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]
|
In 1909, British prime minister Lloyd George imposed a levy which was transformed by William Beveridge in 1946 into the modern idea of ‘National Insurance’ by which the welfare state would appropriate money from people to fund various socialist objectives. William Beveridge was the main architect of the British model of force based theft by the state of a huge chunk of national private property.
Today, Britain’s socialist ‘National Health Service’ (NHS) is set to consume £184 billion per year soon… which an article in the Times today pointed put was enough to fight the 1982 Falklands War with Argentine 40 times, or about the same at the total Gross Domestic Product of Belgium or twice that of the GDP of Saudi Arabia or South Africa… and this is just Britain’s appropriated healthcare budget.
In the US, the process has not really been all that different, merely started somewhat later. This process really began under FDR during the Depression but did not start in earnest until the ‘Great Society’ programmes of Lyndon B. Johnson. Clinton recently tried to go a more socialist route by moving US healthcare towards a more state-based system of appropriated funding, which thankfully failed.
But it should show that regardless of the example of failed socialist programmes the world over, not even information rich societies such as the USA and UK are immune to the intellectually bankrupt and economically moronic lure of such ideas as nationally directed healthcare. You may be sure than the next time the Democrats are back in control in the USA, such ideas will reappear, suitably re-branded and re-spun.
Due to a major UK routing server going splat, our e-mail is not working at the moment (and neither is that of several dozen UK ISPs apparently). If you sent us any e-mail this afternoon, you might want to resend it to our back-up address.
As it is such a major router which has done down, it will hopefully be repaired quite soon.
Update as of 18:45 GMT: The problem has been fixed!
In today’s Times, war correspondent Anthony Loyd reports on the current counter-insurgency sweep through an ‘undisclosed’ valley in Afghanistan by British Royal Marines of the 45 Commando battlegroup, called Operation Ptarmigan.
He also moans at some length that [emphasis added]:
Whilst promising greater detail on the operation after it has finished, the coalition’s information policy has been a mixture of assumption and contempt. Morning press briefings at Bagram begin with a US officer stating how many days have passed since the September 11 attacks. He then gives the name and family details of one attack victim. A short statement follows and relevant questions by journalists are quashed as glibly as they are by Pentagon spokesmen in Washington with the words: “I won’t answer that.”
The justification for this silence is “operational security concerns”. In reality it appears that the US and Britain are using the ferocity of the September 11 attacks as carte blanche to be all but unaccountable to press and public.
[…]
This policy will probably work admirably until official silence is revealed to have hidden an unpleasant truth.
So he thinks the US and British military are accountable to the press? Interesting concept. Now Tony Loyd is actually a reasonable reporter (he is certainly a million miles from the ludicrous Bob Fisk and his ilk), but such petulant foot stamping on his part is unbecoming. The newspapers have been roasting the US for allowing Al Qaeda and ex-Taliban forces to slip away, and for failing to achieve operational surprise during Operation Anaconda… and now they are going to roast the coalition military for taking operational security seriously?
Here is an interesting, much footnoted and rather less upbeat take on Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan by Brendan O’Neill on Sp!ked, a site I find useful and maddening in equal measure.
There is also an interesting article (also by O’Neill) about the domestic political mess that the hapless Karzai is presiding over called When nation-building destroys. However this last article rather misses a major point: firstly regardless of the occasional ill-advised propaganda blurb by the Americans, they are not there to ‘nation build’ other than en passant… they are there to kill the people responsible for September 11th. If Afghans insist on killing each other, that is primarily a problem for the Afghans. However it does highlight the madness of getting too deeply involved in Afghanistan’s domestic woes as both Dale Amon and I pointed out quite some time ago.
Several bloggers have reported on the story of a deaf lesbian couple who selected a deaf sperm donor to maximize the chance that ‘their’ daughter would be born deaf. And this is what indeed happened, producing perhaps the world’s first designer handicapped baby.
The way I see it, it is no better, and no different, than if these vile despicable sociopathic women had taken a child and jammed a sharp pencil in its ears to make it deaf. They have intentionally caused harm by any rational objective measure, they are merely using genetic predispositions, rather than sharpened pencils, to do it… it is not a random defect because they have loaded the dice to get the result they want and actually went looking for a donor with defective genes.
I hope the child grows up to hate them for what they did and to do harm back to them. In any reasonable society, the action of these ‘parents’ would be an objectively criminal act quite different from the tragedy of random birth defect. These vile creatures belong in jail for their de facto assault on ‘their’ child.
I am strongly in favour of genetic engineering but would regard creating sentient beings intentionally disabled as just as monstrous as what these evil women did by ‘selective’ breeding.
I have had a couple e-mails asking me what I thought about the situation in Venezuela and the fact Hugo Chevez seems to be back in office after the Army deposed him. I assume the reason these two readers asked me what I thought on the subject, which is a bit off my usual polemical stomping grounds, is presumably because I wrote a well received piece on the subject of Hugo Chavez back in December.
Well all I can say is what is it with kids these days? The younger generation just do not take pride in their work. Back when I was a youngster, we all knew that a coup d’etat was not over until you have shot El Presidente dead on the steps of his palace.
British government plans for data sharing mentioned earlier in the Libertarian Alliance press release I posted yesterday are a clear indication of the casually authoritarian attitudes of those who would control every aspect of our lives. What I find so infuriating is that the supporters of this giant leap towards the Panopticon State are so arrogant that they are hardly even trying to hide the scope of what they want.
