Nope, these aren't death penalty offences. You can either shear the sheep or skin them and it's hard to get future dollars(pounds) out of a corpse.

Heh. Just like Edmonchuck,where council has now approved the use of GREEN camera lights to catch speeding drivers.Now I know why I can't get Saran Wrap(TM) in this city.It's going on all the license plates!!

You've highlighted the only positive aspect of this dreadful report, the fact that there are still some British Bulldogs railing against the Nanny State.

Britania the video gulag.

Many of our Brit relatives in my Grand Dad's day wouls already be out arbitrarily removing these snooper cameras but what do we see from modern britains?...just the grindin of cud as the sheep are herded in the direction their indoctrinators want them to go.

Britain has proven to be the perfect model for the technocratic feudal socity which Berty Russel. huxley and Darwin foretold.

"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished.

Diet, injections, indoctrinations and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.

A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton." - Bertrand Russell

The NDP gave us photo radar in BC, many tickets got ignored as the process servers would give up after the third attempt.

I think they should learn from the gun registry and work towards banning cars all together. That way there would be no 'crime'?
Oh, cars are already registered, aren't they? Guess that won't work. Well then, jsut fine the ass off everyone--that way they can brag they haven't raised taxes but the government grab and run money pot is still filling.
Ontario is again discussing photo radar--that should fill the coffers. The argument--"if only one life is saved"! Sounds like the gun registry to me!

There is an opportunity here. Make and market a car 'hoodie' so the driver cannot be seen.

Or, get a .22 caliber rifle with a scope and silencer and start shooting the cameras randomly.

Get others to do the same. That way, they will be kept busy replacing them and the bills will pile up.

In any case, this is pure social slavery, the Brits should be in full revolt.

One question: Do the police actually enjoy monitoring the fellow citizens at this level? What kind of person would do this sort of scrutinizing of the citizen?

Another Question: When do the toilet seat cameras go in so they can force men to pee sitting down to stop those nasty dribbles form making a mess?

England needs a revolution badly. But oh wait, they have one under way, it's the Islamic take over of Britain. When that is done, there will be a whole new set of insane laws. But what the heck, by them the Brits will have been so softened up that they will simply bend and spread.

I suspect not a few Britons are now grumbling, "Too bad we defeated the Germans. If we'd known we'd end up living in a totalitarian state anyway, we'd have surrendered to Hitler in 1940. Under the Germans, we'd at least no have any Muslims, we'd all be driving BMW's, and Heidi Klum would be Minister of Fashion."

Mark Steyn has now linked to this at National Review's The Corner:

http://tinyurl.com/ypd4xz

Poor old Britain, as it slouches toward a dismal Jerusalem, whether Muslim or secular Nanny State, provides a cautionary tale for all of North America.

DB - that's "slouches towards Bethlehem"

Thanks Tenebris. You're no slouch in the poetry department.

Noting Steyn link: Good work Drained Brain and Kate!

Order from broken traffic lights. Have you ever noticed how well drivers behave when the traffic lights are not functioning? The spontaneous order that follows: drivers, on their own, giving each other the right of way with head nods and hand gestures; and the absence of damn-the-torpedeos-I'm-comin'-thru miscreants.

I'm thinking the rules increase order up to a certain point after which they actually trigger social disorder when the resentment syndrome kicks in.
I'm also thinking, this is the kind of thing -- not Hayek and von Mises readings -- that may trigger the peoples' push back against out of touch uber-controlling elites.

Ah yes, the shift from civil service to civil control continues apace. That's what you get when you keep voting in socialists.

Makes me wonder what its going to take to crack that Labour Party mojo. Random hangings for not putting the recycling in the right container? CO2 goon squads that disappear people if they exceed their monthly energy use quota?

Sorry, Kate. Your hyperbole is a tad overblown. Read the fine print:

"Smoking at the wheel ... courts can consider as a factor when police accuse drivers of failing to have proper control of their vehicle."

"motorists using hand-held mobile phones could be jailed for two years and be disqualified if this was an aggravating factor in dangerous driving."

"Those who kill while using a mobile face 14 years behind bars, under a charge of causing death by dangerous driving."

