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
|
|||||
|
March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
 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. March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
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. March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
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:
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.  March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
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. March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
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:
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. March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
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) March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Charles Kuffner wrote:
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? March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
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 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. March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Patrick Crozier has a good article On Corporate Manslaughter. He notes that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will be prosecuting Railtrack (the company which ‘owns’ the actual railroad infrastructure in Britain, recently in effect re-nationalised by the State). Thus one part of the state is trying to make another part of the state pay fines to yet another part of the state. Patrick makes several excellent points and avoids the usual stale perspectives on these sort of issues. March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Jason Soon over on the Catallaxy Files has a fascinating article about the idea of using native rights to over-fished waters as a means for achieving some free market environmentalism.
Interesting idea. The whole article is well worth pondering. March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||