Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Ewen Macdonald's Privacy: Too Late Now

This is just a refresher link to my post of last month. Ewen Macdonald has been found 'not guilty' of the murder of Scott Guy, however, in too many quarters he will remain guilty in the jury of the people, possibly for all of his life: he needed his privacy during the trial, it's too late now. Between the Left,  to run the fencing racket of their re-distribution, and the vigilante Right, we have all lost that necessary link to owning our lives; our privacy.


  1. The jury returned a verdict of "not guilty" not "innocent".

  2. Okay. Literally yes. But literally, also, if someone, on the facts of a case is 'not guilty' of a crime, they are, 'therefore, innocent of that crime. What's the difference?

  3. Privacy needs someone to enforce it mark!

    I'm deeply pleased that I'm more extreme than you on this issue!

    privacy is like fish. we must give up the right to have the state protect our privacy if we give up the state.

  4. But as a classical liberal I believe in a role for a limited state to uphold the rule of law, including prosecution of murder. You've muddled up the issue again.

  5. Not muddled at all.

    The role of the state should not extend to protecting privacy.

    individuals may have a right to privacy but this is not the role of the state. I agree that perhaps the state should not facilitate invasions of privacy by publishing those bring prosecuted but that is as far as I would go.

    you see. not muddled at all.

  6. "There is no right to privacy; there is a right to be left alone." - Lindsay Perigo.

  7. The jury returned a verdict of "not guilty" not "innocent".


    Innocent until proven guilty ...

  8. I have a right to photograph you, but no right to force you to smile for the camera? But you'd better ask Linz ...

  9. Yeah, there is a subtle difference there.