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 have come across a press release from Britain’s National Health Service. The NHS is currently trying to prevent obese people from having hip replacement operations as they do not “deserve” to have such treatment, despite the little matter of their having been taxpayers like the rest of us.
“The NHS, like any proud creation of a socialist, inclusive Britain, has to operate under certain priorities. Indeed its founder, the great Soviet leader Nye Bevan, stated that socialism is about priorities. Well, there is no place and certainly no priority to treat people, who, by laziness, sloth and lack of intelligence, choose to make themselves ill or incapacitated. In fact ill people are a positive nuisance. It is the fit, able-bodied and alert people of Britain who deserve to be treated by the Greatest Health Service Devised by Mankind. No more obese people. No more smokers. No more drinkers. No more red meat eaters and chocolate fans. Such habits have no place in a socialist Britain. Let such vile habits wither away.”
I am still trying to vouch for the authenticity of this release. Looks plausible to me.
In what used to be called the ‘Middle Ages’ men of learning got together at various places in England (as they had done before in other lands) – Oxford, Cambridge and other towns (where universities were later suppressed by various means).
At first these scholars operated on a fairly informal basis (this was the tiny element of truth in the old lie about Oxford University being founded by Alfred the Great – Alfred visited the town, Alfred always had men of learning with him [indeed was one himself] such men had students, therefore…) and students paid them for their teaching.
Later such learned men operated from collages (the oldest in Cambridge being Peterhouse) and helped educate students (mainly for the church).
Over time students (or those who helped them) tended to pay the collage rather than individual learned men (although the old idea lasted in Scotland – where Adam Smith claimed it was the great advantage that Scottish higher education had over English) and the direct connection between students going to a master they revered became somewhat weaker.
In the 19th century the University (as an institution, backed by Acts of Parliament) started to rise in importance relative to the collages. And in the 20th century government began to play a much bigger role – first through funding individual students (rather than just setting up a collage with an endowment – as various Kings and other leading people had done) and then, rather later, by increasing regulation of what went on in the Universities (he who pays the piper calls the tune – as the academics forgot to their cost).
However, in both Oxford and Cambridge the idea (if not the reality) of the independent scholar – the man (these days ‘the person’) seeking truth and passing it on to students lived on.
This week one of the last reminders of the days when men of learning were independent (rather than just employees of the University) finally died.
For 800 years it has been assumed that it a person made a discovery it was their discovery – but now it has been decided that this is not quite so. → Continue reading: The end of Cambridge?
I keep banging on about this subject since it is, in my eyes, a prime example of how the state is not pulling its share of the deal in coercing the citizenry to pay for schooling and for coercing children to spend the ages of 5 to 16 or more in school. Latest official data suggest that standards of literacy and numeracy among schoolchildren are not up to scratch.
Schools are not doing enough to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of those pupils who start their secondary education with low standards in English and mathematics,” a report from Ofsted said.
The findings were released on the same day the National Audit Office, the government’s spending watchdog, said more employers need to invest time and money in teaching staff basic skills such as maths and English.
Tony Blair is locked in conflict with his Labour backbench MPs over his education reforms. From a superficial reading, one would get the impression that Blair wanted to drastically open up the amount of choice available to parents as to where their offspring are educated. In practice, nothing so drastic seems to be on the cards and yet the slightest hint of increased choice seems to send socialists into a frenzy.
The other night, the Institute of Economic Affairs held an evening to honour the late, great Arthur Seldon, who among other reforms made the idea of school vouchers one of his pet issues. It is fair to say that we are as yet a million miles from achieving the kind of choice in education that Arthur wanted to bring about.
Charles Crawford, the British ambassador to Poland, is in hot water for an e-mail which says several entire true things:
He describes the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as “the most stupid, immoral state-subsidised policy in human history, give or take Communism”.
He also ridicules French leader Jacques Chirac for “nagging the British taxpayer to bloat rich French landowners and so pump up food prices in Europe, thereby creating poverty in Africa”.
He also suggests Blair gives EU leaders one hour to make up their minds on the budget because “If anyone says no, we end the meeting. The EU will move on to a complete mess of annual budgets. Basically suits us – we’ll pay less and the rebate stays 100 percent intact”.
