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]
|
My wife, during a business trip to Arizona, once sat in an aircraft next to the guy who now owns Southfork ranch, the place that achieved legendary status in the hit TV soap Dallas. Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch have this rather whimsical piece on how the show, despite portraying most people in business as either predatory villains (JR Ewing), or often losers (ie, anyone up against JR), was effective in inadvertently demonstrating the sheer, material wealth of US capitalism. I remember, as a teen, wanting to have a red Mercedes like Bobby Ewing.
Well, I don’t know how much you can really read into shows like this. I must say that Dallas was so full of outrageous storylines and crazy characters that it was compulsive viewing. My mum, bless her, was addicted to it. Watching it today is a bit scary – it reminds me of how far ago the early 1980s now seems.
What is true, though, is that the sort of aspirational message embedded in shows about rich people stands a universe apart from the depressing, tragic vision embodied in UK soaps like EastEnders. I once watched about half an episode of the latter show the other day. It is about 20 minutes of my life I shall never get back.
Meanwhile, here is an old post of mine about Italian daytime TV, which is, er, a phenomenon.
Fabian Tassano, who has recently written a rather fine book, links to this rather darkly amusing outline of how a country goes down the U-bend.
The interesting question is whether there is an equivalent series of steps showing how things get better. An issue that occasionally comes up in the comment threads is how do we get from the current god-awful statist mess A to sunlit uplands of liberal society B? What should happen first, second, third, fourth, etc? For instance, what would be the sequence of changes? Should we start with the little stuff (abolish the Arts Council, confine Polly Toynbee) or the Big Stuff (slash the Welfare State, abolish state education departments, repeal most taxes)?
“The only way that that Liverpool is going to win the [English Premier] League is if Robert Mugabe is counting the points.”
An anonymous commenter on the Guardian’s sports pages, arguably the best bits of that outfit.
Tyler Cowen, the US economics writer, ponders – in the course of responding to a column by the US leftist economist Paul Krugman – whether modern industrial development would have reached its current pitch had it been forced to deal with today’s levels of regulation. On the face of it, had the Industrial Revolution, starting in the 18th Century, had to deal with 21st century levels of state bureaucracy, health and safety rules, and the rest, we’d still be using horses and carts and there’d be no blogging. Or would there? The trouble with these kinds of assertions is that there is no counterfactual universe against which to check it. The best we can reasonably do is to look at those societies that have imposed heavy restrictions on entrepreneurship and technology, and those that have not done so, and see if there are any consistent patterns to give us an idea. I suppose one good example is what happened in China about 600 years ago, when the rulers of that nation decided they’d had enough of all that exploration business and turned inwards. Another might be the extraordinary rise of Hong Kong in the 1940s under the benign laissez faire policy of UK colonial administrator, Sir John Cowperthwaite.
The other point that Cowen and Krugman deals with is the idea that the pace of development in the field of energy and industry has slowed down. Well, up to a point. When the late Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001 was made in to a film by Stanley Kubrick, people who watched in the 1960s were led to think that travel from Earth would soon be a relatively normal event. We have not got there yet. Maybe the problem is that there are sometimes periods of history of enormous change compressed into short periods, followed by longer stretches of time when not a lot appears to happen, but actually the incremental changes are quite big. We just need to get used to this rather than become unduly depressed that we are in a holding pattern rather than moving forward.
Note: I appreciate that not everyone accepts that the Industrial Revolution “started” in the 18th Century, but from my own readings, that century is when the critical mass of scientific, technological and economic forces came together, starting in the UK. For a marvellous account of the men who helped shape that revolution, I recommend this by Jenny Uglow.
On the pace of scientific advance in the West, and how it has arguably slowed since about 1950, this Charles Murray book of a few years back is a good read and is absolutely packed with statistics. I am not a professional statistics man so I am not sure I can comment all that intelligently on the rigour of his methods, but they look pretty robust.
The ferret is not the easiest of animals to train. A dog will do tricks for you, a parrot might talk, and there is even an Olympic discipline that centres on getting horses to walk sideways to order. But put a few ferrets on stage in a theatre, in front of a couple of thousand noisy fun-seekers, and the result is likely to be chaos.
The excellent Jim White. The article is actually about the mayoral elections. Like most elections, I frankly do not really want any of the candidates to win, although Boris Johnson, whom I have met a few times, would be entertaining. What is clear though is that eight years of Ken Livingstone is quite long enough.
But back to Mr White: I think he is being most unkind to ferrets. They never seem to get much of a break.
Apologies for the problems with the link. Now fixed.
Belatedly, I joined the craze and had a go on one of my friend’s Wii games the other weekend. Terrific stuff: I played the golf, tennis, ten-pin bowling and shooter games. Bloody marvellous. You do need to get a large-enough television to make it work; unfortunately, I don’t really want to mess up my sitting room by putting a huge plasma screen on the wall, but some of my friends seem to be less squeamish.
The main downside, I find, is that if you are playing this game and have not stretched and warmed up properly first, you can actually do a bit of damage. The next morning, when I woke up, the left side of my back was quite painful. This is what happens to a 41-year-old wealth management geek who has not spent enough time doing sport for real. Time to turn off the technology and put on the training shoes.
A link to some Wii-related injuries. I wait for the first politician to try and bleat about the “Wii menace”.
As suggested by a Samizdata reader called Hugo, I am going to kick off a Friday discussion which takes the following line: “A barrier to people accepting libertarianism is the notion that we’d let people starve in the streets.”
I think the contention would be grossly unfair, to put it mildly. Libertarians oppose the welfare state, we do not oppose welfare. That logically means that we support charity, although not necessarily existing charities, many of which have been subsumed by the state. As history has shown, mutual aid and philanthropic societies typically thrive because of, not in spite of, a powerful pro-freedom, pro-free enterprise culture. The belief that we are entitled to pursue our self-interest (so long as it does not involve aggression, theft or fraud) does not clash with the idea that it is good to be generous and helpful to those who have been dealt a crap hand in the cardgame of life.
In fact, the philosopher David Kelley recently wrote a book, which I heartily recommend, saying that feelings of generosity and benevolence towards one’s fellow Man are an actual consequence of a society where people feel no shame or guilt about the pursuit of happiness in this life. In many cultures, including the Judeo-Christian one, generosity is a duty that is owed at the command of God. However, in the sense that Kelley and I use it, a generous, friendly approach to our fellows does not have to be commanded because such a trait generates long-term benefits to the giver as well as the recipient. This guy makes a good set of points in a review of Kelley’s book. Okay, vicious, grasping people may be happy in the very short run after they have achieved their goals, but they usually have very few friends and often end up getting shunned. And being shunned is not very nice.
Given all this, a society in which every able-bodied person had to work if they had no private income, and where the rise in wealth would be great because of a free market system, is likely to be one in which there would be plenty of people willing to give to charity to help out the infirm, the handicapped, and so on. It also goes without saying that the idea of poor people starving in the streets would be a near-impossibility in a dynamic economy oozing with wealth and ideas.
The one place where starvation of the poor is a likely occurrence, of course, is under collectivism. Just look at the great socialist disasters of the 20th Century.
Via the website BoingBoing is a good new directory showing where the most and least censored internet systems are. A handy reference guide for people keeping an eye on governments’ efforts to control content. Suffice to say that nations like Saudi Arabia or China do not score very well.
Outside our web-world, some people may sneer that only geeks get upset by censorship, but given its growing importance as a communications medium, those sneers are misplaced. The loss of freedoms tends to diminish those of everyone else.
Bill Emmott has a marvellously sane piece on food shortages, agriculture, the credit crisis and the case for GM crops. He’s in favour of GM, wants free trade, and is unimpressed by the case for biofuels.
The comment thread attached to Emmott’s article reveals considerable fear and hatred of GM foods. I would like to ask some of the commenters how they imagine most strains of wheat, barley, soybeans or rice that have been staples of diets for centuries came along. They are, albeit through trial and error over eons, just as ‘modified’ as a Monsanto crop. And that I think is the kicker: it is the speed of scientific change, not the change as such, that gives people the heeby-jeebies about genetic modification. I am not sure how that can be easily addressed without massive improvements in popular understanding of science.
It is wrong to make sweeping assumptions about certain media outlets. I came across what was actually a pretty decent defence of open borders and the benefits of allowing people to migrate between countries over at the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” site, which in my experience often has decent columns but absolutely gobsmackingly bad comment threads, particularly if the subject of the Middle East and specifically, Israel, comes up.
Phillipe Legrain has this pretty good argument in defence of immigration, challenging the recent House of Lords report on the subject. It revives a few of the points I also made here. In that Samizdata thread, one issue that came out in the comments was the idea, which is weird if you think about it, that residents who are lucky enough to be born in a country X are entitled to tell outsiders that they are not entitled to move around. Take the logic further: am I, a British citizen, entitled to ban my fellow Brits from moving abroad if such people are, say, incredibly skilled or rich? What right do I have to do this? (None). But if we are entitled to use some sort of “quality of life” consideration or economic calculus to say that we should ban or cap immigration, then does not the same argument cut the other way when it comes to emigrants?
I ask this question because, like a good classical liberal, what ultimately counts is liberty. The ability to get out of a country is a crucial check on the ability of the rulers of such places to act badly.
By the way, if you read the CiF thread linked to here, it is hard not to be depressed at the sheer, groaning economic illiteracy in evidence. As I keep stating, there is no argument against the influx of immigrants that cannot be used to advocate strict population controls, shorter working weeks to “create jobs”, and other lump-of-labour nonsense.
One caveat: Legrain makes a couple of bad points amid the good ones. He dismisses the House of Lords report on the grounds that it has some Tory members on the panel, such as Lord (Nigel) Lawson. Lawson is a pretty robust advocate of free trade and the descendant of immigrants himself, so Legrain made a cheap shot. Also, immigration may alleviate the coming pension problems by adding to the workforce, but ultimately, that problem will require a long-term rise in savings, and immigration is not a permanent fix for that.
Another writer who is good on the subject is Chris Dillow. He points out that if immigration is so terrible, why not take controls down to a local level, so that people in say, Essex are banned from moving to Hampshire, or Wales, or whatever? No doubt someone will claim this is a “straw man” argument, but it is not. If you believe national boundaries are in fact just lines on a map, then there are other lines, too.
“You guys have given me a bit more confidence to hold my [libertarian] views and have been a real tonic. It is good to be reminded that there are likeminded souls out there.”
A remark about this blog that was addressed to me by one of the attendees at an Adam Smith Institute event last night. Comments like that help to make this gig worthwhile.
Some members of the life-extension fraternity, such as Ray Kurzweil – whom I enjoy reading – have been challenged head-on over the argument that taking vitamin supplements does any good in terms of enhancing overall health or warding off cancer. Here’s today’s lead story in the Daily Telegraph website:
Popular vitamin supplements taken by millions of people in the hope of improving their health may do no good and could increase the risk of a premature death, researchers report today.
They warn healthy people who take antioxidant supplements, including vitamins A and E, to try to keep diseases such as cancer at bay that they are interfering with their natural body defences and may be increasing their risk of an early death by up to 16 per cent.
Researchers at Copenhagen University carried out a review of 67 studies on 230,000 healthy people and found “no convincing evidence” that any of the antioxidants helped to prolong life expectancy. But some “increased mortality”.
The story concludes with the usual call for sale of vitamin supplements to be controlled, blah, blah. Even so, the supplement advocates have just been given a serious challenge. What I do not quite understand, however, is why ‘natural’ vitamins are okay but artificial ones are not. The article does not really explain this point.
Full disclosure: I take multi-vitamins occasionally if I feel under the weather and I have felt slightly better as a result. That is not, of course, proof that they are going to seriously add years to my life.
|
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.
|
