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]
|
Last night the British television channel, Channel 4, gave us another superb documentary history programme with a great twist – the story of the Dambuster raid on the German dams in WW2. It relayed the story of how Wing Cmdr Guy Gibson (a mere 24 years old) led a squadron of Avro Lancasters to smash two dams using the famous “bouncing bomb”.
The programme makers got a group of present-day serving RAF aircrew, including two women, who work in the very different airforce of today, to try to repeat the feat of Guy Gibson’s men, using a flight simulator and a real-live Lancaster. These modern flyers are used to state-of-the-art navigation technology rather than the old pencil, map and compass techniques that had to be used back in the 1940s, when radar-based techniques were in their relative infancy.
It made for compulsive viewing. And one thought stuck in my head. Most of the flyers are about on average 10 years younger than me (I am 36). Gibson, as noted above, was just 24. I don’t think – as the Iraq campaign demonstrates – that the best of our young folk today are any less capable of performing heroic and dangerous feats than our forbears. And while I would prefer to see such talents used for peaceful purposes like entrepreneurship rather than flying a bomber, I think recent events bode rather well for our future.
That’s something to remember when London gets infested with the usual rag-bag of anti-globalistas and Saddam mourners on May 1.
Reports coming in on the wires that about 2,500 Republican Guards have surrendered to American forces, while other US forces are closing in on Baghdad. Interesting to see that gold and oil prices are skidding down while stock markets are chugging higher.
Amazingly volatile state of the financial markets. My prediction – if this war really looks to be won, expect the Dow to hit 9,000 by Labor Day.
Meanwhile, shares in Robert Fisk plc are suspended, pending Chapter 11.
Next week we are due for the annual ritual of watching the British government’s finance minister (Chancellor of the Exchequer) tell us how far he intends to stick his fingers into our wallets. No doubt funding the cost of military campaigns in the Middle East will provide a convenient excuse, although I would guess that Gordon Brown’s huge public spending increases on health and education have more to do with it. Remember he made such increases against a backdrop of crumbling stock markets.
A good article in the British weekly, The Spectator, lays out the lunacy of where public finances are currently headed.
And an article at Reuters suggests that owners of property can expect another kick in the shins from Labour.
Some nice things have been said about Premier Tony Blair in recent weeks from the right-wing side of the political tracks due to his hard-edged realism about dealing with Saddam. We all knew it could come at a cost in blood and treasure. But on pretty much everything else, this government, like 99 percent of them, remains a menace to liberty and property.
Of course, non-interventionist libertarians would say that war is the health of the state and therefore advocates of military action vs Iraq like yours truly can have no complaints about the size of my tax bill. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. Domestic spending, much of which is wasted, dwarfs UK spending on the military as a proportion of the total budget.
Longer term, of course, any overhaul of public spending (ie, a stonking big cut) must include a willingness to look at private sector options in providing for our defence, including use of mercenaries, even. I’d be very interested in what readers have to say on the latter point. I’d guess even opponents of the current war might want to say how minarchists or even anarcho-capitalists should look at how military forces should be paid for.
I have been taking a break from blogging, writing about Iraq and All That this past week in exchange for a much more enjoyable time working for a sailing examination off the south coast of the UK. But a few incidents and conversations with my fellow yachties got me thinking about some connections to this wonderful pastime and political stuff.
For starters, many nautical enthusiasts like me get into sailing because it embodies a form of freedom. For sure, there are thousands of complex rules operating at sea, many of which have accumulated like barnacles on the underside of a ship over the centuries, rather like the evolution of the rule of the English common law. And while they appear to be initially baffling, the rules of the High Seas make sense and actually liberate those who follow them. (Rules such as avoiding collisions and the use of navigation beacons, etc.)
Beyond such rules, what I like about sailing is that you have to obey and respect nature to master it. You are reliant on your own skills and knowledge and the voluntary co-operation of others in the same vessel. A skipper of a boat has and requires authority to operate a boat efficiently, but he or she cannot compel folk to be on the same boat in the first place.
Drawing big cultural implications out of all this has its limits, of course, but I cannot help feeling that those cultures most infected with the spirit of liberty have strong seafaring traditions. Sailing over long distances requires a natural spirit of enterprise. It requires skills and knowledge not best acquired at the point of a gun. It encourages the spread of language, particularly flexible languages like English. And seafaring folk have, in my experience, a robust, independent attitude towards life which sits well with the liberal outlook.
I spent a fair amount of money, not to mention a lot of energy, getting my sailing qualification ticket. I feel mighty pleased to know that I can now charter out a yacht in any part of the world’s oceans. That’s freedom.
A quick detour from the war – I came across this fine new blog under the intriguing name Banana Oil (eeerrr, right!) while flitting around the Web. Excellent blog put together by film nut and anti-idiotarian Ian Michael Hamet. Give it a look. His latest post starts with this sentence:
Some things just honk me off. People who refuse to admit reality are one of them.
My god that is so true.
He then goes on to deconstruct the odious Michael Moore, who sadly, could pick up an Oscar from those luvvie airheads in a few days’ time.