Oh, but he was only ‘joking’ of course. Riiiight.
Yes, this guy should indeed be fired from his job as an ambassador… he belongs in 10 Downing Street doing Tony Blair’s job!
Patrick Wilks writes in with an eyewitness account and interesting picture of the oil explosion
We are all fine as the fire is about four miles away. The initial explosion woke us up just after six, my wife thought it was an earthquake but I must admit it did not trouble me and I went back to sleep. Out the front of the house the smoke was very thick and it was like night almost but out the back it was bright sun shine quite a contrast.
A lot of the roads round Hemel Hempstead have been closed which is causing the most problem. One area that was hit bad was Hunters Oak, were we used to have a house in 1990. That location is only about half a mile from the depot.
I drove past this morning and the fires were still very big but not as much as yesterday. In the picture its hard to see but the flames were a good few hundred feet into the air. This was taken on the edge of the village. The kids are pleased as they have just heard that the schools are closed tomorrow.
(click for larger image)
It is rare for the Prime Minister to provide an insight into his intellectual worldview. Writing in the Observer today, Blair details his views on civil liberties and his differences with the liberal tradition.
These [summary] powers have a strong philosophical justification, from within the Labour tradition. Social democratic thought was always the application of morality to political philosophy. One of the basic insights of the left, one of its distinguishing features, is to caution against too excessive an individualism. People must live together and one of the basic tasks of government is to facilitate this living together, to ensure that the many can live without fear of the few.
That was why it was important that rights were coupled once again with responsibilities. As Tawney once put it: ‘what we have been witnessing … is the breakdown of society on the basis of rights divorced from obligations’.
Blair argues that the tradition of social democracy applies “morality to political philosophy”, with the unspoken implication that other traditions are unable to do so. This is accompanied by an attack on individualism with a phrase of much potential: that government ensures “the many can live without the fear of the few”.
Recent history has appeared to demonstrate that it is the few who should live in fear of the many. It is not surprising that the Left views the majority as a moral virtue.
At about 6 am this morning I woke up startled by the sound of a distant thud. It turns out that the noise was caused by a huge explosion at a fuel depot in Hertfordshire to the north of London. A massive plume of smoke is pouring into the sky and traces of it can be seen above the skyline in central London, dulling what would otherwise be a magnificently blue, bright sky.
So far, no-one has been killed in the blast, which happened in an industrial estate rather than in the midst of a densely packed area of housing. Thank goodness. The police are so far treating the blast as an accident. We shall see. The M1 motorway leading north has been closed. If anyone reading this has any travel plans, I’d give the Hemel Hempstead area a miss.
James Bartholomew, author of ‘The Welfare State We’re In’, agreed to face a panel of unsympathetic critics in a debate held at the London School of Economics and arranged by BBC Radio 4. Whether the structure of this debate met the guidelines for impartiality laid down by the BBC is a moot point, but James Bartholomew conveyed the major points of his argument, despite interruptions from the panel and the chair that truncated the majority of his argument.
Nicholas Barr is Professor of Public Economics at the European Institute, LSE and author of The Economics of the Welfare State. Edward Davey MP, Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Education, MP for Kingston and Surbiton and a contributor to the recent Orange Book – Reclaiming Liberalism. Niall Dickson, formerly Social Affairs Editor for the BBC, is now Chief Executive of the King’s Fund. Professor Pat Thane is director of the Centre for Contemporary British History, and author of The Foundations of the Welfare State.
None of the panel disagreed strongly with the facts presented by James Bartholomew. It was clear that disagreement stemmed from two fundamentally different worldviews rather than disputing the contemporary effects of the welfare state. Whereas some consider functional illiteracy of 20% to be an indictment of state education and a sufficient reason for its abolition, the panel viewed this failure as room for improvement. Without making the trite comparison of managerialism versus morality, the effect of politics as the art of the possible on individual lives was made very clear.
The poor may have suffered from insecurity concerning health care before the welfare state came into existence. However, if they felt fear over paying for their treatment, this has been replaced by the fear that they may not be treated at all due to healthcare rationing or professional triage. During his talk, James Bartholomew echoed Perry de Havilland and told the audience that the state is not your friend. He showed the blight that the welfare state has wrought on the lives of many individuals and stated that there were no panaceas which could reverse the social and cultural damage.
