[Jason Vines]

According to Britain's [url="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15/tall_photographers/"]The Register[/url], Kent police asked a man to produce identification because he was a tall man shooting photographs:

[quote name='The Register' date='15 July 2009 - 12:45 PM']According to [url="http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/"]his blog[/url], our over-tall photographer Alex Turner was taking snaps in Chatham High St last Thursday, when he was approached by two unidentified men. They did not identify themselves, but demanded that he show them some ID and warned that if he failed to comply, they would summon police officers to deal with him.

This they did, and a PCSO and WPC quickly joined the fray. Turner took a photo of the pair, and was promptly arrested. It is unclear from his own account precisely what he was being arrested for. However, he does record that the WPC stated she had felt threatened by him when he took her picture, referring to his size - 5' 11" and about 12 stone -and implying that she found it intimidating.

Turner claims he was handcuffed, held in a police van for around 20 minutes, and forced to provide ID before they would release him. He was then searched in public by plain clothes officers who failed to provide any ID before they did so.

Following his release, he further claims that the police confirmed he was at liberty to take photographs, so long as - according to the PCSO - he did not take any photographs of the police.[/quote]
In attempting to explain their treatment of the photographer, Kent police said:

[quote name='Kent police']"At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a report concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and people in Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was thought was suspicious.

"As a result, he was arrested and asked to wait in a police vehicle while his details were checked. He was released a short time later after these details had been properly verified, and no further action has been taken.[/quote]
Declining civil liberties in the United Kingdom has been the subject of much commentary over the past few years. This episode is a case in point, with the hallmarks of a budding police state in full display:

• "Papers, please" -- as [url="http://www.theagitator.com/2009/08/15/something-is-happening-here-but-you-dont-know-what-it-is/"]Radley Balko[/url], a journalist who specializes in exposes of police corruption and brutality, notes, this used to be a joke about the distrust totalitarian regimes held for their own citizens. Spurning the principles of "innocent until proven guilty" and "right to privacy," paranoid autocrats considered almost everyone under their dominion a potential criminal unless proven otherwise. Now, British police -- as well as their American counterparts -- are increasingly channeling that paranoia. Woe betide the British or American citizen who doesn't carry identification!
• Common, harmless activities are increasingly subject to official scrutiny and harassment. This episode is just one of a panoply of shocking excesses: In Britain, according to Londoner [url="http://www.reason.com/news/show/134489.html"]Brendan O'Neill[/url], a suspicious culture of nosy busybodies is developing around "anti-social behavior orders," with which the government encourages citizens to spy on each other and report annoying behavior. O'Neill says:

[quote name='Brendan O'Neill']The ASBO system has turned much of Britain into a curtaintwitching, neighbor-watching, noisepolicing gang of spies. The relative ease with which one can apply to the authorities for an ASBO positively invites people to use the system to punish their foes or the irritants who live in their neighborhoods. ASBOs have been used to prevent young people in certain areas from wearing hoods or hats (they look "threatening"), to ban a middle-aged couple from playing gangsta rap (the expletives offended workers and children at a nearby kindergarten), and to prevent a 10-year-old boy from having contact with matches until he turns 16, after he was found to have started a fire.[/quote]

• Cops not wearing uniforms or presenting badges searched a law-abiding citizen without judicial authority to do so.
• The police ordered a citizen not to photograph them. As the crew of [url="http://motorhomediaries.com/jones-county-sheriffs-department-falsely-arrests-mhd-crew/"]Motorhome[/url] [url="http://motorhomediaries.com/ohhhh-canada-not-again/"]Diaries[/url] has [url="http://motorhomediaries.com/ohhhhh-canada/"]discovered[/url], law enforcement aversion to photography and video recording of their activities has spread in North America as well. [url="http://www.positiveliberty.com/2009/07/the-ability-to-define-the-truth.html"]Jason Kuznicki[/url] celebrates the modern near-ubiquity of these technologies as a powerful new tool for citizens to hold cops accountable. But agents of an emerging police state would seek escape from such accountability, maybe not because they want to get away with corruption and abuse, but because [url="http://www.theagitator.com/2009/07/29/response-to-patterico-and-jack-dunphy/"]they view themselves through the prism of society's worship of them as heroic protectors[/url] against the hordes of criminals about which the media bloviates. Perhaps they look down on the public from the pedestals onto which the citizenry has raised them and so resist accountability because they're not used to it.

