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]
|
Today’s edition of Britain’s Sun tabloid features five readers who demand: “End our childcare misery, Mr Blair“. That so many middle and working class people in this country turn to the state to solve any challenges they face in life is, if depressing, unsurprising when one considers the prevailing British attitude towards government’s role in individuals’ lives. This comment from PM Tony Blair sums it up succinctly enough:
Some mothers will want to stay at home and look after their children, and that’s fine. But if they don’t we have to support them.
Actually, Mr Blair, we do not have to support financially any person who chooses to have children and then chooses to rely on others to look after them while they go out to work. (You may feel you need to ‘support’ them in order to be re-elected, but let us not confuse what you do in the interests of your career with what is right.)
I understand the dilemma – one may want to have children but not be able to afford to do so without earning a certain income, which may require full- or part-time work – but one makes such choices and then deals with the consequences. I doubt seriously that any of the women in the Sun asking Mr Blair to ‘end the misery’ of having to struggle to raise children on limited budgets, whose ages range from 31 to 39, went into parenthood without realising that making ends meet would be a concern. Kids are expensive, and although there are ways to make them less expensive (even the wealthiest parents I know buy and sell baby gear and other children’s stuff on eBay or in consignment shops or at NCT sales), people decide to have them with the full realisation that this life they are creating will need to be looked after and cared for. With that comes expense, and the need to work out how to meet that expense. All pretty basic stuff, one would think. But reading the complaints of parents who think that the state should be easing their burdens – brought about by choices they have made – with other peoples’ money, it becomes clear that we have in this country bred a population of adults who think and behave like children. I will do what I like – it will be fine! (But somebody better be there to rescue me and kiss my boo-boos better if it is not.)
Perhaps it is a shame that life is not so easy that we cannot always have everything our hearts desire (children, enough money in the bank, personal fulfilment outside of stay-at-home parenthood, trendy, slightly politically subversive t-shirts for our babies), but that is not a situation that the state can change with any amount of money they may take fom you and me.
“But think of the children!” comes the usual plaintive wail. To do so is terrifying: a nation of babies raising babies can only end in tears. How much will we be expected to spend on cleaning up this spill before the idea that individual choices matter ceases to be answered with a “Yes, but…” and a tax demand?
Hate crime. What it is exactly? Opinions vary but in essence it means that a given crime, such as assault, murder or defamation, will be treated more seriously if the perpetrator is judged to be motivated by certain politically disfavoured prejudices.
It means that if someone smashes a bottle in your face because you are black (or catholic or muslim or homosexual), rather than because they want to steal your wallet or because they caught you in flagrante delicto with their girlfriend, then that is more serious. The actual substance of the crime is not what makes it a ‘hate’ crime, just the motivation to commit it against a member of a designated group of people based on their race (which in reality means ‘certain races’), religions (meaning ‘certain religions’) or sexual orientations (meaning ‘homosexuals’), that then becomes a hate crime… crimes against philanderers, drunks, football supporters, loud mouths etc. are not hate crimes.
You may hate supporters of Celtic Football Club but if you bash one of them over the head with a two by four, that is not a ‘hate crime’, it is just assault and perhaps GBH. Unless of course the Celtic supporter in question happens to be a nominal Catholic but you are a nominal Protestant.
It is a criminal act which attracts extra sanction because of what the perpetrator was thinking at the time. In short, a ‘hate crime’ is a ‘thought crime’, albeit one usually only applied to thoughts held by certain politically disfavoured classifications of people.
Do you really trust something as corrupt and fallible as a political process to create laws not on demonstrable facts (who hit who with the two by four) but on what people think? Sure, motivation matters: for example being put in fear of your life can justify violence in self-defence, even (sometimes) in Britain. But to legislate that certain groups are more sacrosanct than others is collectivism at its most intellectually pernicious because it denies the individual basis of rights and assigns value on the basis of group membership. We all know where that can end up.
If you think laws should be based on crimes against individuals regardless of what race/religion or sexual orientation they have, then you might want to go over to the Hansard Society on-line consultation on Hate Crime in Northern Ireland and tell them that group rights are not a form of human rights, they are their antithesis.
As mentioned before on Samizdata.net, a television advertisement for featuring a woman firing a gun has been banned by regulators after it prompted complaints from viewers. The advert for the Freelander Sport was accused of glorifying guns and encouraging dangerous driving. Ofcom, the regulator for the UK communications industries, ruled that it had breached guidelines on harm and offence and must not be shown again.
Given regular coverage of high-profile shooting incidents and public concern about the wider social impact of the so-called gun culture, the glamorisation and normalisation of guns, even indirectly, is simply offensive to many people.
