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]
|
This morning I was on SkyNews on the Saturday live programme debating blogging. It was one of those discussions the media in the UK has started to have, as in… these bloggers are not going away, so let’s make them sound a bit ridiculous and question whatever it is they do. Yawn.
I was in the studio with Bobbie Johnson, a blogger and technology correspondent of the Guardian, and Iain Dale, a former Conservative party candidate, political commentator and.. wait for it.. a blogger. We had fifteen minutes to argue with the presenter about what is a blog, are they any good, shouldn’t blogs be like journalism, what is the bloggers’ responsibility, is it good or bad that they are undermining and stretching the current rules and frameworks etc. So three years ago, dahling…
The questions were extremely basic and there was no time really to answer anything other than try to get a sound-bite in. Perhaps that is why I could not take the whole thing too seriously. Both Bobbie and Iain were good and made the experience rather enjoyable…
The best thing about this morning was an excellent tip from the studio make-up person – she recommended a smudge-proof eyeliner that will do what I want from it, i.e. stay put and make my eyes look smokey. For those interested it is MAC fluidline eye-liner gel. Perhaps the traditional media has something going for it…
And here is a gratuitous pictures of me, with the make-up on.
And yes, it was rather sunny today.
Cross-posted from Media Influencer
Update: Tim Worstall actually watched it! I wish he had been there too but flying all the way from Portugal for the sake of a few silly questions about blogging just does not seem worth it.
There’s plenty of action going on in my last post on immigration. Much is being made in the comments about the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. As ‘permanant expat’ put it:
“Unrestricted” immigration, as practiced by most (Socialist) European governments is a BAD THING…..period. Anyone unable to understand that is living on another planet.
Illegal immigration is a TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE THING…..period. Anyone who doesn’t understand that lives far, far away in another galaxy….
Immigration is a “Death Star”…..but there’s no Luke Skywalker anywhere to be seen.
Out here on the planet Liberty, it strikes me that this distinction between legal and illegal immigration is spurious. Immigration should be discussed on its merits, and merit is NOT something that is dispensed by legislative agencies.
It always surprises me that many ‘libertarians’ who shout the loudest for the free trade in goods and services, are apparently willing to turn around and argue all for government intervention when it comes to the freedom of movement in people.
Gary Jason – a writer I had not heard of before, has an interesting review about a book chronicling how filthy rich some prominent American leftists are. The usual collection of intellectual gargoyles are on show: Ralph Nader, Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore. I must admit I was taken aback as to how much money Nader is worth, although that is probably my naivete. Jason asks the interesting question about how leftists who decry business are so easy with a life of affluence, and takes a stab at a few answers.
For example, I rather liked this paragraph:
I suspect that there is also a subtler phenomenon at work, one that I would call “warding off the evil eye.” I suspect that some successful people — here I have in mind certain businessmen who have become enormously rich — fear that the envious lower classes will possibly do them harm. Considering the long history of class warfare politics, this is not an irrational fear. To ward off envy, these captains of industry make a conspicuous show of being kind and caring, setting up foundations that prominently feature their names.
This sort of ground has been trodden a few times before. What intrigues me is why there are so few seriously, stinkingly, rich folk on the libertarian side of the street, so to speak. There are a few libertarian friends of mine with decent jobs, nice houses; some have inherited fairly serious money and do not have to work; but I don’t know any of our number who has the sort of wealth described in Jason’s book review. It is a paradox that celebrants of capitalism and market economics are often on their uppers, financially, in my experience, although my impressions are just that, impressions.
I guess it may be partly down to the fact that folk who are good at handling ideas and making arguments for this and that tend not to have the sort of skills to make pots of money. It may also be that, in today’s largely corporate world, being known as a holder of controversial ideas (such as legalising heroin, zero state welfare, etc) is not good for the prospects of a person trying to clamber up the corporate ladder. And if a person wants to create their own business, they tend not to have the time to ponder the Big Questions, write The Road To Serfdom or Atlas Shrugged.
