Hundreds hacked or burned to death in Kenya, in response to and election that may well have been rigged. Shootings and suicide bombing by Islamic radicals in many parts of the world. And news of record prison suicides and savage violence here in Britain. And, of course, the centralization and growth of government. Less wildly violent than the preceding, but hardly welcome and based on the same principle – the threat of violence.
Yesterday Cyprus and Malta became part of the Euro Zone. Thus further centralizing power in the hands of the EU and the magic circle of politically connected banks and other business enterprises that depend on the credit money which, in the end, comes from the European Union Central Bank. In this way competition between government currencies, and the possibility, that some might expand the credit/supply less than others, is reduced.
The smoking ban in France is also coming into force, although I hope the French resist. Although other Europeans seem in a passive mood – in “Belgium” the Flemish Liberal party leader is back as Prime Minister although he lost the General Election way back in June – but there is no resistance. And in Switzerland the Swiss People’;s Party got the highest vote of any party for many decades yet its leader is out of office and the Social Democrats, who got only 20% of the vote, remain in office – but there is not resistance. In both cases “Parliament had a vote” is the defence, and it is true it did.
And, of course, it is yet another year of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Things have come to a strange pass when President George Walker Bush is what pro-freedom people have to rely on – the wild spender facing even wilder spenders, the regulator facing more fanatical regulators.
In Britain also we have regulations being presented as freedom. Prime Minister Brown promises more regulations and calls them a “Constitution for the National Health Service” and there are yet more bans and regulations in other areas.
One can only hope that 2008 does not carry on as it has started.
Apparently a strong constitution will be very much required if you wish to get treatment from the NHS.
Do something like drinking, smoking or eating your choice of foods rather than theirs,
Well let’s put it this way, they will take your tax money but refuse to treat you, until you comply with the Government set Norm.
Kenya’s trouble is tribal of course, and I think we can learn from it. On another thread here (can’t remember which) I posted about my view that all humans are tribal, even us westerners who like to think we’re so advanced and beyond all that. The only difference, if difference exists at all, is that western tribes are often about ideologies and class, rather than the more obvious ancestral affiliations on display in Kenya. But our democracy is every bit as fragile, and subverted to tribalism. We manage to put up with it because, at least at this stage, we can still manage to suffer in silence when another tribe has power.
But the key there is power. In Kenya, neither tribe will be happy with the other tribe’s man in charge, because they fear it. We humans have tribal affiliations, and while libertarians like to think in individualist terms, the truth I think is that humans will look after themself first, but they also consider their tribe to have a personality and if they can’t directly promote themself they will promote their tribe instead (or simultaneously). Most humans will put up with the most terrible oppressions if it’s by “one of their own”, especially if it’s directed against another tribe. If we look at an increasingly (politically) tribal society like the USA, it seems to me not unreasonable to say that among the radical left, if their man got in and sent all the christian right off to concentration camps, said radical left would be cheering to the rafters and bollocks to the Constitution. And vice versa.
So, as I waffle away, getting back to Kenya. It’s about fear. It’s about the knowledge that “if the other tribe get power they will use it against my tribe”. Where this leads me to is to say something pretty obviously libertarian; if the government did not have the *power* to oppress, then each tribe would have less to fear from the other tribe gaining power. That reasonable fear leads to violence. Many people would say that therefore we must be less tribal, so that we do not have this tribal fear. But I think people naturally are tribal and there’s not much one can do about that.
So the answer then becomes to reduce government power, so that even when your enemy gets into office he can’t do you much harm. With the fear reduced, the impulsion towards violence (to defend one’s tribe) becomes less.
Having typed all that, it’s actually a bit banal and obvious I spose. But, based on the sunk cost fallacy, I’ll post anyway 🙂
Insane. Yet so utterly predictable.
Oh, it gets better. According to the Telegraph, apparently even if you are eligible for treatment, you’ll have to Do It Yourself.
I can’t wait to see what this promised Bill Of Responsibilities And No Rights is going to look like.
Ian: I am glad you took the time to type it – food for thought. The greatest question is, of course, how does one reduce the power of government, as most people are not really interested in that. To follow your line of thought, government is seen as an extension of one’s tribe. and we support our tribes not just out of fear, but simply because we as humans crave power. It is part of our nature, while adherence to moral principles is not.
I largely sympathise with the gist of the comments made here about Brown’s NHS plans but I do also see a slightly different angle.
For me it’s Brown’s recognition that there is such a thing as personal responsibility and that it affects one’s own health. Abuse your own health by all means but don’t expect open-ended health care to fund your lifestyle.
I’d like to think this is a move resulting from an opening of government eyes to the reality of life although I know it’s actually a desperate attempt to stem the flow of promiscuous and wasteful government spending.
I blogged this topic yesterday and I am now wondering: will he apply similar thinking to welfare ie recognise that being unemployed is at least as much to do with personal decisions and choices as it is to do with general conditions?
Happy new year all…
Another pleasant way to start off with 2008 is to ignore all this, and look forward to a fair election in Pakistan.
All elections are rigged, in most countries. Even if they are not, the loser always claim they were, in most countries. Happened in the US too (in 2000).
EU election monitors in Kenya.
EU constitution forced through in Europe.
Do these people not do irony ?
Really?
But folk whose genetics bring them into very dangerous illmess categories are eligible?