On both sides of the Atlantic, vexing trends in police behavior are increasingly apparent: disregarding privacy, hassling individuals engaging in legal behavior, resisting accountability and exposure. Both [url="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/11/tasers/index.html"]American[/url] and [url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194719/Police-blast-man-89-50-000-volt-taser-gun.html"]British[/url] [url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479341/Now-police-told-use-Taser-guns-children.html"]police[/url] [url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494199/Police-shot-diabetic-coma-Taser--thought-suicide-bomber.html"]are[/url] also abusing tasers in trying to ensure compliance with their directives. Digby, filling in for Glenn Greenwald, describes the situation (in the first link of the previous sentence):

[quote name='Digby' date='11 August 2009 - 6:11 PM']As awful as the possibility of death is, tasers would be a blight on any free people even if they weren't so often deadly. Tasers were sold to the public as a tool for law enforcement to be used in lieu of deadly force. Presumably, this means situations in which officers would have previously had to use their firearms. It's hard to argue with that, and I can't think of a single civil libertarian who would say that this would be a truly civilized advance in policing. Nobody wants to see more death and if police have a weapon they can employ instead of a gun, in self defense or to stop someone from hurting others, I think we all can agree that's a good thing.

But that's not what's happening. Tasers are routinely used by police to torture innocent people who have not broken any law and whose only crime is being disrespectful toward their authority or failing to understand their "orders." There is ample evidence that police often take no more than 30 seconds to talk to citizens before employing the taser, they use them while people are already handcuffed and thus present no danger, and are used often against the mentally ill and handicapped. It is becoming a barbaric tool of authoritarian, social control.[/quote]

[Cymro]

New layout is nice.

Quote

According to his blog, our over-tall photographer Alex Turner was taking snaps in Chatham High St last Thursday, when he was approached by two unidentified men. They did not identify themselves, but demanded that he show them some ID and warned that if he failed to comply, they would summon police officers to deal with him.

This they did, and a PCSO and WPC quickly joined the fray. Turner took a photo of the pair, and was promptly arrested. It is unclear from his own account precisely what he was being arrested for. However, he does record that the WPC stated she had felt threatened by him when he took her picture, referring to his size - 5' 11" and about 12 stone -and implying that she found it intimidating.

Turner claims he was handcuffed, held in a police van for around 20 minutes, and forced to provide ID before they would release him. He was then searched in public by plain clothes officers who failed to provide any ID before they did so.

Following his release, he further claims that the police confirmed he was at liberty to take photographs, so long as - according to the PCSO - he did not take any photographs of the police.

Nothing ever changes but the shoes.

In the past when police would do exactly the same thing, except in the past there were no arrests and no records, and no blogs for the average citizen to get the word out with. If a cop didn't like what you were doing, he'd rough you up a bit and you'd understand that you were to keep your mouth shut if you knew what was good for you. It's not a shocker, really, this is ultimately what the Anti-Terror legislation has amounted to; a way of legitimizing bad behaviour that in the past would have gone unreported, and supposedly wouldn't otherwise be tolerated today. This is entirely speculative, but perhaps that's why the Police want all these new powers and initiatives?

It's surely not to protect against terrorism. There has been a serious threat of terrorism in this country for fifty years, and these powers were never considered at all necessary in the past, in fact I'm quite sure most successful terrorist plots succeed because they weren't investigated (properly) with existing powers, as was the case for both 9/11 and 7/7. The new laws are an absolute joke, and despite having never been used to successfully foil terrorism, they have been used for pretty much anything else you can think of, from checking up to see if a child lives inside their school's catchment area. to freezing the assets of Icelandic banks to safeguard the money of British depositors.

But it's not going to change. Despite being vocal in their opposition to some of these measures, you don't hear anything from the Conservatives unless there's a civil liberties piece in the news cycle*, so you know they don't care, and the idea of the Liberal Democrats ever achieving power is still a punchline. The fact is that Civil Liberties are only an issue for two sets of people: those who're harassed and detained without cause, and as always, the intellectuals. Habeas Corpus means nothing to the average Brit, regardless of how much we like to parade our great "traditions", and disturbingly, "You'll be fine unless you have something to hide" seems to be the prevailing attitude.

People like me, who genuinely believe in liberty are a fringe group.

*Excluding the notable example of David Davis MP, who quit the Shadow Cabinet and has now become somewhat of a Civil Liberties campaigner.

[Jason Vines]

Cymro said:

Habeas Corpus means nothing to the average Brit, regardless of how muchwe like to parade our great "traditions", and disturbingly, "You'll befine unless you have something to hide" seems to be the prevailingattitude.

