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]
|
It appears that prohibitionists in the United States are winding up the pressure against computer games for allegedly turning the nation’s young into violence-crazed monsters. This article in Wired nicely points to some of the absurdities involved in the position of would-be banners of such games like Jack Thompson. Another article here in libertarian monthly Reason makes an even stronger case against the moral panic brigade here.
This issue reminds me of an unusual book I read a few years ago, called Killing Monsters. The book makes the argument that children – and adults – often use games as ways of acting out roles in ways that can help them to overcome fears and grapple with issues, rather than as just passive recipients of violent messages while watching a movie. This is not psychobabble. Children have played games involving rough-house action, or staged plays, or dressed up as cowboys and fighters, since time immemorial. What the moral scolds of our present age tend to overlook is that with some modern computer games, the players get to shape the plot, even down to the point of adding their own ideas to how games should be run and developed.
As the Reason article points out, turnover of gaming has shot up enormously over the last decade in sales volume, from $3.2 billion in 1995 to $7 billion in 2003, while levels of youth violence in the United States have gone down. Whatever else may be going on to explain the drop in some categories of crime in the U.S., video games don’t seem to be making the problem worse.
In fact, computer games may even make us smarter.
It is often said by libertarians, or “radicals for capitalism”, to coin Ayn Rand’s phrase, that Big Business is often lousy at defending the market and in fact is only too happy to co-opt the State to make life hard for competitors. I was reminded of this fact when noted Libertarian Alliance author, Sean Gabb, made much of this point in a talk on Friday evening. It appears that the U.S. retailing giant WalMart may be guilty of this by lobbying for a rise in the U.S. minimum wage.
Debate continues as to what exactly is the impact of a minimum wage on the unemployment rate in a country, but in theory at any rate, raising the marginal cost of hiring a worker presumably makes it less likely that said persons will be hired, other things being equal. Marginal Revolution, the U.S. economics blog, has a take on the issue here. Other useful discussions at the Von Mises Institute here, and taking a more supportive view of such laws, is this paper here.
Even if one takes the assumption that minimum wage laws don’t always raise unemployment overall, the businesses that lobby for them may think they do, or think that by raising their would-be competitors’ costs, that it will strengthen their own market position. In short, there is nothing very altruistic about it.
And Walmart, to take this firm as an example, is also renowned as a beneficiary of eminent domain land-grabs. Funnily enough, this has become something of a cause celebre for parts of the left, who ironically, are relying on the same sorts of defences of property rights that I referred to a few days back on this site. It would be nice if the left embraced property rights as a cause. Stranger things have happened.
Here are the latest statistics on crime in Britain. Police statistics, according to this BBC report, show that violent crimes have gone up, while another survey shows that violent crimes are broadly stable. (The usual health warnings about statistics obviously apply). However you look at it, crime is high.
Regardless of what one thinks about the potentially civil libertarian worries about millions of CCTV cameras now scattered around the country, it hardly appears that they are very useful in deterring crime, which as far as I know, was the stated purpose for the things.
Heather “Momma Bear”, who has been an important figure in the early stages of the blog world, has died after a long battle against cancer. She has been a friend to a number of bloggers I know well, including fellow Pimlicoan Andrew Ian Dodge. She was quite a character. RIP.
It turns out that Daniel Craig, the latest man to play 007, might not be cut out of the sort of material that Ian Fleming might have imagined. The guy doesn’t even like the Bond-style martinis!
Never mind. Whatever happens to the series, we will always have the early Sean Connery films to treasure.
Bob Bidinotto is unimpressed.
The great irony is that the most fundamental right to individual sovereignty—private property—is the one most highly questioned. Property rights are usually construed narrowly to cover only things that can be exchanged, given away, or abandoned. But since a property right is the right to use and dispose of something, it actually has a far broader meaning. One begins with a right to one’s own person, including one’s body and energies. Indeed, this is that basic right that gives rise to the right to appropriate unowned objects from nature and to exchange peacefully acquired property with willing traders. In fact, without property rights there are no no rights at all.
