(0) (0)

I've worked out a use for Stephen Byers. If you take the intellectual rigour of John Major, the financial probity of the late Robert Maxwell, the sense of public service of Neil Hamilton and the integrity of Stephen Byers, you get... President Jacques Chirac!
- Antoine Clarke

(0) (0)

I disagree with Perry de Havilland's attack on the boycott of the Cannes Film Festival for four reasons.

First, I've got nothing against voluntary boycotts as opposed to trade embargoes or tariffs imposed by government or international bureaucratic organisations. Provided no force is threatened against those who attend, opponents are entitled to stay away and ask others to do so.

Second, the Cannes Film Festival is an excellent target for a boycott to hurt the French establishment. It is a matter of pride that the Americans feel compelled to turn up. The one thing that really upsets the French cultural establishment is the idea that France is irrelevant. A boycott of Cannes is as good a way of making this point as any short of war.

Third, some French film critics criticises the Cannes Film Festival for its anti-commercial ideology. The hit "Amelie" in France released as "Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain" was ignored mpelled to turn up. The one thing that really upsets the French cultural establishment is the idea that France is irrelevant. A boycott of Cannes is as good a way of making this point as any short of war.

Third, some French film critics criticises the Cannes Film Festival for its anti-commercial ideology. The hit "Amelie" in France released as "Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain" was ignoredd, opponents are entitled to stay away and ask others to do so.

Second, the Cannes Film Festival is an excellent target for a boycott to hurt the French establishment. It is a matter of pride that the Americans feel compelled to turn up. The one thing that really upsets the French cultural establishment is the idea that France is irrelevant. A boycott of Cannes is as good a way

(0) (0)

Over at Instapundit, His Holiness Glenn is having a public think-in on the subject of, among many other subjects of course, to what degree if any the US government or bits of it is/are guilty of having failed to see 9-11 coming. Glenn Reynolds reckons that, although 9-11 was imaginable, it makes no sense to blame Bush, the FBI etc., or at any rate not that harshly. I agree, but go further.

The underlying assumption of the complaints about the pre-September 11^th US security effort is that it is a good thing for governments to spend their time preventing particular bad things, rather than doing something about them afterwards, to go around, in other words, bolting stable doors while the horses are still in residence.

I dissent. I am of the worry-about-it-when-it-happens-and-not-before school of governmental decision-making. First, and rather trivially, it may never happen. And second, if your government takes precautions against this particular pending disaster, what about all the other equally pending disasters? Free individuals can choose which disasters they will worry about beforehand and which ones they'll only bother with if and when. But governments being governments, if you tell them to worry about disasters they'll regard that as a reason to worry about alldisasters. This would itself be disastrous, and to some extent it already is.

This tendency to expect governments to prevent bad things rather than to react to bad things afterwards is itself a hugely bad thing.

Central to the idea of the rule of law, at any rate as my bit of the world understands it, is that the authorities are not allowed to bang you up because of what they think you might be about to do. The rule is that they have to wait until you have already done something bad, and then they try and catch you and punish you. Law court proceedings are about what the accused has or has not done, not about what he might do in the future, on account of the sort of person he might or might not be, or on account of the types of actions he was indulging in which have a remote chance of causing bad things, like being black, taking drugs, using a rather dirty kitchen, owning scary weapons, being mentally unstable without having yet committed any actual mayhem, etc. etc.

Sadly, this principle is being severely undermined, at least here in Britain. Here, there is a plague of precautionary lawmaking going on. A centrally administered law-machine, which will supposedly end up making the world as safe as it can possibly be, is (a) running amok, and (b) making nobody any safer.

By the way, I don't blame only our rulers for this, I also blame the general public. Whenever something bad happens, it is Joe Public himself who says: Why was this not prevented? (By the government, in other words.) Because, Mr Idiot Joe Public, that is not and cannot be their job. Refraining from serious badness before the government even knows about it is where you come in.

It always bothers me when people say that the government ought to be more "creative". That's not what governments are for. As a tentatively anarcho- brand of libertarian I'm strongly attracted by the notion that governments are for absolutely nothing, but if they are for anything, it is certainly not "creativity". Creativity is unpredictable. Creativity is thinking "outside the box", i.e. not following the usual procedures. Governments should follow the usual procedures.

The usual US government procedure for dealing with terrorist outrages is, and ought to be, that if you do something seriously bad to the US, the US will do something seriously bad to you. You can't punish successful suicide bombers themselves, but you can go out and kill as many of their friends as you can find, and you do. Damn the expense. And you do this only after they've committed a huge horror. Result: this horror is not prevented, but funny how the general level of horror seems to remain agreeably low.

The usual procedure for stopping me murdering people is not for the government to spy on my every move. It is for the government to punish me, or failing that hunt me for ever – damn the expense – if I ever commit a murder. I know that. This is why I and my fellow countrymen, on the whole, refrain from murder. Again: murder stays comfortingly rare. Not by thousands of individual murders being governmentally prevented beforehand (we, the citizens do that), merely by being punished (very imperfectly and incompletely, by the way) when it occurs.

The law, and government generally, is a huge, mucky, blunt instrument. When terrible things happen and you're the government, your job is to flail about with this blunt instrument in the general direction of the people you suspect of having done the bad things. You should not delude yourself into supposing that what you really have in your hand is a scalpel. Never, never promise that "such a thing will never be allowed to happen again." Yes it will. Inevitably.

The US government is now being praised for hiring Hollywood scriptwriters to help it foresee future terrorism disasters. But how long before the relevant committees of "creative" people start cranking out a whole new deluge of attacks of the rights of Americans to do what they want, on account of what these creatives think it might lead to?

This is one of those bits of writing which, if I had had more time to devote to it, would have been shorter and better written. As it was, it took me almost as little time for me to write it as if has just taken you to read it. Bad luck, and all that. I hope, despite the longwinded incoherence factor, that you have found it worth your attention. Have a nice weekend.

(0) (0)

I was in the process of polishing off an acidic rebuke to the American Jewish Congress over its campaign to boycott France, which would be counterproductive even if it was merited (which it isn't), only to find that my colleague Mr.de Havilland has gone and beaten me to it. Not only has he beaten me to it but he has also said, more or less, everything that I wanted to say. I was going to send him an e-mail to endorse him but, in the circumstances, it is more politic that I endorse him publicly.

