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]

All newspapers are equal (but some are more equal than others)

‘Spirited’ is the word I would use to describe this article by stalwart Guardianista Polly Toynbee in which she pours all the hot water she can boil over the ‘Tory Press’ for what she regards as a ‘naked political assault on the government’.

Perhaps ‘vituperative’ is a better word. She certainly does not pull her punches. But what really caught my eye was this most damning conclusion:

“The question is why do we tolerate a press that is the worst in the western democratic world? Wild, unaccountable to anyone, anything goes and no one can stop it: what politician would dare call for a privacy law in the face of their wrath? The only hope is public revulsion.”

Being more than a little intrigued by this prima facie hypocrisy, I found myself composing (and then sending) a little request for clarification:

“Is this not the press of which you are a very prominent part, Ms.Toynbee? Or are we to take it that you consider yourself to be above and beyond the rest of the ‘unaccountable’ rabble?”

A not unreasonable question I thought. A view shared by Ms.Toynbee as she was kind enough to respond to me (albeit tersely):

“I do not regard the Guardian as in the same business as the Mail.”

I believe that my question has been answered in the affirmative.

The best-dressed oppressed

I ask you, who would want to be a celebrity these days? If you aren’t being pestered by ‘peacenik’ goons to endorse their idiotic petitions then you’re having the strong-arm put on you by animal rights activists:

“An animal rights group is giving Liverpool’s homeless mink coats for Christmas.

Bond girl Barbara Bach and Playboy magazine centrefold Kimberley Hefner were among those who had donated furs..”

So they are taking mink coats from rich people and giving them to poor people. But, hang on, if wearing fur is wrong then surely it is wrong regardless of one’s social status, right? Apparently not.

“”We cannot bring these animals back – but we can send a message that only people truly struggling to survive have any excuse for wearing fur.”

“To show these furs were “recycled”, the garments had had white stripes painted on the arms, so the recipients would not be left “open to ridicule for wearing something so cruel”

“Recycled”? That’s not quite the word I would use. The word I would use is re-distributed because that is really the point of this whole exercise. The white stripe on the arm is nothing less than a badge of party membership, identifying the bearer as the ideologically sound beneficiary of plantation politics as opposed to those “open to ridicule” for resisting the moral blackmail and proudly displaying their property for all to see.

Not ridiculous: Giselle looks good in fur

The old class warriors have found some ingenious ways to hide their rhetoric and ‘animal rights’ is one of them. Of course, they are not really concerned about the fate of cute, furry animals. No, what really bothers them about fur coats is that they are a conspicuous symbol of wealth and, as such, are only acceptable if being adorned on the bodies of the duly appointed deserving.

And if you have ever wondered why mink and fur is so offensive but leather is unremarkable then may I suggest that it is because ‘ridiculing’ and strong-arming little old ladies and bulimic supermodels is a very safe way of exercising one’s alleged virtues. Taking on a 250lb Hell’s Angel is an altogether more risky proposition.

Click me

First, they came for the opium…

I detect something of a ‘first principles’ air hanging over this blog at the moment. An impatient urge to push rudely past the tennis-match formality of polite debate and embrace the raw, beating heart of the matter.

This atmosphere may not last and, truth be told, I hope it doesn’t, lest it descends into an arid aesthetism that tends to mitigate heavily against the kind of rumbustious fun we prefer to trade in. That said, I wish to strike while the iron is hot and use this window of opportunity to get something off my chest (where it has been squatting like a toad).

Over at ‘The Edge of England’s Sword’ the otherwise reliably insightful Iain Murray has been conducting his own personal War on Drugs. Iain has referred to a report indicating the cannabis is not a ‘gateway’ drug (i.e. people who use cannabis will not necessarily gravitate towards using ‘harder’ drugs such as cocaine, heroin etc). Iain takes the view that the report is misleading for reasons that, I daresay, he could explain with his customary precision. I think it is fair to say that Iain, along with many others, opposes drug legalisation.

I take objection to Iain’s position and not because I have any persuasive evidence as to whether cannabis is or is not a ‘gateway’ drug. It is because I simply do not care.

→ Continue reading: First, they came for the opium…

A Liberal Democrat challenge to Sean Gabb

Sean Gabb‘s account of the debate he took part in yesterday evening, already referred to here (and assuming that yesterday is the proper word for the day that only ended a little over an hour ago), is already up and readable on his own website. The full text of what he said is there, together with his account of some other things he said during the Q&A. Recommended.

