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]

Evil connivance between the Bolsheviks and Jewish bankers…

Ah, no… sorry, wrong century. Cast your mind back to the 20th Century: many times we heard Nazi propaganda describing how Jewish bankers (who being bankers were presumably capitalists unlikely to prosper under communism) and Bolsheviks (who, being Bolsheviks, were presumably communists unlikely to be well disposed towards bankers) were nefariously working together against the interests of the German Volk.

Well, according to the utterly enthralling and dependably surreal Justin Raymondo, those rascally Jews are at it again in the 21st Century, this time allying themselves with radical Islam for reasons which rather elude me, against the interests of the United States… i.e. the people who sell Israel a large chunk of the weapons they use to do various things Justin disapproves of (like survive).

Go figure.

What a pity Mahathir Mohamad is going to retire

Reports that Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad is going to resign next year might seem like good news, given that the man remained in power by corrupting the judiciary, stuffing ballot boxes and even assassination when required. But the fact he will not leave office hanging from a lamp post or with his back against a wall next to his kleptocratic cronies is a measure of his success in tyrannising the subjects over which he still rules. He will just be allowed to step down in his own time leaving the jails filled with his political opponents.

One can only hope that his successor, who will no doubt be the finest successor money can buy, will be pressured into acknowledging the true the ‘Mahathir Legacy’ in a suitable manner in order to preserve his own skin from Mahathir’s Malaysian victims. The fact such people as the unbane Mahathir, the feral Mugabe and their ilk are treated as honoured guests at Commonwealth function in Britain, wined and dinned at the expense of the hapless British taxpayer is bad enough but to see him actually get away with it and ‘live happily ever after’ would be intolerable.

Rand is not the enemy

Although I am personally a ‘Hakeyian Popperoid’, unlike Adriana and Brian I am not particularly ill disposed to Objectivism per se, seeing the minarchist libertarianism of its advocates as clearly fellow travellers. Of course I realise some capital ‘O’ Objectivists reject the term ‘libertarian’ as applying to them but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has feathers, I tend to call it a duck… the Libertarian Alliance has many objectivist members who are not uncomfortable with being associated with the term.

My view is that we live in such a ‘target rich’ world replete with statist, socialists, fascists, racists and various other toxic ‘-ists’, thus attacking people who are largely in sympathy with the cause of liberty because we don’t like the way they got to that conclusion is not particularly productive.

That said, Samizdata will continue to publish critiques of Objectivism, if that is what is on its contributors minds… and we will also publish Objectivist perspectives. Rand is not the enemy.

Supply chain management

Tony Millard sends in a Tuscan Weekly Webwaffle.

Much of life’s futile and circular debates revolve around out-dated totems and taboos, developed in times when laws were not universally enforceable. One of the Samizdata contributors has already written about incest – which by-the-by I don’t agree with for various non-totemistic reasons – and I have been most strident in the call to legalise and destigmatise all forms of narcotics. However, upon reading the Funny Old World section of the UK satirical magazine Private Eye, which concerns itself with bizarre-but-true news articles from around the world, I now have a new cause in mind.

The Private Eye story was an interview with an Australian brothel madam, complaining about the workload for her girls following the arrival of 6,000 sailors of various ships the US Pacific Fleet in the small Western city of Perth, and her suggestion to the US Navy that such large-craft visits should be phased to ease the strain on her employees. Knowing the Australian legal system reasonably well, the matter could also give rise to legal action against the US forces for inter alia unnecessary stress and suffering to the ladies in question.

To avoid such an embarrassing diplomatic debacle, I have a better suggestion. Why not make space on board ship for freelance piecework-remunerated female (and male) operatives, with full medical support, and ‘manage’ the problem away? Reduced time on shore for the sailors, increased efficiencies for the fleet, and no doubt reduced hormonally induced tensions on board on long tours of duty. And a minimal red light district problems for coastal towns as an added bonus. Now there’s a refreshing thought for the week.

Tony Millard

The Randians and fixed-sum economics

I’m glad that one of us is having a philosophically serious go at that bizarre Randian diatribe of some days ago

My problem is that I so utterly despise Randian philosophy that I cannot make myself take it seriously. I am also put off by the vicious religiosity of so many Randian responses to any criticisms of their sacred texts.

