Re: secret codes embedded in your printer output...

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:08:46 +0100, James Hammerton
<jameshammerton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:35:44 +0100, hummingbird
><XSJCLSIAEMCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

....
>>I think the gameplan has been clear for a very long time but is now
>>gathering momentum. The State is fronted by the political classes
>>and their various agencies and they wish to retain total power and
>>control over the nation's affairs and population,
>
>In every society you have those who exercise power and they generally
>try to maintain it. It was always thus.

Indeed but in many half-decent democracies, those in office are
constrained by boring things like constitutions and BoRs.

>As for "total" power the state/political classes don't have it,
>immense as their power may be.

There's always an exception to any rule but they have the power to
introduce any law they wish with few constraints. CCA comes to mind.
Most constraints can be legislated away if they so desire and the
judges' bleats can be quelled by various methods. They even have
the power to abolish general elections if they feel the electorate is
getting in the way, despite the bleats which might follow. I'm not
sure how many people know the CCA was ever passed and many of
those who do will say "it's necessary" - ie repeating the govt spin.

That looks very close to 'total power' to me but we know it's
usually exercised with caution to avoid distressing the sheep.

But as we see, there are ways of side-stepping the usual constraints.
Just shout "terrorism!" or "suicide bombers" often enough and the
sheep roll over. It's to protect 'national security' don't yer know.

That life is not without risk is lost in the rush to legislate and the
sheep think that risk can be legislated away by a few more laws.

>Britain is not a totalitarian state though it is becoming more and
>more authoritarian and is becoming a police state.

Quite, hence my earlier description 'Big Brother police state'. Even
that is probably still a little excessive at the moment and it's easy
but wrong to describe Britain as a totalitarian state - today.
Things can get a lot worse...

>Whether this will
>lead to totalitarianism, time will tell. For all that has happened
>with the trashing of civil liberties and the rule of law, I think
>Britain is still some way off that particular destination.

Agreed. There's some way to go and things could improve if/when
Blair quits. But the Tories also tightened the noose in the past 20
years or so. ISTM this is inevitable under a constitutional system
which places sovereignty in the hands of a pork-barrel Parliament
and where there is no solid constitution and BoR to supervise them.

Whilst relying on judges to constrain govt has often been useful it
is no substitute for a written constitution/BoR, since even judges
have agendas and opinions which are not always in the best interests
of accountable democracy (Hutton anybody?).

>But I think there is an agenda to exert more and more control over
>society by those who do hold power. I'm not sure in the long run how
>successful this agenda will be, but the reaction of the population to
>it thus far is not comforting.

Right. Most people cannot see what's happening and/or don't want to
know, and many actually wish to see a more ordered society led by a
strong government (Thatcher?).
They want the government 'to do something' about *it*, whatever *it*
happens to be on the day. Anything is preferable to actually taking
responsibility for their own lives.

IMV things will have to get a lot worse before people wake up and
demand change. Herein lies the risk of civil unrest which could be
diffused if only the political classes could foresee it and promoted
a new settlement with constitutional constraints on their own powers.

>>Although the worst offenders now in this process are Labour, the
>>structure has its roots in the ancient monarchies, long supported by
>>the Tories. Late Alan Clarke: "The Tory Party *is* the King's party".
>>Democracy has only ever been an add-on to placate the malcontents
>>but it never really gave much away to the masses who continue to be
>>managed from the top-down.
>
>Yet democracy has helped ensure that e.g. failing governments get
>thrown out (think Major), that we have fairly free debate in this
>country (though I grant not perfect and the trend is otherwise) and
>that we (still) have far more freedom in Britain and the developed
>world generally, than elsewhere.

Democracy ushered in the OPWTN. They all have much the same
commitment to retaining complete power and top-down management and
only argue about which screw should be tightened next on the coffin!
They all indulge in dishing out largesse to buy votes. The only person
I know who saw the faults in our constitutional system and spoke
critically of it was Paddy Ashdown.