Almost all human activity carries risks. If you choose to be a fireman you should be denied care if you get burned? Well thank you! Bust your bones skiing? Hard fart. Carelessly acquired clap…or worse? Disapproval may well be in order but denial of treatment, Mr. Holier-than-Thou? The list is endless. People (are forced to) pay for treatment where it is necessary. In a puritanical, top-fit, non-drinking, non-smoking, non-risk-taking society there would be no need for an NHS and, as copulation would be deemed far to dangerous, there would be no (need for) us…which may not be a bad thing.
By the bye, don’t you just love those spots advertising exercise machines for twentysomethings.
Does this mean the end of the NHS then? If not then his words are just so much fart gas.
Quite, but far from simply not expecting “open-ended health care to fund your lifestyle”, why should people think they have the right to anything of personal advantage paid for by other unwilling people?
Denied healthcare by the NHS?
The solution is simple. Find your local MP (a councillor or civil servant might do) and punch his lights out.
As soon as the Rozzers turn the key in the lock, you are a prisoner. Healthcare is then a ‘Human Right’.
On vote rigging – I doubt it is normally as blatent as this election in Kenya Jacob.
Of course, in the West, the media is rather selective about what rigging it gets upset about.
It was not rigging that cost Al Gore Florida in 2000 – it was Ralph Nader and those who campaigned for him such as Mr Moore.
But there was real rigging in parts of Pennsylvannia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnisota in 2004 (and, no doubt, in 2000 as well), but the media did not care – because these States were in the Democrat list.
In 2006 one of the leftist “charitable groups” was caught red handed registering nonexistent people to vote in Missouri, but there was no widespread outcry – and remember the Democrats only took the Senate by one.
On Kenya.
When the current President came to power the B.B.C. said he was a great democratic reformer – on the grounds that anyone the B.B.C. likes is likely (although NOT certain) to be a scumbag I had a look at what the new government actually did.
It made education “free” and compulsory – absurd in a counrty as poor as Kenya.
And it grabbed privately held land – especially forest land (as if there was not enough deforestation by local “communities”).
Later it proposed vast powers for itself to steal privately owned land (but was defeated in the “Banana versus Orange” referendum).
Still I must get on to a cheerful comment I promised to write.
Portugal banned smoking in “public places” (they include the private property of business enterprises), but there is a nice side.
The chief “enforcement official” has been caught smoking a cigar at a casino.
If he is an elected official I would certainly vote for him.
Errr, Paul: compared to being hacked to death and running a daily risk of being blown to bits by suicide bombers, having a soft Republican like GWB is not exactly on the same scale of terribleness.
And remember, Congress sets the budget, not the POTUS.
We are very proud of Senhor Antonio Nunes who acted in the true Portuguese spirit of (feigned) ignorance of the Law….in Casinos? Really? I didn’t know that?
A small consolation is that bars, restaurants of less than 100 square meters can opt out of the general ban if they so wish.
If half the effort put into stopping folk from smoking were applied to stopping serious crime & ASB, fewer good people would be getting out of The Septic Isle in droves. A substantial proportiuon of the immigrant population is tobacco-free by religious conviction & is considerably more at home with violence & crime on the streets in the lands from which it came. My word! Looking around the World, how can that possibly be true?
Kim du Toit:
As you the President can veto the budget – I do not remember that being done much when the Republicans controlled it (indeed the very “earmarks that are not written in the budget so I could not veto them” can be blocked by the Executive on the exact grounds that they are not in the formal budget).
Indeed George Walker Bush went a lot further than just being a waste of space. Tom Tancredo and others have often explained how President Bush put great pressure on Republican members of the House and Senate to vote for insane schemes like No-Child-Left-Behind
And I believe that Tancredo voted against such schemes anyway – so he was not making excuses for himself.
Paul:
Then you go on and mention cases where it is. Fine.
As I said, all votes are rigged, especially in “third world” and “second world” countries.
The trick is to accept them, imperfect as they are, and not to descend into bloodshed and barbarity as in Kenya.
Alisa-
I think seeking an answer to that question is perhaps far more important for liberty-minded chaps and chapesses than talking about specific policies like how the deregulated market would do this or that or the other. It’s the question of how, if one could create a solidly liberty-based small government system, it could be designed to stay that way.
The USA tried a Constitution, guarded by a judiciary. But that turned out not to work; the tribes simply fight to get their co-tribalists onto the Supreme Court, who can then reinterpret the Constitution into meaninglessness, as we’ve seen. It seems any constitution, bills of rights, etc are only as good as the goodwill of their insitutional defenders; since said defenders will be subverted by partisans, it’s no real protection at all.
So the problem is, even if you reduce the power of government, peope will immediately try to grab control and expand it again. It’s difficult to think up a robust mechanism against that.
Talking about the USA case, I was looking at the Federalist Papers, and it seemed to me that in trying to answer the question of what would prevent the government expanding and becoming tyrannical, there’s really just a handwavy explanation about how, if it tried, the people wouldn’t stand for it, nor the States, so it couldn’t do that. History has shown though that the ire of the people was no check on the expansion of the federal government at all. Clearly some better safeguard is needed 🙂
I am afraid there is no way, Ian. That’s why the only way is actually what is so depressingly frustrating: working in small steps for the rest of our lives, ad infinitum. ‘…specific policies like how the deregulated market would do this or that or the other’, that kind of thing.
I blame the 17th amendment.