I have been growing increasingly uncomfortable with continued claims that the EU's attitude towards the conflict in the Middle East is motivated by antipathy towards the Jews. I am uncomfortable because it isn't true. To say that men like Goran Persson or Javier Solana are rabid (or even closet) anti-semites is arrant rubbish. Nor are they motivated by any feeling of kinship or goodwill towards Palestinians or Arabs. No, the discomfort with Israel has far more to do with the Israeli insistence on action over compromise; survival rather than capitulation. In post-modernist Europe such iron-will and self-belief are sins to be shunned.

And, of course, it also has a great deal to do with the USA for a lot of Euro-posturing about the Middle East is, in fact, anti-Americanism by proxy. Whatever Americans are for, the EUnuchs must be seen to be against and there is a certain breed of Eurocrat who would rather be seen publicly reading a copy of 'Little Miss Muffin Monthly' than taking any position alongside George Bush. If Israel's main ally was, say, China, then I am sure we would see a very different European approach to the Middle East and, furthermore, I seem to recall that the Euro-elites were far more comfortable with both the US and Israel when they were led by Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak respectively.

Now before I start getting any e-mails reminding me of the high incidence of anti-semitic attacks in Europe and the conitnued rise of radical nationalists, please note that the attacks were all carried out not by native White Europeans but by young Arab muslim immigrants and it is no small part due to fear of those same immigrants that the radical nationalists are riding high in the polls. Whilst I am generally very averse to these kind of collectivist labels, the least I can do is implore that they be pasted on straight.

This should not be read as any sort of defence of or apology for the ruling European elite because, as anybody who has read my posts on the subject before will know, I find them loathsome and untrustworthy in almost equal measure. And that is rather the point behind this post because when accusations are made that turn out to be baseless and hysterical it only serves to contaminate the accusations that are meritorious and deserved.

We at the Samizdata are busy building our dossier of 'Peace Crimes' against the EU. Please don't muddy our waters. Thank you.

(0) (0)

Leo Le Brun wrote a letter to Instapundit making much the same point made by our own illustrious Samizdata Illuminatus regarding the call by the collectivists at the American Jewish Congress for people to boycott the Cannes Film Festival (a call being ignored in droves). Exactly what ends are served by blindly attacking the people working in a sector of the French economy? Any damage caused will include damage to people like Leo Le Brun who did not vote for Le Pen and, judging by his blog, Leo is not fighting to suppress an urge to burn down the nearest synagogue. It is not something like cutting off the food and water to a town to force it into submission, it is just causing some people's living standards and job security to be slightly reduced at the margin.

There is nothing quite like annoying but ineffective pressure from outsiders to confirm prejudices, which is why 'American Jewish Congress' actions are so idiotic. All it does is play into the hands of the racists who can point to a few empty hotel rooms (not enough to actually scare anyone into line, of course) and then point an accusatory finger at 'The International Jew'. It is not within the power of American tourists to change the actions of the French state or to significantly alter French public opinion about Jews for the better, even if 100% of potential US visitors to France complied with the AJC's wishes (and I very much doubt even 5% will).

The ability of such organisations to do harm to the interests of Jewish people (particularly in France) is far greater than their ability to do good if they are going to dismiss the entire French people with a phrase like 'The French are anti-Semitic' and then make pronouncements that can only encourage precisely that sentiment. Although the tourism sector in most countries took a big hit after September 11^th, I would not be surprised to see groups like the AJC and French neo-nazis making common cause by claiming 'The Jews' are responsible for the misfortunes of various French resorts, the former 'taking the credit for a successful boycott' and the later declaiming about 'the power of International Jewry' whereas in fact it was all down to Al Qaeda flying three airplanes into buildings last year.

Of course the same sort of dynamic can work to more beneficial ends. Every time the European Union turns the screw and imposes another annoying but ultimately trivial little 'EU directive' on Britain, a few more people are pushed into the anti-EU camp and British society polarises a little more, a trend I would like to see continue. The Aquis Communitare is not the only ratchet at work here.

(0) (0)

Sometimes the story is something that never happened. And what never happened to me is that I neither filled in nor ever sent in my census form, whenever it was. They sent me a census form, so they do know where I live. I kept the form in case things ever turned nasty. I didn't treat it as pure junk mail and bin it at once, but I never did anything about it. I vaguely remember them sending me a follow up letter saying something like: oh go on, please, if you haven't … But I still didn't, and since then: nothing. No threats, no men knocking on the door. My plan was never to actually defy the government and refuse to fill it in. I was never going to send letters to the local paper and insult local magistrates and refuse to pay the fine on principle. It was just to fill it in only when they really made me. "Oh you mean you really wanted me to fill it in? Why didn't you say? Goodness. Silly me. Sorry, won't happen again." That was going to be my line. But it never came to that. Peculiar.

I think what pissed me off about the whole exercise was the slogan at the top, which went: "Count me in!" There was a little child's hand sticking up, as if I was just begging to be included, and as if the thing was actually a spontaneous exercise in participatory democracy. It was as if the census was really a mass eruption, every ten years, of the popular desire to tell the government how many people one lives with and what one's religion is, and how much money one earns. " I can't help myself, I simply have to tell them! Please, please, give me a form!" For some reason, I didn't get swept up in this national emotional spasm. Instead, I said to myself: okay if you're telling me it's actually voluntary, then that means I don't have to do it, right? It turns out I didn't, and it was voluntary.

I don't know what this proves. I think what it shows is that officially administered British life is now getting fuller and fuller of things that you must do, but which actually you don't have to do.

I've noticed in radio debates recently that quite large swathes of the very law itself are now sliding into this must-do-but-don’t-actually-have-to-do Twilight Zone. Drugs for example. People are adamant that drugs (and you know the ones I mean, I'm not talking about aspirin) shouldn't be "legalised". But, on the other hand, they don't think the police should actually do anything nasty to people who use drugs. It's just that saying that you are allowed to use drugs would "send the wrong message", or some such. When someone in a radio yack-in says that drugs should "remain illegal", I press for clarification. What should happen to you if they catch you doing them? Oh, that's not the point, the point is they're very bad, very dangerous, they stick around in your body, blah blah blah. Yes, but should you be arrested, punished, fined, sent to prison? It's not about that, blah blah blah. Isn't it? Well no it really isn't. That actually does now seem to be the law with drugs. Drugs are illegal, and you mustn't do them. But, on the other hand, actually you can. Like I say, peculiar. This time it's you-mustn't-but-actually-you-can, which is the opposite of filling in your census form, but the principle, if you can call it that, is the same.

