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]
|
The Telegraph has an article about a roadside watch by local volunteers under fire.
Volunteers from villages, known as “speed watchers”, will use the devices at the roadside to identify speeding motorists before passing the information to the police. A senior police officer said the three-month pilot scheme at Milton of Campsie, near Glasgow, was a “local solution to a local problem”.
But motoring organisations, civil liberties groups and lawyers have criticised the idea on the grounds that there could be difficulties in providing acceptable evidence in court and that the system could be abused by people involved in disputes.
Well, it is a busybodies’ license to interefere further in people’s lives. When someone with attitudes such as Patrick Friel, the first person to be offered a speed camera, volunteers to ‘police local community’, I know the police are pandering to those with worst social instincts.
Everyone I’ve spoken to supports the use of the camera because something has to be done about speeding drivers.
Yes, and the way to do this is to help government impose more constraints on our daily lives.
Everyone knows the Fisher Space Pen was a valuable spin-off from the early space program. NASA funded them to invent a pressurized ink source so Astronauts could write while hanging about ‘upside-down’ in microgravity. It has become well known folklore. The trouble is, like much other folklore, it isn’t true. ESA’s Pedro Duque took a normal pen with him on his space station visit and tried it:
Duque has discovered that “ordinary” pens work just fine in space and that the famous American versions that use a pressurized ink source may be a little overkill. In commenting on the ball point pen, he (unintentionally?) makes an interesting observation about the U.S. space program:
“Sometimes being too cautious keeps you from trying, and therefore things are built more complex than necessary,” Duque writes.
You will not find many naysayers to this observation in the space community. NASA is synonymous with gold-plated and overbuilt. They have long had a philosophy to never use a 10 cent screw from the local hardware store when they can let a research project for a million dollars into a key congressional district.
The State is not your friend. NASA will never get you and I off this planet.
You can read some of his daily diary entries here.
The Telegraph reports that a police force is recruiting driving instructors, milkmen and delivery drivers to be its “eyes and ears” on the streets in response to criticism over lack of visible policing.
West Midlands police said that as “trouble spotters”, they will be urged to report crimes and traffic accidents, and will be issued with clipboards and asked to write down any activity they believe needs investigating.
Rising crime and paperwork for officers has meant that beat officers and roving patrol cars are seldom seen.
Twenty instructors have already joined the pilot scheme in Halesowen, which will be expanded across the force.
Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne was dropped from the mothership at 46000 feet for its fourth glide flight on October 17th, after undergoing minor aerodynamic alterations to correct problems discovered during the third flight on September 23rd. The turn around was faster than I’d expected. As they are now testing the preliminaries to engine ignition, I expect the first in-air engine startup will happen within the next few flights.
According to Scaled Composites, the flight objectives were:
Fourth glide flight of SpaceShipOne. Primary purpose was to examine the effects of horizontal tail modifications at both forward and mid-range CG locations (obtained by dumping water from an aft ballast tank between test points). The tail modifications included a fixed strake bonded to the tail boom in front of the stabilator and a span-wise flow fence mounted on the leading edge of each stab at mid-span. (See the write up under the SPACESHIPONE GROUND TEST section that describes our Ford-250 wind tunnel which was used to help derive the current flight configuration). Other test objectives included a functional check of the rocket motor controller, ARM, FIRE and safing switches as well as the oxidizer dump valve. Additional planned maneuvers included full rudder pedal sideslips and more aggressive nose pointing while in the feathered configuration.
The results were quite good:
Launch conditions were 46,200 feet and 115 knots and produced a clean separation. The tail performance was examined by flying “longitudinal stability” points between stall and 130 knots and showed considerable improvement of the airfoil’s lift coefficient as well as its post stall characteristics. No vehicle pitch up tendency was noted as the main wing now stalls first. Real time video of the tufted tails fed back down to mission control helped considerably in assessing the performance of these aerodynamic improvements. More aggressive maneuvering in the feather made it evident that the pilot could readily point the vehicle’s nose where desired and all rocket motor functionality tests were satisfactory.
I expect a drop test and powered flight to occur by the Wright Brothers first flight anniversary date in mid-December. A full suborbital attempt is possible but would be pushing the envelope rather hard. How hard is impossible for anyone on the outside to estimate.
It would be a lovely Christmas present for all of us spacers though…
Herewith inaugurating a look at the “Annals of Bureaucracy”, a sad tale, via our friends at Hit & Run, of the government school bureaucracy in action.
