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]
|
“It can’t go on for much longer,” says one Cabinet member who described yesterday’s meeting as “excruciating: an embarrassment”.
“It’s not just the country that’s not listening to Gordon any longer: the Cabinet isn’t listening to him. Something is going to give. There were people staring at their hands, some scribbling on their papers, someone else on their BlackBerry.” Anything rather than look their own leader in the eye.
Mr Brown told his Cabinet that issues about the direction of the party should not be raised until after the present economic turmoil.
The minister adds: “Gordon is now measuring his survival in two-week horizons. It’s humiliating for everyone.”
– Anne McElvoy – quoted here, and I should imagine, there and everywhere during the next few days
Our suit has been filed in Texas.
You may remember my earlier article about this: both the Republicans and the Democrats missed the legal filing deadline in Texas. Unlike their suit against us in Pennsylvania, this is not a simple nuisance suit. There appears to be a clear legal issue.
The ruling parties have long gotten away with a one-sided set of ballot access laws. Laws are enforced against us but under the same circumstances they get a wink and a nudge and a pass.
Times change.
The Left are becoming desperate in their attempts to scaremonger and scapegoat the Big Crunch.
Gordon Brown’s stewardship of the Treasury over the past decade is now under scrutiny. He followed Alan Greenspan, worshipper at the feet of Ayn Rand, a free marketeer whose extreme and influential libertarianism let markets rip, kept interest rates too low and failed to regulate the banks’ wild lending. Britain, says the OECD, is in a worse position to weather the storm than most due to its dependence on an uncontrolled property boom. Many – including this paper – warned often of the madness of letting prices rise by £50 a day with a mortgage-based debt bonanza. Slashing capital gains tax, on the advice of private equity leaders who had Brown’s ear, set off a huge expansion in borrowing to snap up public companies. The buy-to-let market was allowed full rein, too, inflaming house prices. The Treasury heeded no warnings about the culture of 125% mortgages.
We must hang objectivists, ban ‘We The Living’ and jail all libertarians. Immediately. Or perhaps Polly Toynbee is wrong.
Rand must be laughing in her grave.
If you are a lover of aviation history, you may want to help them out.
There are two ways to reduce the connection between politicians and money. One is to reduce the role of money. The other is to reduce the role of politicians. I choose the latter. I contend that reducing the role of money of politics in order to make politics more honest is like trying to make airplanes safer by reducing the role of gravity. Let’s get money out of politics by making politicians less powerful.
– Russell Roberts (over a week ago now but surely worth being made to linger a little)
I just found out about this good news in Pennsylvania:
The lawsuit, filed by a Republican Party official in Cumberland County, PA, sought to remove Barr’s name from the ballot—contrary to promises made by John McCain during his first bid for the presidency after then Texas Governor George Bush tried to have McCain blocked from the New York primary ballot. “I would never consider, ever consider,” McCain said during his 2000 campaign, “allowing a supporter of mine to challenge [an opponent’s] right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.”
McCain went on to call such tactics, “Stalinist politics.”
“We’re happy that the Pennsylvania courts recognized the absurd nature of the Republican’s lawsuit,” says Russell Verney, Barr’s campaign manager. “It was very hypocritical of McCain to allow one of his agents to try to block a legitimate candidate like Congressman Bob Barr from the ballot. Fortunately, these hypocritical tactics of McCain’s agents failed.”
The court ruled that the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania “simply took reasonable action to abide by the Election Code while furthering its legitimate interest.”
This is particularly heartening to me as I vote absentee in Pennsylvania.
I had long intended to write a post on the issues thrown up by the Max Mosley case. Basically I was going to ask the readers of the post to help me come up with a principled justification for thinking what I do think, namely that the News of the World did not have the right to sneak a camera into Mosley’s commercial sex session and yet the New York Times did have the right to expose Elliot Spitzer’s commercial sex session. “Private citizen versus politician” looked like it was giving me the answer I wanted, but the post kept off veering into the issue of the implied contract of confidentiality between prostitute and client. As it happens, Spitzer was not betrayed by his prostitute but what if he had been?
I strongly disapprove of adultery. I disapprove, though much less strongly, of fornication. (I confess that I take a certain transgressive pleasure in writing that last sentence on Samizdata.) I strongly approve of people having the political right to commit adultery and fornicate, including the right to employ prostitutes or be a prostitute. Did I really want an outcome whereby a person became fair game for being spied upon and betrayed simply because he was a politician?
Then along came this Jill Greenberg thing and made me want, no burn, to write an almost completely different post. Shame to waste a good title, though.
→ Continue reading: A disgrace to the honest profession of whore
Why would any sane person put a Level 4 biodefense lab in Galveston?