Actually, considering the appalling ineptitude and utter indifference to all but short term pleasure shown by most Britons, the nanny state may be the lesser of all evils.

I don't necessarily object to the nanny state, but to its methodology. It's the pat on the head and the plummy voice telling me not to think about it that I detest. By all means, let's have an open and transparent debate on such matters, decide what we want as a society, and periodically revisit issues to see if they still function under changing circumstances.

If our workplace health and safety standards were applied to vehicular operation, half of us would be without a license, enforcement would be far more rigorous, and penalties would be far higher. We have just become enured to the present risks of driving.

As individuals and societies, we are incredibly schizophrenic in addressing risk.

Tenebris,

You don't mind the nanny state? Please move to England right now. Normal people don't want to have a life-long mommy and daddy. We move out of our childhood rooms and get our own apartments and run our own lives. I will do what I can to fight for any and all liberty I can get. I will not comply and I will not be assimilated.

If the workplace enforced it's safety protocols, there would be a lot fewer of the huge bucks spent on workers compensation. It is the nanny sate bent that has so many of the claimants running for an early pension via their sore backs. A little diet and exercise is the real cure, but pain pills and cheques in the mail is available and easier.

Life if full of risks and adventure. That is what makes a life worth living. If safety is your paramount concern, stay under your mom's bed and don't stink the this country up with your collectivist nanny state stench.

Actually, considering the appalling ineptitude and utter indifference to all but short term pleasure shown by most Britons, the nanny state may be the lesser of all evils..

Exactly backwards. The nanny state CAUSES irresponsibility.

Exactly backwards. The nanny state CAUSES irresponsibility.

Exactly!

All the Brits have to do is to get everyone to wear a burka. "Can you prove that is me in the photo" Problem solved.

Things were starting to echo around here...

JW - you misquoted me. I said that I did not necessarily object to the nanny state, not that I did not mind it. Many distasteful things are necessary. Thus, the operative questions here are:
Is the nanny state necessary? Is it temporary? What are its aims and methods?

Or do you wish me to be an ideologue such as yourself? Debate the point.

"I will not comply and I will not be assimilated." You would break every law with which you disagreed? Are you a mere anarchist?

"Life if full of risks and adventure. That is what makes a life worth living." Hoo boyo - you need to explain yourself here. Are you advocating hedonism? The brits seem to have descended to this level, hence the need for a nanny. Someone has to clean up the mess spoilt children leave behind. The problem with a nanny state, when circumstances demand, is the nature of the nanny. Invariably, the nanny, left unconstrained, behaves worse than the children. The people get the government they deserve.

But, let us not be too hard on the UK. A nanny is a darn sight less embarrassing than the wet nurse we need in Canada.

A "collectivist"? Moi? Perhaps, although it depends on subtleties likely beyond your limited comprehension. Let me make it simple for you: societies are not homeopathic entities. Understand? No? There comes a point when there are not enough “good people” left to offset the civil, intellectual and moral rot of the wider society. All then must suffer the consequences. Thus, I am an operational collectivist across several functional levels because the logical structure of the universe demands it…

…and far, far, to the right of Canada’s insipid Conservative party, whom, I do acknowledge, are doing their best to wet nurse us back to some measure of maturity.

Tenebris, read the link. It's not my hyperbole.

Me No Dhimmi and Drained Brain think “The nanny state CAUSES irresponsibility.”

Oh? The STATE causes…? Is that not like saying: “It’s the system’s fault, not mine”? What are you guys trying to do, avoid responsibility for the mess in which we find ourselves?

“I’m all right, Jack.” How incredibly selfish.

Sorry buckos. YOU* are irresponsible. YOU are the reason for the nanny state. YOU don’t like it, YOU fix it.

*Well, me too, unfortunately.

PS. I get awfully combative after marking exams all day. Don’t take it personally.

I don't think the relationship between irresponsibility and the nanny state, either way, can be considered causal, though there are certainly mutual contributory relationships.

MND's point about excessive traffic controls is well taken, indeed, some cities are now experimenting with removing controls in some situations, and letting the "yield to the right" default rule control, and they are reporting some good results.