Polly Toynbee, doyenne of the transnational progressive movement and all-round-leftist prig, is shocked, shocked! that Tony Blair’s forthright denunciation of France’s perfidy over Iraq is damaging our prospects of getting deeper into bed with the Eurofederalists…
Once again <drums roll!> – excellent! Let’s hope that a woman who is so consistently wrong is actually correct on this one!
Here in my office, the early stages of the war in Iraq are accompanied by a sort of low, whining tone of complaint from colleagues seated all around. Some are actually joking about Saddam’s taunts at Bush. What big men and women they are.
I have tried in my own mind to figure out what goes on inside the heads of supposedly intelligent people – folk with university degrees, who can produce work of great skill and complexity, but who, on this terrible issue of the day have the moral intelligence of total imbeciles. A sort of collective death wish seems to have gripped whole swathes of the smarter elements in our population. I am not just talking about the usual assholes on the far Left, mind you. Let’s not forget the head-in-the-sand isolationists with whom we occasionally mix in the libertarian parish. Not to mention the Pat Buchanan-style wackjobs either.
When this whole dreadful period in our history is over, and I hope really soon, I would like to renew my request to the anti-war folk who I would broadly classify as libertarian as to what they would actually do when confronted with terror and state sponsors of terror. And let’s have answers instead of the usual “we had it coming in the past so in future we should keep our heads down” evasions.
As the decibel count rises amid the drumbeat of war, we try to do what we can to see the cheery side of things. These are grim times, but my fervent hope is that in a few decades, Baghdad will be the Hong Kong of the Middle East, al-Quaeda and Saddam will be a distant memory, Iraq will be one of the richest countries on the planet, Jacques Chirac will have been put behind bars, the EU will be just a free trade zone and Samizdata will have more readers than Fox, CNN and the BBC combined.
But what has really fired my determination to be optimistic is the report, in today’s Financial Times (only available in print edition), that quintessential British media megastar Basil Brush, emblem of all that is finest about this island, is to release a pop record. Magnificent.
(Apologies to non-Brit readers. The last paragraph will be totally meaningless).
Colleagues of mine of Guardianista persusations are muttering about how that evil, gun-toting Texan retard in the White House has “probably busted the EU, the UN, and even NATO”. Much gnashing of transnational progressive teeth today.
As Perry might put it – excellent!
It is taken as read by certain commentators on what is loosely known as the ‘left’ (sorry to use that term for those that hate such crudities) that one of the terrible things about market economies is the inequality of outcomes they spawn. Hence their enthusiasm for steeply progressive tax rates, heavy state spending, positive discrimination in favour of the poor and other preferred groups for things like university admissions, and so on.
A pretty classic demonstration of this mindset appeared in the Guardian newspaper <drums roll!> this week, in a column by Polly Toynbee. Polly is one of the most articulate, if consistently wronghead exponents of the Procrustean view of equality.
For her, equality of wealth is regarded as an utterly self-evident good, of no need of further justification or support. And yet surely what these folk ignore is that their view of the world depends upon us thinking that wealth is essentially fixed. For them, there is no such thing as wealth creation, only redistribution. Their mental apparatus is in this sense seriously defective.
It also misses another fairly obvious point. The wealth held by individuals varies through the life cycle. People typically save more and accumulate more capital into their middle age and then begin to draw down upon it as they reach the age of retirement. That is why claims that X own a shockingly high proportion of nation’s Y’s wealth are so misleading. They crucially fail to see how circumstances vary through time.
You might wonder, gentle reader, why I am getting het up about issues which are blindlingly obvious to Samizdata readers. Well, for one thing, it seems pretty obvious that so-called Conservative politicians no longer feel able to argue the case any more for the market. I also think that with Labour seemingly lurching to the left and with Tony Blair in peril of losing his job, the time may come again when we have to spell out the basics. It is never too early to start.
Unless you have been living on an isolated desert island for the past three years – not an entirely bad thought – you would have read of how the collapse of scandal-ridden firms like Enron and WorldCom contributed to the bloodbath in the world’s stock markets.
As the tales of corporate accounting hijinks and outright fraud surfaced, the Cassandras took to print and the airwaves to inform us of how these tales proved that the equity-crazed Anglo-Saxon form of capitalism was vulnerable to such behaviour. Of course, what these tales proved was that the world’s modern capital markets can and will punish malefactors harshly. They certainly did.
Well, corruption is hardly the sole preserve of corporations. And surely there are few more corrupt institutions that the European Commission, as shown by this story in today’s Financial Times newspaper. But whereas businessmen at Enron and elsehwere were swiftly brought before the courts, it seems that corruption in the bureacracy of the EU is proving much tougher to clean up.
To which I would add, why is anyone surprised?
The British Broacasting Corporation, as many readers will know, is paid for out of a tax, the licence fee. And here is further evidence that the BBC, which regards much of the terrestrial television world as its personal fiefdom, will stop at nothing to track down those who don’t believe the BBC has a divine right to permanent existence.
As the saying goes, you couldn’t make it up.
|
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.
|
