There is a great deal of deeply seated confusion about corporations, their origins and true purpose. People who are intelligent and well read in the field of the philosophy of liberty sometimes fall short when it comes to understanding what a corporation is, why people use them and what the true nature of them are. On the one hand, they are for voluntary association, and yet on the other, they rail against corporations. This is illogical.

As it is with anything complex, clear thinking is needed when you try to think about corporations. Lets begin by taking apart the myth that they exist as creatures of the State.

There is no reason that in a free society without a State that a group of people cannot band together to work on a project under rules that they select for themselves. They pool their risk, and (for example) decide that they do not want to put all their capital on the line should something go wrong and face a court, however founded, deciding that they are liable. Read the rest of this entry »

It is often said that plastic surgery does not enhance a person’s beauty but simply provides a means for the surgeon to manifest their own idea of beauty through other people – further, that the number of such distinct faces in Hollywood is barely greater than the number of plastic surgeons.

What we see is a number of metrics are used to determine a ‘good’ face – certain lips, eye shapes, cheek bulges, line of nose and jaw – to be more beautiful is stricter conformance to the surgeons criteria.

Similarly there are now companies which purport to determine one’s online influence, the companies again take narrow metrics (Web 2.0 presence primarily), blend through an algorithm and spit out a result at the other end; there are people stupid enough to think this result matters and who will pay for advice on how to get a better result i.e. become more conformant to a particular company’s algorithm.

There is an implicit credulity in these scenarios that makes no sense – why would you trust a stranger’s idea of betterness over your own instincts (let alone one stranger vs. another). The problem boils down to a sense of insecurity and conditioning.

In plastic surgery it may be the combined forces of the media to portray a certain body type, on the web there are certain traits which gain most attention – insight is often overlooked in preference to boosterism, the performer who keeps the plate spinning gains more attention than the potter – and interaction rarely amounts to little more than petty ridicule.

As we know the use of metrics to assess people isn’t a new phenomenon, credit rating agencies sway the ability of people to gain loans and your flight data are catalogued by security agencies for watch lists. In addition anonymity and atomisation are nearly always inversely proportional to traction – the braggard or chancer is favoured as the focus of the spectacle.

Whereas a silicon valley company can expect to garner some interest and narrow influence due to a bit of parasitical number crunching it will have little long term effect as people become bored with the personality pyramid scheme it embodies, something as vacuous and thin as the ‘Hollywood face’ or the ‘No-fly list’.

The unintelligent, inexperienced and completely deluded students are out again in force, to be kettled, sheared, abused and used as fodder to provide the police with much needed overtime money.

What is interesting here is that we may be seeing the seed of the idea that all the video cameras that everyone has by default could be used for something useful, active and defensive, instead of just a child’s toy.

From BLOGDIAL, “The answer comes before the question” January 13th, 2009

Imagine this scenario. Someone somewhere sets up a Web 2.0 site that features photos of bad police and other officials, or those mysterious agent provocateurs that have been plaguing the useless demonstrations around the world. Imagine that the software behind this site (which could be connected to iPhoto 09) identifies all the bad people and exposes them to the public, nullifying all acts of political infiltration over night. Anyone setting up any sort of anti-state gathering or demonstration or action could, with a gauntlet of workers armed with iphones, vet every demonstrator as they turned up to weed out all the infiltrators, collaborators and provocateurs.

I guarantee you that this will happen, and not only that, but that someone is going to put into a copy of iPhoto 09, a huge archive of photos from demonstrations and political meetings going back decades to pick out the bad guys.

This explosion and convergence of technologies is a double edged sword, and since there are more of us than there are of them, it will be the case that all this technology and the networks that join them together will result in something totally unexpected; the tools may turn around and bite the state in the ass in an unexpected way. The very nature of networks says that this will happen; the population by virtue of its vast networked numbers can overpower any government in a scenario where the network is the power.

We are not powerless like the slaves in the Soviet Union were. We have fantastic tools, all of them free, right in our hands. Those tools, by the act of using them, change the game entirely, and the more the state pushes against the mass, the more dense and impenetrable it becomes.

This is a war that they cannot ever win.

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=1517

[…]

Now look at this video, uploaded to YouTube by noshockdoc on Nov 11, 2011:

If these people had any sense, they would have already set up this web service as I described in 2009.

Using Augmented Reality ID:

They could check each ‘protestor’ against the online database of Agent Provocateurs and police officers to make sure that they had not been infiltrated.

Of course, anyone who is that smart is not interested in demonstrating in the first place, but we will leave that aside for now.

The point is, these young and very foolish people are behaving as if it is 1960 and not the end of 2011. As I have said before, again and again, the age of demonstrations is over. The shape of them, how they play out, move, surge and flow is well understood. There can be no surprises with them. Nothing comes of them, no matter how large they are, as we saw with the StopWar demonstrations before the destruction of Iraq.

The problem these people have is that if they were intelligent enough to know this, they would not be demonstrating, and would be well on the way to formulating a strategy that would actually give them what they want. Their problem, clearly, is a toxic mix of a lack of intelligence and experience.

They do not know exactly what they hope to achieve with these acts, they have no discrete goals or deliverables, they have no means of creating a new strategy because they lack the mental capacity to formulate one; in other words, they are a completely lost cause.

One thing that is coming out of this is interesting however.

Because everyone has a camera at these demonstrations, it might come to pass that the light bulb switches on over the head of some computer science student as she realises that it should be possible to create what I describe in the post above.

There are literally dozens of cameras in this clip; surely someone somewhere must be thinking that there is a use that can be put to the footage to help weed out the provocateurs. Who knows?

What we can say with a high level of certainty is that these students are going to achieve nothing by marching in the street. Everything they are planning, even if it is not known about in advance by surveillance is easily counter-able because marching and demonstrating is a ‘dead tactic’ that the State has a perfect understanding of.

All of this is a complete distraction of course; even this very post has distracted me from doing something else productive. Unless by chance it spurs the creation of the system I have been writing about.

Once again, demonstrations are ‘Yellow Ribbon Thinking’:

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=1152

they divert energy from useful acts and thinking, and prevent or delay permanent solutions from emerging. You should not participate in them; instead, you should be working only on things that have discreet goals and that has metrics that you can measure directly so that you can know if you are being successful or not.

THe title of this blog post is the number of seconds it took for the hive mind of Anonymous to reach the next iteration that we wrote about in December 2010. Here is the tweet posted around the time of the light bulb moment:

What is so exiting about this is that 229 days (or 329,760 minutes or 5496 hours) is not very long for an iteration, and if the time between iterations is getting shorter and shorter, it will not be long (since Anons are highly intelligent) before they come to the Final Boss of of this game: The idea of the State itself.

When they come to the conclusion that the State is not needed, is the source of all the evils they are railing against, that it is a new cancer and not at all inevitable, Murray Rothbard will spell everything out for them in a tome that is not TL;DR, and which will simply blow their minds.

PayPal’s ridiculous regulations are a product of the State. If if were not for the State, they would not be doing what they are doing, i.e. blocking access to accounts, closing accounts at the behest of the state, restricting the flow of your money etc etc.

If you look behind the curtain at everything that is going wrong, from the insane wars, to the restrictions on free speech, DRM, the ban on vitamins, the RIAA/MPAA, Domain seizures, your money becoming worthless, widespread poverty, the ‘War on Drugs’, the patent trolling, the endemic corruption, the bank bailouts… EVERYTHING – the State is the direct cause of it.

People who are clear thinking are not wedded to any particular idea out of habit. They hold their ideas because they are arrived at by reason, and if by reason they must abandon wrong ideas, they do so immediately.

The idea of the State is a habit, a bad one, like heroin, and anyone who refuses to accept the State as the Final Boss is a brainwashed, drug addled addict.

It looks like the tipping point has been reached. Anonymous and its legion are moving inexorably towards the locus of Libertarianism. They are quickly shedding all operations that are ineffective or that involve disrupting other people’s property (like LOIC). Closing your PayPal account and switching to another service is an incredibly powerful act. By moving to another service, you can ensure that the flow of information (money) is not interrupted. The question then becomes, which service to switch to?

If you switch to any service that is regulated by our enemy, the State, you will be moving from one frying pan into another. What is needed is a way to move information (money) that does not involve a third party. A middlemanless system that is controlled by the masses for the masses.

That means Bitcoin.

The next obvious iteration is to get millions of people to move to Bitcoin as the main way they transact with money on the internet. That means dumping credit cards, PayPal and any other payment system that is regulated by the State.

Even if the number of places where you can buy things with Bitcoin is small now, if millions of new challengers appear holding it and eager to spend it, I guarantee you that Bitcoin will be integrated into every e-commerce package out there in less than a month. This will dramatically bootstrap the Bitcoin economy, decimate PayPal and the credit cards and bring forward the date of the inevitable demise of the State.

Remember; the taint of the State is the root problem. Apply this simple test to anything that you can think of that chafes at your sense of decency and liberty.

“Is there a law or regulation that makes this bad thing happen?”

If the answer is yes, then the State is behind it.

Try it. You will be amazed at how everything bad you can think of can be traced back to and is a direct result of the existence of the State.

The inevitable next question is “what are we to do without a State to tell us what to do?”. Murray Rothbard and the Libertarians have the answer, and this answer is not based on theory alone; it is based only on provable facts.

A critical mass of non violent change is coming where the State will simply cease to exist, just like it did in East Germany. This time it will be different however. There will be no West Germany to fill the void. There will be nothing; nothing but the good will and power of collective non violent voluntarism and the unprecedented prosperity that will follow as day follows night.

One last thing.

Some people say, “this is how you do it, keep it legal and legit”. This is wrong, ‘in the matrix’ thinking.

If you restrict yourself only to what is legal, then you will most certainly fail.

If they outlaw Bitcoin, or any of the other 17 alternatives to PayPal, and remove your ability to change services and stay ‘legal and legit’ how will your boycott end? It will end in total failure.

Your strategy should not be based on doing what is or is not legal, because the State, the enemy, decides unilaterally what is or is not legal. Constraining yourself in this way is thinking inside the box created for you by the State. It will not work.

Your strategy must be based only on what is moral and what is effective. That means refraining from doing anything that is immoral and only doing things that are effective.

If they make payment systems other than PayPal illegal, that is an attack on your liberty that you can respond to without committing an immoral act; in the same way that smoking marijuana, despite it being illegal, is responding to an outrageous infringement of your liberty without committing an immoral act. You simply refuse to obey, en masse.

What has changed is that everyone is connected to everyone else, and withering, debilitating, concentrated, tsunami death blow boycotts can strike with incredible ferocity if the conditions are correct.

Just wait for the critical mass condition to arrive, when the penny drops and the State dies… I imagine that it will be like the change of weather on a day where it has been raining and all of a sudden, the rain stops and beautiful sunshine burst into the day.

The green rain of the State will be stopped!

There are a few nice people who seem to be confused about rights and in particular, the rights of exchange, association and property.

This confusion manifested itself today over the matter of an American charity that is paying ‘drug addicts’ to be sterilised.

The Libertarian position on this is straightforward.

1. You own your own body.
2. You have the absolute right to voluntarily associate with whomever you like without interference.
3. You have the absolute right to voluntarily exchange with whomever you like without interference.

This means, for example, that prostitution (accepting money for sexual favours) should never be illegal, since it is the consenting act of trade between two people. It means that if you want to sell your hair, a kidney, or both of your kidneys, you have the right to do so since you have a property right in your own body.

It also means in relation to this story, that you have the right to give or accept money in exchange for a medical procedure (in this case vasectomy or some other sterilisation procedure).

And none of this is the business of the state or anyone other than the consenting parties

If you accept that the state has the power to tell you that you may not sell one of your kidneys to someone, then you accept that they own you, like cattle.

If you accept that the state has the power to prevent people offering money to individuals (in this case sterilisation) then you are conceding that the state has the power to interfere in your right of exchange and free association.

You cannot on the one hand, be FOR Home Education, where you freely associate with other people or no people, rejecting the power of the state to tell you how and where you educate your children, and at the same time be FOR the state telling a charity that they cannot offer sterilisation to individuals with their own money. If you concede the latter, you cannot ask for the former and remain logical and coherent.

One patient person claimed that this charity was ‘exploiting’ people, and that using money in this way was ‘exploitation’. The person also claimed that “money and power were connected” Neither of these is the case.

Lets go to the dictionary.

Exploitation

ex·ploi·ta·tion? ?
[ek-sploi-tey-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.use or utilization, esp. for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.
2.selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.
3.the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

[…]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation

This is a charity, so number one does not fit.
This is an unselfish act on the part of the people who are running this programme, so two does not fit.
Three does not fit.

Lets try another dictionary.

Definition of EXPLOIT

1: to make productive use of : utilize <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>

Number one doesn’t fit.
Number two doesn’t fit either; these people are not being mean or ‘unfair’.

By the dictionary definition alone, this charity is exploiting no one.

Now for money and power.

Money is a tool, just like a hammer. You can use it to build a house or murder someone. It is not a living entity. What people do with money is an excrescence of their personality and motives; money is just the means to do it.

Power is force. When the state tells you you must send your children to school, they have the power to do so because they have a monopoly on violence. They send the police to your house, break down the door and take your children to school if you refuse to obey them. This charity has money, but it has no power whatsoever. They cannot force anyone to be sterilised against their will, any more than they can force a person to do anything. They simply make an offer which you can either take up or refuse.

The fact of the matter is, as long as you are not being taxed to pay for something like this (NHS abortion on demand, NHS sterilisation of drug addicts and all other social engineering) what private people plan and get up to voluntarily is none of your business.

Private people getting together to solve the tasks that they perceive as problems is absolutely normal and natural. They have the right to do so, because they are human beings, just like you are. If you do not like the idea of people offering sterilisation to drug addicts, then you are free to organise your own counter charity that gives money to drug addicts to $insert_your_plan_here. You could even organise yourself to pay for radio ads against this charity, and a poster campaign to warn drug addicts that they are being hunted. If you were minded to.

This charity is not stealing from you via the tax man. They are not forcing you to believe what they believe, or to be sterilised yourself. They do not want to control you, or exploit your family like the extremely dangerous fake charities. They do not want anything from anyone, except from the people who think that ‘drug addicts’ should not be left to produce children since they are ‘irresponsible’, from whom they ask for voluntary donations.

This is completely different from the state mandating sterilisation, and some people have a problem separating the evil operations of the state and the non evil work of charities that are funded purely. It is also completely different from the operation of the ‘=fake charities that use ‘your money’ to come after you in your own home. These confused people are the same people who do not understand the difference between choosing to carry a credit card or a supermarket loyalty card and being force to carry a government issued ID Card. We have been over this before; voluntary acceptance of a service through contract is completely different to compulsion by the state.

What is completely unacceptable to all moral people is the idea that because you do not like the behaviour of other people, you should call on the state to stop them from doing whatever it is they are doing voluntarily, that has nothing to do with you.

This is the schizophrenic mindset of some people, who want freedom for themselves and their own peculiar ways of life, but who will instantly call upon the state to smash the lives of other people with whom they disagree; and lets be frank; in the end, this is what it always comes down to; calls for organised surveillance and threats of violence from the state made by those people who cannot stand free association unless its their flavour of free association.

