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]
|
I don’t expect isolationists who oppose George W. Bush’s policy of pre-emption to be converted by his State of the Union address last night, but this paragraph helped to tilt my mind in favour of the view that taking Saddam Hussein down is the right, if perilous, course:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restratint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Exactly.
All is not well in the Golden State of California these days as the citizens of that fine place continue to struggle under the governorship of Gray Davis, the man who helped acquaint Californians with the sort of power blackouts we Brits used to get in the unlamented 1970s.
This article (link courtesy of Virginia Postrel) shows how bad the tax revenue situation is on the West Coast, but also points out that the public sector there is as bloated as ever.
My recent trip to California last year confirmed such reports. One thing I was struck by was the poor quality of the freeways, in contrast to the smooth fast roads of neighbouring Nevada.
California could certainly use someone like Ronald Reagan, its last great governor, to shake it up and kick some ass in that state. Many political and economic trends seem to start on the West Coast, like the internet and tax revolts. A place for we Anglospherists to watch.
There is an interesting post by David Kenner over on An Age Like This complete with pictures he took, of the pro-Saddam Hussain protests in Washington DC. It is good to see a bit of blog primary reportage.
Also David has a picture of Protest Awards!: Most Offensive Banner.
Those concerned with legislative attempts to alter society may find this article on cnn.com interesting. It concerns recent and current efforts to have toy guns outlawed because they are sometimes used to commit real crimes. Even worse, the perpetrators of toy gun crimes sometimes end up really dead when their victim turns out to be a cop who reacts by defending himself with lethal force.
Surprisingly, the idea was discussed that the real issue is not the prop used but the criminal intent of the assailant. Personally, I take that as a given. If a perpetrator knowingly engages in an illegal activity it does not matter what is chosen as the crime enabler of choice. While it may engender discussion, the issue is not the criminal misuse of toy guns.
The real issue is why do lawmakers want to remove toys resembling guns from society?
The immediate answer is social engineering. This is a conclusion reached not only through logical thinking, but also through the words of the two city councilmen who have introduced a bill to ban toy guns in New York. One likens toy guns to toy cigarettes. Given the increasingly pervasive and invasive bans on smoking, it is not hard to see where that leads. The other, Albert Vann, is even more blatant when he states
“If they use toy guns there’s a greater chance they’ll graduate to the real thing when they grow up.”
Clearly, it’s not about the toys. It’s not even about the crime. It is about changing society one culturally legislating law at a time.
According to this report in the UK Times (not linked as subscription required for non-UK readers), President Bush is forging ahead in his confrontation with American trial lawyers:
“President Bush opened an assault on America’s litigious culture yesterday, saying that a deepening healthcare crisis could be solved only by curbs on patient lawsuits.
Calling for caps on jury awards to patients injured by doctors, Mr Bush said that the American instinct to sue was breaking the system.
“There are too many lawsuits in America, and there are too many lawsuits filed against doctors and hospitals without merit,” he said.”
From what I understand, trial lawyers in America are only marginally more popular than the Taliban so Mr.Bush should have ample public support in his showdown with them.
Whilst putting a mandatory cap on jury awards (which is the proposal) perhaps Mr.Bush might do as well to look at the entire concept of ‘punitive damages’ which can be awarded against a Defendant in negligence claim on top of the actual compensation paid to the Plaintiff. As far as I can tell, punitive damages are a means of punishing a Defendant for the negligence and lead breathtakingly high jury awards in medical damages cases.
Genuine cases of negligence, be they medical or otherwise, should always be actionable but it is my view that the concept of punitive damages constitutes a zealous over-egging of the pudding. Negligence is not crime and should not be ‘punished’. Similarly, a Plaintiff who has suffered loss and damage should be rightfully compensated but not rewarded. Recourse to law should be a matter of both necessity and justice not a warped form of entrepreneurship for both claimants and their legal representatives.
In my view that situation in the UK preferable. Whilst it is true that the litigious culture has blossomed in this country over recent years, nonetheless damages awards are maintained at only a fraction of their US equivalents. This is because there is no recognition of ‘punitive damages’ in the UK system. The purpose of a claim here is to ‘make the Plaintiff whole’ i.e. to put the Plaintiff into the position he or she was in immediately before the negligence occurred. There is also a compensation element for pain and suffering as a result of medical or other negligent damage but these are awarded on the basis of the Plaintiff’s provable condition not as a means of penalising the Defendant.
