On Libertarianism

Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility. The progressive extension of dignity to more people — to women, to people of different religions and different races — is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world.
David Boaz

Rap News 7 - Revolution

On Custom and Practice (and ABS?)

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

Thomas Paine

If Democracy is the tyranny of the majority and Anarchy is survival of the guy with the biggest rock could we perhaps compromise with a Kritarchy?

The term ‘kritarchy’, compounded from the Greek words ‘kritès’ (judge) or ‘krito’ (to judge) and ‘archè’ (principle, cause), appears to be coined in 1844 by the English author Robert Southy. In its construction it resembles more familiar political terms such as monarchy, oligarchy and hierarchy. ‘Kritarchy’ is mentioned in among others Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, The Oxford English Dictionary and the American Collegiate Dictionary. According to its etymological roots, a kritarchy is a political system in which justice (more exactly the judgment that seeks to determine justice) is the ruling principle or first cause.

If ‘monarchy’ denotes rule by one person and ‘oligarchy’ rule by a few, it is tempting to understand ‘kritarchy’ as referring to rule by judges. However, the use of the word ‘rule’ should not mislead us into thinking that the rule of judges is like the rule of monarchs and oligarchs, much less that it is a particular sort of oligarchy. Monarchs and oligarchs aspire to political rule, i.e. the ability and power to enforce obedience to their commands, rules, decisions and choices on their subjects. In short, monarchs and oligarchs rule by a mixture of direct command and legislation. Judges, on the other hand, are supposed not to legislate but to find ways and means to settle conflicts and disputes in a lawful manner. They do not seek to enforce obedience to their commands as such, but respect for law, which is an order of things that is understood to be objectively given and not something that answers to whatever desires or ideals the judges may have.

In contrast with other political systems, where they have been incorporated as magistrates into a system of political rule and empowered to use coercive means to drag citizens and residents before their benches, judges in a kritarchy have no subjects. Monarchs and oligarchs impose, or allow their servants (judges, prosecutors) to impose, their rulings on those of their subjects on which they want to impose them. In other words, they ‘pick’ their subjects (which is the root meaning of the Latin ‘legere’, from which the word ‘lex’ for legislated or statute law is derived). In a kritarchy on the other hand, judges do not choose which persons will appear before them. Instead, people desiring to have their conflicts and disputes resolved by judicial judgment will ‘pick’ their judge.

The distinctive characteristic of a kritarchy is therefore that it is a political system without the institution of political rule. If one thinks of it as ‘the rule of judges’, one should remember that these judges enjoy no particular privileges or special powers. It is ‘the rule of law’, not the rule of legislators, judges or any other category of privileged officials.

R v CHAYTOR & ORS (2010)

In considering whether actions outside the Houses and committees fell within parliamentary proceedings because of their connection to them, it was necessary to consider the nature of that connection and whether, if such actions did not enjoy privilege, that was likely to impact adversely on the essential business of Parliament. On that approach, the submission of claim forms for allowances and expenses did not qualify for the protection of privilege. Scrutiny of claims by the courts would have no adverse impact on the essential business of Parliament; it would not inhibit debate or freedom of speech or indeed any of MPs' various activities affecting their parliamentary duties. Similarly, expressions of parliamentary views of the ambit of art.9 did not support the suggestion that submitting such claims constituted parliamentary proceedings for art.9 purposes.

Full text avavilable from Lawtel

It's not liberal to cower

It is liberal to want freedom, freedom of expression, art, debate and the opportunity to grow. These things don't crop up from everyone holding hands and signing Imagine. These things come from conflict, from disagreement, from different views, cultures and ways of doing things bashing together. Variety is the spice of life. 


But it is not liberal to say nothing or fail to condemn things that you believe are wrong. You don't ban things, you argue that they are wrong, you sue for damage sustained by someone being an idiot and causing you harm. 


Sensible people who want to live their lives without party 1 or party 2 or party 2.01b (we've changed honest) 'speaking for you' and who want the idiots off their back to just get on with life need to speak up. Otherwise the nutters get coverage and win. 