People like me, who genuinely believe in liberty are a fringe group.

In the Star Trek: Mirror Universe novella The Sorrows of Empire, crusader Spock seizes power and implements liberal reforms. But he realizes a democratic republic could not stand on the foundation of a society that cares little for freedom. So he lets the Klingon-Cardassian Alliance conquer the Terran Empire, anticipating that when the Alliance inevitably collapsed under its oppressive weight, and the peoples of the Empire sundered their chains, they'd cherish their liberty because they'd know what not having it means.

I sometimes wonder if the West also might have to lose its freedom in order to value it again. The importance of such "quaint" notions as habeas corpus and right to privacy would become readily apparent after they're gone.

But Friedrich Hayek, after fretting over a similar dismality to mine above, suggests maybe freedom just needs to become exciting again for people to fall in love with it anew (emphases mine):

Friedrich Hayek said:

The main lesson which the true liberal must learn from the success of the socialists is that it was their courage to be Utopian which gained them the support of the intellectuals and therefore an influence on public opinion which is daily making possible what only recently seemed utterly remote. Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this had rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.

Friedrich Hayek said:

we must be able to offer a new liberal program which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a program which seems neither a mere defense of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical, and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. We need intellectual leaders who are willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realization. They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization, however remote. The practical compromises they must leave to the politicians. Free trade and freedom of opportunity are ideals which still may arouse the imaginations of large numbers, but a mere "reasonable freedom of trade" or a mere "relaxation of controls" is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm.

Perhaps defenders of freedom would have more success by daring to be Utopian and showing passion and courage even in the face of long odds.

Cymro said:

But it's not going to change. Despite being vocal in their opposition to some of these measures, you don't hear anything from the Conservatives unless there's a civil liberties piece in the news cycle*, so you know they don't care, and the idea of the Liberal Democrats ever achieving power is still a punchline.

I'm not sure politicians would be a reliable wellspring of "change," anyway. Consider the Republicans who stormed the Capitol in 1995 after running on the Contract with America. They quickly "smelled the marble," abandoning much of their agenda and engaging in corruption and powermongering just as the Democrats did. Whereas the party in power had changed, the culture that incentivized malfeasance and oligarchy had not.

Changing that culture by concentrating on popular persuasion must antecede viable political change.

Cymro said:

This is entirely speculative, but perhaps that's why the Police want all these new powers and initiatives?

I'm sure many of them actually do just want to do their jobs. The main problems I see are:

• Hysteria over violence and terrorism;
• Public worship of the "men in blue" that degrades will to scrutinize them;
• The attraction positions of power hold to people with (maybe unconscious) authoritarian tendencies.

I don't think a lot of cops go to work intending to harass and intimidate people. But incentives matter, and I think overreaching, abusive behavior is incentivized.

[Jason Vines]

The New York Civil Liberties Union has a disturbing article germane to this topic: "Record Number of Innocent New Yorkers Stopped, Interrogated by NYPD During First Half of Year."

The NYPD is stopping and searching thousands of innocent people without probable cause, and then storing their personal information in a database.

I can understand deploying many cops to patrol the streets of densely populated cities. I can understand zero tolerance policing comporting with the broken-windows theory of law enforcement.

But the NYPD's actions here seem to have little crime-fighting utility. And they show little respect for citizens' constitutional rights to privacy and due process.

[Cymro]

Quote

In the Star Trek: Mirror Universe novella The Sorrows of Empire, crusader Spock seizes power and implements liberal reforms. But he realizes a democratic republic could not stand on the foundation of a society that cares little for freedom. So he lets the Klingon-Cardassian Alliance conquer the Terran Empire, anticipating that when the Alliance inevitably collapsed under its oppressive weight, and the peoples of the Empire sundered their chains, they'd cherish their liberty because they'd know what not having it means.

I sometimes wonder if the West also might have to lose its freedom in order to value it again. The importance of such "quaint" notions as habeas corpus and right to privacy would become readily apparent after they're gone.

It's a thought I've had before too, though my scenario's more of a V for Vendetta sort of situation rather than a foreign occupation. It'd probably work, but I'd obviously prefer that we learned from our ancestor's mistakes instead of making them again ourselves. What is not explained enough by the media is that if governments had not abused their power in the past, there would have never been any need for laws like the American Bill of Rights that limit the power of government to interfere with the individual. Every time you amend or reduce those rights, you open up more possibilities for abuse.