>Of course it was the combination of democracy, economic freedom and
>the rule of law that led to this, though each has waxed and waned over
>time.

The British people are still subserviant to those in power.
For sure our system today is better than it was under the medieval
monarchies even though all we've done is to replace monarchy rule by
executive rule. Democratic quality in on a scale, not black and white.


>> Is dissent becoming a crime of terror?
>
>In de facto terms it's not clear, though there are some recent
>developments that cause worry -- e.g. the use of anti-terrorism
>legislation against people who plainly are not terrorists but are
>protestors.
>
>There is a danger that anti-terrorism legislation will be used against
>mere dissenters routinely (rather than the sporadic uses here and
>there that we seem to have). Will the state get away with this?
>
>I'm not confident that it won't on current form...

I think it comes down to whatever the govt think they can get away
with at the time. There have been a number of malicious uses of the
terror laws and the 82yo Labour guy was just the latest. The Ricin
case nonsense was another and the arms fair protesters another.
Blair's latest attempt to intro internment points to his thinking.
Recent history suggests he will abuse it if it gets through.

This relevant story from the BBC today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4369360.stm

>>There are some other misc weapons - forbidding a person to travel,
>>control orders, having bank cards cancelled, confiscation of assets
>>because you cannot prove how you acquired them etc and generally
>>making life difficult for people via dirty tricks.
>
>Again I see nothing fundamentally new in this armoury -- though the
>technology being used for this might be new.

Control Orders are new methinks and the power to confiscate assets
is not too old. What differs with these and the other powers above
is the State's increasing willingness to use them because it thinks it
can get away with it. Apparently they can.


>>I draw a distinction between the growing data being collected by
>>companies which can be regulated and controlled
>
>Regulated and controlled by the state?

Yes. I have never advocated the abolition of government - only its
pro-active constitutional supervision.

>> and is usually given
>>voluntarily -vs- the growing useless data collected by the State for
>>little reason except to expand their top-down control-freakery and now
>>have the means to exercise it. It's the latter which bothers me most.
>>As you know, this is what leads to totalitarianism.
>
>Hmmm. I wonder how easy it is in practice to separate the two. See
>below.

I don't think it's too difficult to define who requires any particular
piece of data and why they want it. Any data required by law is by
definition required by the State whoever actually collects it.


>>My understanding of lardy's term "transparent society" is that he
>>claims: because much data is now being collected by commercial orgs
>>and govt, it will therefore be available to others and we must get
>>used to it.
>
>Once the information is out of your hands and in the hands of others
>(whether they be state officials or others) it is out of your control.
>
>Only the sanction of law can deter its misuse (unless you're a
>particularly powerful individual in which case you might have other
>weapons) and even then it is difficult.
>
>How would you know if your bank passed on your details to another
>company?
>
>How would you know if your mobile phone company passed information
>routinely to GCHQ?

This would only happen if GCHQ had the legal power to demand it.

>Without knowing how can you prevent it?

IMV the existence of a BoR guaranteeing privacy and regulations and
criminal laws would stop much abuse of data. Which company boss
would risk six months in the slammer just to make a little profit from
illegally handing over your personal data?

>I'm not sure you can easily separate the process of data being
>collected by commercial organisations from the process of the state
>collecting or using the data itself.
>
>For one thing ISTM that in a capitalist society it is very difficult
>to prevent big business and the state getting into bed together.
>There's too much in it for both sides...
>
>I'm not sure a non-capitalist society can manage to avoid similar
>problems though. Indeed ISTM the capitalist democracies have managed
>the problem better than those alternatives that have been tried.

For sure this is true. But ISTM that a constitution/BoR would create
a climate of illegality for personal data to be passed around or even
much of it collected in the first place. It would only take 1-2
prosecutions of businessmen for violation of a person's constitutional
right to privacy for the practice to stop. Most companies actually
abide by the law if they are serious about staying in business.
The govt would not be able to pass new laws requiring this/that data
to be collected by businesses if such laws violated the constitution
or would have to agree to clearly defined limitations of usage.