Even so, it remains for me a bit of a puzzle why so few of us are not rolling in cash, given our views about the benefits of the marketplace.
On a related theme, I can recommend this article on why intellectuals often hate capitalism, by the late Harvard University professor, Robert Nozick, and this book, by Ludwig von Mises.
I guess creationists, or the Intelligent Design crowd, will not be too amused by this story.
According to this BBC news report, the Labour party spent £ 7,700 on Cherie Blair’s hair during the election campaign. Not my idea of value for money. Sure they won, but still…
In my bitter and twisted way I often resent people being given good jobs when they have no clear talent for these jobs. Before going back to Bolton (I still have not set out) for my pointless course (pointless because I have not been “allocated 120 documented teaching hours” and therefore can not pass) I went over to a local supermarket to get a something to eat.
I started to read the Daily Telegraph, the leading Conservative newspaper in Britain and came upon an article by Mr Boris Johnson (Conservative party MP and journalist). The article was about the recent announcement of the closure of a car factory in Coventry in the English West Midlands. Fear not, argued Mr Johnson, for although this particular factory is closing, industry in general in the United Kingdom is doing well and unemployment is only 4% of the workforce.
The problem is that unemployment was 5% of the workforce in January (and I bet it has gone up since then). and industrial output has been falling for over a year. I actually agree with the thrust of Mr Johnson’s article (that we should not copy French regulations – although quite a lot of regulations have already come in over the years), but the careless attitude to facts irritates me.
Christopher Booker (of the Sunday Telegraph – the sister paper to the Daily Telegraph) regularly attacks journalists (including Mr Johnson) for getting the facts wrong (on the EU and other matters). But these journalists (and people in other walks of life) just carry on writing and speaking as if facts do not matter. How is it that people can get high paying and important jobs and just not bother about what they are doing? For example, Mr Johnson will have at least one paid ‘researcher’ – so it is not as if it would be a great effort for him to get the facts right (he just does not care – just as many other important people just do not care).
I know I have said it before, but it offends me that (for example) David Cameron (who has a degree in Politics Philosophy and Economics from Oxford University) talks as if he did not understand what the words “social justice” meant (i.e. the belief that income and wealth should be “distributed” by government in accordance with a pattern held to be just). Does he really believe in ‘social justice’? In which case he should not be a member of the Conservative party – let alone the leader of it. Does he not know what the words mean? But he is not Ian Duncan Smith (an ex leader of the Conservative party and ex-army man who also uses these words, but can not be blamed for not knowing what they mean) he has (as I said above) a degree in PPE from Oxford – how did he get the degree if he knows nothing about basic political philosophy? Or is he trying to trick people by using words he thinks they will like whilst not caring about the formal meaning of these words? In which case he is dishonest.
“Mr Cameron is not dishonest, he is a nice man and Mr Johnson is a lovely man”.
No Mr Cameron is not a ‘nice man’ – nice people do not call “most” (the exact word was “mostly”) of the members of another party “closet racists” without a very good reason. He was not referring to the genuinely racist neo-fascist British National Party (BNP), who pose no threat at all to the Tories, but rather the anti-European Union United Kingdom Independence Party, who do indeed take votes from the Tories. He also refused to apologize – and then got the party Chairman (arch plotter Francis Maude) to come out with even more smears.
And of course this is the same Mr Cameron of the PR work for Mr Green of Carlton television. When Mr Green was busy using shareholders money to try and prop “On Digital” Mr Cameron not only denied it was happening he said “if you print that I will have you sacked” to several financial journalists.
Mr Johnson is not a “lovely man” either – he cheats on his wife and then makes a little joke of it (in the hopes that he can get out of trouble). He also made great play of how anti-EU he was (when he stood for Parliament) – and then voted for the arch EU fanatic ‘Ken’ Clarke to be leader of the Conservative party (Mr Johnson then, I believe, supported Mr Cameron in the last leadership election).
These men have no honour and no ability, other than the ability to somehow get to the top.
