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]
|
London is the most expensive place to eat out in the world, even more pricey than Tokyo (a city I really want to visit). Not very surprising, I guess. The sheer financial vibrancy of London fuels this, although it may lose some oomph if the problems in the global markets lead to some job cuts in the investment banking industry.
The key thing I have learned is to be bloody careful about the wine. I find that even in a pricey restaurant, you can get away without paying a fortune so long as you go very easy on the booze. But as soon as you buy anything other than the cheapest plonk in the list, you might as well call in the receivers and sell the house. For this reason I rarely eat out in expensive places, unless it is a special occasion, or eat at my magnificent Tandoori restaurant in deepest Pimlico, which is right next door to my flat. Now that’s luxury for you.
Recommendation: try this place out for a special night out. Great staff.
The other day I encountered this argument, which I failed properly to swat away and as a result, got rather rude to my interlocutor and he went off in a huff (sorry about that mate). What he said that made me go red was this:
“You libertarians keep banging on about the terrors of regulation. Yet you also slag off massive lawsuits and things like that. But if you want to get rid of huge payouts for things like people suing for damages, you need regulations. So why are you so hostile to them?”
As I pointed out, this is what is called a straw man argument.. Such “arguments” hold up a false, or in some cases deliberately false and weak, version of a point of view that a person wants to knock down easily (hence the “straw” bit). So let us fisk it.
First, I do not know any liberals or libertarians who argue that regulations are and always are a bad thing. Private sector bodies and voluntary associations of all kinds have them. A privately owned hospital, for instance, would regulate the behaviours of people who entered the premises. Why? Because that hospital would not want its reputation and bank account to be wrecked by outbreaks of disease, which lead to nasty insurance payouts. So it is in the self interest of said institutions to operate regulations, and more important perhaps, to be seen to do so. Another case is the London Stock Exchange. Long before modern financial regulators like the Financial Services Authority came along, the LSE was founded (back in the 18th Century, I think) and it had rules, albeit not always formal ones, but rules nonetheless (“my word is my bond”, etc). Trust is the key. And if you do not have trust, and have ways of enforcing said, then networks of commercial or other transactions do not work so well. So let us dispose of the canard that classical liberals are agin regulations. They are not. What we are against is one-size-fits-all regulations imposed heedlessly by the state. This is the crucial thing. Regulations, to be useful, need to be tried and tested, and if need be, discarded. State regulations tend not to be like that, but rather resemble clumps of ivy climbing up the side of a tree. They are much harder to reverse.
Okay, so now we come to the idea that libertarians hate expensive lawsuits. I suppose it is true that we hate frivolous, massively costly lawsuits, by definition (and who does not, except lawyers?). But sometimes you need to have lawsuits because you will not always have perfect knowledge of the kind of problems that can arise. Take the example of the hospital again – its managers may not know about new diseases that can be transported into the building in unexpected ways. A lawsuit following a disaster may be the trigger for a new rule. In this sense, lawsuits, although unpleasant for those on the receiving end of them, act as a sort of discovery process about what sort of problems exist. Lawyers have their uses.
In other words, this is quite a complicated argument. I just will not make the same mistake of trying to explain it after two beers and a 13-hour day at the office.
I am glad to see that the current moral panic about Britons sliding into a Hogarthian nightmare of drunken idiocy has not put off these guys from selling sparkling wine – or champagne, maybe – for £5 a bottle. I am not sure whether it is going to taste as good as Krug, mind. And of course, with many so-called luxury goods, the business model gets ruined if the prices are cut so massively that the exclusivity is lost, and hence the cachet of buying X or Y in the first place. Would Ferraris, for example, be quite the same if they were as cheap as Fords?
Even so, fair play to the businesses that bring us cheap goods. Globalisation – terrible, isn’t it?
The next time the Russian airforce tries to test the UK air defences (which seem to be working fine), perhaps the boys in grey-blue should paint a big sign on the side of the Typhoon fighters saying this: “The way to Harvey Nichols’ jewellery department and Chelsea FC is that way, chaps”.
