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]
|
“Biopics”, or films about the lives of the famous, have their place. According to this report, the US actor Leonardo di Caprio, who played Howard Hughes in “The Aviator” – which I thoroughly enjoyed – is lining up to play Ian Fleming, who would have been 100 on 28 May (the same birthday as your humble blogger). Hmm, not sure whether that is great casting. There was a film made a few years back with Charles Dance that did the job rather well.
For Fleming fans, this biography by Andrew Lycett is strongly recommended. John Pearson’s biography is also good.
Talking of famous writers, though, here are some people I reckon would make for quite good biopics:
Victor Hugo
A. Dumas
Tolstoy
Dickens
Saki (Hector Munro)
Robert Byron
Voltaire
Evelyn Waugh
F. Scott Fitzgerald
E. Hemingway
James Baldwin
Jonathan Swift
Shelley
Patrick Leigh-Fermor
By the way, my list does not imply that I necessarily admire or like all the writers, only that they are interesting as subjects of film.
So give your suggestions if you have others.
Update: several writers are unimpressed by di Caprio. I think he was okay as H. Hughes but as I said, I have my doubts as to whether he will be able to play Fleming well. Fleming was an old Etonian, a bit of an eccentric but despite all his possible foibles and failings, a first-class writer and journalist with a great eye for detail. I fear the Hollywood movie-makers will want to focus on his womanising. I suppose this is inevitable.
“Two substantive political issues are the federal budget deficit and the war in Iraq. Now, if you’re electing Democrats to control government spending, then you’re marrying Angelina Jolie for her brains. This leaves the Democrats with one real issue: Iraq. And so far the best that any Democratic presidential candidate has been able to manage with Iraq is to make what I think of as the high school sex promise: I will pull out in time, honest dear.”
– PJ O’Rourke. He is still the greatest.
Anatole Kaletsky is usually good value for his economic analysis. In a pretty scathing column today about the collapse of Brown’s political reputation since becoming Prime Minister last year, Kaletsky tries to contrast Brown the bumbling PM with Brown the masterful Chancellor of the Exchequer. He writes:
Indeed, he was probably the most successful chancellor in modern history, notwithstanding his muddled tax reforms, his badly timed gold sales and the fatal damage he allowed the regulators and courts to inflict on Britain’s pension funds. Mr Brown made the right decisions on monetary policy and the Bank of England. He kept Britain out of the euro. He reduced capital gains and corporation tax more radically than any Tory chancellor and he resisted populist demands to squeeze the rich.
Oh please. Sorry to rain on the parade here, but remember that in the early part of the current decade, Brown subtly shifted the way in which the BoE measures inflation. Without going into a lot of technical detail, he allowed the central bank to pursue a less stringent inflation target, and allowed it to loosen the strings of monetary policy. We are now – arguably – suffering some of the effects. Also – and it is frankly incredible that Kaletsky does not mention this – Brown has presided over a massive increase in the size of public spending and borrowing. During the supposedly fat years, the state of the public finances has actually got worse when it should have done the opposite. Hardly the mark of a good, prudent finance minister. The public sector payroll – no doubt expected to vote Labour – has swollen by up to 1 million since 1997, according to some estimates. That is a collossal increase and a large dead weight on the economy. Again, this burden is weighing more heavily on the economy now that the international environment has become more difficult.
By doing the British economy no serious harm during his long tenure at the Treasury, Mr Brown earned a distinction unique among postwar chancellors, with the possible exception of Kenneth Clarke.
Well, compared to some of the massive errors made by previous Labour and Tory chancellors, it is true that Brown’s record has been quite reasonable, but Kaletsky ignores the substantial shift in the size and cost of government since becoming Chancellor; that amounts to “serious harm” and detracts badly from his record.
Do not misunderstand me. It is not necessary to believe that every move made by Brown has been bad and it is also important to realise that in the globalised financial markets of today, there is only so much – thank goodness – that a finance minister can do. But as we have seen from the continued flight of entrepreneurs and businesses from Britain, from the tax increases, from the poor productivity gains in the UK, and so forth, Brown has been a mediocre custodian of the economy at best. And even his prize achievement, the independent Bank of England, looks less impressive now after the BoE was unable to act swiftly, as it could in the past, over the Northern Rock fiasco.
Tim Worstall has interesting things to say about the difference between social status and economic inequality, pointing out that the two things only occasionally map onto each other, a fact which does rather undermine the egalitarian argument that reducing economic inequality will reduce differences in status. A good point indeed: in the former Soviet Union and in heavily statist countries today, for example, there was and is a gulf between the citizenry and the cliques that run the show. This exists to a lesser extent, however, in the mixed economies of much of the rest of the world, where ‘new class’ of people – bureaucrats, politicians, media folk, academics, quangocrats, etc, hold considerable power and influence, even though they may earn less than say, a Goldman Sachs bond dealer. The gap was arguably far harder to bridge than is the case in the more fluid situation one finds in a pure market order where the process of ‘creative destruction’, to quote the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, destroys once-dominant businesses and dynasties and creates new ones in a never-ending cycle. Tim also makes the good point that having high status is often little to do with money at all. Fame, or having a prestigious job, or being an influential commentator, or whatever, often counts for far more than how much money one has in the bank. Ask yourself this: who has more status in British society – the editor of the Times or a hedge fund investor?
