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]
|
An issue rumbling away in the business sections for the past few months, and likely to rumble on in the New Year, are the activities of what are called “sovereign wealth funds,” enormous funds, usually accumulated from government oil revenues and run by countries such as Norway. They are now major buyers of assets such as chunks of shares of banks like Citi, the US bank that has taken massive write-downs connected to the US sub-prime mortgage crisis. The question that comes up, especially when these funds are run by Middle Eastern governments or the Chinese, is whether their control of large parts of western firms poses some sort of “problem”. At this stage, I do not see it being a problem. As Sylvia Pfeiffer points out, these funds ultimately want what any intelligent investor wants: maximumum possible returns. I suppose that conspiracy theorists might wonder whether the Chinese, say, will deliberately run their acquisitions into the ground as part of some grand dastardly Blofeld-like plan to take over the world, but this strikes me as a bit unlikely. Perhaps more significant are issues such as protection of intellectual property rights and whether the companies that get taken over are as open about their accounts and profits as before. But again, it strikes me that as long as these new funds do not breach any regular laws against fraud or force, I do not see their activities as a problem.
The truth is, emerging economies in Asia, coupled with the petro-dollar wealth of the MidEast, parts of Asia, Russia and even Africa, is giving these funds a degree of market muscle that has taken some investment observers by surprise, but it should not do so. We are living through a major period of change in the economic clout of non-western states. We might as well learn to profit from it.
Some fine folks have set up a message board called the Irish Liberty Forum for anybody interested in libertarian ideas, with a focus on Ireland (the name is a dead give away). So… check it out and feel free to report on the quality of conversation.
Now that the Freedom Institute is sadly defunct (it went belly up last year), there is great need for some genuine pro-liberty voices in Ireland to counter the paleo-Marxist Indymedia crap that seems to be in such evidence there.
Part of the problem with modern democratic states is they have far too much time to figure out new ways to regulate and control every aspect of life. They do this in order to pander to the sectional obsessions of this or that element of the electorate, and to satisfy the pathological control freak mindset that defines most people who are attracted into politics. Japan however find much less damaging and far more interesting ways to spend legislative time.
A debate over flying saucers has kept Japanese politicians occupied for much of this week, ensnaring top officials and drawing a promise from the defense minister to send out the army if Godzilla goes on a rampage. “There are debates over what makes UFOs fly, but it would be difficult to say it’s an encroachment of air space,” Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba told a news conference Thursday. “If Godzilla were to show up, it would be a dispatch for disaster relief.”
Oh how I wish the UK Parliament and US Congress would spend less time on implementing laws to abridge our liberties and more on how to prevent 170 foot tall radioactive fire breathing saurians from stomping on our cities and destroying our skolzandhospitalz.
Obviously the whole absurd ‘Islamic terrorists’ shtick was just a ruse to hide the terrible truth of what really happened on 9/11. After all, as so many people keep endlessly reminding us, Islam is a religion of peace, so huge Japanese monsters (no doubt under the influence of Haliburton mind control rays) are a far more plausible explanation if you think about it. Clearly this is something that should occupy legislative time from the moment our fine representatives go into session until the moment they go home at night. For pity’s sake, honourable members, do it for the children.
The Sunday Telegraph leads with this story about how there are reportedly more Roman Catholics living in Britain than Anglicans, based on figures for church attendance as well as census data. As a former Anglican and now atheist with a Catholic wife of decidedly liberal persuasions, I look upon this news item with a relaxed attitude. Part of the shift is down to the loss of nerve of the Anglican church, not to mention the impact of trends like mass immigration from eastern Europe, such as Poland. I am not a fan of the idea of national churches anyway – like the US Founding Fathers I support a separation of church and state – although I do believe that in certain respects, the Anglican church, and the wonderful hymns and literature it is associated with, is an often elevating part of British, and certainly English, culture. But the church was a political creation, remember, with all the faults that implies. Up until the middle of the 19th Century, recall, atheists, Dissenters, Catholics and Jews faced all manner of barriers to entering British public life, although in practice this meant that many non-Anglicans ended up driving the Industrial Revolution – like the Quakers – precisely because they had a hard time entering certain professions or going into politics. But this prejudice was still wrong even if the unintended consequences could be beneficial with the benefit of hindsight.
I am blogging this from the very decadently Catholic south of France, in Cannes. Just thought I would mention that.
Simon Heffer has written a very sensible (damn, I hate that word) article about why atheists rooted in our culture should have no problem at all enjoying Christmas. I agree whole heartedly with that view but…
We atheists are supposed to feel bad about Christmas. After all, what is it to do with us? All the present-swapping, drinking and over-eating is merely taking advantage of someone else’s festival, isn’t it? I have always had my doubts about that analysis, all the more so since the Archbishop of Canterbury this week refined the Christmas story as “legend“. I start to wonder whether I am any more of an atheist than he is.
Oh Simon, Simon, Simon…really. You are talking about the head of the Church of England…of course he is more of an atheist than you are! Folks like you and I simply decline to believe on the whole beardy-guy-in-the-sky thing and that is good enough for us, no need to bang on any drums about it and generally be a tiresome crypto-fascist prat like Dawkins. Dr. Rowan Williams on the other hand drives more people into our way of thinking every time he opens his yap. Clearly he and Dawkin are batting for the same side no matter how much they pretend to not like each other.
