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]
|
Unintended consequences The Law of Unintended Consequences is a popular one with libertarians seeking to highlight how government rules and actions have perverse consequences. So it was interesting to watch British parliamentarians being reminded about the perverse side-effects of government rules at a committee hearing at the House of Commons this afternoon.
A government-appointed adviser, Alan Pickering, was pointing out to MPs that legislation such as the 1995 Pensions Act, introduced after the Robert Maxwell scandal in the early 1990s, has in fact simply encouraged many firms to shut down pension schemes for their workers. “This is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences,” he told MPs. Quite.
Interesting to watch as MPs listened to this point with expressions of blank incomprehension. You could imagine this thought going through their heads: “You mean that our desire to better Mankind might backfire? Who would have thought it?”
|
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.
|
Theory #1:Those who operate on an emotional level often run afoul of unintendened consequences because they lack the mental resourses to accurately predict ramifications.
Theory #2:They were perfectly aware of the probable results but voted for it anyway because it made them look good at the time.
Pick either, or a combination, but an objective analysis has to leave you wondering how sufficient numbers of these people get into a position to control the destiny of a country. I don’t demand (but hope for) intelligence of those who would lead (rule) me but I pray for wisdom.
It is inevitable that a percentage of elected officials will be wrong on a particular issue. In the end, it is wisdom from the electorate that is needed. The problem is that the electorate tends to focus on the immediate. Long term goals Vs immediate gratification is a contradiction; I have no idea how to deal with that in the context of elected representational government. Neither have I any way to deal with the abuses inherent in more authoritarian forms of government.
The failing of the human species is that anyone who persues power over others is the last who should be granted power.
We are a difficult species to govern well.
Tom (Georgia USA)
Note: Yip-Yip-Yip-Yahoo for the elections yesterday. Though I think that the Republicans are socialists “lite”, the Democrats are largely simply socialists.
What have the electorate ( ie the minority who actually vote for some scumbag ) got to do with the decisions of the elected? Meet the new boss…………