Note that in all of this, I do not take any position on wether or not sterilisation of human beings is a good thing or not, wether prostitution is moral or immoral, or wether it is a good or bad thing to be a ‘drug addict’ bearing children, or anything else to do with an opinion on the details; they are all irrelevant.

This is a question purely of rights; do people have the right to organise, associate, exchange money for goods and services? Libertarians say ‘Yes’ people do have these rights, and they should not be interfered with by anyone.

We may or may not agree with the work of this charity, but if you want to preserve your own way of life, then you have no choice but to support their right to say what they like, give money to whom they like, and associate with whomever they like.

If you do not accept their right, you are irrational, illogical and will not have a leg to stand on when someone who does not share your ideas turns the eye of Mordor upon you and your ilk, claiming that the way they see the world is the only correct way, and you must obey them or face violence, for the sole reason that they hold beliefs that are different to yours, and can muster a violent gang to force you to obey them.

Update! Clarification!

An attentive person has pointed out that that this charity is not paying for sterilisation, but that instead, the sterilisation procedures are taking place at taxpayers expense on the NHS, and that somehow this invalidates the sense of part of this post.

That is of course, not the case.

First of all, these are the precise facts about exactly what happens when a drug addict encounters this charity and takes up their offer. In order to collect his £200 he has to:

“provide a medical certificate of drug dependency and another certifying that they have had tubal ligation, vasectomy or a contraceptive implant.”

[…]

http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2010/04/embrace-the-controversy-lets-offer-project-prevention-on-the-nhs.html

This means that what is happening is that a drug addict, upon presenting documentary evidence that he or she is in fact a drug addict and has been sterilised, receives money from this charity. Where he gets this procedure is not mandated in the terms, though its clear that a drug addict is highly likely to get it done for ‘free’ on the NHS (A vasectomy operation in a private hospital or clinic in the UK will cost in the region of £300 to £900 inclusive of hospital charges and consultant’s fees)

Most importantly,

• No coercion is involved.
• Its a private, voluntary exchange of money for documentary evidence.

The fact that the taxpayer is paying for these procedures is an entirely separate issue, of the legitimacy of socialised medicine; the sterilisation on offer at the NHS is already a fact. If you have a problem with that, its a completely separate discussion to wether or not this charity should ask for money from private people to offer drug addicts in exchange for proof that they are drug addicts and have been sterilised.

This charity is not forcing you to pay for the sterilisation of drug addicts; the state is. If you do not like this, then you have to do something about how the NHS is funded. The charity’s contract with the drug addicts to produce documents is still a completely voluntary and private arrangement between consenting adults, and should be vigorously protected by everyone who wants to continue unmolested with their own peculiar ways.

It is completely wrong to say that these people should not be able to come to their own arrangements, understandings and contractual agreements for money or not.

Once again:

They are not exploiting anyone, since what they are doing is entirely voluntary. This charity is not stealing from you, since by asking people to take advantage of something that is already their (according to those who think that the NHS is entirely legitimate, and who do not understand rights) ‘right’ to sterilisation on the NHS they are getting something that they are already entitled to.

If you disagree with the premiss of the NHS, then the drug addicts and everyone else who uses it for plastic surgery, dentistry or sterilisation is stealing from you wether or not this charity operates in the UK or not.

The logic of this post stands. People have the right to voluntarily contract with each other for anything and on whatever terms they like. You cannot on the one hand, ask for this to be controlled or say that, “it isn’t a transaction which has no effect outside of the charity and the addicts”; this is exactly the same logic that the people who want to ban Home Education use. They say that the children of Home Educators, as members of society, have an impact on that society if they are not educated in the school system and so therefore, Home Education is not a private matter, but is within the remit of the state to control on behalf of society, and parents have no right to Home Educate. If you accept that this charity should not be able to operate, or should be in any way constrained, attacked, scorned, chided or anything else, you are opening yourself up to the same attacks from the people who want to control you and your life, what you and how you solve your problems in ways that are ‘strange’, or ‘out of the norm’.

UPDATE AGAIN

The very wise Ali P, who taught us that Home Educated children are not pupils, pulls our her foil:

The Libertarian position on this is straightforward.

1. You own your own body.
2. You have the absolute right to voluntarily associate with whomever you like without interference.
3. You have the absolute right to voluntarily exchange with whomever you like without interference.

This means, for example, that prostitution (accepting money for sexual favours) should never be illegal, since it is the consenting act of trade between two people. It means that if you want to sell your hair, a kidney, or both of your kidneys, you have the right to do so since you have a property right in your own body.

As it happens, I agree with much of this in principle, but in practice, I believe coercion is frequently used to secure ‘consent’, whether it is statist coercion or other private or ‘charitable’ coercion. The ‘willing’ acceptance of home visits by some home educators, and the ‘advice’ of some charities to agree to these visits, is one example of what I mean by this.

I also agree that there is a parallel with prostitution, which is AFAIK not illegal in this country, although soliciting is. However, for practitioners of the oldest profession, it is not always a straightforward choice to enter voluntarily into a contract for the provision of services, since coercion, threats and even violence are routinely employed in the sector as effective techniques of persuasion.

When a ‘power over’ situation exists, whether it is overt as in forced marriage, human trafficking, domestic servitude (do they all sound familiar?) or more subtle as in cash for organs, sterilisation or whatever, it matters not IMO whether it is the state or A.N. Other who bribes, coerces, forces or otherwise extracts the individual’s apparent consent. And like it or not, some individuals are more vulnerable to such coercion, often through through age, illness or incapacity – drug addicts, for example.

I’d be interested in what others think about this.

Why not?!

We must be clear when we talk about these matters, using words only in their strict meaning, whilst also being careful to separate different classes of entity. The things we need to define in this mater are the two entities (a private group and the state) and exactly what coercion is and how free a free choice is.

By definition, a private charity cannot coerce someone to be sterilised:

co·er·cion? ?
[koh-ur-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

[…]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

As we can see from the dictionary definition of coercion, force or intimidation (threats of force) are necessary to make an action fall into the category of coercion. The second part of the definition explicitly mentions the state.

What this charity is doing is not coercion, but it could be classed as persuasion. This is a very different matter to coercion by the state, with its monopoly on violence.

Persuasion is at the centre of a civilised interaction between human beings. It means swaying someone purely by argument alone, the final freely made choice being made by the persuaded person.

To use the UK ID Card example once again, the state claimed that ID Cards were not compulsory, but you would not be able to get a passport without one, and would therefore not be able to travel to other countries. That is clear coercion, this time, with the threat of violently barricading you inside ‘your’ country.

The willing acceptance of home visits by some home educators, falls into this category; if you do not accept a visit from us, we will violently take your children from you. That is coercion pure and simple, and of the same kind, from the same source; the evil state.

As for charities giving ‘advice’ to agree to these visits, this is an example of lying, which is not coercion, but perhaps collusion. If Home Educators had their own legal defence fund and lawyers on tap, this would not be an issue of course.

The parallel with prostitution is very deep in this matter; this charity, according to the byzantine ‘thinking’ of some people and laws of the UK, could be accused of soliciting drug addicts to self mutilate… but I digress; the circumstances by which prostitutes become prostitutes is not relevant to this subject, when we are talking about people who choose that life, as we have seen recently. When people are forced to act as prostitutes through violence, this is unambiguously evil violence, and is not part of this discussion.

Once again, we must cleanly separate coercion, violence and free choice when we have discussions on these matters.

Some confused people say that if someone is poor, they do not have a free choice to refuse money for sterilisation or anything else, by virtue of their desperate need. This is simply not the case. For certain the pressure on them is much greater, but they still have a free choice to not participate in anything that they do not want to. These very weak minded arguments undermine Liberty and act as a foot in the door of everyone’s lives for the nanny state.

With reference to ‘power over’ situations, once again, its important not to conflate a group of different phenomena that are wildly disparate in their cause and natures.

‘Forced marriage’ is an unpleasant idea for the British and people from the culture of the west, where marriage is done out of love and not familial duty.. In other countries however, marriage is quite a different thing, and to them, ‘John meets Jane’ marriages are anathema.

How other people choose to marry in other countries has nothing to do with coercion as defined here. Human trafficking (which is much better termed slavery) is pure unambiguous violence; in the minds of the people whose culture accepts arranged marriages (which is the correct term, not ‘Forced marriage’) slavery is, for the most part, seen strictly as a sin.

Domestic servitude which appears to be yet another unnecessary way of saying slavery, once again is unambiguously evil, and the tests for it are straightforward and beyond this discussion.

Cash for organs and sterilisation for money are nothing to do with any of this; these are entirely legitimate, voluntary exchanges of property, over which a third party should have absolutely no say. To say otherwise, is to engage in slavery; the slavery where your body, and the bodies of your children belong to the collective, to do with what they please, as they please, when they please.

As for individuals being vulnerable, indeed drug addicts with their addled brains and diminished powers of reason are vulnerable to persuasion; this does not mean that all of us who are not drug addicts should not have the freedoms that are our right. Down this line of reasoning, comes the logic that since this class of person cannot reason for themselves or protect themselves, someone has to protect them from the predations of these charities. Of course, the other class of people who cannot reason for themselves or protect themselves are children; hey ho, whaddyaknow, y’ just made Lord Soley’s argument for him; children belong in schools because, “we have to know they are safe”.

This is the big danger of accepting as ‘common sense’ the immoral reasoning of collectivism (and this is explicitly not aimed at A.P.) embrace it at your peril, and do not complain when they come to take your children, using your own parroted arguments about ‘vulnerable people’ as the pretext.

In Libertarianism, you have a complete way of approaching every possible human interaction that has unassailable logic that protects you, your rights and your relationships with other people. It provides a platform for the maximum prosperity without any violence or coercion. Those who are against it are normally either confused or explicitly violent types – you know the sort, the ones that think restaurants should be licensed by the state ‘because someone might get sick’.

Unfortunately for many, Libertarianism means throwing out years of accumulated presumptions and frameworks, most learned by rote and repeated without any thought. Libertarianism gives you the tools to parse the world and penetrate the reams of nonsense that are spewed out on every subject, like this one. If you take the time to get to grips with it, and have the intelligence and the strength to throw away your bad thinking, you will be rewarded with a set of tools and a philosophy that are is formidable as it is unassailable.

Lew Rockwell has a great article about the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

It seems incredible that in the last days, a fundamental right of the whole of humanity, the freedom of association, has been denounced by the New York Times and all major opinion sources, even as a national political figure was reluctant to defend his own statements in favor of the idea, and then distanced himself from the notion. Has such a fundamental principle of liberty become unsayable?

Or perhaps it is not so incredible. An overweening government, in an age of despotism such as ours, must deny such a fundamental right simply because it is one of those core issues that speaks to who is in charge: the state or individuals.

We live in anti-liberal times, when individual choice is highly suspect. The driving legislative ethos is toward making all actions required or forbidden, with less and less room for human volition. Simply put, we no longer trust the idea of freedom. We can’t even imagine how it would work. What a distance we have travelled from the Age of Reason to our own times.

Referencing the great controversy about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Karen De Coster put the issue to rest by turning Rachel Maddow’s question on its head. She demanded to know whether a white businessman has the right to refuse service to a black man. Karen asked: does a black businessman have the right to refuse service to a Klan member?

I don’t think anyone would dispute that right. How a person uses the right to associate (which necessarily means the right not to associate) is a matter of individual choice profoundly influenced by the cultural context. That a person has the right to make these choices on his or her own cannot be denied by anyone who believes in liberty.

The right to exclude is not something incidental. It is core to the functioning of civilization. If I use proprietary software, I can’t download it without signing a contractual agreement. If I refuse to sign, the company doesn’t have to sell it to me. And why? Because it is their software and they set the terms of use. Period. There is nothing more to say.

If you run a blog that accepts comments, you know how important this right is. You have to be able to exclude spam or ban IP addresses of trolls or otherwise include and exclude based on whether a person’s contribution adds value. Every venue on the internet that calls forth public participation knows this. Without this right, any forum could collapse, having been taken over by bad elements.

We exercise the right to exclude every day. If you go to lunch, some people come and some people do not. When you have a dinner party, you are careful to include some people and necessarily exclude others. Some restaurants expect and demand shoes and shirts and even coats and ties. The New York Times includes some articles and excludes others, includes some people in its editorial meetings and excludes others.

When business hires, some people make the cut and others do not. It is the same with college admissions, church membership, fraternities, civic clubs, and nearly every other association. They all exercise the right to exclude. It is central to the organization of every aspect of life. If this right is denied, what do we get in its place? Coercion and compulsion. People are forced together by the state, with one group required at the point of a gun to serve another group. This is involuntary servitude, expressly prohibited by the 13th amendment. One presumes that a freedom-loving people will always be against that.

As Larry Elder says: “This is freedom 101.”

What about the claim that government should regulate the grounds of exclusion? Let’s say, for example, that we do not deny the general right of free association, but narrow its range to address a particular injustice. Is that plausible? Well, freedom is a bit like life, something that is or is not. Slicing and dicing it according to political priorities is exceedingly dangerous. It perpetrates social division, leads to arbitrary power, mandates a form of slavery, and turns the tables on who precisely is in charge in society.

[…]

And this is precisely why racialists, nationalists, and hard-core bigots have always opposed liberal capitalism: it includes and excludes based on the cash nexus and without regard to features that collectivists of all sorts regard as important. In the imagined utopias of the national socialists, the champions of commerce are hanged from lampposts as race traitors and enemies of the nation.

That’s because the market tends toward an ever-evolving, ever-changing tapestry of association, with patterns that cannot be known in advance and should not be regulated by federal masters. In contrast, government’s attempts to regulate association lead to disorder and social calamities.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/freedom-of-association145.html

Indeed; all of this is absolutely true, and I agree with it.

Government has no business forcing association or preventing association by law. Which puts into sharp relief the next part of this post.

It seems like the arguments questioning the logic of forcing anti discrimination by asserting that the state does not force people to enter restaurants or forbid people from engaging in boycotts are deflated in one aspect. It is indeed illogical that the state forces restaurants to serve but does not force patrons to enter… actually, they DO force people to trade with each other, and forbid boycotts.

In the USA, the Federal Government has enacted a law that forbids people from boycotting Israel.

What they are saying is that american firms are FORCED to deal with people that they may, for whatever reason, prefer not to deal with.

From the ‘Bureau of Industry and Security’, a department with a distinctly un-American name:

Antiboycott Compliance

The Bureau is charged with administering and enforcing the Antiboycott Laws under the Export Administration Act. Those laws discourage, and in some circumstances, prohibit U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League, and certain Moslem countries, including complying with certain requests for information designed to verify compliance with the boycott. Compliance with such requests may be prohibited by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and may be reportable to the Bureau.

Boycott Alert

U.S. companies continue to report receiving requests to engage in activities that further or support the boycott of Israel. U.S. companies may receive similar requests in the future. If you have questions, please call (202) 482-2381 and ask for the Duty Officer or you may contact us by email.

This is a law that forbids private companies from refraining from association.

Antiboycott Laws:

During the mid-1970’s the United States adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of U.S. citizens in other nation’s economic boycotts or embargoes. These “antiboycott” laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA). While these laws share a common purpose, there are distinctions in their administration.

Objectives:

The antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy.

Primary Impact:

The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today. The antiboycott laws, however, apply to all boycotts imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the United States.

Who Is Covered by the Laws?