What on earth do they mean by gun culture in Britain? It must be the fact that criminals have them, because a law-abiding citizen can not get hold of one. Oh, no, guns are bad, bad, bad. The fact that a gun would enable a father to defend himself and his sons against a drug gang thugs terrorising his neighbourhood is obviously missing the point.
A public-spirited man who was beaten up in front of his young sons when he confronted drug dealers outside his home committed suicide because he felt powerless to protect them.
We must ensure that those who want to protect themselves and their families understand that guns would only increase the level of mindless violence in Britain and, more importantly, make the self-righteous Guardianistas and assorted champagne socialists look even worse. There is no room for gun culture in the multi-cultural Britain.
Interestingly, David Davis, the shadow home secretary notes:
Large amounts of crime go unreported and many people accept yob culture as a fact of life.
We shall also fight the ‘yob culture’ with luncheon vouchers, wagging our fingers at hyper-active young men beating up whomever stands up to them and banning them from town centres for unruly behaviour. That should show them.
Now pass me that baby…
In the most recent edition of the Sunday Times1, there was an interesting article by Ferdinand Mount called Uppers and Downers which had the tagline:
Ferdinand Mount believes a ‘classless’ delusion grips Britain. Not only is the class divide wider than ever, but in a compelling new book he explores how the rich are treating the poor with an unprecedented contempt
I must confess that this intro led me to read this article with a predisposition for contempt for that premise myself. And indeed, I found much of what Mount had to say about class attitudes in Britain debatable to put it mildly. However the central thesis, something not hinted at in the introduction, was indeed compelling: that many social problems today in the UK are a direct consequence of the destruction of working class culture, and this was caused by, as Mount puts it:
Worse than all of this is the fact that in the past I have worked for a Conservative government, and not just any government but the administration led by Margaret Thatcher, which its passionate opponents still believe did more to deepen class divisions than any other government since the war. I was, for a time, the head of her policy unit. How can someone like me pretend to know what life was and is like for the worst-off of my fellow countrymen?
My answer is that it is People Like Us who are largely responsible for the present state of the lower classes in Britain. It is our misunderstandings, meddlings and manipulations that have transformed a British working class that was the envy and amazement of foreign observers in the 19th century into a so-called underclass that is often the subject of baffled despair today, both at home and abroad. We did the damage, or most of it. It is the least we can do to try to understand what we have done and help to undo it where we can.
For me this is truly the key but it is not a consequence of the ‘Conservative’ or ‘Labour’ varient of intrusive regulatory statism (for in 2004, who really thinks there is a huge material difference between them?) but of regulatory interventionist statism in all its progressive democratic forms. I shall certainly read Mount’s new book Mind the Gap, though if the pre-release blurb is true that the book asks…
[T]he author pursues an oft-times illusive answer to the fundamental question: How can oppressive inequality in Britain be wiped out once and for all?
…which begs the question does ‘oppressive inequality’ (a) actually exist in Britain, and (b) it is anyone’s business to ‘wipe it out’. If that is in fact what the book is about then I expect I shall be putting a pretty nasty book review up here on Samizdata.net in the not too distant future.
For me the core issue here however is that as Mount indicates, it was indeed the political class, people like him, who bear the responsibility for destroying a significant section of civil society and replacing it with a state-centred dependency and entitlement culture of de-socialised barbarians.
Thus the question that really needs answering it not how do ‘we’ solve this problem but rather how to dis-aggrandise the entire class of people from left to right who caused the problem in the first place. I cannot tell without first reading Ferdinand Mount’s book but perhaps he has realised that there is indeed what Sean Gabb calls an ‘enemy class’… and much to his chagrin, the term ‘People Like Us’ indicates Mount has realised that he is a member of it.
1 Due to the benighted archiving policy of The Times making articles unreadable to viewers overseas, we do not generally link to Times articles
I recall, shortly after I first got myself on-line, frequently seeing the phrase ‘ROFLMAO’ appear on various chat rooms and fora. I had not a clue what this term meant but, after a little judicious detective work, I discovered that is was an acronym for the phrase ‘Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Arse Off’.
Well, I was ROFLMAO when I read this:
TORY leader Michael Howard has been barred from the White House and told he will never meet President George Bush, it emerged last night.
The bombshell ban was slapped on Mr Howard after he called for Tony Blair to quit over the Iraq War….
What particularly upset the White House was Mr Howard’s comment: “If I were Prime Minister I would seriously be considering my position.”
They were also angered when the Tory leader accused the PM of “serious dereliction of duty”.
Mr Rove, who speaks with the President’s full authority, said: “You can forget about meeting the President full stop. Don’t bother coming, you are not meeting him….”
