Slashdot Mirror
It's "1984" in Europe, What About Your Country?
An anonymous reader asks: "A few hours ago, the European parliament accepted a proposal '...on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services...'. Summarized: any data (internet connections, traffic, email, file sharing, SMS, phone calls) of 450 million people of Europe has to be collected by telcos, to be used by governments in their fight against 'crime and terrorism' ... oh, and child porn, of course. In Germany, over-the-sea reports are limited and usually do not include the latest developments in law and order, but since Slashdot has readers all over the world, I would like to ask: how is the status of YOUR country in terms of anti-terrorism-laws, observations and such? Any recommendations where one can still live free and unobserved in a non-nanny state?"
The moon, I guess (assuming that nobody else owns it). Let's face it, liberty is dying. Unless some libertarians, Goldwater conservatives, Ron Paul, socially liberal Democrats and Republicans (in the true sense of the word liberal; somebody who advocates freedom), and other liberty-minded people band together to take control from our power-hungry authoritarian leaders, the USA is going to turn into "1984" as well.
Until countries decide that the central banks are evil nothing will change. This is something that has been a very big issue historically. Most great leaders were killed going against the Central Privately Held Banks. They have complete power and now want complete global control. Only a very, very, brave leader will fight the Central Bank. Here in the US, our late President Kennedy issues US Bank Notes in direct competition with the Federal Reserve. They day he was assasinated they revoked them. This is by far the one issue that completely trumps all others. The central banks are responsible for wars, depressions, murders, and complete financial enslavement. Money may be the root of all evil, but the privately held central banks are pure evil.
Mind | Body | Spirit | Cash
New Zealand is relatively good. I'm biased, I live here.
One of the last attempts at privacy invasion that hit the media was a case of the postal service (which is an SOE) was gathering data on house conditions. This information was deemed to assist with targeted advertising, for a price. There was a large public backlash.
On TV news, there were some quick queries put forward to members of the public. I'll never forget the American dude was simply said, "I moved to here from America to get away from this kind of stuff."
The one thing worrying me is possibility of NZ signing a Free Trade agreement with the US. You get dicked when you do that. But we're quite anti-American here due to the Iraq war, so we may be safe for now =)
You know... if you were a terrorist, isn't that exactly what you'd do? Get your buddy to distract the cops by showing them his bag while you walk on to the subway with the bomb in your bag.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I have been looking for just such a place in which to retire, but without much success. It's ironic that the people of the Russia now have more personal liberty than we do here in the USA from what I've read. It's almost as though we're slowly reversing roles with them.
Grand Cayman island is probably the place with the least governmental interference in people's lives that I've found thus far, but the cost of living is pretty high there judging from the cost of real estate.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
"Seriously, if you really think the 'average american' gave a damn about their rights, then why doesn't the Libertarian party get more recognition?"
h tmlh tml
Because the Libertarians have an aura of wingnut whackjob in general. Not a flame, but the truth. One Libertarian can make a point, two can make an arguement but for crying outloud if you have a bunch of them around it's like Trekkies. I just looked over the platform of the National Libertarian Party, on the surface it seems...alright, but you know about those folks out there that'd have the sidewalks sold off to the private sector.
It's like some of the"Paleo-Conservative" organizations and sites, on the surface it's you can see thier point, but it's not long till someone writes a piece on how Slavery was on it's way out and the Slaves in the South were better off slaves than free.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance61.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo37.
I own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment however statements like "I don't believe in gun control" seem broad, I mean if Timmy is a Meth-head who won't go to jail for Meth now that theres no Drug Laws, can he go buy a full auto M-4 with an M-203 underslung? Thats the issue I have with the Libertarian Party's platform, it's mighty scarce on details and refinement.
The UK, democratic? That's pretty funny.
We've got a government which was elected to power by 22% of the electorate, and even a large proportion of that 22% seem to hate them, and felt that to vote for them was the least worst option, faced with the alternative of a Tory party fixated on petty-minded immigration and taxation policies, or the opportunist Liberal Democrats, whose sole guiding principle seems to be "we disagree with any contentious policy anybody else announces".
