(19)

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to match over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labours, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Alexis de Tocqueville, quoted in The Constitution of Liberty, by FA Hayek, page 251.

This paragraph remains a superb summary of the essential flaw in what we nowadays call the “nanny state”. Unlike a proper nanny caring for little children, the paternalist state has no interest in raising children into adulthood, but instead, infantilises the public, hence finding ever more justifications for treating the populace like five-year-olds.

At least the moral scolds of the early 19th Century as related in entertaining fashion in this book at least relied, in part, on moral exhortation rather than outright bans all the time, although there was plenty of that. But De Tocqueville and other great classical liberal writers spotted the authortarian dangers of do-gooderism from an early stage in modern, industrial countries. It seems a shame that the lessons have still not been fully learned.

On a related point, I see that California, which seems to be in the grip of puritan buffoons, is now referred to in some parts as "Nannyfornia". In fact, if you Google up the term, it says, "Did you mean California?". That's gotta hurt.

(8)

A new film is out later this year in the US taking the p**s out of Michael Moore. It looks quite amusing. Here's the trailer. Some of the one-liners are excellent.

(2)

"We live in a world where Ben Affleck won an Oscar and Robinson didn’t. Where’s your god now?"

Dirty Harry's Place, talking about the late, very great Edward G. Robinson.

(8)

As a fairly regular user of Heathrow Airport and other UK airports such as Gatwick - the former has suffered all manner of problems due to loss of baggage, massive queues - this, on the face of it, looks a good development, but I have my reservations, as I will explain later:

Aug. 20 (Bloomberg) -- BAA Ltd., the owner of London's Heathrow airport, should be broken up and its Gatwick and Stansted terminals sold off to foster competition in the U.K. capital, antitrust regulators said.

The unit of Spanish builder Grupo Ferrovial SA provides a poor service to airlines and passengers and has shown a lack of initiative in planning for additional capacity, the Competition Commission said today, recommending that the company should also be stripped of either Glasgow or Edinburgh airport in Scotland. BAA said the analysis was ``flawed.''

Hmm. The problem partly stems from the fact that when BAA was originally privatised by the former Tory government, it was sold as a monopoly. That is not, in and of itself, a terrible thing so long as there are other competing transportation businesses. But there were not other big airports owned by non-BAA businesses to compete, especially against the crucial hub of Heathrow. In a previous Samizdata posting on the Snafu of the opening of Heathrow's Terminal Five, one commenter pointed out that one issue that is sometimes overlooked in issues like this is restrictions on new airport builds by the planning authorities. Well indeed. I think there is a good case for building an airport to the eastern side of London, on the flat lands that sit to the north of the Thames (it is not as if this is an area of outstanding natural beauty). It would relieve some of the air traffic now coming over the capital, which would be good for abating noise as well as removing a potential safety and security issue of thousands of aircraft flying into land over the middle of London.

Getting planning permission for a new airport is, under the current system, very difficult. Yes, there are, in the UK, a lot of old, disused military bases left by the RAF and the USAF, such as in Oxfordshire, Lincolnshire, and East Anglia and bits of Kent. However, the trouble is that such bases were deliberately built miles away from major urban centres, to prevent the danger that an attack on such a base would hit a large city. So you have th situation of huge runways turning into rubble in the middle of Suffolk but of no real use to commuters in London. So we would need something a bit closer. Another matter to bear in mind is that southern England is not very large: airspace is at a premium and already crowded, if not quite so bad as during the Cold War, when the UK was covered in airbases.

I am not, as a free market purist, at all happy to see a private business broken up at the behest of a state regulator, but then we should recall that BAA was originally put together as a state business and sold as a monopoly as a matter of state policy. When its current owners, the Spanish firm Ferrovial, bought BAA, they must have known that failure to sort out the problems might have incurred the wrath of the regulator. It would be nice in a total free market not to have to bother about such things, but it would have been failure of basic due diligence for Ferrovial's lawyers not to have warned their managers that competition issue might arise. Well, it jolly well has arisen at last. We would not, as the old joke about the Irishman giving street directions to a tourist, want to start from here. But here is where we are. If there is a chance of putting a large, competitive fire up the backsides of BAA's management, there is a chance, however slender, that the experience of coming to and from the UK by air might be a tad more pleasant in future.

