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]
|
I am glad to see that a long-standing US friend of mine, Russell E. Whitaker, is back posting to his blog, which has had a bit of a haitus due to the man’s shift from California to New York and his being incredibly busy with work. Russell writes a lot and has a lot of knowledge of martial arts. Thanks to him, I started to go to Bujinkan classes in London’s Hammersmith. It is great fun and an extremely useful set of skills about self-defence, although physically tough as well to learn. Unfortunately, due to work reasons – I had to work late in the evenings last year – I was not able to attend as much as I liked last year but that has changed and I intend to resume. In the meantime, I have started to fence. Fencing, I find, is even more physically demanding than Bujinkan (yes, really). Initially, I am learning to use the foil, a very light sword where you score if you hit the opponent on certain parts of the body. Depending on which type of sword one uses, you score differently by hitting certain body parts. Of course fencers wear lots of protection these days so there is little chance of getting injured although you cannot afford to be reckless. I find it incredibly good for eye-hand co-ordination. I have also learned that one needs to do lots of stretching exercises since fencing requires people to be flexlible. My knee joints felt pretty sore the following morning after a class. It is a good incentive to get really fit.
Our lead instructor is a Frenchman – French seems to be the language of fencing – and another instructor is a Hungarian. More than half of the class are women, who are often much better than the men.
On the subject of fencing, we all have our favourite films. There are some great sword fighting scenes in Cyrano de Bergerac, Le Bossu, and in the excellent Ridley Scott film, The Duellists (starring Harvey Keitel).
For those interested in fencing as a sport, here’s a book worth looking at. But in the end, if you want to have a go, you have to go to a class. One word of warning: the kit can be expensive, so it is best to go to a few classes, use the class stuff to see if you like it first.
Everyone has things that they would destroy them if they were publicised. I once orchestrated a coup in a small African country from a base in an extinct volcano with the aid of a lot of fit-birds in 1960’s specs and very short lab coats, holding clipboards for no apparent reason, whilst I stroked my Persian cat. That should never be revealed. Oh, bugger! Like all Bond villians I give it away towards the end.
I love that. Readers will recognise the inimitable prose style of regular Samizdata commenter NickM, who now writes regularly at this place. This is taken from an excellent attack on the idiotic efforts of UK police to prevent people from criticising Scientology. It shows how respect for freedom of speech – which must, by definition, include the right to offend and upset – is now under serious assault in this country.
Any attempt to censor criticism of belief systems is an outrage. So long as the critics do not try to violate the lives and property of the people they are criticisng, the law should stay well out of it.
Read the whole of Nick’s piece.
There are certain things you have to be realistic about. Dirty Harry would not be on a police department at my age.
– Clint Eastwood. Speaking at the Cannes Film Festival.
The Daily Telegraph, perhaps not surprisingly as this is not a flattering story for the current government, points out that official figures show that almost 2 million Britons have left the UK since 1997. However one tries to spin this, such an outflow of people is not exactly a ringing endorsement of government policy, although there has always been and I hope will remain a steady two-way flow of people to and from this island, if only as an expression of the understandable desire of people to live in new places, to strike out to make a new life and so forth. Naturally, much of the media focus will be on the reasons why people are leaving. This is well-trodden ground already (crime, tax, weather, cost of living, etc).
One factor that struck me was that 1.58 million foreigners resident in the UK left during the 1997-2006/7 period, which suggests that while millions of foreigners come to the country, many of them do not choose to stay for more than a few years. What counts of course is the net trend. During the period, 3.9 million people came to the UK, with 500,000 arriving in 2006 alone. The pace of inflow – and possibly outflow – seems to be speeding up.
As I learned on a previous posting about immigration and emigration, there is a tendency – even among generally liberal people – to treat the movement of people from A to B as a utilitarian calculus, to work out if the net benefit or harm of human migration can be computed into a neat, hard number. Rarely does one hear the question addressed in terms of the freedom of a person to move to another place more to their liking so long as they respect the rights and property of whomever they choose to make their new neighbours, do not violate the laws of a host country, etc. Instead, the point is asked, “How does the arrival or departure of people to and from this nation benefit or harm me?” The question has no easy answer. For some low-paid indigenous workers, the sudden arrival of foreigners will put downward pressure on wages in the short run, but add new sources of consumer demand in the medium and long run. An exodus of entrepreneurs, meanwhile, reduces the “national pie”: but should any classical liberal worthy of that name care about the collective wealth held within a given geographical area? The UK is not a company – which has a defined end, like making cars – but an association of hopefully free persons pursuing their own ends within the boundaries of certain laws. I think it is sometimes worth stepping back to reflect on the fact that in this globalised age, millions of people are taking advantage of the ability to find the place to live that most suits them and their families and achieve their ambitions. I happen to think this is mostly a good thing, whatever caveats one can throw in about welfare, the pace of cultural assimilation and the like.
Here is an article by the journalist and parliamentary sketch-writer, Edward Pearce, that is well worth a read.
Thanks to those invaluable guys at The Taxpayers’ Alliance, we have a clearer idea of how much of our money is spent on quasi-governmental organisations. What is even more shocking is that the UK government does not provide such clear information and as a result, we have to rely on the likes of TA to provide it. I guess it bears out the comment of P.J. O’ Rourke in his wonderful “Parliament of Whores” book, to the effect that one of the key reasons why government and its agencies are so massive is no one can understand the sheer amount of what government does or claims to do.
I rather like this story about one of the smallest islands in the Channel Islands group being up for sale, or at least its lease is.
I like this detail:
Herm is the first Channel Island to go on sale for years. The asking price for the 40-year lease includes a manor house, 13th century chapel, 80 acres of farmland complete with a dairy herd and what is thought to be the world’s smallest jail.
And this:
Buyers could in effect have their own tax haven, paying 20% on income and avoiding death duties and capital gains, in common with other Channel Islands residents.
The only catch is that the price tag is £15 million.
As to whether the new owner of the property would be in a position to declare self-government and become an independent state, I am not sure. It would be a nice idea, though. Here’s a book on the subject.
As a Pimlico resident, I naturally would be amused to see if we could ever follow the example of a brilliant 1940s movie.
“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.
|
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.
|