The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to the activities of U.S. persons in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States. The term “U.S. person” includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States, including the permanent domestic affiliates of foreign concerns. U.S. persons also include U.S. citizens abroad (except when they reside abroad and are employed by non-U.S. persons) and the controlled in fact affiliates of domestic concerns. The test for “controlled in fact” is the ability to establish the general policies or to control the day to day operations of the foreign affiliate.

The scope of the EAR, as defined by Section 8 of the EAA, is limited to actions taken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.

What do the Laws Prohibit?

Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:

• Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
• Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.
• Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
• Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.

Implementing letters of credit containing prohibited boycott terms or conditions.

The TRA does not “prohibit” conduct, but denies tax benefits (“penalizes”) for certain types of boycott-related agreements.

Note the double talk, the act does not prohibit conduct, but penalises for agreements. Later on the page says:

Penalties:

The Export Admnistration Act (EAA) specifies penalties for violations of the Antiboycott Regulations as well as export control violations. These can include:

Criminal:

The penalties imposed for each “knowing” violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved, whichever is greater, and imprisonment of up to five years. During periods when the EAR are continued in effect by an Executive Order issued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the criminal penalties for each “willful” violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to ten years.

Administrative:

For each violation of the EAR any or all of the following may be imposed:

• General denial of export privileges;
• The imposition of fines of up to $11,000 per violation; and/or
• Exclusion from practice.

Boycott agreements under the TRA involve the denial of all or part of the foreign tax benefits discussed above.

When the EAA is in lapse, penalties for violation of the Antiboycott Regulations are governed by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA Enhancement Act provides for penalties of up to the greater of $250,000 per violation or twice the value of the transaction for administrative violations of Antiboycott Regulations, and up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment per violation for criminal antiboycott violations.

[…]

http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm

Amazing isn’t it? It does not prohibit conduct, but puts you in GAOL for doing it, removes your ‘export privileges’ (doing business is a privilege?), imposes incredibly large punitive fines, and finally (I presume) can revoke your license too practice your trade.

Absolutely immoral and illegitimate.

On the other hand, you have many states that enforce a boycott of Israel, which is an illegitimate and immoral denial of the right of association.

Not only do all of these countries violate the right of association, but they are violating the right of individuals to freely enter into contracts.

If someone wants to draw up a contract that contains a boycott clause, it is the absolute right of the parties to agree to this. Period. Obviously, the mandating of the insertion of such clauses is a clear violation; you should be able to remove or add clauses as both parties see fit.

Take a look at a representative sample of the clauses:

Office of Antiboycott Compliance

Examples of Boycott Requests

Following are recent examples of boycott requests that have been reported to the Office of Antiboycott Compliance. These examples are illustrative and not exhaustive. Companies should call our advice line (202) 482-2381 with questions concerning these or any request to comply with restrictive trade practices or boycotts.

BAHRAIN

Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Purchase Order:

“In the case of overseas suppliers, this order is placed subject to the suppliers being not on the Israel boycott list published by the central Arab League.”

Reportable boycott condition in an importer’s purchase order:

“Goods of Israeli origin not acceptable.”

Reportable boycott condition in a letter of credit:

“A signed statement from the shipping company, or its agent, stating the name, flag and nationality of the carrying vessel and confirming … that it is permitted to enter Arab ports.”

Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Contract

“Israeli Clause:
The Seller shall not supply goods or materials which have been manufactured or processed in Israel nor shall the services of any Israeli organization be used in handling or transporting the goods or materials.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“The Contractor shall comply in all respects with the requirements of the laws of the State of Bahrain relating to the boycott of Israel. Goods manufactured by companies blacklisted by the Arab Boycott of Israel Office may not be imported into the State of Bahrain and must not be supplied against this Contract. For information concerning the Boycott List, the Contractor can approach the nearest Arab Consulate.”

Prohibited Condition in a Letter of Credit

“Buyer shall in no way contravene the regulations issued by Bahrain Government and or Israel Boycott Office. Buyer shall not nominate a vessel blacklisted by the said office.”

BANGLADESH

Prohibited Boycott Condition in instructions to bidders on a contract

“No produced commodity shall be eligible for … financing if such commodity contains any component or components which were imported into the producing country from Israel and countries not eligible to trade with … the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The equipment and materials must not be of Israeli origin. The supplier/bidder who are not black listed by Arab boycott of Israel will be allowed to participate in this bid.”

IRAQ

Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Questionnaire

“1. Do you have or ever have had a branch or main company, factory or assembly plant in Israel or have sold to an Israeli?”

“2. Do you have or ever have had general agencies or offices in Israel for your Middle Eastern or international operations?”

“3. Have you ever granted the right of using your name, trademarks royalty, patent, copyright or that of any of your subsidiaries to Israeli persons or firms?”

“4. Do you participate or ever participated or owned shares in an Israeli firm or business?”

“5. Do you render now or ever have rendered any consultative service or technical assistance to any Israeli firm or business?”

“6. Do you represent now or ever have represented any Israeli firm or business or abroad?”

“7. What companies in whose capital are your shareholders?” Please state the name and nationality of each company and the percentage of share of their total capital.”

“8. What companies or shareholders in your capital? Please state the name and nationality of each company and the percentage of share of their total capital.”

“N.B. The above questions should be answered on behalf of the company itself and all of its branch companies, if any.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“The Contractor shall, throughout the continuance of the Contract, abide by and comply in all respects with the rules and instructions issued from time to time by the Israel Boycott Office in Iraq.”

Prohibited Condition in a Trademark Application

“Requirement for the registration of pharmaceutical companies:

Certification letter regarding the boycott of Israel (i.e., do not comprise any parts, raw materials, labor or capital of Israeli origin).”
“Requirement for the Registration of Medical Appliances, Disposables producing companies, and Laboratory diagnostic kit manufacturers:

Certification letter regarding boycott of Israel.”
Prohibited Condition in a Purchase Order

“Supplies of our purchase order should never be consigned or shipped by steamers included on Israel Boycott list.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“The bill of lading shall bear a note that the vessel delivering the cargo is not on the “Black List” and does not call at Israeli ports.”

KUWAIT

Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Custom’s document

“[The vessel entry document asks the ship’s captain to certify that,] no goods, dry cargo, or personal effects listed on the document of Israeli origin or manufactured by a blacklisted firm or company are to be landed as they will be subject to confiscation.”

Prohibited Boycott Condition in Letter of Credit

“We hereby certify that the beneficiaries, manufacturers, exporters and transferees of this credit are neither blacklisted nor have any connection with Israel, and that the terms and conditions of this credit in no way contravenes the law pertaining to the boycott of Israel and the decisions issued by the Israel Boycott Office.”

Reportable Boycott Condition in Letter of Credit:

“Importation of goods from Israel is strictly prohibited by Kuwait import regulations; therefore, certificate of origin covering goods originating in Israel is not acceptable.”

Prohibited Condition in a Purchase Order

“All shipments under this order shall comply with Israel Boycott Office Rules and Regulations.”

Prohibited Condition in a Purchase Order

“Goods must not be shipped on vessels/carriers included in the Israeli Boycott list.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“The vendor (as person or organization) or his representatives should not be an Israeli national. So the vendor should not be owned, managed, or represented by any companies that carry an Israeli nationality and there should not be any sub-contractors that carry Israeli nationality.

The vendor should not involve any person or representatives that carries the Israeli nationality in importing or exporting the software or hardware mentioned in this contract and its appendices and the vendor should provide all documents that support the above information.”

LEBANON

Prohibited Boycott Condition in Power of Attorney from Lebanese firm

A Lebanese firm sent a power of attorney affidavit to appoint a local agent in Iraq to a U.S. firm. The affidavit asked that U.S. firm answer a series of questions concerning the Arab boycott. These questions included whether the firm had a plant in Israel, has sold to Israel, had offices in Israel, owned shares in an Israeli firm, had provided services for an Israeli firm, or had granted any trademarks, copy or patent rights to Israeli persons of firms.

Reportable Boycott Condition in letter of credit:

“Certificate issued by the shipping company or its agent testifying that the carrying vessel is allowed to enter the Lebanese port…”

LIBYA

Prohibited Condition in a Letter of Credit

“Original commercial invoice signed and certified by the beneficiary that the goods supplied are not manufactured by either a company or one of its subsidiary branches who are blacklisted by the Arab boycott of Israel or in which Israeli capital is invested.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“The Second Party shall observe the provisions of the Law for Boycott of Israel or any other State which the provisions for Boycott are applicable and shall ensure such observation from any other sub-contractor. In case of contravening this condition, the First Party shall have the right to cancel the contract and confiscate the deposit by mere notice by registered letter without prejudice to his right of compensation.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“Boycott Provisions:
The Contractor shall observe and comply with all the provisions and decisions concerning the boycott to Israel or any other country the same is valid. The Contractor shall secure the respect of such boycott by any other party he might have subcontracted with him.”

Prohibited Condition in a Certificate of Origin

“The goods being exported are of national origin of the producing country and the goods do not contain any components of Israeli origin, whatever the proportion of such component is. We, the exporter, declare that the company producing the respective commodity is not an affiliate to or mother of any company that appears on the Israeli boycott blacklist and also, we the exporter, have no direct or indirect connection with Israel and shall act in compliance with the principles and regulations of the Arab boycott of Israel.”

[…]

http://www.bis.doc.gov/antiboycottcompliance/oacantiboycottrequestexamples.html

Did you know that if you have a stamp from Israel in your passport, none of these countries will issue a VISA?

In the USA, it is clearly illegal for a greengrocer to require a wholesaler to only provide products that do not come from Israel. The law says that it is illegal to participate in foreign boycotts, but how can anyone separate a foreign boycott from a USA led boycott? If the terms are exactly the same, and a foreign boycott started first, then how could you prove that your domestic boycott is not an extension of a foreign one?

The people who drafted this law knew that the constitutionality of this law would have been challenged immiediately if it had been an outright ban on boycotting, so they put it in the context of foreign boycotts to get around that pesky piece of paper.

It’s an interesting question.

There are certain trades, like the gem trade, where people from these two supposedly separate spheres, who publicly are unalterably opposed, do business together as if they were members of the same family.

They make agreements on a handshake, where vast amounts of money are involved, and everyone behaves like rational human beings.

This is what happens when you remove the malevolent influence of the state. Without the state interfering, on both sides, people behave rationally and manage to live together without conflict.

This is the truth, it always has been the truth, and the only people who are against the sort of peace that we all expect are the statist collectivists who, with their foul and artificial divisions of humanity, cause every act of violence in the world.

Rand Paul has won the Republican nomination in the race for the Senate seat in Kentucky, and since this has happened, all the mainstream media are being prompted to pour over what ‘Libertarian’ actually means (even though Rand Paul says he is not a Libertarian) in practice, and they are finding that it is to say the least not to their taste.

In particular, they have discovered the part of Libertarianism that, quite logically, extends the idea of property rights to the subject of restaurant owners excluding people from their establishments for what many feel are not good reasons.

The fact of this matter is simple; either people have property rights or they do not. If the government can mandate that a restaurant must accept me as a client, then the owner of that restaurant does not have property rights in his establishment; the state is the owner of that place because ultimately, they are able to force the owner to serve people he would rather not serve. They are also making the owner into their servant, by forcing him to work for someone he would rather not work for (the act of cooking).

If the state can do this to restaurant owners, then they can do the same thing to any person, for any reason, including you. This is the reason why we must accept the risk that there are people in the world who discriminate, and accept that we have to share the world with them. We cannot gang up against them and force them to believe what we believe; doing that is immoral, and there are no two ways about that.

The possibility of discrimination is one of the risks of living in a space where people are at liberty to live as they see fit and exercise control over their property. You are going to get some people who discriminate, who hold and publish opinions that we find objectionable and who we would not care to associate with. We cannot eliminate risk from the world, and we cannot eliminate behaviours that we do not like. We are obliged to live with these people just as they are obliged to live with us. As long as they do not use violence against us, or gang together to coerce us, there is no problem whatsoever with restauranteurs, who are to our minds, savage, behaving like savages.

Sadly, people in the mainstream believe many contradictory ideas simultaneously. They believe that censorship is wrong, but that there should be such a thing as ‘hate speech’. They believe that they should have the right to Home Educate without being licensed because bad home Educators are practically non existent, but restauranteurs should be licensed, because “someone might be poisoned”. Similarly, these people believe that the property rights of others should be nullified, whilst their property rights are enshrined and protected. This is illogical and irrational thinking.

People in the mainstream of thought are outraged that artists are forbidden from drawing depictions of religious figures, but at the same time, will not support other people who espouse ideas or draw pictures that they find distasteful.

Libertarians do not suffer from this contradictory thinking. Libertarians understand rights correctly; you cannot use the government to enforce your beliefs or ideas; it is immoral and coercive. Banning Facebook because it hosts ideas you do not like is exactly the same as putting someone in gaol because you do not like his view of history. Supporting restauranteurs’ right to ban people from bringing handguns into their premises (or even more likely banning smokers) means you must support the right of restauranteurs to ban anything or any person for any reason. You cannot pick and choose what rights restauranteurs should have based on your own personal prejudices and personal circumstances.

There is a distinction between the state and the private sphere that is not properly understood by ‘normal’ thinkers. If we are to take the premise of democracy and representative government at face value, then anyone who votes or pays taxes or who is a member of ‘society’ has, by default, the same rights to services and to serve as any other member of society. That means that as equal stakeholders in society, the state cannot discriminate against a person for any reason whatsoever, as each person is an equal participant in the collective. The state, with its monopoly on coercion and violence has an obligation to treat all people equally that private people and the businesses they own and control do not. This is the key difference between the realm of the state and the world of private property. Private people do not have the right to use violence to extract monies from individuals, and neither does the public have a quotal share in the property of private people. Private people are also under no obligation to be in service to anyone; any other position than this is to condone slavery. The state, on the other hand, has the power (but not the right) to use violence, has an explicit obligation to serve the electorate, and the public has a quotal share in it and by its own rules, has ‘rights’ granted by it. The two could not be more different, and it is crucial, if you are to understand why restauranteurs have the right to exclude types of potential patron, that you have a clear delineation in your mind separating the state and private spheres.

As this argument rages on, you will see bad thinking swirling around this subject, grouped by the type of speaker. You will hear the same arguments, smears and nonsense again and again from the violent, statist, anti-Libertarians, and they will look like this:

They will:

• Conflate the disturbing imagery and injustices of the past with the core idea that man has rights, including unpleasant people who own restaurants.
• Insist that the state is needed to remove the rights of some people for the good of the whole.
• Mischaracterise Libertarians as people who are against the rights of ‘minorities’, when the exact opposite is the case.
• Use an endless stream of straw men to try and stamp a mark of disapproval on Libertarians.

Libertarians are the most pure anti racists out there. The whole of Libertarianism rejects the idea that people have different or separate rights depending on what they look like, what they believe, or who they prefer to have sex with. They are also the most rights conscious and clear thinking. They are the sworn enemies of almost all conventional wisdom and every foul thing that comes from it.

The logic of Libertarianism is unassailable, civilised, and completely embracing of all people; this may be the reason why it is greeted by such hostility by self selecting groups who make a living out of defining themselves by artificial and false distinctions. These groups are on to a good thing, and widespread adoption of Libertarianism would shut them down permanently. They would no longer be in line for special treatment at the expense of others, neither would they be able to exert control over other groups in any way.