(29)

I could not help but be struck by the nice, polite, and almost friendly manner of the police officer making violence-backed threats in the video below ("If you refuse this [random] search, you will be arrested."). It may not be news to you that the face of the police state is often a perfectly pleasant one, but I think it is worth spreading the word.

(Full disclosure: I work for Qik, and it was one of our users who live streamed the above video from his mobile phone to the web using our software.)

(8)

"Never brush your teeth if you're dressed in black. Don't trust a man whose eyebrows meet in the middle. Always put the shower curtain inside the bath. Life is forever teaching us lessons, and here's another that I learnt last week: it's impossible to be mates with celebrities."

- Sathnam Sanghera

(5)

With all the troubling economic news that has come out of late, such as the UK Northern Rock fiasco, or the US housing and mortgage crunch, there has been a fair bit of headscratching on how bad it could all get. Amity Shlaes has an item looking at the mistakes made in the 1920s and 1930s around the time of the Wall Street Crash and the subsequent depression. In a nutshell, she says that errors on monetary policy, a disastrous ratcheting up of protectionism and intervenionist economics turned a bad but temporary situation into a catastrophe. This book also comes to the same conclusion and points out how much of Roosevelt's New Deal failed, even on its own terms, to work, since unemployment actually was worse by the outbreak of WW2 than when FDR was elected.

Meanwhile, to keep us in a jolly mood, the Daily Telegraph highlights some recent economic data from those old-style monetarists at Lombard Street Research, pointing out that there has been a dramatic contraction in the "broad money" measure of the US money supply, known as M3. The Fed stopped publishing data on this in 2005, on account of it not being reliable. That sounds a bit fishy to me. Anyway, the author of the piece, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, points out that sharp moves in his measure presage significant changes, either inflationary or the opposite. He is surely correct. For much of the 'Noughties, the world was awash with cheap money, much of it in the form of recycled savings from Asia. To a degree, the spigot has been shut, with an obvious impact on asset prices.

My only caveat here is that Pritchard has tended to be a bit of a permanent "we are all doomed" voice these days. If I earned a pound every time he had predicted the demise of the euro, for example, I'd be able to retire to the South of France. But he may be right this time.

(42)

The sheer number of articles suggesting that we are seeing a return to the day of the 'Cold War' are such that frankly I cannot even be bothered to link to one. Certainly the Russian Bear has been more overtly unfriendly as of late, and I do think Russia needs to be taken seriously in the way any collection of armed thugs need to be taken seriously.

However it is absurd to contend that Russia as a long term threat in the way the Soviet Union threatened the world for more than fifty years. Hapless Russia has a near mono-culture economy (GDP the size of Italy, for gawd's sake) and catastrophic demographics that make Europe seem like a stud-farm (Germany, Poland and Austria more or less total the same population as Russia's 'hordes'). The appropriate personification for Russia circa 2008 is not an oil fuelled Genghis Khan, threatening to surge once more across Eurasia... no, it is more like a drunk with a knife unable to admit they have terminal liver disease... a vodka fuelled Genghis Khan't if you will.

Surely a policy of political containment is really all that is needed while nature, rust and liver sclerosis on a Biblical scale do the rest. Probably the most damaging thing we could do to hasten the deflation of the absurd delusions of the thuggish Russian political class would be to make it easier for young Russians, and Russian money, to get the hell out of Russia and move west.

(15)

Yesterday in the British Press, much was made of the Soviet, sorry, Russian threat to nuke Poland if it hosted American, sorry, NATO defensive missile systems.

THREAT TO NUKE POLAND... well, really? What the Ruskies are saying is not "if you allow these systems on your soil, we will nuke you", but rather "in the event of a war between NATO and Russia, we will attack military targets in Poland, which is a NATO member".

