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]
|
The ferret is not the easiest of animals to train. A dog will do tricks for you, a parrot might talk, and there is even an Olympic discipline that centres on getting horses to walk sideways to order. But put a few ferrets on stage in a theatre, in front of a couple of thousand noisy fun-seekers, and the result is likely to be chaos.
The excellent Jim White. The article is actually about the mayoral elections. Like most elections, I frankly do not really want any of the candidates to win, although Boris Johnson, whom I have met a few times, would be entertaining. What is clear though is that eight years of Ken Livingstone is quite long enough.
But back to Mr White: I think he is being most unkind to ferrets. They never seem to get much of a break.
Apologies for the problems with the link. Now fixed.
It is wrong to make sweeping assumptions about certain media outlets. I came across what was actually a pretty decent defence of open borders and the benefits of allowing people to migrate between countries over at the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” site, which in my experience often has decent columns but absolutely gobsmackingly bad comment threads, particularly if the subject of the Middle East and specifically, Israel, comes up.
Phillipe Legrain has this pretty good argument in defence of immigration, challenging the recent House of Lords report on the subject. It revives a few of the points I also made here. In that Samizdata thread, one issue that came out in the comments was the idea, which is weird if you think about it, that residents who are lucky enough to be born in a country X are entitled to tell outsiders that they are not entitled to move around. Take the logic further: am I, a British citizen, entitled to ban my fellow Brits from moving abroad if such people are, say, incredibly skilled or rich? What right do I have to do this? (None). But if we are entitled to use some sort of “quality of life” consideration or economic calculus to say that we should ban or cap immigration, then does not the same argument cut the other way when it comes to emigrants?
I ask this question because, like a good classical liberal, what ultimately counts is liberty. The ability to get out of a country is a crucial check on the ability of the rulers of such places to act badly.
By the way, if you read the CiF thread linked to here, it is hard not to be depressed at the sheer, groaning economic illiteracy in evidence. As I keep stating, there is no argument against the influx of immigrants that cannot be used to advocate strict population controls, shorter working weeks to “create jobs”, and other lump-of-labour nonsense.
One caveat: Legrain makes a couple of bad points amid the good ones. He dismisses the House of Lords report on the grounds that it has some Tory members on the panel, such as Lord (Nigel) Lawson. Lawson is a pretty robust advocate of free trade and the descendant of immigrants himself, so Legrain made a cheap shot. Also, immigration may alleviate the coming pension problems by adding to the workforce, but ultimately, that problem will require a long-term rise in savings, and immigration is not a permanent fix for that.
Another writer who is good on the subject is Chris Dillow. He points out that if immigration is so terrible, why not take controls down to a local level, so that people in say, Essex are banned from moving to Hampshire, or Wales, or whatever? No doubt someone will claim this is a “straw man” argument, but it is not. If you believe national boundaries are in fact just lines on a map, then there are other lines, too.
Yesterday morning I posted, on my personal blog, some anodyne remarks about how economic trouble strikes. They included this:
Speaking of Paul Marks, …
… as I was …
… someone should really dig out him ranting away three or four years ago about the fact that the British economy is doomed, doomed. Now everybody is talking like this. They are merely telling us so, now. He told us so, years ago. With luck, it will be possible to find an entire Samizdata posting, from way back, in which this last week’s cursings are all there.
I scratched about for a while in the Samizdata back catalog, but could find nothing entirely suitable. I suspect that Paul may have posted a lot of his best doom-mongering in comments, both following up on his own postings, and on the postings of others. However, commenting at my posting this morning, Peter Briffa supplied a link to this posting at conservativehome.com, dated June 14th 2005. The posting itself concerns some fairly anodyne remarks from Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, about such things as a “modern, integrated transport infrastructure”, a reduction of the regulatory burden, a “strong macroeconomic environment” and “simplification of taxes”. But then, comment number two, quite long, turns out to be from a certain Paul Marks. It includes this:
On the Bank of England: Well the British money supply is expanding at least as fast as the Euro money supply (see the back pages of the “Economist” any week for the stats) – so even I would not make a jingoistic claim that all things in Britain are fine. Of course joining the Euro would mean even lower interest rates for central bank credit-money (hardly a good idea).