The answer appears to be “because some congressman negotiated to have some money spent in his district” (which possibly precludes sanity) but it still rather boggles the mind.
Bloody hell, I did not see this coming. Bank of America has bought the 94-year-old brokerage, Merrill Lynch, for a cool $50 billion after the latter firm got hammered by worries about its ability to sustain huge losses. Meanwhile, the investment bank Lehman Brothers, one of the veterans of Wall Street’s banking sector, has gone bankrupt. I know a lot of people who work for both places. I imagine that the atmsophere is grim.
About the best that can be said about all this is that at least the Fed, or the US taxpayer, have not been asked this time to ride to the rescue, as was partly the case with the purchase of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan, as that deal was underwritten by guarantees by the Fed. At last, it has dawned on policymakers that hurling more public funds into the black hole of the current financial mess merely prolongs the agony; it does not end it. That, of course, is zero consolation to the thousands of people who will lose their jobs from these institutions.
This may be the “dark that comes before the dawn”, but it will not feel like that if you are close to the action. I just hope that politicians resist the urge to lock the door after the horse has bolted by imposing new reams of pointless legislation. We have already had endless efforts by central bankers and other luminaries to impose capital requirements on banks through what is known as the Basel process, and a fat lot of good that has done. What is pretty clear from my own vantage point is that we are seeing the culmination of a credit and asset price bubble that has burst very nastily. Relearning the merits of sound money is going to be painful.
A point for the economists to ponder over is whether the use of complex financial products like derivatives have concentrated the risks of financial collapses or made it easier to spread those risks around, so that although there is pain, it is not lethal to an entire economy. I incline to the latter view.
Here is a small conjecture concerning the claim that secret racism may be causing US pollsters to overestimate Barack Obama’s true support, which I have most recently been reading about in this article.
Party elders also believe the Obama camp is in denial about warnings from Democratic pollsters that his true standing is four to six points lower than that in published polls because of hidden racism from voters – something that would put him a long way behind Mr McCain.
Maybe the concealment is real, and maybe some of what is being concealed is indeed racism, but maybe some of it is something else. What if a lot of people secretly oppose Obama being the President for good non-racist reasons, but fear of getting involved in arguments which will involve them being accused of racism, even just thought to be racists, by annoying pollsters? Although not Obama supporters, such people just say “I will vote Obama” to avoid even the hint of such unpleasantness. They will not be voting Obama, because they think he is a vacuous windbag, from Chicago, too thin, dodgy on Iraq, or because they don’t care for Biden, whatever. They will be voting for McCain for similarly varied reasons, other than McCain’s mere whiteness. But they fear that the pollsters they are talking to might suspect otherwise, and who needs that grief?
For that to make sense, it is necessary to believe that people care what stupid strangers think of them. But surely, at least some do. I certainly care, a bit, what people whom I hardly rate at all think of me. I don’t like being cursed for my lack of generosity by drunkards in the street, or shouted at by people who are clearly rather unstable, or denounced for bumping into someone by someone who actually bumped into me. I don’t like it when a mere fleeting expression on the face of such a person even suggests such critical thoughts on their part.
None of this matters to me very much. Such slights are very quickly forgotten But then again, nor would lying about my true voting intentions to some annoying pollster in what is, after all, supposed to be a secret ballot.
Remember that merely replying that “most people” would never think like this is no answer, although a sadly frequent error when all that is being surmised is that a few people might be persuaded to act differently by an oddity in their environment, although not a majority, and certainly not everybody. This is a surmised marginal effect, influencing a few but ignored by most, like a small change in the price of a chocolate bar. To dismiss what I am suggesting, you would have to believe either that nobody thinks thus, or that there are other concerns – what concerns? – that might cancel out such tendencies.
Just a thought. No link, because I have not seen anyone else say such a thing, although I’m sure plenty have. If not, I am sure that some have thought this.
More US election speculations from me here, which has links to more. I am flattered that the mighty Guido Fawkes thought this piece worth linking to in his Seen Elsewhere section, although blink and you would miss that, because Guido sees a lot.
UDATED UPDATE Sunday evening. The link chaos of the final paragraph is now all corrected. Posting errors by me have been cleaned up and my own blog is now back in business. Apologies for all the confusion, and apologies also for spelling apologies wrongly in the previous version of this update.
Bruce Dickinson, front man for the heavy metal rock group, Iron Maiden, is a qualified civil aviation pilot and was involved in flying home tourists left stranded by the collapse of a UK tourist agency. A nice story.
Of course, if I am on a flight that Bruce is piloting, I’ll insist he plays something really, really loud during takeoff. Go Bruce!
I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
– Thomas Paine, from The Age of Reason
|
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