“It is just because you are bitter and twisted Paul” – well that is true, but I still do not see why Britain has to have so many people in high positions who do not care about truth. It is as if the entire ruling elite (almost regardless of party) want to be the “heir to Blair” as Mr Cameron is supposed to have claimed to be.
There are few topics in the world that get people heated up more then immigration, and in both Australia and the United States, societies that have been built by mass immigration, the topic is in the news.
In the United States, the question is based more on what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants that have consistently been keen to seek opportunity in that great country, and have taken the dubious path of avoiding the proper legal channels to do so. In ordinary times this would not have been such an issue. However, since 2001 the United States has become naturally very sensitive about who enters its borders. I am actually surprised that it has taken this long to surface.
The United States immigration question is particularly interesting. You might think that a society that has built itself on mass immigration would be in favour of more immigration, but this is not the case, and generally never has been the case. In general immigration is tolerated, rather then actively embraced by the general populace, but when times get tough, the political mood can turn quite quickly on newcomers. This was as true in the recession of 1819 as it is today.
This is because the costs of immigration are felt and paid for by individuals, but the benefits of immigration are diffuse and spread right across society. It is a shame that many defenders of the right of the free movement of people refuse to admit that there are costs to immigration. The worker who finds his wages undercut or loses his job entirely, or the victim of violence or the householder who finds his property values eroded is naturally going to feel distressed and angry at what he or she sees as the ‘cause’ of his or her loss. People find themselves surrounded by people of different appearance, religion, and cultural conditions, and worry about how the newcomers will assimilate. → Continue reading: Three cheers for immigrants!
Frank Furedi, the British sociologist who has already established a bit of a record for trashing doomongering of various types, lays into what he sees as the misanthropy of so many of today’s glum authors. I cannot do justice to it in one short comment, so make yourself a coffee or pour your favourite alcoholic beverage, sit back, and enjoy:
Human beings are not angels; on a bad day they are capable of evil deeds. But the very fact that we can designate certain acts as evil shows that we are capable of rectifying acts of injustice. And on balance we aspire to do good. Contrary to the fantasies of romantic primitivism, civilisation and development have made our species more knowledgeable and sensitive about the workings of nature. The aspiration to improve the conditions of life – the most basic motive of people throughout the ages – is one that has driven humanity from the Stone Age through to the twenty-first century.
If believing in the human potential is today labelled ‘anthropocentrism’ and ‘speciesism’, then I wholeheartedly plead guilty to subscribing to both of those views.
Hat-tip: Ronald Bailey at Reason’s blog. Bailey is also a profound techno-optimist with little time for the zero-sum economics or mentality of the latter-day Malthusians that Furedi hammers. This book is worth adding to your reading list. (As if I did not have enough, Ed).
Six of the victims of the Waco massacre are due for release.
I mean, hey, the federal government comes in, attacks your church, is a party to the death of your friends and family… and you get 13 years in prison. Right.
According to a 9th Circuit case decided in favour of John Gilmore, you do not have to provide identification to travel. You may instead submit to secondary screening.
Read more about it here.
Erratum: Actually, Gilmore *lost* the case, but the judges stated what I said above.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.
– David Hume, one of the giants of the Scottish Enlightenment. I wonder what he would have made of our own times?
No, George W. Bush’s ego has not in fact got out of hand. The US Secretary of State was in fact welcoming the President of Equatorial Guinea, who was described on state radio in that country as “like God in Heaven, with power over men and things”.
Lucky him.
Not so lucky are the rest of the people in Equatorial Guinea, who get the short end of the stick when it comes to liberty and the like.
I can understand the need of the United States to maintain influence over a place like Equatorial Guinea, which has a great deal of oil reserves. He’s a sunofabitch but he’s our sunofabitch. Or something like that. Realpolitik will be with us for a long time to come. However, that doesn’t mean that such a slimebag should be given the five-star treatment in Washington. Or, indeed, anywhere outside his own wretched balliwak.
(Via Passport)
|
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.
|
Recent Comments