Applications and letters of interest from idealistic teachers continue to pour into inner-city school systems across the country, and many candidates, like Cochran, are being ignored or contacted much too late to do any good, according to an unusually detailed study by the nonprofit New Teacher Project.
A new report on the study, “Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers Out of Urban Schools,” concludes that those school systems alienate many talented applicants because of rules that protect teachers already on staff and because of slow-moving bureaucracies and budgeting delays.
“As a result, urban districts lose the very candidates they need in their classrooms . . . and millions of disadvantaged students in America’s cities pay the price with lower-quality teachers than their suburban peers,” wrote researchers Jessica Levin and Meredith Quinn, who were given rare access to the inner workings of school districts in four U.S. cities.
It was standard procedure to let impressive applications sit in file drawers for months, the researchers found, while the candidates, needing to get their lives in order, secured work elsewhere. One district, for example, received 4,000 applications for 200 slots but was slow to offer jobs and lost out on top candidates.
It goes on and on, enumerating the ways unions, administrators, and legislators all contribute to a system that seems designed to insure that the best teachers do not get anywhere near the neediest kids.
President Bush just nominated a judge for elevation to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that I think I can really get behind. The DC Court is arguably the “first among equals” of the federal appellate courts that function one level below the US Supreme Court. Judge Janice Brown has had some very interesting things to say that I think many of a libertarian bent will find appealing:
In Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999), for instance, she dissented from a decision upholding a rent control ordinance, declaring that “[a]rbitrary government actions which infringe property interests cannot be saved from constitutional infirmity by the beneficial purposes of the regulators.”
In a dissent in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002), which upheld the city’s sweeping property restrictions, Justice Brown expanded on that theme. “Theft is still theft even when the government approves of the thievery,” she declared. “The right to express one’s individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion.”
She is, of course, rabidly opposed by the Democrats and by some “social” conservatives. Unless Bush is willing to go to the mattresses for her, she will likely be filibustered by the Senate Democrats and denied a seat on the DC Court. Still, the nomination is good news.
To all outward appearances, the Conservative Party has gone mad, and many of its most rabid enemies will now be rejoicing at the turmoil now afflicting it.
Just when the Conservatives ought to be uniting, concentrating on the issues, attacking the government, pulling together, speaking with a united voice, racing ahead in the polls, blah blah, they are instead deep into a leadership battle, concerning the future of a man who has yet to lead them into a General Election. What kind of mad bastard loser psychopath idiots are these people?
That’s the text. But I think that this is a case where the subtext is far, far more important – the subtext and the context.
The context first. For the first time since it was elected over six years ago the Labour government is in serious trouble, six years being the usual time it takes, for some reason, for a Labour government to fall to bits. The Iraq war has turned a relatively amicable coalition of semi-normals and lefties into a shouting match, and the manifest failure of the government to sort out “public services” by any means other then chucking money at them has finally become obvious to all. The honeymoon, the benefit of doubt, wait and see – all that’s coming to an end.
At the deeper level of things, Europe is turning from a Labour issue back to being a Conservative issue. Because of the expansion of Europe, the case for serious deregulation in defiance of the Franco-German axis is now seriously puttable. And ask yourself this: which party of the big two feels more comfortable with such pro-free-market rhetoric? This stuff will play well with the Conservatives and only cause yet more havoc within Labour. The times they are a-changin’ and in a profoundly Conservative direction.
And this – and now I’m moving to the subtext bit – is precisely why the Conservatives are now in such turmoil. Suddenly, it matters who their leader is. This is now a job worth having. → Continue reading: The dogs of Conservatism – fighting now, hunting soon
I could not resist a bit of mischief making… The BBC has set up something called iCan, which Wired magazine described thusly:
A couple of years ago the British Broadcasting Corporation was blindsided by a grassroots campaign against rising taxes on gas. Although discontent had been growing for some time, the BBC didn’t report the story until the British army was called out to protect gas stations from protesters.
Hoping to avoid this kind of blindness to ordinary Britons’ political concerns, the broadcasting behemoth is launching a radical online experiment to reconnect itself with grassroots sentiment.
[…]
On the other hand, the effort is intended to counteract what officials at the broadcasting network feel is widespread political apathy in the United Kingdom, marked by low voter turnout at elections and declining audiences for its political programming. As a state-financed institution operating under a royal charter to inform, educate and entertain, the BBC feels it is within its purview to help disenfranchised citizens engage in public life.