As Libertarianism continues to grow, we can expect more of these desperate and flailing attacks. When the mainstream gatekeepers of public opinion start to delve into the writings of Murray Rothbard, they will find much that is offensive to them, and they will try to use what they find there to demonise and discredit Libertarianism.

Unfortunately for them, the very act of exposing these ideas will cause hundreds of millions to embrace them, because Libertarianism makes perfect sense and is in perfect tune with the true nature of man.

When men are living in a state of liberty, people’s feelings are going to be hurt. There are going to be bad people. There are going to be people who discriminate. There are going to be people who offend others with their ideas. All of these things are a price worth paying for liberty, such is the sweetness of that condition.

A lurking parent sent this in:

Europe presses UK to introduce total ban on smacking children
The Council of Europe says London needs to comply with 1998 ruling that said smacking violates children’s rights

The UK will come under increasing pressure to ban all smacking and corporal punishment of children as the European human rights body steps up pressure for a change in the law.

The Council of Europe – which monitors compliance with the European convention on human rights – will criticise the UK because it has not banned smacking more than 10 years after a ruling in 1998 that the practice could violate children’s rights against inhuman and degrading treatment.

Could violate ‘children’s rights’?

As you know, there is no such thing as ‘children’s rights’; this idea is nothing more than a pretext for the state to become the ultimate parent of all children.

All of you people who subscribe to the concept of ‘non violent parenting‘ might cheer the EU on this matter, but beware; first they tell you that you cannot discipline your child through a slap, then they will tell you that your child has the ‘right’ to go to school against your wishes, and you will have no where to turn to to stop it.

In fact, anything that your child wants that you do not want to give it will be a cause for the state to intervene; after all, they have a right to the internet, to TV, to school, to live without discipline, to sex, to eat whatever they like, and rights to things you cannot imagine that they have a right to.

You let them in on this issue and you can forget bringing up your children in your own way. Period.

“The campaign to abolish corporal punishment across the Council of Europe is gathering momentum; 20 countries have formally abolished laws allowing it in the past three years,” said Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, deputy secretary general of the Council of Europe.

Obviously it doesn’t matter how many countries introduce something, that does not confer legitimacy to their actions.

“The UK is one of the countries that has not yet implemented a full ban. In part, this is because the traditional parent-child relationship in the UK is one of authority [and] state intervention into family affairs is still not welcome,” she added.

and quite right too. There is no reason why that should change. The French, Germans, Dutch, Belgians and all the rest of them can do whatever they like in their own countries. There is no reason whatsoever that Britain should adopt this insanity.

We are talking about fundamental human rights,”

No, you are not. You are talking about a fallacious, fictional and dangerous fantasy ‘Children’s Rights’, which are a statists dream.

The state, through its role as the protector of these imaginary rights becomes the parent and owner of all children. The state controls all children, parents are sidelined and the fabric of human culture is re woven to include the toxic thread of the state as the strength of the cloth. It is pure, unadulterated evil.

she said. “Not only do children have the same human rights as adults, but they are more vulnerable than adults. They need more protection and not less.”

This is a very clever lie.

Children do have the same rights as adults, but they are a special form of property partly because they are vulnerable. The proper people to have the property rights in a child are the people who created it. It is not moral, natural or correct that the state should seize children and own them or exercise powers and property rights in children.

Children need protecting FROM the state not BY the state.

Current law prohibits the use of force against children,

Unless that force is being used by the state, which has a monopoly on the use of force and violence.

but gives adults in the home and in some part-time schools and religious institutions a defence to the charge of assault in cases of mild force where they can show the punishment was reasonable.

Corporal punishment is a very useful tool to maintain discipline in a school or the home. You can choose to use it or not as a parent. You can choose to send your child to a school where it is used to maintain order. That is your business; it is not the affair of the state.

The first ban on smacking was not introduced in the UK until 1987, then extended to independent schools in 1999. Further laws passed in the past decade have prohibited the use of corporal punishment in children’s homes and state care.

And now, children are running, literally wild in the streets, raping teachers, knifing them and everything imaginable and unimaginable beneath those crimes. Children who are properly disciplined from the off do not do any of this, and that is why schoolchildren in the 1950’s were so well behaved; they knew that if they got out of line there would be hell to pay.

Since 2004, the law has changed further to make it harder for parents, or adults “in loco parentis”, to use the defence of reasonable punishment when they could otherwise be charged with assault.

And Britain is suffering the consequences of this insanity.

Concerns remain about smacking at home and in part-time educational institutions such as weekend faith schools, where adults using “reasonable force” can avoid prosecutions. Last month, Sir Roger Singleton, the government’s independent adviser on child safety, published a report that recommended smacking should be banned in all places outside the home, citing particular concern about part-time schools and places of worship.

I wonder what Roger Singleton recommends to return discipline to schools? Why are these people so very keen to interfere with the private business of individuals? The sooner they are all consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

“Protection against physical punishment should be extended to all forms of care, education and instruction outside the family,” Singleton said.

‘Bollocks’ as a wise Home Educator once said to me.

However, the report stopped short of recommending a change in the law that allows parents to use corporal punishment within the home.

“I have concluded that any attempt to define those family categories or circumstances to which the availability of the defence ought or ought not to apply would be cumbersome, bureaucratic, largely impractical and very difficult to communicate,” Singleton said.

Interesting… WHY? They have no problem trying to pass legislation allowing them to enter the homes of people who Home Educate, why not do the same for this? Because there are too many properly operating families left in the country, and such a move would cause widespread anger that they just do not want to deal with. The incandescent rage of the Home Educators shone like a dawn before a hot summer day. Millions of parents in revolt to the same level would be like midday on Mercury in comparison.

None of the three main parties have any specific policy on corporal punishment in their election manifestos.

The BNP are for corporal punishment. You should read their manifesto (PDF), I guarantee you someone else is reading it, and agreeing with it.

Earlier this year, two Liberal Democrat MPs attempted to introduce a clause in the children, schools and families bill which would have limited the lawful use of corporal punishment to parents and those with parental responsibility.

You see? TOTAL LIB DEM FAIL once again! These people are your mortal enemies.

Spare the rod, spoil the child!

Ed Balls, the children’s secretary, has indicated that the government would support a ban on smacking outside the family, but not a full ban.

Why not?

This is the same bastard that wants your children to go to school because he believes that you are a child abuser if you do not send your children to be in his fat necked care.

“Sir Roger’s report makes it absolutely clear that a child should not be smacked by anyone outside their family.

Why not? If that task is delegated to another person, it is none of the business of the state. Children know that they are immune from discipline whey they are out of the home, that is why they are running wild!

I believe this is a sensible and proportionate approach,” Balls said. But the Council of Europe is increasingly critical of the UK’s approach, likening the campaign to the move towards the abolition of the death penalty.”Specific places cannot be exempt from rights,” said De Boer-Buquicchio. “Rights pertain to human beings wherever they are and in whatever circumstances and whatever the setting.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/25/law-reform-smacking-europe-uk

This is nothing like the death penalty. This is about controlling families in a completely unacceptable way, not banning a form of punishment that only the state can mete out.

Don’t be fooled by total scumbag Mr. Balls and his suddenly pro family stance; this is merely for the election. If he were to return to his office, he would go hog wild for implementing this evil ban and reintroducing his noxious bill to eradicate Home Education.

To my utter dismay, there are ACTUALLY PEOPLE WHO ARE INTENDING TO VOTE LABOUR!

It beggars belief!

UPDATE!

One of the great revelations of Libertarianism is the correction it makes to crucial words that are used in the English language. ‘Taxation’ is in actuality ‘theft’. ‘War’ is more properly called ‘mass murder’. ‘Conscription’ is, named correctly, ‘slavery’. All of these things and more, when they are called what they really are, can be put into the proper perspective so that you can think about them correctly. Without knowing what words really mean, you cannot start to come to a proper conclusion of any kind about the issues surrounding them. The same is true about the word ‘violence’.

To get to the bottom of this, we need to separate the world of adults from the world of children, and we need to define the terms.

Adults using force against each other is violence. Two men in a boxing ring thrashing it out is NOT violence, and neither is fencing, rugby or any other contact sport. Violence is a physical act of aggression committed by an adult against another, unwilling, non consenting adult.

A parent whipping a child is chastisement, not violence. Chastisement is completely different to violence between adults, where one adult profits in some way from the injury or coercion or damage done to another adult. In chastisement, the child benefits from the lesson imparted by the pain involved in the punishment.

For example, when a young child is walking with its mother down the street and she sees a ball in the middle of the road, she may (if she has not yet learned this lesson) run into the street to retrieve it, putting herself in mortal danger. When a child does this, the first response is for the mother to intone ‘NO!’ in a stern voice. Then, if the child bolts for the ball again, the mother intones ‘NO!’ accompanied by a sound slap. After a lesson like that, any normal child would forever more refrain from running into the road. That is the purpose of chastisement; to reinforce the gravity of a wrong act, its danger etc etc. Understanding by words is sometimes not enough to overcome the will to have fun, and this is where chastisement can communicate gravity where words are insufficient.

Chastisement and punishment are not violence in the context of the parent and its child.

We have all heard the phrase, “This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you”. That neatly sums up what the true nature of chastisement is; violence, apart from being adults against adults (equal classes of human being), hurts the victim more than the aggressor, and this is by design. Of course, in the case of chastisement there is no victim, since chastisement is beneficial and is done out of love, and not out of the desire for gain.

Thinkers on this subject must be very careful about conflating the adult world, its relationships and interactions which are peer to peer, with the world of parents and their children which is one of owner of property to property.

This property based relationship makes obvious the fact that if an adult who is not the parent of a child, spanks a child without the permission of the parent, that is an act of violence. Only the parent has the right to use or authorise the use of chastisement upon its children. All other adults have no right to punish or chastise or command a child, unless of course, that child is is infringing the property rights of that adult.

It is incoherent and incomplete thinking, a fundamental lack of understanding of English and a mixing up of the adult world and the world of children and parents that started the entirely evil ‘children’s rights’ movement. The relationship between parents and children cannot and should not be conflated with adult relationships. As soon as you do that, you immediately end up with ‘children’s rights’, ‘hearing the voice of the child’, children ‘choosing their own religion’ and all other nonsense like that, all enforced by the state.

Children are not free in the way that adults are free. Children and adults are not equatable in this respect, since one is a special case of the property of the other.

Man’s domestic relationships and rules are of course, his own affair. Many parents today accept behaviour from their children which is appalling, shocking and incomprehensible to some. So be it. When those children misbehave in the streets, everyone knows who to blame. When they cannot sit still in a restaurant, everyone knows who to blame. When they climb upon statues and run hog wild in museums while on group outings we know who to blame. When they scream at the top of their lungs in a supermarket or other public place, we know who to blame. When they constantly interrupt, force the parent to take them out of a public space because they are completely hysterical and out of control… we know who to blame.

Often the parents of such feral children are apologetic and embarrassed when their children go wild; it causes the observer of such bad behaviour to silently ask the question, “Why are you embarrassed? This is the type of child you are rearing with your style of parenting, you have nothing to explain to anyone, so why are you blushing with shame and embarrassment when your child ‘flips out’ in public?”.

The fact of the matter is those parents who have children that do not know how to behave and who have no boundaries know perfectly well that their children are in fact poorly reared, and they are embarrassed because they know that their children’s disorderly behaviour reflects poorly on them. This is especially true when there are children who are properly parented side by side with wild children. You can see it everywhere; when well behaved children are called, “time to go home!” in a park they obey without question and get ready to go. The bad children whine, the really bad children start to cry, le méchant throw a tantrum and les Enfant terrible fling themselves on the floor in complete hysterics. Allowing your child to expose this sort of revolting behaviour to other people is simply disgusting. To some. Parents get to know what parks to go to and which to avoid, and which families to avoid also.

But I digress.

If we really want to change the world for the better, we all need to know our boundaries and stay within them. We might also consider the sort of children we are going to unleash on the world, and make sure the parenting that is provided to them imparts discipline as well as an understanding of what the world really is and what free people are. I have deliberately not touched on the subject of obedience; it is clearly tightly linked to chastisement and its application. This whole area contains many elements that make it difficult to strike a balance for some, especially since it involves your offspring and an uncertain future that is almost certainly going to be filled with bad people. There is no greater teacher than experience, and for those that have more than one child, it gets easier as time goes on, and those in extended families have it even better.

One thing we can say for sure is this; all aspects of parenting are a strictly private affair and its completely up to you to parent in whatever way you feel is appropriate. It is also up to you to pick and choose who you associate with; those parents with children who are intolerable to one group are either included or excluded from your social circle and that is the end of it. This is perfectly natural; “birds of a feather, flock together”. As long as no one tries to force you to live like them, or accept behaviour that is repulsive to you, everyone can live in peace, share information, share public spaces, opinions and enjoy their lives. It is only when someone thinks they are right and then tries to make you obey them that trouble starts.

Google ‘not interested’ in privacy, say information tsars

Google has repeatedly shown a “disappointing disregard” for safeguarding private information about its users, the privacy officials from 10 major countries have said.

Britain’s Information Commissioner Chris Graham and equivalent officials from Canada, France, Germany and Italy were among the signatories to a letter to the search giant’s chief executive, Eric Schmidt, which condemned the way the company has delivered both its Streetview mapping service and its Buzz product, which was conceived as a rival to social network Facebook.

The letter, organised by Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, calls on Google to lay out how it will meet concerns about its use of public data in the future, and says that it has “violated the fundamental principle that individuals should be able to control the use of their personal information”. The search giant has already acted to address a number of the points now raised in the letter, but said that it had no further statements to make on its privacy policies.

The launch of the Buzz network in February sparked an international wave of protests because it took information about email users’ most common correspondents and automatically built each individual a network of followers. This meant that links which people wished to keep private could immediately become public.

Google Streetview, which provides an eye-level picture of almost every street in dozens of cities around the world, continues to cause “concern about the adequacy of the information [Google] provides before the images are captured”, the commissioners said. The product has also been launched some countries “without due consideration of privacy and data protection laws and cultural norms”, they added.

In a statement Google said that it had quickly rectified the problems that caused Buzz users concern. “We have discussed all these issues publicly many times before and have nothing to add to today’s letter,” the search company said. “Of course we do not get everything 100% right. We try very hard to be upfront about the data we collect, and how we use it, as well as to build meaningful controls into our products.“

The commissioners, however, said that they “remain extremely concerned about how a product with such significant privacy issues [as Buzz] was launched in the first place”.

[…]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7612988/Google-not-interested-in-privacy.html

The hypocrisy of the state is a bottomless well full of the excrement of a thousand years of violence, theft, lies and bastardy. They “remain extremely concerned about how a product with such significant privacy issues [as Buzz] was launched in the first place”. What an extraordinary statement, especially coming from the people who issue mandatory Passports, ID Cards, forced enrolment in ContactPoint and all the other harmful things that these states have deployed, knowing full well in advance that they were harmful to the privacy of the people who would be forced into being violated by them.

Lets think about what Google DOES NOT DO, compared to what these states DO DO.