But if Randians boom forth with their nonsense while the rest of us just suffer in silence, observers of the libertarian scene are liable to get the idea that Randian philosophy is a far more important part of the libertarian movement in general than it really is.

My take on the Randians is that, like the Marxists (“exploitation”, “labour”), they are definition hoppers. By “altruism” they don’t mean what the rest of us mean. If you explain to a Randian that you are an altruistic sort of a person from time to time, that you don’t always behave selfishly, etc. etc., he’ll tie himself into knots explaining that you are really being totally anti-altruistic and completely selfish, all the time, even if you have just rescued a complete stranger from drowning in a freezing cold lake at definite risk to your own life. Something to do with selfishly choosing to live by your own values, blah blah blah.

Meanwhile back in normal-land, altruism means what Adriana says it means, and capitalism is relentlessly altruistic. Tradesmen spend their entire working lives obsessing not just about what they would like to be doing all day long, but also about what their customers would most appreciate them doing, the trick for happy capitalist life being to find things to do that satisfy on both counts.

Which leads to the other great folly that I see embedded in Randianism, namely fixed sum economics. The world is now, as it always has been, full of the foolishness that you can only get rich and happy if other people are made to sacrifice their riches and happiness for your benefit. It’s not that Randians believe explicitly and self-consciously in fixed-sum economics, any more than most other people do. It’s merely that everything else they say is said as if they believed in fixed sum economics.

The proper way to deal with this falsehood is to deal with it. (See my Libertarian Alliance piece called The Fixed Quantity of Wealth Fallacy: How To Make Yourself Miserable About the Past, The Present and The Future of Mankind.)

Fail to deal with it and there are two characteristic ways in which the fixed quantity of happiness/wealth fallacy will deal with you.

People who are nice, and who don’t like the idea of making other people miserable, restrain themselves from getting rich and happy. We see that syndrome all around us, and especially at political demonstrations of the concerned variety.

But then there is the screw-you-Jack response, which consists of saying that I want to be happy and goddammit I’ve a right to be happy! And that if that means others have be unhappy, then to hell with them!! And we see that all around us also, in the form of exuberantly busy capitalists who just want to get rich, and if that means they have to think of themselves as quasi-criminals, then so be it. They can live with it. With friends like these, capitalism doesn’t need enemies. (Screw-you-Jack capitalism is especially rampant in the financial world, where it takes a little bit of imagination to realise just how much good you are doing for the world by, e.g., placing a bet on the price of next year’s corn crop. It’s obvious that you do a bit of good for other people if you sell them newspapers and sweeties, but perhaps not quite so clear that you and your confreres are actually making modern agriculture possible if you trade in agricultural futures.)

These two characteristic social types, the self-sacrificing conscience-ridden misery and the selfish capitalist bastard, dance a sort of self-reinforcing dance with each other, each reacting in horror to the other’s existence, but neither realising how much, intellectually speaking, they have in common. The unifying error is that in living your life you are condemned to choose between your own happiness and the happiness of others, between selfishness and altruism.

Randians don’t fit exactly into either of these boxes, because they actually come in both forms! Randians are anything but straightforward advocates of selfishness, even though they insist hysterically that they are. Atlas, the ultimate miserably self-sacrificial altruist who eventually can take it no longer and who shrugs, is one of their biggest heroes! And when Atlas does shrug, that also turns out to be partly a selfish act of self-liberation, but also partly a contribution to an altruistic movement of general social redemption.

But back in normal-land again (where “selfishness” is assumed to mean selfishness), the Randians, with their bellowings forth about the virtues of capitalism and of selfishness, are heard to be supporting screw-you-Jack capitalism, that is, they reinforce rather than challenge the idea that capitalism is rooted in an active hostility to – in an active determination to destroy – the happiness of the non-capitalist masses.

Which is just one of the reasons why the Randians must be regularly denounced by the rest of us.

Taking a buzzsaw to Buzzflash

Buzzflash have produced a great long list of why people are not paying too much tax to the state. Not surprisingly whilst I agree with many of the points they raise, it is because I think their list actually proves quite the opposite.

– Don’t drive on paved streets or highways.

Highways, like all property, should be private property… and so I would rather pay tolls that taxes.

– Don’t call 911.

My neighbourhood is so dissatisfied with the Police Service we are hiring a local security to patrol the area, funded by subscription. Better yet, acquire a gun.

