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]
« Newer Entries  
  Older Entries »

Taking a buzzsaw to Buzzflash

· Opinions on liberty

Buzzflash have produced a great long list of why people are not paying too much tax to the state. Not surprisingly whilst I agree with many of the points they raise, it is because I think their list actually proves quite the opposite.

– Don’t drive on paved streets or highways.

Highways, like all property, should be private property… and so I would rather pay tolls that taxes.

– Don’t call 911.

My neighbourhood is so dissatisfied with the Police Service we are hiring a local security to patrol the area, funded by subscription. Better yet, acquire a gun.

– Don’t flush your toilet.

Why not? Water utilities are private, not state operations in many parts of the world. The state is not the only way.

– Don’t bring your garbage to the curb.

I don’t have to, the private garbage collectors we use come to our back door and collect it.

– Don’t fly in an airplane that uses air-traffic controllers.

Privatise, privatise, privatise!

– Don’t use the court system.

Correct… use arbitrators and law merchants if the state lets you.

– Don’t call the police when you get robbed.

Quite so, carry a gun and shoot the fucker dead yourself.

– Don’t use the US Post Office. Send all your letters via FedEx or UPS.

Yes, that is a splendid idea.

– Don’t ask for a farm subsidy for not growing crops.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t ask for a taxpayer subsidy to do business in a city or state.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t buy a sports franchise and ask the taxpayers to build your stadium.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t send your children to public schools.

Quite so… the state has no business ‘educating’ children in the first place and certainly not at my expense.

– Don’t attend a state university.

Quite so… see above, though given that the state may have stolen your money to fund the place anyway regardless of your wishes, don’t feel too bad if you do.

– Don’t expect a social security payment.

Quite so, start building up a private pension!

– Don’t let Medicare pay your bills if you are over 65 or disabled.

Quite so… buy insurance and set money aside for eventualities and old age… and if you don’t, don’t expect me to fund your irresponsible behaviour or bad luck.

– Don’t look for a government contract to bolster your defense industry business.

Hmmm… as a minarchist I see this as one of the few legitimate roles of the state, but certainly quite a lot of defense roles could be taken up by Protection Agencies and Private Military Organisations like Sandline. The reality is the weapons have to come from somewhere.

– Don’t look for a government.

Okay, if you insist.

– Don’t look for a lucrative government consultant contract.

Okay.

– Don’t run for political office where your salary is paid for by the taxpayers.

Damn straight!

– Don’t accept government research findings that subsidize research for your industry.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t be an airlines and expect the government to bail you out.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t be a car company and expect the government to bail you out.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t be a steel company and expect the government to bail you out.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t be a company that pollutes and expect the taxpayer to bail you out.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare.

– Don’t climb to the top of the Washington Monument, which is maintained at taxpayer expense.

Yes, it should be private property.

– Don’t make use of police services.

You are repeating yourself guys… see earlier about dialling ‘911’

– Don’t be rescued by fire department paramedic team.

In many places these guys are private organisations and not an arm of the state. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) for example shows how a national emergency service can be run independently of both the states control and its funding.

– Don’t call the fire department.

See previous.

– Don’t expect federal assistance if a natural disaster destroys your home or business.

Quite so… buy insurance for Christ’s sake and if you insist on living on a flood plain, consider moving somewhere more sensible!

– Don’t expect the military to defend your country.

Again, it is one of the very few areas for the state to actually have a function… but Protection Agencies and Private Military Organisations can do much of the work.

– Don’t visit national parks or hike in national forests.

Privatise them.

– Don’t eat USDA inspected meat, cheese, eggs or produce.

Better yet, abolish the USDA.

– Don’t take any medications tested and approved by the FDA.

Better yet, abolish the FDA.

– Don’t drink, bath or otherwise use the water from municipal water systems.

Privatise it, if it is not already so, which in many places is indeed the case.

– Don’t look at or relay a weather report.

There are just as likely to be privately provided services.

– Don’t look at a NASA generated picture.

Better still, abolish NASA.