No links to this. I thought of this story all by myself.

(0) (0)

Who says the Germans don't have a sense of humour? By extending constitutional rights to animals they have presented the world with a cornucopia of comic possibilities ["Sheep claim Wool-fare benefits", "Rabbits sue for workplace hare-assment"].

It is rather less amusing to contemplate the scope of this. Exactly what animals does it extend to? Rats? Cockroaches? Amoebas? Viruses? Will innoculation become a war-crime? Will fly-paper become an offensive weapon? How many Germans are going to bask in the warm glow of self-righteousness when they find that the mice in their kitchens are protected from eviction?

Like all the best comedy, it is actually the height of absurdity. Animals have only one right and that is the right to be served in the appropriate sauce and whilst it is deeply morally wrong for humans to be wantonly cruel to animals or subject them to unnecessary suffering, this is far from the same thing as declaring that those animals have 'rights'.

If a dog is as good as a human being then a human being is no better than a dog. But in the through-the-looking-glass, relativistic and future-phobic world of the European polity, reversing the last two million years of agonising evolutionary development is seen as 'progress'.

"The main impact of the measure will be to restrict the use of animals in experiments.

There hardly seems any point. The Germans are suffering from a sickness of spirit that no amount of medicines will ever cure.

(0) (0)

Chris Cooper's Blog is slowly getting into its stride. It may never proceed at faster than a slow walk, which is fine by me. So far the postings have been longish and rather scholarly, in keeping with the new title at the top, Blogosophical Investigations. If Chris sets a slow pace but sticks to it, then all honour to him, I say. On current evidence I recommend a visit about once a week, with Friday being the day when the most seems to happen.

The latest posting is a meta-contextual comment on the abortion issue, which concludes thus:

There is no such thing as a right answer here. That's not sitting on any fence: pointing to the existence of a hundred-foot high fence isn't the same thing as sitting on it.

So chew on that, objectivists. It means that in a free society, people are going to divide into communities of divergent moralities, and the anti-abortionist ones are just going to have to live alongside communities of people whom they regard as murderers. As they already have to do, of course - but they're not reconciled to the fact.

A week ago, there was a piece, with lengthy quotes, concerning the argument between Bjørn Lomborg and the Scientific American. No sitting on that fence either.

(0) (0)

Roger Dorrington, the father about whom I reported on Wednesday following his conviction for beating up the drug dealer who was divvying up heroin with Dorrington's children in their family home, has been told by Judge David Griffiths that he will not have to pay the drug dealer £250 after all.

However the conviction still stands and he will have to do 100 hours of 'community service' for the crime of defending his children against a predatory heroin dealing trespasser. If Judge Griffiths wants him to actually serve his community, I can think of no better way of him spending that 100 hours than for Dorrington to explain, slowly and graphically, to the idiot on the bench what the reality of trying to prevent two teenage children from destroying themselves with heroin is actually like in the real world outside Southampton Crown Court.

Judge Griffiths is just doing what the state expects him to do by demanding that all British subjects be prostrate in the face of any actual threat in which the state does not choose to intermediate itself. Justice for Roger Dorrington and the very survival of his two children does not even enter into that equation. The state is NOT your friend.

(0) (0)

That's it, that's the story. Most libertarians know the arguments for pricing roads sanely instead of insanely. This Sky News report tells us that the RAC (Royal Automobile Club), a big fragment of the British road lobby, now 'gets it' as well. Perhaps some of the people there even realise that road pricing, far from being "anti-car", will in reality usher in a new golden age of the car, and put the present dark age of gridlock behind us.

(0) (0)

We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking.
-Mark Twain

(0) (0)

EU Commissioner Chris Patten, who has famously chided George W. Bush for his stance on the war on terror and who stated the September 11th attacked were 'the result of globalization', turns his attention to matters closer to home in The Spectator, namely how to forge a common European political identity where none now exists.

Patten is no doubt troubled by the rise of various anti-establishment political forces in EU member states, notably that of the National Front in France and that of murdered libertarian Dutch nationalist Pym Fortuyn. But Patten, in his usual delusional way, misses the essential point that one cannot impose a national or supranational identity where none previously exists. For a man who once was chairman of the Conservative Party, Patten seems curiously ignorant of the insights of such conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke and Michael Oakshott that national feeling is something that grows from below and takes organic form rather than be imposed from above. Patten thinks of national or supranational identity like a technocratic engineer. In this sense, then, he is heir to that strain of thinking which has been a key part of the French political system since the 1789 Revolution.

And there, of course, is the problem. The EU creates undemocratic institutions with considerable power like the European Central Bank and the European Commission, but then once problems present themselves, the likes of Patten scramble to figure out how to generate some kind of popular legitimacy for these bodies. That is surely putting the cart before the horse.

In his final paragraph, Patten writes: "A healthy European democracy will develop only when people begin to feel an emotional commitment to their European identity."

But Mr Patten, people don't WANT to be part of a European nation, hence they feel no need to create a common European polity. Until the elite political class of which Patten is a classic specimen grasp this obvious point, European countries will continue to be roiled by characters such as the ghastly Le Pen.

(0) (0)

Over at the Liberty Log Alex Singleton comments ("Attack enemies, not friends" - May 16) on the ruckus between the Libertarian Alliance and the Daily Telegraph. Alex is not impressed by the LA's anti-Telegraph stance, and notes that Andrew Dodge is likewise unimpressed. For whatever it may be worth, I agree with these criticisms.

However, far more dangerous than the occasional spasm of Libertarian Alliance activity that I personally find embarrassing would be the absence of activity. I got a phone message the other day from Patrick Crozier who writes UK Transport and is also the Transport Spokesman for the Libertarian Alliance. He wanted my "approval" for a letter he had in mind to send to a newspaper about some railway matter, and regretted that I wasn't in to bestow it. I listened to him regretting my absence and I said, out loud: "Send it mate, send it! It'll be fine!" "I'll send it anyway" was how his message concluded, to my delight. And of course the letter ("Nationalisation is NOT the Answer", posted on UK Liberty - May 14) is fine. In another recent phone conversation with Patrick I recycled for his benefit a business slogan which I'm fond of: "Load! Fire! Take Aim!" Do stuff. Think about what worked and what was stupid. Then do more stuff, and more. Shins get kicked. Feet sometimes get tripped over. (I don't suppose my LA colleagues have loved everything I've written here, or always agree with the line I may take on the radio, e.g. this morning when I was defending Political Correctness). But every time we make one of these little efforts and or strike some spark or other the LA website counter creeps upwards, and the word about liberty and libertarianism gets around.