Tenebris's note on the responsibility of the driver to pay sufficient attention to what they are doing is also well taken. You are operating lethal heavy equipment in a public commons space. If what you were doing can be found to be contributory to not paying sufficient attention, then you were being unreasonable and your responsibility for your "accident" should increase.

Folks around here tend to agree that responsible people should be allowed to be armed. Me too. Does that mean people who "accidentally" shoot you should not be held responsible?

If the rules are being used to a priori prevent behaviour that is safe in some situations from being undertaken in those situations, only because some other people undertake such behaviours in unsafe situations, that is a violation of freedom. On the other hand, if the rules say that evidence of irresponsibility is a factor of judgment of behaviour, then I don't have such a big problem with that.

Yes, but irresponsbility should be dealt with through tort law, not through counter-productive resentment-generating uber-regulation. Don't micro-manage peoples' lives -- punish them for actual damages.
By this I mean: don't spy on and punish people for behaviours (smoking, eating, using cell phones in a car etc.) that are potentially damaging.

All these behaviours are covered under existing laws like driving an automobile with "undue attention". Certainly, educate the public about the many varieties of "undue attention" and enforce the law! The word will get around quickly enough.
If you treat people like children they will act like children -- this is axiomatic truth. Surely Tenebris knows this from his experience teaching in the university, which is the new high school if not the new junior high.

Sorry buckos. YOU* are irresponsible. YOU are the reason for the nanny state. YOU don’t like it, YOU fix it.

*Well, me too, unfortunately.

PS. I get awfully combative after marking exams all day. Don’t take it personally.

Hum a few more bars of Call Me Irresponsible and I'll fake it. In the meantime, as with many pedagogues, especially those of the common collectivist variety, you seem to take perverse delight in espousing a view contrary both to reason and to common sense. I hope you're not taking it out on whomever you're evaluating.

When you're through wielding your pen and passing judgment on students, you might try a simple search of "Nanny State" and "irresponsility" or even consider buying Harsanyi's book for starters: http://www.davidharsanyi.com/

I did read the link, Kate, at least the article. I did not want to read all the commenters, and the quotes did sort of give it away. I unfairly presumed editorial agreement. I abase myself. I’ve done a very bad thing. Please, nanny, don’t spank.

Indeed, I think I’ve changed my mind. Do let us introduce the death penalty for all driving infractions.

Perhaps it would awake the somnambulant British psyche from its self-gratifying torpor.

Oops, I'd better correct my spelling typo to irresponsibility before somebody wanders by clutching a red pen.

I don't disagree with you, MND, indeed, I was just saying roughly the same thing a different way, except that (1) I don't think you and Tenebris are disagreeing, and (2) I think you should have used italics instead of bold ;-)

Sigh. DB, you being dense this evening, or just trying to pull my leg?

FYI, politically, I'm a crypto-libertarian monarchist. The Magna Charta was a GOOD thing. The US constitution is nigh unto holy writ. The tripartite republican government as originally envisaged by the American founding fathers is the wisest form of government ever devised.

Our political system is inverted. Municipalities should levy the highest tax burdens. We have way too many laws, politicians and bureaucrats.

The social safety net isn’t, and should be removed from the ham-handed higher levels of government.

I want the freedom to concealed-carry and to call an idiot an idiot.

Clear enough, now?

MNB – I largely agree that “[i]f you treat people like children they will act like children”, although I would hold that this is a statistical conclusion, not a normative one. My point was not so much causal as moral: the individual bears responsibility; the collective suffers consequences. “The soul that sins shall die” but shit spills over to foul all whom it touches.

Thanks for the conversation.

If anyone has been on holidays when some young Britons appeared, it is quite obvious that they have achieved their "classless" society.

Perhaps MND's phrase should read, "the nanny state ENCOURAGES irresponsibility". That's hardly a stretch, Tenebris. Example: how many people aren't saving for their retirement, knowing that the "caring" government will be there to bail them out when they retire underfunded? As for other examples of the caring nanny state, I leave the obvious of the modernized canuck welfare system to the reader to ponder.

Whenever people are willing to eschew personal freedom and liberty for government "caring" or "security", they end up with a raw deal: they've lost their freedom(s) and have little to show from the government in the end.