And therefore I have taken it upon myself to set up an iCan campaign aimed at… encouraging people to not vote (i.e. active voter apathy, yeah I know it is an oxymoron) and to regard politics as just proxy violence. I have called this Anti-Activist Activism. Come join me as I take some herbicide to the BBC’s grassroots.
It is just too damn tempting 
Update: I have made the first journal update at Anti-Activist Activism called Turning iCan into iShouldn’t.
Most Arab media on Tuesday blamed the U.S. failure to provide security in Baghdad for the latest suicide bombings in the Iraqi capital. They agreed that Washington had only itself to blame for the chaos and said the United States had failed Iraqis by not providing enough security to prevent the devastating attacks that killed 35 people on Monday, the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
I think my personal favourite is from the daily al-Khaleej, published in the United Arab Emirates:
Iraq, on the first day of Ramadan, was the scene of a bloodbath and occupation forces are directly responsible for this because of the instability they created in Iraq.
I suppose knowing where you stand with your torturers is stability of sorts but somehow I do not think that the victims of Saddam’s regime see it that way.
Saudi Arabia’s leading al-Riyadh newspaper opines:
The political bubble has burst in Baghdad. Will it be followed by other explosions or will the voice of reason prevail over the American dream of hegemony?
Disasters and conflicts notwithstanding there has never been a shortage of rhetorics in the Arabian Penninsula. There is only one voice that sounds half-reasonable although based on where it originated I would not want to look too close at the context of the quote. In non-Arab Iran, reformist parliamentarian Reza Yousefian said:
It is unjustifiable to kill ordinary people in the name of an anti-American campaign. On the contrary, the more insecurity prevails in Iraq, the longer Americans will stay.
Others, although outspoken against those who carried out the attacks, cannot help but add a sting in the tail. Lebanon’s as-Safir daily writes:
What happened yesterday in Baghdad is a crime by all measures, but it is more disgraceful than a crime: it is a deadly political mistake… Such political mistakes help the occupation to justify its horrible crimes.
Such outrage was lacking when it came to commenting on Saddam’s horrible crimes. I wish the Iraqis realised who their real enemies are.
Tomas at Teekay’s Coffeeshop has an excellent post on how the Czech police decided to go after the oldest profession and benefit from register all hookers in a special database. The software for this essential exercise was provided by the UN.
After raiding 475 nightclubs past weekend in a well-meant effort to combat organized slavery, the Secretary of Interior Mr Gross (nomen omen) came up with this idea that prostitutes are to be monitored. The official goal is to find out about the movement of prostitutes within the EU.
Police will enter the data about anyone who looks like a hooker, after checking and recording data on your citizen ID card (it’s mandatory to bear it at all times). Main source of data will be nightclubs and bars of certain sorts, but the police isn’t limited to these venues only.
Central European babes are not known for their coy dress sense
Apparently, it is enough for a girl to wear something ‘crazy’ for her to end up in the National Hooker Registry. And there is no recourse, just as there are no rules, no checks, no appeal. Tomas concludes:
The next step will be regulated legalization: with all of them registered and monitored, the State will make a liberal gesture and allow some prostitution. Carefully controlled, with price limits, annual re-registration, you name it. Of course, it will also be much easier to monitor the customers of such services, and that could come in handy, too, right?
I think he may be on to something there…
Following up on this earlier report here, more London School of Economics Hayek Society, here’s their latest news, from the society’s President Nick Spurrell:
Compassion and Capitalism Event – There will be held a major event tomorrow, Wednesday 29th October, with French thinker Christian Michel from Liberalia, entitled “Compassion and Capitalism”. Please do come along. There will be a talk and then questions and debate. D703, Clement House (Hong Kong Theatre Building) on the Aldwych. 12pm. Wednesday 29th October. No tickets necessary.
Students’ Union Elections – Tomorrow and Thursday (29th and 30th October) there will be held the LSE Students’ Union elections for various positions which hold authority and influence on the policy of the students’ union, the body which regulates the work of student societies including the Hayek Society.
