A Regulating for Growth Bill – a slogan up there with copulating for virginity and drinking for sobriety…
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil Liberties
Commentary
EconomicsPolitics |
Samizdata quote of the day – Copulating for virginityMay 14th, 2026 |
 26 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – Copulating for virginityLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Digital ID cards that will be voluntary – any illegals likely to apply?
Voluntary as long as you don’t want to leave your house or use your computer.
It is right up there with the promise that California’s 5% tax on unrealized assets is a one time thing only.
“I promise I’ll pull out in time.”
They’re all sort of an IQ test.
Is she also going to increase the chocolate ration?
Jacob Rees Mogg also made this point – adding regulations does not improve the economy, it makes the economy worse than it otherwise would be.
Ludwig Von Mises called (in the last section of his book “Socialism”) this interventionism (this pushing of regulations) “Destructionism” – contrary to what people such as Prime Ministers such as Balfour and Chamberlain in Britain, or the “Christian Social” Party in Austria (a party that Mises himself de facto supported – as the alternatives were even worse, the alternatives being the National Socialists and the Marxists) believed – more interventionism (“Social Reform”) was not an “alternative” to socialism – because these added regulations (and added government spending – the other part of “Social Reform”) made the economy, and society, worse-than-would-otherwise-have-been-the-case – thus boosting the socialists, not holding them back.
Herbert Spencer made the same point back in the 1880s – in his “Man Versus the State” – “Social Reform”, be it more regulations or more government spending (or both) makes things worse than-would-otherwise-be-the-case.
Indeed the left may (perhaps) KNOW this.
For example, it became obvious that Mayor Curley, the early 20th century Mayor of Boston Massachusetts, KNEW (he KNEW) that his policies of more government spending and more regulations were causing harm to the economy of the city – and leading to more people becoming dependent on the government.
Mayor Curley reasoned that the more people who were unemployed and in desperate need – the more they would support him at election time as he would promise that the city government would feed the starving, and-so-on. If people were prosperous they would not need him – so he set out (deliberately) to increase to poverty and distress – and it worked, he got reelected (repeatedly).
This is called the “Curley Effect” in local government – increase poverty and distress (on purpose) and then pose as the saviour of the starving – it is morally problematic, but politically effective.
This may well be what Labour is doing at a national level – and other governments around the world may be doing the same thing, not following terrible policies by accident – but on purpose, or it may be ignorance. It is hard to know for sure.
One interesting development is that the Labour government has said that it will accept European Union regulations automatically – without any real debate or voting in Parliament.
This means two things – politically it means that the United Kingdom is not an independent country (if your laws come from outside you are not independent), and economically it means the economy will continue to decay.
One of the main policies of “Wes” Streeting is that Capital Gains Tax and Income Tax should be at the same level as Income Tax.
That does NOT mean that the higher levels of Income Tax would be reduced – it means that the Capital Gains Tax would be increased.
A top rate of Capital Gains Tax of 45% – that would kill what is left of the British economy.
One interesting development is that the Labour government has said that it will accept European Union regulations automatically – without any real debate or voting in Parliament.
Indeed, Paul, and it sort of fits with what seems to be Sir Keir Starmer’s philosophy – to the extent this man has one – which is to impose legal rulings, even in defiance of democratic consent, if it is mandated by a court, preferably one that is above and beyond the UK. Remember, the UK has only paused the disgraceful Chagos Islands farce because President Trump has objected, and not because this government has changed its mind for more substantive reasons.
Starmer likes to cosplay as a sort of sensible chap in a suit, with his neat haircut and robotic way of talking, and that’s how he got the job after the Magic Marxist Grandpa, Corbyn, was ousted. But no-one should be in any doubt what a socialist Starmer is, and how he wants to impose socialism on the UK, with an overlay of European regulatory force on top of it. It is as if he regards the hammering that Labour suffered in the local elections as like a fleshwound, to quote from a Monty Python film. The delusion is so big you can probably see it from space.