Quote

Public worship of the "men in blue" that degrades will to scrutinize them;

That's one thing I think opinion is genuinely divided on. The young, the poor and the liberal side of the middle class hate the police.

[Jason Vines]

Cymro, on 23 August 2009 - 05:03 AM, said:

It's a thought I've had before too, though my scenario's more of a V for Vendetta sort of situation rather than a foreign occupation.

Mine, too, although the plot of The Sorrows of Empire segued into my point.

I actually think, today, a foreign occupation of a Western country is unlikely. But that's a topic for another thread.

Quote

It'd probably work, but I'd obviously prefer that we learned from our ancestor's mistakes instead of making them again ourselves. What is not explained enough by the media is that if governments had not abused their power in the past, there would have never been any need for laws like the American Bill of Rights that limit the power of government to interfere with the individual. Every time you amend or reduce those rights, you open up more possibilities for abuse.

I think the "progressive" and socialist movements must bear a lot of blame for this myopia. They inculcated upon Western citizenries a disrespect for individual rights, constitutional limitations, and rule of law, seeking to replace these bedrocks of the liberal republic with collective responsibility, populist decision-making, bureaucratic commands, and capricious judicial interpretations (the "living Constitution").

We needn't wonder why a population that has been indoctrinated against obeying constitutional restrictions that would obstruct populist will, and against honoring the sanctity of the individual, would have difficulty understanding why rights should be respected if a need is perceived to trample them.

Cymro said:

Jason Vines said:

Public worship of the "men in blue" that degrades will to scrutinize them;

That's one thing I think opinion is genuinely divided on. The young, the poor and the liberal side of the middle class hate the police.

Perhaps I should amend my sentence: "Worship by the powerful and influential..."

[Jason Vines]

Police in a London borough, aiming to educate the public about the dangers of leaving their cars unlocked, enter said automobiles and confiscate the valuables inside. Victims of police theft must then ask the cops to return their items.

If the police want to make the populace more cautious about crime by committing crimes, why stop there? To teach the public about the folly of walking in dark alleys at night, the police could start mugging people they find in such places. If victims can get their property back, that would make everything okay!

[Cymro]

Quote

I think the "progressive" and socialist movements must bear a lot of blame for this myopia. They inculcated upon Western citizenries a disrespect for individual rights, constitutional limitations, and rule of law, seeking to replace these bedrocks of the liberal republic with collective responsibility, populist decision-making, bureaucratic commands, and capricious judicial interpretations (the "living Constitution"). We needn't wonder why a population that has been indoctrinated against obeying constitutional restrictions that would obstruct populist will, and against honoring the sanctity of the individual, would have difficulty understanding why rights should be respected if a need is perceived to trample them.

Actually, in this case I think it has a lot more to do with the "Third Way" approach coupled with a lynchmob mentality that's been around forever. In fact, a lot of it has to do with people taking the word 'democracy' far too literally.

[Merlinus Ambrosius]

Wait....she was intimidated because he was 5'11" and 12 stone (by my reckoning, around 168 pounds). Dude's a shrimp! If he's supposed to be intimidating, what would I be, at 6'5" and 205 pounds? A raping pillaging barbarian?

There is something seriously wrong with Great Britain.

[Sim]

Maybe it's the bloody social democrat in me speaking up again, but I don't buy the notion at all that support for certain social welfare nets goes hand in hand with disrespect for personal freedom, or too much respect for the police.

In fact, at least in Germany, those who care most for personal freedom like habeas corpus, who demand Rechtsstaat (a bureaucracy and government that is strictly bond to law and not above it) are usually the same people who demand an extensive welfare state, while those who are in favor of economic freedom are at the same time borderline fascist when it comes to measures allegedly helpful reducing crime.

This conflation of economic freedom with individual freedom is merely libertarian ideology, but doesn't stand the test of reality. Just because you like handouts from the state (think about that what you will) doesn't mean by far you like the police breaking into your home, or the state arresting you and denying you a fair trial.

I'm not saying this is more reasonable than the libertarian take, but there are many more who actually consider social equality as a prerequisite for freedom, than people who believe the rule of money means more freedom. At any rate, I believe in a "free" society that knows no wealth redistribution, the biggest problem of a huge majority of people would not be their lack of freedom, but their lack of basically all basic requirements for life and the total lack of any social security whatsoever.

