I thought I’d just put this photo up from the Libertas film blog, simply because, well, I can, dammit.
|
|||||
|
“CCTV systems are sinister is that they are a constant reminder that trust is a rare social commodity – you cannot trust other passers-by because they may rob you, assault you or be wearing a bomb-shaped rucksack. Norms of altruistic and reciprocal behaviour simply are almost non-existant in big cities like London and New York. CCTV systems are sinister because their existence emphasises the unknown risks around you and thus your own vulnerability”. From the commenter “Mike”, pointing out that CCTV cameras in public streets with loudspeakers attached are not harmless adornments to our towns. April 4th, 2007 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
 This story in the Telegraph is no doubt just crazy right-wing paranoia, and we have in fact no need to worry, get annoyed or even become the tiniest bit cheesed off. Oh no. Polly has explained it all for us. To be worried about the surveillance state is a middle-class thing, apparently. All true denizens of a socialist Britain should be proud to carry ID cards and be photographed constantly. If Polly Toynbee did not exist, we would have to invent her. Not even Ian Fleming could cook up a female villain as good as this woman. Henry Porter, meanwhile, has scathing remarks on his fellow Guardian columnist. Good for him. Of course, if CCTVs are installed in privately owned streets, shopping malls or other privately owned buildings, I do not have a problem so long as it is pretty clear that such cameras are installed. But that is not quite the issue. April 4th, 2007 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
I am quite a fan of the fiction and some of the non-fiction of Ayn Rand, but I am the first to concede that some of the people who call themselves Objectivists are an assorted bunch, to put it politely. I have little time for some of the “official” Big-O Objectivists, like Leonard Peikoff, although I enjoy the writings of Tara Smith very much. The group of folk who liked Rand’s broad ideas but detested the narrow-mindedness and paranoia of some of the “official” group broke off, under the leadership of Dr. David Kelley, to form groups like The Objectivist Center. I like the TOC crowd and have corresponded with a few of them. I subscribe to The New Individualist, the monthly journal edited by the great Bob Bidinotto. What is so refreshing about it is that one does not get lots of shrilll lectures or dense philosophical treatises, but an engaging and assertive writing style coupled with an often impish sense of humour and enjoyment of the good things in life. It is a cracking read, in fact. Bob is also addicted to thriller novels, which puts him in the same bracket as me. Okay, enough creeping from me, now for the nasty part. In the April print edition – the web version does not appear to be up yet – there are two articles that struck some decidedly jarring notes. The first, by Roger Donway, argues that basically, the late Milton Friedman was not a good advocate of capitalism and individualism, and in fact he used arguments that play straight into the hands of socialists. (I am not making this up). The second article, by Bidinotto, includes a defence of the use of torture in ’emergency’ situations, although Bob does not define ’emergencies’ very clearly and leaves begging the question about who gets to decide such matters. But I have pretty much argued on this torture issue before and will not repeat myself here. So I will focus instead on what Roger Donway has to say about Friedman. To try to make this point, Donway argues that Friedman’s attack on the idea that firms have “social” responsibilities itself rests on a sort of utilitarian basis. Does it? → Continue reading: Sometimes, even a superb magazine gets it very wrong April 2nd, 2007 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
Over the weekend, news got out – thanks to the diligence of journalists at The Times (of London) that UK finance minister Gordon Brown was warned back in 1997 that removal of tax relief on pension funds’ equity dividends would create a massive future problem. It did. More than 5 billion pounds a year have been snatched from corporate pensions as part of Brown’s tax-and-spend binge over the past 10 years. Tens of billiions of pounds have been taken from pension schemes, forcing firms to shut down the final-salary pensions and significantly reduce the likely benefits people will get in retirement. Of course Brown cannot be entirely blamed for this. We live longer, and the fall in the stock market in 2000, and the sharp rise in the cost of bonds, hit pension funds hard. But Brown did a huge amount of damage. His tax raid aggravated the stock market losses, and by forcing firms to steer more money to schemes, hit investment and growth. He has not expressed one whit of regret, and now, exposed as the dogmatic man that he is, Brown’s lickspittles are now lying about the arguments put to them at the time by big business groups such as the CBI. Former CBI Director-General Adair Turner, a decent man, has called the government a bunch of liars. It appears that the CBI and other groups, supposedly charmed by the recent cuts to corporation tax, but also realising that smaller firms got clobbered by the March budget, are furious at the Treasury’s dissembling on the pension tax