Oh, also, I like John Stewart's rally to restore sanity. 

Freedom For Sale

Extract From Freedom For Sale by John Kampfner, published by Simon and Schuster

I call it the anaesthetic of the brain. In the UK and US, much of this decade has been dominated by a low-tax and security agenda that saw unprecedented intrusion of the state into people's lives, from surveillance and eavesdropping to pre-trial custody and other curbs on civil liberties. How many people complained? In Italy, what mattered far more than his sexual antics was Silvio Berlusconi's assault on the independence of the media and judiciary. How many times has he been voted into power?

The model for this new world order is Singapore, the state in which I was born, and which has long intrigued me. I am constantly struck by the number of well-educated and well-travelled people there I know who are keen to defend a system that requires an almost complete abrogation of freedom of expression in return for a good material life.

This is the pact. In each country it varies; citizens hand over different freedoms in accordance with their own customs and priorities. Cultures and circumstances may vary; systems can be radically different. We have all colluded; in the West we have colluded most. Unlike Russia, unlike China, we had the choice to demand more of our governments, to rebalance the relationship between state and individual, but for as long as the consumerist going was good we chose not to exercise it.

On Freedom

True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) Thirty-second President of the USA.

Khmer Rouge Official Jailed

The Khmer Rouge was the name given to the followers of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, who were the ruling party in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, led by Pol Pot, Ieng Sary, Son Sen and Khieu Samphan.

This organization is remembered primarily for its policy of social engineering and the genocide this caused. Its attempts at agricultural reform led to widespread famine, while its insistence on absolute self-sufficiency, even in the supply of medicine, led to the deaths of thousands from treatable diseases (such as malaria). Brutal and arbitrary executions and torture carried out by its cadres against perceived subversive elements, or during purges of its own ranks between 1976 and 1978, are considered to have constituted a genocide


Bearing that in mind, this is a welcome result 

In the first judicial verdict on the genocide committed by Cambodia's Khmer Rouge in the 1970s, a former official of the regime was on Monday pronounced guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment.

Full story in The Hindu here

V for Vendetta - Valerie's Letter

Dear Rightards, being free does not mean giving free reign to mega national companies!

I hate the terms right and left. These terms are imaginary, lazy, media constructed and helpful to clueless moronic reporters to package complex problems only. Generally Libertarians rant about how bad conservatives are (and for proof of this see conservative states, i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) then shout oh but apart from that we are on the right because against all evidence to the contrary, conservatives have something to do with freedom, even if it is convenient economic freedom rather than any notion of personal freedom, oh an also because we hate communists and socialists and all those people who put labour in their party names even more, cause our dad had to fill in a form once despite being a small business man (and really to be fair who wants to be born in China or North Korea).

It is an utter nonsense, and is helpful to nobody but vested political interests in various parties, to define politics on a scale essentially of how much tax your chosen affiliation traditionally draws in. You end up with nothing but partisan idiots who vote on a sort of football team loyalty mentality instead of considering who will make things the least bad.
Now that said, there is a depressing, mad raving, ‘we’re hard right’ libertarian streak that goes frothing fcuking mental at the though of a private citizen not taking responsibility for themselves but in the same breath rants and raves about corporate interests being given free reign and little or even no regulation because it is economically convenient to compromise their principles of responsibility when it comes to economic growth.
Historically the advent of the limited liability corporation was staunchly opposed and it should be viewed with considerable unease. The entire point of company law is to allow a businessman to set up a fake fall guy ‘probably called Businessman Limited’ who takes the fall when things go wrong. Creditors get dumped, employees get dumped, liabilities vanish. The Businessman walks away to do the same horrific scam again (Salomon v Salomon is good case to refresh at this point) This encourages a bit of innovation and risk taking and protects investors or entrepreneurs from massive personal loss.
I completely agree that a sole trader or a partnership, who have their own necks on the line should anything go wrong, should be almost completely exempt from. There is considerable pressure and consequence for such individuals to make sure things go right, their employees don't do anything stupid and their contracts are met because if they go wrong the business man is personally liable and looking at bankruptcy.
For a company to be subject to next to no regulation is ridiculous. Sure, we'll get a boom and a lot of people will have some extra cash in their back pockets as corporates free of red tape flourish but we'll also get a horrible bust, when something goes wrong and the guiding intelligence behind a raft of companies, with disinterested managers secure in their indemnity insurance and limited liability and 6 years of $$$s, simply walk away without consequence.
We can't get rid of companies and company law, nor would it be desirable to do so, it would be economic Armageddon and they are useful vehicles. But these things require tough and stringent regulation far in excess of the plucky sole trader or partnership. To suggest otherwise while applying the mantra that the private citizen must be responsible for any and all actions creates a logical divide and turns ordinary private citizens away from the argument that people should repatriate their freedoms from central and local government.