Should you wish to vote, you may do so in the Quad, off Houghton Street on Wednesday or Thursday. The following Hayek Society Committee members are standing:
General Course Representative: Jonathan Gradowski (Hayek Society Auxiliary Officer); NUS Conference: Nick Spurrell (Hayek Society President), Peter Bellini (Hayek Society Financial Officer), Daniel Freedman (Hayek Society PR Director); Postgraduate Students’ Officer: Natalia Mamaeva (Hayek Society Secretary), Ryan Thomas Balis (Hayek Society Auxiliary Officer); Court of Governors: Daniel Freedman (Hayek Society PR Director); Alykhan Velshi (Hayek Society Journal Auxiliary Officer), Matthew Sinclair (Hayek Society Auxiliary Officer); Academic Board: Nick Spurrell (Hayek Society President); ULU (University of London Union) Council: Alykhan Velshi (Hayek Society Journal Auxiliary Officer), Matthew Sinclair (Hayek Society Auxiliary Officer)
Discussion Group Next Monday – There will be held, as usual, next Monday evening, the Hayek Society discussion group. All are welcome, in this informal environment to take part in a chaired discussion. The topic this week will be on the environment. More details soon… Monday 3rd November, 7pm, George IV pub, on campus, upstairs. Please feel free to come along.
The thing that impresses me about all this is that the stuff in the middle, about standing for various electoral offices, is not happening on its own. These people are holding speaker meetings and discussion groups as well.
Libertarians/classical liberals/whatevers who get involved in student politics often justify this by saying that the politicking “draws attention to the ideas”. But often they get so busy politicking that they forget about pushing the ideas. Worse, in order to get more votes in their damned elections they actually conceal or even contradict the ideas in their public statements, on the grounds that the important thing is “successful” politicking and if the ideas don’t help with that, then they must be dumped.
But the important thing is to do the ideas successfully, and if the politicking doesn’t help then the politicking should be dumped.
Politicking makes heat, and you make this heat is to draw attention to the light, which is the ideas. Trouble is, politicking sometimes burns up all the energy that ought to be used making light. All manner of “attention” is thus drawn, to nothing.
These guys don’t seem to be making this mistake. I’m impressed.
An interesting post by A.E.Brain, an Aussie blogger, on contrasts between style and substance when it comes to governments:
The most reviled form of Government in recent times has been National Socialism. With Good Reason. The two most famous – or infamous – National Socialist parties have been the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei – National Socialist German Workers’ Party) AKA “Nazi” party, and the ANSP (Arab National Socialist Party) AKA “Ba’ath” Party.
But… a bad form of Government executed by Good People is better than a good form of Government executed by Bad People. therefore present for you a contrast in styles, of two “National Socialist” movements, though one of them didn’t call itself that. Judge for yourself.
 
National Socialism often conveys Public Service messages in
militaristic terms, but not always
I do agree with A.E.Brain that there are similarities in the ways that states, regardless of their ideology, usurp a prominent place in the social interactions. It is the desire for total politicisation of the civil society that makes Communism and Nazism such intimate ideological bed-fellows. Practically too, there is not much difference between a concentration camp and a gulag, except the fact that many more millions died in gulags. As a commenter in this thread put it:
The commie shoots ’em in the head,
The facist, in the skull.
Their ideological differences
For victims, rather null.
The US posters skillfully juxtaposed with their Nazi ‘counterparts’ use identical imagery and the similarities in style are meant to be sinister. But it should not really come as a surprise, since propaganda toolbox was not as ‘diverse’ in those days and both Nazis and Communists would have used and perfected the ‘marketing’ techniques of the day. The more subtle reminder is the pervasive hijacking by the state of the ‘positive’ collective sentiments that are transformed into a collectivist norm imposed by force.
A.E.Brain concludes:
What’s important is the matters of Substance, like the very real differences that existed between the Franklin&Eleanor team and Adolf.
Absolutely. There is only one small fallacy in his argument. Propaganda does not equal style, at least not in any meaningful sense. So although National Recovery Administration (NRA) was no doubt bureaucratic and authoritarian in its nature, I cannot see the implementation of its policies being even vaguely reminescent of the ways of Nazi or Communist institutions. In the end, precisely because of its authoritarian substance (and style), the NRA did not last long enough to even fully implement its policies.
What the posters demonstrate is that States have instinctive tendencies to take over the society whether by force or ideology or a threat of external/internal enemy. Toxic ideologies will turn the state into an instrument of terror. Credible or fabricated external/internal threats will enable the state to expand its powers and effective use of force will make the state a frightening tool in the hands of those who wield it.
The difference is not just what those who are in power believe but also what kind of society they face. Both Communism and Nazism have taken over the societies where the rights of individual were not paramount. It is when individual is no longer valued as the corner-stone of the society and his freedoms protected from collectivist impositions, the state is unrestrained in its natural course.
|
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.
|