Governments should actually be encouraging people to look out for themselves and not rely on federal/provincial/other intervention; this creates what is known as "adult behaviour" in the citizenry, and it is what a grown-up country needs.

And what Canada sorely lacks.

Even Don Cherry called it right on the woes of safety fascism: he said there would be more injuries with the spreading of wearing hockey helmets amongst pro players. He was right.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

mhb - Amen.

But, most people don't want to be free. What shall we then do? Force it upon them against their will? Or, take up the white man's burden, gather up the nappies, and clean up the poo?

Yes, I realize few these days advance the nanny state out of such noble motives, but such made Britain great.

The pragmatic or the ideal?
The lady or the tiger?

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm ... if you're interested.

Cheers

No, it's the dense writing in your earlier post that makes your thinking appear to be dense.

You went off on a tangent, which admittedly is better than going off in a huff, by arguing some apparent monarchist-libertarian notion that it's my irresponsibility that has required Canada to outlaw, say, baby walkers.

I would argue strenuously, on the other hand, that those of the collectivist viewpoint see human nature as a tabula rasa that can be perfected by the imposition of more rules and regulations. "Think of The Children." The more rules that are imposed, the less the individual is inclined to bother trying to take personal responsibility. The state, then, collectively adds more rules, more advice, and more suggestions.

It's not good enough to put up an electronic highway sign that warns of bad weather or accidents ahead. The sign has to keep flashing useful and helpful messages. "Buckle up." "Watch your distance," etc.

In closing, Google "Nanny State" + "NDP policies" to see which side you're on in this argument. FWIW I'd consider myself in general agreement with the personal creed you enunciated, although since my brain has drained I'll express a preference for the tripartite republican government, with all its many imperfections, over a monarchy.

And to expand on the suggestion of another poster, IMHO the Nanny State ENCOURAGES, FOSTERS, INCULCATES A SENSE OF irresponsibility AND POWERLESSNESS.

So what the heck are we arguing about it?

I agree, MHB, that government should be encouraging non-government, yet it remains the case that biologists have a word for ogranisms that are anti-self, they call them dead. Since we're stuck with some government, we are stuck with pro-government government. This battle will last 'till the end of man.

It is true that Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But notice that he didn't say, "They that can give up a little temporary liberty to obtain an essential safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There's a reason for that.

Imagine that some stranger approaches you on the street and says, "I care about you and I want to help you. I want to make sure that you do what's best for both you and the collective good."

You would walk away quickly and think, "Wacko", right? Anyone who doesn't have a personal connection to you and claims to "care" is always a liar and a control-freak whose life is so empty that they have nothing better to do than pontificate about how to go about controlling the lives of others. This is an undeniable fact of life.

Why is this any different when it comes to those who make laws?

Recognizing this fact does not make one a hedonist. It just means that you are a person who understands that there doesn't have to be a law for everthing. It means that you understand the concept of "common-sense" and that not everything can be controlled (or that we should attempt to control these things).

Tenebris calls him/herself a "crypto-libertarian monarchist." That cannot be true. Only a statist can believe that the nanny state might be OK. Libertarians are the opposite.

The fact is, whenever someone says, "There oughtta be a law", the opposite is probably true.

Me No Dhimmi said, "Have you ever noticed how well drivers behave when the traffic lights are not functioning?"

That is an excellent point. I live in Montreal (the Mecca of bad and inconsiderate drivers). But, I have had five or six encounters at intersections where the traffic lights were on the fritz...and I have never seen such courteous and ordered behaviour on the parts of drivers in this city.

It is true that Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But notice that he didn't say, "They that can give up a little temporary liberty to obtain an essential safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There's a reason for that.

An excellent point and one of a number of reasons I consider pure "libertarianism," (despite my own leanings) to be almost as foolish a philosophy as, say, Marxism.

In any case, there's little danger of Canada falling into the morass of libertarianism, is there?

One word: thermite!

DB – I’m not being dense, I’m being cryptic, and that because comments were becoming a tad too familiar here, and things needed to be shaken up.