The fix is in – Brexit and the vote of a decade ago, is being treated with contempt. And no-one should be fooled into thinking it will change if any of the unimpressive replacements takes over – Angela Rayner is a hard leftist who wants to destroy property rights, Milliband is a Green fanatic, and Burnham is a Big Government man who does the whole “I am from ooop north and you can trust me” sctick that will not survive contact with reality.
God this is depressing.
For a long time copulation was the only way to increase the number of virgins, and today it is still by far the main way.
Regulation in the modern sense – the imposition of restrictions, partial prohibitions, and requirements that cause deadweight losses – does not and cannot increase growth. The old meaning, the one that still exists as the fossil “to make regular” when applied to the guts, where it does not have the implication of “cause constipation,” can (but isn’t guaranteed to) aid growth.
Have they seen what’s happened in Scotland over the last ten years? It used to be that if I saw something suspicious I could phone my local cop shop and speak to someone who knew the area. Now I get through to a call centre in Aberdeen.
So I don’t bother.
I’m a Quaker Warden (yeah, I know…) and we needed the guttering replaced recently. Getting that done is my job. Fine. I know this place because I have been here for 19 years (you don’t get that for murder) but the rules and regs on a 300+ year old building in a conservation area (two sets of sometimes contradictory rules and regs) are Byzantine. I was obliquely threatened with jail if I went uPVC and the alternative was lead which is verbotten (for good reason). Eventually it got sorted. The details are too tedious to recount but basically meant getting in a specialist contractor who could “finesse” things. It should have been so much simpler. This applies to all sorts of businesses around here. That is why we have loads of rotting ex-pubs. In the name of conserving heritage buildings the law means they let things go to wrack and ruin because of “…hors d’oeuvres… vich must be obeyed at all times vitout qvestion!”
It’s tragic but it keeps the Walter Pecks in their jobs.
I could go on.
That would explain the ludicrous Net Zero policy. Even if you buy wholesale into the CO2 is evil nonsense it makes no sense as Britain’s contribution to the supposed problem is so minute. In any case, cutting CO2 emissions while paying the Chinese to emit CO2 on our behalf is even more ridiculous.
I hear Starmer is threatening a general election if they push him out to make the Labour MPs fear for their seats. “Keep me or I’ll burn it all down”. All the more reason to support Starmer getting the boot. It’d be the one good thing he has done for the country.
It is interesting why he is so committed to staying. I mean most PMs would have resigned months ago, and he is effectively powerless right now. So what is his motivation for hanging around?
I’ve often thought that the difference between “old” (Pre-Blair) Labour and “new” (Blair onwards) Labour is that “old” Labour sought to control the economy via nationalisation, union power and redistribution where “new” Labour seeks to do so through quangoes, bureaucracy / regulations, public sector union power and redistribution. The bills we see being put forward are a continuation of this.
Whilst some people claim that Blair was the heir to Thatcher presumably because he didn’t reverse her privatisations or her reductions of union power, it seems obvious to me he instead increased bureaucracy, devolved power from the government of the day & Parliament to numerous quangoes (alongside the elected bodies he set up), and subjected more and more areas of life to regulations administered by these quangoes. This has continued under every PM since. Hence we get the online safety act handing over regulation of our internet activities to Ofcom, a policy pursued by the Tories (& Lib Dems) and completed by Labour, who are now expanding the powers of Ofcom even further.
What we have isn’t the free market, but rather bureaucratic corporatism as the regulations benefit big business by reducing competition (via incereased market entry costs), and the state and big business often get quite cosy with this arrangement. Meanwhile markets get distorted, the price mechanisms fail to work (due to distortions and then caps and othe rprice controls being introduced) and the state continues to expand its power and the amount of tax it extracts from the private economy on a steady basis.
Johnathan Pearce – yes indeed, it is a horrible situation.
Even in my most paranoid moments did I think they would show such open contempt for democratic governance, they make no secret of their plans to reduce the public to serfdom.
“I promise I’ll pull out in time”?
And with the usual certainty, they will:
“Still respect you in the morning”.
Because, quote:
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help”
(“The nine scariest words in the English Language”: Thank-you, Pres. Ronald Reagan).