– Don’t flush your toilet.

Why not? Water utilities are private, not state operations in many parts of the world. The state is not the only way.

– Don’t bring your garbage to the curb.

I don’t have to, the private garbage collectors we use come to our back door and collect it.

– Don’t fly in an airplane that uses air-traffic controllers.

Privatise, privatise, privatise!

– Don’t use the court system.

Correct… use arbitrators and law merchants if the state lets you.

– Don’t call the police when you get robbed.

Quite so, carry a gun and shoot the fucker dead yourself.

– Don’t use the US Post Office. Send all your letters via FedEx or UPS.

Yes, that is a splendid idea.

– Don’t ask for a farm subsidy for not growing crops.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t ask for a taxpayer subsidy to do business in a city or state.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t buy a sports franchise and ask the taxpayers to build your stadium.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t send your children to public schools.

Quite so… the state has no business ‘educating’ children in the first place and certainly not at my expense.

– Don’t attend a state university.

Quite so… see above, though given that the state may have stolen your money to fund the place anyway regardless of your wishes, don’t feel too bad if you do.

– Don’t expect a social security payment.

Quite so, start building up a private pension!

– Don’t let Medicare pay your bills if you are over 65 or disabled.

Quite so… buy insurance and set money aside for eventualities and old age… and if you don’t, don’t expect me to fund your irresponsible behaviour or bad luck.

– Don’t look for a government contract to bolster your defense industry business.

Hmmm… as a minarchist I see this as one of the few legitimate roles of the state, but certainly quite a lot of defense roles could be taken up by Protection Agencies and Private Military Organisations like Sandline. The reality is the weapons have to come from somewhere.

– Don’t look for a government.

Okay, if you insist.

– Don’t look for a lucrative government consultant contract.

Okay.

– Don’t run for political office where your salary is paid for by the taxpayers.

Damn straight!

– Don’t accept government research findings that subsidize research for your industry.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t be an airlines and expect the government to bail you out.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t be a car company and expect the government to bail you out.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t be a steel company and expect the government to bail you out.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t be a company that pollutes and expect the taxpayer to bail you out.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t climb to the top of the Washington Monument, which is maintained at taxpayer expense.

Yes, it should be private property.

– Don’t make use of police services.

You are repeating yourself guys… see earlier about dialling ‘911’

– Don’t be rescued by fire department paramedic team.

In many places these guys are private organisations and not an arm of the state. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) for example shows how a national emergency service can be run independently of both the states control and its funding.

– Don’t call the fire department.

See previous.

– Don’t expect federal assistance if a natural disaster destroys your home or business.

Quite so… buy insurance for Christ’s sake and if you insist on living on a flood plain, consider moving somewhere more sensible!

– Don’t expect the military to defend your country.

Again, it is one of the very few areas for the state to actually have a function… but Protection Agencies and Private Military Organisations can do much of the work.

– Don’t visit national parks or hike in national forests.

Privatise them.

– Don’t eat USDA inspected meat, cheese, eggs or produce.

Better yet, abolish the USDA.

– Don’t take any medications tested and approved by the FDA.

Better yet, abolish the FDA.

– Don’t drink, bath or otherwise use the water from municipal water systems.

Privatise it, if it is not already so, which in many places is indeed the case.

– Don’t look at or relay a weather report.

There are just as likely to be privately provided services.

– Don’t look at a NASA generated picture.

Better still, abolish NASA.

– Don’t expect a unit of measure like a gallon of gas to be a full gallon.

Why not? There are many non-state centred ways to achieve that.

– Don’t expect an elevator to work correctly or not fall.

Ludicrous. I expect the owner of the elevator to not want to get sued and that can be achieved without idiotic ‘health and safety’ regulations.

– Don’t expect a red light to work.

See above.

– Don’t be the Minority Senate Leader Named Trent Lott and expect American taxpayers to subsidize the building of private industry cruiseliner ships in your home state.

Better yet abolish the Senate…or failing that, abolish Trent Lott.

– Don’t accept government money to help develop a product which you then personally patent or copyright and sell for your own profit.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare and reject all stolen ‘government’ money.

– Don’t use the services of a doctor who is licensed through the state.

Better yet, abolish state regulation and leave it to private competitive rating agencies and insurance companies.