>As an aside, I often hear claims that the Blair govt believes in free
>markets and are thus the heirs of Thatcher. I regard this as tosh
>(partly because I don't regard Thatcher as particularly free market,
>though she was more so than ealier govts or the opposition), but Blair
>is different from old Labour.

ISTM that Blair doesn't believe in much at all except staying in the
top job and does virtually anything to achieve it - even rubbishing
his earlier colleagues in the legal profession. He is a master of PR
spin and perhaps the most charismatic liar this country has known.
Brits have always fallen for charismatic conmen.

>Where the latter wanted to nationalise everything and control the
>economy via state controlled companies, this lot prefer to regulate
>ostensibly private organisations and "merge" the private and public
>sectors via cooperation (e.g. PFI). Thus they try to control the
>economy/country via regulation and increased taxes. Same ends,
>different means.

I think you are describing fascism! But it's difficult to determine
whether this comes from Blair or from Brown who is largely out of
control and left alone to run the economy. Brown's control of the
purse strings has substantial influence over broad govt policies.

There is a school of thought which says: Blair is now waiting for the
economy to downturn and for Brown to carry the can, thereby solving
his succession dilemma.


>>The difference is that when government wish to collect data, they
>>should need to provide solid reasons for doing so and regs/controls to
>>supervise can be enacted. Such measures would prevent much of the
>>data being collected in the first place since it cannot be justified.
>
>I agree but ISTM we should demand this regardless of whether the
>government is being negligent/incompetent or intends to avoid such
>measures.
>
>>So the need to "stop them hiding" goes away since data would only
>>be collected if it has been agreed and would be under proper control.
>
>Define "proper control".

Independently supervised by a powerful body not appointed by govt.
eg - some few years ago when the Finnish govt wanted to intro CCTV
cameras on a toll bridge to catch non-payers, it was necessary for the
govt to agree to detailed controls on the footage and its destruction
was supervised after 90 days. That was the deal. In Britain we have
few such controls or supervised destruction and who knows where this
footage ends up?Recent British govt plans to intro tracking devices in
every car will lead to the State knowing the whereabouts of anybody
driving a car at any time. Any law which enacts this requirement will
contain very little to protect us from State intrusion.We are expected
to accept that govt will not abuse/misuse data but in reality they do.

>ISTM that the sort of full freedom of information abelard suggests
>would help immensely on this...

FoI always helps but IMV it's better not to permit the State to
collect data in the first place than demand access to it afterwards.
If they legally hold data they will abuse it, and no amount of
providing access to it will stop that.


>>Peacefully? Doubtless you can enlighten me on this.
>
>Yes, it has done so peacefully in many cases.
>
>Think universal suffrage, the rise of democracy, the campaigns for
>equal rights for various sections of society (women, homosexuals,
>ethnic minorities), etc.
>
>These campaigns all managed to achieve some of what they wanted, some
>a very great deal of what they wanted.
>
>There is also the case of devolution -- possibly not as much as some
>had wanted but significant and better than nothing.
>
>Of course they all involved long hard slogs, with set backs, and
>patchy progress along the way. And they haven't achieved everything
>they might have wanted.
>
>But they have brought about change.

OK. But all of these gains have one v/important thing in common:
They all left the State in control and they amount to *concessions*
which *could be* legislated away by a future govt, albeit universal
suffrage is likely here to stay.

But try to get them to voluntarily agree to a serious constitution/BoR
which places the citizenry in control and limits their powers and see
how far you get.


>>They have the means to succeed more often than us.
>
>And yet the "developed" world, i.e. the liberal democracies have
>achieved much and are freer and their states more constrained than
>elsewhere and arguably in most cases are freer and with more limited,
>more benign government than in earlier centuries. Not perfect I grant
>you and with many problems, and with Britain sliding away from the
>rule of law and towards more arbitrary power.