– Don’t expect a unit of measure like a gallon of gas to be a full gallon.

Why not? There are many non-state centred ways to achieve that.

– Don’t expect an elevator to work correctly or not fall.

Ludicrous. I expect the owner of the elevator to not want to get sued and that can be achieved without idiotic ‘health and safety’ regulations.

– Don’t expect a red light to work.

See above.

– Don’t be the Minority Senate Leader Named Trent Lott and expect American taxpayers to subsidize the building of private industry cruiseliner ships in your home state.

Better yet abolish the Senate…or failing that, abolish Trent Lott.

– Don’t accept government money to help develop a product which you then personally patent or copyright and sell for your own profit.

Quite so… just say no to corporate welfare and reject all stolen ‘government’ money.

– Don’t use the services of a doctor who is licensed through the state.

Better yet, abolish state regulation and leave it to private competitive rating agencies and insurance companies.

– Don’t expect research into medical problems such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, aging, prostrate, menopause, etc.

You must be joking! The main driver for that R&D is the profit motive!

– Don’t use the public library.

Yes, abolish them.

– Don’t go to a state university affiliated hospital.

Yes, abolish them.

– Don’t go to a state university.

Yes, abolish them.

– Don’t watch state college sports.

I don’t.

– Don’t apply for government grants.

Yes, abolish all grants, which are just redistributed stolen property.

– Don’t use your state’s Convention Centers.

Yes, burn them down and build something useful rather than have places for mass political rallies.

– Don’t go to a state, city or municipal-run airport.

Yes, privatise them.

– Don’t ask for rural electrification.

I didn’t!

– Don’t ask for FEC regulations that protect us from crooked financial planners.

I didn’t!

– Don’t ask to keep the airwaves free so your right-wing psycho radio talk show host can lie to you.

Huh?

– Don’t ask for a business loan from the small business administration.

Yes, abolish the SBA.

– Don’t ask to use the G.I. bill to go to college.

Quite so.

– Don’t allow Al Gore to sponsor legislation to turn a military computer network (DARPANet/ARPANet) into the public-accessed ‘Internet’.

Er… it was rather more complex than that.

– Don’t drive a car that benefits from government safety regulations.

‘Benefit’ my arse. I am not given the option unfortunately or I would indeed rip out much of the mandated crap in cars these days.

– Don’t use electricity generated by TVA or some government-owned and maintained dam or facility.

Quite so, privatise them and return the stolen land they are built on.

– Don’t use currency printed by the US Treasury.

Quite so, lets return to non-national private currencies.

– Don’t use a bank or credit union that insures your deposits through the FDIC.

Yes, abolish the FDIC and end all the moral hazard it leads to.

– Don’t buy or build a house that requires the efforts of county deed offices or needs building permits and inspections.

Abolish the immoral permits that make a nonsense of the whole notion of several property.

– Don’t get married, have children or die and expect the government to keep track of all the certificates.

I do not want the state to know anything about my families private affairs!

– Don’t expect the government to keep an eye on cemeteries, crematories and funeral homes so you won’t get dug up and thrown in a swamp. And ask George Bush why he lied about his involvement with a company that did just that.

I don’t expect the state to do much of anything really!

– Don’t run for an elected office, because the local, state and federal election commissions could be involved.

I agree. The whole democratic system is little more than proxy mugging.

– Don’t go to a beach kept clean by the state.

They usually don’t.

– Don’t use public transportation.

I agree… privatise it.

– Don’t visit public museums.

Privatise them.

– Don’t go hunting, fishing, or camping on government property.

There should not even be ‘government property’.

– Don’t cross a bridge.

Private toll bridges are splendid things!

– Don’t use truckstops or public restrooms.

Why not? Most are privately owned!

And finally . . .
– Don’t complain to us about how much you pay in taxes because we think taxes can be a good thing and WE DON’T WANT TO HEAR YOUR WHINING ANYMORE!