The further advantage of the UK system is that there is no jury for civil trials (except Defamation cases) and therefore both the verdict and damages are decided upon by a Judge. This does not entirely remove the ‘sympathy’ element influential in many claims but does keep it in some sort of check as all Judges are bound by both guidelines and precedents. Judges can push at this envelope but not discard it altogether.
That said, I wish Mr.Bush the best of luck in his campaign. As a lawyer myself, I am concerned that the popular view of the legal system as a kind of ‘get-rich-quick’ lottery to be, at best, distasteful and, at worst, socially and economically damaging.
I have long wondered whether anti-Americanism can be regarded as the last acceptable form of racism among our chattering classes. Of course, “racism” might be stretching things a bit far but when it comes to reflexive bigotry, anti-Americanism fills the space once reserved for non-whites, Jews, Catholics, dissenters, atheists and others. Of course anti-Semitism is still around these days, as many bloggers have sadly had cause to state.
Michael Gove in the Times on Wednesday says the toughest challenge of Tony Blair’s rule would be to challenge and face down the anti-Americanism of the Left.
Because the Times’ website archive is a paid-for one, I will quote one of his most telling paragraphs here in full:
Why then do the myths of America the Hateful take such powerful hold? Because anti-Americanism provides a useful emotional function which goes beyond logic and reaches deep into the darker recesses of the European soul. In centuries past those on the Left who wished to personalise their hatred of capitalism, who sought to make it emotionally resonant by fastening an envious political passion on to a blameless scapegoat people, embraced anti-Semitism. It was the socialism of fools. Which is what anti-Americanism is now.
Gove makes a number of excellent points, although I would add that hatred of the U.S. is sadly not a monopoly of socialists, since there have sometimes been elements of knee-jerk dislike of Uncle Sam from the political Right. There is a generation of conservatives (either of the lower or upper case C variety), mostly in their middle age, who dislike America for its post-Englightenment secularism, entrepreneurial gusto, popular culture and challenge to the old British Empire. But in the main these days hatred of America is a left-wing phenomenon.
I am not sure how to attack this prejudice. But for my part I tend to adopt a deliberately reflexive support for the U.S. in most things, even to the point of giving the U.S. the benefit of the doubt in cases where a strictly dispassionate person might not. This can take trivial forms. I make a point of marking the Fourth of July, proudly tell my friends that I have American relatives serving in the U.S. Air Force, and will often stick up for George Bush in pub chats about the world at the slightest opportunity. (I once caused a lady at a dinner party to go very red in the face by saying how pleased I was that Dubya had stiffed the Kyoto Treaty).
The America has a lot of noisy enemies. No harm in making some noise on its behalf. And may God rot Harold Pinter and other opponents of Jefferson’s Republic.
No one seems to have mentioned the death of Joe Foss (who died on New Year’s Day) here yet. As I have just read his obituary in the Daily Telegraph (link to article is currently down) I had better write something.
Joe Foss was a true American Hero, “Ace of Aces” in the struggle against the Japanese in the skies over the Pacific, destroying at least 27 enemy aircraft personnally. He was a fine officer and an inspiration to the men who served with him. He survived being shot down and spent hours drifting in shark invested waters. Joe Foss was also a fine thinking officer who never let his aircraft be tricked into hunting enemy fighters – if this meant letting enemy bombers through to attack U.S. air bases.
For his bravery and skill Joe Foss won the Congressional Medal of Honour and many other decoratons.
However, Joe Foss was not just a good Marine – he was also a man of grit in civilian life, helping to save his families’ farm in Depression hit South Dakota (after the early death of his father) by hard slog. After the war Joe Foss turned down a vast sum of money for the film rights to his life (he was to have been played by John Wayne) because the film company wished to include a love affair that did not occur.
From running a flight school in Sioux Falls South Dakota Joe Foss served his State as Governor and in the United States Congress – before being defeated by George McGovern.
Joe Foss then became an outstanding broadcaster famous for such long running series on American rural life as “Joe Foss Outdoorsman”.
Joe Foss’s commitment to liberty did not weaken with age and he was President of the National Rifle Association from 1988 to 1990 and was staunch in his belief that Americans had the right to be armed to defend themselves and others “period”.
I picked up the following little titbit from an email newsletter of We The People. For those of you who don’t remember, that is Bob Schultz’s tax protest organization.
It seems that Congressman Henry Hyde thinks the Constitution he swore to uphold and protect is just a bit, well… passe:
“Congressman Ron Paul reminded the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations that the Constitution required a congressional Declaration of War before the armed forces of the United States could be applied in hostilities overseas, not H.J.R 114, a congressional Resolution authorizing the President to decide if and when to apply that force.