Too Much Bling? Give us a ring

http://www.2muchbling.co.uk/


This has got to be one of the most truly fcuking depressing things I have ever come across and I've had mercy sex. 

If you have not read What Price Liberty by Ben Wilson then do so

quick bit of review by Peter Wilby

Ben Wilson is well aware that Britain was always stronger on rhetoric than reality, that protestations of liberty often allowed the propertied classes to maintain privilege and control, and that modern threats to freedom come as much from corporate interests as from the state, and that the two frequently act in concert … Liberty, as Wilson points out, cannot be bottled for all time. There is “no such thing as liberty in an absolute sense”, he writes. It needs continual rethinking and renegotiation, and means different things in different times and places.

How To Fuck your Friend's Sister(s) And Get Away With It

Most men have a dormant sexual attraction to most females that they come into contact with. Men that do not have this attraction are gay. When a man comes into contact with the sister of a friend, the attraction comes to the fore and takes over his mind. If a man does not feel this it us because his friend's sister is not hot enough. Many men have tried to have some uninterrupted time with the girl (or girls) in question but most have failed. Don't let that happen to you. What you need to know is How To Fuck your Friend's Sister(s) And Get Away With It. Okay, let's get right down to it. Please be careful as to not miss read this article and believe it says, "HowTo Fuck Your Sister(s) And Get Away With It", because doing that is already easy enough and the last thing you would want is Uncyclopedia making it more difficult for you. Which reminds me, my cousin is hot and we haven't spoken in a while...

Step 1: Discovering the Sister

If you know your friend has a sister, skip this step. If you don't have any friends, get some and then follow these instructions.

Right then... Well, the most obvious way of finding out if your friend has a sister is to ask:
"You got a sister or what?"
Don't do this. It's way too obvious. What you should do is to ask:
"You got any siblings?"
This way, you don't sound gay or perverted (If you're interested, this also works if you want their brother). When you ask this, you should not look as lust-fuelled as I know you might will be. You should look curious and interested. If they say:
"Yeah,"
you should to ask how many and what gender. This shouldn't sound suspicious, especially if you start the conversation when both of you are really bored and feel like talking.
If they say:
"No,"
you have to end the conversation smoothly, find another friend and do everything again.
If your friend says that they've only got brothers, you should ask their ages and names. It would sound suspicious if you ended the conversation after they said they had brothers. When you finish the conversation, find another friend and repeat this step until you discover a sister. When you do, smile sweetly and say:
"What's her name?"
Your friend would then tell you. Then you say:
"That's a nice name. How old is she?"
Your friend will tell you. Now, if her age seems satisfactory, you can continue to the next step. If she is too young or old or has a weird name that you don't like, find another friend and try again. If your friend is a guy and his sister(s) is/are younger than him you have to be very careful when you proceed with the next steps. If you find more than one sister and succeed in discovering their names and ages, you're a lucky bastard.

Step 2: Finding out if She's Hot

So, you know your friend has a sister, but does she fulfill your high expectations? You must find out...

