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]
|
Kevin Marks has a rather different ‘take’ on the matter of reputation in the modern world. So is ‘Google envy’ the new snobbery, Kevin?
Neel Krishnaswami is taking a very centralised view of reputation that smells of a synoptic delusion to me. The real revolution in online reputation is happening from the ground up, with Google being the prime example.
Google ranks webpages on how many pages link to them. It then repeats this process, weighting the links from highly linked-to pages higher. In effect, some pages have a higher reputation than others through an emergent mechanism created by all those individual links.
One can argue whether this is elitist or democratic endlessly, but it is certainly based on a Hayekian spontaneous order.
For example, I posted Two Kinds of Order by John Marks on March 11th, and mentioned this to some colleagues who might be interested. I linked to it from a Weblog or two, and Doc Searls did too.
Today it is number 1 on a search for ‘two kinds of order’ out of over 2 million, and a search for John Marks shows it in the top ten, despite there being lots of other John Marks’s on the net.
Have I piggybacked on Doc’s reputation? Yes, but only because he thinks what I and my father wrote is worth reading. If his readers disagree, they’ll stop linking to him, and his reputation will go down.
Cory explains this in more detail, and how a centralised effort can never match this.
Hey, hey! It’s been so long since I have written with a pen,
its sharper than a razor, I don’t feel like Errol Flynn.
Got no computer, I can’t type the letter ‘M’.
You’re not responding right, I guess I better start again.
– ‘Last cigarette’ by Dramarama
At some point when I was growing up, it was impressed upon me by someone, I do not remember who or even when, that good handwriting was something that mattered. I don’t mean mattered just to them, but that it was something that was one of the multiplicity of ways a person could be judged, much in the same way a person could be judged by how they dressed or their smell or the manner in which they spoke. By this I do not mean the shop from which their clothes came, or what sort of aftershave they used or the specific meaning of what a person said. No, I mean were there clothes unkept, clean, carelessly worn, well fitted, did they smell unwashed or was aftershave used to mask rather than attend natural odors, were words carelessly and crudely strung together or well chosen and rich.
Clearly handwriting was another one of those ‘things-that-matter’. So I attended to it, studied calligraphy, adopted formal, social and casual hands, did a wicked gothic black letter and a distinctive cursive italic… and the years slid by.
Then tonight I found myself rummaging through one of several teetering piles of music CD’s I have not listened to for quite a while and popped on ‘Dramarama’, a reasonable but essentially unremarkable late 1980’s band and heard the song quoted above.
And it was true. In spite of churning out thousands of words a day for business and pleasure I have not written anything with a pen for more than two weeks by my best guess. And what I wrote then was a scrawled supermarket shopping list on the back of a page of last year’s The Far Side daily calender.
So does ones handwriting really say anything significant about you in this digital age? Well last year an old chum of mine got married again and asked me to do her invitations by hand, just like I did 12 years ago the last time she got married. I told her I was very out of practice and that she should get them printed but she insisted in that way she knows I cannot refuse. So I suppose she certainly thought it was ‘something that mattered’. Fortunately she provided a vast number of spare invitations as it seems that formal handwriting is most certainly not like riding a bike. It took me several days of concerted effort to dredge up that unused skill before I was producing hand lettered invitations to what I felt was an acceptable standard.
So what does it actually mean? Well there was a time when I would probably have thought a bit less of a person with ghastly handwriting. It was almost as if when handed a hard to read scribble that that person was being presumptuous and disrespectful, forcing me to try and decode it rather than making themselves clear. It was rather like someone who does not deign to look at you whilst addressing you.
But times do change. Although it might still irritate, I do not really accord quite so much stock to the quality of a person’s written hand. In this age of print-outs and IR networks there are people I know very well indeed and yet have probably never even seen what their handwriting looks like.
Perhaps it still is important, just not in quite the same nuanced way it once was. Still, I do hope my friends marriage proves more durable than the last one as I do not look forward to doing her invitations for a third time.
I must confess that I don’t know much about software. I know that it is logical instruction stuff that enables me to do interesting things with my computer and that it is made up of bits, bytes, bobs, bangles, beads and a couple of egg-whites. I also know that it is fabricated by frightfully whizz-bang clever chaps who possess powers far beyond my ken.
I did not know, though, that they were the footsoldiers fighting to bring down Capitalism but, according to Mr. Soderberg, that is exactly what they are.
A word of warning before you open the linked article (if, indeed, that is what you are minded to do): it is a ponderously long and narcolepsy-inducing marxist tract of the kind that I seldom can be bothered to wade through any more but for the inclusion of this early caveat:
“The article address readers sympathetic to the Marxist project and it presumes a basic knowledge of Marxist terminology”
Clearly, it was not meant for the flinty-eyes of a Mammon-Worshipper such as me. It is a sort of shrunken-head-on-a-stick warning that all ye who venture beyond this point risk mortal peril. Well, how could I resist? That’s not a warning, it’s a challenge.
Disappointingly, though, there was no peril, mortal or otherwise and negligible challenge. The thrust of the whole piece is that there are a whole slew of software designers out there beavering away designing excellent software which they then give away for free, thus undermining the corporations who exploit their capitalist intellectual property rights to charge for their (allegedly) inferior products. According to Mr. Soderberg, this heralds the dawn of a new age when the principle of giving away one’s software products for free will be applied to all other products and thus bring about a gift-based society.
All very tedious and all very wrong. As usual when these flat-earthers pop their heads over the parapet, the article is not so much an analysis as an extensive extrapolation of wishful thinking and deeply erroneous assumptions. All Marxists tend to get throbbingly priapic at the thought of folks giving their labour and ideas away for free. For them, it is a validation of their absurd insistence that everyone must give away their labour and ideas for free whereas, truly, it is an example of the kind of voluntarism that lies at the heart of the libertarian view of capitalism.
In other words, if said designers (or collectives thereof) decide to labour for no return then that is tickety-boo by me. And if others decide to that they want a return for their labour that is also tickety-boo. They will only get that return if they produce software that pikers like me are prepared to pay for. In other words, they have to compete and whether they do so successfully is entirely a matter for them.
However the corporations that Mr.Soderberg so dislikes must be churning out some good software because if they were not, they would go bust and in quick time. But that point seems to have been lost on him. Not surprising when you see assertions like this:
“Quite to the contrary, the study supports a connection between general welfare systems and commitment to non-commercial projects”
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but there aren’t a whole lot of magnificent software programmes emerging from, say, Cuba are there?
Mistake compounds mistake as Mr. Soderberg unmasks his vision of a society changed into a gift-society by the act of giving away the software while wholly ignoring the products of capitalism that enable the volunteer designers to do what they do. Nobody is giving away computers for free, or desks or chairs or Kangol hats or pizza or Diet Coke. If Mr. Soderberg wants to excite himself over free information and ideas then let him look no further than this blog and its copious links: loads and loads of folks giving away their intellectual product for free. Does this mean we are all Marxists? Not in my reckoning.
Like all unreconstructed lefties, Mr. Soderberg believes that capitalism insists on the pursuit of profit. Capitalism neither insists nor requires any such thing. It merely requires the voluntary exchange of goods and services upon whatever terms contracting parties agree. People labouring for free is not marxism; people being forced to labour for free is marxism. It is a very easy distinction to grasp and you certainly don’t have to be a software designer to do so.
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
– Samuel Adams
What I flagged up as a mere possibility here on Friday, March 08, 2002 in my article ‘St. Andrews is at it again’ is now a fact. The St. Andrews Liberty Club have started their own blog, and … well don’t take my word for it, go to The Liberty Log itself, and see what they say about the dinner at Tim and Helen’s where Tim and I showed them how Libertarian Samizdata works. And see also their excellent anti-anti-smoking stuff.
Neel Krishnaswami has some very interesting views in response to an article by Natalie Solent in Samizdata yesterday regarding the value, nature and possible future understanding of personal reputation:
I don’t think things will play out like this. Reputation is already extraordinarily important in determining whether you can get a bank loan or a credit card: it’s just that we call reputation a “credit rating”. Notice how this is different from the traditional notion of reputation: it’s highly specialized, with only the income and repayment habits of the person listed on it. It doesn’t matter whether one is a communist or libertarian, a Bible-thumping evangelical or an anal-fisting disco raver.
In the future, technology will enable people to create even more fine-grained ‘reputational’ judgements: the combination of computers and networking means that (in principle) one can look up every neighborhood someone has lived in and discover the price, or what magazines you have subscribed to since college, and which brands of shampoo you buy and when. This will increase economic efficiency, through the futuristic equivalent of targeted marketing, only the target niche is a niche of one consumer. These benefits won’t be captured by consumers, though because it enables firms to indulge in pricing behavior a bit closer to perfect price discrimination (eg, if you will only drink Coke and not Pepsi, then the price you pay for Coke might be increased — just for you!)
However, this is likely to be counterbalanced in two ways. First, ubiquitous networking means that price competition will get a lot fiercer. Second, people will also be able to use public-key cryptography to create multiple network identities, each of which has its own set of reputations associated with it. So you could create “sober citizen” and “wild-eyed radical” personas, independent of one another.
Two really good books on this subject are the collection Reputation: Studies in the Voluntary Elicitation of Good Conduct (Daniel B. Klein, ed) and Information Rules (by Carl Shapiro and Hal R. Varian). The first is really essential reading for any libertarian who wants to see how voluntarist organizations work and also how they don’t — it has a beautiful mix of theory and case studies.
Given my long and strongly held reservations about the European Union (EU) and my enthusiasm for most things Internet and World Wide Web, I felt considerable discomfort reading an Accenture paper The euro and eCommerce: Bringing Europe closer to a single market. The reason for my discomfort, apart from the source of the paper, was its argument that ‘the interaction of a single currency and e-commerce will forge powerful synergies across the euro zone, enhance European competitiveness and accelerate the emergence of pan-European capital market’. So does Bad [EU] plus Good [e-commerce] equal an enhanced Good [capital market unification and its benefits]?
How is it possible that something as centralising and anti-competitive as the euro can provide such a fertile ground for e-commerce, a symbol of non-regulated and most free market business model? At first I could not fault the paper’s conclusion or even its argument, but then I realised that a dose of ‘meta-context’ analysis is needed to understand what are the underpinning ‘world views’ at work here.
The EU debate (a civilised term for the battle between the strongly opposing camps) seems to be conducted on a simplistic utilitarian level, an argument that cannot get beyond the second-tier logic and with a short to medium-term horizon. It consists, at least in the media, of collecting examples and anecdotes of beneficial or damaging effects the European project will or might have. The EU supporters put forward the positive results of their efforts and EU opponents strive to point out their negative impact. Although consequences are an important measure of success or failure, this approach rarely addresses the fundamental premises from which both sides launch their campaigns.
An EU supporter would use the paper’s conclusions to point out that the positive impact of the euro, as enhanced by e-commerce, makes the justification of monetary union more powerful. The euro together with e-commerce further breaks down the barriers between the nations and moves us closer and more rapidly towards the ‘glorious day’ of pan-European capital markets. This also:
- reduces currency exchange risk and cost.
- through the Growth and Stability Pact limits the size of public-sector deficits thus indirectly increasing private sector access to capital by reducing ‘crowding out’ by public-sector borrowers,
- encourages growth of the European corporate bond market that is now widely seen as being able to match the dollar market,
- in combination with information and communications technology enables more fluid and efficient payment processes and settlement systems,
- enhances competition and creates greater price transparency.
There you are – all of the above worthy of any libertarian, or indeed common sense, endorsement. Why would we want the UK to forgo such lovely things, which is what will happen, if we don’t join the €uro?
To me the issue is not about centralisation and efficiency versus free market and disorder. The successful coupling of the euro and e-commerce has a straightforward explanation – the euro provides, by default, a transparent standard for transactions. E-commerce, e-business or any e-prefixed interaction cannot reach its full potential without it. The issue is about the distinction between standards (good) and uniformity (bad) – uniformity as an objective, out of context and without regard for the long-term consequences (if we are to play the utilitarian game) does not sit comfortably with the pursuit of freedom. The distinction between inefficiency (bad) and variety (good) – although a certain degree of inefficiency may have to be the price we pay for variety. It seems to me that the EU has been designed and promoted by the kind of mind that does not value variety and freedom as much as it values uniformity and supposed efficiency.
