Oh bloody hell, here we go again!

I realise I'm going to be as popular as fuck for saying this, but really, does the fact that Stuart Walker was gay make him any deader?

Following reports Mr Walker may have been targeted due to his sexuality, Strathclyde Police said they were looking into all aspects of his life.

If people suspect that he may have been targeted due to his sexuality, then they must have some idea of who was targeting, mustn't they? Why are we even discussing his bedroom habits when we should be focussing on who committed this unspeakable act?

But more to the point, Stuart Walker, a human being, was slain. If he'd been shot in a random gangland slaying or knifed by a jealous lover or whatever, would that have been OK?

Is it especially bad to kill people because they're gay or black, or is it especially bad to kill people full stop? I can't help but wonder if gays and blacks are somehow better than the rest of us, because somehow when you're killed because of a label, it's worse than being killed for no reason at all.

If it's especially bad to kill people because of a label, why is no-one screaming blue murder about a thousand white people being killed in South Africa every year, specifically because they're white? With the tacit approval of the government?

Murder is murder. The motivation is irrelevant. The act is the unspeakable thing.

The minimum wage

There is an excellent, concise and complete deconstruction of the nonsense that is the minimum wage here.



Instinctively, even lefties know that the minimum wage is a crock of shit, because no-one is calling for a national minimum wage of £1000 per hour, which would make us all "rich".

What is the state? (for @legalaware )

This is actually quite a good question, and I'm sure there is a textbook somewhere that describes the state, but from a libertarian perspective, I'd say that it is any grouping or section of society that seeks to monopolise violence. Everything else (wars, "justice", taxation) that the state does, stems from their hold on violence.

If you think about the power of the state, it stems from the fact that we all think violence is icky and don't want to sully our hands with it. And it's true really, nobody sane wants to confront a burglar with a baseball bat or a shotgun. So having a group in society that is prepared to take this unpleasant chore from us sounds like a great deal.

And to keep us sweet, the state also offers us "services" like gimmicky health care and "education", specifically education that is tailored to making the state seem like a good idea.

The problem with the state is that once it has obtained that monopoly in violence and inculcated us with a belief that the state is the only proper wielder of violence, it is then quite easy and natural for the state to increasingly turn that violence on us. For example, you notice how "crimes" against the state get punished strangely harshly, while repeated crimes against individuals or property get a ludicrous slap on the wrist ... unless those crimes threaten the violence monopoly of the state.

One of the great burdens of responsibility that comes with the freedoms of anarchy is the responsibility to defend yourself, to protect yourself against crime and to exercise violence when it is needed. But as a wise man once said, "with great power comes great responsibility". And the power to live your own life to its very fullest must surely be the greatest power of all.

This may not be the definition you might expect of the state, but from an anarchist position, I think it's a valid one.

I concur

They can just fuck right off.

Three line whip

A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote, breach of which would normally have serious consequences. Permission not to attend may be given by the whip, but a serious reason is needed. Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances and may lead to expulsion from the party. Consequently, three-line whips are generally only issued on key issues, such as votes of confidence and supply. The nature of three-line whips and the potential punishments for revolt vary dramatically among parties and legislatures.

It seems quite curious to me that people still regard representative democracy with such fondness. Any representative has to balance the aggregated wishes of his community with his own beliefs, at the very best of times.

And here, in a matter where there is a broad belief in the "community" that the EU is not something we have universal love for, we encounter the true balance of power in the sham of our "representative" democracy. David Cameron has ordered a three-line whip to deny the British people a referendum on something that affects our lives every day, often in ways that British people do not want or agree with. I understand that Ed Miliband has done the same. The largely Europhile LibDems will be pretty much in the bag anyway.

This means that a handful of politicians effectively do get to decide things on our behalf, expressly rejecting the "democratic wishes" of the majority of the population. Cameron was democratically elected, and now has the ability to be a dictator on things that matter to him.

Even though a number of MPs will ignore the three-line whip, Cameron can be quite sure of his team of lobby-fodder sheep backing his wishes, and with the Labour Party whipped to deny us the referendum as well, he can be quite relaxed about those who disobey the whip. It all makes it look like there is actually democracy in action and the will of the majority has prevailed.

Cameron clearly has no desire to do anything to rock any boat, even though getting us out of the EU would probably get him re-elected by a landslide. He is clearly hoping to follow Blair into some other, grand, post-PM role and as an urbane member of the social democratic group, he probably quite likes the idea of having some grand political folly. Hence his three-line whip, hence his denial of a perfectly reasonable referendum. Behind that bland face and enormous forehead is the mind of a typical authoritarian cunt who knows better than all of us and is prepared to blatantly fuck us over to keep us in line.

Three-line whips are a test of the mettle of our politicians. I am quite certain that they will be found wanting. Again.

Update: I've just heard that the LibDems will be imposing a three-line whip. Why are our politicians so terrified of the will of the British people regarding the EU?