issue. Brown’s chances of becoming Prime Minister took a palpable hit this weekend. The gloomster may still be in 10 Downing Street by the end of this summer, but at least the British electorate have had another chance to see what a devious and foolish man Brown is. The broader implications of all this should be obvious to regular readers of this site. By undermining private sector pensions and long-terms savings, Brown and his supporters increase reliance on the state, much in the same way as David Lloyd George and others torpedoed the Friendly Societies in the first decade of the 20th Century by his pension and welfare changes. (There is some debate on whether Lloyd George was aware of the effects of his actions). Aneurin Bevan, that over-rated demagogue of the 1940s, deliberately shafted the independent, non-state medical services that had already began to serve Britons, including poor ones, before the Second World War. Wherever one looks, one sees evidence of socialists/so-called liberals acting to wreck patterns of private privision or non-state mutual support. It is shameful, and the consequences for civil society are immense. Just think of how, had the Friendly Societies and the rest been allowed to flourish. We would now have a broad and deep savings culture, enormously strong, and underpinning a culture of self reliance and personal responsibility. And people like Gordon Brown, never performing an hour of honest toil outside the halls of government, destroyed it. April 2nd, 2007 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
There has been a bit of a backlash against what might be called the “self-esteem” movement in psychology and education in the United States and elsewhere. Here is an item. It is certainly true that a lot of intellectually vapid rubbish has been written about this. For a lot of the time, it seems, “self-esteem” is nothing more than a desire to be freed from judgement, hard work and effort. I think there is a danger that in the backlash, that the baby gets chucked out with the bathwather, however. If you think about it, self-esteem is about the idea that as human beings, we are both competent to live and worthy of achieving happiness on this earth. This has nothing to do with a vague, dope-induced “feel-good” sort of sentiment, but is something quite different. Achieving happiness and believing that one is deserving of that is often quite hard. In a culture soaked in guilt about material wealth, where people are constantly told to feel bad about prosperity and “selfish individualism”, it is actually quite gutsy for someone to stand against all this. If one thinks about it, self-esteem, properly understood, is a key component of the idea of human rights. If people are entitled to pursue happiness and the good life, then they need rights to protect and advance that.To believe in the idea of the sovereign individual, one has to believe that individuals are competent to decide their lives and also worthy of such. And a self-confident, happy and proud person is surely what a healthy, liberal civil society needs. I fear that a lot of the people now bashing the self-esteem movement are not just sensible skeptics about the latest fads to come out of academia, but also collectivists and authortarians who fear what might happen if people really do want to pursue happiness and self-fulfilment. This classic on self-esteem is always worth a read, by Dr. Nathaniel Branden. And let’s not forget the important Victorian tradition of “self improvement”, starting with the great Samuel Smiles’ Self Help, which is much more than just getting seriously rich. There is a lot of chaff out there, but a lot of wheat as well. April 1st, 2007 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
The next time you read someone denounce the United States as a haven of unfettered capitalism, read this story and similar ones like it. It is a reminder that the cause of free trade has been on the back foot in the United States for some time. Regardless of one’s feelings about the dark side of China – its dreadful human rights record, for starters – to slap tariffs on the country’s imports to buy a few votes from special interests in the US will come at a high price for future global economic growth and at a cost to US consumers of products like paper, steel or electronics. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations over 230 years ago. One might hope that his lessons would have sunk in by now. April 1st, 2007 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
The other night I had a look at the 18 Doughty Street internet-based public affairs TV programme. I quite like what Iain Dale and the others in that outfit are trying to do with internet TV: breaking into the arena now dominated by BBC, ITN and Channel 4, channels that are by and large infused with the meta-context of the liberal-left. 18 Doughty Street is unashamedly pro-liberty, pro-capitalism, pro-America and anti-Big Government in its thinking. My main doubt is whether it can keep going without being able to make hard cash. Anyway, it is also attracting guests from across the spectrum, and it is an appearance by a leftist blogger on the show the other night that got my attention. Dale was interviewing three bloggers about events of the week, and one of the guests was Alex Hilton, the author of the blog Recess Monkey, a leftist site with a sense of humour