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]
|
When I read The Wealth of Nations for the first time, I liked Adam Smith’s idea that lecturers would respond better to their students if the students directly paid their lecturers. But I wasn’t sure if it could work in the world of modern higher education. Well, it turns out that when Madsen Pirie was a lecturer at Hillsdale College in Michigan, he was indeed – in part – paid according to how well the students thought he did his job. And, as he explains on the ASI Blog, it seemed to work very well.
Of course, the less-radical introduction of tuition fees in Britain is doing wonders. Lecturers who I’ve spoken to say that students are starting to expect more as it is their money that is being wasted. And universities know that American students – who pay much higher fees – will sue if they don’t get what they are paying for. Anyone who cares about the quality of university education should write a thank you note to Tony Blair.
Today my salary appeared in my bank account. I am definitely happier than I was yesterday, when my bank account contained a very little indeed. The conventional wisdom is that I should not be happier. “Money does not make you happier,” the anti-progress crowd say.
But if that were true, then Africans who get clean water for the first time are not any happier than when their children were dying from disease. OK, maybe the anti-progressites merely mean that once you get to a certain basic income, earning any more from that point does not make you happier. Really?
Let’s take a young family who pay fees to send their children to school. It is a bit of a struggle paying the fees. If they had a bit more money, they would not have to worry about it. Would that do nothing for their happiness? Or let’s say environmentalists had their way and they had less money. The fees would become much more of a burden. Surely that would make them less happy?
That’s the view put forward by Madsen Pirie in this blog posting and an accompanying essay. Madsen also says that the Conservative Party might not be all that conservative at the moment. Of Hayek, he writes:
It is necessary to draw this distinction between the conservative disposition as a personality trait and the political tradition which bears the same name, because while Hayek eschews the former he can be accommodated within the latter. Hayek’s own desire to move towards a freer society fits in well with the conservative preference for a society whose outcome is the product of actions by its members, rather than that of rules imposed by leaders.
Interesting take – do read it with Hayek’s own essay on the subject.
The humbling of the WTO not only worsens economic prospects for the developing countries (as well as for the rest of the world) but also shifts the balance of global political power from poor to rich – perhaps decisively, and who knows for how many years. That is what the developing countries’ champions are so busy celebrating.
– The Economist
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
– H. L. Mencken
Earlier in the week I heard Harry Binswanger of the Ayn Rand Institute on the radio argue that Labor Day in the US should celebrate the achievements of man’s mind, rather than main’s muscles. For me, the most interesting bit of the show was when Binswanger pointed out that free trade benefits everyone. The interviewer jumped on this and pointed to the US’s huge “trade deficit” with China. Binswanger started to debunk this, but was cut off by a break for the adverts.
Now he has an article up on Capitalism Magazine explaining his position, entitled: ‘Buy American’ is UN-American. He writes:
The lucrative workings of free markets do not depend upon lines drawn on a map. The economic advantages of international commerce are the same as those of interstate, intercity, and crosstown commerce. And if we kept crosstown trade accounts, the “trade deficits” that would appear would be as meaningless as are our international “trade deficits.” Fact confirms theory: the U.S. ran a trade “deficit” practically every year of the nineteenth century, the time of our most rapid economic progress.
If you are still worried about America’s “trade deficit”, here’s something you should get your head around: each year, America exports exactly the same value as it imports. The “trade deficit” merely refers to part of trade – the current account of the balance of payments. It ignores completely the capital account of the balance of payments. Because successful countries tend to get a lot of investment coming into the country – which is recorded on the capital account – it looks superficially as though these countries have “deficits”, despite the fact that they continue to get richer. In short, a “trade deficit” is a meaningless term.
Suppose you met someone who argued that there is a moral right to sex. He said that it is unfair that some people don’t have sex at all, particularly those who are less well endowed physically. Thus the government should make sexually successful people have sex with those who are missing out.
You would probably think the argument used is outrageous. It would be an act of violation. It uses compulsion. It treats people as a means to an end, rather than as an end in and of itself.
Now let’s look at schooling. Some people argue that there should only be comprehensive schools. Grammar and private schools should be abolished. They point out that if less academically gifted children spend time with people who are high academic achievers, it raises their ambitions and helps them to be successful in life. But this right to have bright people at your school, is just like the right to have sex without the other party’s consent. It is violation of the child. It treats the child’s life as a means to an end, rather than as an end in and of itself. It is based on the principle of slavery.
I don’t think philosophically there’s a meeting of minds between Ayn Rand and Our Glorious Leader, Tony Blair:
I am not my brother’s keeper. – Ayn Rand
I am my brother’s keeper. – Tony Blair
You might think that being your brother’s keeper is fine. But when Tony Blair says that he is his brother’s keeper, what he actually means is that he wants to force everyone else to be this. The statement isn’t about him at all. If he really subscribed to the moral code he advocates, surely he would donate most of his income to the poor. Then again, when you hear middle-class socialists demanding higher taxes, and you ask them how much extra they personally should pay, they often reply back that only “the rich” – people richer than they are – should pay more.
For the benefit of our student readers, here is a cartoon pointing out some of the ideas being put forward by university anthropology departments.
Judging cultures is not the same as judging races. One’s race is unchosen; no-one can be condemned for membership of a racial group. However, culture is chosen, so a person can be condemned for their acceptance of an immoral culture. The equivocation of culture with race is one of the commonest forms of racism today: it is based on the racist view that one’s race determines one’s ideas and outlook.
– Andrew Medworth
Thinking has been given a bad press. Feeling did not devise a law of gravity: thinking did.
– Madsen Pirie, quoted in a Guardian article on ’emotional literacy’
David Sucher asks: “why are libertarians so much wittier than liberals?”
The answer is that the sense of humour comes from a libertarian understanding of the world. Statists see a world of oppression and pain, and get depressed because of global warming and evil multinationals. Libertarians see the world in a different way, seeing the bad in the world, but also seeing the great advances that humankind has experienced over the past few hundred years. They have greater confidence in humanity, progress and the future. So they can afford to not take life completely seriously. The sense of humour is profoundly libertarian. (Thanks to Madsen Pirie for giving me the idea for this post.)
|
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.
|