But worse than that, all the main political parties focused their election campaigns on a small number of seats which they expected to decide the election, assuming that it wasn't worth fighting tooth and nail for areas which could be expected to conform to type. Within those constituencies, they were interested only in wooing a small number of swing voters, meaning that they all had broadly similar manifestos, differing only in fairly minor details. The total number of votes they were chasing was estimated by one respectable source which I can't remember right now to be in the region of 7,000. Yes, that's right, the 2005 UK General Election was all about getting 7,000 people to vote the right way, and to hell with everybody else. Political ideologies? Old hat nowadays. It's all about the acquisition and retention of power and absolutely nothing else.
The parliamentary majority secured by Labour through this hollow victory has until very recently been sufficient for them to do force through just about any legislation they want, very little of which seems to be in the public interest. Endless "anti-terror" legislation is forced through without many people noticing, under the cover of smokesceens like the foxhunting "debate" which they kept rolling for years because it was emotive and contentious enough to distract people without actually mattering a damn in the grand scheme of things.
So we're fucked on three counts: Most people's votes don't matter in terms of deciding who gets into power, all the main parties are essentially the same anyway, and the Government does whatever the hell it pleases once it gets in through weight of numbers and a spineless opposition.
As Gil Scott-Heron said, "Mandate my ass".
As things stand now, Timmy the Methhead has no problem getting guns from his shady friends. At least, under a libertarian scenario, some of his victims might be able to shoot him before he shoots them, instead of waiting 15-60 minutes for the cops.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It's the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it's claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone and their property.
Another reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It's that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn't exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don't "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don't acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.
What exactly is "government?" Have you ever seen a "government?" While there are varying degrees, "government" is one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is "decreed" to be for the latter's "own good" and "protection" and hailed as the "best system in the world." Because it's based on violence, there are no "states" or "nations," "states" being "voluntary associations." You may recognize that violent control over a man's life and property is what we like to call... slavery. Slavery is a form of "government," and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with "government." Govern means control, not protect. Have you ever noticed the word "protect" is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?
"govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
In "democracies" and so-called "democratic republics," slaves are given the false choice of choosing new masters. The old plantations can be seen as "political subdivisions" such as "cities," only smaller: "nations" have "presidents," "states" have "governors," "counties" have "commissioners," "cities" have "mayors" and plantations have masters.
"Government" is a group of men and women providing the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at the barrel of a gun. We have no choice in accepting and paying for their wonderful services. Their services are so valuable we're compelled to accept and pay for them. And non-political libertarians and voluntaryists are the extremists?
To keep this short, I'll use statements from politicians themselves i.e., their sacred "law" that's worshipped, revered and most important, feared. Compare the following:
"tax. A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide for public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses. 51 AmJ1st Tax 3." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1255.
"The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1051.
The first is a "kinder, gentler" way of descri
Let's see if I'm following all this.... Timmy the meth head, because he breaks societal norms by taking drugs and ruining his own life (nothing in the parent posts indicate that he has done any direct harm to any other "citizen") automatically relinquishes all other "rights" because he is a "potential" threat to "others" (since we all carry a gun for ourselves, it's all the defenseless "others" we have to worry about). Now one arguement is that everybody has the "right" to arm themselves, educate themselves, organize and communicate among themselves, and defend themselves in whatever ("legal") way they deem fit. Of course the poor defenseless child doesn't know how to do all this.....but her parents do! And who says an old person can't fire a gun? As far as "sneaking up behind" goes, a killer can do that with or without a gun, since by "sneaking" he limits the victim's awareness of his intentions until it is too late. So far, the libertarian perspective makes sense to me....but let's look at the other extreme. Ban all guns. Only the gov't gets guns. Ban all drugs. Regulate the movement of all "suspicious" persons (to prevent "sneaking") regardless of their having committed any previous harmful act. That means set up armed "checkpoints" and ensure people have "papers" to cross boundaries. Go "preemptive" on their asses and make an example out of every person who is "statistically" more likely to become violent. Monitor all communications to ensure nobody slips through the cracks. Lock up little kids who draw pictures of soldiers. It keeps snowballing because there's always SOMEONE who manages to commit a crime, which shows that we're not "preventing" hard enough, which means we have to (so sorry!) take away a few more "freedoms" in order to protect the "freedom" of the "innocent". Destroying what you're protecting is not a good way to ensure that the "protected" object survives. Now obviously, a balance between these two perspectives would be best, but it's been made abundantly clear through historical precedent that "balance" is not something governments are good at. So if "balance" can't be regulated or imposed, then let's go for the "dispersion" method of making everybody responsible (*gasp*) for their own actions, and de-centralize to the point that we achive dynamic balances of consensus in each community.
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson