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]
|
A regular theme remarked upon here and elsewhere has been the big growth in people working – if that is the right verb – in Britain’s public sector. On the most cautious estimates, about half a million new jobs have been added to the public payroll since the present Labour government came to power in 1997. This article in the current issue of the Spectator puts that figure, after revisions, even higher, to more than 800,000. Jeysus.
It goes without saying that the article concludes that much of this increase is designed to build a powerful constuency in favour of voting Labour and embracing Big Government. No kidding.
The article goes on to say that the process is likely to end once big tax rises are necessary to foot the bill, provoking an explosion of anger similar to that at the trade union public sector mayhem in the 1970s. I hope a more pleasant resolution is at hand. If the Tories are half-smart, they will figure out a way to outflank Labour and put some radical, attractive options on the table. Some juicy tax cuts might be a good start.
On that happy note, I am off to enjoy the rest of Friday evening.
For some reason, the decision by Bill Gates to become an honorary British knight makes me sad. Has the founder of Microsoft finally, and completely, sold out to the “establishment”? Has his bruising encounter with the looters, whoops, I meant U.S. Justice Dept and EU Commission made him yearn for a respectable, quieter life?
Somehow, I cannot see Steve Jobs wanting a gong.
A few decades ago, the curse of malaria, which for centuries had made large parts of the world uninhabitable and killed millions, had been largely eradicated because of the pesticide DDT. However, as many will know, this chemical was banned after a long campaign by environmentalists, concerned that the substance worked its way through the entire food chain, possibly causing cancers and other ailments. The writer Rachel Carson, in her famous, or perhaps infamous, book Silent Spring, helped focus Greens’ righteous anger on DDT.
The outcome may have been splendid for the mozzies, and possbily may also have had beneficial consequences for various species of flora and fauna. However, its impact on those awkward beings known as humans has been drastic. Millions are now dying at a high rate as malaria stages a virulent comeback.
I like to be a charitable chap and imagine that a lot of environmentalists feel worried about this, but I suspect that a good deal of do-gooders who had argued for the abolition of DDT feel not a nano-second’s qualm about the impact of what has happened.
Malaria is not a subject that may get pop singers like U2’s Bono all excited, as is the case with AIDS, but the death toll is huge, and it is growing.
For a while now, I have reading about how the mighty U.S. economy, heavily in debt, with big budget deficits and a large current account black hole, is headed for the rocks. The dollar is on the skids, inflationary pressures are rising, the Fed has been putting up interest rates, the coming Social Security crunch… you know the drill. And some of these worries are to my mind justified, which explains why, with all the plan’s faults, I broadly applaud the efforts of President Bush to overhaul the state pensions system.
Is the situation really as grim as some of the jeremiads claim, however? This suitably wonkish article in the prestigious Foreign Affairs journal argues that things are not nearly as worrying as some might make out and that if anyone has cause for worry, it is Europe with its shrinking birth rates.
The article concudes with this paragraph, and it seems to hit the mark, in my view:
Only one development could upset this optimistic prognosis: an end to the technological dynamism, openness to trade, and flexibility that have powered the U.S. economy. The biggest threat to U.S. hegemony, accordingly, stems not from the sentiments of foreign investors, but from protectionism and isolationism at home
Indeed.
British citizens living abroad in Spain, as many now do, may be barred from voting in the forthcoming European Referendum, according to this article in the Daily Telegraph filed a few days ago. I hope the article turns out to be wrong, if only because the margins deciding this vital poll may be quite thin, as I fear during my gloomier moments. There are hundreds of thousands of Brits, many retirees, who have forsaken these shores for sunnier climes to the south. It would be unconscionable but entirely in keeping with how the EU operates, if they were to be denied the chance to have their say.
I have a sick feeling in my stomach that in the year we mark the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar, in which Admiral Nelson vanquished an early form of European transnationalism, the fate of British independence could be sealed due in part to a shoddily run referendum. I fervently hope I am dead wrong and there is high turnout for this poll when held.
“This is why all goods must have a price set on them; for then there will always be exchange and, if so, association of man with man.”
Aristotle, quoted in Nicomanchean Ethics.
A few years ago I spent a week on a small sailing yacht off England’s South Coast, training for a sailing examination which, I am proud to say, I passed. I subsequently enjoyed plenty of good times afloat, even including a gruelling but fun trip across to France and back, sailing across some of the busiest shipping lanes at night. Assuming I am not flat broke after completing my current house move (gulp), this is a hobby I intend to seriously pursue.
What anyone who has taken part in this great activity will tell you is how tough sailing can be on the human body if you have been sailing in rough weather for any length of time. After one particularly tough week, I felt more physically drained than at any time I can recall. Which makes me awestruck at the achievement today of 28-year-old Ellen MacArthur, who has just set the world record for fastest single-handed non-stop trip around the world.
Her vessel is a huge trimaran, fitted with rope winches the size of small barrels, the latest satellite navigation technology, a mast more than 100 feet tall and made of super-light material. These modern vessels are incredibly fast although they lack some of the rapier-sharp elegance of an America’s Cup 12-metre.
Will it be possible to squeeze even further speed gains from modern yachts? Is there a limit to how fast these modern boats can go? I don’t know, but I guess this amazing Derbyshire lass is going to have a lot of fun trying to find out. (Maybe she should team up with Bert Rutan).
And this being a libertarian blog, I ought to mention that of course, Miss MacArthur seems blissfully unaware that her behaviour demonstrates the sort of risk-embracing attitude increasingly frowned upon in today’s nanny state Britain, as this article makes clear.
But now is not the time to draw great cultural insights from what has happened. Instead, I am going to raise a glass to someone who has shown enormous courage, tenacity and flair.
Update: A commenter asked what my sailing qualifications are and where I got them. I am a Day Skipper, trained by this excellent sea school in Portsmouth and I recommend them. I intend to follow this course with what is called a “Coastal Skipper” course and eventually, a “Yachtmaster”, giving me the ability to sail across the ocean. Modern insurance and growing state regulations require you to have at least one person skippering a boat with proper qualifications. Alas the pastime is getting more closely regulated with time.
Oh, and for those that wonder what is the “point” of Ellen MacArthur’s trip, my reply is simple: it is the thrill of demonstrating human efficacy and daring against heavy odds. I celebrate it as much as I celebrate Messner’s climb of Everest without artificial oxygen or Rutan’s space flight feats last year.
Another of my friends has succumbed to the inevitable and started a weblog, this time my Austin, Texas-based pal Alan R. Weiss. Alan is a tremendous dynamo of a character; he is a former vice president of the Free State Project and still closely involved in that venture. Alan is also a businessman an innovator who has harnessed cutting-edge venture capital financing techniques to accelerate the writing achievements of noted libertarian author and campaigner, L. Neil Smith. My girlfriend and I spent a wonderful long weekend in Austin staying with Alan’s great family last September during a marathon trip around the country. I can strongly recommend Austin as a place to visit.
Oh, and he is also a big Firefly fan. Does the guy have no flaws?
He may not be the sort of man who gets the attention of the ordinary citizen, or the sort of man one talks about down the Dog and Duck on a Friday night, but New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, wannabe Democrat politician and formidable lawyer, is making quite a name for himself as a legal terror of big Wall Street businesses, launching a flood of suits against insurers, brokerages, fund management companies and banks.
Some of his suits may have an element of justice behind them and no doubt he has calculated that bashing the Gordon Gekko classes makes for good copy and will no doubt endear him to the sort of folk who regard Michael Moore as a political seer. To the rest of us, however, who make a living in the financial markets, his zeal is troubling. Take the recent so-called “scandal” surrounding the case of mutual fund firms which allowed certain types of quick-fire trades to happen in and out of their funds. The activity, while not illegal, is considered harmful because it can damage the long term investments of ordinary investors. Well maybe, maybe not. I find it worrying, however, that the cumulative impact of Spitzer’s energies will be to push up the costs of doing business in the U.S. capital markets, and drive many smart would-be financiers into other fields.
We tend to forget that despite high-level scandals such as the collapse of energy giant Enron, the world economy has greatly benefitted from the efficiencies and new products driven by the entrepreneurs of the modern age. My worry about the whole raft of laws spawned in recent years, such as Sarbanes-Oxley or even the awful Patriot Act, is that financial innovation will be curbed. And as a result, many businesses will shun the public listed stock market and choose to go private instead if that is the way to avoid the glare of the Eliot Spitzers of this world.