You have to engineer a way of seeing your friend's sister without arousing suspicion. A good way to do this is to get really close to your friend, close enough that you can start going over to their place without being having the door slammed in your face. You should then go to their place as many times as you have to in order to stare at see your potential sex slave "fuck-buddy".

If your friend's sister doesn't live with them, you have to find some way of discreetly discovering her location. If she's in another country and you're broke, too bad, start again with another friend. If you can find her, great! Carry on!

If you can't find her or you don't like the way that she looks, (groan) start all over again with another friend.

If you think she's hotter than Megan Fox on the sun, continue to the next step.

If there's more than one of them and only one of them is hot enough, you can decide what to do with the unworthy one. If they're both hot, you're an impossibly lucky son of a bitch.

Step 3: Laying the Foundations...

Before you get intimate with your friend's sister, you must make her like you. (Unless you don't give a fuck. If this is the case, skip this step and follow the part of Step 4 that is intended for people planning to rape their target and disappear).

Continue your regular visits to your friend's house. Start to talk to her, make her like and trust you. If there's two of them, peform this step on both of them. It's probably best if you do this when your friend, their parents, and any other unwanted relatives are not around Try and sound drunk and perverted sweet and inviting. If you're retarded shy, girls can think it's cute, but this is risky, because you might look like a whimp to a clever girl (one who isn't a blonde).

Keep trying until she likes you. (If she's blonde, you just need to tell her to like you, it always works.) Once she likes you and trusts you, you have to get closer...

Use a few pick-up lines, compliment her, stare at her, basically, make her feel good.

Don't go too far. Stop when she starts staring at you. If you stop just short of sexual harassment abuse arousal, you can trick her into thinking that you like her as a person, when, really you just want to force your cock in the soft, tender hole that God had created for you.

Step 4: Let the Fun Begin...

(i)If You're NOT Going to Rape Her:

Once she starts staring at your cock, you're ready. if you've got more than one with you and they all stare at your cock, you're so fucking lucky! I hate you! Do the following to all of them at the same time.

Make sure the parents are not around. If your friend is male, get him out of the way too. If they have any other family there get rid of them. But if your friend is a hot girl why did you go for her sister when it would be so simple to go for her?! If she is hot, keep her around.

Look a her,catch her eye, look at your cock, and then look back at her. If she nods or smiles or does something else that blatantly says: "Fuck me now!", guide her to her bedroom and get her on the bed. Rip her clothes off while looking her in the eye. This will maintain the illusion that you like her and not her near-perfect, luscious body. If you do actually like her, you don't have to act.

Once she's completely naked, get your cock out and tell her to suck it. If you've got more than one girl, you can decide what to do with them. From then on, do what you like, condoms are optional.

If you kept your friend around because she's a hot girl, make as much noise as you can while banging her sister(s). She should come to find out what it is. When she does, get her involved. This should keep her quiet and you'll get more satisfaction. Just in case her family come back, barricade the door until you're done.

(ii)If You ARE Going to Rape Her:

You deserve to be anally abused 'till you die!

Step 5: Afterwards

(i)If You Raped Her:

If you want to keep her, knock her out again, put her in a bag and get out quickly. If your friend's a hot girl, and you want her too, come back for her later. Do the same if you want her other sisters too.

When you leave, you have to go somewhere far away and hide. Mexico is a good option. Once you're there, you need to blend in so the family of girl can't find you (see HowTo:Be Mexican if you chose Mexico).

When and if you choose to come back for another of the girls, do it quick then go back to wherever you're hiding. Don't feel guilty, they love it really

(ii)If You Had Some Nice Honest Sex With Her/Them:

If you wish to have a relationship with her or her sisters or your friend or all of them, do so. If you want to keep her/them for your own perverted reasons and physical needs you can do that too. If you don't want to, either tell them and go or just disappear.

Congratulations!

If you managed all these steps and did not get arrested, killed, bitten, shot at, or harmed in any other way, you've learnt how to Fuck Your Friend's Sister(s) And Get Away With It!