Google does not:

• FORCE people into a National Identity Register, where your fingerprints are taken BY FORCE.
• Operate a system of MANDATORY passports where if you want to exercise your right to travel, you need their permission in advance.
• FORCE people to apply for and carry a driver’s license to drive their own cars
• FORCE people to carry an ID Card when they leave their own houses
• FORCE people to ‘register’ their children at birth
• FORCE people’s children onto databases like ContactPoint
• FORCE people to reveal their private banking transactions to facilitate theft
• FORCE private companies to violate the privacy of their users
• SPY on people’s telephone conversations
• SPY on people’s emails
• READ people’s snail mail to spy on them
• FORCE people to be locked into their violations and predations with no opt out
• FORCE people to _________ their own ________ so that they can __________

Google is a provider of VOLUNTARY SERVICES that exist on a PRIVATE NETWORK OF COMPUTERS that is the internets. In this respect, they are absolutely moral, clean and without blemish of any kind. You do not like their services? Go to Yahoo, Hotmail or the devil for all they care. Google will not hunt you down with guns and murder you for refusing their voluntary services, unlike the state.

All of these purely evil people, namely Jennifer Stoddart Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Alex Türk? Chairman, Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (France), Peter Schaar? Commissioner, Bundesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit (Germany), Billy Hawkes ?Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland, Yoram Hacohen ?Head of the Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority, Francesco Pizzetti? Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy), Jacob Kohnstamm? Chairman, College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens (Netherlands)?Chairman Article 29 Working Party, Marie Shroff ?Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand, Artemi Rallo Lombarte? Director, Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (Spain), Christopher Graham? Information Commissioner and Chief Executive (United Kingdom)

Are ALL guilty of working for criminal and immoral organisations that routinely steal, murder and violate the property and privacy of hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis. There is no escaping this, and they have a huge amount of PURE GALL attacking Google in this way.

When these idiotic, violent, violating, computer illiterate agents of the state offer:

giving people simple procedures for deleting their accounts and honouring their requests in a timely way.

so that the state has none of the information they hold on citizens, THEN and ONLY THEN will they be in a position to say ANYTHING to Google. The state should not have a monopoly on privacy violation; this is what it has now, and that is unacceptable to any decent person with a properly formulated code of ethics.

While we are at it, we must make special mention of Germany and Canada, who outlaw speech that they find objectionable. Obviously (you read BLOGDIAL after all) you know that what anyone feels about a particular speaker is irrelevant. Freedom of speech is a non negotiable absolute. It is entirely illegitimate for the state to proscribe strings of words.

But I digress.

These people, these unproductive, unethical parasites, have a hell of a nerve writing a letter to a company that provides a useful and completely voluntary service to anyone who wants it.

People do not like being on streetview. This is understandable. If all the roads were private, then streetview would be impossible. The people who own the streets would have the right to exclude the streetview cars from travelling down their roads. Libertarians WIN again!

Of course, this would not stop people making drawings of what is on a street and publishing them; those would be just as useful as photographs and would not violate anyone’s privacy.

Thankfully, Google has some balls:

As we have written before, there are definitely questions to be asked over the privacy implications of StreetView and the so-called ‘joined-up’ online world Google is creating with phone, email. social networking, GPS mapping and, potentially, medical records all being held on the database of one large multinational company.

Well, it seems that Google took the accusations to heart and – in a wonderfully catty reaction – has today published a a tool that shows how often governments around the world have either asked it for data on users or asked that data be removed from Google search results.

This ‘Government requests tool’ (click here to view the fascinating table) reveals some very interesting results. As explained by tech site V3.co.uk:

Top of the list of user information requests is Brazil with 3,663 inquiries, reflecting the strength of Google’s Orkut social networking system in that country. The US comes second with 3,580 requests and the UK third with 1,166, the highest in Europe by a considerable margin.

Brazil also tops the lists of information removal, with 291 requests. Germany comes second with 188 and India third with 142, edging out the US, which made 123 requests.

Congratulations should go out to Google for publishing this table and revealing the extent to which Governments around the world are prepared to lean on internet-based companies – and potentially control what we see on the web. Congratulations are also due to our Information Commissioner for recognising the privacy issues with StreetView etc.

It further proves that it is not just state databases we should be concerned about.

[…]

http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/04/google-reacts-to-government-privacy-complaints.html

Actually, Big Brother Watch is wrong about the non state databases being something of concern; it is only the state’s mandatory access to private data that causes the problem, not the fact that company owned databases are used as a tool. If there were no state, there would be no threat from databases because it is the violence of the state that makes a database dangerous.

Google and more recently Talk Talk are demonstrating that they have some guts and are not willing to passively be the apparatus of the state.

At last, a ram amongst the sheep!

This just flashed across my screen:

Now lets take a look at this which is an interesting site, where they ask questions like:

Why can’t Africans decline the bad constitutions that condemn them to death?

Which is a very good question. Not only for ‘Africans’ but for anybody, anywhere.

Those in the know understand that any state, no matter how small turns eventually into a big state. No constitution can ever protect your rights in the long run, because someone, somewhere, will either just ignore it entirely or chip away at it until it becomes meaningless. No matter how it is drafted, either by a group of highly moral and intelligent men, or in an ‘Open Source’ manner (whatever that means) the idea of a written constitution as a means to create a supreme law is flawed.

Then we have this really interesting ‘declaration of individual sovereignty’:

Declaration of Individual Sovereignty

I, ____________________(Name) being of sound mind and judgment do hereby on this ______________________(Date), Declare myself a Sovereign Individual with no authority or law above me, but that of the one true, eternal, and almighty God.

• As a Sovereign Individual I have the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Prosperity.
• As a Sovereign Individual, I declare and reserve, without qualification by any present day State in Africa, the following inherent and inalienable rights and liberties:
• To freely practice my religion and openly share my beliefs and convictions with others.
• To self-ownership – the free and voluntary use of the attributes and powers inherent to my body and mind and of my property for whatever purposes I deem fit, with no legal precondition regarding its effect on my body and mind or on my property.
• To property-ownership – the wages and compensation received in exchange for the labor of my body, the thoughts of my mind, and all the efforts of my work. No association or governance has the right to take any coerced levies, fees or taxes from me. Any and all payments, physical or mental contributions must be voluntarily arranged, agreed upon, signed and documented beforehand. I have the right to protect myself from theft by people and associations.
• To freely express myself in speech, writing, thoughts, media, art, and every other form. This right is not to be limited by labels of slander, defamation, or hate; nor constrained during times of emergency, public danger or distress.
• To the privacy of my person, papers, communications, home and property, against any search or seizure.
• To freely associate with any individual, and to form voluntary agreements and contracts with other individuals. This includes the right to form privately held for-profit businesses, social organizations, charities, local Cantons, dispute resolution organizations and religious organizations for my benefit and the benefit of my family.
• To freely and voluntarily enter into marital arrangements with any person of my choice and to reproduce by the conception, birth and rearing of my children who themselves will have the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Prosperity.
• To freely assemble, march, protest, and demonstrate with other individuals both in public and private.
• To freely travel within Africa from place to place without permit, license, passport, or permission from any authority.
• To own, carry on my person, conceal and use firearms for the protection of my property and the defense of myself and others in my home and in all public places.
• To self-defense against any form of force or fraud, whether initiated by an individual or associations. This right of self-defense includes the right to take another person’s life in defense of my person, liberties, family, or property.

The enumeration in this Declaration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage my other natural, essential and sacred rights and liberties retained in my individual Sovereignty. I hereby recognize these rights both for myself and all other sovereign individuals, whose same rights I will always respect.

I hereby declare these rights and freedoms for the entire world and all of humanity to know and recognize them as God-given, and thereby acknowledge my individual sovereignty.

SIGNATURE____________________

With this declaration in place and the means to enforce it, who needs a constitution at all? Why would you need to collaborate with other people, or a ‘steering committee‘ to draft a redundant constitution?

While we are at it, where does ‘Africa’ end? The land mass currently called ‘Africa’ connects to Saudi Arabia at the country called ‘Egypt’, last Time I checked; what is to stop those ‘Saudi’ people saying that ‘Saudi Arabia’ now extends into ‘Africa’?

It’s an interesting question.

Presumably anyone who gets to the shores of ‘Africa’ can call themselves an ‘African’ and claim all the rights that ‘Africans’ claim through this document.

All good, according to Libertarians.

I happen to agree 1000% that Hong Kong, Dubai style transformation can happen anywhere in the continent of Africa if the conditions are correct, and the building of such a place is long overdue.

No matter what comes out of the efforts of these particular people, its clear that Liberty is on the minds of everyone, and not just living under a more liberal government that steals and murders less than the previous one; people are interested in REAL liberty, where there is NO STATE WHATSOEVER.

‘Africans’, you are going to need lots of guns, and yes, because no one has ever done this before, it is going to work!

The owners of Wikileaks are under pressure from both the Icelandic State and The Great Satan:

• WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact press-club@sunshinepress.org
• WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining
• If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible.
• Two under State Dep diplomatic cover followed our editor from Iceland to http://skup.no on Thursday.
• One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computer’s seized.That’s http://www.skup.no
• We know our possession of the decrypted airstrike video is now being discussed at the highest levels of US command.
• We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike.
• We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don’t think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks.

Those tweets demonstrate that WikiLeaks is considered a real threat, and that the state is going to do anything they can to shut them down; at the very least, they will use the same amount of pressure they put on Cryptome and its owner. They might go further. Who knows?

What we can say for sure is that the people who run WikiLeaks, after they have changed their trousers, need to very seriously consider what they are doing and what they are promoting.

On the one hand they are promoting IMMI which translates to, “we support the violent state” and then on the other hand, they shout “DO NOT WANT” when that very same state comes after them.

You cannot have it both ways.

You cannot be FOR the state when it is doing something that you agree with and then be AGAINST the state when it is doing something that you do not like.

It is 100% guaranteed that whoever is harassing Wikileaks from the Icelandic government believes absolutely that they are justified in doing what they are doing, as odd as it may seem to decent people. This is the problem; the state is a monster on a leash that obeys whoever the owner of the leash is. Wikileaks promoting IMMI control the leash for what they like, against the wishes of and at the expense of other people, and the people following them use that same monster on a leash to trouble them. The only way to be free of it is to KILL THE BEAST and BURN THE LEASH.

Icelanders and in this case Wikileaks need to understand that the state itself is their problem. They need to reject it, reorganise to exist without it, and do it NOW while the beast is wounded.

Maggie Atkinson, is the ‘Chiidren’s Commissioner’:

First of all, what is a commissioner?

Commissioner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Commissioner is in principle the title given to a member of a commission or to an individual who has been given a commission (official charge or authority to do something, the noun’s second meaning).

In practice the title of commissioner has evolved to include a variety of senior officials, often sitting on a specific commission. In particular, commissioner frequently refers to senior police or government officials. A High Commissioner is equivalent to an ambassador, originally between the United Kingdom and the Dominions sharing the British Monarch as head of state and now between all Commonwealth states whether Commonwealth Realms, Commonwealth Republics or Commonwealth states having their own monarchs.

[…]

Soviet Union

From the October Revolution in 1917 until the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991, the Soviet government as well as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its predecessors used commissioner (in Russian ???????? or commissar) as a term for multiple positions. From 1917 until 1946 ministers of government were called people’s commissars (and ministries were called “people’s commissariats”). In workplaces a commissar was appointed to assure that communist political doctrine was observed. In military units such commissars were also called the ???????? (politruk, literally “political hand”) or ???????? (zampolit, or deputy commander for political affairs). By contrast, a ??????? ???????? (voyennyy komissar), or military commissar, was merely a local military official in charge of supervising the induction of military draftees.

[…]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioner#Soviet_Union

Ok……

Children’s Commissioner for England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Children’s Commissioner for England was established under the Children Act 2004 to be the independent voice of children and young people and to champion their interests and bring their concerns and views to the national arena.

11 MILLION is the national organisation led by the Commissioner that supports the 11 million children and young people in England to have their voices heard. The current Commissioner is Dr Margaret Atkinson. The office is a non-departmental public body.

[…]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Commissioner_for_England

Hmmmmm……

What is 11 MILLION?

11 MILLION is the organisation led by the Children’s Commissioner for England, Maggie Atkinson. 11 MILLION makes sure that adults in charge listen to the views of children and young people.

http://www.11million.org.uk/

So, there is no commission, but there is a commissioner.

What sick idiot came up with the idea was it set up this nauseating 11 Million organism? If they want children to have a voice, why not give them the vote; by their logic, then they would have a voice AND power.

The whole thing is a Frankenstinian monstrosity, designed to collectivise children into a group that can be manipulated via the corrupt and sinister idea of ‘Children’s Rights’ and worthless consultations so that they can more easily be wrenched away from their families by the siren song of a misshapen female gargoyle pied piper called Maggie Atkinson.

Maggie Atkinson never gave birth to a child. She doesn’t know anything about children in the way that any biological mother knows about children. She is totally unqualified and an inappropriate choice to do this task.

Maggie Atkinson having this job is

like a Saudi Arabian representing Israelis
like vegetarian representing butchers
like PETA representing fur makers

If you accept that there should be a state, and that that state should have a prior claim on children as chattel property, and that there should be a post of commissioner to represent children, then at an absolute minimum, whoever does this job, should be a female and that female should themselves have had a child. That female should also be an active mother, not an old mother with adult children. A children’s commissioner should be able to represent the children of TODAY not the children of the 1950’s or 1960’s. A young active mother will have all her maternal instincts running fresh; old mothers are a different thing entirely.

This horrible woman actually said in public that, “…your children are mine”:

Really quite revolting and unnatural.

Of course, we do not accept that there is a need for a state at all, and we do not accept that the state as it exists has a prior claim that trumps the property claim of parents on their children, and we do not accept that there should be a post of Children’s Commissioner.

This hideous short haired witch, remorseless, heartless, without empathy or experience in childbirth and who has never been a mother to her own child, and who therefore cannot empathise with any woman who is a biological mother, is a perfect example of what these filthy socialists love; women who are not like women, men who are not like men, an infinite number of pointless jobs for their friends at the expense of everyone, and every opportunity to destroy human nature taken up enthusiastically.

What better person to take this job than someone who can destroy families without conscience; she has never been a mother in her own family, and so therefore cannot value it the way that women who have nurtured their own families would. A perfect candidate for the anti family agenda!

All decent people loathe them:

This Government funded woman says that the age of criminal responsibility for children should be raised to 12. Yet the very same government, who pay this idiot £138,000, are choosing to make criminals out of children as young as 5 on racism grounds, by asking teachers to make records of any playground incident that may be racist.
Which is to be Gordon? or in this ‘Twilight Zone’ of a country that you have created, is a violent, horrific murder considered less criminal than racism?

– Tats, UK, 15/3/2010 7:18
Rating 1063

Has Britain become a breeding ground for these fools, there are so many of them talking rubbish, and we have more than our quota, yet they are classed as experts, professors or other descripive names. Are they taught to be insensitive or does this come naturally, they certainly lack in the basic skills of common sense. Ten year old kids know exactly what they are doing, there is no naievety nowadays, and hasn’t been for the last 20 years, since all the liberal thinking fools were let loose. Nothing absolutely nothing will erase the trauma and horror of Jamies murder. It is these fools who are the stupid ones no matter what they say, we are not convinced or ever will be. Seek other rewarding work is our advice to these fools……….

– DANNYBOY, LINCOLN UK FOR NOW, 15/3/2010 7:29
Rating 942

I have heard that the Jesuits claim “give me a child until the age of 5 and I will show you the man”.