That, and I cannot now bear to continue marking without a degree of distraction (Saint Vitruvius, have pity on me! I’m grading first-year programming exams and I canna’ take it anymore!)

We’re arguing over your intransigent refusal to admit you bear corporate (i.e., part of the collective) responsibility for addressing the ills of society, that it is a matter of natural law that the whole suffer for the faults of the many.

NB. "Monarchist" in the political definition means an idealistic appeal to ultimate authority. There is no conflict with a pragmatic republicanism.

Ideological libertarianism, Brain, suffers the same flaws as any other ideological approach; in particular when the ideologists delude themselves into utopianist beliefs. The road to utopia is paved with tombstones. And I say that as a founding member of the Libertarian Party of Alberta in 1972.

Voltaire said that the best is the enemy of the good. A good ideology is probably something like engineering utilitarianism, but even that will suffer utopianist failure if embraces a Benthamite denial of the individual. That's why John Stuart Mill's work is so important, he drew the line in the sand on Bentham's utopian overreach.

Consider the following. If you actually look up the definitions of the words, a meritocratic aristocracy is exactly what we need in government. A fradulent, corrupt aristocracy is exactly what we don't need.

So, is aristrocracy per se good or bad?

Tenebris: so hard to get out of that didactic mode, isn't it? Howsa about quoting me a little John Donne to make me more transigent? In the meantime, I'm glad you've stopped marking those exams tonight.

Vitruvius: I like what you say except the per se flage stuff. May I choose the third door instead?

"Tenebris calls him/herself a "crypto-libertarian monarchist." That cannot be true."

Possibly not, but can imagine me explaining, in exquisite detail, the fine philosophical distinctions to flaming scarlet-red and deep-feminist-pink professors in the ivory tower?

Besides, you haven't thought it through.

I can imagine with delight, Tenebris, your explaining same in exquisite detail, as I'm sure you can imagine my explaining to such that I'm an amystical phenomenological nondeterministic mechanist. I find that usually slows the ideologues down a notch.

That simplicity is good does not imply that oversimplification is best.

And while "Saint Vitruvius" is incorrect, I should note
that I do have a papal dispensation to say per se ;-)

The Brits as we knew them are pretty much dead and gone. WWII swept away the bravest, the slugs that picked up the pace after that have been a sad lot of spineless losers. Margaret Thatcher was an abberation. Whatever Blair and his Nanny State has dealt them, they've acquiesced, annoyed, but, never civilly disobedient or enraged enough to change it at the polls.

Face it, as descendents of Europeans, we share very little with them at this point in history.

As in Russia where the zombies of post-Communism are by default for lack of a better idea reassembling the graves they were in under Stalin again, Britain's socialism has made as many zombies.

The task in front of us non-zombies in the US/Canada is to never surrender. There is enough frontier spirit alive here that we may ascend that sorry state.

Aristocracy is per se good, but politically only insofar as it is part of a governance structure also comprising a polity and a monarchy.

cf. the USA as intended. Checks and balances...

DB - If you have recalled Donne, I shall now rest. I am, however, much more prone to quote Kipling when my blood runs high.

I would say that a meritocratic utilitarian aristocracy is generally a good thing, everywhere and in every way (which means that you, dear reader, if you are a meritocratic utilitarian -- and who isn't -- will be a member of some aristocracy), with the proviso that it must allow and account for the nondeterministic free will of the individual.

Thus, while it is pretty much a good idea for the state to penalize failures resulting from a lack of responsibility in the public commons, it remains the case that the prohibition of private undertakings by responsible citizens outside of the commons should not be so restrained. As MND mentioned, that is the domain of civil tort law.

In the vernacular, racing on public streets is not a good idea. Trained drivers racing on private tracks is not a bad idea. Smoking my pipe on a leisurely drive on a country road is not a bad idea. Smoking my pipe in heavy traffic in bad weather is not a good idea.

The problem is people who conflate these issues, especially those who do so for personal benefit while knowing better. Axiology has a word for such people, they're called frauds.

Smoking my pipe in heavy traffic in bad weather is not a good idea.

So that's one place where Alberta-style 1972-vintage libertarians encourage state intervention. You do live on the wild side.