And, Paul Marks:
“Paranoia” is an “irrational fear”.
When THEY are really out to get you, it is NOT “paranoia”.
Bruce Gentner – that is indeed my defense Sir.
For example, when the leader of the Liberal Democrats accuses the Jews of “genocide” (repeatedly comes out with this Blood Libel) it is not unreasonable to fear that the “Liberals” are going back to the gutter politics of Hobson (whose early 1900s book claiming the British Empire was a conspiracy of Jewish Capitalists, recently got a new edition – with a preface written by Jeremy Corbyn) and John Burns – the late 19th and early 20th century thug who called on rioters to loot bakeries (seemingly unable to grasp that this would mean that the bakeries would close) and demanded ever more power for “Collective Bargaining” – seemingly unable to grasp that this would lead to higher and higher UNEMPLOYMENT.
To people such such as John Burns economics had no objective truth – it was just a cover for the interests of Jewish Capitalists.
Hobson was the same – and was pushing Credit Money and wild government spending long before J.M. Keynes (another “liberal”).
How did John Burns become a socialist (of the “liberal” sort)? His own account was that the arguments of J.S. Mill against socialism were not strong enough.
In reality Mr Mill accepted the FALSE theories upon which socialism depends – the Labour Theory of Value and Ricardo’s theory of land. Hence his opposition to land owners, and his opposition to the owners of mines, factories and so on – arguing for workers coops and so on.
This fake choice “Marx or Mill” was still being trotted out in my university days – which is why academics were baffled by people like me – who rejected BOTH. For example, it was fine to study Edmund Burke – but AGREEING with him on such things as money (ironically J.S. Mill was also “Hard Money” person) shocked academics to their core – no modern person could AGREE with Edmund Burke.
These days academics are far less tolerant than they were in “my day” – these days they would just expel someone like me.
And now we have Andrew “Andy” Burnham – who bases his politics on Leo XIII’s Encyclical of 1891 – like Joseph “Joe the Big Guy” Biden, Mr Burnham rejects Catholic teaching on such things as homosexual acts – but supports the economic claims made by various Popes.
The Encyclical of 1891 claimed that capitalism had reduced wages, in reality wages were higher than they had ever been in history, indeed had reduced them to “starvation” level. It also claimed that the way to deal with this was more power for trade unions – ignoring the real effect of governments giving unions more and more power – i.e. higher and higher UNEMPLOYMENT.
What J.M. Keynes, bizarrely, called an evil “Juggernaut”, i.e. the basic principle that supply and demand should determine wages, is rejected by this “Social Teaching” – as are some other basic logical principles of economics.
It is NOT socialism (that is a thing of more recent Popes – Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV, not Leo XIII), but it is not true either.
I should have stated that today (May the 15th) is the anniversary of the 1891 Encyclical – which starts with false claims (that living standards had declined – when they had improved and were better than ever before in history, and also makes the utterly bizarre claim that “moral degeneracy” had increased – as if 1891 was somehow more immoral than 1791 or 1491) and then comes out with false solutions to the, false, problems it claims – false solutions that may have been influenced by Cardinal Manning of England, an early pusher of the harmful fallacies of what is called “Social Justice”.
Ricardo’s theory of land may (perhaps) owe something to the false understanding of the Book of Genesis shown by John Locke (as opposed to thinkers such as Hugo Grotius) and others – namely that God gave all land to humanity in-common – and that, therefore, private ownership of land needs to be “justified” by either “as much and as good left for others” (impossible), or some form of regular financial payments to the landless (highly damaging and not sustainable).
This thinking is clearly visible in the work of Thomas Paine (strongly admired by John Burns – as was the socialist writer Robert Owen who inspired socialist communities in the United States – all of which failed), Thomas Paine being the founder of the American left.