This is pointed now: If my stomach is empty and if I have no place where to sleep, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about some abstract concept of "freedom" that exclusively benefits the rich and chains the poor, pushing them into serfdom. When I have nothing I could lose, then all I could lose are my chains, and I would go and take what I need by force. Or I would join demagogues who promise me a better life once they get in power. And I am sure most of us would do the same.


History has proven that the much bigger threat for freedom than decadence is social inequality. A society can only stand so much difference between rich and poor before it falls apart, before it sinks into an ocean of crime, or before some radical group takes power and abandones freedom in the name of equality. Or, much more often the case, the corrupt rich in power (and the higher inequality is, the higher inevitably is corruption) slowly hollow out freedom in order to defend their luxury against the many in need who threaten the status quo. Soon the rich buy the police to shoot down protests by the havenots, and they hire security people to shoot down burglars -- and nobody will care, because the life of a havenot is worth nothing in such a "free" society.

A "free" society that is blind on the social eye is doomed to failure and will inevitably lead into tyranny in the end, so much is sure, and history has proven as much as well.


Also, as paradox this may sound to libertarian ears, there can only be freedom when there is a general trust in the state. Only when a majority of the people considers a free, republican, constitutional democracy as the best possible form of government, it can persist. The moment a majority loses the trust in this form of government and such kind of a state, it will inevitably fall and be replaced by fascism, socialism or anything else the masses want. And you only get people to agree to a free state, when their basic needs are fulfilled. Those who are abandoned by society, left alone with their material needs, are the first to lose their trust in the state and join fascists or communists.

At least in Germany, those who are losers on the market due to unemployment, low wages and so on are the first to join groups with the declared goal of abandoning freedom, and I am sure the same is the case for all other countries.

There is no freedom (at least not for long) without positive identification with the state (as long as it's a representative democracy), and there is no freedom when the scissors between rich and poor grow too wide.

This post has been edited by Sim: 11 September 2009 - 12:58 AM

[Jason Vines]

Quote

Just because you like handouts from the state (think about that what you will) doesn't mean by far you like the police breaking into your home, or the state arresting you and denying you a fair trial.

I'll respond to this first because my reply will establish one of the most important themes of this post.

Intentions behind policy often bear scant relevance to its outcome. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and nowhere does this apply more than in government. Noble intentions behind policy establish little more than the policymakers' good character. They certainly don't preclude negative consequences from happening as a result.

See "unintended consequences."

So, whereas I agree with your statement above (see more below), it's not germane to the discussion.

Quote

Maybe it's the bloody social democrat in me speaking up again, but I don't buy the notion at all that support for certain social welfare nets goes hand in hand with disrespect for personal freedom, or too much respect for the police.

I think you misunderstood my point.

Notice that I didn't say, "I think supporters of social welfare safety nets must bear a lot of blame for this myopia." Instead, I said, "I think the "progressive" and socialist movements must bear a lot of blame for this myopia."

A local community deciding to provide relief to the indignant is a far cry from a central state ignoring the very concept of law in enforcing outcomes populist sentiment deems "fair."

The former scenario is relatively innocuous, because any program would be more responsive to the community's desires than a national one, compromises to everyone's satisfaction would be easier to reach, and members of the community would have a much easier time leaving if they don't like the policy.

But "progressives" and socialists followed the latter scenario, pursuing their agenda by attacking such bedrocks of republicanism as separation of powers, constitutionally limited government, rule of law, and individual autonomy. This was essential to their ideologies, for they couldn't have hoped to achieve central planning and technocratic regulation of society with government possessing few and concrete powers, rules applying equally to everyone, and individuals living as they saw fit.

Even if the left didn't intend to erode republican principles of governance, that was the inevitable result of their policies.

Republican principles of governance erode as constitutional limitations on the state are ignored or reinterpreted to meet the rulers' policy aspirations. "Progressives" such as Woodrow Wilson, who would become President of the United States, inculcated society with a conception of government that scorned the traditionalism and limitations of the constitutional republic in favor of the caprice and license of the populist democracy. To "progressives," limited government was an anachronism with which they sought to replace "living" constitutionalism and "scientific" administration.

Republican principles of governance erode as large unelected bureaucracies implement and often devise complicated policies on which legislatures, as diverse and fractious as the societies they represent, couldn't agree themselves. (This is one of the reasons Wilson despised legislative-dominated government.) They'll in many cases set the broad parameters of policy and let frequently-unaccountable career bureaucrats fill in the blanks.

Republican principles of governance erode as the the aforementioned bureaucracies make their own rules and enforce them on the citizenry without the involvement of the legislative or judiciary branches.