However, Chairman Henry Hyde is quoted, for the record, “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore…”
The 50-member Committee then went on to vote against the substitute amendment offered by Rep. Paul, which read simply (after the resolving clause), “That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.”
The Committee then went on to approve H.J. Resolution 114, which was eventually approved by Congress.”
Ron Paul is the nearest thing to a libertarian we have in public office. Although he is registered Republican… he is a libertarian. Some of you may remember his 1988 Presidential campaign with Andre Marrou as his Vice Presidential running mate. I was a Russell Means delegate at the nominating convention in Seattle that year, but that’s how it is in politics. Once the streamers and confetti have been swept off the convention floor everyone gets behind “the horse what won”. I wrote the Space Policy statements for them and thus had the chance to work with Ron and his campaign team on a number of occasions.
Ron’s congressional statements were not grandstanding. They were principled statements of his belief in the Constitution and in Liberty. That is just the sort of man he is.
For those space activists among us: Ron Paul is also the only Presidential candidate to ever appear at an International Space Development Conference: the 7th ISDC, held in Denver in May 1988. Some of the local Colorado LP were working his Denver visit and one of them was also on the ISDC conference committee (I had chaired the year before in Pittsburgh). He knew me in both my LP hat and my L5 hat… so I acted as liaison and briefer before Ron’s talk. We even had a heckler from Martin-Marietta to keep it interesting: Bob Zubrin!
Perhaps this is my own personal jaundice and nothing else but I seem to have found myself in an ‘issue-trough’. I think this is what journalists call a ‘slow news day’. I can seem to find anything worthy of truly sinking my teeth into and grinding away. I do detect the onset of a series of ‘Great World-Shaking Events’ in the offing but they’re teetering back-and-forth on the precipice so tantalisingly that they’re starting to lull me into a hypnotic trance.
Well, something will come along pretty soon, I’ll bet. But, in the meantime, I shall use this hiatus in the global narrative to indulge in a bit of mischief-making.
It’s becoming quite clear that the EU is adopting an increasingly anti-American character. As illustrated in this post from Perry a while back, the EU elites are actively marketing their project as being the plausible rival to the American ‘hyperpower’, the antidote to US-style ‘cowboy’ diplomacy and vigourous (which they see as ‘virulent’) market ideology.
The grumbling and foot-dragging from various European governments over US plans for Saddam Hussein are a symptom of this background antipathy not the cause of it. It’s already causing a rift in relations and that rift is only going to get worse. Having given up trying to forge an identity for their superstate, the EU elite are having to rely increasingly on an anti-identity and that anti-identity is Anti-American.
So, what could the US government do about this? Work round it? Fight against it? Try to mollify it? Options which are all expensive, difficult and far from guaranteed to succeed.
No, I can think of a better solution: open up the US to immigration from Europe.
It’s a policy that would have nothing but nothing but benefits for the US:
- It would attract vast numbers of bright, young, well-educated Europeans grown weary of the burden of their increasingly fossilised economies. They would sprout wings and fly in the more entrepreneurial environment of the USA.
- European immigrants would be able to assimilate seamlessly in a heartbeat and, more importantly, they would want to.
- It’s a no-cost policy. Not a penny of US taxpayers money would have to be spent.
- It’s a politically winning policy. The American left could hardly object unless they want to stand on an anti-immigration platform; the isolationist right won’t mind because, let’s face it, the overwhelming majority of Europeans are white, and libertarians cannot possibly have any cause for complaint. Thus all potential political opposition within the US is neutralised.
- America gets progressively richer and more dynamic while Europe’s enarques are left lording it over a constituency consisting of pensioners, cretins and Al-Qaeda sleepers.
So, if the EUnuchs get too far up George Bush’s nose, may I suggest that a heady revenge can be obtained by a mere stroke of the Presidential pen by which he could consign the aforesaid EUnuchs to a slow, lingering, humiliating death. It really is a win-win-win-win policy. In fact, from an American point of view, I cannot think of a downside.
Oh yes, sorry, I can think of a downside; some Americans living in the vicinity of any Ports of Entry risk being trampled to death in the rush.
A Canadian Samizdata reader alerted Samizdata to a story in Canada’s National Post. The Post reports that costs for Canada’s gun registry have overrun by a factor of 500. No, that’s not an overrun of 500% (which would be bad enough) but a final cost of five hundred times the original estimate. Did I say final? I meant cost so far; it’s not final yet.