Indeed but we are debating the move away from the liberal democracy
model which you describe where govts govern by consent and ushered
in the society which most of us grew up in. It has its faults and the
politicians are now scratching around for a new more control-freakery
model. Blair seems to like the Singapore model and seems to be closely
following the Bush theology. Australia's going the same way.


>>I simply do not believe that the level of change required in Britain
>>will be brought about by debate with politicians.
>
>Yet over the long run considerable change has been brought by
>precisely such methods. By people campaigning and pressuring their
>politicians.

See above comments on *concessions*.

>But ISTM it's as much about persuading people in society generally
>that change is needed as about persuading MPs to do it.
>
>Persuade the masses to vote for change and the MPs will have to take
>notice.

Agree but herein lies the dilemma. Most people are simply not bothered
in holding their govt to account, hence my view that things will have
to get a lot worse before they wake up.

>> Change will have to be imposed on them.
>
>To a certain degree, I agree.
>
>You may have to ensure the politicians have no choice -- but that may
>involve persuading those who sustain the politicians in power that the
>change is necessary/highly desirable/in their interests and the
>politicians who oppose it should be dumped.
>
>You might also manage it by persuading the pols that it is in their
>interests.

Few politicians would see that. It takes a pol with bigger aims than
just dipping into the Westminster pork barrel.

>>Some folks with the mind of "I wanna change
>>the world" always think they can and go into politics.
>
>That is one of way of doing it, but it's not easy, whichever way you
>try...

I know of few pols who have gone into Westminster with big ideas of
major change and successfully implemented them. They get sucked into
the Westminster system of patronage and pork barreling. Tony Wright
is one man who wanted serious change before he entered Westminster
several years ago. Others like Donald Anderson take up valuable space!


>>Are you suggesting I go into politics?
>
>I am suggesting you consider how to alter the political landscape.

I don't think negotiation will achieve much. The LibDems have been
banging on for years about a fairer voting system w/o success.

The 'Antipathy Party' is my suggestion to force change.
Waiting for the existing system to collapse is another.
The third way is revolution, but not strongly supported.

>You might manage it "going into politics", by which I mean the
>traditional route of joining a party, campaigning, becoming an MP,
>etc.
>
>There are alternatives. Consider "think tanks", those who write
>articles for magazines, newspapers or these days increasingly,
>websites and weblogs.
>
>Technology has made it much easier for people to publish/publicise
>their ideas/views than ever.
>
>There's even this forum.
>
>You engage in the debate. You publicise your ideas. You persuade
>people. You change the attitudes and beliefs of the voters (and
>opinion formers) such that the politicians have no choice but to take
>notice.
>
>I'm not saying it's easy mind you, whichever route you take.

At the risk of sound negative and defeatist...
The problem with all these things is that one is either preaching to
the converted (these people are mostly the thinking people and/or
intellectuals as we often see on this NG) or preaching to people
with ideas already fixed and who often like the current system because
it allows them to abdicate responsibility and offers them largesse. A
lot of Brits don't actually like democracy very much; what they like
is a govt in office which does what *they* want and they don't mind
how it got there.

Unlike the US which was able to draft a constitution with a clean
sheet, Britain has centuries of history to replace and people don't
like entering the unknown.

>>>Ultimately the government cannot govern unless the people let it.
>>
>>So I've heard, but it hasn't stopped many totalitarian states from
>>developing.
>
>True.
>
>But would Hitler have achieved anything if everyone had decided to
>ignore him?
>
>Or Stalin?
>
>George Bush has the power to launch a war because the US armed forces
>obey the orders of their Commander in Chief.
>
>If they didn't he'd have no power...

People have a propensity to do as their told, follow orders and obey
the law even if it's absurd.

>And if the American people decide they don't like a particular war
>they can pull the plug -- consider Vietnam. ISTM the US lost the
>political will to continue with that war despite, in crude body count
>terms, winning most of the battles.