Republican principles of governance erode as byzantine mazes of inconsistent legislation and regulation -- a byproduct of gargantuan hodgepodge omnibus bills and numerous agencies making their own rules -- often make knowing whether one is acting legally very difficult.

Republican principles erode as citizens cannot act in full accordance with the Kafka-esque state rules and still not have certainty they won't be punished for it by opportunistic politicians or bureaucrats.

Republican principles of governance erode as millions of people are forced to obey policies they don't like and can't escape. Of course, all government policies necessarily entail some degree of coercion. But, when government doesn't limit itself to enforcing general, abstract rules that apply equally to everyone and on which broad agreement exists -- e.g., laws against murder, assault, rape, theft, etc. -- and assumes more and more authority to command specific actions on the parts of citizens and control economic outcomes, then concomitantly the role of coercion in society must also grow because many people won't agree with the policies, especially when said policies harm them.

Springing from the latter scenario, then, is a society with an aggressive and expansionary state that in practice recognizes no limitations when ostensibly acting on behalf of "the people"; where orchestrating punishments of politically unpopular groups is easy; wherein most segments of the populace are habituated to forcing other people to do what they want; where "getting things done" is glorified over law and procedure.

Laws are abstract rules that apply to everyone, rich and poor, elites and commoners, rulers and ruled. The society in question has devalued law in favor of command.

We needn't wonder why, in such an environment, the police act as they like with the support of much of the public. Cops need to protect us from scum, after all, and be safe while they're doing it.

Whether "progressives" and socialists intended "disrespect for personal freedom, or too much respect for the police" is irrelevant. They nevertheless midwifed the contempt for constitutional republicanism in which these attitudes find secure purchase.

Quote

This conflation of economic freedom with individual freedom is merely libertarian ideology, but doesn't stand the test of reality.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Economic freedom refers to one's ability to decide for whom he will work or whom he will employ, and to do what he desires with what he earns from working. I struggle to contemplate any intelligible concept of individual liberty that doesn't enshrine this economic freedom.

Quote

History has proven that the much bigger threat for freedom than decadence is social inequality.

...

A "free" society that is blind on the social eye is doomed to failure and will inevitably lead into tyranny in the end, so much is sure, and history has proven as much as well.

I can think of many cases when rulers perpetuated social inequality by granting the upper classes unearned privileges in such forms as noble titles, land deeds, military commissions, bureaucratic appointments, protectionist regulations, employment protections, segregation codes, etc., while suppressing the lower classes through enslavement, serfdom, imprisonment, disenfranchisement, and/or discrimination. Of course such injustices eventually sparked resentment and revolution.

I can't, however, think of when "history has proven" that social inequality -- when not enforced by the state -- has led to freedom collapsing into tyranny or threatened to do so.

Quote

This is pointed now: If my stomach is empty and if I have no place where to sleep, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about some abstract concept of "freedom" that exclusively benefits the rich and chains the poor, pushing them into serfdom.

In today's age of abundance, homelessness in the West is largely a byproduct of mental illness and drug abuse. Even Germany, with its robust safety net, has homeless people.

Whereas homelessness is a pressing concern, since it's not chiefly an economic problem, it has little to do with the discussion.

Quote

many more who actually consider social equality as a prerequisite for freedom

Even if that's true, so what? Argumentum ad populum.

Quote

people who believe the rule of money means more freedom

I think you've confused libertarianism with corporatism.

Quote

At any rate, I believe in a "free" society that knows no wealth redistribution, the biggest problem of a huge majority of people would not be their lack of freedom, but their lack of basically all basic requirements for life and the total lack of any social security whatsoever.

Interestingly enough, however, famine -- the conditions under which "a huge majority of people" might "lack… basically all basic requirements for life" -- since the Industrial Revolution has tended to occur in countries afflicted by war, under foreign occupation, or suffering government oppression in the form of authoritarianism or communism.

Basically, famines in the modern era usually occur when nations have paucities of self-determination or freedom. Famine can't be tied around the neck of market liberalism.

Quote

Also, as paradox this may sound to libertarian ears, there can only be freedom when there is a general trust in the state. Only when a majority of the people considers a free, republican, constitutional democracy as the best possible form of government, it can persist. The moment a majority loses the trust in this form of government and such kind of a state, it will inevitably fall and be replaced by fascism, socialism or anything else the masses want.

I agree. But, as Friedrich Hayek discusses in The Road to Serfdom, the impetus for distrust in the state is not an insufficiently active government but an excessively active one.