Then we may as well give up, Alisa, since the trend is always against us. A small gain in one policy will always be offset by greater losses elswhere; one government department shut down replaced by two of greater size. We could all spend our lives opposing statists and fighting campaing after campaign against law after law, and at the end we’ll have achieved nothing at all. Our freedoms have been consistently eroding for the past century.
Despite the much trumpeted “rollback of the state” under Thatcher (really a relatively minor readjustment that made the Vasty State work more efficiently), compared to 1970 we have fewer freedoms, the state is larger, the government more powerful, and their grip on the citizens’ lives tighter. Outside of World Wars, our situation has never looked more hopeless or grim.
I’m saying in my doomladen manner that small steps don’t work. They may slow the advance of the enemy a trifle, but that is all. If libertarians can’t find a way to create a genuine reversal, we may as well admit defeat and just use the internet for finding gay hobbit pr0n, while we’re still allowed to.
Maybe that’s just me, come to think of it.
“We could all spend our lives opposing statists and fighting campaing after campaign against law after law”
What a glorious and heroic vision – the ultimate new year’s resolution!
Hmm, people aren’t very good at keeping New Year’s Resolutions 🙂
Perhaps what I’m saying here is that rather than trying to fight a losing battle on a thousand fronts against specific statist advances, the focus must be on spreading the philosophy of liberty. The statists have power, vast amounts of money, and an integrated recruitment network. We have none of those things. I think most people come to libertarianism (used in the most general sense here) because of a self-motivated desire to find an alternative to the current statist menu, something better. But because that relies on self motivation, political interest and suchlike, the number of people “discovering” it remains small. Very few people in the population even know what libertarianism is, thinking the only alternatives are socialism or conservatism.
The best strategic focus would be IMV on spreading the message, even at the expense of devoting energies to trying to slow the currently unstoppable statist expansion. It particularly means appealing to the young. It means finding a way to present the message which doesn’t seem selfish, of showing that libertarianism will benefit all, not just wealthy people pissed off by taxes. It means showing to those who are drawn to transnationalist authoritarianism that libertarianism will help the poorest people of the world (voices such as those of James Shikwati can be powerful here) to break the statist stranglehold on Developing World policies. We have to win the moral argument. We have to show that it appeals not just to the selfishness of the wealthier classes, but to the selfishness of the poor too, and I think that means abandoning the mean spirited language of the likes of Randians, dividing the world into godlike self-reliant objectivists and everybody else; the spongers, the moochers and so on. The statists have created those supplicant castes dependent on state largesse (with other peoples’ money). Ordinary people are scared for their freedoms; they’re scared the agents of the state are watching when they go for a beer, they’re scared the State will take their children away for being fat or being not politically correct enough. We need to find ways to appeal beyond a hardcore who can quote Rothbard verbatim and have well-thumbed copies of Atlas Shrugged in their pockets.
If we can spread the meme into new territories, eventually the policies will follow as the electorate reject the statism of the political parties because they don’t believe in it any more. The key thing then is to find ways to make libertarianism viral, and statism look old fashioned, conservative and unappealing, and perhaps the most importnat constituency to grab in that regard is the young, who have the time, the energy and the idealism. Libertarianism is, after all, a very positive, forward looking political mindset which offers hope for every member of society. How can we spread that message most effectively, instead of endlessly arguing on the back foot that we’re not all selfish antiquated conservatives?
How nice it would be to see mass concerts for Liberty, instead of mass concerts for Al Gore!
Kind of thing 🙂
I am serious about the 17th amendment. If we place the US Senate back under the control of the state governments (which is where the founders originally put it) you will see a huge shift of power back to the individual states. When that happens, you will see states competing with each other. Competition always favors less government control.
Repealing the 17th is actually a tactically achievable goal. If 3/4 of the legislatures of the states decide that they want to return the selection of senators back to the legislatures of the states, it’s enough.
Call me pessimistic, but I think that is a lot more likely than convincing everybody to vote for federalist senators.
MW-
I’m interested in how many people of a liberty-based persuasion promote state’s rights over federal control in the USA. I’m entirely in favour of decision making being closer to the people (see also: EU 🙂 but I’m also interested in how americans would prevent a federal tyranny being replaced by a state-level one. As a comparison, here in the UK I think the first step towards freedom is getting out of the EU; but I’ve no desire to be tyrannised by my national government either. Would Americans be angry at a federal ban on titty bars, but be happy for the state of Texas or New Jersey to ban them on a state “local” level, for example?
Ian B,
Illinois just banned smoking in ‘public’ buildings throughout the entire state starting January 1. The stateline bars on the Wisconsin side of the line are doing a booming business.
It is assumed that (unless we get rid of the creep we have for governor) Wisconsin will eventually do the same thing but until then …
As our society benefits more and more from easy travel and internet ordering and UPS, FedEx, etc, yes competition will unquestionably prevent sustained state-level tyranny. And as easily as people and businesses relocate from one state to another, yes, the original founder’s plan will again work just like it used to. (There is a lot of history to the 17th that I am leaving out, but basically it was much ado about nothing. If a state leg. doesn’t want to send a senator, that’s their choice.)
As an aside, I am trying with myself and encouraging others to refer to the ‘National’ government when we talk about the ‘Feds’ stepping over their constitutional parameters. So you will sometimes see me use “National” (with a capital “N”) and “federal” in the same comment and mean two different things. ‘Federal’ is the states cooperating. National is, well … “[…] One Nation, under God, indivisible, and with meaningless platitudes for all.” – I hate that fascist oath.