(0) (0)

None other than the talented and angst fuelled Bitter Girl!

(0) (0)

Gene agrees with The Law is there to perpetuate the state, not protect its subjects and has his own perspective on who 'owns' the law

Contrary to the lesson from many of the cowboy movies I was reared on, that you can't take the law into your own hands, I have learned that you dare not allow the law to be taken out of your hands.

Since the just powers of a government are derived from the consent of the governed, the government has no legitimate authority that is not a natural right of the individual, derived from the natural right of self defense.

To the extent that a government restricts one's right of self defense, that government ceases to be a representative government and becomes just one more highwayman extracting a ransom from those who pass by.

Gene

(0) (0)

I did well enough to blog about it, so here goes. I took the line above, that sometimes Political Correctness isn't going all that mad, it's just people trying to be correct and not hurt each other's feelings. I also mentioned that when I was helping a friend run some maths teaching classes some while ago, I took some photos of the children and my friend asked me to stop, because, you know, it might not look good, so now I've outed myself as a paedophile. Oh goody.

Mention was made of the phrase "nitty gritty", which the British police are apparently not allowed to use now as it's some kind of reference to slave ships. I'd been told this was going to get a mention, but as usual you only think of what you should have said afterwards. And what I should have said is that "nitty gritty" is objectionable not because it's racist, but because it is a massively overused managerial cliché. If the PC brigade could also decide that "at the end of the day" is offensive on account of being a disparaging reference to Muslim daily prayer habits and that "the bottom line" is also verboten because it causes fat women to be unhappy about the size of their bums, then good riddance to those two cliches as well.

(0) (0)

I've just fixed to be on the Mike Dickin Show, on Talk Sport Radio, just after 12 noon today. I'm to be asked about various varieties of "political correctness gone mad" stupidities, like a grandad being stopped from videoing his grandkids at a party, because he might be a paedophile, or something … What will I say? I look forward to finding out.

Talking of Sport, did any of you Samizdata consumers see the Zidane goal for Real Madrid in the Champions League Final last night? It was one of those "worth the price of the ticket alone" moments. Basically the ball went ballooning up into the air and took an age to come down, but when it finally did ZZ volleyed it into the top left hand corner, in a manner which would be extremely hard to do on a practice ground. To do this to win the biggest cup final in the world outside of the European National Championships and the World Cup is astounding. Like all the very best goals, it didn't look to be seriously on until it had been scored. But I won't be talking about sport on Talk Sport. I'm one of the token political commentators that they have to justify their franchise. Sadly, broadcasting in Britain is still heavily controlled by the politicians, although radio less so than TV. Soon, this kind of stuff (i.e. stuff like Samizdata) will be spoken as well as written, and the radio "professionals" will be bitching, just like the print pros bitch now about blogging.

Last time I boasted about the fact that I was going to be on the radio an Australian dominatrix tuned in. What exotic persons will listen this time? Sorry, no link to that, because I'm in a hurry, and I still find it complicated doing links back within Samizdata. If I do well, I'll maybe have a brag here about it. If I don't brag about it, draw your own conclusions.

(0) (0)

Sharon Stone is looking pretty damn good for someone recovering from a stroke!

And what is this nonsense about the self styled 'American Jewish Congress' urging Jews to boycott the Cannes Film Festival because 'the French are anti-Semitic'? And which 'French' would that be? The 80% who did not vote for Le Pen? Spare us the collectivist crap, guys... I do not see why a foreign Jewish organisation should feel the need to provide the neo-Nazi barking moonbats in France with an excuse to say 'See? Those mean old Jews are boycotting all of France!' Duh.

In the linked article, it also says 'satirist Michael Moore' is making a documentary about the Columbine school massacre. But satire requires wit and insight, so I guess there must be more than one Michael Moore because the only one I know of is a talentless ignorant prick, not a satirist.

(0) (0)

It seems British Prime Minister Tony Blair can hide his love for the European single currency no longer. On Tuesday's Newsnight television programme on the BBC channel, Blair claimed it would be a 'betrayal of national interests' for Britain to stay out of the €uro for political reasons and said he would persuade voters to join.

Well, it looks like the grinning insurance salesman/trendy vicar character who has been our Prime Minister these last five years has decided to plunge Britain into the €uro at a time when developments in Euroland make it even less attractive as an idea. The rise of the Far Right in France, the murder of Dutch leader Pim Fortuyn in Holland, high unemployment and worries about massive unfunded pension obligations make the idea of shackling ourselves to the euro mighty unattractive.

Of course the creation of the euro has made it easier for big firms to tap into a pan-European bond and equity market and made prices of goods and services on the Continent more transparent, which are benefits not to be sneered at. But I very much doubt whether Blair is going to flog this risky venture to the public on the grounds that it makes it easier for his Big Business chums to tap the world's capital markets. Not very touchy-feely, is it? In an age of Visa and Mastercard, instant cash withdrawals and sophisticated derivative markets, it no longer is much of a hassle to operate in a multi-currency world as €uro-protagonists claim.

All in all the case for the €uro is weak and Blair is going to have a fight on his hands. Blair wants his place in history. But by staking his future on the €uro, he could become history.

(0) (0)

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an in tolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!
-Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

(0) (0)

Roger Dorrington is a builder with two teenage sons, called Nick and Joseph, who have a problem with heroin. There is another man called James White who provides them with that heroin since they were 14 and 15 respectively, in return for money. As most people would correctly surmise, the British state says it is illegal to sell heroin to children like Nick and Joseph.

Now as a libertarian, I think that blanket prohibitions are not the way to deal with the problems caused by addictive drugs like heroin. But I also think that addictive drugs are a problem and that this is best dealt with via social mechanisms like families and in particular 'robustly engaged' fathers like Roger Dorrington. However in the here and now of Britain 2002, heroin is a Prohibited Class A drug and the state would have us believe that this makes dealing such drugs A Serious Matter which should be left to the state's blue clad enforcers.