As a republican government makes promises about economic outcomes and "social justice" it couldn't possibly keep, malcontents begin to feel the government is just a debating society that can't get done much of value. At the same time, people who suffer misfortune increasingly blame the state more than they do bad luck or their own faults.

I discuss this at greater length in this thread under the heading Why "social responsibility" threatens social harmony.

[Cymro]

Quote

There is something seriously wrong with Great Britain.

Yeah, people keep confusing it with the UK...

This post has been edited by Cymro: 20 September 2009 - 03:42 PM

[Jason Vines]

Once more, a grave incident in Britain showcases the erosion of freedom there. This might be more disturbing than the others I've mentioned: "Christian hotel owners hauled before court after defending their beliefs in discussion with Muslim guest".

Daily Mail said:

A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel. Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments.

They have been charged under public order laws with using 'threatening, abusive or insulting words' that were 'religiously aggravated'.

...

It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.

They deny, however, that their comments were threatening and argue that they had every right to defend and explain their beliefs.

...

Mrs Vogelenzang, 54, who has run the Bounty House Hotel near Aintree racecourse in Liverpool with her husband Ben, 53, for six years, said: 'Nothing like this has happened to us before. We are completely shocked.'

She added that the episode had damaged their business and they had been forced to lay off staff and run the nine-bedroom hotel by themselves, leaving them exhausted.

Sources said that a number of guests staying at the hotel, which charges £92 a night for a double room, were having breakfast in its restaurant on March 20 when comments were made about religion.

One of those involved was the Muslim woman, who was staying at the hotel while she received treatment at a hospital nearby.

The couple, who are members of the Bootle Christian Fellowship, and their solicitor, David Whiting, said they could not discuss the content of the conversation for legal reasons. But the independent lobby group, the Christian Institute, which has seen both the prosecution and defence legal papers, is supporting their defence.

Mr Whiting, who last year successfully defended street preacher Anthony Rollins in Birmingham, said: 'There is a dispute as to the facts of the allegations, but Ben and Sharon do not accept they were threatening, abusive or insulting.

'They are committed Christians and it is the defence's contention that they have every right to defend their religious beliefs and explain those beliefs to others who do not hold similar views.'

...

The use by the police of the Public Order Act to arrest people over offensive comments has dismayed a number of lawyers, who say the legislation was passed to deal with law and order problems in the streets.

Neil Addison, a prominent criminal barrister and expert in religious law, said: 'The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent disorder, but I'm very concerned that the police are using it merely because someone is offended.

At least operating from the Wikipedia article about the Public Order Act, its proscriptions are vague enough to cover all but the most innocuous speech:

Quote

A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he:

( a ) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
( b ) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Quote

A person is guilty of an offence if he:

( a ) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
( b ) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

If incidents like the above become more widespread, and the British citizen must use stultifying caution with all but the most uncontroversial speech, then that will be the end of freedom in the British Isles. And it would have happened under the aegis of good intentions.

[Cymro]

Quote

At least operating from the Wikipedia article about the Public Order Act, its proscriptions are vague enough to cover all but the most innocuous speech:

Which is why I'm opposed to it, but sadly the opposition (or at least the media's coverage of it) has been mainly confined to more outspoken members of the Conservative party and everyone to their right. In essence, because the most vocal opposition comes from the people who're generally thought to be a bit racist anyway, so nobody takes any notice of it. Exacerbating this is the nonsense belief especially prevalent in debates about acceptable television content, that someone should never be offended by anything; whether it be foul language, sex, or simply someone disagreeing with them on a sensitive subject.

Quote

If incidents like the above become more widespread, and the British citizen must use stultifying caution with all but the most uncontroversial speech, then that will be the end of freedom in the British Isles.

That's already began in a way, due to the social unacceptability of criticising minority religions as well as their followers* that is an unfortunate side effect of the otherwise very positive move away from openly persecuting them. That we must tolerate a person's beliefs has come to mean that we must respect them, and in turn that we mustn't question them. It's maddening - religions and belief systems by their very nature question and disrespect their rivals, so in a way you're stifling the thing you're trying to pretect. It's also inherently anti-secular, because it acknowledges the "sanctity" of religious views by giving them protection from criticism that secular views (such as those on socio-economic ideology) do not enjoy.

And members of Britain's Muslim community are doing neither themselves nor public order a favour by exploiting this situation.

*I say this knowing full well that all religions are in the minority in the UK, however the largest section of us would still identify with the Anglican church even if in practice we have little or nothing to do with it.

