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 House of Lords of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland was formed (informally by Simon de Montfort, although some would trace it all the way back to the Anglo Saxon Witan, and formally by Edward the first) of the great landed families and the bishops – first just of England, then of Wales, then of Scotland and finally of Ireland (now just Northern Ireland).
The dominant opinion today holds that it is wrong for a House of Parliament to be made up of the aristocracy plus a few Bishops. So first the powers of the House of Lords (or House of Peers as it is more formally known) had its powers greatly reduced by the Acts of 1911 and 1949, then in the 1960’s an unwritten convention came into existence that no new hereditary peerages would be created, only life peerages. Perhaps this was on the Thomas Paine grounds that “hereditary legislators are as absurd as hereditary mathematicians”. Although Mr Paine never explained what was so good about elected mathematicians or what upholding the traditional principles of law had to do with mathematics anyway.
The government headed by Mr Blair has got rid of almost all hereditary peers, thus leaving the Bishops, in modern times joined by the Chief Rabbi and so on although by appointment, not by right, and the ‘life peers’, the people appointed by recent Prime Minister – mostly by Mr Blair himself. It is felt by most members of the House of Commons and by many outside it that only elected people should be part of Parliament and they are pressing for a fully elected House of Lords.
This would at least have the virtue of there not being ‘second class’ members of the House – as would be the case if some members of the House of Lords were elected and some were not. However, it does miss an important point. If the House of Lords is not going to be a House of Lords, why have one at all? Why not just have the House of Commons? After all many respectable nations (Norway, New Zealand and so on) have a ‘unicameral legislature’.
The United Kingdom (for all the existence of the Welsh and Ulster Assemblies and the ‘Parliament’ in Scotland) is not a federal country. So how is this second elected chamber to be elected?
If it is elected in much the same way as the House of Commons it is just a waste of money as it will mirror this House, and if it is elected in some way to counter the House of Commons there will be conflict between the Houses (not in, say, the sense that there is sometimes ‘conflict’ between the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, but real conflict). In the past a government with a ‘radical agenda’ could always say “we are elected and you are not, so you may delay us – but in the end you must give in on the fundamental points of our platform”, this was as true for Mrs Thatcher as it was for prior radical Liberal and Labour party governments.
But, with an elected ‘House of Lords’ or whatever it is to be called, they could turn round and say “we are elected as well and you are not getting out of the EU” (or whatever the measure was).
Lastly my fear is that an elected second chamber would be elected using proportional representation, thus meaning an alliance of leftist parties would hold a majority for ever, and would be elected on a regional basis – part of the old plan to divide the United Kingdom (really divide England ) into €uro regions under the control of the European Union.
This story catches the eye:
The UK’s Jedi community today expressed concerns that government plans to ban Samurai swords could hinder their freedom to wield lightsabres in public.
The UK’s Home Office today issued a consultation paper ahead of legislation intended to ban Samurai blades by the end of the year. In a bid to “protect the public”, replica Samurai swords will become illegal to import, sell and hire in Britain.
The quote marks around “protect the public” are deserved. Quite how such a ban will “protect” anyone is a mystery. The ban on handguns has not led to a dramatic fall in gun-crime, as the recent spate of shootings in London demonstrate all too plainly. If swords are banned to prevent crimes, why not go the whole hog and ban kitchen knives?
Come to that, why not take up the idea of banning opposable thumbs? Human beings – we are not a feature, but a bug!
“Where is Karl Rove?” is one of the things the only member of the jury I watched talking to journalists said the jury in the trial of Lewis Libby talked about (although, of course, he stated that they spent most of their time on proper examination of the case).
First some information: And information presented to you (dear readers) by someone who did not support the decision to go into Iraq in 2003.
The man who leaked the fact that Mrs Wilson worked for the CIA was Richard Armitage of the State Department, not Mr Libby, Karl Rove, the Vice President, the President – or the man at the local shop.
Mrs Wilson was an employee – not an agent of the CIA.
Saddam Hussain did try to get uranium from Niger, along with various other places. So the claims of Mr Wilson that the Administration was telling lies about Saddam were wrong. Whether being wrong would concern Mr Wilson (a giver of money to the 2000 Gore campaign) I can not know for sure – but I would be astonished if it did. → Continue reading: “Where is Karl Rove?” : The trial of Lewis Libby
This is a shame, since I have grown to greatly value Wikipedia and hope it does not get badly damaged:
Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopaedia, has been plunged into controversy after one of its most prolific contributors and editors, a professor of religion with advanced degrees in theology and canon law, was exposed as a 24-year-old community college drop-out.