As you can see, I reject the entire premise these ‘self evident’ remarks are based on. Government can take its ‘essential state services’ and… well, use your imagination. There are other ways to do things. As the brilliant French pamphleteer Fréd&eacuteric Bastiat said:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all

June 22nd, 2002 | Comments are closed

The right to be chunky?

· Opinions on liberty

One of the things that bugs me about American ‘liberalism’ (meaning statism) is the proliferation of ever more forms of victim. The latest cause to weigh in, so to speak, is that of fat (woops, I meant “big-boned”) people. In a nice article for Reason magazine, Mike Lynch skewers activists who get all upset when American airlines charge extra for bigger passengers. In a free market, if an airline wants to charge more for people who, by virture of their size, take up more space, then gradually the cost of flying for large people will come down as competition for bigger customers takes hold.

In the U.S.A, which seems to produce more than its fair share of fat people, airlines could actually make a good living out of seeking out the chunky market, just as it could do so by seeking custom of people carrying small children, smokers, those who liked listening to loud music, watching adult movies, or whatever. (“Playboy Airlines”, anyone?).

But the fat lobby thinks in statist terms. As Lynch tells us, they claim it is discriminatory for carriers such as Southwest Airlines to charge an extra amount for those who cannot squeeze into one seat but need two. The idea of discrimination stems from the idea that as humans, we have some kind of God-given ‘right’ to fly from A to B for a set outlay, regardless of whether we are a svelt citizen taking up one seat or built like a Sumo wrestler and take up two seats. But no such ‘right’ exists. In a market, if an airliner is willing to give me ONE seat of size X in return for X dollars, then that is the end of the matter. And if the lardbuts among us find it harder to fly in the meantime until the market provides a solution, they might like to consider going down the gym.

June 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed

Poor Steven Bing

· Humour

Imagine the horror of it. The poor man was forced to have sex with Liz Hurley. I suppose the trauma of it must have had him running to some high priced therapist right afterwards.

Sure, I’d like to have kids, Bing said. Kids, that is, that I voluntarily play a part in conceiving.

Well I cannot believe a wealthy guy like Steve Bing has difficulty seeing the causal link between having sex and that potentially resulting in a pregnancy so the implication is clear… The sex was not voluntary! Hurley must have overpowered him, tied him to a bed, somehow induced his member to attention (imagine that!) and then forced her attentions on the hapless multi-millionaire. The woman must be insatiable! I feel so sorry for him that had I known of his distress, I would have stepped forward and selflessly volunteered to take his place to spare him the dreadful experience. Steve, baby, next time you find yourself in such a sticky situation with one of the most beautiful women in the world, pick up the phone and call me. I mean, what are friends for if not for helping out when things get rough?

Having sex with Liz Hurley… involuntary apparently!

June 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed

Altruistic can of worms and Kantian hornet’s nest

· Best of Samizdata.Net · Philosophical

I am probably opening a can of worm or poking a hornet’s nest or something with equally disturbing consequences but I cannot let John Webb’s posting go without comment.

He correctly identified Paul Foot’s assumptions that enable him to spew out such blatant and primitive fallacies about capitalism in particular and economic reality in general. The bit I found unpalatable was his analysis of Paul Foots ‘motivation’ for such statements and his sin of ‘failure of morality’, which is supposed to be altruism. I have encountered this ‘belief’ before as it seems to be a staple argument among the libertarians of the Objectivist variety and I have always been taken aback by the ferocity of their insistence on ethical and psychological egoism and the corresponding denial of altruism. I shall take this opportunity to spell out my objections to what seem to me to be an irrational strain in libertarian thought.

John Webb states that ‘many people today mistakenly assume that altruism means having a regard for the well-being of others.’ Actually, one of the most common definitions of altruism is ‘concern for other people, or unselfish or helpful actions’. True, in evolutionary biology, it is defined as ‘behaviour by an animal that decreases its chances of survival or reproduction while increasing those of another member of the same species’. Needless to say, altruism in its biological sense does not imply any conscious benevolence on the part of the performer, imposition of which is what John Webb rallies against.