The themes of modern fashions, including Credit Money (which Mr Paine denounces if it is issued by a King – but supports if it is issued by an elected government – a distinction that makes no sense, indeed is demented – being robbed or cheated by an elected government is NOT better than being robbed or cheated by a King) can be found in Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine is indeed the founder of the American left – his statements that the best government is the least government (statements beloved by modern conservatives) are contradicted when one reads his writings – where he comes out in support of all sorts of benefits and public services (supposedly to be financed by taxation of landowners), and his general attitude, contempt for tradition – and contempt for Christianity, fits the left as well.
“So if Mr Paine is the founder of the American left – who is the founder of the American right?” – I think that a good case can be made that the founder of the American right was Founding Father Roger Sherman.
Although, come to think of it, a case could be made that the founder of the American right was a man who never visited America – Edmund Burke, whose defense of not taxing or imposing edicts “laws” on the Americans, had more influence on British opinion than anyone else – undermining the case for total war.
Clearly it is madness to fight a war against new taxes and edicts (“laws”) imposed by a government, only to then (in Thomas Paine fashion) create an unlimited new government over the 13 colonies – which will impose new taxes and edicts.
Since at least the 1930s, it was, de facto, declared that the Federal Government had no limits on it – not its government spending, taxation or regulations.
This modern government is an abomination.
And the British government (which is based on the same false principle of unlimited government – and takes it further in practice) is even worse.
I recall Gordon Brown promising us “compulsory voluntary service”
Lee Moore – Gordon Brown and Rishi Sunak seem to have been on the same page on that one.
I remember Rishi Sunak supporting conscription (without using the word) – but also walking out in the middle of the 80th Anniversary of D. Day – leaving Mr Cameron to stand in for him with Presidents Biden and Macron.
Mr Sunak was not ill – he just seemed to get bored with the service and went off for an interview with a journalist.
This was in the middle of the 2024 General Election campaign – the lack of any political sense, as well as the lack of any sense of common decency towards a service for the soldiers who died on D.Day, was just astonishing.
But then this was the same man who stood up in the House of Commons (also in 2024) and declared that the Covid injections (which were NOT vaccines) were “safe” – when he knew very well they had injured and killed people.
By the way – the Reform Party is also rather quiet on this matter, and GB News (having got rid of the people who told the truth) declares that the rushing out of the injections (which did NOT protect people from Covid) was a great achievement of the government led by Prime Minister Johnson.
Paul:
I think Sunak’s problem was that he was only British by law, that is to say, he happened to be born here, of parents who were economic migrants. He could just as easily have been born in Australia or Canada, or indeed the USA, where he held a green card for many years.
The upshot is that he is a man who lives in Britain (for now), and is legally British (although his wife is Indian and has no intention of becoming British), but he has no real feeling for Britain. No Briton with an ounce of decency would have gone to Normandy on D-Day, and then skipped off early to do an interview with ITV. Only someone without any connection to Britain and our history could have done such a thing.
But Sunak was the man Conservative MPs wanted. They voted for him, but the bovine, ignorant, swivel-eyed Conservative membership elected Liz Truss instead. So they soon got rid of her, and ushered in the glorious reign of Rishi Sunak, which ended in most of them losing their seats. An odd way to run a country, some might think.
JohnK.
I think it is simpler – he was no good, and some people who go back many generations on these islands are no good either.
Such as former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt – still (incredibly) a Member of the House of Commons.
Paul:
I agree he was no good as a prime minister, though head and shoulders above the present incumbent. But he was a managerial type, someone who could, perhaps, at best manage Britain’s decline. At least Liz Truss was trying to turn things round.
His behaviour on D-Day just told me that, although he is a British citizen, he has no deep, innate feelings for our country and its history. It should have been a privilege to have met some of the few remaining veterans of that day, but he scurried off for an interview with ITV. Astonishing.
As for Jeremy Hunt, I can only agree.
Johnk – it was deeply disturbing.
As was his standing up in the House of Commons and denying that the Covid injections (which were not vaccines – they did not protect people from getting the disease, passing on the disease, or dying from the disease) were dangerous – that they had injured and killed people, when they had.
This was in 2024 – when it was obvious that the injections had injured and killed people, that they were not “safe” as he repeatedly said they were. He is a morally bad person.