For Thomson and Venables to commit such a brutal act, something was intrinsicly wrong with their upbringing during their formative years.

They may not have been born evil, but by 10 years of age, they were and will remain so.

– Simon Knowles, Thatcham, England, 15/3/2010 16:04
Rating 832

Mrs”Unpleasant” ! Another unelected Labour apparatchik!

– Peter North, Sutton, Surrey, 15/3/2010 7:30
Rating 823

£138,000, how many more of these dangerous do-gooders are we paying for. Sack her and sack the commission if that is all they can come up with.

– Paul, Southwell, 15/3/2010 5:56
Rating 812

Dr Atkinson should be sacked. She should never have a post as childrens commissioner with an attitude like this. As a victims campaingner and a mother of a murdered child also the same age as james bulger, im appalled out Dr Atkinsons comments. I do believe though this is also the mindset of most judges in this country. Seeing case after case of soft sentancing im led to believe that the whole government including judges have gone completly cuckoo. She needs to be sacked along with all the hang ons of “advisors” and while they are at it, sack all judges and use judges that are elected into these positions. Anyone canbe a judge now as long as you got a mate who is a judge already, bit like the house of lords. Bring back elections for all these positions.

– cathy, dorset, 15/3/2010 7:27
Rating 795

It’s wooly minded do-gooders like Atkinson that caused these problems in the first place by taking discipline away from schools. She obviously lives wrapped in middle class cotton wool and never has to deal with the socially deprived street urchins.

– Keith, Chelmsford UK, 15/3/2010 16:05
Rating 758

She has no children of her own and will therefore be totally out of touch and unfit for purpose – that is why her remarks are so insensitive. Becoming a parent is a major life changing event, which she has not experienced.

SACK HER !

– scott, Dubai, 15/3/2010 5:42
Rating 737

Finally, you simply have to understand that if you choose to accept that there must be a state, in the end, you will get Maggie Atkinson, Ed Balls, Diana Johnson, Delyth Morgan, Graham Badman, Ruth Deech, Clive Soley, and every other unethical, unnatural monster, abusing, merchandising and kidnapping your children.

It is inevitable:

Why should anyone be forced by criminal sanction not to hurt himself? That was never, at least until the crash helmet legislation, a principle of our criminal law. Where will it end? Why make driving without a seat belt a crime because it could save a thousand lives, when we could stop cigarette smoking by the criminal law and save 20,000 lives a year? Why not stop by making it criminal the drinking of alcohol, which would save hundreds of thousands of lives?

When will we realise that laws not only cannot cure every evil but are frequently counter-productive? Here the harm done to our criminal process may well exceed any good that the law can do. We can see that in advance, so why do we persist with it? If there was a law which made it a criminal offence to smoke or to drink alcohol, neither of which, of course, do I advocate, just think of the amount of bereavement that would be saved, the number of hospital beds that could be put to better use, and the time and energy of our doctors and nurses which could be more usefully employed. Yet we do not consider doing that. What is it about the motorist that requires him to be singled out and subjected to this sort of legislation?

The harm to justice caused by this legislation will be far more substantial than we think. When will we realise that every little infringement of liberty, for whatever good cause, diminishes the whole concept of liberty? If life is the only criterion, why did we sacrifice so many millions of lives in two world wars? Why did we not in the Second World War lie down and say “Because millions of people may die, we should let our liberty be taken away before the onset of the Nazis?” The answer is that more important than lives is the concept of liberty.

Since I have been in the House I have seen the cogent arguments and the telling pleas of hon. Members on both sides of the House persuading and succeeding in persuading the House that it is only a very little piece more of liberty that we are withdrawing and for such great benefits and advantages. As a result we have far fewer of our freedoms now than was ever dreamed possible a few years ago. In the end we shall find that our liberties have all but disappeared. It might be possible to save more lives in Britain by this measure—and by countless other measures. But I do not see the virtue in saving more lives by legislation which will produce in the end a Britain where nobody wants to live.

[…]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1979-03-22a.1760.2

Thanks to The Filthy Smoker for that.

Ivan Lawrence was a rare voice of reason during a debate on making seat-belts in cars a legal requirement, and as we can see, his words were prescient.

Parliament does not sit to remove laws, it exists to create them. They will keep creating them until there is nothing you can do without it being regulated by the state.

Children are simply next on the list of areas that ‘need looking at’. They admit that even though there is no case for legislating Home Education, now that the matter has ‘come to light’ it will happen.

These people are INSANE, EVIL and thoroughly BAD; understanding this and that these people and their system cannot be successfully reformed is the only way you are going to be able to live free and safe from predation.

Those paying attention know that David Chaytor MP thinks that all children are owned collectively in Britain, and that the parental rights of ownership of children are secondary to the prior claim of the state.

Now with that in mind:

What Mr. Chaytor is saying is that the community (the state) has a prior claim on your child; that your child is the property of those people from birth, and that you have no say in what is best for that child. The ‘community’ is the parent of your child.

This opens up a whole slew of questions. WHICH community does your child belong to? If you are a part of a community that believes that honour killings are perfectly legitimate, should your child be subject to that, simply because other people believe it?

If you live in Tower Hamlets where there are literally dozens of different communities living together, which particular group should take precedence over your right to own and rear your own child?

As you can clearly see, the only way that everyone’s rights are protected, and all children are reared in a way that is suitable to them, is that NO ONE but the PARENT should be able to say what is or is not good for a child.

It is very encouraging that there are Home Educators out there that at least in part, understand that the state does not own children. The more people are woken up to this fact, and then to the reality that they in fact own their children or someone else does, the less likely it will be that there will ever be another Badman report written by the next imbecile in waiting who wants to impose her personal prejudices on total strangers and free people.

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=2217

Then we have this:

Tower Hamlets accused of being infiltrated by Islamic extremists

A London borough is accused of being infiltrated by extremists after a Government minister said activists were trying to oust him by covertly gaining control of his local Labour party.

Tower Hamlets council is alleged to have fallen under the influence of the Islamic Forum of Europe and is braced for further claims in a TV documentary to be broadcast tonight.

But former mayor Ken Livingstone and a spokesman for Respect MP George Galloway both suggested that Dispatches, to be broadcast on Channel 4 at 8pm, amounted to “scaremongering” against Muslims.

Mr Livingstone, who follows Tower Hamlets politics closely, said: “This furore smacks of racism and Islamophobia. Of course Tower Hamlets council is not infiltrated by Islamists. Just because some people are Muslim and go to the mosque is not argument enough that they are Islamists.

[…]

Evening Standard

and then…

Islamic radicals ‘infiltrate’ the Labour Party
A Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain.

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) — which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state — has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation” of voters.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.

“They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level,” he said.

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and “corrupted” his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years.

In a six-month investigation by this newspaper and Channel 4’s Dispatches […]

Telegraph

And there is another article in the Daily Mail on this same subject.

And then this:

Anger as National Front is consulted on race policy in schools

White extremists have been consulted over government policy on tackling racism in schools.

A team reviewing race relations policy for Children’s Secretary Ed Balls held a meeting in a hotel with a member of the National Front.

It is understood an approach was also made to the British National Party, although the BNP denied it had been approached by the review team.

[…]

Daily Mail

Now.

All you need is one braincell to see that there is a very big problem here. This problem has nothing to do with the particular ideologies involved in these articles. The problem here is democracy.

No matter what the people above believe, democracy gives them control over you and your property, simply because they have a large number of members.

What democracy does is allow anyone who can gather enough people to legitimately overrun a country and change it to their tastes. Depending on what side you are on, ‘change’ means liberate or destroy.

The National Front wants to kick all ‘blacks’ out and create an ultra far left Britain. Neu Labour wants to rape your children, catalogue and number you like farmyard animals and steal your money and property. The Muslims want you to live under Sharia Law. The Greens want you to live like a cave man and sterilise you to satisfy their false god ‘Gaia’. Each one of these groups are identical in that they want absolute control over you. They all use the same tool to do this; democracy.

People whining and complaining about the National Front or the ‘islamist infiltrators’ are not thinking clearly. Both of these groups are using perfectly legitimate, legal means to achieve their ends. Their only crime is that they are not yet in a position of numerical superiority to wrest control from the current regime who do have numerical superiority. Anyone who rails against these groups and who also is FOR democracy is not playing with a full deck of cards; democracy IS what these people are practicing. Democracy is not a synonym for ‘fair’ or ‘just’; it is a system of politics where whoever gets the most votes makes the laws. That is all it is; it is not a religion to be followed, it is not even a great tradition; it is in fact a very dangerous way of running a country, and by its nature it is immoral, since it uses coercion as its instrument of control.

The only way to permanently de fang these people and to protect yourself from their predations and their philosophies is to remove democracy in its entirety, and replace it with a Libertarian space, where the number of people who think a certain way and grouping together can not be the source of you losing your rights or your family or your property.

In a Libertarian space, you have absolute rights that are real rights. These rights inhere in you as a human being, and are not granted to you by a state, which would not exist in a Libertarian space.

What are real rights? Watch this for an explanation. What we can say for sure is that there is no such thing as a ‘right to healthcare’ or a ‘right to education’, ‘black rights’, ‘gay rights’, ‘woman’s rights’, ‘children’s rights’, or any of the myriad other false rights that the state has concocted and enshrined in their illegitimate laws over the years.

All human beings have the same number of rights, and it is out of these rights that the basis of a free country can be built, where all people share the same advantages without any group controlling any other.

Take for example, the business of marriage. Gays have been whining for ages that they cannot marry. The fact is that they have the absolute right to marry, and always have had this right, because they are human beings. Marriage is a private contract between people; note that I do not say two people; the rights and wrongs of polygamy are no one’s business save those who practice it.

In a Libertarian space, there is no state to certify your marriage; if you say you are married, then you are married. How you perform the ceremony, what your arrangements are is nobody’s business but yours and your partners. Of course, people who are married in any particular way have no right to force others to accept them and their arrangements; they have an absolute right to their property, as do you, and this is non negotiable.

You can worship in whatever way you like, live in whatever arrangement you like, and do whatever you like. If gays contract to have children by surrogacy or by adoption, that is totally their affair; it is not the business of anyone to interfere with the private interactions of individuals in any way whatsoever, as long as they are not doing harm to anyone, and by ‘harm’, Libertarians do not consider that teaching or not teaching any particular philosophy can be construed as harm.

In a Libertarian space, women have the same rights as every other human being; to name two (which are actually one, since the first gives rise to the second), they have the right to property and they own themselves. This means that they have the right to have an abortion performed upon themselves. Or to abstain from abortion. They have the right to give birth in whatever way they see fit, and there being no State, it would be impossible for home birth to be outlawed or anything else to do with the biology of women. Under Libertarianism, women would at last be truly free, to live without the threat of coercion by anyone, in all matters, no matter what they are.

If you want to gain the full picture of what living in a Libertarian space would be like and what its foundations are, you need to read ‘For a New Liberty‘ and ‘The Ethics of Liberty‘ both by Murray Rothbard. You can download these books for free, or buy the physical copies.

The fact of the matter is that as time goes on, areas of Britain are going to undergo demographic change. Libertarians have no problem with this. What it does mean however, is that these people, whoever they are or whatever it is they believe, will be able to use democracy to violently control their neighbours, and that means you.

The type of life you will be able to live will depend solely on where your house is; if you live in Tower Hamlets, your daughter will not be able to walk in the street without having her head covered, should the council be taken over by a group that wants to introduce sharia law, and they introduce it, and 51% of the people living in the borough agrees with it.

This is a simple fact of democracy and maths; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of philosophy the 51% believe. Should the council there be taken over by Greens, you will find that the entire borough is made car free. Those people who own cars will lose their ability to use their property in that borough, and there would be nothing they can do to stop it. There is no authority to appeal to, since the green majority is the authority. They could levy swingeing garbage taxes, a scientifically baseless ‘Carbon Tax’, a tax on families that have more than one child; the sky is the limit. Literally.

Effectively, you have no guaranteed rights under democracy; all you have is what the state deems fit to give you at any one time, based on the prejudices of the majority. You may have thought that you were free to Home Educate in ‘a properly running democracy’, or that you were free to smoke in pubs, light your house in whatever way you like, own whatever breed of dog you like, shoot pistols as a hobby, leave your house and walk the streets without having to carry a license to do so (a national ID Card). In fact, all of these things were not your right, but merely what the state had not bothered to legislate on.

If you want to restore and keep your liberty, if you want to be free of the eternal danger of democracy, you have to get rid of it, because it is absolutely guaranteed that its usurpations are only going to get worse, and when the people who are the usurpers hold ideas that are as different to yours as different can be (The National Front or New Labour for example) the usurpations will be beyond intolerable. Remember; legislatures exist to write new legislation, they almost never repeal it. Even if the people who ran ‘your’ democracy were just like you in their philosophy, in order to justify their existence, they need to keep generating legislation. That means eventually they will come round to dealing with you and your hobbies, lifestyle and whatever else you do that does not currently have legislation governing it.

Do you you really want to continue living under the constant threat that one day, your way of life is going to be outlawed? Are you not sick and tired of having to justify the most basic rights that you posses to the army of imbeciles, liars, perverts, collectivists, and human garbage who lust after you and your property?

If you are sick of doing this, then you need to have to hand, a pattern for living that will allow everyone to be free without requiring coercion of anyone. A way of living where there is no possibility of a group of people taking a monopoly on the use of force to make you bend to their will. That pattern is Libertarianism.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be for your own rights, but against other people having theirs. You cannot support the use of violence to make your personal beliefs the law, whilst at the same time, complain that others are grouping together to outlaw your practices. In other words, you cannot be FOR democracy and FOR liberty at the same time. The two things are mutually exclusive; democracy always leads to someone having their rights suppressed; Libertarianism leads to everyone having free use of their rights and no one being able form a collective to destroy them.

Finally, on the subject of ‘human rights’, your rights do not come from statutes, and as stated above, there is no ‘right to education’; education is a good, not a right. Your right to control and educate your child has nothing to do with the United Nations declaring that you have this right. Your rights inhere in you, and are born with you. If you use these sorts of flimsy arguments to define your rights, you will be standing on thin ice, since these false rights that are created by statute can be arbitrarily rescinded, leaving you without any basis or argument for what is yours by birth.

Some declare that because, “I look after my children 24/7, that gives me the right to say how they are educated”. This is not logical a basis for an argument to explain why you alone have the right to say how your children are educated. We can break this argument very simply: if you have a Philippino nanny that looks after your children 100% of the time, does that confer any rights over your children to her? Of course it does not, and in fact, you can sack her at any time.

Some argue that, “I know my child better than any other person; that gives me the right to say how they should be educated”. Once again, this is false. If you send your child to boarding school from the age of seven, the teachers there will know your child better than you do; does that confer the right to control your child to that institution? Of course not. The schools know that you own your children, which is why they say they act in loco parentis while your child is in their care.

You are not acting in loco parentis with your own children; that is why these arguments fail. You, by virtue of your property right in your child, are the ultimate, top level director of that child’s life. If anyone tries to short circuit this through arguments like David Chaytor’s or the other collectivists and ‘education experts’, they are actually attempting to become the owner of your children.

Who has the right to say how a child should be educated is a matter of property rights. The only way to construct an irrefutable, irrevocable, closed, and defensible position that resists all attacks is to understand that your child is your property.