The editor, who called himself Essjay, was recruited by staff at Wikipedia to work on the site’s arbitration committee, a team of expert administrators charged with vetting content on the on-line “free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit”.
The open-source and on-line dictionary has been a roaring success in its brief life. I use it constantly both at work and in my spare time. I also consult other reference tools and would strongly advise people never to rely on just one source for the sort of information that Wikipedia and its rivals provide. But it is a shame that this character hoodwinked the site in this way. The best way for Wikipedia to handle this is put its hands up, admit the problem and deal with it.
Which is more than one could say about some organisations.
Buying ‘Carbon Offsets’ is the 21st-century equivalent of buying Papal Indulgences – a salve to the consciences of the deluded for having committed an entirely fictitious sin dreamed up – rather conveniently – by the indulgence-peddlers themselves. A ‘Sin of Emission’, one could say…
– Commenter Tanuki
I have been following the Al Gore “carbon offset” controversy with great interest, and if I can get my eight bosses off my neck will try to put up a post on it. However, it just occurred to me that, based on the Gore methodology of buying carbon offsets, my carbon footprint is probably about to go negative.
The reason being, I should be acquiring a parcel of land in North Texas within the next few weeks. Said parcel consists of some meadows, but mostly of youngish post oaks and miscellaneous brush. Heaven, to this country boy, but it seems to me that, if Al Gore can get carbon credit for paying someone else to plant some trees, why shouldn’t I get carbon credit for actually owning well over a hundred acres of growing trees, each of them busily sequestrating carbon?
I should soon be in the rather unusual position of being able to (a) express my contempt for a certain quasi-religious crusade while (b) meeting and exceeding its requirements to be one of the Elect.
And all while driving my SUV back and forth across the Texas landscape! Is this a great planet, or what?
The green fanatics have been running the debate for decades now so perhaps it is time to hear some scientific basis for their intrusive and reactionary measures.
Claude Allegre, one of France’s leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena.
Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.
Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth’s crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l’ Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.
The nihilistic nature of the climate research debate – spot on! What frightens me about the environmentalists is that they recommend restricting ourselves back to stone age. Instead of harnessing innovation and searching for alternatives, the doomsday scenarios is what it is all about. Coupled with the urge to dictate what the rest of us should do, we have a long-term restriction on the very things that drives innovation – clear understanding of the problem, redundancy and waste (yes, that too is necessary for change), experimentation and focus on the demand, not just on restricting the supply.
In June, I will be attending the Apeldoorn conference in the Hague. This year the focus is on sustainability – the conference title is Facing up to Reality: Choices for a Sustainable World. Well, you can guess what my contribution is going to be… I am looking forward to making the point for redundancy and playful experimentation by the markets. Otherwise, sustainability is nothing but another word for rationing progress.
cross posted from Media Influencer.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
The world is full of belligerent numbskulls; frequently, the more ignorant, the more belligerent.
It is a soppy, and dangerous, progressive cliché that lack of self-esteem among the indigent and the criminal is a cause of poor social integration. There’s actually no evidence that the indigent and the criminal do have low self-esteem. On the contrary in fact, they tend to have rather too much of it.
Yeats got that. Polly Toynbee gets it too. Charles Darwin wrote, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
While this is distressing for the world’s more sentimental do-gooders, and seems to have had no impact at all on the growing self-esteem industry, it is an important observation, having great explanatory power, and not just for the history of idea. It is, I submit, at the core of such diverse social phenomena as gangstas, bling, Islamism, dangerous driving, the bullying petty official, the modern media health scare, the conspiracy theorist, and large chunks of the content of the web. Combined with the tendency for the assertive and persistent to get their own way, because others can’t bear endless futile arguments, it is much more than a marginal nastiness. Which is distressing even to the unsentimental.
