31 July 2005
Type 1 - A new user posts a torrent of mindless drivel, usually under the pretext of being so sophisticated and above the grasp of the other forum members. The forum regulars then, quite rightly, deride the post for being an inane stream of nonsense. Then up pops the original spammers knight in shining armour, who points out to the forum regulars that they should stop being so snobbish and engage the spammer. The thread is then usually abandoned, as there was never coherent point to it in the first place.
Type 2 - The classic grammar/spelling attack. Now I have some sympathy with this as it is annoying when someone cannot be bothered to make their posts generally conform to some kind of comprehensible English, however this type of response is usually nitpicking and there are situations where posters are either very young or are afflicted by dyslexia and the like. The entire thread then degenerates into an argument about spelling, grammar and punctuation, which is not particularly interesting to anyone except pedants.
Type 1 really annoys me, but I could be prey to being involved in Type 2 as some people could really do with brushing up on their English. If anyone else has noticed threads with recurrent themes, post them here!
24 July 2005
Obviously the area is more intricate than I can state in a couple of blog posts and I know a great issue of contention is the definition of positive and negative rights. Perhaps the term 'negative rights' is misleading and it would probably clarify the issue to say that they are not a type of right at all, but simply a lack of postive rights.
With reference to lawmaking the distinction between positive rights and their absence should be clear. As Murray Rothbard states:
"It is not the business of the law to make anyone good or revant or moral or clean or upright."
20 July 2005
19 July 2005
17 July 2005
A nice little logo for all of you who were annoyed at the SSP's anit-freedom propaganda campaign. Just to let them know, we can doctor logos too.
With regards the comments on this blog, they are now open to all and since I know 'at least' two people have read this blog I await further enlightenment!
08 July 2005
"I doubt it would have made a difference. I've never argued ... that ID cards would prevent any particular act."
So we should be sure to remind Mr Clarke of this statement repeatedly in the future.
07 July 2005
Tony Blair made a statement at midday and claimed that we would defend our way of life against such terrorists. It would be relieving to think that he was sincere in defending our freedom, however it would be a manipulative ploy to use this as an excuse for such un-liberal measures as ID cards. It can only be hoped that such blatant opportunism will not be forthcoming. At this moment we would do well to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin;
"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve
neither security nor liberty."
I can only hope that there are no more bombs and the number of casualties are few. Like everyone I hope friends and colleagues in London have not been affected by this tragedy and for the people who have, my heartfelt condolences. Samizdata is currently covering events in London where I think the sentiments expressed here are generally echoed.