Seriously, what the expletives deleted does Putin think he is trying to prove, exactly? It is not as if one of those “Bear” aircraft are state-of-the-art. Ironically, there has been a lot of criticism about the expense of the Eurofighter project – justifiably – but at least the RAF have a superb fighter. Let us hope they do not have to remind the Russians of what an outstanding force the RAF still is.
I am not a great opera buff but I am very saddened to read about this news this morning. The man’s voice was simply amazing.
Rest in peace.
They keep on coming on, like a sort of rank of killer insects in one of those terrible B-movies. Here is the latest shaft of wisdom from the judiciary:
The entire population of Britain – and every visitor – should be added to the national DNA database, a senior judge has argued.
Marvellous. None of that “presumed innocent” namby-pamby nonsense.
Appeal Court judge, Lord Justice Stephen Sedley, said the database, which holds the DNA from millions of suspects and crime scenes, should be extended to all residents and even tourists, in the interests of fairness and crime prevention.
Fairness? What about the state and its officials leaving the innocent alone and not demanding every greater controls over our lives? Has this judge read his Blackstone lately?
“Where we are at the moment is indefensible,” Sedley told BBC radio.
I agree. It is indefensible that such a person holds such office. Cleaning toilets might be more his line:
“Everybody, guilty or innocent, should expect their DNA to be on file for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention — and no other purpose.”
“For no other purpose”. Why, are there other purposes that the judge knows about?
(Alert: if you are bored by sport or just want to read about politics and supposedly more serious stuff, scroll down).
The England football team need to win their match this week’s match against Israel – yes – to qualify for the European Championship tournament next year. I guess it says something about the state of what is often regarded as the country’s national game that England are in this situation. But this week, I have tried to freeze out the dire state of our national game and have been reading a bit about a man from England’s glorious football past, both in terms of how he played the game, and the sort of person he was and still is.
Bobby Charlton. It is a tired cliche, but they just don’t make em like that any more. His thoughts in his new autobiography about colleagues Denis Law and the late George Best are wonderful and in the case of Best, who was without doubt a sporting genius, very moving.
This is the paragraph from the Times (of London) today about Gordon Brown’s plan to ‘shake up’ (whatever that means) UK politics:
Gordon Brown wants to use opposition MPs and citizens’ juries in his government to produce fresh ideas and energy
The idea of co-opting opposition MPs – in order to neuter them and implicate them in government decisions – is the classic move of undermining the sharp and necessary disagreements that are a healthy part of parliamentary democracy. As for the citizens’ juries bit, I doubt Gordo has in mind the canton system of local referenda that the Swiss use (if only). After all, Brown is not keen on a “citizen’s jury” when it comes to the recent EU constitution, sorry, I meant treaty, is he?
And it is only Monday.
Being the free marketeer that I am, I accept the point that an item is worth what people are prepared to pay for it, not more, not less. But some sort of gremlin in me shouts “that’s bonkers!” when I see what people are prepared to shell out for a so-called work of art. The skull, encrusted in diamonds, sold for £50m by Damian Hirst had that little gremlin shouting again in my head.
To think that some folk working deep under the earth’s crust dug out all those sparklers for this, when there are so many beautiful women out there who should be wearing things like these.
Ok, rant over.
This essay, which I found while browsing the excellent website of Stephen Hicks, will resonate on both sides of the Atlantic.
As a farmer’s son, I sympathise with its message, but more optimistically, I’d argue that in some ways, life in the countryside is still a lot less regulated than in the towns, perhaps rightly, since when people live in close proximity and have to get along, more rules are required, if only tacit, rather than written, rules. But the sort of restrictions this farmer writes about are not caused by that sort of issue, but by the ongoing move by the state to regulate agriculture.
Cynics may argue that farmers have signed a Faustian pact with the state; they have accepted massive subsidies and can hardly be surprised if the providers of said increasingly demand to control the actions of the recipients. I agree with this. The sooner that the Common Agricultural Policy and its equivalents are obliterated, the better.