The titbit in the report of the evening that interested me most was somewhat off the central agenda. It seems that after the debate, which all went very smoothly and politely by the way, Sean was challenged in a rather interesting way by a young woman in the audience:

She began with flattery. She was a reader, she said, of Free Life Commentary on my web page and found it very interesting. The surest way to an intellectual’s heart is though his ego. This young lady will doubtless go far in life. She then asked why I was spending so much of my time on the mixed bag of losers and cretins who are the modern Conservative Party? Why not turn my attentions to the Liberal Democrats? These at least were already social liberals, and they might with a fraction of the effort I had wasted on the Tories come to some agreement on economic liberalism. Good question, and I had no ready answer. Perhaps I should think of one.

Yes do, Sean. I for one would love to hear it.

In this connection, our American readers in particular would surely appreciate some explanation of the parlous state that Britain’s Conservatives now find themselves in, especially when you consider how well the Republicans are now doing over there. Why is the political right that in such a mess here, while it is the left that is in trouble in the USA? I hope to offer a few answers to this question in a future Samizdata posting, but I have learned from bitter experience over the decades that what I say that I hope to do, and what I do do, are two things that often diverge with embarrassing completeness. So expect that when you read it and no sooner.

I cannot even hope to offer much on the subject of the Lib Dems, the young lady’s proposed alternative focus of Sean Gabb’s attention. Recently someone told me that there are clever young people in their ranks who are not completely indifferent to the claims of economic liberalism. Until then I despised the Liberal Democrats utterly, and had as little to do with them, and even with thinking about them, as I could contrive. But maybe they might make something approximating to libertarians some time reasonably soon. They’re already very sound about cannabis. And they are descended from the nineteenth century Liberal Party of William Gladstone. In the 1950s there were still old-fashioned Liberals like Jo Grimmond to be found among them, before they succumbed to the statism Mark 2 posture that they have adopted for the last forty years or so. Comments anybody?

Mr Blair’s role model

Paul Marks has seen spotted the true historical template for Tony Blair…

For some time now I have been puzzled by the fact that although Mr Blair has followed ‘left wing’ policies of ever more government spending, taxes and regulations he is widely seen as “free market”, “really a Conservative”, “very right wing” and so on.

I must stress that not only the ‘usual suspects’ (Marxists and other such) have used such language, but quite a few pro-free market and even libertarian people.

What I have tried to do is find people in history who have followed statist policies and still got a reputation as free market folk.

President Hoover comes fairly close. Herbert Hoover, as Commerce Secretary in the 1920’s, worked endlessly to increase the budget and powers of his department and showered President Harding and President Coolidge with bad advise (which, thankfully, they mostly ignored – indeed President Coolidge is supposed to have said “no one has given me more advise than Herbert Hoover – and all of it bad advise”),

As President, Herbert Hoover went along with big tariff increases and demanded that large companies keep up wage rates at a time when both prices and output were falling (thus ensuring vast unemployment) – and yet Herbert Hoover (“The Forgotten Progressive”) is widely seen as the free market man that President Roosevelt reacted against.

However, President Hoover was faced with the worst depression in American history (caused by a credit-money boom that he had nothing to do with creating) – and this is likely to warp the judgement of most men. Also Herbert Hoover was a man of strict honesty in his dealings with businessmen – which does not fit in with the cozy image (however false it may be, my dear libel lawyers) of Mr Blair and those known (however wrongly) as his friends.

I think that I have found a closer match for Mr Blair – someone who may indeed have served as a role model for him.

Louis Phillippe “King of the French” from 1830 to 1848:

Louis Phillippe was a ‘People’s King’ rather than ‘King of France’ you see, the son of the Duke of Orleans. His father had helped finance the French revolution and voted for the execution of his kinsman King Louis XVI, and has himself later been executed by his own comrades. Louis Phillippe came to power after a strong media campaign had helped whip up public hatred for King Charles X. → Continue reading: Mr Blair’s role model

The Stockholm Network

I got a call yesterday from Tim Evans of CNE saying that the Libertarian Alliance is now listed at the Stockholm Network website. For a brief few hours yesterday afternoon, if the LA’s hit counter is to be believed, the LA was getting more hits than Samizdata. So this is a plug for the Stockholm Network website. Thank you guys. If you want to learn about all those Free Market Institutes which now abound throughout Europe, this is the cyberplace to go.