All parents instinctively know this, but some lack the language to express it, or are so brainwashed by this collectivist society that they bristle at the idea that their children are property. The fact of the matter is that until you adopt this natural and correct idea of the true nature of your children, you are putting them at the mercy of the small number of people who write the statutes, and hand down diktats of what your rights are and are not. The very same people who confer a right upon you are able to take it away from you; this cannot be acceptable to any thinking person. If the UN, like the League of Nations before it, ceases to exist, will your right to educate your child as you see fit suddenly cease to exist also? Of course not. Depending on institutions for the definition of your rights is building your house on sand.

Learn what rights are and what they are not. Understand what a human being is, understand what property is and you will suddenly be basing all of your beliefs on solid rock.

‘For a New Liberty‘
‘The Ethics of Liberty‘
both by Murray Rothbard.

You can download these books for free, or buy the physical copies.

Two related articles that swirl around the recent nonsense:

(CNN) — Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

[…]

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

[…]

CNN

There you have it. Men who are monogamous are on average of a higher intelligence.

Now steel yourself for this:

The case of Khyra Ishaq and the problem of child sexualisation show up the failures of the big state

Two stories on the Today programme this morning brought into sharp relief the inability of social engineers to see what they are doing to British children. One was the appalling case of Khyra Ishaq, the girl starved to death in Birmingham by her mother and her boyfriend. The preceding item featured everyone’s favourite shrink, Dr Linda Papadopoulos, who condemned the sexualisation of children and called for restrictions on lad’s mags, sexy music videos and, more ominously, school lessons about “gender equality” (dog whistle Marxism, if such a thing exists).

As my colleague Gerald Warner has pointed out, the authorities and media have leapt on the fact that Khyra was homeschooled, using it as an opportunity to plug the Badman report, the Government’s sinister crackdown on homeschooling.

That Khyra is not typical of homeschooled children is an understatement – most parents who take this unusual step are conservative, decent, loving parents who simply see that, for all the good a loving home can do, peer pressure can undo it. They don’t want to send their child to the local comp where they’ll learn little else but how to speak Jafaican and t0 avoid appearing to be interested in learning, as is the prevailing ethos. And, for that matter, they don’t want their children to be indoctrinated with citizenship classes, second wave feminism, directions to the nearest Marie Stopes clinic or other sacraments of the state religion.

For girls being sent into modern centres of learning [cough] there is the added pressure of sex, and of sexual bullying both by boys and girls. Censorship and gender equality classes are not going to significantly change this prevailing atmosphere, which is a market problem: throughout history societies have swung between periods of promiscuity and Puritanism, but what’s different now is that the welfare state has fixed the metronome in an artificial position. Whereas in non-social engineered societies the fear of poverty and squalor would exert pressures towards chastity, and likewise periods of wealth would cause people to let their hair down, so that every part of society would find its equilibrium, the state now artificially prevents this process through cash incentives.

Khyra was not put at risk by homeschooling, but she certainly was put at risk by the fact that she lived with a man who was neither her biological father nor married to her mother – children raised in these circumstances are 100 times more likely to be murdered at home before they hit 18 than children raised by two biological parents. And yet the state incentivises these non-family forms, which is about as logical as subsidising cigarettes or cage fighting.

Khyra’s father had left his wife and six kids to the care of the state, which today plays the role of stepfather to millions of British children; she lived in a housing association property, a single mother with a council flat and zero confidence, and almost predictably, a sinister and violence-prone man moved in and dominated her (just like in the Peter Connelly case).

If our lawmakers really wanted to stop children being sexualised on the one hand and abused on the other, they must realise that the state is the problem, not the solution.

Ed West at The Telegraph

I do not know who ‘Ed West’ is, but he is ABSOLUTELY 1000% spot on with all of this. Check out the ‘furthermore’ part of this post.

If you subsidise something, you get more of it. This is true of everything, including single mothers who squeeze out as many children as possible, knowing that for each child they produce, a bigger house is required, until they can secure for themselves a SEVEN THOUSAND POUND A MONTH home in Maida Vale, living next door to millionaires at the expense of the milk cows (the british public).

The cause of all the problems in the UK is the state. Without the state stealing money from the milk cows, there would be no ‘social services’ to entice women to have children out of wedlock for the sole purpose of scoring a mansion for themselves. People from all over the world, rather than risking their lives to get to Britain, would shun it completely if there were no welfare state and guarantees of mansions for those who manage to produce enough children.

Even if you believe in the idea that the state is legitimate, and that it is legitimate for the state to steal from the many to redistribute wealth as seen fit by parliament, you cannot refute the idea that this system has a capacity – an upper limit after which the system must break down completely.

But I digress.

Ed West points out what we have been saying on BLOGDIAL for years:

• Home Education is ideal parenting
• Home Educators are the best parents
• Home Educators are the most dedicated parents
• Home Educators are the most decent parents
• Home Educators are the most intelligent parents
• Home Educators are the most hard working parents
• Home Educators are most insightful parents
• Home Educators are the most resourceful parents
• Home Educators are the most community minded parents
• Home Educators are the most diligent parents
• Home Educators are the most natural parents

The children of Home Educators outperform all others in every metric you care to use.

These characteristics are the exact polar opposite of the anomalous, savage, unnatural, beastly, promiscuous, immoral, subhuman trash that are now being held up to be representative of what Home Education is about.

The people who are making this fallacious and scandalous assertion know exactly what they are doing, LYING, and they are the lowest form of human garbage imaginable.

If you accept that legislation has any validity at all, any sensible person knows that you should draft it not using the statistically insignificant cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with what you are legislating for as the basis, but you should legislate for the societal norm.

In the matter of Home Education, there is no need for legislation at all, since there are no cases of Home Education being linked to abuse and Home Education is simply full time parenting.

What this corrupt, paedophile natured government is doing is analogous to legislating against locust swarms because there have been cataclysmic meteor events. The two are not related in the first place, and secondly, you cannot by legislation, prevent the terrible and rarely occurring things that happen in life; bad things happen; that is part of being alive, and there is nothing you can do to stop them from happening. All of this is quite separate from the absurd idea that parents should be registered and monitored simply because they are with their children. Only a sick minded monster would suggest such a thing, and New Labour is full of these creatures.

This is the same twisted mentality where people cry out for the banning of kitchen knives because a sole person is killed by one or even (and Im not making this up) banning Venetian Blinds because a single child was strangled by the cord that operates them in a bizarre and astronomically unlikely accident. But even those examples break down when we discuss Home Education, since the pretext for this new legislation does not even exist.

What is very satisfying is the fact that there will be no money for any of this. No one is going to obey it. There are a million ways around it should the scumbags pass it into law. The Tories have promised to scrap it. From whatever way you look at it, this paedophile project of Ed Balls, Graham Badman, Delyth Morgan and all of these purely evil, sinister, destructive, anti-family monsters is going to stall at worst, and be utterly scrapped at best.

Their diseased philosophy is being discredited on a daily basis. Libertarianism (wether people know they are libertarians or not) is spreading like wildfire. These people are finished in the same way that the controller class of the Soviet Union were finished when as they saw their herd of cattle turn, trample and gore them.

Some lurkers have asked why we have not picked apart the recent dribbles of the lying BBC re Home Education. We have already done this at length, and really, measures should have been taken to PREVENT those new and vile articles appearing, instead of simply reacting to them again.

The BBC is going to continue to lie because someone is bribing them to. Until someone goes in there and bribes them not to lie, they are going to continue to do so.

January 5, 2010 is a historical day for Icelanders. The Icelandic President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson had a tough decision to make, and difficult choices to make. To listen to the 23% of the nation that signed a petition calling on him to put the state guarantee for 5.4 billion dollars to be paid to the British and Dutch governments to a national referendum. Or to ignore the nation and sign the bill for the government, after the bill had been passed through the parliament with a narrow vote on December 30, 2009 after months of acrimonious debate, tainted with secrecy and dishonesty on the part of the government. Every day throughout the debate, new information would emerge and documents would leak to local media or wikileaks. Yesterday, the people of Iceland finally had a chance to have something to say about their fate, because if the state guarantee is accepted it will mean that Iceland will become like a third world country, spending its GDP largely on paying interest on foreign debt. Last summer, a bill for a state guarantee was passed that had a significant meaning not only for Iceland, but also for other nations around the world facing the same problems of private debt being forced on taxpayers. The bill included a reasonable and fair way of handling the interest and the debt: Icelanders would pay, but only a certain percentage of their GDP, and if there were to be another financial black hole, they would not pay during that time. Thus it comes as no surprise that the Dutch and British governments reacted so swiftly with a condemnation of Iceland’s citizens for having the audacity to think they have the right to exercise their democratic rights in deciding for themselves what is in the best economic interests of their nation.

Let’s also put this debt into perspective: 320.000 people live in Iceland, each and every person on the island, including children and the elderly, the disabled and the poor, would have to pay around $30,000 under the bill. The danger if Icelanders will accept this enormous burden is that the entire welfare system would simply collapse with no money to run it. On January 5th the Icelandic president had the courage, backed up by his nation, to place the interest of the people before that of the banks.
Of course there has been an incredible spin by the government controlled media, attacking the nation and the president for this simple and fair demand. The UK and Dutch media were also full of misleading news, saying the nation had demanded not to pay, and that we would become isolated and there were even suggestions that the British navy should flex its muscles against this nation which has no military. As if the terrorist act they imposed on us was not enough during the darkest hour of our crises to bring us further down!

The spin is failing because people around the world are finally starting to hear our side of the story, and other suppressed nations have perhaps seen this as a sign that they can also rise up against the corpocracy in our world where those with the money have as a rule always won. Let’s hope the nation will not been coaxed into fear of isolation and let’s hope the people of the world will join in this experiment of letting the interest of the peoples rise above the interests of banks, corporations, and international bullies such as the IMF. We need your support. I will soon issue a comprehensive report on the entire Icesave saga.
Love and rage from Iceland.

Birgitta Jónsdóttir
Party group chairman for The Movement in the Icelandic Parliament
Documentation: I append links to the files about Icesave that were leaked to wikileaks, and which show how the EU member states blackmailed Iceland into the same corner the government helped push into by accepting the Icesave bill. This file also contains letters between the main financial adviser to the Iceland Finance Minister and Mark Flanagan of the IMF:

http://file.wikileaks.org/leak/icesave-eu7.pdf
and
http://file.wikileaks.org/leak/icesave-eu7.pdf

http://www.infowars.com/a-call-to-the-people-of-the-world-to-support-iceland-against-financial-blackmail/

The people of Iceland need to face up to the facts of this matter.

As individuals, they are no more personally responsible for the failure of a bank in their country than the people of Tazmania are. No person can be made liable for a debt incurred by a third party without the written consent of that person, so unless every person has signed a contract that makes them legally bound to repay the debts of Landisbanki, Icesave or ANY bank they are not liable for that debt, PERIOD, no matter what anyone says. It is entirely immoral for the government of Iceland to socialise the debt of these banks and tax the Icelandic people to raise the money. This is unambiguous and criminal theft.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP_2jXlo3JI&feature=sub

at 14:35. For a very clear explanation of the background.

The answer for Iceland is Libertarianism and Austrian Economics.

First of all, they need to close down their central government PERMANENTLY and not replace it with anything. Then they need to start trading with each other for and with real money, which means gold, or fish or whatever it is they have to hand or that they determine money should be.

Birgitta Jónsdóttir said:

The danger if Icelanders will accept this enormous burden is that the entire welfare system would simply collapse with no money to run it.

The welfare system of Iceland needs to switch to an entirely voluntary basis; Icelanders cannot afford (either financially or morally) a socialist style system of welfare based on theft. It is precisely this sort system that got them into this trouble in the first place.

Murray Rothbard says:

English laissez-faire liberalism, even though it generally accepted [p. 148] "Poor Law" governmental welfare, insisted that there be a strong disincentive effect: not only strict eligibility rules for assistance, but also making the workhouse conditions unpleasant enough to insure that workhouse relief would be a strong deterrent rather than an attractive opportunity. For the "undeserving poor," those responsible for their own fate, abuse of the relief system could only be curbed by "making it as distasteful as possible to the applicants; that is, by insisting (as a general rule) on a labour test or residence in a workhouse."6

While a strict deterrent is far better than an open welcome and a preachment about the recipients' "rights," the libertarian position calls for the complete abolition of governmental welfare and reliance on private charitable aid, based as it necessarily will be on helping the "deserving poor" on the road to independence as rapidly as possible. There was, after all, little or no governmental welfare in the United States until the Depression of the 1930s, and yet — in an era of a far lower general standard of living — there was no mass starvation in the streets. A highly successful private welfare program in the present-day is the one conducted by the three-millon-member Mormon Church. This remarkable people, hounded by poverty and persecution, emigrated to Utah and nearby states in the nineteenth century, and by thrift and hard work raised themselves to a general level of prosperity and affluence. Very few Mormons are on welfare; Mormons are taught to be independent, self-reliant, and to shun the public dole. Mormons are devout believers and have therefore successfully internalized these admirable values. Furthermore, the Mormon Church operates an extensive private welfare plan for its members — based, again, on the principle of helping their members toward independence as rapidly as possible.

Note, for example, the following principles from the "Welfare Plan" of the Mormon Church. "Ever since its organization in 1830, the Church has encouraged its members to establish and maintain their economic independence; it has encouraged thrift and fostered the establishment of employment-creating industries; it has stood ready at all times to help needy faithful members." In 1936, the Mormon Church developed a "Church Welfare Plan, . . . a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of [p. 149] our Church membership."7 Mormon social workers in the program are instructed to act accordingly: "Faithful to this principle, welfare workers will earnestly teach and urge Church members to be self-sustaining to the full extent of their powers. No true Latter-Day Saint will, while physically able, voluntarily shift from himself the burden of his own support.

[…]

For A New Liberty The Libertarian Manifesto

320,000 people live in Iceland. They have a 21st century infrastructure, a tourism trade, fishing and many other things, including the magical Björk who on some level understands that Icelanders need to "start their own currency".

They do not need a central government to enslave them, to feed them, to 'keep them safe' to organise them, to regulate them, to print and control their money, to regulate their banks or do anything else of any kind. These people are in a very good position to adopt the principles of a pure Libertarian society powered by Austrian Economics; that means no coercive central government and absolutely no central bank – voluntary interaction and exchange in all areas of life at all times. All they have to do is shutter their government, promise not to bother each other and launch their new money.

We know how a purely voluntary society operate, but what would the new Icelandic money really look like? Well, that is up to the market. Money is a commodity, just like wood, oranges, geothermal heat, tea or anything else that one person has that he wants less than something someone else has. People whose business it is to make money know how to craft it so that it is acceptable to the greatest number of people; it is something that they have in abundance that they have little real need for, which they can use to make more money. This is a great business opportunity for entrepreneurs to step in and create a good set of monetary units for Iceland.

A clever person with alot of money could mint (for example) small gold coins, say the size of a us Dime.

The weight of a US Dime is 2.268g
The price of gold at the date of this post is $36.38/g
That means that each of these new Icelandic gold coins would be worth 2.268*36.38 = $82.51 : enough for a weeks shopping at the grocery store.

Smaller amounts of money would be minted in silver coins:

2.268*18.23 = $41.35

for a dime sized coin made of pure silver. Price of twenty pints of bitter. Or a canister of natural gas.