This post has been edited by Cymro: 22 September 2009 - 09:22 PM

[Cymro]

I'd also like to speculate on the idea that increasing security measures encourages perhaps an exponential increase in security over time. I was up in Liverpool last weekend and all the Off-Licences (that's English for Liquor Store) featured a wall of bullet-proof glass surrounding all the stock and tills; anything you wanted to buy had to be picked off the shelf by the assistant. Upon seeing this I immediately felt that Liverpool was less safe than I thought it was.

[Jason Vines]

Next on the transatlantic agenda of crushing civil liberties: forbidding neighbors from watching each other's kids without the government's permission.

In Britain:

Janet Daley said:

Do you belong to a baby-sitting circle in which tokens are exchanged for hours of service? Do you regularly offer to look after a friend's children in return for having yours looked after by them? When my children were small, such arrangements were a part of everyday life. We took turns collecting each other's offspring from nursery or playgroup, took them home for a companionable play session and tea, then delivered them into the hands of their parents at the end of the day. Our evenings out were made possible by the earning of tokens for hours spent baby-sitting our friends' children.

That sort of arrangement will now apparently require a government licence: before you can engage in any such neighbourly reciprocity, Ofsted will have to approve your premises, do a criminal record check and assure itself that you are following the "nappy curriculum".

This effectively prohibits all those informal, communal forms of child-rearing on which humanity has depended since time began. It also rules out yet another form of free or inexpensive childcare on which many families depend for their livelihoods. It is beyond absurd: it is wicked.

In Michigan:

USA Today said:

A Michigan woman who lives in front of a school bus stop says the state is threatening her with fines and possibly jail time for babysitting her neighbors' kids until the bus comes, WZZM reports.

Lisa Snyder of Middleville, Mich., says she takes no money for watching the three children for 15-40 minutes each day so that the neighbors can get to work on time.

The Department of Human Services, acting on a complaint that Snyder was operating an illegal child care home, demanded she either get a license, stop watching the kids or face the consequences, WZZM says.

Snyder calls the whole thing "ridiculous" and tells the Grand Rapids TV station that "we are friends helping friends!"

A DHS spokesperson tells the station that it has no choice but to comply with state law, which is designed to protect Michigan children.

Of course, it's all "to protect... children." Let's not use common sense, folks; don't think that children might be less safe if parents have greater difficulty finding legal babysitters for their kids. The government says it intends to protect children, so that's what will happen!

I like what David Boaz says about this:

David Boaz said:

This is what people mean when they warn that an ever-expanding government threatens the values of neighborliness and community. When the government provides services for free, or when it erects obstacles to individuals' providing those services, it reduces private provision and simultaneously increases the demand for government services. If you make it illegal for neighbors to watch one another's kids, you weaken ties of neighborhood and community.

Our nanny-state government not only wants to take care of us from cradle to pre-K to K-12 to homebuying to medical care to retirement to grave, it not only considers adult Americans "just like your teenage kids, [not] acting in a way that they should act," it not only wants to "nudge" us into acting the way it thinks we should, now it thinks that neighbors should have to get a license to keep an eye on the kids congregating in front of their homes. It's enough to make you think we have too much government.

[Cymro]

Quote

That sort of arrangement will now apparently require a government licence: before you can engage in any such neighbourly reciprocity, Ofsted will have to approve your premises, do a criminal record check and assure itself that you are following the "nappy curriculum".

The Department of Human Services, acting on a complaint that Snyder was operating an illegal child care home, demanded she either get a license, stop watching the kids or face the consequences, WZZM says.

It's not about protecting children, it's about making money.

I move for a constitutional amendment(or a constitution in Britain's case) stipulating that government licenses be granted free of charge to discourage their use as a revenue stream.

This post has been edited by Cymro: 27 September 2009 - 03:31 AM

[Cymro]

On a related note, I managed to get this approved. It is of course a sarcastic response to the anti-tobacco petitions on there, but I worded it carefully (borrowing language from the previously mentioned Public Order Act).

[Jason Vines]

Cymro, on 29 September 2009 - 09:58 AM, said:

On a related note, I managed to get this approved. It is of course a sarcastic response to the anti-tobacco petitions on there, but I worded it carefully (borrowing language from the previously mentioned Public Order Act).

LMFAO, that's great!

[Cymro]

Now if I can just get enough signatures for it to warrant a response from the government....

If any of you know of anyone who either lives in the UK or is a British citizen who'd appreciate this, please pass it on.