Sadly the notion that “expanding the money supply” is good for long term economic prosperity has been an article of faith for many decades (whenever there are problems the cry goes up “cut interest rates”). Once it was believed that this credit money expansion should be linked to the general “price level” (in order to prevent, horrors of horrors, falling prices), but at least since Keynes the doctrine has been to issue more money (by various clever means)as soon as there is trouble – whether the “price level” is going up, down or sideways.
I do not expect to convince anyone here that credit money expansion is the cause of the “boom-bust cycle”, but for anyone who thinks (along with Mr Blair and Mr Brown) that this cycle has been “abolished” I would advise them to watch and see.
So, not only did Paul Marks predict the trouble ahead that we have now crashed into. He also predicted what would be wrongly said about how to deal with it when trouble did in due course strike. I’m sure that there is similar stuff to be found here. Paul? Anyone?
CityAm, the freesheet newspaper in London, has this cracking scoop:
Shire Pharmaceuticals, the FTSE 100 drugs giant that focuses on treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, is to re-register its head office outside the UK for tax reasons.
The group, which is valued at around £5bn, has been consulting the accounting group PriceWaterhouseCoopers on the merits of a move and is set to inform investors today. Shire’s headquarters are currently near Basingstoke. The news will come as a further blow to the UK economy.
The story ends with a quote from Matthew Elliott, head of the lobby group, The TaxPayers’ Alliance:
“This disastrous news confirms that Britain’s competitiveness has suffered a series of blows from misguided tax hikes.”
I am glad to see that the influence of CityAm’s newly-appointed editor, Allister Heath, who has written on the flat-tax issue in the past for the Taxpayer’s Alliance and at the now-defunct weekly, The Business, is making itself felt. Far too many journalists at places such as the FT, for instance, seem to operate in a corporatist cocoon. Allister will not make that mistake.
Random searches of Britons going about their business are now established features of life in this country. The old refrain – “It could not happen here”, no longer applies. On Saturday, while driving along the side of the Thames towards Westminster, passing by the Tate Gallery, I was flagged down by a policeman.
Officer: “Could you show me your driving licence? This is a section 41 search” (at least I think that is what he said).
Me: “Section 41 or whatever of what?”
Officer: “The Terrorism Act”
Me: “Why have you pulled me and my wife over?”
Officer: “We are doing searches of vehicles in the area.”
Me: “Well obviously you are. Is this a random thing?”
Officer: “Yes. Please hand over your driving licence and we want to search the car.”
They searched the car, called up the driving licence authority, and were able to their enormous satisfaction confirm that I was whom I said I was. I was then asked to sign a document stating that the search had been carried out as it should have been. The officer gave me his name, rank and police station number and address. When I signed the form, he asked me how I wanted to classify myself as there were about 15 options, including “White British”. He was polite. My treatment was fine. The officer and his colleagues told me they were on duty, searching vehicles, for the rest of the day and into the evening.
Now I will spare you a rant about the impertinence of this. You can, gentle reader, assume as a matter of course that I regard such random searches of members of the public as impertinent. What makes me wonder, though, is what on earth the supporters of such searches expect? Do they honestly, really believe that would-be terrorists will be deterred, frightened off or caught? Unless the police put up roadblocks across London, at god-knows what disruption and cost, I do not see how doing this on one of many major roads will cause a blind bit of difference.
This is what has been called “security theatre”: lots of action signifying little. Even the copper who carried out the search had the good grace to look slightly embarrassed.
Update: One commenter has complained that I am getting all upset for no good reason and has used the argument that this sort of behaviour is okay as it can act as a “fishing” expedition to unearth potentially other crimes. It is hard to summon breath to deal with such a brazen argument in favour of abolishing the idea that one is presumed innocent until otherwise.
Update 2: a reader asked for further details on the search. From the time I was pulled over to being let on my way, the process lasted 15 minutes. The police officer’s colleague called up the driving licence authority to give them my licence registration number and the authority took about 10 minutes to get back. An officer opened the car boot, rummaged around some bags and luggage – I was travelling up to Cambridge with my wife – and had a look inside the car. They also inspected my clothes and checked my footwear. They did not ask me to open the glove compartment of the car. They also did not look under the car with a mirror or anything similar, or look under the bonnet.
Matthew Parris makes an eloquent argument that Gordon Brown is an empty shell. Strip away the bullying, the glowering, “oh god just how wonderfully serious I am” pose, the desk-thumping assertiveness, you have very little. Parris argues that there is no organising philosophical principle that animates this man. As Margaret Thatcher might have put it, he has no anchor.