And it has deeply damaged the decades-long alliance between the Republicans and the Conservative Party.
Senior US Right-wingers blame Mr Howard for undermining the coalition in Iraq and say they are privately rooting for a Labour victory in the next election.
A Tory source said: “They see Tony Blair as a true ally against terror and the Tories as a bunch of w*****s.”
Wherever would they get that idea??!!
Although the cause of this spat is laid at the door of Mr Howard’s apparent equivocation over Iraq, I get the feeling that the real friction lies elsewhere. Strange as it may sound, I have been reading what sound like reasonably reliable reports in the UK press about squadrons of young British Conservative activists hot-footing it off to the USA to work in the Presidential election campaign…for the Democrats!.
In the interests of accuracy, I think it ought to be said that this is far more about the Tories trying to pull some sort of rug from under ‘Teflon Tony’ than establishing any sort of link with either the US Democrat Party or Mr Kerry. But in any event, it is still a deeply ill-judged political blunder. The article alludes to an ‘alliance’ between US Republicans and British Conservatives and while I think that ‘alliance’ is too strong a term, there certainly has been a traditional affinity between these two centre-right Anglo-Saxon political tribes.
That being the case, one wonders what these jet-setting young Tories were hoping to achieve by throwing their lot in with Mr Kerry? There is nothing to suggest that a President Kerry would somehow undermine Tony Blair. If the Tories cannot make a dent in him at home, then how are they going to land any meaningful punches on him via Washington? And if they imagine that they are going to be the subject of any outreach by either the US Democrats of the Guardian-reading classes at home then all I can say is that they are even stupider than they look (and they look fairly stupid).
In short, the British Tories have managed to alienate one of their few powerful friends for no gain whatsoever and, since I assume that the leadership either gave their blessing to these transatlantic jaunts or, at the very least, turned a blind eye, then it merely reinforces my view that the British Conservatve Party is in the hands of buffoons and political pygmies.
I understand that the streets of New York will be plagues this week by throngs of the Great American Unwashed wearing ‘George Bush=Hitler’ T-shirts. I do not imagine that any such items of radical apparel will be making an appearance at the next Tory Party convention. However, I do wonder if would get any sales with a ‘Michael Howard = Chief Wiggum’ version?
I would guess not, because he was complaining bitterly about the regulatory nature of the British government, in an article which drew a dry smile.
After making the confident predicition that the world as we know it will end, on the grounds we are running out of oil, Monbiot presents for our admiration a commune in Somerset. But our hippy heroes found to their dismay that regulations thwarted them at every turn:
Peasant farming, the settlers have found, is effectively illegal in the UK.
The first hazard is the planning system. The model is viable only if you build your own home from your own materials on your own land: you can’t live like this and support a mortgage. So the settlers imposed more rules on themselves: their houses, built of timber, straw bales, wattle and daub and thatch, would have the minimum visual and environmental impact.
But the planning system makes no provision for this. It is unable to distinguish between an eight-bedroom blot on the landscape and a home which can be seen only when you blunder into it.
…Then the environmental health inspectors struck…
… Tinkers’ Bubble, which has never poisoned anyone, is now forbidden to sell any kind of processed food or drink: its cheese, bacon, juice and cider have been banned.
I think it is just hilarious that the hippies of Tinker’s Bubble, who have imposed all manner of self-regulations on themselves, find themselves so hindered.
The State is not your friend, even if you are a hippy on a commune.
Robin Cook, the former Cabinet Minister, who resigned with aplomb on the eve of the Iraqi War, has proved a popular alternative for the anti-war brigade on the backbenches of the House of Commons. His speeches have provided illuminating insights into the mindset of those who view anti-terrorist actions as propaganda to expand the power of the United States. The debate on combating terrorism is structured as a conflict between freedom and security, balancing civil liberties against the need to pre-empt atrocities on innocent civilians. There is a case for arguing that the erosion of civil liberties in Britain has been accelerated by Blunkett the authoritarian using the ‘war on terror’ as a convenient excuse.
Robin Cook, in a speech at the Edinburgh Book Festival, personified the anti-war Left, and argued that the anti-terrorist activities of the British government was a conflict between multiculturalism and security. The necessity of combating Al-Qa’eda operatives was secondary to the importance of reinforcing and extending a multicultural society. Cook evinced some surprise at this recent development:
He said: “I’m deeply troubled by the increase in raids under the Anti-Terrorism Act which are now running, staggeringly, at 10 times the level of three years ago.
“There were 30,000 raids under the Prevention of Terrorism Act last year from which less than 100 individuals were charged with offences relating to terrorism.”
