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]
|
Sticking with the religious theme, I am puzzled by the furore regarding Mel Gibson’s acclaimed flick, The Passion of The Christ
An American Jewish leader met with Vatican officials to ask them to publicly restate church teachings on Jesus’ crucifixion. Anti-Defamation League Chair Abraham Foxman says that Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” contradicts the Vatican’s repudiation of the charge that the Jews killed Jesus. A top Vatican official who met with Foxman said no such statement is planned. Archbishop John Foley, who heads the Vatican’s social-communications office, instead praised the film and said he found nothing anti-Semitic in it.
The way I see it, a couple thousand years ago a Jewish man called Jesus, most of whose followers were Jews, was executed on the basis of trumped up charges. This was done with the grudging sufferance of the Imperial Roman authorities at the behest of certain powerful Jewish political and community leaders. Thus it would be fair to say he was killed by Jews.
This is of course not at all the same thing as saying he was killed by the Jews: that makes about as much sense as saying “John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the Caucasians”.
This is just history, guys! What is the big deal?
The Catholic Communications Service for England & Wales have delivered a nifty rejection of a host of the intellectual bits of the Catholic church’s philosophical underpinnings which actually make sense, via a press release called Catholic Bishops: Why we must render unto Caesar. This pertains to a booklet called ‘Taxation for the Common Good’.
Yet again the church in England shows it has no problem superceding individual moral choice (there is no other kind really because a decision cannot be moral if it is not the product of individual free will) by using the collective force of the state.
Moreover taking the property of others is just fine by them. The problem is that when they say the word ‘moral’, they do not actually know what that means. Hint: it is not the same as ‘manners’ or ‘social conventions’ and is certainly not the same issue as ‘desirable outcomes’. If some members of a church (i.e. Catholic bishops in England and Wales) find the rarified air of pure moral theory too taxing compared to issuing pronouncements on plain ol’ politics, perhaps they are in the wrong line of work.
The Tenth Commandment:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s
Presumably this has now been updated:
The Tenth Commandment, revised:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s… unless the manner in which thou shall covet these things is intermediated by the state
If the Catholic church wants to spurn its role as a persuader of individual moral decisions and instead be just another collectivist political advocacy group, albeit one with rather interesting buildings and distinctively dressed employees, that is fine by me… but it should not then be surprised if people treat it as just another shrill NGO or perhaps think of it as being rather like that paragon of virtues, the United Nations.
For a far more interesting discussion regarding Christianity and Liberty than you will ever find on the arid pages of the Catholic Communication Service, take a peek at the interesting Volconvo site.
The week’s edition of the Economist is a rather good one. It is a publication which although generally on the side of the angels, often infuriates me with its statist meta-contextual inconsistencies. Likewise they are at their worst when describing broader civil liberties issues, particularly self-defence. That said it is a magazine which is often a bloody good read.
The leader article is called The new jobs migration and discusses a subject dear to my heart: free trade and outsourcing.
The fact that foreign competition now impinges on services as well as manufacturing raises no new issues of principle whatever. If a car can be made more cheaply in Mexico, it should be. If a telephone enquiry can be processed more cheaply in India, it should be. All such transactions raise real incomes on both sides, as resources are advantageously redeployed, with added investment and growth in the exporting country, and lower prices in the importing country. Yes, trade is a positive-sum game. (Adam Smith did think of that.)
Great stuff. When people argue that they just want to ‘protect American (or British/French/Japanese) jobs’, what they are really demanding is that force be used to ensure that other people’s purchasing power within their own nation not be allowed to grow because of their own sectional interests.
When people look at cases of folks loosing their jobs in the USA or UK because an Indian or Philippine call centre can do it cheaper, and then call for this to stop, they are not looking beyond the first causal link of costs and benefits. Moreover, they are ignoring that we live in an extended and (largely) capitalist society which is extraordinarily good at dealing with such problems when the ‘invisible hand’ is free to work its ‘magic’. Some people are losing their jobs, ergo, this is bad and must be stopped… this rather like concluding as the world seems intuitively to be flat, therefore it must be flat. By this logic all labour saving devices should have been declared ’employment destroying devices’ and banned long ago.