Well, at least Canadians are safe now. Only they’re not. He adds:
“Herewith is another example of why gun registration programs don’t work. Canada has a history different from the US with respect to firearms (which explains, in large part, why this became law in the first place). I think that violent, gun-related crime in Canada’s urban centers has probably increased since 1995 (but I don’t have any hard evidence to support this assertion). I can say that, in Toronto, there was a series of gang related shooting in October where every weekend (for a month) different gang members ended up dead in different parts of the city. Further to this, the gun control law has had no impact on the Hell’s Angels in Montreal.”
As chance would have it I had posted earlier today about how Simon Jenkins of the Times should not believe all that Michael Moore says about Canada being a paradise of trust. Moore is right about one thing. America does have an anomalously high murder rate. But all the strategies put in place by countries who boast that their lower murder rate is the result of gun control, and that they therefore need more of it, keep on failing. Expensively.
That would have been a good sign-off line, but I’ve one more thing to say. I was struck by the sentiments of Allan Rock, a Liberal Party bigshot who the opposition attacked for keeping mum about the spiralling costs of the gun registry. The report said:
Mr. Rock defended the registry, saying it has “saved lives” and reinforced “Canadian values” by distinguishing Canada from the United States on the issue of gun control.
Were his actual words as thin and shabby as this paraphrase implies? Does he really see mere difference to the United States as a merit in itself?
Paul Marks poses a question about a hypothetical character who seems strangely… familiar
What does one do about the growth of government leading to the collapse of society?
In the United States if one is a Democrat there is no problem – such a person does not tend to believe that the growth of government causes any damage so one can tax and spend with a happy heart (until the cannibals tear out that heart).
But what if one is a Republican? Not a Democrat by another name (like the absurd Mayor Bloomberg of New York City), but the sort of Republican who (whilst he may have no libertarian principles) dimly knows that an ever expanding government will cause harm to society (i.e. the web of social interactions between human beings).
Let us say that one is the sort of Republican who spent his years at Yale getting drunk (rather than being teacher’s pet like his father), because he had enough sense to understand that what he was being taught was nonsense.
Well (if one is not a man of fanatical principle) one spouts off enough of the nonsense to get a “C average” (the lowest respectable grade), makes some networking contacts (that will prove of use later in life) and then goes off into the world.
Then say one becomes President of the United States (so one can not say “someone else will keep things going”), and faces a situation where defence spending (the only form of government spending that history shows is easy to cut) is going to go UP rather than down.
The “entitlement programs” (the Welfare State) continues to expand and society is under threat – so what do you do?
Perhaps you start by trying to find ways to “contract out” government activities, but (perhaps because you suspect there are no magic solutions to fiscal problems) you also announce that civilian government employees are going to get a 3.1 (rather than 4.1) percent pay increase this year – and justify it on “national security” grounds.
There will have to be many such moves if the United States is to be saved – but it is good to know that the President has some understanding (dim or not so dim) of the problem.
Paul Marks
Paul Marks points out that it is the spending rather than the taxing which is the root of governments woe
People (not just us evil libertarians) often complain about taxation and there have been many attempts to reduce or at least limit it – these attempts have mostly been unsuccessful.
Few governments tax in order to create piles of money in their store houses – governments normally tax to spend. If we are to limit (let alone reduce) taxation it is government spending that we must fight. Limit one tax and the government will increase another – limit them all and government will borrow, ban borrowing and the fight come back to spending – i.e. (in the end) the fight is about government spending.
As far as I know there is only one State in the U.S. which shows (in its’ laws) a clear understanding of this and that State is Colorado. Colorado has many problems and I would not claim it is the most free market State (although it is one of the smaller government States), but I think that its spending based version of a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” has, over the few years of its’ history, proved to be useful thing.
In Colorado government spending can only be increased in line with an increase in population or an increase in prices (yes I know there are all sorts of problems with the idea of a price index – but I will not go into that here). This would seem to a be a very moderate limitation – but (as far as I know) there is not another State in the Union that has such a limitations. Over the last few years Colorado has reduced the burden of taxation (i.e total taxes as a percentage of income – not reduced one tax and increased another) and balanced the budget.
The key really is government spending. To convince people that if they want some special benefit from government another benefit will have to be abolished (not just the total spending of the government increased).
In the end the fight has to be about spending. Whatever waffle either side comes out with about the “institutions of a just society” what matters is where the money goes. If we allow people to convince others that government spending is a “good thing” then all the anti tax and anti borrowing campaigns in the world will not save us.
Paul Marks
|
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.
|