What’s the number of the ammendment that introduced the income tax ? 21 ? Could we, please, repeal it too, while we’re at it ?
To Midwesterner: I wonder whether Fred Thompson would be at all interested in a repeal of the 17th amendment… perhaps enquiries could be made should he win the gop nomination?
On state and super-state structures… one thesis I have sometimes come across as to why the EU is such a bad idea is that, quite aside from libertarian issues, it forces together people from different cultures that, in former times, had little intercourse with one another relative to that which they have today through cheap travel and mass commerce. To be more specific, Europe does not have a single common language and nor does it have a shared set of legal traditions – unlike America in the 1700s.
Might it be that, in years to come, much of these cultural divisions in Europe (and indeed the rest of the world) will begin to recede if the current spate of cheap travel and mass commerce continues to improve?
Mind you, that is a large ‘if’ – and my head tells me this sort of thinking will tend to generate more heat than light.
But if so, then the battles for liberty we should want to fight will be as much within other cultures as in Britain or America themselves.
To take an example away from Europe, 150 years ago, the people of Taiwan were little more than head-hunting savages, and yet today large swathes of the Taiwanese population have lifestyles almost identical to people in Britain. The influence of western civilization has been incredibly powerful here since the first American traders tried to turn a profit in sugar and camphor in the 1850s – and this despite the nearly half a century of Japanese rule that was to follow in the 1890s to 1940s, and despite the dictatorial oversights of a nationalist state until the 1990s.
Paul Marks is right when he says that there is much to worry about the state of the world in 2008, but there is also so much that goes unnoticed – taken for granted even – but which is truly great and worthy of a sublime sense of relief that the cause of personal freedom was not put out by the innumerable evils and idiocies of the 20th Century, but has actually advanced throughout the world in spite of them.
Mid:
I blame human nature. For the 17th, that is:-|
Ian:
That’s often true, until someone falls out of luck, and is suddenly scared that he might not be able to afford the beer. Freedom is scary because of uncertainty, and requires hard work. It is difficult. Slavery is easy. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not all pessimistic (Mike’s comment is spot on). Spreading the message as you show is very important and cab help. Problem is, we should be realistic in our expectations of a major shift or breakthrough, because it may never happen, and even when they so happen, the next setback is always just around the corner. What we can realistically expect, if we work hard, are relatively small incremental changes.
Pardon the typos – tired.
Jacob, you have my enthusiastic agreement but that is not at all tactically possible (to borrow a Bush One-ism) ‘at this juncture.’
mike, the president has zero role in the constitutional amendment process, at least legally. But I think a president could make an excellent spokesperson for the effort. I hope, almost to the point of assumption, that if he is elected, Fred will use the ‘bully pulpit’ towards repealing the 17th. His experience as a senator apparently had some effect on his opinion of how government in general and that body in particular works.
Some friends of my parents and some of my relatives were Christian missionaries in China until WWII and then in Taiwan and it is a place that has fascinated me since childhood. I look at places like Taiwan, Hong Kong, SK, and realize that the system really does make a big difference. And, while I often am as pessimistic as Paul is, I have moments when I realize that seemingly small changes (like the repealing the 17th) can bring about great changes.
As for cultural cross-pollination, my own family is an interesting case. My grandparents on one side came over from ‘the old country’ with out a word of English. My other side started arriving on the Mayflower. We have lost the language of the old country completely in 2 generations. (It was virtually gone in one.) We keep some of the traditions, but have either deliberately or unintentionally lost others. This will probably be how whole societies interact.
To a very strong extent, I think we adopt the cultural traditions of our language. While present day Blair>Brown etc is a disaster for English cultural traditions, they continue to exist archivally in our language and the fact that English has become the international language as well as the language of the internet bodes well for the legacy of the Magna Charta. The values recorded in the English language may likely pop up whac-a-mole style anywhere the language and internet reach. That’s a very encouraging thought. Who knows? They might even pop up in the anglosphere.
Jacob.
“One should just accept rigged elections” – I do not agree, but I see no point in debating the question.
The 16th Amendment (the income tax amendment) is another matter.
Interestingly different States seem to have approved different texts – so in all logic and reason the 16th Amendment was never correctly ratified at all.
However, logic and reason are not highly valued by “Progressive” lawyers.
“One should just accept rigged elections”
I did not mean to say that we shouldn’t try, to the best of our ability, to make elections fair and impartial.
I only meant to say that rigged elections occur quite often, and should not be used as a pretext for descending into barbarity, as happened in Kenya.
Another good reason to repeal it !
Midwesterner: your comments are as thoughtful and interesting as ever – I would have responded earlier had I not been busy. I’d be interested to know specifics about your fascination with this part of the world (China-Taiwan) merely to see where we share interests, although perhaps the comments section of this blog posting is not quite the right place.
“To a very strong extent, I think we adopt the cultural traditions of our language.”
I agree. Moreover, my feeling is that may also be true for certain dialects and registers of a particular language – in coming to use them we pick up associated cultural mores and habits (or at least come to some awareness of them).
For example, as my Mandarin improves, I actually find my own English taking on pidgin characteristics!!
mike,
The generation with the strong SEAsia connection has passed, now. They were present in Asia as it was making its change from agrarian to industrial. While by far my greatest awareness was of Indonesia (the family members who lived there only died in the last 10-15 years), when I was younger the China/Taiwan (and to a lesser extent SK and Japan) were also common topics in our household. As children, we were given much reading material, fiction and fact, set it SEA. I remember one book that I read when I was perhaps too young, set in Nanking during the Japanese invasion. I don’t remember now the book or author, but it defined for me ‘evil’ and ‘horror’ for much of my life. It still does even with my expanded knowledge base.
