Samizdata

I have been rather puzzled that no one has written about events on Sark. And it has finally occurred to me that, rather than sitting about saying “why has no one written anything?”, I should write something myself.

Sark is an island (or technically a small group of islands) in the English Channel. It was part of the holdings of Duke William of Normandy (William the Bastard) and since his conquest of England in 1066 the fortunes of Sark and (what is now) the United Kingdom have been, in some ways, linked.

Although Elizabeth II is the head of state of Sark it is not part of the United Kingdom (people who are from Australia, New Zealand, Canada or some other places will not be surprised that one can have the same head of state without being part of the same country), but the government of the United Kingdom does stick its nose into the affairs of Sark in some ways.

For some administrative purposes Sark is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey (which is also not part of the United Kingdom). However, unlike Guernsey, Sark has not introduced such things as income tax. Guernsey introduced a nominal income tax at about the time of the First World War and then an income tax of 20% at the start of the Second World War – sadly never repealed.

Nor is Sark a democracy (as Guernsey is). The hereditory “Seigneaur” (the Channel Islanders origninally spoke Norman French after all) is assisted by a council of 40 land tenents (the “Chief Pleas”) which undertakes the duties of government. In the 1920’s 12 elected deputies were added to the Chief Pleas but (as far as I know) they have never sought absolute power for themselves (sorry, absolute power for “the people”).

Thus Sark has avoided democracy (and many of the “postitive” welfare rights that so many people now seem to believe must go with it). And is indeed known as one of the last strongholds of so called “feudalism” in the world.

Sark has had problems over the centuries (invasions by pirates, the occupation by the Germans in World War II and so on), but its most serious problem has turned out to be the coming of the Barclay twins.

These two brothers (who own, amongst other things, the Telegraph newspaper group) bought the tenancy of the island of Brechow some years ago. This is an island just off the coast of the island of Great Sark and part of the Sark group of islands.

Like all tenants the Barclay twins were required to swear loyalty to Elizabeth (their supreme feudal overlord) and to pay a 13th of the price they had paid for the tenancy to the Seigneur (their direct feudal overlord).

Sadly the Barclay twins have not been loyal to the Seigneur. Perhaps they feel justified in being disloyal because they have more money than him, or perhaps it is because they know that it is no longer a common practice to physically punish people who betray their lord.

The first sign of the disloyalty of the Barclay’s came when they appealed to international “human rights law” for the right to leave their tenancy to a female if they so choose. (Sark has had a female Seigneurs, such as the famous “Dame of Sark”, Sybyl Hathaway, who stood up to the Germans during World War II – but the laws on landholding do favour males.)

Now (last week) the Barclays have gone further. Again using international “human rights law” (with the help of the United Kingdom government) the Barclays have demanded that Sark introduce democracy.

Why should a libertarian care about any of this? Indeed why should not libertarians support the Barclays? After all the Barclays’ use the word “freedom” a lot and present themselves as proud individualists standing up to an oppressive government.

I admit that partly I just resent the end of old custom (the idea that a little place is governed by old traditions – a variation in a bland world), and I also happen to dislike the Barclays.

Leaving one country (to reduce your tax bill) is fine – but it is not fine (in my book) to then toss your weight about in your new country demanding that the ancient laws be changed and calling external powers (including the very United Kingdom government you moved to Sark to get away from the taxes of) to back you up.

But it is more than this.

No one has to stay on Sark. It may be “feudal” but there is no Serfdom there (as far as I know there has never been Serfdom on Sark) and the people do not want this new system of government (for all the patronising talk from the Barclarys about wanting good relations with the “common people” and desiring to educate them about modern political doctrines – “forcing them to be free”?).

Finally consider the off the cuff remarks of the Seigneur (Michael Beaumont) “nothing much is human rights compliant here” and “of course we will have to have a lot of civil servants now”.

I think this tells us what we need to know about a lot of modern conceptions of “human rights” and “democracy”.

The headline really says it all:

‘Safer Cigs’ Condemned

But I will copy and paste the first few paragraphs of the story anyway:

Anti-smoking campaigners are fuming at the development of a “safer” cigarette designed to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease.

British American Tobacco (BAT) is planning to use a new filter system which removes more toxins but still allows nicotine to enter the lungs.

The new brand – which could be launched next year – would look and taste like normal cigarettes.

But John Britton, a professor of epidemiology at Nottingham University, told The Daily Mirror: “These new cigarettes could be more like jumping off the 15th floor instead of the 20th.

“Theoretically the risk is less – but you still die.”

Whereas, we happy persons who do not smoke may confidently expect to live for ever. Oh yes.

My thanks to Mark Holland for the link to this piece.

This argument reminds me of the one that also rages about contraceptives, ‘safe’ sex, and so on. On one side you have people saying that surely safe sex is better than just plain old sex. On the other, you have people blaming contraceptives, because these are by no means totally safe, and only serve to excuse and encourage the evil thing itself, sex intercourse, with all its attendant dangers.

Both arguments have some force. But if you think that with that comparison I am trying to put all obsessionally controlling puritans in the same box, labelled “Obsessively Controlling Puritans”, you are quite right.

Still, I suppose it is better to have people roaming the earth pursuing their moral equivalents of war than to have people actually fighting wars.

You could argue that we here at Samizdata do the same, but that we just pick on different sinners, such as obsessionally controlling puritans, and different sins, such as obsessionally controlling puritanism.

The difference is that we are correct! Oh yes! All violations of freedom of choice are dangerous, and it is no excuse to say that you have found a way to violate freedom rather less than before so that’s alright then! Oh no! Let virtue reign unsullied!!

