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]
|
There are a wealth of compelling and passionate arguments both for and against capital punishment and I do not intend to go into them now.
I would rather comment on the state of British politics in the light of what I regard as a rather surprising development:
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, yesterday demanded the reintroduction of the death penalty.
In his first interview since his appointment last week, Mr Davis backed the return of capital punishment in cases of “clearly pre-meditated and cold-blooded murder”. He favours the use of lethal injections over more antiquated methods such as hanging.
I must admit that this came as something of a shock to me. From what little I know of Mr Davis I gather that he is a man possessed of definite principles but (in common with the rest of his Conservative colleagues) has been too timid to give voice to them.
This is quite revolutionary really. For the last decade at least, the Conservatives have been on the run. Having lost every scrap of moral legitimacy to their opponents on the left (even before they were booted out of office in 1997) British Tories lost whatever ability they had to influence the national discourse. In fact, so beleaguered and timid did they become, that no senior Tory could stick his or her head over the parapet of national life without getting promptly chased back into their hidey-holes by a contemptuous and excoriating press.
It would have been sufficiently comment-worthy had Mr Davis merely made some squeaky, semi-apologetic noises about taxes and regulations. But this? This is a bombshell. Capital punishment was abolished in Britain in 1965 and while there was some serious campaigning for its re-introduction for many years afterwards, the issue has since lapsed into total disrepute. For the last decade at least, calls for restoration of the death penalty have been considered ‘beyond the pale’ – a hobbyhorse for neanderthals and wierdos but not the kind of thing that proper, grownup people discussed in proper, grown-up circles.
By puncturing this taboo, Mr Davis is not just launching an attack, he is going straight for the meta-contextual jugular and I get the feeling that the predictable eruption of spluttering outrage will not make him back down an inch. He must surely have realised what impact his statement would have and he still felt sufficient confidence to utter it publicly and utter it now.
This was not a policy statement. Not yet anyway. It was a shot across the bows of the Guardian-reading classes. It will not be the last. The Conservatives have got their nerve back.
The Times reports that the Tories are to drop their opposition to Big Blunkett’s plans to limit trial by jury.
As a result the discredited Criminal “Justice” Bill is expected to pass through both Houses next week.
The reason given for this change of heart is that new Tory leader Michael Howard apparently sees “liberal” policies as electorally damaging. Any hope that the Tories might be the party to stand up for civil liberties seems to have disappeared
Cross-posted from The Chestnut Tree Cafe
In the midst of a vast, arid desert of small-minded envy and zero-sum culture, there emerges a little oasis of cool, clear refreshing sanity:
The Swiss economy has faced hard times in the past few years. One canton, Schaffhausen, is doing something about it by changing its tax law to attract wealthy people. Beginning in January 2004, Schaffhausen will replace its system of increasing marginal tax rates on income with a system of degressive marginal rates. The cantonal tax rate will be set at just under 8 percent for income of SFr 100,000. It will rise to a peak of 11.5 percent for income between SFr 600,000 and SFr 800,000. Thereafter, the marginal rate declines with each incremental chunk of income: 10 percent at SFr 1,300,000; 8 percent at SFr 3,000,000; and just over 6 percent for income more than SFr 10,000,000. This is a true incentive-based tax system—the larger one’s income, the lower one’s marginal rate.
Seems that the penny (or the Franc) has dropped in one small corner of one small country. They have realised that penalising success is a pretty good way of guaranteeing failure.
Schaffhausen has its own legislative parliament, which contains eighty deputies representing all regions within the canton. Eight political parties compete for these seats. Evidently Schaffhausen’s voters support a tax cut that gives the greatest benefits to the richest people. They believe that attracting wealthy individuals to reside in their midst is good for everyone.
And they are right.
[My thanks to Stephen Pollard for the link.]
I do not know whether it is the done thing on Samizdata to get involved in the statist plots of the BBC to stop us thinking, and to get us wasting our thoughts on irrelevant trivia, but after watching Ray Mears’ excellent Big Read program on ‘The Lord of the Rings’, I thought it might be interesting to work out which of the twenty-one books was the best from a libertarian point of view:
Birdsong: Shows the horror of the state in action, destroying human life for no real reason. But I look for entertainment in a book, not misery, as real libertarian novels entertain for the dollar price, rather than depress, or as Robert Heinlein said, ‘my books were written for entertainment to pay my grocery bills.’ So I can not comment further on this book as I will never be able to get beyond the first page. Unless someone tells me it’s full of Blackadder IV style jokes, of course.
Captain Corelli’s Mandolin: Come on, this book is only in this list because of the recent film. Just why are British people so shallow? However, being secretly in love with Penelope Cruz, as I am, I am as shallow as the rest so I won’t comment any further.