Parris’ argument is quite persuasive. Outside the MSM, bloggers, such as ahem, yours truly, have been unimpressed for years by this man’s supposed towering intellect and grasp of facts. But, unlike Parris, I do think there is a sort of core philosophy that Brown has. The problem, however, is that this “core” philolosophy is just too awful to dwell upon for very long. He is a worshipper of the state and its power to bring about his vision of an egalitarian, puritanical, work-for-work’s sake country. It is not a totally bleak vision: no doubt Brown believes people will be happy in such a country – I just cannot believe he is so malevolent up as to actually want people to be miserable – but the blessings of such a state of affairs are not immediately apparent.
That said, it is easy to wonder why people might wander whether much goes on of very great interest inside Brown’s head. Take the recent deceit of the UK electorate over the EU Constitution, sorry Treaty. As a result of signing this Treaty, a wide number of powers will be transferred to the EU and away from parliament. Now the likes of Brown crave power and although they may hope to join the EU gravy train eventually, that hope may not come to pass. So why are British politicians, even Scottish ones with a historical grudge against England, so keen to sign away such large chunks of influence and power? What, in short, is the point?
Let’s get this straight. The house price bubble has been caused by money printing. In today’s world, that means as a result of the Bank of England keeping interest rates artificially low. That’s why the money supply is growing at more than 10% a year and this money has to go somewhere. Lots of it has gone into the housing market. And the “solution” from all of the above is more of the same!
Those who are going to pay for this mess are the prudent, those who haven’t lived beyond their means. Their savings will be inflated away to bail out the welfare bums, many of whom are economic illiterates infesting the business world.
– David Farrer names and shames a bunch of granny muggers
A British court has ruled that there is a ‘right to life’ even under combat conditions and therefore the families of soldiers killed in action can sue the government for not providing suitable equipment.
In a blow to Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, a senior judge said troops in combat zones have a “right to life” at all times, even while under fire on the battlefield. The ground-breaking decision could lead to a flood of cases against the Ministry of Defence from relatives who believe the deaths of their loved ones were caused by poor quality kit.
As I have written before, it is deplorable that British soldiers are sent into action so poorly equipped when the state manages to find money for idiotic sports and ‘cultural’ expenditures. Yet I think this ruling is very dangerous unless it is very tightly defined to only cover equipment issues, and even then, I can hear the sound of cans opening and worms escaping. Inevitably this ‘right to life at all times’ means relatives will sue on the basis of operational military decisions if a decision causes the death of British soldiers.
Were I the government I would do whatever it takes to overturn such a notion and made sure this judgement does not lead to ever wider ‘interpretation’, as such things are wont to do. I am all for properly equipping Britain’s soldiers but this is a potentially disastrous way to ensure that. Wars are, by their very nature, messy and imprecise things and the idea of having civil courts sticking their beaks in is a giant step towards making the military unable to function at all. Even from the perspective of rights and liberty, in a volunteer military clearly prior consent is present to be put in harm’s way within the military context. This ruling has ‘horrendous unintended consequences’ written all over it.
David Selbourne is one of those intellectual figures who swims in similar currents to that of John Gray: mixing a sort of gloomy, conservative (small c) dislike of much modern culture and public life; a sort of grumpy dislike of the inevitably messy impact of individual liberty combined with a sort of authortarian desire for those in power to somehow rein in all this terrible individualist excess and take us back to say, 1950. Tim Worstall, well known around here, subjects his latest article to a fairly gentle fisking.
Here is the original piece by Selbourne. It follows a similar, arguably even more incoherent rant in the Spectator last week (sorry, I could not get the link to work, so you will have to trust me). Here he goes:
To expect the fulfilment by the citizen of his or her duties is no impertinence. It is essential to liberal democracy. Indeed, government ministers today speak hesitantly of a need for “constitutional renewal” or for a more “contractual” relationship between citizen and state. Under it, the performance of civic duties would be made a condition for the gaining of rights, many of the latter now routinely and shamelessly exploited by rich and poor alike.
As Tim puts it:
To return to a feudal system in which I owe duties to My Noble Lords in return for whatever rights they might see fit to grant me? Fuck that quite frankly.
Quite. Feudalism is actually a polite word for what this character wants to impose. A society in which freedoms are handed over like sweets in return for the prior performance of duties might be known as something rather ruder, like fascism.