From the Independent Institute.
A study claims that the long-term effects of smoking tobacco can impair mental functions. My goodness, what other horrors can the dreaded weed be held responsible for? I don’t smoke and dislike the pong of cigarette smoke in my clothes after visiting a pub, but is there no limit to the ways in which our blessed medical profession want to condemn smoking? The claim rings false to me (I am not a scientist mind so if this can be verified in a peer-reviewed journal, I’ll stand corrected). There have been lots of brainy smokers over the years, surely.
I wonder how many members of Mensa have been smokers?
“Don’t fear failure. After all, without aiming high and occasionally hitting something else entirely, we’d never have discovered how tasty Northern Spotted Owls can be.”
Stephen Green, of Vodkapundit, making a wonderful line in the course of an article where he writes about learning about individuality from Cary Grant. (The article is in the latest edition of the Objectivist publication, the New Individualist. Not yet on the web, as far as I can tell. Cary Grant is the patron saint of all well-dressed guys the world over).
The great Peter Briffa speculates on who should lead the Tory Party. He has three suggestions. Which one should we go for?
I am not exactly a fan of David Cameron, the 39-year-old (same as yours truly) who won a crushing majority of votes for the Tory leadership from fellow MPs. Yes, he is obviously bright, telegenic, youngish, and might have appeal outside the Tory ranks, but er, could we actually find out what he actually believes in, please?
What on earth does this mean, for example:
Slipping into the language of the street, Eton and Oxford-educated Conservative leadership hopeful David Cameron urged radio listeners on Friday to “keep it real”.
Huh? The rest of the Reuters article offers zero illumination. Now, I realise that expecting politicians to set out their stall in full has its risks. As a regular commenter, Verity, put it the other day, if a politician has a goodish idea, the chances are that Blair will steal it, or at least pretend to copy the policy (what happens in reality is a bit different). Politics is rather like business in that regard.
Meanwhile, Clive Davis wonders whatever happened to meritocracy in politics?
The UK government is making it possible — ahhhhh! – to let new fathers take three months’ paid leave off work. How nice. How generous. How could the heartless, flinty Gradgrinds like we libertarian free-marketeers oppose such a fine and dandy state of affairs?
You know the answer. The answer of course is that the cost of paying fathers paternity leave will be born by the employers, and hit small businesses disproportionately hard, as well as those employees who either through personal choice or circumstance do not, or choose not, to have children. And of course the whole issue ignores those subversive capitalist types who happen to be self-employed. What are they supposed to do, exactly?
My father (ex-RAF and farmer for 40+ years) would be chortling out loud at being told, just as the wheat harvest was about to start, that my birth would let him take three months off, far away from the combine harvester, plough and cattle shed. Perhaps we should start compiling a list of which Labour Party MPs have ever run a business from scratch and had to meet a payroll? I bet the list is short.
If our political masters were really wise on this issue, they would cut the overall burden of tax, so that parents could have a higher post-tax income with which to make decisions about family life that suit their own circumstances. Why is such a simple approach so difficult? (And by the way, I expectantly await what the Tory leadership candidates say about this).
Kenneth Clarke, the former British finance minister of the 1990s and most pro-EU Tory candidate in that party’s race for the leadership, has dropped out of the race. That leaves David Davis marginally ahead of the centrish David Cameron and Liam Fox. My money, for what it is worth, is on Davis to win, but I cannot find much enthusiasm for any of the candidates, to be honest. Tory leadership contests seem to occur with all the frequency of signal failures on the Tube during the rush-hour. There is a sort of wearying regularity about them.
I share the sentiments of this article about the lack of policy content from the candidates thus far. The only positive thing about the Tories, it seems, is their ability to keep the numerous global floods, earthquakes and bird-borne plagues off the front pages of parts of the media. In a way, the feat is quite incredible.
|
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.
|