Amen and have a nice day.

Glenn Reynolds recently interviewed Ray Kurzweil, the futurist thinker who has recently come out with a new book, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. I first came into contact with Kurzweil’s ideas when I read his earlier book, The Age of Spiritual Machines. In this, he expounds his idea of the Law of Accelerating returns, which holds that technological progress grows at an exponential rate.

If you are not familiar with the idea of the Singularity, the Wikepedia page is a good place to start.

It must be emphasised that the ideas and predictions made by Singularity enthusiasts should be examined with caution. I myself am hugely optimistic about the possibilities, however, I should point out that futurists have a patchy record. This is not because they are bad; it is rather a reflection that our technological society is now so complex that understanding the various trends of our society is becoming too much for a single individual. Singularity enthusiasts concede this, and part of the reason why the term ‘singularity’ is used is that beyond the ‘singularity’ we can not really comprehend what will happen. (Just as an event horizon clouds everything within a black hole.)

However there are some features that most futurists agree will occur as progress nears the Singularity, and my purpose is to ask some questions about how they will affect issues dear to the heart of this blog. → Continue reading: Ruminations on the Singularity

‘Just let us put in place our hierarchy of rights. The right to live. The right to go to work on the underground. The right to have an ID card. The right not to have data abused.’

– Charles Clarke to MEPs before the second bombing, talking up data retention.

Freedom has no natural place in a “hierarchy of rights”. Freedom used to be what was left over when other people’s rights to their choices were taken into account. But the priesthood seems keen to ensure that there are “rights” everywhere, with no space for anything else, and that “rights” are not options, they are compulsions. Lenin would be proud.

Surprise surprise. Today, the headline above this story, on the front page of the Guardian caused me to actually buy the thing. But I learned little I did not already know.

The profit margins for major traffickers of heroin into Britain are so high they outstrip luxury goods companies such as Louis Vuitton and Gucci, according to a study that Downing Street is refusing to publish under freedom of information legislation.

Only the first half of the strategy unit study led by the former director general of the BBC, Lord Birt, was released last Friday. The other half was withheld but has been leaked to the Guardian.

It says that the traffickers enjoy such high profits that seizure rates of 60-80% are needed to have any serious impact on the flow of drugs into Britain but nothing greater than 20% has been achieved.

The study concludes that the estimated UK annual supply of heroin and cocaine could be transported into the country in five standard-sized shipping containers but has a value which at a conservative estimate tops £4bn.

Or, as I remember a visiting American policeman saying, in some argument about drugs that I took part in about a quarter of a century ago: These guys don’t count their money, they weigh it.

The trouble is that our political class has persuaded itself that it simply cannot legalise this trade. People might kill themselves by taking too many drugs. (The perfect punishment, I would say.) The politicians already ban lots of other things because they are unsafe. (Stop. Let people take their own risks and their own chances.) “Middle England” would not stand for it. (Middle England stands for lots of other things it dislikes.) But, but, but, we just can’t. (Why not?)

Well, why not indeed? What is going on here? Maybe the root cause, if there is such a thing, of the utter refusal of the present generation of politicians to legalise drugs is that they have got it into their heads, as have an appalling proportion of their voters, that it is the job of politicians to look after the voters, in the manner of parents looking after their children. To legalise drugs would be to send out a message that the politicians simply cannot bear to send out, namely: We don’t care about you! Look after yourselves! If all you can think of to do with your lives is take drugs, you will get no money from us to pay for them. And if you wreck your lives with them, and find yourselves ill and starving, tough. The only way you will get our attention is if you commit crimes under the influence of drugs, or because you can think of no other way to make a living, in which case we catch you and punish you some more.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can help by discriminating against people who damage themselves with drugs, by denying them employment, friendship, romantic attachments, respectability. That way drug abusers, if abusers they be, will have the necessary incentive to pull themselves together.

Drugs are dangerous, although it is clear that lots of people manage to use drugs regularly while nevertheless keeping these dangers at arm’s length. As this report makes clear, the stuff is pouring in, yet our civilisation trundles on, and when it comes to civilisational collapse, alcohol surely now does far more damage than (the other) drugs. Nevertheless, there are dangers attached to these drugs, and I for one have never doubted it, which is why I have refrained from ever using them, timid soul that I am. Even cannabis – much talked up as harmless by some of the people I went to university with – actually seems to have quite severe mental health risks if you use it too much. To put it bluntly, it is now quite widely believed by scientists and doctors that it can drive you mad – which is just what my recollections of the characters of some of the people recommending cannabis to me all those years ago have long caused me to suspect.

But, however harmful – or harmless – all these drugs may be, there is no sensible future in the government treating their sale and use on a par with the kind of genuine crime where someone else is immediately hurt or attacked or has their property harmed or stolen, and is accordingly immediately ready to help the authorities with any inquiries they might be inclined to make. How is the government supposed to learn about the drug trade? Who is going to tell them about it? (Even when compiling reports about the drug trade, with no thought of arresting anyone, all they can do is “estimate” what is really going on.)

But alas, such commonsensical questions are mere pinpricks when they come up against the entrenched mental positions of virtually all our current rulers. What is needed is more than a policy upheaval. A mental upheaval is required, and those are an order of magnitude harder to contrive. Meanwhile, it does not matter to our rulers – not enough to make any difference in how they behave – how much absurdity and expense they inflict on us in order to sustain their paternal illusions, and to sustain the corresponding illusions of all those of their voters who share them.