Catch-22:Yet another war story pointing out the futility of inter-state destruction, so quite libertarian. But I could never get past that part in the film where the bloke’s entrails fall out, so I ca not comment any further.
The Catcher in the Rye: Oh no, the usual socialist obsessions with teenage sex and do-gooding. Alas, I have never read the book. The cover page always puts me off. It is probably great. Shame I will never read it then, unless someone kicks my eyes open.
Great Expectations: The state education system in England always tries to stuff Dickens down the throats of its inmates, presumably because Mr Dickens encouraged the growth of do-goodery in Victorian England. However, aside from televised adaptations I have never been any further with Dickens than ‘The Tale of Two Cities’, which I was forced to study, I think, at English ‘O’ level. I can not remember the details, except it was a far nobler thing to fall asleep in English lessons than it was to fall asleep when my unrequited love goddesses read out their essays on it.
Gone with the Wind: We really are a bunch of bananas in Great Britain. How can ‘Gone with the Wind’ be in a top 21 of great all-time books? There’s obviously still ten million women in England in love with Clark Gable. And who can blame them, I suppose? Still the greatest moustache of all time.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: Arrgggghhhhhhh!!!! “Oh come on,” he said, pathetically. It would need three hundred pages just to describe what I think of this book. Much like it took three hundred pages for J.K.Rowling to start this book. But she has made a lot of money, and got children back into book reading. So she can not be all bad.
His Dark Materials: Loved the armoured bear. Aside from that I felt the novels leant too much in the direction of Channel 4-style leftieness, though could not put my finger on why. Did not manage to finish the third one. Just could not see the point.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: Fabulous. We vote for the lizard to stop the other lizard getting in. We make sure the President of the Galaxy is the man least likely to be any good at it. Douglas Adams, RIP, surely a closet libertarian, like most sci-fiers. Top quality. → Continue reading: The Big Read
Research by the BBC indicates that Big Blunkett doesn’t have much support within his own party for his plans to force compulsory National Identity cards on innocent British citizens.
Of the 101 Labour MPs who responded to the poll, over half wanted more investigation before any such plan is introduced. A third of them were opposed to the scheme.
Do you know where your MP stands on the issue? More importantly, do they know where you stand?
Cross-posted from The Chestnut Tree Cafe
Inspired by the posting below about soundbites, Patrick Crozier has lashed up a list of attempted transport policy soundbites. Not all of them have quite the zip and zing that you are looking for in a soundbite. For example, I don’t see this catching on:
Transport is not an unalloyed good.
“Unalloyed”?
Or this:
The chaos on Britain’s railways is to a large extent the fault of the EU.
“To a large extent”? That sounds like John Major as enacted by a TV puppet.
But, as I said in a comment there, never mind. As soundbites they are mostly unfinished, but they’re a definite start. Others can maybe get polishing.
And, as I have also already commented at Transport Blog, before realising that the thought might also be worth airing here, one of Patrick’s suggestions may actually be ready to spread around. Here it is:
Safety is dangerous.
This little phrase may have been arrived at many times before (comments about that are of course very welcome), but I’ve not heard this exact combination of words before. I think it might be a winner.
First, it is short. Three familiar, easy-to-remember, easy-to-say words. Very important.
Second, it asserts an important truth, which is that an overzealous pursuit of safety, by (for instance) shutting down a pretty safe transport system in a vain and very expensive attempt to make it ever more safe can actually cost lives. The costs incurred (but hidden because spread around) can make everyone’s lives a tiny bit more unsafe, and the alternative transport they use in the meantime might be a lot less safe. Shutting down railway systems after crashes, or grounding huge airplane fleets ditto, can kill, on the roads. And of course “safety is dangerous” has numerous applications besides and beyond transport.
But third, just as important, “safety is dangerous” has just the right degree of counter-intuitive outrageousness, such as will arouse interest and stir up debate. Because this soundbite is, literally speaking, untrue, it could cause opponents of the truth it flags up to get drawn into a stupid argument about its truth, and its unfairness. “It’s not true!” “Ah but you’re missing the point, what it says is true.” Etc. etc., blah blah. The sense of outraged logic of the victims of the soundbite could be all part of the fun, and will cause TV interlocutors to keep on throwing this soundbite in their faces, simply because they hate it so. Like all good soundbites, it could supply a cushion for the lazy TV compere to fall back on.
Well, maybe. Most attempted soundbites are like newborn fish, doomed to die immediately. But maybe this one will prove to be a fish with legs, if you’ll pardon the expression.