Then John Webb redefines altruism as meaning:

…”in practice, having a necessary hostility to others as a consequence of adopting something other than oneself as the very standard of evaluation. Though the precise standard of altruist morality varies depending on the prevailing ideology, the People, the Race, the Proletariat, the Gender, the God, the Prophet, the Environment, the Social Organism etc., the premise which always remains constant in the altruist’s world-view is the notion that there is some overriding standard, something other, something above and beyond and greater than the individual to which everyone should gratefully and enthusiastically sacrifice themselves.”

This is a description of collectivism (and totalitarian at that) and not altruism. The distinction is an important one, as you can have altruism without collectivism. It seems that the collapse of altruism into collectivism and vice versa for the likes of John Webb is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what psychological egoism and self-interest mean.

If we understand psychological egoism as the theory that all human actions are motivated by self-interest, this taken as a factual claim based on observation, is obviously false: people are often motivated by emotions like anger, love, or fear, by altruism or pride, by the desire for knowledge or the hatred of injustice.

Also, it is not true that everything we can be said to ‘want’ or ‘desire’ is an enhancement or fulfillment of the self. We may want to give way to irrational rage or to wayward sexual desire, to hurt another or indeed to help another – without manifesting ‘self-love’ in any of these instances. My rage or aggression may in fact be self-destructive. The beginning of altruism is the realisation that not all good and bad are good-for-me and bad-for-me: that certain others – my close friends, say – have joys and sufferings distinct from mine, but for which I have a sympathetic concern – and for their sake, not my own. I may then acknowledge that others beyond the small circle of my friends are not fundamentally different – and so reach the belief that there are objective goods and bads as such. As one self among the others I cannot claim special privileges simply for being the individual that I am! If it is neither impossible nor irrational to act simply for the sake of another, the occurrence of satisfaction or ‘good conscience’ when we have done so is not sufficient ground for the egoist to claim that it was only for these ‘rewards’ that the acts were performed.

Nor on the other hand does the possibility of altruism mean that it is a constant moral necessity: an altruist can allow that in most circumstances I can act far more effectively on my own behalf than can any other person. A simple but crucial step separates a broken-backed ethical egoism from a minimally acceptable and consistent moral theory. It involves the recognition of others as more than instrumental to my fulfillment. I may promote my own interests and personal fulfillment, so long as I do not encroach upon the pursuit by others of their fulfillment. That is to recognize other persons as limits to my action: altruism may, of course, go beyond that in seeking positively to advance their good.

I have come across one more ‘philosophical’ misunderstanding – that of Kant’s ethics – also common among some libertarians. I will comment in a later posting.

My aim today is to point out that the often-hysterical denial of altruism is rooted in a belief rather than a rational argument. Some libertarians seem to believe that it is necessary to insist that altruism is wrong or immoral in order to provide firmer grounds for conclusions that are central and essential to their world-view. This is a world-view that espouses individualism and liberty, the belief that prosperity and freedom is best achieved by pursuit of self-interest and many other conclusions that I share. It is also a world-view that often must be expounded by what amounts to an intellectual crusade, fighting the collectivist, totalitarian and socialist dark forces. I have had the ‘privilege’ of facing those at their darkest and at the peak of their powers in a communist regime. Nevertheless, I do not think you have to deny altruism in order to defend pursuit of individual good, happiness, free market and liberty.

To be continued: In Kant’s defence

June 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed

Understanding the nature of the beast

· Opinions on liberty

I am reading about the late 19th century French anarchists, especially the bomb thrower Emile Henry. He would definitely have blown up his local McDonald’s. Since the Soviet Union was founded, the dominant leftist ideology has been Marxism-Leninism, with a theory of the state, foreign policy and a theory of tactical support for nationalist or radical movements around the world.