Indeed and the same thing does happen here. I don't discount the
effect that public opinion has on govt.


>Do you think there was ever time when more than a small minority did
>take a serious interest in the political processes of their country,
>outside of the odd revolution or civil war?

I don't believe so. I think that it's always been the few people with
foresight and leadership skills who have brought about major change.
That's not to say others haven't climbed aboard later but it takes
leaders to grasp the nettle.

>Yet progress has been made, albeit in fits and starts and with the odd
>setback here and there.

Some *concessions* have been made. Not much has been achieved since
Cromwell in terms of who is the ultimate authority. How many more
centuries should we wait? 4-5-10-20?

>Even where revolutions or civil wars are concerned, the masses have
>been following the orders of someone else. A civil war involves a
>power struggle between different powerful groups in the society
>concerned, with their elites marshalling the masses to fight for them.
>
>A revolution can also be described as one group usurping another by
>getting the masses onside.
>
>Revolutions seem to me not to be very reliable means of achieving
>change. They are often very costly in human terms and are too easily
>hi-jacked by demagogues. They are usually emotional spasms rather than
>thought out processes on the part of the masses, though possibly not
>for those who ride to power on them.

Agreed. Revolution is not my favoured solution.

>>So the totalitarian state will develop.
>
>If the people remain passive.
>
>ISTM you think the British people will remain passive (or otherwise
>even supportive of the state's expansion of power) and that until they
>see the full consequences of that passivity they won't see the need
>for change.
>
>I'm not sure that one can prove or disprove this.

Quite true but intuition and some years in management guide me to
this conclusion. People by nature are resistant to change even if the
change is for the long term good. Resistance becomes inertia as they
get older.
However, I do see some pressure building up in this country although
sadly it's not focused on the underlying problems which I see but is
instead focused on racism, xenophobia, culture etc which leads me to
think that these people want an even more authoritarian govt but one
which does the things they want.

>There is supporting evidence of course, namely the fact the state has
>gotten away with its attacks on civil liberties and the rule of law so
>far.
>
>OTOH, ISTM there's more awareness of this trend and more opposition to
>it than there was say 5 or 6 yrs ago (when I first got alarmed by what
>was happening).
>
>But equally the opposition is not very strong yet.

What I see is more awareness but usually of a supportive nature.
Perhaps it will change in time.

--
"Turkey should join the EU 'because it is a European country'"
....Jack Straw 2nd October 2005 in Luxembourg.
BBC: "only 22% of citizens across Europe want Turkey to join the EU"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: caption this picture
    ... to pass a law saying that rbr jacktards may not show up at the race he ... Sure, and put another way, the constitution is dead. ... State v Fed is another level of power separation. ... States a republican form of government. ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Mission accomplished
    ... FDR's similar trashing of the constitution and power ... as it is human nature to do so. ... "Natural Law" is about finding the nature of humans and structuring law ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Deer George W. Bush
    ... The preamble to the BoR may not be law per se, ... The difference between the preamble of the Constitution and the ... As has been explained 498573635632465234425 times, THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE IS NOT CARTE BLANCHE BECAUSE IF IT WERE THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO HAVE AN ENUMERATION OF POWERS. ... On the other hand, Hamilton argued for a wider scope for general welfare, arguing that it is a power *in addition to* the other powers cited in Article I, Section 8. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: (RSPoliticsW) NIce of WWE to dedicate a show to the troops...
    ... Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized ... federal law overrides state and local laws. ... amendment, and in these cases, the Constitution overrides the USA ... concept of "power divided" in one of his letters: ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: The PD strain - from OMalley to McDowell
    ... But by stating "actual claims are validated by actual control," you are ... > were actively subverting it and the constitution. ... Northern Ireland be either valid or have any worth. ... >Some of them may require changes in the balance of power ...
    (soc.culture.irish)