Now Roger Dorrington is by all accounts a fine caring father to his children and thus does not want drug dealer James White giving Nick and Joseph heroin. As a result he warned the man to stay the hell out of his family house. So when Dorrington came home unexpectedly and found White cutting up heroin in his own house, he beat the drug dealer up and ejected him from his property.

White complained to the police and Dorrington was arrested for assault. White was not arrested at all in spite of the fact he brought a class A drug into Dorrington's house to give to Dorrington's children. People must not 'take the law into their own hands' says the state and yesterday a judge ordered Roger Dorrington to pay £250 (US $360) to the injured drug dealer and do 100 hours of 'community service'. Dorrington says he will refuse to comply with either order and will no doubt suffer more later as a result.

So what exactly is going on here? Well it is not about justice, but then nothing whatsoever any state does is in reality about justice. It is not even about The Law, which is certainly what states say they are about in their tenuous claim to be legitimate expressions of a society rather than a vast engine of criminality. No, it is about what is the true priority of nation states. It is about power. 9 times out of 10, if a person sells (highly illegal) a class A drug (possession of which is illegal) on private property from which they have been explicitly excluded (illegal trespass), this will not rouse the state to do anything at all... yet when a private individual himself uses force to prohibit three illegal acts on his own property the state arrests the enforcer of its own laws and does not arrest the violator of several of its other laws.

This is the true face of the modern British state and yet more proof of what both Frédéric Bastiat and Thomas Paine said about State and Society being two fundamentally different things. States only provide justice incidentally en-passant to enforcing their laws. It seems now even that pretence is fading. The only illegal acts that truly stirs Leviathan from its theft bloated torpor is a challenge to its own monopoly of violence backed enforcement. The state not only wants you helpless, it takes concrete measures to make you helpless. No wonder they took our guns away.

(0) (0)

The Dutch have rained scorpions of political death onto the Centre-Left coalition government and driven the List Pim Fortuyn into second place behind the Christian Democrats making it highly likely that that the 'List' will form some part of a new Centre-Right coalition government.

It is a spectacularly vicious kick in the Nether regions for the left but will it actually amount to anything more than ripples across a very stagnant pond? The media hacks have been quick to point out that, minus their charismatic leader, the 'List' is a party which is less than three months old and appears unfocussed and a little incoherent. For once, this may be more than the familiar journalistic (which is to say, socialist) whining and sour grapes. There does seem to be something which is rather cobbled-together and even rather amateurish about the 'List' which, whilst it may have benefitted from a sympathy vote to a degree, is also the collective expression of an impatient, anti-consensus, anti-elitist grouch.

Such movements, when they actually do get anywhere near the corridors of power, have a tendency to be ineffective; proving to be nothing more than smoke, mirrors and tinkling brass. Lacking both political nous and a clear vision, they may find themselves being outmanoeuvered by their establishment foes who, while lacking any enthusiastic support, nonetheless possess the guile and experience sufficient to form the de facto coalitions and horse-traded allegiances that ensure that they keep their grip on the real levers of power.

And the Dutch will find themselves right back where they started.

(0) (0)

Got an email the other day from, I think, a Mr (and I'm betting it is Mr) E. Palmeri, who signs himself "erp". He refers to the story I began to tell in a previous posting about Pfizer and its support, via such things as the Pfizer forum, for capitalism and for the free market. Like I say, it is a story, and I ended my posting with those exact words. Which erp took exception to.

"And written or not, like I say, it is a story."
Like it or not, it's always as I said, it's never like I said.

His emphasis on never. erp implies (and this is what got under my skin and provoked all the thoughts that follow), that I don't know the regular as-I-say rule. Actually I broke this rule on purpose. I was trying to suggest an air of unfinishedness about my thoughts, of me talking aloud rather than presenting the finished article. I was trying to push people into thinking about Pfizer, into finding out about Pfizer, into telling me and the rest of us about Pfizer, not to nail down the final truth of the matter. To this end, I deliberately used the frequently heard by me and quite often said by me unruliness of "like I say".

erp knows the kind of thing I mean, because the second and final sentence of his email to me goes thus:

Love your blog anyway.

And there goes another grammatical rule, the one about sentences like that one having a subject, in this case a first person pronoun. But we can all see why erp dropped the "I". Fearful of being thought a pedant and nothing else, he ended with a deliberately colloquialised attempt to soften the blow, which he didn't intend really to hurt, and as far as I'm concerned it worked fine. Glad you like it mate. Thanks for the kind words.

Why do I make such a fuss about this? Partly it's a technique thing. erp is complaining about one of the very things that we Samizdatans regularly go out of our way to do, as do a thousand other bloggers. This is a blog that likes to talk in different tones of voice to suit the occasion, and to suit the different voices of the different writers. What, asks Perry in the spiel at the top left, is "on the minds" of the Samizdata people?

This is a good question. And what's on our minds is not always perfectly grammatical.

One of the best ways to persuade other people to share your thought processes, in our case libertarian thought processes, is to describe your own thought processes accurately. You persuade by writing out how you really do talk in your own head about what you are truly persuaded of. As an editor, I constantly find myself saying to a writer whose writing has got gummed up: "Step away from the keyboard. Tell me, out loud, what you're trying to say." Time and again the next thing I say is: "Great. Put that." If the price I and my writer have to pay is that what's being said doesn't get enough of a grammatical polishing to suit all the erps out there, well, so be it. At least there's a recognisably human voice being used.

Besides which, all these rules can be and are all the time being broken. erp is mistaken. Quite often these day, it is"like I say" whether erp likes it or not. English is not, thank goodness, one of those languages where if you ever stray from the official tracks some committee of erps will tell you to behave yourself or else, which is surely one of the reasons why it has spread so luxuriantly. (The contrast with French is painful, to the French. "But we control our language so much more carefully! Why isn't it winning?" That could just be one of the reasons it isn't winning, sunshine. Ever thought about that?) The English language is the ultimate anarchy. If I and thousands of others are saying "like I say", and the people we're talking to or for that matter writing for in a blog get what we're saying (which everybody does including erp, even if they don't all like it) then there goes that never, never to return.