Several things stand out in my memory. A big one is the ceremonial etiquette of everyday life. I realized recently when I saw documented in a science program a mainland Chinese professor questioning an Chinese engineer on some project, how one of my aunt’s (who lived in Indonesia) mannerisms and protocols were pure Chinese. Since she grew to adulthood in Wisconsin she had learned it in her adult life in Indonesia. Apparently the Chinese had the most refined and formal etiquette where she lived so that was what she reflexively adopted in the US. The little bows, the physical placement of herself to whomever she was addressing, her choice of words, all manner of little things… what seemed quirks to American me turned out to be the garb of another culture.
Another perhaps bigger thing is the creative adaptiveness. In anecdote after anecdote, there was a physical situation creatively solved with hardly a ripple. Problems all were found in ‘face’ and etiquette’, but the ‘real’ problems were always easily and creatively solved. All of the stories were fascinating to me. One lady explained her work to bring an end to foot-binding, which was still standard practice when she arrived there.
Most of the stories I grew up on have all merged into a vague fog of impressions but the net result is that Taiwan in particular has always held good associations for me.
Interesting about you learning Mandarin. My dad’s cousins actually took Chinese names and spoke both Mandarin(?) and Cantonese(?) and on occasion had the interesting experience of being a couple of white Americans translating between native speakers of different Chinese dialects. I realize as I write this how many of these people are gone and how much I will never know.
Midwesterner
I’m sorry to hear about those members of your family who lived in Asia having passed on – I don’t doubt it would have been a great pleasure for me to hear what your aunt had to say about her time in Indonesia.
What you say about Nanjing strikes me as absolutely true – there are people here in Taiwan (perhaps with mainland Chinese connections – I don’t know) who speak about that in the most sombre tones. I have even heard (from faculty members at the university) the odd fruit-cake conspiracy tale about the Japanese from time to time. Nanjing left a real impact crater it seems…
The two cultural elements that stand out in your memory, also stand out in my day-to-day experience of living here (Taiwan) – although the ‘adaptive creativity’ of which you speak appears to me more as a side-effect of the overwhelming importance they attach to convenience. However, I’ve always felt that finding a succinct way to communicate to other westerners quite how intriguing such things are, is far from obvious.
College graduation ceremonies for example, can happen whilst the final semester is still in progress – simply because, for various reasons, this is more convenient than holding such ceremonies at the end of the semester. Of course our natural response to this is that it smells of two-bit unprofessionalism and a lack of care. Yet even this impression is itself contradicted when you actually watch such ceremonies and see just how long the college principles continue speaking to their audience – and how much emotion they put into those speeches. What matters is that appropriate ‘face’ has been communicated – but the broader context in which it is done seems not to be given much thought at all.
My overwhelming impression however, is just how much importance the people here attach to convenience. Obvious examples include the scooter as transport, roadside fruit-stalls, the ubiquitous 7-11s and so on – but there are two other areas where I think this becomes abundantly clear.
The first is house prices and rental rates. In downtown Kaohsiung at the beginning of 2007, a new but modest little apartment with views of nothing in particular would fetch about $800 US a month. I moved out from there to the suburbs around the lake – a 20-30 min drive from downtown – into an almost mansion-like apartment with swimming pool and mountain views etc for only $300 US a month. The difference in rates is simply due to the fact that most Taiwanese people consider a 20-30 min drive to work to be just unthinkably inconvenient.
The second is a general lack of geographical and historical awareness. Knowing the countries of the world and something of their different histories – that sort of knowledge has zero practical value – they simply regard it as not touching upon anything about which they are concerned. So for example, that Taiwanese pitcher for the Yankees is universally regarded as a national hero here – not because he is a good pitcher, but because Taiwanese people think he helps to raise the international profile of Taiwan. Whilst that may be true for large swathes of the American population, I for one had been aware of Taiwan for years because of its’ exports and because of the political situation – not because of a baseball player.
On learning mandarin – a friend of mine recently moved back to Virginia after living in Taiwan as a reporter for 20 years. His mandarin and fujian dialect is pitch perfect – whereas mine merely allows me to stagger by! He was full of tales about the history of the chinese dialects and how intimately their development is tied to political developments. From my memory of our bar conversations I rather suspect that – like you – he may also be voting for Fred Thompson this year.
Apologies to Paul Marks and Perry for this way off-topic comment!
mike,
As a general practice at Samizdata, if a thread is this old and is not actively being discussed on topic, then off topic is not usually a problem.
Something immediately struck me about your comment re convenience and the example of the apt with the mountain view versus the apt down town. What role does the aesthetic play in value choices? For me, I would be inclined to choose the mountain view and then find a good parallel use for the commute time.
The Taiwan that was described to me was aesthetically a beautiful place, somewhat more ruggedly natural than the other industrialized SEA nations, but still held in appreciation for its natural and artistic attractions. Has this faded in the energy of modern development? The people I remember who lived in Taiwan were there from the end of WWII through maybe the late sixties, early seventies. Some of the retirees I knew could have been in SEA as early as just after the turn of the century. As I child, I never lacked for people telling stories of interesting places and experiences.