I believe that the truth about the EU lies in understanding and exposing the true objectives and motivations of its supporters. An understanding of the unintended consequences of market and human interactions will have to play an important role. Therefore I call for a meta-context based examination of the EU debate that reveals the actual view of the world its supporters would have us accept instead of wasting our adrenaline on specific EU horror stories.
That careless person, Happy Fun Pundit, was so inattentive to the proper order of things as to post a lovely mini-rant on Star Trek & Socialism on his own blog rather than here on Samizdata where everyone knows such posts belong.
Chuck Kuffner claims I agree with the case made by We The People. I neither agree nor disagree, although I am inclined towards disagreement. The issues of law are far too arcane for me to state a position. I realize Kuffner has an FAQ against the tax protestor case in general, but I am likewise not in a position to judge their validity or whether they are equally as political a statement as We The People’s. Just because a lawyer wrote up opinions does not mean it is the only set of opinions on the matter or even that it is correct.
My stand is quite simple. Whether or not Bob Schulz has a legal leg to stand on, I find him a courageous individual committed to the cause of liberty. Unlike the al Qaeda hunger strike wimps at Gitmo, Schulz and Croteau went nearly all the way on a Ghandian protest:
July 20, 2001
BOB EATS THIS DAY. We The People have been heard.
High level DOJ and U.S. Congressional officials formally committed the U.S. government, in writing, this afternoon, to answer the People’s Income Tax charges.
Schulz & Croteau have first food in three weeks. Schulz heads home on Saturday.
Remonstrance hearing to be held on Capitol Hill. Rep. Henry Hyde (IL), former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is expected to preside.
Whether his case is frivolous or not, officials responded to the hunger strike and agreed to a hearing.
Those government officials are liars and dishonourable men. Their word is of no value and is meaningless. Their promises are as solid as a treaty by the Great White Father with the American Indians. That is the judgement I do make and will stand by.
It is independant of whether his case has any validity. They gave their word to hear it. I want people to know what sort of “men” we are governed by.
They reneged. They lied. End of story.
Dr. Tim Evans has some interesting views regarding the reality of what many people ostensibly on the ‘left’ really think about healthcare
On 11 September 2001, Daniel Kruger, of the Centre for Policy Studies wrote a major feature article in the Daily Telegraph entitled Why half the members of trade unions have private health care. Kruger correctly pointed out whilst many members of the Trades Union Congress (T.U.C) continue to publicly attack Tony Blair’s efforts to establish an ever closer relationship between the National Health Service and British and French private hospitals, the trade union movement are themselves massively involved in a range of private healthcare schemes. Today, more than 3.5 million trade unionists have various forms of private health cover – which is more than half the T.U.C’s 6.8 million membership.
In his article, Kruger points to a trade union web site that spills all the beans called Trade Unions and Not-For-Profit Private Healthcare. It makes for remarkable reading and exposes the hypocrisy of many trade union leaders when it comes to private healthcare. This site quite rightly points out that the history of British independent health and social care is deeply rooted in the not-for-profit traditions of the friendly societies, mutuals, co-operatives and charities from whence the trade unions originally came in the early part of the nineteenth century. Today, for instance, BUPA is a mutual, Nuffield Hospitals are a charity, and people like the Salvation Army, Methodist Care Homes and Jewish Care all provide high quality health and social care services on a not-for-profit basis. There are literally dozens of other organisations underlining this deeply libertarian tradition.
Today, 7 million people have private medical insurance. Another 7 million people have private health cash plans such as H.S.A. (Hospital Saving Association), health cash schemes – as separate from private medical insurance invariably offer cash towards a range of services that were once covered by the NHS. For example, dentistry, ophthalmology, physiotherapy, chiropody, maternity services, allergy testing, hospital in-patient stays, convalescence, home help, and in some cases the use of an ambulance.
Another 1.2 million people have private dental insurance, whilst more than 20 million people pay directly for private dentistry with no insurance at all. 1.4 million people now have critical illness and permanent health insurance whilst 8.5 million will go private in 2002 for complimentary medicines such as osteopathy and chiropractics. Millions of these people will be trade unionists.