If you want to be a good writer you probably need to know what most of these rules are, as I do, but you don't have to follow them slavishly. Writing which is perfectly grammatical can be rather like the music written by all those contemporaries of Mozart, which obeyed all the rules but achieved little else. Mozart, meanwhile, who knew the rules inside out and every which way, would regularly have fun and games breaking them. For a famous and easy-to-find example, try the first few bars of Mozart's "Dissonance" String Quartet K465. The erps of the day all had seizures.

I'm not saying: "Mozart broke the rules – I break the rules – so I'm Mozart". I'm merely saying, you can do it. Grammar goblins won't chase you to hell if you omit a noun or pronoun from the start of a sentence, or if you put like instead of as, or if (to mention some other rules I know about but break from time to time) you end a sentence with a preposition, or if you dare to – sparingly, and when you've got a good reason, like when an adverb absolutely has to be right next to the verb it qualifies without so much as a "to" in between, or when you don't want any confusion about the adverb referring back to something else just before it so you put the "to" between it and what you're wanting to separate it from, or if, as I am here, you're having a laugh - split an infinitive.

Life is full of "rules" which in fact aren't. I still remember the joyful moment when I realised that you don't have to read a book by starting at the beginning and reading all of it in order. You can start anywhere you like, and stop anywhere you like. If you do this, no one will arrest you. Some dead schoolteacher may be yapping away inside your head when you break such "rules". If so, think about what he's yapping, and if you decide you're not going to do what he wants, tell him to shut up.

Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not putting a different rule in place to the effect that you should never read a book straight through from beginning to end. I'm just saying, you don't have to.

This like-as business is trivial but the fact that it's trivial isn't so trivial. An essential part of living the free life (and thereby not being inclined to try to inflict unfreedom on others) is deciding which rules you really are going to stick to because you really believe in them, and which rules you're going to allow yourself and everyone else you have dealings with to play harmless games with.

Loved your email anyway.

(0) (0)

The following news item appeared on the Reuters website this morning. It certainly proves the point that martial arts can be useful as a form of self defence for women. One wonders how long it will be before a victim-disarmament twit tries to ban it.

(0) (0)

Combinations of wickedness would overwhelm the world, did not those who have long practised perfidy grow faithless to each other.
-Dr Johnson, 'Waller', Lives of the Poets, 1779-81

(0) (0)

Via Instapundit, I went to i330.org (13 May 2002 20) for this 'distrousering', as my late father would have put it, of Matthew Engel, for writing silly things about the USA and its guns. I remember Engel as a very funny cricket writer. I used to buy The Guardian just for him during test matches (that's cricket internationals for all you uncricketpersons out there). Then he became the Editor of Wisden, the annual cricket bible. I think the difference was he likes cricket, whereas he isn't, as The Guardian's man in the USA, allowed to like the USA, except the bits of the USA that don't like the USA either.

We ought to do this kind of thing. Not with British correspondents in the USA but with US correspondents here. Are there any? I bet if there are they get all kinds of things wrong.

(0) (0)

A quick thought for ye - why do we hardly hear a peep from the UK Conservative Party any more about tax cuts and the importance therof in spurring entrepreneurship...not to mention the moral case for such cuts. Has that party, the party that once bravely slashed the insane top rate of income tax from near-100 percent to a more tolerable but still-too high 40 percent, totally given up the fight? Shadow Chancellor Michael Howerd has said nothing on the subject.

Truly pathetic. And yet, contrary to conventional wisdom, I reckon that an aggressive tax-cutting agenda linked to a wholesale critique of our monopolistic public services like health care and education could reap dividends. By buying the Blairite idea that tax cuts equals putting granny on the streets and letting little Johnny without enough teachers, the Tories are playing straight into socialist hands. Come on you pathetic Tories, take a slide on the Laffer Curve!

(0) (0)

Well that is certainly what the redoubtable Sarah Lawrence thinks and on the basis of his latest idiotic article I am inclined to agree. Now it is well known amongst regular Samizdata readers that I am not reflexively pro-Israel but the notion being peddled that Arafat is not part of the terrorist problem in the Middle East is so patently idiotic that I can only speculate that this is indeed what Sarah categorises it as... an example of The Big Lie technique from a person who sees the world in Chomskyist terms, i.e. devoid of any objective meaning at all.

Spiffy graphic by Scrofulous Steve!

(0) (0)

Alex Singleton of Liberty Log rang me at 5 am this morning (not quite, but it felt like that) to check that I'd got a cheque he had sent me for travelling expenses (yes thanks), and he also mentioned that they're thinking of starting some kind of campaign up there concerning the alleged superiority of Muslim culture. He mentioned a Reason online article. I'm in the middle of reading it now and I enthusiastically recommend it. It's called "In Praise of Vulgarity" and is by Charles Paul Freund, which is probably a name known to lots of Samizdata's readers but is one I haven't attended to before. The article was published in March, but better late than never if like me you missed it the first time around.

I've just finished the bit about the USSR's "stilyagi" subculture of the immediate post-WW2 era, and am about the read the bit about Algeria, and the use of pop culture there to get back at the Islamist suppression of the everyday pleasures of life.

I just checked the Liberty Log link above to make sure it worked, and they link to this article too, and you can see Alex Singleton's brief comments on it.

(0) (0)

Every age has a language of its own; and the difference in the words is often far greater than in the thoughts. The main employment of authors, in their collective capacity, is to translate the thoughts of other ages into the language of their own.
- Augustus Hare, Guesses at Truth (1827)

(0) (0)

There was I thinking it was looking like a slow news day when, apparently, Israel drops a political bombshell on the Palestinians by voting against the establishment of a Palestinian State.

Except it wasn't quite the Israeli government but the Likud Party and, on second sight, it wasn't quite such a bombshell either. However the development deserves comment if only for the brows it appears to be furrowing round the Blogosphere. General opinion seems to be that it is a serious blow to the prospects for peace and a snub to Washington. I beg to differ.

No, the vote by the Likud Central Committee (59% to 41%) was actually a re-affirmation of a long-time plank of the Likud manifesto that there shall be 'no Palestinian State West of the Jordan and it is a posture that says far more about Likud in-fighting than it says either about the 'Peace Process' or Washington.