It is possible some of the people I remember were in Taiwan from before the war, but I was a child (or youth) during that time I knew them and don’t remember much of the details. The reason I am quite sure that some of the people lived in Taiwan from before the war is that I have fairly strong impressions of some people who had been in Taiwan talking about working among the now very minority original non-Chinese and dealing with the influx of the Chinese and the consequences of that. But I am afraid my memories have all kind of muddled together. Until the age of 8 or 9, I lived across the street from a retirement home for missionaries from all over the world. An unlimited supply of people who had a lifetime experience of foreign cultures and the time and inclination to talk about them. I know my dad’s cousins are not the only source for my impressions of Taiwan but I’m not sure which impressions came from where.
Part of my interest in Taiwan is contemporary. How (little ‘L’) libertarian is the culture? How do they respond to the idea of an all encompassing government? How strongly property oriented are they? My impression is that Taiwanese had rather strong property recognition at least at the family level. I also have the impression that the political center is shifting quite strongly over the last decade or so with many descendants of the WWII Chinese refugees beginning to identify as citizens of an independent nation rather than the ‘one China’ thing. I am curious how accurate this impression is. Is that how it feels to you or is there still a strong K political base and loyalty?
Taiwan’s case is an interesting one and I think Taiwan is in a unique place with regard to the US and China. A while back I read through quite a few US laws and resolutions and was surprised to learn that legally Taiwan can reasonably still be considered to be a US protectorate as no other status was ever granted in the run up of the cold war. There is even a clear gap where assignment to China was withdrawn, but nothing ever replaced it. Curious. The lack of geographical and historical awareness you observe is worrisome. Needless to say, my own choice is for the smallest unit of self-determination possible, ideally the individual.
Midwesterner
I guess I knew that already really – but good manners are a good example to others.
On apartment rates – the aesthetic was important for me too, though less so than the size and attractiveness of the apartment itself.
As for aesthetic values more generally, the east (pacific) coast of the island, where the central mountain range really does meet the ocean, is simply astonishing. However this side of the island is sparsely populated partly due to historical reasons and partly due to the typhoons and storms that hit the east coast from the pacific each summer. I drove up and down the east coast last summer in a state of ecstasy – I plan to make that trip again (only this time with my local girlfriend) in spring. The west coast of the island is densely populated with large towns and three major cities (Taipei, Taichung and Kaohsiung). I would say the greatest negative aesthetic impacts on life here are the traffic and the construction industry. Roads and buildings are constantly being ripped up, relaid, maintained, erected and gentrified all over the three major cities – whilst the heavy industries of chemical processing and to a lesser extent, mining, are located well away on the edge of town as you might expect. The major negative aesthetic is therefore the dust that gets blown everywhere – and I mean everywhere – so I’m not sure that this affects people’s choices of where to live.
Before and after world war two, the population density of Taiwan could not have been anywhere near what it is now. Roads would have been mostly dirt tracks, the industry was still agricutural with the odd sugar and tea refinery and so the experience of a christian missionary here would have likely been one of an island paradise slowly being dragged into the industrialised modern world. That island paradise is still to be seen in the mountains of the east coast and in the central areas of the island that are still populated by the aborigines (or “rurn-zu-min” as they are known in mandarin) although there are three small ‘modern’ towns along the east coast, and the famous sun-moon lake (created as part of a dam project by one of the Japanese governor generals) is now a tourist spot.
How libertarian is the culture? That is difficult to guage. On the one hand, you cannot go anywhere in any of the cities without passing by hundreds of little stores, from 7-11s to family-run noodle restaurants, to whole streets selling computers, cameras, PDAs, cellphones etc. There is no single ‘shopping district’ – shops, and therefore property owners are literally everywhere throughout the cities.
On the other hand, the legal system here seems to somewhat resemble the British in which land is legally owned by the Crown and people are merely allowed to lease that land for X period of time. However, if you ‘own’ land here – for example land on which you have built a house – then you must pay a land tax to the state rather than signing an actual lease of the land. There is no requirement to pay a tax on the actual house you have built on that land. This system has two extraordinary consequences – the first is that the total ‘property tax’ burden has tended to be quite light making it easier for people to set up small business and so on. The second is that the government is legally entitled to evict you from your house if it claims the land on which your house is built is needed for construction of something the government feels is a greater priority. Further, when you are bought out by the government you are not paid compensation for having been forcibly evicted – nor are you even paid the going market value for your house. You are paid according to the original land-tax value registered with the State regardless of whether your house has increased the value of that location. My knowledge of this comes from reading newspaper stories and speaking to faculty and students in the university – I believe it is more or less correct.
The upshot of this is that the idea of private property is very strong in a gut-sense, yet as I understand it, there is no constitutionally enshrined protection of property rights in as much as we are talking about land. In this respect, Taiwan’s legal system somewhat resembles the British ‘unwritten constitution’ lark. Patronage and corruption are endemic throughout the state and I get the impression that this is indeed how much business gets done – but such cases are frequently reported by the island’s media (albeit usually for reasons of partisan interest).
