"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
A very good article and the time is right for a Liburne Society. If this situation isn't resolved soon it will be time for the pikes and muskets to come out of retirement.
Any government that lays it hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant and I declare them my enemy.
Another great piece Gawain. One of the things I increasingly value about your writing is that you challenge my own instincts rather than merely confirming them.
I suspect we come at some of these questions from different starting points. Unlike you, I am not instinctively opposed to Digital ID cards. In fact, I broadly support them. In a modern state, I think governments have both a right and a responsibility to know who is in the country legally, who is entitled to work, and who is accessing public services. Properly implemented, Digital ID could help tackle illegal immigration, fraud and exploitation while also making public administration more efficient.
However - and this is where I think we may have a lot of common ground - I am deeply uneasy when the state begins to move away from the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.
A state can be strong without becoming arbitrary. It can enforce borders and uphold law and order while still preserving due process, trial by jury and evidential standards. Once we start restricting people not for what they have done, but for what authorities believe they may do, or, God forbid, what they think, we step onto dangerous ground very quickly.
So while I part company with you on the principle of Digital ID itself, I think his broader warning, that powers introduced for good reasons do not always remain confined to those reasons. deserves serious thought.
Thanks again for a really thought provoking piece Gawain.
"since the Stuart kings." A bit hard on Jamie VI & I but fair comment on the rest. It's striking (is it not?) that the Stuart queens - Mary and Anne - seemed to be made of better stuff.
Excellent, though chilling article. I worry these serious issues are not fully understood by MPs and we are gradually being pinned down by this authoritarian government. I am definitely interested in your new society.
The renewed interest in defending and restoring ancient liberties in Britain is truly encouraging. This could be a unifying force for individual liberty, which simultaneously helps to connect individuals with their past traditions.
As you mentioned the Stuart Kings, I cannot resist a quote from the debates concerning freedom of speech in the parliament of 1621:
“There is nothing so dear to the subject as liberty, no liberty so good as that in parliament, none in parliament greater than the freedom of speech” - Sir Henry Poole, 12 February 1621
I'm appalled by the plan to remove the right to trial by jury from defendants in certain cases. Having served on a jury (as forewoman in a manslaughter trial), I know that there will undoubtedly be wrongful convictions without the additional scrutiny of a jury - particularly as some judges have demonstrated that they are not politically neutral.
I like the sound of the proposed Lilburne Society, and will follow with interest.
Just about the scariest essay I’ve read, ever. Shout it loud and good luck.
To answer your question, I'm with you.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology
A very good article and the time is right for a Liburne Society. If this situation isn't resolved soon it will be time for the pikes and muskets to come out of retirement.
Any government that lays it hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant and I declare them my enemy.
Thanks so much.
We are grateful to know you've put this work into the boring grind of this evil ,masquerading as convenience.
These are evil ,venal people.
A land of Rayners and Lammys at war with Udy, Keyte, Hausdorf has GOT to be won by us. Lilburne or death!
Brilliant article. It needs to be read widely. The British people have much to lose if they give in to the current government’s tyranny.
Another great piece Gawain. One of the things I increasingly value about your writing is that you challenge my own instincts rather than merely confirming them.
I suspect we come at some of these questions from different starting points. Unlike you, I am not instinctively opposed to Digital ID cards. In fact, I broadly support them. In a modern state, I think governments have both a right and a responsibility to know who is in the country legally, who is entitled to work, and who is accessing public services. Properly implemented, Digital ID could help tackle illegal immigration, fraud and exploitation while also making public administration more efficient.
However - and this is where I think we may have a lot of common ground - I am deeply uneasy when the state begins to move away from the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.
A state can be strong without becoming arbitrary. It can enforce borders and uphold law and order while still preserving due process, trial by jury and evidential standards. Once we start restricting people not for what they have done, but for what authorities believe they may do, or, God forbid, what they think, we step onto dangerous ground very quickly.
So while I part company with you on the principle of Digital ID itself, I think his broader warning, that powers introduced for good reasons do not always remain confined to those reasons. deserves serious thought.
Thanks again for a really thought provoking piece Gawain.
This is scary. I will register my interest.
Please do
"since the Stuart kings." A bit hard on Jamie VI & I but fair comment on the rest. It's striking (is it not?) that the Stuart queens - Mary and Anne - seemed to be made of better stuff.
You make on interesting point, though I’m with Sellars and Yeatman, Wrong but Wromantic.
Excellent, though chilling article. I worry these serious issues are not fully understood by MPs and we are gradually being pinned down by this authoritarian government. I am definitely interested in your new society.
Drop
Me a line
The renewed interest in defending and restoring ancient liberties in Britain is truly encouraging. This could be a unifying force for individual liberty, which simultaneously helps to connect individuals with their past traditions.
As you mentioned the Stuart Kings, I cannot resist a quote from the debates concerning freedom of speech in the parliament of 1621:
“There is nothing so dear to the subject as liberty, no liberty so good as that in parliament, none in parliament greater than the freedom of speech” - Sir Henry Poole, 12 February 1621
I'm appalled by the plan to remove the right to trial by jury from defendants in certain cases. Having served on a jury (as forewoman in a manslaughter trial), I know that there will undoubtedly be wrongful convictions without the additional scrutiny of a jury - particularly as some judges have demonstrated that they are not politically neutral.
I like the sound of the proposed Lilburne Society, and will follow with interest.
Grim reading but manifestly correct
Where do I sign up?
Drop me a line
One question - would burqa clad Muslims be required to show their faces at protests/violent demonstrations?