Ariel Sharon is in the peculiar position of riding high in the opinion polls whilst appearing as a dithering embarrassment to many within his own party. Sharon had actually abandoned the above-mentioned Likud principle whilst in power because that's the kind of thing leaders have to do in the cut-and-thrust of diplomacy and compromise. But it is meat-and-drink for his arse-kicker-in-chief, Benyamin Netanyahu, Likud's blue-eyed boy, who has made no secret of the fact that he has his sights firmly set on the cat-bird seat. It was Netanyahu that sponsored the motion and, to everyone's surprise (maybe even his own) actually won it.

It makes little material difference to facts on the ground. Until there is a change of Palestinian leadership then all talk of a Palestinian State anywhere remains so much moonshine. Likud's reaffirmation of its traditional hard-line stance does not represent a change of heart or policy but rather a formalisation of extant positions. It will make a material difference to the bit of ground on which Sharon is standing for it's a humiliation that will remind him that he cannot take his own party's support for granted nor ignore the theatrically ferocious Netanyahu snapping at his heels and every other part of his anatomy.

I have read that this shows that Netanyahu is even more hard-line than Sharon but that is a simplification. Netanyahu is not in the hot-seat so he has the licence to act as man-of-the-hour for the party faithful and play the firebrand. Were he to find himself back in the premiership again, he would have to play the International Statesman and that means confronting and making hard choices. The same kind of hard choices Sharon had to make.

President Bush may well be losing sleep tonight, but not over this.

(0) (0)

It seems the death of Dutch politician and media commentator Pim Fortuyn, which continues to reverberate in the blogosphere and elsewhere, has shed light on just how useless the words 'left' and 'right' are when it comes to making sense of the political and cultural landscape.

An article in the latest edition of the UK weekly magazine The Spectator by Melanie Phillips, makes an attempt to figure out how Fortuyn grappled with the issues of defending secular, liberal democracies against influences thought to be malign, like militant Islam. But she fluffs it.

Take this dumb paragraph:

"Above all we have to reassert liberalism as a moral project which does not pretend to be morally neutral. We have to acknowledge that liberal values are rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and sprang from British culture... Liberalism has to be rescued from the clutches of the libertarians, in order to defend liberal democracy from militant Islam on the one hand and the racist Right on the other. Fortuyn was never going to be the answer. He was part of the problem."

Phillips' attacks legalisation of drugs, voluntary euthanasia and same-sex marital unions, all causes Fortuyn championed, and avers that such "libertarianism" undermines liberty. Eh? Surely the common thread running through his stance on tax, public sector services, and social issues like drugs was support of arrangements arrived at by consenting adults and a general desire to stop Big Government getting in the way. His opposition to unchecked, massive immigration from largely non-Western societies was predicated on a fear that such freedoms were under threat. One can argue whether his fear was justified or not - I am not entirely convinced either way - but Fortuyn's views struck me as entirely coherent.

As for liberalism's roots in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, that strikes me as only partially accurate. Unlike some atheists, I do fully appreciate the contribution of this religious tradition to liberty (such as the doctrine of Free Will) but for starters, what about the heritage of Greece and Rome? What about the Enlightenment?

Phillips' analysis is flawed because, ultimately, she cannot see how freedom can flourish without state-imposed restraints. Nowhere is there any grasp of how order and rules can evolve spontaneously from below, rather than be imposed from above. This is a shame because Phillips does have some good things to say, particularly on how Fortuyn has forced many commentators used to thinking of politics through certain prisms to sharpen up their act.

(0) (0)

One of the many joys of blogging is that you don't have to say everything, you can be content to say something, and the something I want to say here is that I want to add my little voice to the chorus now saying that Brink Lindsey's recent book Against The Dead Hand - The Uncertain Struggle for Global Capitalism is very good.

I've not read all of the book yet, but Lindsey's description (see for example chapter 2: "The Industrial Counterrevolution") of the wider public policy atmosphere around 1900 is as good as I've ever encountered. You can read detailed blow-by-blow descriptions of the "Economic Calculation Debate" which are as good, and far more detailed of course, but a persuasive sense of how it all fitted into the big wide world out there, then and since, is harder to come by.

I'm now dipping into the more current stuff, which is much enriched by the fact that Lindsey works at the formidable Cato Institute. Here's a typically good quote (on page 192):

… if - as is perfectly obvious – the world today is a jumble of market-oriented and anti-market elements, and if markets are recognized as efficient and useful while full-blown-collectivism is counted a failure, why blame markets and not the remnants of discredited collectivism for the fact that the current jumble is sometimes volatile?

By way of a personal footnote, I've also recently dug up an old piece of propaganda I did for a libertarian-conservative gang of stirrers at the University of Exeter, circa 1992, written by my wise and wonderful self. It's a list of 37 reasons Why I am a Libertarian (Libertarian Alliance, forthcoming Real Soon Now), each starting with "Because". Here's Because Number 24:

Because if total state control is a mess, and a "balance" between state control and liberty is half reasonable, then total liberty would be totally reasonable.

Which is pretty much the same meme. And good memes can't be bounced about too much and too often.

But I digress. My basic message here is, if you've any time at all to do it: Read Brink's Book.

(0) (0)

There's nothing like a Socialist to get someone who really despises the Working Class, is there?
-Ian Hislop (on the programme 'Have I got news for you') addressing socialist Mark Steel who had just been pouring scorn on the huge number of working class people who turned out for the Queen Mother's funeral

via David Harthill

(0) (0)

You could project the keyboard onto the upper back of a suitably placed loved one and combine blogging with giving him or her a massage.

(0) (0)

A group of Harvard and MIT professors, spearheaded of course by MIT's Noam Chomsky, is calling for the Harvard endowment to sell its investments in a variety of companies which "benefit from or support the Israeli military." (If the Harvard-MIT Divestment Campaign has its own website, I cannot find it; but this story in The Harvard Crimson cites IBM, General Electric and McDonald's as examples of such firms targeted by the Campaign.)

What exactly does the Campaign hope to accomplish? Even if they got their way, this action would not cause the slightest bit of economic harm to Israel. This would be the case even if we were talking about an institution with vastly greater holdings than the Harvard Endowment trust. The only way for Harvard to sell its shares of IBM or McDonald's is for some other investor to purchase them (duh!) Perhaps they spend too much time listening to the empty suits on MSNBC and other "instant analysts" on the tube, who attribute every dip in the stock market to a "sell-off," never considering that every share traded on the floor of the NYSE is both purchased and sold at the same time.