The other thing I’d mention about the culture vis-a-vis libertarian concerns is that the current party in government (the Democratic Progressive Party or DPP) were formed from a pro-democracy activist movement in the 70s and 80s. They are not people who spent time when they were young reading Adam Smith, Karl Popper or Freddy Hayek. So far as I can tell, they are all socialists who have learned that healthcare and education are merely tools to further their political support. About five years ago, the DPP government nationalised (or should that be ‘socialised’?) healthcare, replacing the market of private clinics and privately run hospitals with a compulsory national health insurance. There is now no longer any option of private healthcare on the island. Yet their real selling-point that brought them control of the presidency was – as you rightly observe – the desire of most of the middle-class to identify themselves as people of Taiwan rather than China. However, they have pushed that value further into an at times strident nationalism. Currently however, due to economic woes, it looks as though the next presidential election (this year) will go the KMT candidate (who speaks fluent English). So there is a taste for big government here certainly, but it is difficult to guage just how strong that is from recent political developments, simply because the nationalistic Taiwan-China debate has eclipsed all else.
What worries me most in particular however, is not influence from mainland China – the people are mostly dead set on keeping the status quo – but on foreign influence from Europe and Canada. The Taiwanese people self-identify as a ‘developing’ nation (even now) and adopt an open and deferential attitude toward foreigners such as myself. Yet it seems to me much of this foreign influence is of the wrong sort – of the left-leaning, socialist outlook. It is already evident in higher education (where I work). However that could partially be the result of my looking through the world with libertarian-magnifying glasses!
Mike you remind me of something that Antony Flew told me many years ago. The government of the Republic of China (and it was K.M.T. at the time) just considered, on a whim, taking over the employment agencies – because “of course” something so important had to be done by government.
You remind me of an old point of Ayn Rand.
Neither anti Communism nor support of demcracy as well are enough.
If people do not have a clear anti Welfare State philosophy government will grow and grow. Even if they do have such an anti big government philosophy they may be corrupted by office.
But without it there is no hope at all.
And, of course, without strict limits on the size and scope of government the very democracy they so price will eventually collapse.
Paul Marks
I always appreciate your comments precisely for the interesting little snippets of historical background or personal anecdotes such as you having met Mr Flew. I assume you met him through your former position at York University (if memory serves me well)? I have never read any of his work, but the name-drop from you might just change that.
“If people do not have a clear anti Welfare State philosophy government will grow and grow. Even if they do have such an anti big government philosophy they may be corrupted by office. But without it there is no hope at all.”
I believe that to be true, but I am not yet ready to concede that that necessarily means giving up hope.
My first reason for this is that I’ve long thought the core libertarian belief of self-ownership is implicitly held by most people (everywhere), but that its’ relative salience is highly contingent upon personal events – for example when one becomes a victim of violent crime (or of government). Perhaps it can be buried, obscured or even extinguished by the encrustations of culture or political power – nevertheless I believe that most people hold this core belief even though it may not be in any explicit form. I wonder whether you disagree?
My second reason is the universally inextinguishable power of stupidity. This goes far, far beyond mere government incompetence. For this reason alone, I believe that any form of government (constitutional as much as totalitarian) – cannot survive indefinitely simply because that survival depends on the explosive and uniquely human mixture of intelligence and stupidity.
mike,
You confirm much of what I expected. But one thing you say truly surprises me. National health. That just soo doesn’t fit with everything I’ve heard of Chinese attitudes in this area. Hopefully it really is just a case of them aping the idiots who brag about the Canadian and UK schemes. Hopefully one day the Taiwanese will take a good look at what they have been sold.
You describe the top priority given to convenience. People who will pay a high premium to save time and effort, gain speed, etc. Whatever will be the fall out when the health care system begins to show the true character of socialized medicine? Might I hope that they will throw it out along with its authors?
What you say about land rights is disappointing, but not very surprising. That basic assumption fits much better with what I’ve heard of SEA norms. I don’t get the feeling that it is intrinsic to the cultures so much as assumed without considering how the alternative of stronger land rights would work. And I assume that as the society in general becomes wealthier and invests more and more in the improvements, there will be pressure to recognize it legally.
It seems funny that Taiwanese think of themselves as a developing nation when the rest of the world thinks of them as one of the Asian Tigers. I sometimes have had the impression that Asians in general tend to be chronologically myopic, and that this is both their strength and their weakness. I tend to the other extreme. I can be so focused on the long term that I forget to put out the garbage for two weeks in a row. (Note to self, put out garbage today. All of the cans are completely full.)
This thread is winding down but I hope you continue to provide us with East/West and China/Taiwan perspective as the topic is discussed. I’ve really enjoyed this and it has convinced me more than ever that I really would like to visit Taiwan if I ever have the opportunity.
Great! I think I want to borrow that phrase.
I think the key is to prevent constitutional government from ever having authority over its constituents. I use the term ‘constitutional’ when I am referring to a contract of rules for the interactions of those who voluntarily subscribe to the contract. ‘Government’ is the contractually agreed on system of arbitration between the contractees. Whether this makes me a minarchist or an anarchist, I’m not sure.
No I did not meet Antony Flew via the Univerity of York – and my “formal position” was simply a bit of part time teaching whilst writing my D.Phil thesis (long ago now – and they did not like the work anyway).
I met Antony Flew first via the Freedom Association (back in the 1980’s) and met him, on and off, at various conferences of various organizations over the years.
To me he was always “Professor”.
The first things that I remember about him are clear thinking – and courage.
In politics I would recomend his last work “Equality in Liberty and Justice” (1989 – although I believe there is an American edition, from Transaction Publishers, from 2001). Although, of course, you may well have read this work.
As for practical experience leading people to libertarian conclusions……..
Lew Rockwell (a man I do disagree with on some things, but a thinker who is always worth reading) had a little article on the Ludwig Von Mises Institute blog recently on this subject.
