The Freedom To Obey The Law

“For him (and so far we may agree) there is no freedom without law; but he tends to convert this, and to argue that wherever there is law there is freedom. Thus ‘freedom’, for him, means little more than the right to obey the law” -

Bertrand Russell, discussing Hegel.

That is the only sort of freedom that Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Peter Mandelson understand. That is what they perceive your freedom to be - the freedom to obey the law.

They have shown this by creating over 3,000 new crimes in 12 years; by their abolition of double jeopardy in England and Wales; by their harrassment and criminalisation of their political opponents; and by their creation of an all too real security state. They have not governed in the interests of the people. They have governed against the interests of the people. Our land was not the kind of land they wanted to live in, so they have made one more to their own liking. We now see what such a land is like. It is on its way to becoming a seventeenth century Middle European despotism. Their unjustified belief in their own exceptionalism has made them believe that they are Junkers in a sea of serfs. They have behaved as they believe good Junkers should; but have forgotten that even a feudal overlord is expected to show some regard for his charges.

In particular, Peter Mandelson has possibly the worst case of FSS (Frank Sinatra Syndrome) ever seen in a British politician. All his life, Sinatra was dogged by allegations of Mafia connections. Interviewed for British television nearly 30 years ago, former mobster Angelo 'Jimmy the Weasel' Fratianno explained why -

'Frank likes being around made guys'.

There is absolutely no difference between that mindset and Peter Mandelson's affinity for the 'filthy rich', which led him to accept the hospitality of Oleg Deripaska. The man has absolutely no regard for maintaining the appearance of propriety. He might not like the company of made guys - but he sure does love the company of those he thinks have got it made.

All tyrants love making lists of their opponents' names. They know that the knowledge that officials of the state know your name keeps you quiet. Like all good gangsters, they know that people are frightened of the veiled threat that 'We know where you live'.

However, if we lived in a true and just world, the names of Blair, Straw and Mandelson would be on a list. That list would be of those who have governed badly, and against the interests of the people. Now added to that list is the name of Harriet Harman, like so many other modern British politicians an intellectually shallow figure of little account who possesses an unshakeable belief in their right to govern. There is something frightening about the coldness of the steel in her eyes.

Her comment that Sir Fred Goodwin's pension was unacceptable in 'the court of public opinion' is demagoguery worthy of Huey Long. I am a populist; and as all true populists know, nobody does populism like an elitist like Harriet Harman.

And yet it fails as populism, for it proceeds from the assumption that Harriet Harman has the slightly clue what the public thinks about anything. Her entire career has been spent far to the public's left; what in God's name makes her think she has the slightest clue about what the public thinks now?

Her comment shows the truth that the late Christopher Hibbert expressed in 'King Mob', his short book on The Gordon Riots, an event in British history which illustrates perfectly just what happens when populism descends into demagoguery -

'Violence knows no boundaries of class or money'.

To take Fred Goodwin's pension against him would require an act of violence against the constitution. An act of violence against the constitution is an act of violence against the people. Stripping Goodwin of his pension would not be a victimless crime. Violence, whether done with a pen and a vote or a Molotov cocktail, is always counter-productive. Only fascists consider it therapeutic. It gets you nowhere. You always lose. All those who ache for a summer of rage, who want to see a few cops' skulls getting busted, please take note.

Though I have no time for the man, indeed wish I lived in a land where he would be paraded down the Royal Mile in an orange jumpsuit while manacled, no law should be passed to take Fred Goodwin's gains from him. Goodwin is a hubrist; all hubrists forget they have to die. I wish no torment on him; but he should start reading medieval history, and hopefully all the lithographs of tormented souls being poked by imps in Hellfire, wads of cash stuffed in their mouths, will hopefully make an impression on him.

His pension today, your home tomorrow. The choice is that stark.

Better for Harriet Harman to critique the operation of the British labour market, and the violence done to the prospects of British workers by her party's unmandated pan-Europeanism. As the Lindsey oil refinery dispute has shown, since 2004 the labour market has been where John Bull met Jim Crow, and lost. For years, the British worker has been subjected to systematic commercial racism, derided by ideologues as greedy, lazy and stupid- where was the old civil libertarian then, to defend his interests?

Better for her to focus her attention on the UK's weak and unsatisfactory laws on the disqualification of company directors. If she wants a real national disgrace, she can reflect on the fact that even after leading a bank to ruin, we have no law preventing Fred Goodwin being hired to lead another one tomorrow. That's the real disgrace.

But like all professional civil libertarians, Harriet Harman is an insider Establishment radical. For her, your freedoms are not those she chooses to defend, but those she has the privilege to define. Paramount amongst them all is the freedom to obey the law; something her countrymen have never really had much of a historical problem doing.