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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – what we have lost edition “Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.”
A J P Taylor’s English History, 1914-1945. From the first page.
(Hat-tip: Institute of Economic Affairs at its new site. It manages to tie its insights about licensing laws and trade to the glorious English football victory over Mexico last night in the latter country.)
|
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.
|
“You can have open borders OR a welfare state, but not both”
Yes – although government had been growing, even as a proportion of the economy, since the 1870s, it was still fairly limited in 1914. Although it had gained control of about 90% of education – with late 19th century Britain imitating what Prussia and then Austria had done in the late 18th century.
Even Scotland moved from its historic local church (“Kirk”) controlled schools (although this system did have the backing of statutes) to a state school system.
As for immigration – when the only real poor relief, for an able bodied person of working age, was the Workhouse (not even that in most of Scotland before 1845 – because most of Scotland before then had no Poor Law tax at-all) and no anti discrimination regulations, mass immigration was not really a problem.
It should also be noted that before the rise of government benefits and public services (and anti discrimination regulations) immigration to the United States from Latin American nations was fairly small – although the southern border was wide open.
Certainly you could come to Britain from anywhere in the world – my great-grandfather did (most likely because he could not afford to travel to the United States), but you got no hand-outs when you got here, and if people did not want to employ you, or rent you accommodation – they did not have to (that was true up to 1965).
One of the first things that libertarians used to be taught is that free migration will not work where there are public services and benefits – and it certainly will not work if there are special regulations and policies designed to help some ethnic groups at the expense of the natives.
For example, arresting and handcuffing someone who has been stabbed several times – because he is white and the police are now trained to take the word of nonwhites over whites (“anti racism is not about treating everyone the same” – as the trainers admit), or watching a white person being attacked by a gang (in Birmingham) and doing nothing against the gang – but then the police move in and physically attack-the-victim – and then arrest him.
With endless public services and benefits, and crazy “laws” and policies, a multi ethnic society (which did not really exist in 1914 – outside the East End of London – and even there was mostly white-English) will not work.
Although it may,perhaps, work in a strictly limited government society.
On the economic side there were very disturbing signs even before 1914.
For example, unions had been put mostly above the law – partly by the Act of 1875 (which legalized paramilitary tactics such as picket-lines to obstruct the entrances of a place of business) and even more by the Act of 1906 – which meant that Britain “had to” introduce unemployment benefit (1911) which nations such as France and Germany did not have, indeed British union law was possibly the worst-in-the-world after 1906 – it was thought (at least from 1875 – Disraeli) that British industry was so strong it could withstand any level of “social reform” to (supposedly) help “the masses” – a very dangerous attitude.
The defeat of Gladstone in 1874 meant that the promised abolition of Income Tax did not happen – and it started to go up (as did local taxation – after the Disraeli measure of 1875 that made local councils undertake about 40 different functions – whether or not local taxpayers wanted the council to do these things) – with Progressive Income Tax being pushed through in the early 1890s – “we are all socialists now” as that flippant man Sir William Harcourt (who conspired to push Gladstone into retirement) put it.
By the way – a friend of mine down in Hitchin used to work as a researcher for A.J.P. Taylor.
“He always had his conclusion first – and asked for evidence to support it, he did not want evidence that opposed his conclusion”.
That was presented to be me as a charming feature of A.J.P. Taylor – I do not find it charming.
But, in this case, the basic thesis Taylor was presenting is valid – Britain was a much less statist society (a much freer society) in 1914 than it later became.
So was Sweden and other nations that did NOT go to war in 1914. The trend towards greater statism, the decline of liberty, can be seen both in the countries that went to war – and in the countries that did not.