– Don’t expect research into medical problems such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, aging, prostrate, menopause, etc.

You must be joking! The main driver for that R&D is the profit motive!

– Don’t use the public library.

Yes, abolish them.

– Don’t go to a state university affiliated hospital.

Yes, abolish them.

– Don’t go to a state university.

Yes, abolish them.

– Don’t watch state college sports.

I don’t.

– Don’t apply for government grants.

Yes, abolish all grants, which are just redistributed stolen property.

– Don’t use your state’s Convention Centers.

Yes, burn them down and build something useful rather than have places for mass political rallies.

– Don’t go to a state, city or municipal-run airport.

Yes, privatise them.

– Don’t ask for rural electrification.

I didn’t!

– Don’t ask for FEC regulations that protect us from crooked financial planners.

I didn’t!

– Don’t ask to keep the airwaves free so your right-wing psycho radio talk show host can lie to you.

Huh?

– Don’t ask for a business loan from the small business administration.

Yes, abolish the SBA.

– Don’t ask to use the G.I. bill to go to college.

Quite so.

– Don’t allow Al Gore to sponsor legislation to turn a military computer network (DARPANet/ARPANet) into the public-accessed ‘Internet’.

Er… it was rather more complex than that.

– Don’t drive a car that benefits from government safety regulations.

‘Benefit’ my arse. I am not given the option unfortunately or I would indeed rip out much of the mandated crap in cars these days.

– Don’t use electricity generated by TVA or some government-owned and maintained dam or facility.

Quite so, privatise them and return the stolen land they are built on.

– Don’t use currency printed by the US Treasury.

Quite so, lets return to non-national private currencies.

– Don’t use a bank or credit union that insures your deposits through the FDIC.

Yes, abolish the FDIC and end all the moral hazard it leads to.

– Don’t buy or build a house that requires the efforts of county deed offices or needs building permits and inspections.

Abolish the immoral permits that make a nonsense of the whole notion of several property.

– Don’t get married, have children or die and expect the government to keep track of all the certificates.

I do not want the state to know anything about my families private affairs!

– Don’t expect the government to keep an eye on cemeteries, crematories and funeral homes so you won’t get dug up and thrown in a swamp. And ask George Bush why he lied about his involvement with a company that did just that.

I don’t expect the state to do much of anything really!

– Don’t run for an elected office, because the local, state and federal election commissions could be involved.

I agree. The whole democratic system is little more than proxy mugging.

– Don’t go to a beach kept clean by the state.

They usually don’t.

– Don’t use public transportation.

I agree… privatise it.

– Don’t visit public museums.

Privatise them.

– Don’t go hunting, fishing, or camping on government property.

There should not even be ‘government property’.

– Don’t cross a bridge.

Private toll bridges are splendid things!

– Don’t use truckstops or public restrooms.

Why not? Most are privately owned!

And finally . . .
– Don’t complain to us about how much you pay in taxes because we think taxes can be a good thing and WE DON’T WANT TO HEAR YOUR WHINING ANYMORE!

As you can see, I reject the entire premise these ‘self evident’ remarks are based on. Government can take its ‘essential state services’ and… well, use your imagination. There are other ways to do things. As the brilliant French pamphleteer Fréd&eacuteric Bastiat said:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all

The right to be chunky?

One of the things that bugs me about American ‘liberalism’ (meaning statism) is the proliferation of ever more forms of victim. The latest cause to weigh in, so to speak, is that of fat (woops, I meant “big-boned”) people. In a nice article for Reason magazine, Mike Lynch skewers activists who get all upset when American airlines charge extra for bigger passengers. In a free market, if an airline wants to charge more for people who, by virture of their size, take up more space, then gradually the cost of flying for large people will come down as competition for bigger customers takes hold.

In the U.S.A, which seems to produce more than its fair share of fat people, airlines could actually make a good living out of seeking out the chunky market, just as it could do so by seeking custom of people carrying small children, smokers, those who liked listening to loud music, watching adult movies, or whatever. (“Playboy Airlines”, anyone?).