There is also another splendid article in the United States section called The Great Hollowing-out Myth which roundly rubbishes the notion that outsourcing damages the US (or other) economy and overall employment prospects (alas that article is available only via on-line subscription or in the print version):
Contrary to what John Edwards, John Kerry and George Bush seem to think, outsourcing actually sustains American jobs
[…]
Yes, individuals will be hurt in the process, and the focus on public policy should be directed towards providing a safety net for them, as well as ensuring that Americans have education to match jobs being created. By contrast, regarding globalisation as the enemy, as Mr Edwards does often and Messrs Kerry and Bush both do by default, is a much greater threat to America’s economic health that any Indian software programmer.
Run, do not walk, to your nearest newsstand.
So Britain will indeed remain more enlightened than the Continent, allowing people from the new EU member nations in Eastern Europe to live here: the proviso being that they will not be allowed to partake of state benefits for a few years.
So in other words, they are welcome (and they certainly are welcome by me) to come here and work just so long as they leave the theft of other people’s money (via the state, of course), to native English people or resident French, Germans, Italians etc… or our very own local Arab terrorist supporters, come to think of it.
On a related note, it never ceases to amuse me to hear how politicos can make dissembling use of language. Following an attack by that paragon of liberal values and freedom, Tory leader Michael Howard, in which he asked “Will the government do what other countries are doing, and what the prime minister said he was looking at, will he impose transitional controls on immigration from the accession countries or not”, Tony Blair replied:
“The position as I set it out is this. There is free movement of people after May 1, free movement of workers, however, is a concession we are prepared to grant – but not in circumstances where it can be abused,” said the prime minister […] The prime minister insisted there was no contradiction in government policy. The “free movement of people is distinct from the free movement of workers” he argued.
And this is presumably because workers are not… people? Anyway, I thought it was only a problem when the people in question turn out to not to be ‘workers’. In reality, most of the ‘Old’ EU is not allowing free movement at all but rather highly regulated and restricted movement.
CNetnews.com has an article about radio frequency identification that has become a hot concept, promising to streamline how businesses track and stock inventory, warning that companies may need to rethink their software infrastructures in order to make RFID work as advertised, say analysts and technology makers.
Early resistance to RFID adoption has come from civil liberties groups, which fear that the technology could lead to unprecedented surveillance of consumers. But industry watchers and technology vendors have identified a more mundane potential problem for RFID adopters. They warn that in the rush to launch RFID projects, businesses may be overlooking a crucial element necessary to allow the technology to work smoothly: Making sure back-end databases and business applications can handle the massive amounts of information generated by RFID-enabled systems. Kara Romanow, an analyst at AMR Research in Boston said:
Companies are going to have problems when they drop RFID on top of shaky infrastructures. In order to do RFID right, to see a true return, the first thing (a company) needs to do is finish a data synchronization initiative, and do it right.
Romanow believes that there are two popular scenarios among businesses working to develop RFID capabilities today: those doing just enough to keep demanding companies like Wal-Mart as a customer, and those with real long-term vision. According to the analyst, the first group will garner few returns other than short-term bragging rights to getting RFID up and running, while the second group will see true return on investment down the road.
I rarely write articles about ongoing discussions in the comment sections of Samizdata.net, but I think this is an appropriate continuation of the discourse.
Whilst I find being referred to as ‘dear leader’ a bit disconcerting, Frank McGahon does ask the questions which have vexed me for quite a long time. I refer to myself as a ‘social individualist’, as does Gabriel Syme. I also have no problem with ‘minarchist’. Others tend to call me a ‘libertarian’. Whatever… the general thrust of what I think is no secret to any regular reader of this blog. I see the state as at best a necessary evil and generally just an evil; I see constrained democracy as a tool to secure liberty, not an end in and of itself; I am all for free markets and ‘Austrian’ economics; I regard several property as the key underpinning of any civilization worth having; I see individual liberty as first amongst many virtues. Label all that as you wish.
So how does a person with such views, i.e. someone who is profoundly at odds with the system of regulatory democratic governance that prevails in the First World, and who regards so much of underpins everyday life in a legal sense as essentially illegitimate, act to advance his or her objectives? Or more particularly, how does one take action without legitimising what they regard as nothing less than threat-backed theft? How does one act without either fatally compromising one’s beliefs or alternatively retreating into intellectually pure ineffectiveness?