Stop and Search under s.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 incompatible with ECHR art 8

Old Holborn has a much better post here but essentially the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the stop and search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism act 2000 are too loose and open to abuse.

As if there was ever any doubt that plod and co were using them bully the citizenry.

whoop whoop!

Fuck off you retard facist fucking postman fuck!

If like me you are prone to making huge mistakes and feeling like a grade A moron you will no doubt have advanced the idea that, the should have long ago been put out of it's misery, Nu Labour gaggle of thieves might be not quite as truly awful as it is under Mr Alan I look sensible but really it turns out I'm also a massive cunt Johnson.

Well, I hang my head in shame.

The BBC is carrying this fucking please vote for us we're a sort of cuddly BNP nonsense here.

The gist is that islam4uk some of the dumbest and most odious nutters ever to bank a dole cheque, who planned a protest march through wooton basset (where dead UK troops are repatriated), will be banned under counter-terrorism laws, by, Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

So I am now in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with mad man in chief anjem choudry who has quite rightly predicted that "What the people will see is if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship"

Yeah, I'm sure this will counter radicalism and is not just a sop to try to convince voters that a vote for labour will bash foreigners.

However, in a shameless display of 'fuck the election the UK will get more of the same under blue labour' Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling has apparently welcomed the decision to ban Islam4UK.

fucks

But what is this Liberty you bang on about Sumo?

“The privileges of thinking, saying, and doing what we please, and of growing as rich as we can, without any other restrictions, that by all this we hurt not the public, not one another, are the glorious privileges of liberty.”

“Cato” (the nom de plume of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon), writing in the early 1720s

How to Start Your Own Street Gang

Things You'll Need:

1. homies
2. a lot of time on your hands
3. a job ... just kidding

Instructions

Step 1. Find a few friends that have a lot of time on their hands.

Step 2. Convince your friends to all wear the same colour clothes as you and create a secret sign or handshake. (Preferably a cool sign or handshake)

Step 3. Give each other cool nicknames and spray paint then on your clothes along with your gang name.

Step 4. Start walking around your neighbourhood.

*Don't smile

Step 5. Holler at an occasional girl walking by. (By holler i mean shout compliments) example: "Why hello miss you are looking quite good today"

Step 6. As people begin to notice your gang invite them to join. The more the merrier!

Step 7. In order to create funds for your gang create some sort of entrepreneurial street sales business. Example: Bake sale outside your house ... perhaps lemonade and cookies.

Step 8. After you have made money from your business make sure to carrier your entire net worth in your wallet and pockets.
*If possible let everyone you see know how rich and cool you are

Step 9. Congratulations you now have your own street gang!

Dear HMG, Cops, Local Councils, Quangos and sundry other executive lickspittles, oh and the spineless parliament that is supposed to reign them in

YOU ARE ALL CUNTS

here

here

here

here

to name but a few of the recent gangfucks you have all presided over or instigated.

also

Did I mention you are all cunts?

Keith I'm a massive fun hating cunt Vaz knows better than you!

Labour MP and arch enemy of any and all games that are not Ludo is apparently dismayed at the level of violence in Call of Duty 2 Modern Warfare.

In typical Neo Labour style he has vowed to raise questions about the game in parliament. This would be despite the game being classified 18 and people aged 18 and over apparently have not over night lost the ability to tell fantasy from reality.

I am aware that such an affliction is prevalent at Westminster where expenses rules are apparently subject to any fantastical whimsy of what is wholly necessary for a troughing thieving bastard MP to claim but that does not mean that on the anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall that some tubby fucker can tell me what I can and can't do in my spare time in the sanctity of my own home on my day off while hurting nobody!

YOU HEAR ME VAZ YOU FUCKER! FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

I should also point out that I was until now indifferent to the game and prolly would not have bothered had some sanctimonious twat not kicked off, but so help me it is going to the top of the crimbo list now!