"Don't put that in your pipe and don't smoke it."

Heh.

No, Brain, I'm not encouraging state intervention. I didn't say that smoking my pipe should be prohibited while driving. All I am saying is that if one is irresponsible, especially in a public commons context, and if one suffers a failure, and if the public evidence indicates that said failure is due to some degree to irresponsibility, then the degree of public culpability for the failure is affected by the irresponsibility.

Proper (heh) libertarians don't believe in freedom from responsibility, they believe in freedom through responsbility ~ individual responsibility. That's why I'm currently smoking Balkan #1 tobacco in a Stanwell #124 (Diplomat) pipe, which although it is made in Denmark, it is noted for its "Canadian"-style stem ~ that's the kind of thing a responsible pipe-smoker would do.

All I am saying is that if one is irresponsible, especially in a public commons context, and if one suffers a failure, and if the public evidence indicates that said failure is due to some degree to irresponsibility, then the degree of public culpability for the failure is affected by the irresponsibility.

Gollee! You use big words and big sentences. Are you being cryptic too or is that just the other guy?

One of those "who then is my neighbour" type of questions...

What is the nature and extent of my responsibility to this present society? Must there be a demonstrable failure on my part for culpability to be incurred? Or only for those failures that lead to immediate harm, whether to person or property?

If I am only individually responsible for my own actions, per argumentum, whence alights the responsibility to address those social ills that arise though no fault of my own?

One of those "who then is my neighbour" type of questions...

What is the nature and extent of my responsibility to this present society? Must there be a demonstrable failure on my part for culpability to be incurred? Or only for those failures that lead to immediate harm, whether to person or property?

If I am only individually responsible for my own actions, per argumentum, whence alights the responsibility to address those social ills that arise though no fault of my own?

Could it be, perforce, that you two are sharing a pipe?

Heh heh...

I'm just being me, Brain, I'm a borborygmic logophile. Yet you must admit, while it may have been a long sentence, it was well constructed.

I do think, Tenebris, that there must be a "demonstrable failure on my part for culpability to be incurred". We can't have people running around claiming culpability for hypothetical failures. Of course, we can argue about what a "demonstrable failure" is 'till long after the cows have come home.

The "responsibility to address those social ills that arise though no fault of my own" accrues from the fact that if the socially successful are not responsible for preventing the socially unsuccessful from getting too far behind, then eventually the unsuccessful will destroy the public processes and methodologies that make possible the socially successful.

Alas, my pipe broke many years ago, and I returned to the art of rolling for my evening indulgence. Tabacco, though naturally, Dutch...

The "responsibility to address those social ills that arise though no fault of my own" accrues from the fact that if the socially successful are not responsible for preventing the socially unsuccessful from getting too far behind, then eventually the unsuccessful will destroy the public processes and methodologies that make possible the socially successful.

Such mellifluent rhetoric would fit tidily into an NDP platform. Come to think of it, I do believe it's already there, in words more suitable to the non-pipe-smoking proletariat.
Sort of a socialist pipe-dream...

My dear Mr. Brain. Such mellifluent rhetoric was at least in part cribbed from Mr. Alan Greenspan's interview on Charlie Rose, in which he explains that he considers himself to be a libertarian, he discusses his thirty-year relationship with Ayn Rand, he deliniates the limitations of ideology, and he considers the responsibilities of the successful to prevent the unsuccessful from bringing down the mechanism of success. You may have noted that Mr. Greenspan is not your average NDPist.

Here's the interview, it's one hour long, and it's my favourite interview of 2007:

video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8342614253746711839

IMHO Greenspan has been talking just a leetle too much lately. If he is indeed coming across as a leftist then so be it.

You might read this article:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html

It contains some cribbable material.

Oh, absolutely, we certainly can't have a libertarian man who happened to have been chairman of the Federal Reserve for over eighteen years of relative prosperity running around talking too much. No, no, that won't do ;-)

Perhaps, Brain, you might actually find it elucidating to watch Mr. Greenspan's interview. And please understand, that's not intendend to be an insult (you may have noticed that I tend to eschew insults), rather, it's that I found the interview particularly elucidating, and so I offer it in good faith.