This is a question I keep kicking around… over and over again. The problem with voting Tory (or in many states in the USA, voting Republican) is that it rewards both outright lying when they describe themselves as ‘the party of free trade’ and does little more than slow the rot of regulatory statism rather than reverse it. If they know you will just hold your nose and vote for them regardless just to keep Labour out (or the Democrats out), what possible motivation do they have to actually pander to your views in any meaningful way? → Continue reading: Going for the zeitgest
Our most splendid Frogman has added another wallpaper to the Samizdata.net wallpaper page (scroll down to the bottom of the page). Check them out!
A 365 day per year strike of course, but I suppose that is too much to hope for.
Tens of thousands of civil servants of sundry favours are walking out in all manner of protests at plans to cut the vast throng of half a million or so people employed by the state by a paltry 80,000.
Yes, I realise those people will get paid for the time they are off the job but I wonder what might happen if folks noticed that the world did not come to an end just because chunks of the state stopped working? Perhaps people might actually get used to the idea of living without them.
More and faster, please.
Far from replacing newspapers and magazines, the best blogs – and the best are very clever – have become guides to them, pointing to unusual sources and commenting on familiar ones. They have become new mediators for the informed public. Although the creators of blogs think of themselves as radical democrats, they are a new Tocquevillean elite. Much of the web has moved in this direction because the wilder, bigger, and more chaotic it becomes, the more people will need help navigating it
– Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom
For a wonderful account of the BBC’s world famous dispassion and impartiality, check this out.
Some views are more welcome than others it seems.
“It’s not the age, it’s the mileage.”
Like so many other bloggers have done, I could not resist generating a map of the places I have visited (though I feel India and Bahrain are a cheat because it was only changing airplanes)…
PS:
The daft furor over the outsourcing of job to India (and other places) is just another example of how amazingly primitive the understanding of economics is which prevails amongst the media and political elites in the USA (though no worse than elsewhere I might add).
The same troglodyte notions that lead people to think that cheaper foreign steel being imported into the USA is a bad thing (which is just another way of saying that manufacturing cheaper cars, homes and ships in the USA are a bad thing), lead the same people to in effect say that allowing Americans to purchase cheaper computer programs and requiring them to pay more for call center services is also a bad thing.
President Bush went on the defensive Thursday on the issue of outsourcing after a firestorm erupted over an aide’s contention that free flow of jobs, including the migration of services to India, benefited the US economy in the long run.
Although the aide, White House economic adviser Greg Mankiw, was merely echoing what was stated in Bush’s economic report to Congress, Washington’s political class came down on him like a ton of bricks.
Lawmakers from both parties, including Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, demanded he be fired. The criticism forced Mankiw, a Harvard economist, to clarify that he did not mean to support or praise loss shifting of US jobs overseas.
Sure, if your IT or helpdesk job as just been outsourced to Bombay, it might seem like A Bad Thing for you personally… but then that is just as true if your job in New Jersey has just been taken by someone in Biloxi, Mississippi because your company has just relocated to where costs (and taxes) are cheaper… the overall effect is that companies, and outsourcable functions of companies, will go wherever it makes sense for them to go… and so they should!
However notion that India has such a comparative advantage just because they have produced a reasonable pool of IT and call centre people who will work for far less than their counterparts in California does rather miss the obvious fact that India is far from suitable for all or even most IT or call centre jobs. Troubleshooting a network in Texas is rather hard to do from New Delhi and to think people in Asia will have such a deep understanding of American (or British or European) cultural mores that all help desks and call centres will end up there is rather bizarre. Companies who out-source unsuitable jobs will end up being punished by the market if their quality falls below the point which lower costs can offset such a fall, and some jobs are very quality sensitive indeed.
It should be screamingly obvious that stopping people in India (and elsewhere) from exploiting their competitive advantages does not only hurt them, it hurts everyone who is a customer for those products. Rather than engaging in unbecoming grovelling, George ‘Steel & Lumber Tariff’ Bush should redeem himself by responding to the Troglodyte faction by pugnaciously asking them “So, what exactly did the American consumer do to you to make you hate them so much, guys?”
If a company is not free to run their business and the location of the people who make it work, to best suit the company’s interests, who pays in the end? The company’s customers do, of course. And that means you.
|
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.
|