that may or may not to be to one’s taste. He recently got into a bit of a pickle by posting the ‘news’ that Margaret Thatcher, whom Alex loathes, had died. She is, of course, very much alive. Iain Dale phoned up the BBC after seeing the ‘story’ and promptly Hilton had to retract and publish a rather grubby apology, albeit one with a fairly nasty sting in the tail. What a nob, I thought. Then I saw his appearance on 18 Doughty Street. Fairly boilerplate lefty, I thought, a bit cocky, not a bit ashamed of spreading an untrue story, in fact, denying that that the death of Mrs T. would be a ‘story’ at all (any newspaper editor would turn him down on the spot if he thinks that the death of a famous politician, however old, is not a story. I certainly would). Anyway, the interview went on. I was interested in how Hilton described how he came to hold the views he did, which is always interesting, in my view. His family background is working class – printing and coal mining, two industries that succumbed to the crackdown on subsidy and the trade union closed shop thanks to the Thatcher years (I strongly support both such changes, naturally). Hilton is a reminder, however, that a lot of people experienced the hard side of those changes, necessary though they were. I was a bit disappointed that Dale did not ask the question, “So Alex, are you in favour of massive coal subsidies and the old print union methods, then?”, which was a pity. But at one stage we got a really interesting admission. Hilton was talking about leftist economics bloggers, and said it was a pleasure to come across such folk, because on the whole, “economics is an emotional issue for socialists”, or some such. I certainly remember the use of the word “emotional”. Bang. For a socialist to actually admit that their views on economics are driven, not by logic, factual evidence, by reason, but by “emotion” is a big admission. It is an admission of intellectual defeat if you do not say that you have reason as your main motivator. It is to run up a big, white flag in the battle of ideas. When Marx was writing about class and the rise of the proletariat, he did not present his arguments as “emotional” – though of course they were in many respects. He used the language of science a lot. The left used to talk about ‘scientific socialism’. Their posters had big pictures of factories, machines and aircraft on them, all waxing lyrical about technology and the power of reason. The left is now a very different, post-modernist beast. Reason is out. Emotion is in. Socialism just took another little step towards its coffin on that show. Nice one Alex. Keep up the great work. Just do not try to kill off Britain’s greatest post-war Prime Minister ever again. March 31st, 2007 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
Swedish globalisation advocate Johan Norberg looks up a picture in a beautiful Italian church, and sees an early sign of where individualism comes from. Nice thoughts, succinctly expressed. March 30th, 2007 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
“The severing of Britain’s economic ties with its Commonwealth partners as a price of European (Union) entry further strained those relationships. Today, Germans arriving at London’s Heathrow airport breeze through the domestic arrivals line, while Australians who fought against the Germans at El Alamein for Britain’s sake wait in the foreigners’ line with the Japanese.” – Jim Bennett, The Anglosphere Challenge, page 279. Not that I have a problem with Germans or Frenchmen “breezing through” customs. March 29th, 2007 | 19 comments - (Comments are closed)
An old refrain from protectionists and other fixed-wealth folk is that it is terrible that Britain does not have a major car manufacturer any more. Japanese and other nations’ car plants are in Britain, true, but we have little home-grown stuff. Jaguar is owned by Ford. Aston Martin has been taken over from Ford by a private equity firm. TVR has gone. Morgan is just about hanging on. Land Rover, Rolls Royce, Bentley, MG… they are all in the hands of evil foreigners. This is largely a function of globalisation, with a bit of help from decades of restrictive practices, crap design and poor quality during the 1950s, 60s and 70s and early 80s. The car industry never really recovered. A whole generation of people learned to loathe British Leyland cars and bought Saabs, Renaults, Citroens and VWs whenever they could. Even though some gems remained – Landrovers and some of the Jags were fine – the reputation of the British car industry was devastated. The same nearly happened to Italian carmaker Fiat when Communist-run unions nearly destroyed that industry as well. But at least Italy had Ferrari. However, the situation these days is quite bright. Many of the world’s top Formula 1 racing teams are based in Britain, like MacLaren in Surrey. And as this article demonstrates, while it may be cheaper to make cars in China or Brazil or Poland, many of the hottest car designers are still British. In the information economy, the value-added areas of design are what count, and it turns out that Britain is rather good at it. March 29th, 2007 | 23 comments - (Comments are closed)
“Beware of people who read poetry in public. They may have other nasty habits.” – R.A. Heinlein, from the Notes of Lazarus Long. March 29th, 2007 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||