Another way of thinking about the difference between being rich and status is this: in some cultures, where acquiring wealth is sneered at or even suppressed, what counts is the accident of birth, or the ability to pull the levers of political power, or manipulate opinion in some way. As you will, gentle reader, no doubt guess, I think that one of the great things about the pursuit of wealth is that it is, in one of the deepest senses, profoundly egalitarian. Think about all those media commenters who sneer at ‘ghastly chavs’ messing up the view in the South of France or taking cheap flights to Malaga: what this point of view admits, in a way, that capitalism makes it possible for the masses to get on the same ladder as those dealt a good hand by accident of birth. I still think that part of the motivation for the Green movement or strict controls on immigration and population growth is a desire to cut off the ladder of opportunity for the masses (yes, I know this is a bit of ad hominem argument but I think it carries some validity).
For a great book on the subject of envy, which of course lurks beneath a lot of complaints about status and inequality, I recommend this classic study.
Anyway, as Tim rightly points out, people who think that ironing out economic inequality through such methods as steeply progressive income taxes will narrow gaps in status are liable to be disappointed. Humans are by nature a competitive species, and ranking folk according to some metric or other is ineradicable. Also, as the US writer George Gilder wrote in his masterful early 1980s defence of supply-side tax cuts and entrepreneurship, the folly of progressive taxes and other methods is that they do not eradicate inequality. Rather, they fossilise existing patterns of unequal wealth distribution and encourage the most ambitious people in a society to channel that aggression into less benign forms. Not an original insight, of course – Samuel Johnson, the 18th Century writer, made the same point – but one that needs to be rammed home from time to time.
This story in the Daily Telegraph today about Burmese officials allegedly pilfering foreign aid and selling it just reinforces any prejudice one might have about the efficacy of sending aid to a country governed by thugs. It is not obvious to me what, if anything, the major powers could or should do about this. Outright military intervention seems unlikely and given the stretched resources of western powers, unwise. However, given its rapid economic ascent, one might hope that India could exert some influence for good, which is preferable to that of China.
Right at this moment, though, the main emotion one might feel about Burma and its plight is one of dark despair.
Like the diarist and blogger Diamond Geezer (now that’s what I call a brilliant name), I have come to value much of the scenery in the southeastern pocket of ours in England. If you are planning a daytrip and cannot face a long drive but want something that just about gets you away from the capital without being all precious about it, there is a lot to be said for Whitstable Bay in Kent’s north coast. It is not grubby like Margate or impossibly twee; it is in fact a bit like Southwold in my old stamping ground of Suffolk. The place has several good pubs and restaurants so it pays to book in advance to guarantee a table in the height of the summer. Yours truly and Mrs P. drove down on Sunday and got there early enough to ramble along the coast before filling our faces with lots of seafood. I visited the area several years ago and forgot how pleasant it is. The existing owners of the seafront properties have not – yet – sold up and given the presumably high price of property there, will not do so and make way for tall hotels. I am all for freedom to develop but I hope that the place does not get spoiled. I guess that in such a place, even without planning laws, owners almost operate a sort of tacit law that states: “Don’t mess this place up and ruin the long-run value of your own property”. I think this sort of unspoken desire by property owners who are proud of an area not to foul it up is actually a good example of how order and harmonious building design of sorts, comes about without the need for planning laws at all.
I’ll be back, as a certain Governor of California might put it. For two hours’ drive from central London, it takes a lot of beating.
“If the BBC was given charge of a three star Michelin restaurant, it would puree all the food and feed it to its customers through straws.”
– Stephen Pollard.
Leaving aside the practical objections (such as decline in the quality of the UK legal system) is capital punishment justified for murder?
Note, this is not a question on whether capital punishment is effective, but is it just?
The monster who locked up relatives in his Austrian home for many years – at god knows what cost to their psychological state or physical health – is trying to defend himself by blaming it on Adolf Hitler.
Oh well, makes a change from blaming it all on video games, globalisation or George Bush, I suppose.