Correlli Barnett, a long-standing critic of the Coalition overthrow of Saddam’s Ba’ath dictatorship, gives us this in this week’s Spectator:
“In Saddam’s strictly secular Iraq, al-Qa’eda and other forms of Islamist extremism were ruthlessly put down. Is it not plainer every month that we would all (including Iraqis) now be much better off if Saddam Hussein had been left in power,but under continued allied air surveillance?”
The regular trope that Saddam was a “strictly” secular leader won’t wash. The “strictness” was in fact pretty variable. What is Barnett trying to say, that Hussein kept copies of the complete works of Voltaire and Richard Dawkins under his bed? Surely, to be serious, Saddam was capable and willing to use and invoke religion when it suited his purposes; I have no idea whether he thought there was a supreme being or not, but frankly, what consolation would it be to the tens, hundreds of thousands of people who were brutalised by his rule to be told that he was “strictly” secular? The Marsh Arabs, the Shiites, the Kurds and other groups may want to ask Mr Barnett what benefit they had from being oppressed by a “secular” ruler. Stalin was “strictly secular”, as was Mao, at least as far as I know.
In fact, this argument is so silly that it got me wondering about what exactly is so marvellous about “strictly” secular regimes that cause havoc on a mass scale; Stalin’s Russia, for example, with its attendant mass famines, the Gulag, and the rest, surely drives a stake through the notion that the absence of revealed religion automatically brings a better state of affairs. I am a lapsed Christian, and no admirer of much that goes under the name of religion (that’s puttting it mildly, ed), but there are so many examples of evil, secular regimes, that it is hard to summon breath to point this rather obvious fact to someone like Barnett.
Then there is this claim that Iraqis and others would have been “much better off” with the old brute in power. That is frankly impossible to judge, and sitting here in the comfort of my apartment, is not one I feel fit to make, but then neither does Mr Barnett. I guess the henchmen who ran Saddam’s torture chambers and his security services feel that their circumstances have taken a big turn for the worse; George Galloway and the various other lowlifes clearly may mourn his passing; arms dealers in the West, East and elsewhere may rue the missed orders and deals no longer struck (that includes Britain, I am ashamed to say), but if Barnett wants to make this claim with seriousness, he needs to weigh the costs of what is now happening in Iraq with the toll of the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, the gassing of villagers in northern Iraq, etc. And he needs to consider whether, and for how long, Saddam’s regime could have lasted, even without sanctions, and what would have happened thereafter.
The other problem I have is Barnett’s casually thrown-in comment about the Allied air surveillance – he means the “no-fly zones” in the north and south of Iraq. They cost money to enforce, there was exchange of fire between the airforces and the Iraqi forces on the ground (breaches of the 1991 Ceasfire, for those who bleat about the “illegal” invasion of 2003). It is naive to imagine those flights could have remained indefinitely, or have been enforceable beyond a certain point. Sooner or later, the air cover would have been reduced, leaving those in the north and the south to the tender mercies of Saddam’s/his son’s forces on the ground. Not a happy prospect.
There are good arguments to be made against the war: Saddam posed us no immediate threat; his armed forces were degraded after 1991 and there were more serious threats around which required more of our attention. There are also prudential grounds to avoid war if possible, starting with the old adage, which ought to be familiar to libertarians: the law of unintended consequences. I have found myself, more than once, rueing the entire enterprise as an object lesson in the folly of interventionism and chided myself from falling off the wagon in this respect. But the only problem is that I start getting those neo-con urges as soon as apologists for dictatorship like Barnett put pen to paper. The anti-war folk may have many arguments in their favour, but so many of them give me the creeps.
(Update: topic heading changed: this article has nothing to do with Korea!)
This glorious article in the BBC website appeared today. I’d love to know whether the person who wrote this has a sense of irony. There is just a hint that he might:
Britons are “addicted” to cheap flights and confused about the climate impact of flying, according to research.
Well, at least the writer had the good grace to put addicted inside scare quotes.
Britons want to fly for a cheap fare. The horror.
|
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.
|