Regulatory growth is not a sexy subject, I admit, but let’s not forget that the destruction of wealth and entrepreneurial morale will end up biting us in the economic behind if we don’t take a full regard to the effects.
Iraqis are going to the polls. I hope the whole process goes well. I came across this link here which gives all kinds of information about the election and the participants. Cynics may dismiss the whole process and of course the problems of that tortured country will remain for a long time. As an uncertain supporter of the war to topple Saddam, my main reason for deposing the vile Baathist regime was that its removal was in my view the least-bad option, but the chance of sowing the seeds of liberal democracy in the Middle East was a key bonus. I hope that the citizens of Iraq can start to look forward to a better future.
As we mark the sombre 60th anniversary of the opening of Hitler’s murder factories in Belsen and elsewhere, those prize asses at the Labour Party come up with an anti-Conservative poster portraying leader Michael Howard and shadow finance pokesman Oliver Letwin as flying pigs. Both men are Jews.
Now, I will be charitable to the Labour Party and assume that the creators of this piece of rubbish were so dumb as to fail to think through the significance of this poster and are not anti-semitic, which is an extremely serious charge to make. As I am a hardline defender of free speech, I would of course say Labour is entitled to engage in any manner of roughhouse advertising. I certainly do not think the party should be dragged before the courts. In fact I think Labour has scored a bit of own goal. Some Jewish voters may shun Labour at the national polls, widely expected later this year.
This poster may suggest something quite encouraging to the Conservatives. Maybe this government, which is not exactly shooting the lights out in the opinion polls, is rattled at the Tories’ willingness to talk regularly about cutting the State down to size and cutting taxes. The Tory plans are hopelessly cautious, in my view, but credit to them anyway for pointing out that the government’s spending binge has failed to deliver discernible results and that a major reorientation of policy is required.
Mind you, I still haven’t forgiven Mr Howard for his support for compulsory ID cards.
There is an article in the Spectator which seems a bit complacent to me:
If a violent criminal breaks into my house I, too, may react violently, but if I do so I doubt whether I shall live in fear of ending up like Tony Martin. This is because the law already accepts the right to self-defence and does so in such a way as to take into account an individual’s assessment of the threat in the heat of the moment. Strip away the Tony Martin case, which unfairly dominates all discussion on this topic, and just look at other recent cases. In November 2002 the retired businessman Anthony Spray heard somebody trying to open the door of his Cumbrian home and went downstairs, armed with an air rifle, to investigate. Seeing a figure at the now open door, he shot 19-year-old Paul Evans in the eye from a distance of four feet. Evans, it transpired, was not a burglar: he had mistaken Spray’s house for a B&B where he was staying. As a result of his mistake, Evans lost an eye, yet Spray was not jailed: he was given a 12-month suspended sentence and ordered to pay £3,000 compensation.
Riiight. So the author of this piece, Ross Clark, thinks that the case of Tony Martin, the west Norfolk farmer jailed for killing an intruder at his farm and injuring another, is just a freak, a one-off case which need offer no special insights into the rights of self defence. The Spray case, as is clear, still resulted in the householder being convicted, albeit not having to serve a term of imprisonment.
Clark’s piece is not without merit. He argues that the United States has achieved a large fall in crime due, he claims, to such factors as ‘zero tolerance’ policing, tough sentencing and the like. No doubt these have played a part but it is a distortion to suppose that America’s much lower level of aggravated burglaries is not partly linked to widespread ownership of firearms and a different approach on the part of the courts to householders using force to defend themselves.
Clark is correct to state that hard cases make bad law. He is, however, dead wrong to suppose that apart from the Tony Martin case, there are no examples of homeowners having been prosecuted for self defence. And it is abundantly clear that burglars have got the message: raiding a person’s home is a low-risk activity in Britain, as Perry de Havilland’s former neighbour, the late City financier John Monckton, found out last year.
Fortunately, we have the historian Joyce Lee Malcolm to set us straight on the real lessons to be learned from recent trends in British and American policy on self defence and the law. I urge everyone interested in this issue to read her book if they haven’t already done so.
UPDATE: In thinking through the Spray case mentioned above, I do accept that it was right for the householder to compensate a man mistaken for a burglar, but the suspended jail term strikes me as quite wrong although I have not studied all the particulars of the case, including whether the householder had been the victim of multiple burglaries in the past, like Tony Martin.
|
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.
|