One writer I rate pretty highly is Ross Clark. As well as being a regular newspaper and magazine columnist in places like The Times (of London) and The Spectator, he is also the author of several good books. He has written a fine piece, with deliberate echoes of George Orwell, about the current mania for surveillance in Britain. His liberal views seem to be pretty robust. He has also written a short satire on life in Britain in 2051, a dystopia, showing what the country became when industrialism, liberty and associated individualism, modern technology, medicine, commerce and mass travel and communications were destroyed by a mixture of forces. Unlike the dystopias of Huxley which attacked modern technology, Clark’s dystopia very clearly shows that, with all its occasional shallowness and gaudiness, life as we now enjoy it is pretty wonderful and to turn our backs on it would be to miss things such as mass communications and information sources; techniques such as modern dentistry and keyhole surgery; cheap flights; fast, relatively safe transport, cuisine from around the world; downloadable music of any type available for a few cents, the prospect of DNA mapping to cure many diseases… the list rolls on. Our society is still pretty free, on the whole – though the losses of civil liberties and the associated nanny statist developments are a part of the trend towards a darker society that Clark writes about. But if you think, gentle reader, that Gordon Brown’s Britain is bad in certain respects, then Clark’s version is vastly worse still. He imagines a society, fractured into tiny tribal units lorded over by thugs and religious bigots, in which all these things and more are banished, loathed. His nightmare prediction is one of a world in which scientists, doctors, engineers and bankers are attacked, even murdered, for what they do. It is not a book to read if you are suffering from a bad depression and need a bit of cheering up.
A question that occurs to me about this book is that Clark seems to have written it with the partial object of satirising reactionary Greenery, religious fundamentalism and technophobia, hoping no doubt that the loathesomeness of the dystopia he presents will remind readers of the dangers of what the Greens/others have in store. My problem, though, is that other dystopian novels have often not had much of a salutary effect. As Perry of this parish remarked some time ago, our capacity for satire has been so sated by real-life lunacy that even a hit TV show called ‘Big Brother’, taking a line from Orwell’s 1984, does not inspire the same intended feelings of loathing that Orwell’s attack on totalitarianism was supposed to elicit. Fair enough, there are signs of a fightback against this trend.
But I wonder whether Clark is only really preaching to the converted. I hope not. I hope some stray Guardianista who thinks that John Gray or Bill McKibben are great sages will pick up this great little book and learn something from it. And for undecideds, I would hope that this dystopia warns them off from the anti-Enlightenment trend in which part of our society seems to be moving.
Perhaps a another way to think about winning arguments for technology, capitalism and so on is to portray positive fictional accounts of such things, rather than to portray the opposite. One way to win an argument to is be positive, to give examples of how things are improving, and improving the lives of millions of people. Grumpiness is not really a great sales pitch. Alas, avoiding the error of slipping into grumpiness is difficult when there is so much to be grumpy about, so it takes quite an effort to avoid it.
Via Tim Worstall’s blog, I came across this imagined encounter between Polly Toynbee, and her political Mr D’Arcy, Brown, by this guy:
As for poor Pol, where to start? Imagine the despair, so raw you can almost taste it. Imagine the sense of crushing disappointment. For years now, she has waited for her prince to come – her dashing Norse warrior, who will sweep away all the effete detritus of the Blair years and unload a torrent of resources into child poverty and public services. Night after night she has left the red light on for him; lying in the bed in her Agent Provocateur lingerie, maybe some crotchless pants and a peephole bra, striking an uncomfortable pose lest he come charging through the door at any moment to sweep her up in his powerful arms.
Oh my god.
As a child, I was indifferent at team sports – especially rugby union – and my preference was and is for individualistic games like golf, tennis, squash, martial arts (Bujinkan and fencing), or the odd game of poker (I guess some card games like Bridge count as a team game of sorts). One exception to the Pearce Crapness at Team Games was cricket. I loved playing it, unless some sadist of a captain put me on the boundary at point on a chilly afternoon with no prospect of a bat or bowl. I do not play much any more. My fielding was one of the best parts of my game: I once took a flying catch off a batsman who was beginning to rack up a big score and the catch was the pivotal point in the game. Our lot won. There is also the sensual pleasure of hitting a cover drive on the ‘sweet spot’ of the bat. You get a similar tingle down the spine when you do that in other sports, such as baseball. But cricket was my great team sporting love if only for the entirely selfish reason that I was just about competent at it.
I was reminded of all this by this excellent piece in the Daily Telegraph today. Like the author of that piece, I played cricket at a state school; cricket is being taught and played less in the public sector education system, to the detriment of the national game. Personally, as an advocate of private schooling and of reducing, not raising, the school-leaving age, I would not want to moan if the sport is taught less if that is what the parents, and just as importantly, the pupils, want (some kids hate team sports so much it has scarred their memories of schooling for life). But I would like to think that in a genuine private sector school system, where parents can use their consumer power to drive up standards, that the Greatest Game Known to Man would flourish a bit more.
I would be interested to know what fellow cricket nuts and Samizdata conspirators, Brian Micklethwait and Michael Jennings, have to think about this. Brian recently linked to this book, which looks very much worth a read.
|
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.
|