What was three years ago? In contrast to this omission, Cook made a veiled reference to the Muslim vote, now so important in certain constituencies. This has followed his recent courting of Muslim leaders, supping at the same stagnant reservoir of support that has attracted other midges, such as Respect and the Liberal Democrats:
Mr Cook, who quit the Cabinet over the Iraq war, went on: “There’s a real risk that if we continue with that we will end up alienating the very people we need for a successful multi-cultural society and a successful appeal to people around the world of a different culture.”
Although the speech was crafted for short-term political gain, Cook provides evidence that a proportion of those who demonstrated against the war, will continue to oppose measures that can be utilised to investigate and break up terrorist cells and sympathisers in the United Kingdom.
It is a common occurrence on this blog to point out how the Labour government blatantly pursues its socialist agenda. Yes, I am using the S-word in relation to the party that has been polished and spun by the likes of Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair for the public consumption. Today after reading the Sunday Telegraph, gloom descended upon me in an almost David-Carr-esque manner.
The Labour government, true to its socialist DNA, is making headlines again with its penchant for tax increases. The front page announces that inheritance tax is to rise to 50 per cent for those whose inheritance exceed a limit set by socialist bureaucrats or worse yet, a bunch of self-righteous lefties. Institute for Public Policy Research that came up with the scheme is indeed firmly wedged in the socialist utopia:
Inheritance tax needs to be made fairer, according to a new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr), published next week. The report recommends a tax cut for middle class families, with extra revenues raised from the wealthiest invested in assets for the poorest children.
Ah, children. Beware of ‘children’ mentioned in any political context.
A fairer inheritance tax would see the very wealthy, who are comfortably over the threshold, pay more, whilst the vast majority of families that are currently taxed would pay less.
Again, a fairer inheritance tax. Fairer to whom? To those who build up assets during their lifetime so they can choose to pass them on to their children? And, pray, what is that ‘threshold’, which the very wealthy are comfortably over?
The quotes read like passages from an old Marxist-Leninist textbook, the problem is that they originate from an institute whose former director, Matthew Taylor, is now the head of policy unit at No 10 Downing street. It has been suggested that the scheme may be a “big idea” for a third Labour term in power.
But the Labourites are not yet finished with the Middle England and with anybody who either owns a roof over their heads or stands to inherit one. Northern Ireland minister admitted there will be significant shifts in rate bills [local government tax], particularly at the top end of the market.
It is only fair that those who can afford to pay do pay a fairer share as soon as possible.
Here we go again, talk of fairness… fair to whom and fair by whose definition? Who are these guardians of fairness and equality that they feel confident to define how much I get to keep before I am forced to pay a fairer share? These are the very same people whose existence and – dare I say it – salaries depend on the money that are extracted from all of us to self-righteous noises about ‘schoolsandhospitals’.
For once, the Tories managed a sound-bite:
It is becoming clearer by the day that Labour are planning third-term tax rises to feed their appetite for fat government.
The only thing that is not clear to me is that how Labour’s propensity for taxation and fat government has not been clear to everybody all along.
We have endless claims that global warming caused the Boscastle floods in Cornwall.
Now global warming may be a real problem, and it may be caused (at least in part) by human action (rather than sunspot activity and/or other natural factors). But I do not hear many people (although there are a few) saying “oh we must have more nuclear power stations to replace C02 generating power sources” – instead it is just the normal capitalism is evil stuff and demans for more wind turbines and other such (whose contribution to power generation can, at best, only be minor).
There is also something else to be thought about. The endless talk about global warming distracts attention from other factors that might be involved in the flooding.
Cornwall has had very heavy rain before in the past – and the buildings than have been flooded were centuries old. Could the flooding have anything to do with the narrowing of the river (in a government ‘reclaim land’ scheme) and the building of a new road bridge?
A letter in the Daily Telegraph yesterday claimed exactly this – and was ignored by the broadcast media.
It reminds me of the flooding in the South East of England some time ago. There were endless claims that it was due to global warming – and much later (and without much publicity) it slipped out that there had been various government building schemes that had undermined the drainage system of the area concerned.
Not all government ‘investment’ is just a waste of money (and therefore a denial of what people could have done with the money, had it not been taken from them), some of it causes direct harm as well.
“Gold Plating” is the practice of getting an order (a ‘directive’) from our masters in the European Union and adding lot of additional regulations to it. Sort of…
“If this arbitrary order has not destroyed your business we will add regulations to it, and we will keep doing so until you are destroyed”…
…”Why are we trying to destroy you?”…
…”Well what else do we have to do, it would be lazy and unethical to just sit in our offices and not do anything”.