It could be that “safety is dangerous” needs more work done on it. Maybe it should read: “Safety is unsafe.” Or maybe the even shorter: “Safety isn’t.” Personally I think that “Safety isn’t” is too brutal towards the banal truth that safety, properly understood, is indeed safety. Also, the claim is too absolute. It isn’t being claimed that “safety” is always unsafe. Just sometimes. You might have to change “safety is unsafe” to “safety can be unsafe” and then the word count starts to rise. (“Safety is to a definite extent unsafe.”) “Safety is dangerous” is the best, I reckon.
Over on White Rose I have put up some remarks by Josie Appleton of Spiked On-Line regarding ID Cards. To which all I can add is… yeah!
And while you are at it, you might like to check out Trevor Mendham’s worthy anti-ID cards campaign on iCan.
“[…] the cards do represent an attack upon the culture of liberty – upon our sense that we can do as we please within the law, and mix freely with others. What ID cards represent is a society where we are constantly having to answer for ourselves – constantly having to say who we are, to prove our identity to officialdom. They also symbolise a society where we are mistrustful of our fellow citizens. In Blunkett-world, we should only trust those who have become a member of the ID-card community, and are allowing the powers that be to keep tabs on them.”
– Josie Appleton
The press likes to present itself as an advocate of people’s freedoms; certainly vis a vis the state, the Fourth Estate proports to be the people’s friend. But many of the state’s urges to control and dominate it’s citizenry strikes a chord with elements of the media, and this editorial from the Sydney Morning Herald is remarkable. The remarkable feature is that ID Cards have not actually been on the government agenda in Australia. The effect of this article is to actually put ID cards on the public agenda, rather then respond to a government initiative.
For all the repudiation of Big Brother that defeat of the Australia Card supposedly symbolised, Australians do not know the extent of state surveillance of their everyday lives today. Surveillance of their financial arrangements is more exact and accessible than ever before. In the vacuum since the 1987 debate on the merits and demerits of a compulsory ID system, we are not to know whether Australian sentiment has changed. It is likely though that we will soon get the chance to find out.
What is extraordinary is that the SMH, a supposedly liberal minded journal, seems determined to put ID cards on the agenda. It is true that the editorial did not advocate an ID card system, but nor did it condemn it. An extraordinary state of affairs.
The redoubtable Dissident Frogman has created a desktop image that spells out what a lot of us really think about the issue of mandatory National ID Cards
click for larger image
There’s an interesting – more to the point decidedly respectful and even somewhat nervous – profile in the Guardian today of the “Chief Executive in all but name” of the Conservative Party, Maurice Saatchi. You can feel the political wind shifting around by the day here in Britain. Maybe it won’t shift enough to shift Labour at the next election, but it will surely make some sort of a dent in them.
This bit about soundbites particularly caught my attention:
In a swipe at William Hague, who scoffed at the “slickness” of New Labour, Lord Saatchi said that the Tories should embrace the new media age by overcoming two key “myths” – that soundbites and focus groups are wrong. “If you can’t reduce your argument to a few crisp words or phrases it probably means there’s something wrong with your argument,” he wrote.
He said the history of the world had been built on slogans, including ones loved by Tories. “The next time a senior Tory tells you that soundbites are ineffective or immoral, remind the speaker of these: ‘Your country needs you’; ‘One man, one vote’; and ‘No taxation without representation’.”
We wouldn’t endorse any of those soundbites here with much enthusiasm, but the point is, good or bad, soundbites bite. Part of the point of things like Samizdata, it seems to me, is to craft good ones – good not only in that they get around and strike home, but in that they embody good and true ideas.
By the way, I’m not saying that I lie awake at night telling myself that the Conservatives ought to win the next election, nor do I think that if they do it will make that big a difference. I’m just saying that Conservative chances are now visibly improving. But, given the scorn which both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have heaped upon them at this blog, I perhaps ought some time soon to do a posting about why party politics, disgusting though it is, does make some difference.
Compulsory state ID cards are a monstrous assault on individual liberty, as well as useless in protecting us from the increasingly sophisticated terror groups who threaten us. That much is clear.
So here’s a question. At every possible occasion, we should ask Conservative MPs, including new party leader, Michael Howard, whether his party would abolish any such compulsory ID scheme put into place by the current Labour government. Similarly, selection committees for prospective parliamentary candidates should be urged to select those who pledge to reverse any ID card law.
Of course, when he was Home Secretary in the 1990s, Howard proposed ID cards, and his record on civil liberties is, to put it mildly, dismal. But he has a chance to repent, to start anew.
So to repeat the challenge – Tories – stand up and fight the ID card.
|
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.
|