Ah, Vitruvius, then art thou a utilitarian and a pragmatist? Is there no tragic hero in your philosophy?

Vitruvius: Just to mention that I looked at the Milton Friedman interivew (2005) which I loved. Did not watch Greenspan but now that you mention Ayn Rand (I'm 95% done with 1st read of Atlas Shrugged) I will definitely do this.

Notwithstanding that even in the opinion of the estimable Friedman he's the best Fed chairman since inception, I find Greenspan's oracular pronouncements coma-inducing -- which come to think of it is probably his carefully crafted schtick!

LOL, through the 3-way exchange with Tenebris and Mr Brain! Good stuff, all three of you!

Perhaps, Brain, you might actually find it elucidating to watch Mr. Greenspan's interview. And please understand, that's not intendend to be an insult (you may have noticed that I tend to eschew insults), rather, it's that I found the interview particularly elucidating, and so I offer it in good faith.

Why? Because you cribbed from it? Maybe you've bitten off more than you can eschew.

If you look back on the Greenspan era, you may realize that it was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

I cribbed the above from A Tale of Two Cities.

Man, there's a low-hanging Tail of Two Cities joke here, but, no.

I don't even know what a "tragic hero" is, Tenebris. Sounds like a bad idea to me. Look, I'm in part a philistine, in the sense that I axiologically assign high scores to functional successes, things like comfort and infrastructure. Yes, I'm utilitarian. Yes, I'm pragmatic. But more than that, much more than that, I'm Vitruvius.

You might, MND, want to check out my previous SDA comment on matters of Greenspan, Friedman, Kissinger, and Lee Kwan Yew, regarding the value of their aged wisdom:

www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007690.html#c224990

Vitruvius, yes I got the ideas from that earlier link of yours to the 4 Rose interviews with much appreciation. With TV, I've probably thrown the baby out with the bathwater, as in, I watch very very little.

I've watched the first 11 minutes of Greenspan to be continued tomorrow. So far, EXCELLENT. BTW, I recently asked ET to try some Ayn Rand -- I'm intrigued to learn how influenced he was by Rand. And Rand was a great Aristotle enthusiast, I gather, which I thought ET might connect with.

Failure is foolishness? Is success your only metric for value? Is "here I stand" without worth? Do not they also serve who only stand and wait?

Is only the realization of the plan of value, and not its imagining?

'Tis tragic, indeed! Vitruvius would have wept.

This Charlie Rose? I guarantee you, Charlie Rose is clueless here. None of this... He's listening to, you know, Mongolese as Fred Thompson is going through all this. (laughter) Sometimes you have to laugh at these poor, clichéd liberals who just live in the most closeted, cocooned world, while thinking they are the most worldly and erudite among us.

I cribbed the above from Rush:

http://tinyurl.com/2tus6m

Isn't this a form of terrorism - invoking fear in motorists.

Sure if you can't control drunk drivers and those under the influence of drugs - get those junkies stuffing their faces with ding dongs.

Now, now, Tenebris, it does not become you to put words in my mouth. I rather doubt that if the original Vitruvius (25 BC) and I got together he would weep. And I say that having read his De Architectura.

Meanwhile, we have gotten to the point in this tangent where I think that we're pushing our luck on Kate's rule constraining extended off-topic debate, so unless someone wants to pull this back to driving and cameras and the state, I think I'll cash in my chips.

Happy new year, everyone; thanks, Kate.

What it boils down to is that I don't want Big Brother watching me pick my nose or scratch my crotch while I drive, walk or sit on the loo. It's an invasion of privacy, and if you think that's ok because you don't pick your nose or scratch your crotch then you'll be fine...one day they'll be watching for you though.

You gotta hand to the Brits ... pretty innovative twist on taxation.

Now all they need is enough infractions so that, for example, a typical motorist will get a ticket once a month. I mean really ... the guy looking at the guy using the cell phone should get a ticket also.

I feel safer already!!!