Maybe you can chalk this up to delusions of grandeur, or the mistaken notion that Harvard holds as much sway in the financial world as it does in the intellectual realm. One of the most important (and under-reported) trends in the economics in the last 20 years has been the rise of "institutional capitalism" -- financial institutions such as pension funds and mutual funds now own an outright majority of all corporate equities, rendering bit players such as the Harvard endowment largely irrelevant. In any case, this represents an awfully strange way to try to pressure the Israeli government.

So why are they doing it? I can think of two reasons ... essentially they must believe that the Campaign serves some political or propagandistic purpose, because it is difficult for me to believe that they think their actions will directly punish Israel in any way.

Symbolism -- elevating the cause to the level of the anti-apartheid movement. In the 1980s, there were a variety of disinvestment campaigns leveled against South Africa, and the Campaign wants their own cause elevated to the level of the global struggle against apartheid. I don't think that I need to explain why such a comparison is preposterous, but they are trying to create that linkage in people's minds. (This makes even more sense in light of the protestor I met in Washington a few weeks ago, who told me that the Palestinians were 'the N

(0) (0)

Natalie. This time I'm going to fall into the trap of taking your obviously humorous posting seriously.

The point is, it's for portable computers. Although now still somewhat clunky, the new gismo will soon get very small and then be very easy to carry about in your pocket, probably soon as part of your portable. You try carrying a keyboard around with you on your travels, unless it's a foldable one like mine.

Keyboards compatible with your portable computer are hard to find, but plain flat surfaces are pretty common, all around the world.

And as for non-portable computers, we must understand, Natalie, that not all people are like us. For some strange corporate beings, a computer keyboard is clutter, and one that can be switched off would be ultra-cool.

Next: VKB must do the same for the screen. Then, answering Natalie's objection, they may want to supply the clear desk space for the keyboard and the screen for the screen themselves, so that the thing can sit on top of the festering pile of junk that is permanently between Natalie and the top of her desk, just like a regular portable computer or computer keyboard now.

The new standard portable computer is: four white (or whatever turns out to be the best colour for receiving projections) bricks, 12 inches by 3 inches by ¾ of an inch, joined at the long edges by three hinges. The outer two hinges enable the white bricks to flatten out and form the keyboard surface and the screen surface, while the central hinge is like the one hinge on a portable computer now. The keyboard is projected towards you from a little hole in the bottom brick of the screen. The screen is projected upwards from a little hole in the far brick of the keyboard surface (or maybe fownwards from a thingy that sticks out from the top of the screen, and doubles up as part of the case).

I'm glad that's clear.

Note that different keyboards will be projectable at the press of a key, just as "different screens" are already presented to us all now, ditto, which is not possible with a hardware keyboard. I'm an inventor.

Richard Barber: thanks for this link, which is an improvement even on the one I finally got around to supplying. We weren't inundated with link info, so far as I know, following my failure to include any in the rare first edition of my original posting. It is Sunday. You and I, Richard, are stuck at our old-style mechanical computer keyboards, making our peculiar lifestyle choices. Most people are out doing … what? Things, I suppose. Who knows what normal people get up to?

Meanwhile, as Richard says: "Ain't capitalism grand?" It is indeed.

(0) (0)

...that project-a-keyboard one you just mentioned, Brian, is the daftest. You'd have to clear your desk before using it.

(0) (0)

Tomorrow's World is a BBC TV show that features gadgets that may or may not be about to change all our lives for the better. I watched it last Wednesday (May 8th). The BBC being the BBC there was much talk about impractical and expensive looking electric cars which will probably never catch on unless forced on us by politicians, and there was a machine featured which told you just how much damage you were doing to your respiratory system by smoking, thus motivating you to stop. Be still my heart. (This being what will inevitably happen to you, they kept helpfully reminding us, if you insist on smoking. Cue lying statistics about "smoking related" diseases.)

But one gadget they showed did truly impress me, and I meant to pass it on that evening but something else must have got in the way. (Oh yes, my computer modem stopped working.) This impressive gadget was a new kind of very-portable computer keyboard.

I already possess a folding ("Targus Stowaway") keyboard with which I type stuff into my Hewlett Packard Jornada 548, which when folded fits into a space hardly any bigger than that occupied by a Hewlett Packard Jornada 548 (i.e. my jacket pocket), and I had supposed that this was as small as a keyboard big enough to type on properly could get. Not so.

On Tomorrow's World they showed something quite new, at any rate to me. Instead of offering you a physical keyboard, what the new gismo does is shine a keyboard onto your desk, and then watch you while you type on it. The thing itself is no bigger than a cigarette box, and soon all portable computers may contain such a thing inside them. Superb. In an earlier version of this posting I did an hour ago, I did the BBC a semi-injustice. I said they didn't say who make this midget miracle. They didn't on the TV. But follow the link above and you get to VBK Ltd. This is an Israeli company, and I don't remember them saying that on the TV either.

Just thought I'd tell you. What with assassinations, European Unions, train crashes (another one here in Blighty on Friday), and all the usual politically administered misery, it's as well to remember that some things in our flawed but fascinating civilisation are being done extraordinarily well, and ever better as the years go by.

(0) (0)

It is not often that I use this blog as an advertising medium. In fact, I cannot remember ever having done so. So this is a first.

We Brits at the Samizdata require some help from our American readers (we know you're out there, we can hear you breathing). We have decided that we need a change of political representation, our own having chucked its lot in with Soviet EUnion. We need to 'clean house' and begin again and we think we can best do this by appointing a US Senator for Britain

We think this is a marvelous way of reconnecting us with our Anglo-Saxon heritage and of bringing the two most dynamic lynchpins of that community closer together. As well as that, it will help in the drive to get Britain out of the EU and, without Britain, the EU will not survive.

We should make it clear that we do not have the time or resources to mount any sort of election campaign so we simply intend to appoint the said Senator without he/she having any say in the matter. It may be somewhat presumptuous but these are interesting times and they call for interesting measures.

We have already pledged that we will not bother add to their administrative burdens by sending letters to their office but we do intend to write open letters to them on this blog for time to time as occasion requires.

However, we being Brits and all that, have no idea to appoint and this is where our US contributors and readers come in. If you really want to stick it to the Euro-snots, then unzip your trusty computer keyboards and mail us with your suggestions for a suitable Senator for Britain and the reasons why he/she would be suitable.

Mock not. We are serious.