Well no shit? This is hardly a revelation. Yet to read many of the article headlines you would think it was a clear and present danger, which it clearly ain't. Move along, not much to see here.

That said, clearly what the Russian general said is a crude attempt to intimidate Poland, albeit politically and not actually by making a threat of imminent action. Also predictably it has stiffened already deep hostility to Russia across Central Europe. Good, it is probably exactly what Europe needed.

(48)

The C-130 based laser you have read about here seems to be doing quite well in testing, and although I have not yet read a document on the topic, there are at least some who would like it deployed to Iraq. The weapon is even better than I had thought it would be. No, let us be truthful. I am stunned at the capabilities they are demonstrating. According to a Wired article (hat tip to Glenn Reynolds):

According to the developers, the accuracy of this weapon is little short of supernatural. They claim that the pinpoint precision can make it lethal or non-lethal at will. For example, they say it can either destroy a vehicle completely, or just damage the tires to immobilize it. The illustration shows a theoretical 26-second engagement in which the beam deftly destroys "32 tires, 11 Antennae, 3 Missile Launchers, 11 EO devices, 4 Mortars, 5 Machine Guns" -- while avoiding harming a truckload of refugees and the soldiers guarding them.

The author goes on at length about claims the weapon could be used for plausibly deniable standoff attacks. It is my belief he is being insufficiently creative when he imagines what such attacks would entail. One might take out a communications facility by targeting a turnbuckle on an antenna guy wire; or a power plant by blowing away a standoff and dropping a high voltage line onto others; or perhaps blowing a hole in an oil filled transformer. I can easily think of ways of disabling infrastructure with this device in ways that would leave enemy repair crews terribly puzzled.

You just have to think outside the box: new weapons imply new definitions of the possible.

(1)

Spacex has released the full high definition video of the flight from liftoff through the first stage impact on the second stage, complete with audio signal. It is really worth watching!

(8)

This story will not come as a surprise to the techies that read this site, nor many other bloggers, but I was still struck by a report from TowerGroup, the research firm, that says that the day is approaching when millions of people on low incomes living around the world will be able to switch funds to their relatives and friends over the mobile phone with as much ease as downloading tunes on to an MP3 player.

This is big money, when gathered together. The market for remitting money is worth about half a trillion dollars, although goodness knows quite how one quantifies this accurately. Existing middlemen will be cut out of the equation.

“Ultimately, TowerGroup expects mobile phones will do for financial services what Apple iPods did for music – spur a sea change in the way consumers access services and suppliers deliver them,” one of executive said.

Just think what this will mean to parts of the world like Africa, already a continent where it has been easier to put in mobile phones than bother with the traditional wire-based stuff.

As far as I can see, the key issue to get right is security. But then that applies to Internet banking already.

(12)

The former head of the Cabinet Office Anti-Drug Co-ordination Unit, Julian Critchley, has come out for full legalisation. Interesting, but not very interesting. What is more interesting is what he told the BBC later in the interview:

... the "overwhelming majority of professionals" he met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors, held the same view.

"Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be 'tough on drugs', even though they all knew that the government's policy was actually causing harm."

There is something wrong with our political system, don't you think, when policy is determined by people who know that it is wrong, and know that their colleagues also know that it is wrong, but all are compelled by personal interest to rehearse the same orthodoxies? The propaganda of received wisdom has its own momentum, and no one person changing their mind will have much effect. Critchley will be ignored. His colleagues will be silent. And next autumn we will have a new moral panic about some drug-related social phenomenon, real or imaginary, justifying some extended power.

There have of course been other systems that worked this way. But the official Marxism-Lenninism of the Soviet Communist Party or the irrelevant doctrinal minutiae of theocracies had or have at least a clear purpose in maintaining the power of institutions. In our mediated ochlocracy policy is a peacock's tail in which random illusions of public opinion power political and bureaucratic machines, that then feedback more of the same, regardless of reason or utility.

What, if anything, can be done?

(8)

This press briefing by Secretary Gates is the best summary of the situation I have run across thus far:

There is a certain level of bluntness in his delivery that I quite enjoyed.