Founded in 1997 in London and Stockholm, the Stockholm Network is a dynamic working group of European market-oriented think-tanks. We have two primary objectives: to build a wide network of pro-market policy specialists within Europe and to use that network to influence the future direction of European policy-making on issues of pan-European importance.

And that’s what they are doing. The blogs are a very different proposition from operations like the Stockholm Network. People don’t read the blogs to learn about Institutes, and to be steered towards amazingly long publications only in Acrobat format about European Fish Stocks – The Way Forward. They read blogs for fun, for daily ego massage and navel tickling. Nevertheless, if you want to spread ideas among the suit-wearing, fun-avoiding, core value adhearing, mission statement stating, movers, shakers, policy makers and action planners, this is all part of how you do it. You create virtual shopping malls of ideas and idea-mongers like this one, and help people to find whatever they want. → Continue reading: The Stockholm Network

Is there an Act of Parliament for Table Manners?

I don’t normally respond publicly to comments, but I will make an exception. Peter Cutbertson has a blog called Conservative Commentary, it is certainly better than the Conservative Party’s website. He thinks that this conclusion I made makes me insane:

“The problem for British libertarians is that they aren’t really used to the idea that the state really is our enemy. This is one reason why I don’t think that the UK withdrawing from the European Union is an automatic recipe for joy.”

In the exchange which follows he appears to believe that “without law or government” society cannot function, and those who disagree with him are “insane” or follow “an incoherent, warped political philosophy”.

I am very tempted to ask our Mr Cuthbertson to define Conservative political philosophy, in plain coherent terms, with the agreement of those current and former leaders of the Conservative Party who are still alive: Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague and Duncan Smith. But I don’t hate the man, so I won’t.

However, it amazes me that Mr Cuthbertson cannot see that law doesn’t necessarily derive from government. For a start, any conservative who believes in God ought to consider the possibility that there is a higher authority than the State. Assuming atheism (which isn’t very conservative, but hey, who’s being coherent?), I should have hoped that a conservative might believe in the organic, spontaneous order of common law. Assuming God doesn’t exist, and the common law is a fiction (sounds more like a French Jacobin!), what has Mr Cuthbertson done with civil society? Is it true that members of the Carlton Club only behave because of the fear of being arrested by the police? Does the members’ code of conduct depend on the State for its existence and enforcement? Is there an Act of Parliament for table manners?

If the cream of the Conservative movement believe that regulation of human behaviour is only possible by State intervention, then it is no wonder the Conservative Parliamentary Party is an unelectable shambles comprised largely of cretins, petty crooks, pompous buffoons and in-bred yahoos. I will take no lessons in morality or “coherent political philosophy” from a Tory.

In the twilight of your years

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, far too many people still believe that their elected officials exist to look after the interests of the ordinary person. Yes, of course they make mistakes. Doesn’t everybody? Still, their hearts are in the right place and that’s what counts.

For those who may still harbour these lingering, absurd delusions, I recommend this article by Sean Gabb.

As always, Sean’s language is both florid and forthright. But so it should be because it explains, in detail, how wealth-producing, hard-working Britons have been robbed of their future by a government that they, inexplicably, still trust above all other institutions.

“But the tax changes are enough. People of my generation may now be looking at a far less comfortable retirement than we expected. Some of us may find ourselves in very straitened circumstances. Those of us lucky enough to stay reasonably healthy may find ourselves having to delay or even give up on retirement.”

And it may get worse. We have a desperate administration that has plundered everything in sight and the temptation to help themselves to the juicy, low-hanging fruit of private pension funds, may be more than they can resist.

The government is not your friend.

Our enemy, the State

The main differences between a British libertarian gathering and an American one is the attitude towards foreign affairs and their own governments. During the Cold War many American libertarians, Murray Rothbard especially, denounced the US federal government’s attempts to “encircle” Communism, build alliances, station troops in Europe etc.

Most British libertarians, being somewhat closer to the Iron Curtain, and feeling that the English Channel might not be a huge obstacle to the Asiatic hordes of the Red Army, were rather happier with the presence of large, well equipped armies. We also took a more relaxed view of state violations of individual rights when the persons concerned were Communists, pro-Soviet peace protesters or “useful idiots” who acted spontaneously in a manner which would have delighted Stalin, Hitler or Napoleon.