Perhaps, as the political scientist Dr. Nigel Ashford pointed out in 1997, it is under the historic and voluntaristic rubrics of mutuality and co-operation that Tony Blair might just continue with his Plan to Privatise UK Health and Welfare(1)
Come to think of it, perhaps that is why Labour’s ministers are beginning to talk about giving the best “three star” NHS hospitals “Independent Foundation Hospital” status and are endlessly obsessing about giving them “earned autonomy”. Strange bedfellows – funny old world!
(1)= (link requires Adobe Acrobat Reader which can be downloaded for free)
Charles Kuffner wrote:
Oh, and surely now that several people (myself, Matthew Yglesias, Mac Thomason, Max Power) have pointed out the idiocy of [We The People] the Samizdata folks would admit that they were wrong in assigning them any credibility, right? Not quite. I stand by everything I said.
Well the trouble I have with this is twofold:
Firstly I think Dale was just pointing out what the We The People campaign are saying, not actually making much of an argument whether it was/was not really valid.
Secondly, and my biggest grouse, the ‘not quite’ link is to my article called Tax: The view from Atlantis in which I actually said I thought ‘We The People’ would lose the legal argument. So to use Charles Kuffner’s words, I thought the ‘We The People’ campaign was not a credible way of trashing the IRS. I stand by everything I say too, Chuck. What is the problem, you don’t like people agreeing with some of what you say?
Paul Staines writes in with a rational explanation about how the advocates of flat-earth economics want to ‘end poverty’ by taxing the very mechanisms of trade.
Tom Burroughes wrote on Samizdata on Wednesday:
“This morning a contact of mine called up to say he was attending an event discussing the so-called Tobin Tax, which is a levy on foreign exchange transactions named after the Nobel Prize Winning Laureate of 1981, James Tobin.”
Tom might admit its not so weird when you know that contact was myself, I took his advice and put on a pinstripe, garish shirt and clashing braces – if you are going to be an evil currency speculator, best look the part he said.
Bizarre gathering, left winger Shirley Williams was the keynote speaker, ‘anti-poverty’ campaigners, the Guardian’s economics editor and a couple of economists who have never worked outside academia made up the panel. If you plan to tax foreign exchange transactions best not to involve anybody who has actually done an FX trade in the planning I guess. Besides myself, amongst a sea of ‘anti-poverty’ campaigners the only dissident voice was a journalist from the Financial Times and a pretty young student thing from London School of Economics. The cherub from the LSE asked the entirely logical question “won’t this be a regressive tax on third world traders?”
For example I’m a gum farmer from Sudan, I sell my gum to Rowntrees Ltd. in the UK so they can make fruit pastilles. I want Sudanese dinars, Rowntrees pay pounds sterling, I sell the pounds for dollars (Tobin tax time), I sell the dollars for dinars (Tobin tax time). Minor currencies are always quoted against the dollar, so if you come from a small country you pay the tax twice – and this regressive tax helps the developing world?
War on Want reckon that $250 bn a year can be raised by taxing currency speculation at a mere 0.1%. Sounds like a cheap tax with great rewards. Lots of talk about how $1 trillion a day passes across the FX markets daily. You know how it is, I buy a $1m you sell ¥130m, I buy £1m you sell $1.6m next thing you know, by days end we’ve consummated $1bn in trade. And hopefully I’m up $10,000. Did you notice how the big numbers and the profits are very different? Banks also have their profits taxed by the way. I pointed out that if you add up the profits of all the investment banks this year, it probably doesn’t even make $10bn. Its been a tough year. So where will this $250bn come from? Stand up row ensues, I don’t care about the poor being the conclusion. They were, genuinely, quite shocked to realise the sums couldn’t add up by a factor of 2500%. So much for ending world poverty next year.
Have you ever played poker for hours and ended up with the same money you started out with? Well these jokers think that we’d still play cards if the croupier stole a chip every deal. Obviously we’d play at a casino that didn’t steal our chips, say the Bahamas, Zürich or cyberspace, but I suspect Chancellor Gordon Brown will continue to be the croupier for a free market City of London, home to nearly half the world’s FX deals, he won’t start stealing the chips any time soon.
|
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