What we see today is the non-Marxist-Leninist left, the people who agree with the ‘anarcho-communist’ critique of the Soviet Union, but support a mixed bag of causes united only by a hatred of government-corporate business interests. The anti-globalisation campaigns of the 1890s resemble the current crop, except that they had more guts and were more likely to be literate. Other interest groups are attempting to cash in: the trade unions and public sector welfare interests. This gives an incoherent feel to the protests: e.g. simultaneously demanding an end to money and increases in the minimum wage.

The strategy for combating Marxism-Leninism isn’t necessarily the right one for opposing “non-Marxism-Leninism”. Cruise missile bases in South East England won’t help. Spook operations contracted out by a consortium of big business and security agencies to pro-capitalist radicals are probably worth reactivating

June 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed

Big-mouth strikes again

· Middle East & Islamic · UK affairs

As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress.
-Cherie Blair

Certainly compared to the even handed measured words from the delectable Queen Rania of Jordan, the remarks by Tony Blair’s wife Cherie Blair, were crass and appallingly framed, coming as they did a few hours after the latest massacre of the innocent by psychopathic Palestinian suicide bombers. Not a mention from her lips of the horror visited on Israelis and the suffering of their civilian populations. A simple preface to her comments abominating Hamas was all she needed to do to completely change the context of her remarks.

Yet in spite of the cack-handed delivery and timing, the fact is her remarks are patently true in and of themselves and so much of the reaction to what she said was simply a cheap political shot by her husband’s many enemies. Of course I very much doubt that an advocate of force backed collectivism like Cherie Blair actually has any useful solutions to square that particular circle, itself a poison construct of the collectivist mindset.

Yes, Cherie Blair is right that young Palestinians need hope, but it is not going to come from fuzzy thinking collectivists like her. As David Carr said in his earlier post, it is back to the drawing board time. Israel’s demonstrably ineffective military response brings them no closer to victory over the terrorists and the terrorists’ slaughter of Isreali children at bus stops and pizza parlours brings them no closer to a Palestinian state.


Diplomatic and easy on the eyes


Not

June 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed

€uro: conflicting signals

· European Union

Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph carries contradictory signals about the €uro. Ignoring an interview of  Gerhard Schroeder the German Chancellor, I notice a report – tucked away in the Business section – that the €uro “Stability Pact” is on the verge of collapse as four of the 12 euro members break ranks to run up public sector deficits beyond the 2.5 per cent of GDP limit. France, Italy and Portugal look set to copy Germany in this trend. This is flatly contradicted by the exchange rate evidence: the euro has risen sharply since March against both the US dollar and the pound sterling.

On the one hand I tend to look at the exchange rate: if it rises above 1 US dollar then the Eurozone is probably doing something right (or the rest of the world is going to pot faster). On the other hand the reporting of the euro money supply is noteable by its absence. If the Stability Pact fails, the orthodox view is that the €uro will break up.

Yet the orthodox view of the pound when it broke out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in September 1992 was exactly the same as the orthodoxy on the €uro. The currency would dive, inflation would take off etc.

June 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed

Samizdata slogan of the day

· Slogans & Quotations

The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness.
– Robert A. Heinlein

June 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed

Positive images of Globalisation

· Arts & Entertainment · Economics, Business & Globalization

The World Cup is a positive image of globalisation: it isn’t a government project, it’s racism free, it’s about as capitalist as it gets and celebrates individual and team efforts. It also allows national hatreds to be acted out without anyone getting killed. Even the refereeing is generally better than some previous shockers.

Especially wonderful has been the willingness of Japanese spectators to ‘adopt’ teams and players regardless of national origin. The sight of Japanese supporters of Belgium against Brazil was surreal.

June 20th, 2002 | Comments are closed

Anti-imperialism of fools

· Opinions on liberty

Mick Hume, the leftist commentator with a sharp nose for humbug and an often refreshingly libertarian streak, hits a home run with an excellent column about how the anti-globalisation movement has gotten into bed with some very dubious characters indeed by adopting a “bash-Israel-first” stance related to the current violence in the region. The whole article is worth a read, but I particularly liked this paragraph:

“Western society is infected by a powerful sense of self-loathing and a rejection of its political, social and economic achievements. It was this spirit of self-loathing that led some, of the left and the right alike, to suggest that America got what it deserved on 11 September. Those sentiments are no more progressive when aimed against Israel as a symbol of the West than when they are directed in irrational campaigns against GM crops and the literature of Dead White Males.”