What is more, there is a rational explanation. Dunning and Kruger, the Cornell psychologists who often get the credit for establishing that the least competent are most likely to overestimate their own competence – and hence (I paraphrase broadly) that idiots contribute most to the fundamental fuckedupness of the world – note that “the skills that engender competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain—one’s own or anyone else’s.” (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, Vol. 77, No. 6 – no link because the copy I read online was probably infringing.) They assert that the syndrome can be cured by education. But I suspect that’s just liberal optimism speaking. Those convinced of their own superiority are the least likely to accept tutoring. (My esteemed co-professional “Dr Hibbert” has it right, for all practical purposes, below.)
Which is all by way of introduction to one of the most farcical correspondences of my professional lives. The writer proclaimed he was going to expose it to the tabloids, so can hardly object to its reproduction here. Enjoy.
From: “kyriacos kyprou”
To: [many of the world’s better known literary agents]
Subject: Kyriacos Kyprou – Greatest Mind Ever
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:31:06 +0000
…below is the email I sent out to the recipients that this email also went out to.
…and there is nothing, at all, delusional with the claims I make, in that email, which implies those claims can well, be supported. And the points I make are totally valid points.
…following my email below are some of the replies I received, in this high democracy you all preach.
…two points – firstly the ruthless attack on my sanity and intelligence by an idiot calling himself julius.hibbert@hotmail.com (an pseudo email account, using a psychologist cartoon character from ‘The Simpsons’) are totally unfounded, but more notably, completely unprovoked.
…secondly they are replies that completely intrude my democratic rights – which implies are the claims I make exempt from the freedom of expression that democracy preaches? But more notably I do not take too well to the ruthless comments made about my intelligence and sanity. I am more than likely the greatest mind ever on this planet and I will make that claim if I choose to make it (especially when it is a claim that I can well support). And you can all stick your modesty. As if you all have something to teach about modesty. What you all refer to as the third world will tell you all about it. And if there is a third world then what does that make all of you – first, second or premier league? There is no third world – there is only the neglect billions endure.
…I also make the point that the house policy rules of the publishing world cannot also apply for a book like mine, because this is a book that needs to published. But the publishing world wants to play ‘we rule’ and ‘untouchable’ games with me.
…but also wants to throw a few humiliating tactics and insults my way – and it seems they are at total liberty to let themselves go, with any form of expression, it takes their fancy.
…and it seems I am supposed to accept that attitude, insults and humiliation.
…maybe I don’t want to accept it.
→ Continue reading: Doctor Bickle, I presume
I never begin to be amazed by David Cameron. Surely this man is the most visionary and inspirational rhetorical and philosophical figure of our age:
David Cameron will pledge tomorrow to work with like-minded politicians to create a new European Union..
Wow! We have never heard that before. Radical or what?
The speech will be a clear signal that Mr Cameron will not take his party out of Europe and also a message to supporters who are considering deserting to UKIP that he will try to change the EU.
And I, for one, absolutely believe him. This Cameron fellow is like a breath of fresh air and good old-fashioned, down-to-earth common sense. Well, not quite down-to-earth perhaps.
“A visitor from Mars, witnessing the signing of the declaration, would take a close look of the inner workings of the EU and…”
Blast the whole thing to smithereens with a giant death-ray?
“…observe earnest discussions about reviving constitutions, transfers of competence, relative voting weights and other distractions.”
Ah, yes. Those Martians are so nuanced and sophisticated.
“But the intelligent Martian would say the EU should be focusing on the economic challenges of globalisation and the urgent need to reform European economies so that it could maintain its prosperity. It should also concentrate on the challenge of climate change and the need for swift action at all levels to slow the rate of global warming. And it should be absorbed by the moral and security challenge of global poverty.”
He is definitely onto something here. After all, the policy-making imperatives of the European Union are the hot topic of conversation on the Martian dinner-party circuit.
David Cameron – a Carefully Understated Natural Tory.
Chris Lightfoot, occasional commentator here, well-known blogger, and technical wizard, is dead. It has been a confidential matter for a couple of weeks, but can now become public.
I didn’t know him very well, but will miss his awesome intelligence. NO2ID will miss his capacity just to fix things while lesser techies were squabbling among themselves about how to do it.
Other people, here, and here, for example, knew him better and have more valuable things to say.
The trouble is that once you haven’t won, the sense that you are gatecrashing somebody else’s party is overwhelming, and it hits you hard that the ‘somebody else’ is much more glamorous than you.
– Dan Mazer, the writer of Borat on being nominated for an Oscar. More or less how I feel about life in general, really.
|
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.
|