But the fat lobby thinks in statist terms. As Lynch tells us, they claim it is discriminatory for carriers such as Southwest Airlines to charge an extra amount for those who cannot squeeze into one seat but need two. The idea of discrimination stems from the idea that as humans, we have some kind of God-given ‘right’ to fly from A to B for a set outlay, regardless of whether we are a svelt citizen taking up one seat or built like a Sumo wrestler and take up two seats. But no such ‘right’ exists. In a market, if an airliner is willing to give me ONE seat of size X in return for X dollars, then that is the end of the matter. And if the lardbuts among us find it harder to fly in the meantime until the market provides a solution, they might like to consider going down the gym.

Understanding the nature of the beast

I am reading about the late 19th century French anarchists, especially the bomb thrower Emile Henry. He would definitely have blown up his local McDonald’s. Since the Soviet Union was founded, the dominant leftist ideology has been Marxism-Leninism, with a theory of the state, foreign policy and a theory of tactical support for nationalist or radical movements around the world.

What we see today is the non-Marxist-Leninist left, the people who agree with the ‘anarcho-communist’ critique of the Soviet Union, but support a mixed bag of causes united only by a hatred of government-corporate business interests. The anti-globalisation campaigns of the 1890s resemble the current crop, except that they had more guts and were more likely to be literate. Other interest groups are attempting to cash in: the trade unions and public sector welfare interests. This gives an incoherent feel to the protests: e.g. simultaneously demanding an end to money and increases in the minimum wage.

The strategy for combating Marxism-Leninism isn’t necessarily the right one for opposing “non-Marxism-Leninism”. Cruise missile bases in South East England won’t help. Spook operations contracted out by a consortium of big business and security agencies to pro-capitalist radicals are probably worth reactivating

Anti-imperialism of fools

Mick Hume, the leftist commentator with a sharp nose for humbug and an often refreshingly libertarian streak, hits a home run with an excellent column about how the anti-globalisation movement has gotten into bed with some very dubious characters indeed by adopting a “bash-Israel-first” stance related to the current violence in the region. The whole article is worth a read, but I particularly liked this paragraph:

“Western society is infected by a powerful sense of self-loathing and a rejection of its political, social and economic achievements. It was this spirit of self-loathing that led some, of the left and the right alike, to suggest that America got what it deserved on 11 September. Those sentiments are no more progressive when aimed against Israel as a symbol of the West than when they are directed in irrational campaigns against GM crops and the literature of Dead White Males.”

I could not agree more. What Hume is really saying is that the types who attack Starbuck coffee shops, bash Israel for trying to defend itself and who want the global free trade system to be closed down are in fact, reactionaries. They broadly reject the Enlightenment heritage of liberty, reason, celebration of Man’s mastery of nature, self-criticism, open markets and the spirit of enquiry. They are flat-earthers.

Hume’s article appeared in the left-wing weekly magazine, The New Statesman (can be found in Samizdata’s ‘havens of fluorescent idiocy’ links section on our links page). That publication has offered up some pretty vile views on September 11 and the aftermath, so Hume’s article is a welcome detour into sanity. On the other hand, maybe just a rare flash of gold amidst the dross.

‘tard update

In a recent post, Stephen “VodkaPundit” Green managed to assign an innovative moniker to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Mr. Green objected to Kristof’s claim that domestic terrorists like the militias are just as much a threat as foreign terrorists such as al-Qaeda. After carefully weighing the evidence, Green dismissed the notion as the ramblings of a f—tard.

Kristof’s latest offering will do nothing to help him live down his new nickname. He is asking us to believe that the US is complicit in Islamic nations’ institutionalized abuse of women by refusing to sign the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, a document that is now 22 years old but which Kristof finds fit to recycle as cutting edge news.

The CEDAW treaty, according to Kristof, “simply helps third-world women gain their barest human rights. In Pakistan, for example, women who become pregnant after being raped are often prosecuted for adultery and sentenced to death by stoning. But this treaty has helped them escape execution.” See? Pakistan has to tone down the misogyny because they signed the treaty. Since the US has not ratified the treaty, US judges are free to sentence adultresses to death by stoning. Clearly, the problem here is with the US, not with Pakistan and the others who signed the treaty, right? Well, actually, it isn’t America’s fault, says Kristof. It is John Ashcroft’s fault.

If only the US Congress would ratify the treaty, Pakistani and Saudi and Iranian men would stop abusing women! Besides, everyone knows that even if these men are abusing women, it is just their way of expressing outrage over America’s support of Israel and opposition to Palestinian statehood. In fact, every evil in the world is America’s fault, even when foreigners are perpetrating the evil against America.