The days of Britain running itself are over. The EU passes the majority of laws. The Parliament basically rubber stamps them. Even the tongue in cheek suggestion of passing a death sentence for driving offences is a non starter. Britain can never reintroduce capital punishment all the time we remain members of the EU. What started out a good idea (a common market) has morphed into an unelected socialist super state. If "the people" rose up and threw out the scoundrels who currently sit at Westminster it wouldn't really make much difference. The real power is in Brussels. Hopefully they will wake up and realise this one day. However I am not waiting to find out, which is why I am emigrating to Canada.

Joanne:
"Isn't this a form of terrorism - invoking fear in motorists."

In a manner of speaking, yes...low level coercion meant to intimidate control/compliance/conformity...but of a far greater value to the technocratic social engineers who are constructing this electronic gulag is the the conditioning effect of this public surveillence grid.

This gets the docile population conditioned to the idea they are such a "problem" to their keepers, that they must be surveilled day and night ...monitored constantly for their propensity to sin against the omnipresent nanny state....this sets the mood for more and more surveillance and less and less privacy in the forming technocratic feudal society...state owned bond servants don't require privacy...they must be watched day and night lest they revolt on their masters.

Actions like this( where the state takes the position every citizen is simply an unapprehended felon which constant monitoring will correct) are an affront to civil societies...it denotes a leadership system's contempt for the citizen...and a state belligerence which feels it has the right to aggressively intrude into every private personal moment of life.

This is the leading edge of big brother statism and anyone who calls it anything less is either rationalizing in circular incoherence to be self-deluding or they are a part of the problem. Intrusive statism deserves only one response from a responsible citizenry in a fee nation...that is massive resistance and open noncompliance.

That said, I bet there are conditioned sheep out there right now bawling for even more of this type of state intrusion so they can feel more secure.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - B. Franklin

If the politicians were thinking, they would realize that they could enjoy a substantial float if they allowed motorists to pay their fines in advance of the commission of crime (prepaid atonement). Keep your account topped up, and the authorities will simply dip in when you offend. No fuss, no muss, no bother. The collected funds will be invested prudently in hedge funds and electronic toll highways, while any "excess" profit will redistributed fairly to the third world via the UN NGOs (after handling costs) - for global atonement. But wait! think of the convenience when it comes to carbon taxes! It will be unparalleled.

Come on socialists, see the light! Capitalism is way ahead of you on the curve with this one. It was "plastics" in "The Graduate". Today, it's "Stored Value Accounts". Coming to a socialist utopia near you. Mark my words.

Wow -- unbelievable ! Sorry for ya Brits...

And to think Churchill saved the world drinking 24/7!

There oughta been a law against "drunk world-saving"!!!

The Brits are now governed by the rule of law of Germany and the Roman Catholic Church. Gee, two world wars, millions dead on all sides and for what? I wonder if Britain would have accepted their loss of sovereignty before 1914 and millions dead......they would have rather been dead.

Or, get a .22 caliber rifle with a scope and silencer and start shooting the cameras randomly.

Paintball guns are better- all you need to do to disable the camera is gum up the lens, and you don't have to worry about where the shot went if you miss.

And the cops can't bust you for discharging a firearm inside the city limits (usually a non-trivial offense) if you get caught.

-----

Consider the following. If you actually look up the definitions of the words, a meritocratic aristocracy is exactly what we need in government. A fradulent, corrupt aristocracy is exactly what we don't need.
-Vitruvius

No. What we want is a meritocracy. I have no interest in limiting my choice of leaders to members of the lucky sperm club.

So, is aristrocracy per se good or bad?
-Vitruvius

Depends on the society and which definition of 'aristocracy' is intended.

If the society is insufficiently advanced for the average citizen to be educated (literate, numerate, etc), having a class of people that *is* educated administering the government is likely to be beneficial to that society.

When a society achieves universal education of it's citizens, aristocrats are no longer necessary, and they are usually replaced by a non-hereditary professional class of trained administrators drawn from a much larger talent pool than the hereditary aristocracy.

To be specific, Rosignol, in my use of the word aristocracy, from the Greek "government by the best", I do not consider heredity to be the best (though there may be contributing factors in some cases). We agree: meritocracy is the goal, and apparently we agree that as long as some are not meritocratic, others will be relatively better. Ergo, if things go well: an aristocracy, but one of merit, not one of crony fraud and corruption.