More thoughts from the speaker can be found here.
So the Boy Wonder (same age as yours truly, gulp) has been elected leader of the Conservatives. We have been fairly rough on David Cameron these past few weeks, concerned that Cameron does not seem to stand for anything much other than a desire to be jolly nice, moderate and sensible (ie. to maintain the status quo with a blue tinge). Well, I am at least prepared to repress my concerns for a while and see how he does. With the economy showing signs of cracking under the increasingly oppressive Chancellorship of Gordon Brown, and with Blair seemingly unable to push through his reforms, the time is ripe. Luck has a huge bearing on politics and as Bonaparte said of his generals, luck is as important as ability. The media has certainly been gushing about him, which again gives me the jitters. If the Tories are to win, they must regain some of their lost territory in places like the West Midlands, not just the salons of Islington.
We shall see.
UPDATE: I seem to have hit the post button almost at the same time as our sainted Perry. Great minds think alike!
David Cameron is the new Tory leader. So we have a ‘choice’ between two Blairites.
I cannot tell you how excited I am about this development 
The British Government can solve its pensions crisis. But it doesn’t want to. Having spent all their lives trying to persuade everybody that they can offer something for nothing because somebody else is paying, all policians find themselves unable to break the habit. Having quietly seized exorbitant benefits at the general taxpayer’s expense (on the excuse that they are poorly paid, which isn’t true now, if it ever was), public sector employees are not letting go.
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
– R.Kipling
An unfunded national pension scheme avaialable to the majority of the population is much like a Ponzi scheme: a pyramid ‘investment’ trick that is illegal everywhere–except when operated by governments. It depends on ever more suckers paying over ever more money (in this case, compelled by taxation) to finance the unfeasible returns promised to those entering earlier. The trimming of the Turner Commission just beds the con in deeper. We can expect a trivial postponement to distract attention from more pensions, more taxation, and a bigger future squeeze.
The simple (and only) solution is to follow the example of Bismarck when he invented the national pension. Convert an unsustainable Ponzi into a Tontine: a survivor benefit scheme. The pensionable age must be raised above the expectation of life, so that most people do not live to receive it. How much above depends on the benefits one wants to grant.
The corollary is even more unpalatable to politicans. The much more generous unfunded pensions for public sector workers, including themselves–unless they are to take an ever greater and ever more resented share of national income–must begin at *older* ages than the open national scheme. Until civil servants retire at 80+, and unfunded pensions for the general public start at 75, we will know the government (with both sizes of G) only cares about looking after its own, and that the vapourings about “crisis” are a just a smokescreen for more control over private income and savings.
MP Andrew Dismore has blocked attempts to clarify the law on self defence in Britain being proposed by MP Anne McIntosh, because he thinks it would be ‘vigilante law’.
Well I have thought for some time now that non-state use of force in defence of life, limb and private property is exactly what is needed in this country and to make no apology for robustly defending what is yours. Take the law into your own hands because it is indeed yours to take, not Andrew Dismore’s to deny. I realise that if you are old, infirm or a small woman living alone, the fact the state has disarmed you means you have no option whatsoever but to surrender your property and just pray the criminal(s) will not harm you, but those of us still physically able should be encouraged to use whatever weapons they can find at hand to assert some self ownership. Just do not make the mistake of calling the Police in Britain after the fact if you can possibly avoid it as they work for the likes of Andrew Dismore and are not there to serve you.
You may not have the legal right to fight back effectively, but you will always have the moral right to defend yourself and what is yours. Look at it this way, if you are the only one left alive after some son of a bitch breaks into your house, well, that means it is going to be hard for him to sue you or contradict your version of events, doesn’t it. If they do make it out, then just clean up the mess and deny everything.
Vigilante law? As so many members of the political class in Britain leave us with little alternative, I am all for it. When the state fails in its most fundamental duty, it is time for society to remember whose law it really is. If you are able to, fight back, just keep in mind you will be fighting back against the state as well and act accordingly when the plod turns up a few hours or days later to ‘protect’ you.
|
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.
|