Or maybe the problem could be more easily solved if Selbourne was honest about what he understands the definition of “rights” to be. In the classical liberal sense, a right is nothing more than a prohibition on the initiation of force against a person and his or her property; under socialism, the term “right” has been debauched into a claim on things such as the “right” to “free” schooling, which means that someone else be coerced into paying for the latter. The former negative definition of a right implies no such zero-sum game.
Selbourne must surely have heard of Isiah Berlin’s famous attempt to unscramble this confusion.
This appeared in the Daily Telegraph today, in an article describing the tensions inside the UK Labour government, assailed from its own ranks over issues like taxes on alcohol, imprisonment without trial and other matters:
Behind the scenes, things are even worse. With no clear direction from above, Cabinet ministers are at each other’s throats. I am reliably informed that, after one recent Cabinet meeting, Jack Straw threatened to punch Ed Balls during a row about who was responsible for youth crime. The Justice Secretary came back to his department fuming that he had never been spoken to so rudely by a colleague in public and that he was not going to put up with it.
Fistfights in the cabinet? Well, if you elect thugs, thuggery will break out eventually.
There has been a lot of comment this week about a House of Lords report on the benefits, or otherwise, of mass immigration to the UK as far as the economics is concerned. It did not address the cultural aspects, such as the influx of large numbers of people from fundamentalist Islamic states or people with other, very different traditions to those of the existing population. It talked about the impact on the economy. The general conclusion is that in the long run, there is a very small, positive impact on growth but no real impact overall on GDP per head. And for some parts of the existing workforce, the impact is bad: lower wages, or no work at all.
The Sunday Telegraph, in its leader column, broadly endorses this analysis. What bothers me, however, is this: if immigrants are ‘taking’ a certain number of jobs (our old friend, the Lump of Labour Fallacy, is at it again), why not recommend say, a drastic pro-emigration policy for say, 25 per cent of the population, or even half? I mean, if there are “too many” people in the UK, why not go for a massive reduction? Indeed, if you take the argument to extremes, you could argue that we would be fabulously rich if the population were reduced to say, 100,000 or one million.
But that would remove all the benefits of a large population, which the immigrant-bashers overlook: the skills, or ‘human capital’ that a large population makes available. The silliness of the complaints about all those foreigners ‘taking’ ‘our’ jobs is not just the Lump of Labour Fallacy, however, which by extension is part of the closed-system thinking one associates with socialism and many other collectivistic doctrines.. It is also the unspoken assumption, rarely explicitly spelled out, that there is some sort of optimum, or “just about right” level of population for a given geographic area. But how do the noble Lords or even a mere economist figure out how many people in a country is right or wrong? And as a commenter said, I believe on this site, some months ago, you do not hear about Tescos or Vodafone moaning about “too many customers” putting pressures on their services.
Of course, some commenters will insist that the cultural implications of mass immigration from the Islamic world, say, outweighs what economic benefits there might be, but that is a separate issue.
I realise it is only April, so there is ample time for someone else to win the much vaunted Samizdata prize of ‘oddest remark of the year’, but this has to be a real contender:
However, Prof Rowthorn said the most likely victims were British-born school-leavers who had never had a job, having failed to find the kind of casual work they might have walked into a few years ago. The claim will fuel a political row over the prospects for a generation referred to as “Neets” (not in education, employment or training).
The professor said: “We are looking at the most vulnerable, least skilled and in some ways least motivated members of the local workforce. The problem that eastern European migrants pose is that they are good workers.”
So the fact good workers are arriving in the UK is a ‘problem’ and that employers have them to hire rather than having to try and coax an honest day’s work out of the least unmotivated native born lumpen is… a bad thing for people in Britain overall? Hmmm.
Also as the total number of job has been rising steadily for quite some time, it is hard to hide the fact the children of the British ‘welfare’ state are simply acting as the state has conditioned them to act. Of course the irony is that the people in some part replacing them are high initiative individuals arriving from former communist countries in search of better opportunities. And such people filling jobs grows the economy, so again the advantages overall take wilful blindness not to see.
Locals who cannot compete with Eastern European need to ask themselves why that is. My guess is that they are not really trying to compete very hard because after all, they can always just sign on for the dole. I find it hard to be sympathetic when a person’s poverty is simply a function of a lack of motivation.
Of course one is not suppose to say things like that. My bad.
|
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.
|