I could not agree more. What Hume is really saying is that the types who attack Starbuck coffee shops, bash Israel for trying to defend itself and who want the global free trade system to be closed down are in fact, reactionaries. They broadly reject the Enlightenment heritage of liberty, reason, celebration of Man’s mastery of nature, self-criticism, open markets and the spirit of enquiry. They are flat-earthers.

Hume’s article appeared in the left-wing weekly magazine, The New Statesman (can be found in Samizdata’s ‘havens of fluorescent idiocy’ links section on our links page). That publication has offered up some pretty vile views on September 11 and the aftermath, so Hume’s article is a welcome detour into sanity. On the other hand, maybe just a rare flash of gold amidst the dross.

June 20th, 2002 | Comments are closed

A well mannered retreat but…

· Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · UK affairs

…So what? British Home Secretary David Blunkett has been disarmingly frank about the fact he has had to back down on the horrendous planned extension to the already Draconian Regulation of Investigative Powers Act (RIPA). Some commentators have actually been patting him on the back for his admission that the whole plan was ill conceived .

Yet it should be clear that this is in no way a realisation on his part that he was wrong to try and extend this authoritarian infringement of civil liberties on moral grounds, but rather an admission of a failure to read the political support for such an action.

Blunkett and Blair still do not actually see any ethical/moral problems with such people as local councils and the Food Standards Agency being able to read your e-mails and tap your phone calls. No, their contrite remarks are nothing more than acceptance it was foolish of them to assume they could count on widespread political support for such a move.

These people should be abominated for what they tried to do, regardless of the fact they failed. The government are profoundly authoritarian and if the Tories were smart (which they are not), they would use the vast exposed flank Labour has to make this a key issue… but then of course these are the people who have the likes of Ann Widdecombe and Michael Howard in their ranks so I would not hold my breath if I were you.

June 20th, 2002 | Comments are closed

Too much World Cup

· Independent sites, Blogging & Bloggers

Samizdata readers distressed that there has been no mention here for two whole days of the World Cup can slake their soccer thirst over at UK Transport. Or should that be UKTran Sport? Some while ago, Patrick Crozier explained that since he finds the World Cup more interesting than transport, he was going to talk about the World Cup more and transport less. I just went looking for the relevant posting, but couldn’t find it in his voluminous archives (although I did chance upon an interesting posting with guest emails galore about compulsory purchase orders/eminent domain of May 7 2002 that I missed the first time around). Anyway, Patrick is taking his own threat seriously and has done several World Cup postings without even the pretence of transport relevance, culminating in a long report this morning of the televising on BBC1 last night of the 1970 Brazil/England game.

Samizdata is intended to be somewhat self-indulgent. We’re supposed to be talking about whatever takes our fancy. And we’ve at least made some effort to relate the World Cup to the libertarian agenda, for example by wondering what is the relationship between the apparent collectivism of a pub crowd watching the World Cup to the individualism we’re supposed to believe in? Football, soccer I should say, has also proved to be a fun way to get to know some of our American readers better.

But I think that Patrick is taking the joke a step too far. There’s plenty he could say about the World Cup that is transport related. What are the problems of shifting crowds around which are huge but which will only be there for a few weeks? What is transport like generally in the places where the World Cup is taking place? Where, because of transport considerations, does it make sense to put football stadiums in the first place? What sort of buses do the various teams like to use? Are their any ex-bus-drivers or ex-train-drivers or qualified pilots in any of the teams? But Patrick isn’t handling the World Cup like that. He’s just plain writing about it. To hell with transport. If I was a journalist looking in at UK Transport for a possible transport story, I might be seriously irritated, and that might very well my story.

June 20th, 2002 | Comments are closed
« Newer Entries  
  Older Entries »