We tended to admire the antics of the security services as they “bugged and burgled their way across London”. Some of us cheered when police officers on horseback smashed their way through ranks of protesting miners in 1984. I know no one in British libertarian circles who wondered if it might not be our turn some day, although Sean Gabb came closest.

The gloom among British libertarians today is partly the result of the realisation that now the apparatus of state oppression is randomly destroying people’s lives like in the final chapters of “Atlas Shrugged”.

But there is something particularly awful about the gloom engulfing British libertarians. No one born in the mainland of the United Kingdom and alive today has ever seen a group of police officers march up a residential street, knocking at selected doors and leading families away to some awful fate. Yet in every other member state of the European Union except Finland and Sweden, the are people who remember watching their neighbours being taken away. In the case of recent refugees from the former Yugoslavia, such memories may be very recent indeed.

The problem for British libertarians is that they aren’t really used to the idea that the state really is our enemy. This is one reason why I don’t think that the UK withdrawing from the European Union is an automatic recipe for joy.

Theory and Practice

Paul Marks reminds us that the motivation to do good does not ensure good is actually done

Today I read the obituary of John Rawls (who died on Sunday) in the Daily Telegraph. Dr Rawls was a brave soldier, a loving husband and a good father to four children – he was also kind and polite to all who encountered him.

However, Dr Rawls was also the author of “A Theory of Justice” (1971) the main modern justification for the ever increasing burden of the welfare state.

According to Dr Rawls no one had any right to increase their income or wealth unless they could prove that by so doing they improved the economic life of the “least favoured”. Just not harming the least favoured would not do – as inequality harmed the “self esteem” of the poor.

Interestingly I also read in today’s Daily Telegraph a little example of how Rawlsian type thinking works out in practice. In the Spanish region of Valencia the government is working in a public-private partnership to improve the lot of the least favoured. Private developers produce a plan for the creation of urban zones (flats, shops, places of business and so on) in sparsely populated coastal areas, the government judges the plan and then levies a tax on land owners in the area to provide such things as roads and drainage.

What a wonderful thing – from either a Rawlsian or a utilitarian point of view.

However, the plan means that retired people who have bought properties by the coast have to pay the government lots of money (or have their property taken away) for roads and drainage (and so on) that do not benefit them.

Why do I think that Rawls (kind and decent man that he was) would have been disgusted by this sort of thing?

before you say “but that is the corruption of the idea” – maybe so, but that is statism in practice.

Paul Marks

Against Paranoia – Again

Matthew O’Keeffe warns libertarians to be mindful of the company they keep

Antoine Clarke wrote a piece last week called Against Paranoia which got me thinking. In it he lamented:

“the tendency among Libertarians to worry obsessively about every infringement by the state, to link up instances of state oppression, and to deduce from this either that there is a vast campaign to destroy freedom, or that we’re powerless to combat the tide of enslavement. This makes us seem obsessive, paranoid and miserable company, except to others of a similar emotional condition”.

I had similar misgivings about the attendance of a leading conspiracy theorist at the recent Libertarian Alliance conference. Why do we keep such company?

Consider some of the good things in life: the English language, the Common Law, money, the market economy, etc. As libertarians, we appreciate all too well that none of these things were invented by any one well-meaning academic, lawyer, banker or economist. On the contrary, all of these things have arisen by way of a spontaneous order.

Conversely, consider some of the bad things: poverty, for example. I believe that the welfare state manufactures poverty for a variety of reasons to do with incentives, moral hazard, taxation, misallocation of resources, the general inefficiency of the state machinery etc. etc.. What I do not believe is that there is a group of sinister statists somewhere conspiring on how best to impoverish our inner cities.

The point is that, as libertarians, we should appreciate the law of unintended consequences. Where our enemies see a world full of evil capitalists, Zionists, or whoever, we should have a view of the world which is more adult than is. And, because we appreciate unintended consequences, we should see a world full of irony – leaving us with a world view which is also humorous rather than sour. Let’s leave the paranoia and misery to the statists.

Matthew O’Keeffe

US Drug Czar a common criminal

There may be a suit against the Feds over the use of Federal funds for electioneering purposes at the State level.

Wouldn’t it be lovely (cough) to see those Statist turkeys behind bars? (pass that over to me again would you?….)