These are two examples of the shape of money that could come out of a market driven currency. The money makers business is then to inject this new money into the economy, taking a small profit whenever the money is exchanged. Read about how it works:

This is the true and remarkable story of private coinage and banking in Britain in the early years of the Industrial Revolution (1775-1850). Making money was a business in demand. The needs of business for small denominations were changing. Merchants needed small denomination coins in copper and silver.

The Royal Mint couldn't be bothered. It made coins to serve the elites, not the new and burgeoning working class. Free enterprise stepped in with a new industry that truly saved the day—before the Crown cruelly stamped it out and ended one of the most beautiful experiences with private money in world history.

It is very likely you have never heard of this episode. You can read dozens of histories of the early years of capitalism and know nothing of this spectacular industry – to say nothing of its lessons for today.

What is going on here? George Selgin, professor at the University of Georgia, has discovered the monetary equivalent of the lost city of Atlantis. He has written a full-scale historical narrative—one that is deeply interesting and engaging—that has been largely unknown, even to scholars of the Industrial Revolution.

It is not only the first full-scale history of this episode ever written. It is likely to maintain a place as the definitive work for many decades. It is 400 pages, but always and everywhere very interesting. It includes 20 pages of color photos. The prose is elegant, and the method of analysis is thoroughly Rothbardian: this is flesh-and-blood history of real human beings.

http://mises.org/store/Good-Money-P519.aspx

These coins would be desirable not only in Iceland, but all over the world; they are gold, and gold is money.

Thanks to the small number of Icelanders, a single billionaire could jumpstart this new currency. Many millionaires could do it. It has been done before, for purely commercial reasons; this time it would not only be commercial pressures that propel the adoption of this currency but also the thirst for freedom, that would propel it.

However the Icelanders decide to solve their problem, one thing is for sure; they need to understand what their problem is before they can solve it.

Their problem is the parasitic, resource sucking corrupt and evil Government of Iceland, and all of its institutions, pure and simple. If they do not face this fact, they will wind up being further enslaved and pauperised.

As the guest in Max Keiser's report said, the educated (and productive) will flee Iceland to set up life somewhere else rather than be destroyed by this slavery, and who could blame them? Of course, the answer to that would be for the Government of Iceland to bring in exit visas for all Icelanders so that no one can escape, and don't think for an instant that they would not do it. They are already willing to sell the entire population into slavery at the behest of foreigners, so locking them all into a giant geysered gulag is just the next logical step.

Finally, they can demand all they like with petitions and other old fashioned and impotent strategies. Governments like those things; it shows how bereft of imagination and common sense the best of the population is. It makes them feel secure and powerful: "If this is the best that they have, 'demanding' their freedom and signing petitions on a website that WE set up, well HAW HAW HAW, we can take them any time we like!". These Icelanders, with a very small population, have fewer people to connect with, convince and organise. Their population is more homogenous than many developed countries, they are all in the same boat at the same time; it could not be better for them.

Its going to take a nation wide, 320,000 strong Old Holborn style refusal to cooperate to get them clear of their blood sucking government. That is the first step. Once that government is no more, and there is no replacement, the incredible force of the market will begin to solve their problems in very short order. They have the balls to do it; what they need to do is do it with a clear plan and understanding of their problems and the way out.

If they do it, Iceland might just become THE place to be in the early part of the 21st century!

Icelander's Emergency Reading List:

• For a New Liberty, The Libertarian Manifesto
• George Selgin's "Good Money"
• The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar
• What Has Government Done to Our Money?

Image from FOI2009.zip which contains the entire contents of the liberated CRU files, featuring the heads of well known scientists that smelled a rat, and who are detested by ‘Global Warming’ / ‘Climate Change’ / ‘Climate Chaos’ alarmists for telling the truth.

The CRU CLimate Gate affair continues to inform and outrage. With respect to FOIA requests, Home Educators will be familiar with this behaviour and bad, un-servant like attitude:

Professor Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, explains how he lobbied to overturn UEA’s FoI Officer’s instruction to answer FoI requests and schmoozed the person responsible for FoI appeals:

“When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA [a popular "sceptic" website] was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC [Vice Chancellor] is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with.”

Prof Jones’s colleague, Prof. Keith Briffa – who is a Reader at the CRU – spells out their attitude towards Freedom of Information quite neatly:

“I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private , inter-collegial discussion is just that – PRIVATE. Your communication with individual colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these “demands” undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is for this reason, and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe none of us should submit to these “requests”.”

This is of course absolutely disgraceful behaviour on the part of these academics and their institution. They might have felt this was an imposition or an invasion, and they may have felt that their research should have been out of the grubby grasp of the general public, but the law is clear.

This is a rare insight into the attitude within many public bodies towards transparency, and the refusal to accept the principle of the FoIA is undoubtedly all too common. While the people and the media love FoI for the power it disseminates, those who have lost their privileged status still resent it deeply.

Even more serious than their appalling attitude is the instruction by Prof Jones to his colleagues to delete emails that are apparently subject to an FoI request.

On May 29th 2008, Prof Jones instructs colleagues to delete emails in a message helpfully titled “IPCC & FOI”:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

AR4 is an IPCC report that Keith Briffa and others at the CRU worked on together, and at least one FoI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 expressly forbids – on pain of criminal conviction – destroying information that has been requested under FoI. As the Information Commissioner puts it:

If information is held when a FOIA request is received, destroying it outside of your normal records management policies will result in a breach of the Act. You must confirm that you hold the information and consider disclosure, subject to any exemption. It will also be a criminal offence to conceal or destroy information if this is done with the intention of preventing disclosure under either FOIA or EIR.
This offence is punishable with a fine of up to £5,000.

Tellingly, another email from Prof Jones later that year shows that UEA’s internal FoI team had evidently become concerned about his secretive actions:

“I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails”

If the FoI team were concerned that Prof Jones might be breaking the law – and even committing a criminal offence – on an area that they are legally responsible for, they should have reported him to the Information Commissioner. Perhaps his flowering relationship with the FoI officer and the Chief Librarian precluded this.

Happily, he’s never tried to become matey with us, so we’re reporting him and his colleagues to the Information Commissioner this afternoon.
Irrespective of how important your subject area is, what your views on the topic might be, or how much you dislike the person making the request, Freedom of Information is too valuable and too important to just be ridden over roughshod like this.

[…]

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/cru-foi-emails-taxpayers-alliance-reports-phil-jones-et-al-to-information-commissioner/

“Freedom of Information is too valuable and too important to just be ridden over roughshod like this.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Now.

I wonder what sort of dirty shenanigans went on over at the DCSF, who have refused to release information requested by some diligent and persistent Home Educators on the most flimsy of excuses? No doubt there are bombshell revelations hidden in their computers also, that if released, would cause scandals, heads to roll and misconceptions to be swept into the garbage, scuppering life changing legislation in the same way that the Global Warming / Climate Change ‘Carbon’ legislation would have done.

Once again, there is a common element to both the DCSF and the CRU refusal to release information; both of these organisations are intimately connected to the existence of the state, and in both, the people working there are not adopting the position of servants. The people who work at the DCSF are public servants, and scientists are in service to the truth, wether or not they take money from the state to do their work.

If there were no state, then there would be no problem with scientists making stuff up to steer policy and social engineer; there would be no apparatus to force their crackpot ideas onto anyone. The same holds true for education. Without a state, there would be no DCSF, Department of Education or any other apparatus to interfere with you and the good of education that you want too avail yourself of.

There is that foul smell again!

There is a common element to almost all the bad things that are and have been swirling around us for decades. Here are three examples.

We already know that ‘Global Warming‘ is junk science and a complete fraud. Now there are no doubts left for even the most ardent religious fanatic that spouts Anthropogenic Global Warming garbage or its latest incarnation ‘Climate Change’.

You can read the rundown at The Telegraph. Put plainly, these people have been caught with their pants down. They have been caught trying to nobble a scientific journal, deliberately leaving out data so that they can make their case and so on and so on; every single thing that honest scientists cannot do if they are to remain objective and true scientists, they have been caught doing.

This perversion of science and the truth is behind the Cap and Trade legislation that will destroy America’s economy. It powers the thinking behind the absurd ‘saved carbon’ displays that are attached to solar panels. (in this example one million pounds was spent on solar panels, whilst the castle itself is falling to pieces due to damp). It is behind the ridiculous and illogical ban on incandescent light bulbs. It is behind the absurd rainbow styled energy rating certificates that the EU mandates for all properties that are for rent or sale (the owner is forced to pay for inspection to get a certificate; a new burocrazy), and that even extend to devices. It is behind the proposed personal carbon trading schemes that will create an artificial economy based around ‘carbon’, where you will have to swipe an ID Card whenever you buy anything or travel anywhere.

These corrupt scientists have concocted a complex and difficult to penetrate lie, so that the world economy can be distorted and a few people can become billionaires in this new artificial economy that will sit on top of the real economy. They ignore the truth, suppress it and suppress and destroy the reputation of anyone that tries to uncover their lies so that they can personally benefit.

The same thing is happening with Education in the UK:

Government’s key adviser on Academies makes millions …from setting up Academies

A key Government adviser on Labour’s flagship City Academy scheme is now earning millions of pounds in fees from the taxpayer by setting up the controversial schools.

The scheme was at the centre of the so-called ‘cash for peerages’ scandal when police were called in to investigate claims that Labour was offering honours to businessmen who invested in the schools.

Now a series of leaked documents, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, reveal how the Government’s vision of local business helping to rescue failing schools has been replaced by fat-cat consultancy firms earning huge fees to set them up.

Daily Mail

If you have been reading BLOGDIAL you already know that Home Education has been under serious and increasing threat for over five years, culminating in a scandalous, fallacious and vile report by Graham Badman, that, precisely like the Climate Change scientists involved in the scandal above, revolves around the misuse of statistics, fabrication, baseless opinion and fear mongering, all of which is designed to engineer legislation whose sole aim is totalitarian control over people who were previously at liberty to live as they chose, so that a few people can make money out of the existence of children.

This fear mongering was supported by evil social workers and fake charities (NSPCC) who all repeated lies about Home Education for the sole reason that it would provide them with unprecedented access to children for financial and other, more sinister purposes.

Finally we have the spectacle of ‘Lord’ Mandelson and his nauseating and corrupt intervention into the workings of the internet at the behest of the buggy whip wielding entertainment industry.

The entertainment industry has been spreading false reports of heavy loses due to ‘illegal copying’ for decades, whilst suppressing any evidence that copying music helps expand the market for music products.

The frictionless distribution offered by the internet represents the greatest opportunity ever for artists to expose and profit from their work. Copyright was originally envisioned as a way to encourage creativity by guaranteeing the makers of works a short time period where they would have the exclusive power to control who can do what with copies of their works, after which, everyone would be able to exercise their property rights over the copies that they own.

Now copyright is a weapon that is being used to destroy the property rights of individuals, as well as the rights of speech of people world-wide.

This is being done by Mandelson at the direct command of the entertainment industry, who, if they could, would shut down the internet entirely to preserve their ancient and hopelessly broken business model.

These luddites (the book publishers and newspaper hacks are no better) would see the greatest invention since the Gutenberg Press crippled and made less useful, for no good reason at all, simply because they lack the skills and imagination to make use of it.

Now.

All of the matters above have one thing in common; the common stink that you smell whenever you encounter matters like this. That stink is the smell of THE STATE.

Without the state, none of these things could happen; they all rely on the state to ruin progress, rape, steal money and destroy life.

The monsters involved in Education rely on money from the state to do their evil with children. That includes the people who designed and sold ContactPoint, who are making money directly off of children. Without the state, there could be no ContactPoint contract.

The same goes for those academies; the contracts to create them could not exist without the state. Some argue that education itself would cease without the state running it. This is completely false.

Every evil to do with education comes out of the state’s involvement in it. The Home Education scandal in the UK is a direct result of the state provision of education, and compulsory schooling laws; were it not for that, there would be no ‘School Attendance Orders’ that could be issued to parents. If the state was not responsible for the education of anyone, which it should not be, the idea that Home Educators should be registered would never have arisen.

The state is the rotten smell behind it.

The blatantly corrupt and evil Mandelson, plainly and clearly acting at the behest of the entertainment industry, would not be able to create a new set of laws in addition to The Copyright and Patents Act if the state did not act on behalf of industry to facilitate the monopoly on ‘intellectual property’. As is made clear in the book in the previous link, we would all be better off in every sphere of life without copyrights and patents. The internet has partially demonstrated how a copyright free world could operate and bring huge benefits to everyone who consumes and creates works. If there were no state, there would be no threat of the crippling of the internet, and the even more astonishing threat of unlimited powers to do anything as long as it is in the service of protecting copyright.

The state is the rotten smell behind it.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax, a scam second only to the Federal Reserve System in its magnitude, is another example of how in the absence of a state, scientists would have little (or at least different) incentives for falsifying data.

Without a state mandating widespread changes in how people voluntarily interact with each other, it would be impossible to build a business on a lie like ‘Carbon Capture’ or ‘Carbon Footprints’, or gain employment based on a lie. Artificial stimulus of industries to cater to this Climate Change lie could not exist; the capital used to create them would be diverted into places where it is needed. An example of this is, once again, the incandescent light bulb. Capital has been diverted away from improving it and into new, unpleasant, poisonous bulbs. The incandescent light bulb, had capital not been diverted away from developing it, would have greatly exceeded its current efficiency, if indeed, that is what the market required of manufacturers.

The fact is that since AGW is false, energy efficiency is not a priority with regard to ‘carbon emissions’. You may want to spend less money on your electricity bill, but that is an entirely different matter to the artificial, state created pressure put on the light bulb industry, powered by corrupt and lying scientists.

Once again, the state is the rotten smell behind it.

The only way that everyone will be free to live to their fullest potential, is in a situation where there is no state. There is no need for a state. There is no need for one to protect anyone, ensure anything, to educate anyone or to foster creativity. All of these assumptions, that a state is needed for these functions, is false.

Finally, you cannot believe on the one hand, that we need a state for some things, but not others. As soon as there is a state, like a foul smelling weed, it will begin to rapidly grow and take over everything, killing every other living thing and strangling your liberty.

You cannot, on the one hand, be for your own individual rights, but be for the banning of smoking, or the banning of hunting, for example. If you are for the banning of anything by the state, you are against whatever rights you wish to claim for yourself. If you are for the taxing of the rich, so that they pay ‘their fair share’ then you are against your own individual rights, and furthermore, you are an advocate of theft by violence, as are the people who insist that ‘something must be done’ about Home Education, or ‘pollution’, or file sharers. The people who advocate these things are all violent types, and there is no escaping it. All of this is an unavoidable fact, and many people are having a great crisis in their lives because they are being unconsciously confronted with the stark reality that they hold and espouse two conflicting beliefs simultaneously.

Before you can begin to think clearly, you have to address the root of a problem and then align your thinking correctly so that there are no contradictions. The outcome might be unpleasant, but in the end, it is the only way to develop a mode of thought that when it is applied to or tested against anything, returns the correct, and logically consistent answer every time, giving you an opportunity to get to a solution.

The state is the cause of everyone’s problems. It destroys or distorts everything it touches. The sooner it has been gotten rid of, the better. This is the fact, the unspeakable, unthinkable fact that you must come to understand if you are interested in your rights and the protection of them.