The Orwellian sounding Performance and Innovations Unit (PIU), who are the cutting edge of the leviathan state’s intrusions into every aspect of private life, have had the gall to announce (emphasis added):
Information is processed without people’s knowledge only where necessary for national security, public safety, statistical analysis, the protection of the economy, the prevention of crime, the protection of health, morals, or the rights and freedoms of others
Can anyone out there please tell me ANYTHING that the state does which cannot with the barest minimum of effort be classified under one of these amazingly broad categories?
In short, any functionary of the state with a computer terminal can examine any aspect of your life they wish. They are not even really trying to hide what they are planning.
Government bodies with names like the ‘Performance and Innovations Unit’, a body finding new ways to intermediate the state into every aspect of private life, have always reminded me of the Terry Gilliam movie Brazil , in which the ‘Information Retrieval Unit’ was the name for the agency who extracted information from people by torture. Perhaps it is time for Harry Tuttle to pay the PIU a visit, spanner in hand.
When the state watches you,
dare to stare back
New revelations that Alec Douglas-Home, the foreign secretary under the conservative government of Edward Heath, had planned to try and find a way to hand Gibraltar over to Spain in 1971 against the wishes of its people have been greeted with ‘shock’ and ‘amazement’ by current members of the Tory party.
Well I can only marvel at the credulity of modern Tories. This is the government that did more to undermine the common law basis of British civil liberty than any other in the 20th century by taking us into the European Economic Community (as it then was) under knowingly false pretenses. If they were happy to do this to all of the UK, is it really so surprising that the harbingers of modern super-statism would think twice about selling out a mere 27,000 people in some remote outpost of the Old Empire?
“Government’s data sharing plan is a dagger to the heart of liberty”, says Free market and civil liberties think tank.
The Labour’s government’s plans to integrate the personal data held on British citizens by various government departments and agencies is a dagger to the heart of liberty, says the Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties think tank and pressure group.
Libertarian Alliance Director, Dr Chris R. Tame, says:
“In the light of the ever-more blatant attack on civil liberties in this country – including the proliferation of camera surveillance systems, the increasing involvement of intelligence agencies in political surveillance and dirty tricks operations, the push for a national ID card and DNA database, the gradual abolition of common law liberties by the removal of jury trials, of the presumption of innocence, of the right of silence and of double jeopardy, and by the adoption of the EU’s despotic corpus juris – this proposal is even more ominous. The government’s claim that data would be processed only ‘where necessary’ is laughable – especially when one sees that their list of ‘necessary’ reasons covers every conceivable excuse for nanny statism, paternalism, censorship, socialism, prudery, puritanism and prohibitionism.
It is ironic that when the state has demonstrated that it is incapable of providing any ‘public service’ adequately, when it cannot defend its citizens from predators of every stripe, that is should be attempting to turn us into supplicants and serfs. The common argument that ‘if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear’ is absurd. In an age when health fascists have declared smoking to be a form of child abuse, it is clear that everyone can be subjected to the prejudices of demented paternalists – whether of the fundamentalist religious nutters, the peddlers of PC pieties, the environmentalists, or the feminist anti-sex cranks. Your life style, your tastes, your sexuality, your political and social views, can be subjected to tomorrow’s moral panic, propaganda scare campaign and witch-hunt and legislated as ‘crimes’ or as ‘politically incorrect’.
The citizens of Britain need to send a message to our would-be masters that we are not numbers, that we will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, briefed, debriefed, or numbered – that our lives are our own.
It is now clear that the ‘social contract’ has been broken by the state. Resistance to the usurpations of the state is both a right and a moral duty. It is the right, the duty, of all to resist and disrupt the state’s data gathering and record-keeping ability, by whatever means are necessary”.
As Jason Pontin points out in his article on Red Herring, there is a bifurcation of inventiveness on the planet. A few places do all the entrepreneurial heavy lifting, the rest look on. It is not just circumstances but also cultural factors which produce innovation.
There is a nice article about blogging by Daniel Sorid on Reuters. At last someone who actually understand why blogs are better than Usenet.
In the print version of The Times T2 supplement today, there was an interesting article by Ann Treneman about attitudes amongst a selection of British Jews living in the heavily Jewish Golders Green area of London. One particular section caught my eye in which Rabbi Pini Dunner remarked about a perceived increase in hostile views towards Israel and jibes about Jews. When asked ‘Like what?’ he replied:
“Like the phrase ‘You people…’ Language we do not expect. Colleagues at work will refer to ‘you people…’ What is that? People think: I am British. I am Jewish. I support the state of Israel. That does not make me ‘you people’. You don’t refer to Conservative supporters as ‘you people’ or black activists as ‘you people.”
Yet he is quite wrong on all counts. I think black people (activists, no less) would be hugely amused to hear they are not referred to as ‘you people’ by some sections of British society. And to hear Conservatives referred to in that manner all you need to do is listen to Prime Minster’s Question Time in Parliament.
Notions of identity are a complex thing in a multi-layered dynamic society like modern Britain. As a friend of mine once said to me, “In Jamaica I feel British and In Britain I feel Jamaican.” For her, feelings of identity bounce off context and her context keeps changing. For Rabbi Dunner, his feelings of ‘dissimulation’ from Britain are, I suspect, more a measure of his own feelings than those of British society around him. All I have to do to become one of ‘you people’ is start loudly espousing libertarian views in Britain or mentioning my Catholic background. My ex-wife once told me she hated it when in London she was referred to as one of ‘you Northerners’ (she came from Newcastle).
The British are a patchwork quilt of a people, not some volk, or Rabbi Dunner would find himself in a very different society indeed, one he would be far more removed from culturally than this one. When we express views that support foreign states or have unusual religions, then we should not be surprised when people notice we are different to them in some ways… but neither should be think it really matters all that much. We are all ‘you people’ to someone. Get over it.
|
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.
|