Kristof insists that there is no political agenda behind the CEDAW treaty, and that conservative objections to the treaty are misguided. However, the treaty openly embraces affirmative action:

Article 4.1: Adoption by States Parties of temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women shall not be considered discrimination as defined in the present Convention, but shall in no way entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate standards; these measures shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved.

… and asserts that a wide variety of welfare-state entitlements such as “access to health care”, paid maternity leave, free education, agricultural loans, public pensions, etc. are actually fundamental rights. Sure, no political grandstanding there.

If Kristof wants to live down his new nickname, he is going to have to do better than this. Perhaps Kristof will even join Robert Fisk in having his very name immortalized as a blogosphere synonym for, well, f—tard.

More on the Safety Calculation Debate

This posting began life as a continuation of the previous posting, which I suggest you read first. Adriana read the previous thing and said you’ve got two blogs there, not just one. I’ll take her word for it, and this is Part 2.

So, we’re comparing the actual Economic Calculation debate (Mises, Hayek etc.) with a proposed equivalent in the realm of Public Safety. Continue…

Another big point, which was made by Richard Miniter at the Simon Davies meeting, concerns the matter of what kind of information we’re talking about here. (Miniter is a colleague of Tim Evans at the Centre for the New Europe. His book The Myth of Market Share is coming out in October, and he will also be bringing out another book soon about the Clinton regime’s handling of Al-Qaeda. Verdict: they handled it badly.)

One of the basic impossibilities of central planning, made much of especially by Hayek, concerned the importance of “unexplicit” knowledge, the sort of knowledge that consists of knowing, without having a prayer of being able to convince a state bureaucrat about it, that this kind of product would be just, you know, nicer than that one, and that people will prefer the nicer one. An entrepreneur in a free economy is able to back his hunch with his own money.

Hunch. Now there’s an interesting word. Hunches are those things that old-fashioned policemen also used to have. They would have a feeling that something bad was being planned, or that someone bad had already done something bad, and they’d act.

Mostly how they’d act is by trying to obtain some more information, of the explicit sort, the sort that you can type into a computerised database without being accused of unsubstantiated waffling. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that people should be banged up in jail just because some old copper doesn’t like the smell of them. What I am arguing is that the shift from observation to action and hence, perhaps, to something like prevention, should not depend on persuading the Great Centralised Security Beast in Washington or London or wherever that this is a good idea. Public safety, I’m arguing, is a lot more like washing machines that work and for which you can get decent spare parts and maintenance than public safety is now assumed to be.

(See also my short Libertarian Alliance piece The Menace of the Apocalyptic Individual (Political Notes 164), towards the end, for a brief elaboration of that last point. This was written before 9/11, but survives 9/11 really quite well.)

Well, I could go on, and at the privacy(?) of my own desk I intend to. But maybe all this has been said before and said better, and if so I’d like to know. I could live with that. I’m one of Hayek’s second-hand dealers in ideas. I only resort to trying to make an actual car in my own garage (or more realistically, to urging others to get to work on the thing) if the required intellectual vehicle does not already exist.

The degeneracy of the political class

Harold Pinter is a well known British playwright, a scourge of the Tories and impassioned voice for the statist left. None of this matters one jot to me as the world is full of people declaiming incoherent left wing world views. He is also a signatory to the free Slobodan Milosevic petition, which makes him an apologist for Europe’s most prolific socialist mass murderer since Joseph Stalin. That most certainly does matter to me and to any rational non-idiotarian who views support for mass murderers as prima facie evidence of off-the-scale immorality.

So one would think that this would put Harold Pinter beyond the pale in polite society in Britain, right? I mean if telling a mildly racist joke ends your political career, then presumably showing solidarity with a man who ordered the systematic raping of Croat and Muslim women in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the slaughter of tens of thousands by government backed Serbian einstztruppen must mean there is hardly an open door in Britain for such a man.

Er, no. It means you get mentioned in the latest list of honours. This ‘non-political’ award by the British state is of course replete with political meaning. If you are a vocal left winger then standing up for a mass murderer is regarded as little more than an endearing eccentricity that in no way detracts from being ‘The Great Man of Letters’. This sort of thing is exactly what I do not dislike the British political class.

I hate them.