that I am a traditionalist conservative. But I am not that at all! If you doubt me, read my novelJ.

So then, I have given up on TV. Do I then, now live my life in isolation from other people and their ideas? Not at all. I use the Internet.

There are some very obvious advantages of the Internet over broadcasting as a source of information – and, indeed, of entertainment too. First, it’s under your control where you browse. You don’t have to accept other people’s choices or go out of the room, as I had to in my teens.

Second, you can browse when you want, without having to think ahead. Granted, since video recorders became available, you can record a broadcast for subsequent watching. But that still requires planning in advance.

Third, the Internet allows you to look back in time, to what sites looked like in the past. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Praise be to the Wayback Machine! Of course, it can be embarrassing, to those of us who run websites, to be caught “with our pants down.” But, to honest people, the benefits greatly outweigh the risks.

Fourth, the Internet enables you to compare and contrast different viewpoints on an issue. You aren’t stuck with one politically correct channel, or with several views none of which you find sensible. And better, if you can read a language or two, you aren’t even restricted to sites in English!

Fifth, anyone can get in, cheaply, on the Internet publishing act. Even me!

Sixth, even the mainstream print media feel themselves forced to have an Internet presence. You can, therefore, read most of the guff produced by “the papers” – if you want to – for free.

Of course, the Internet has problems. First, there’s a lot of garbage out there, as well as the good stuff. But that, to me, is merely an incentive to sharpen my judg(e)mental skills, to improve my (already decent) BS meter.

Second, the Internet is young. It’s starting to work quite well at providing information (here, I find myself tipping my hat to Google, and ever so slightly inclining it towards Wikipedia). It’s not yet even infant at providing entertainment; though YouTube, perhaps, may grow. Facebook and Twitter, as yet, I reserve judg(e)ment on.

Third, there are those that want to destroy or control the Internet, and to censor us and restrict our freedom of speech. Some of them have vested interests in the existing political system and in the old media. Others want to rule over and to harm innocent people. You know who – and what – they are.

Anyone with even a milligram of love of freedom in their bones must reject the Internet censors and their policies. For, if their ideas were worth anything, they would simply publish them (on the Internet, indeed!), and let individual people judge them as each sees fit. Those that want to censor others’ ideas are merely showing that their own ideas are worthless. And so, that they are worthless.

Fourth, the Internet copyright situation is a mess. Unlike some of my friends, I do not subscribe to the idea that there can be no such thing as copyright. I copyright my novel, indeedJ. For an author has invested a large amount of time and effort into his saleable work. He deserves to reap the rewards from what he has sown, according to how his readers judge its worthiness. And therefore, he deserves protection from those that would rip off his work, and sell it as if it was their own.

On the other hand, the only just aim of copyright laws is to protect the reasonable interests of the author (or his heirs or assigns). Therefore, copyright can only ever be a civil-law matter, and to try to make copyright violation a criminal offen(s/c)e is wrong. My view is that something publicly available without payment cannot be copyrighted. In other words, nothing on the Internet can be copyright, unless it’s behind a paywall. The only copyright infringement possible on the Internet is to take something from behind a paywall, and then publish it on the open Internet. And the only sensible sanction is damages for loss of reasonably expected income.

All that remains is for me to wish my readers much enjoyment of this small morsel of thought, and a happy beginning to the new era beyond the Mayan calendar.