The British Civil Service is supposed to love gold plating more than any other civil service in the EU. The British Civil Service having long prided itself on being more hardworking an ethical than Civil Servants in other nations (do not even think about bribing a British Civil Servant to save your business – he would rather starve than let you survive).
Examples are tossed about, supposedly a Directive on slaughter houses that started off as about 8 pages in Brussels (EU HQ) was turned in to about 7 pages in France – and about 97 pages in Britain.
No surprise that almost all of the little local slaughter houses closed down.
The BBC (and other such) still has the occasional item about how sad it is the all the local family owned places have gone, and how animals are now taken to great corporate factories (which actually have worse records for the quality and safety of meat). The little places may not have understood the paper work or been able to afford all the special people the regulations insisted they have (such vets – mostly from Spain) – but they did the job better. “Oh the wicked supermarkets” (they get the blame for destroying the “local food” from “local farmers” system that the media claim to love) “and now on to our next story about the need for more regulations concerning such and such”.
Well the British Conservative party has promised to end gold plating and if a business thinks that a EU directive has been interpreted more strictly in Britain than in other parts of the EU (or just used as an excuse for another regulation orgy) they will be able to take the matter to court.
Well this is good as far as it goes. The promise to end gold plating is nice to hear (although I doubt the Civil Service would take any notice) and taking things to court might work sometimes – although the British courts (like the courts of most nations) are a mess (and getting worse – as they slowly reject what is left of the old ‘out of date’ principles of law).
However, it is also a wonderful way for the British Conservative party to look as if they are “doing something” about regulations and “standing up for Britain”. After all by concentrating on ‘gold plating’ the Conservatives duck the issue of whether to defy ANY of the endless thousands of Directives that come out of the EU.
Too cynical? I hope so.
The other day the Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper written for the statist right prejudices of ‘Indignant of Tunbridge Well’, called for certain video games to be banned. This resulted is a rather splendid riposte by Benet Simon in The Spectator called Ban this evil rag!’:
But before you panic, remember that you’re better off trusting your child than the Daily Mail. Over the last few days I have been checking the Mail’s website discussion board to see what sort of response they have been getting to their call for a ban. At first, scores of anti-censorship postings appeared, many of them pointing out a fact that the Mail had omitted to mention in either of its two front-page stories: the murderous game, Manhunt, wasn’t in fact owned by the killer Leblanc but by his victim. Another popular complaint was that the Mail had entirely ignored a statement by the police which said that Leblanc’s motive for the so-called ‘Manhunt murder’ was certainly robbery. The kid had debts, it seems, was into drugs and killed to pay for his habit. The police went on to assert that they had never made any connection between the crime and the video game. The Mail’s response to these letters was to delete them while leaving the comments from concerned mothers who won’t let their children watch Spiderman for fear that they’ll think they can climb down walls.
Indeed… my comments were amongst those they deleted from the thread on the Daily Mail forum entitled Discuss: Should violent video games be banned?. And now that it has turned into an embarrassing fiasco for them given the overwhelming response to the contrary, they seem to have since deleted the entire thread.
It seems that ‘Indignant of Tunbridge Wells’ is a gamer too. 
* = ‘Gib’ being an expression used by computer gamers for blowing a person into bloody chunks.
I have just returned back to London from a business trip to Edinburgh, now in the full swing of its major arts festival, when thousands of theatrical, comic and music acts strut their stuff. I was up in that fine city on more prosaic financial matters and although the weather was fairly dire for August – it rained all the time – I had an enjoyable trip and learned a lot more about the city.
First off, Edinburgh remains a serious financial centre. Quite a few traditionally London-based investment managers and financiers have happily turned their backs on the costs, noise and hassles of life in London in favour of Edinburgh. From the point of view of ‘quality of life’, the city has a lot to commend it. Commuting to work is much easier than in London, just for starters.
In the course of interviewing a CEO of a large investment firm, however, I was startled to be told that the top employer in the city is the local council. That’s right. The biggest source of jobs in the place is not a big fund manager, bank, IT firm or some other business, but the local municipality.
Therein lies the problem of modern Scotland, as far as I can see. Socialism has alas taken a deep hold of its public political culture at least as far as I can tell. The land of Adam Smith and David Hume seems to have forgotten some of the virtues of small government and red-blooded capitalism, as this article over at the blog Freedom and Whiskey makes clear I truly hope this changes in the future. And if it ever does, then other financial capitals of Europe could be in for some very tough competition indeed. Edinburgh could become a very pleasant and exciting place to work and is certainly becoming much easier to reach, as developments to its airport go forward.
Well, that’s all from me for a while. Off on holiday. See you later.
|
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.
|