Rockwell points out that people are capable of taking any evidence and twisting it to come to a statist conculsion.
For example, regulations (security and other) lead to chaos in air travel and long delays – but people write angry letters denouncing the airlines and demand yet MORE regulations (for example, Passengers “Bill of Rights” in force since January 1st in New York State).
Even in criminal matters people do this.
The great Watts (spelling alert) riot in L.A. in 1965 – the L.A. Times reacted by writing that there should be yet MORE welfare state spending and “civil rights” regulations.
And, in the end, even Ronald Reagan went along with it – he was elected in 1966, but in 1967 accepted a tax increase rather than just let cities like L.A. go bankrupt (the State of California handing out lots of taxpayer money to the city governments).
The Detroit riots of 1967 are the most blatent case.
There was a Progrssive Mayor (full of civil rights and welfare state schemes), the population that rioted owned their own homes (and they were decent houses) and unemployment was not a serious problemin Detroit before the 1967 riot.
Yet almost everyone decided after the riot that Detroit needed MORE government spending.
It is quite possible for a man to be mugged and then say “this proves there should be more government training programs”.
I wish people did not think like this – but sometimes they do.
Although, as you say, it is normally the demented “elite” (the media and academia) who think like this – not the actual person who has been mugged.
So I am not quite as grim as F.A. Hayek – i.e. blaming it on ingrained collectivist instincts that humans evolved as members of hunter gatherer packs. There is a bit of that – but humans are agents we do (contrary to Hayek) have free will.
Complex advanced cultures are not just about evolution – there is a bit of human reasoning in there as well.
In short neither Descartes, or Ludwig Von Mises – who was the man Hayek was really attacking, are as bad as Hayek thought they were.
It is possible for most people to understand the basic rules of political economy – it really is.
IF – these things are explained to them.
But with education and the media as they are…..
Midwesterner:
On the national health insurance – yes I am quite certain that this is the fault of the Canadians! Yet I do what I can to combat this – I periodically set my students homework in which I ask them to consider why, for example, the GP at their local clinic will prescribe them medicine for the vaguest of symptoms (e.g. stomach-ache) without even carrying out a cursory physical examination or asking for details of alergies etc.
“I think the key is to prevent constitutional government from ever having authority over its constituents.”
‘Ever’ is a long time Midwesterner! Better take out your garbage before then!
I have been a regular visitor to samizdata for about five years, but I comment much less frequently now than I used to – I’m just happy that messers De Havilland, Marks, yourself and others have been putting out the message for everyone to see every single day in each of those five years. Samizdata really is worth more than money.
Paul Marks:
Yes I imagine Mr Flew would not have been the worst of company to be in at an academic conference! As I said, I haven’t read any of his works – but I have a vague idea of how to get around a philosophy tome or two, so I may check out his “Equality in Liberty & Justice” when it is convenient for me to do that. Your recommendation may be appreciated in time by more people than just myself, who knows? I am a teacher, and I do tend to pass on things like this to ‘difficult’ students…
“Although, as you say, it is normally the demented “elite” (the media and academia) who think like this – not the actual person who has been mugged.”
Yes this is what I mean, although I realise there are also some people who might get mugged and still cling to such demented statist nonsense. As I said – the inextinguishable power of stupidity!
“It is possible for most people to understand the basic rules of political economy – it really is. IF – these things are explained to them.”
Oh I agree – perhaps I myself am an example of that. However, I find in my experience that the hard-sell approach is not always practically possible (or even desirable). Mr Pearce occassionally writes about Hollywood movies and their often left-wing moral subtexts, bemoaning the lack of such libertarian-themed films (aside from that truly awful film ‘V for Vendetta’). I think he is right to point this out, and it is surely the case that voices more in tune with the cause of liberty can be successful in the arts – and I don’t just mean Hollywood movies.
Antony Flew’s non political philosophy works are also well worth reading.
For example, on basic reasoning for the layman – Straight and Crooked thinking.
And on agency – free will. For example, Agency and Necesessity.
I would also suggest that his introduction to philosophy is the best work to give a layman (much better than more famous works).
However, I sometimes think that Professor Flew could have been an even more interesting thinking if had gone to Oxford before World War II – when Harold Prichard (to me the most interesting of the Oxford Realists – the last being Sir William David Ross) was still teaching.
However, without the wider experience of the world Antony Flew might have been just another Logical Positivist or another Marxist (as so many Oxford Undergraduates in the 1930’s were).
As if was his politics were standard Atlee Labour Party in the 1940’s – it was a long learning process.
On Hollywood and popular culture generally.
The late Dr Chris Tame often said that “Bootleg Romanticism” in films and popular fiction, was a refuge for pro freedom and pro reason ideas – which had been driven out of “serious” literature.
Sadly I think he was just observing, without knowing it, a time delay.
The “commanding heights” of accademia fell to the statists long ago (although, even only a few years ago, there used to be a token conservative in most college departments – these days even this much real “diversity” is rare). But popular culture still contained a lot of the attitudes that Chris Tame described.
However, as you know, these days Hollywood films nearly all reflect knee jerk leftist attitudes – as do television shows, and the newspaper critics who judge those shows.
People tell me there is still much pro freedom and pro reason stuff in popular science fiction writing – but these are not the writers who get the publicity.
Even fantasy writing has fallen a long way from Tolkien (with his assumptions of gold and silver coins, free prices and private property in land).