So try to have a Merry Christmas one and all, even you Dr. Williams and Prof. Dawkins.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will.
– Rush.
It is my birthday, so a little personal reminiscence is in order. The man who introduced me to Rush, 29 years ago, subsequently turned down physics fellowships at both Oxford and Cambridge to become a Baptist missionary. I guess he took his instructions from the first part of the verse.
I recall reading years ago about ‘rumblings on the reservations’ but the Lakota Indians have finally done it… they have repudiated their treaties with the US federal government and UDI‘ed their asses. Cool. I have to say I am looking forward to seeing what comes next.
I am guessing the response will not involve F-15s or the army but would anyone would anyone who knows what they are talking about (my grasp of Lakota/US politics is a tad weak) care to speculate what will actually happen? Are the Lakota agriculturally self-sufficient? Do the leadership really represent the majority Lakota view? Are they serious or is this a ploy for Federal handouts? I am curious to say the least to hear from anyone who actually understand what the significance (or not) of this move really is.
My knowledge of such things is close to absolute zero, but is not this, linked to by Instapundit (where more links and updates are even now accumulating) today, rather exciting?
Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.
Damn right. It seems to me that if that caught on, the rules of energy would be changed for ever. Traditionally, energy has been a huge, heavily politicised industry. If only for that reason, politicians everywhere will fight this like cornered rats.
The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.
I have always found the Samizdata commentariat to be at their best when educating the rest of us about high tech issues like this one. Is this plausible? Is it safe? Will it be that cheap? Is today really April 1st and not December 20th at all?
Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009.
Bring it on. Never have I felt as optimistic about the future of nuclear power as I do right now, for this development turns nuclear power from a clunky, expensive mega-muddle that is totally dependent upon politics, to something that is small, simple, cheap and dependent only on the good sense of some people. Not everyone has to like this, and many will be flinging faeces in all directions about it. But not everyone has to. All it needs is a few countries, and a few people in those countries, to say yes.
How about this as a way to sell it? If you oppose it, you are in favour of Islamist terrorism. That should loosen things up a bit. An Instapundit emailer says that this technology is old news, updated. So, it’s been around all along, has it? Do you get the feeling that some kind of political switch has been thrown? Rather than fighting like cornered rats, perhaps the politicians of the West who really matter are now willing to relax some of their their control over power supplies, if that’s what it takes to separate those pesky Muslims from their oil money.
Even more predictable than the post-Thanksgiving appearance of shopping-mall Santas is the inability of pundits at this time of year to say or to write “commercialism” without prefixing to it the word “crass” – as we encounter in your pages today in Tom Krattenmaker’s “The real meaning of Christmas.”
I challenge this notion. Commerce is peaceful. It involves sellers working hard and taking risks to bring to market goods and services that consumers want to buy. No one forces anyone to do anything; all is voluntary.
What truly is crass is politics – that sorry spectacle of power-seeking ego-maniacs who, when not pronouncing platitudes, are promising to help group A by picking the pockets of group B. While commerce is honest, politics is duplicitous. While commerce is peaceful, politics inevitably pits citizen against citizen. Far more enlightened and ethical behavior is on display during any one day in a shopping mall than the most intrepid observer will find in a century on Pennsylvania Avenue.
– A letter from Donald J. Boudreaux to USA Today. Amit Varma liked it too.
Rupert Everett is a serviceable actor but he does seem a little confused:
“Hollywood is a place that pretends it’s very liberal but it’s not remotely,” he told The Times. “It’s like Al-Qaeda.” Everett, who is gay, believes that his sexuality has cost him “tons” of leading roles during his career.
Silly man! Because Hollywood is like Al Qaeda, you keep losing out on jobs not because you are a poofter of moderate talent but because you do not have a beard!
Given how Hollywood is famous for stoning adulterers and gays to death, making snuff porn videos of Muslims cutting off the heads of western journalists, forcing women to hide their bodies from view (something Hollywood is particular well known for), prohibiting secular movies (another one of Hollywood’s strong points) and making men wear beards, clearly poor old Rupert is lucky to still be alive.
Is it possible to be both a nationalist and a libertarian?
I am a hawk, no doubt about it. If I am going to be taxed by the state, I would much rather my hard earned money be spent dropping bombs on the lackeys of Slobodan Milosevic (Bill Clinton’s finest hour, without a doubt) and Saddam Hussain, than on corrosive domestic ‘entitlements’ and ever more kleptocratic regulatory statism.
So then along comes Ron Paul, the first US presidential candidate since Ronald Regan with any notion whatsoever that the state is way way way too big. Moreover here comes a person who thinks the only way liberty can be preserved is to take a radical axe to Leviathan’s tentacles and re-establish constitutional limited government. Cool. Very cool, in fact. So do I really really like Ron Paul? Well I like him but less than you might think as some of his remarks are borderline delusional ‘troofer‘ stuff and that does him no credit at all. Is he actually going to win? Probably not but that is not what this article is about (commenters please note). Do I even want him to win? Well that is what this article is about.
He wants a return to constitutional limited government. What’s not to like about that? But then my eye falls on that picture of Murray Rothbard in Ron Paul’s office. I am not a fan of Rothbard even though there is indeed much good stuff in The Ethics of Liberty. Although I think he was correct about a great many things, I also think he was often as intellectually dishonest as Karl Marx and Noam Chomsky and perfectly fits Adriana Lukas’ definition of a barking moonbat: “someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency”. For Rothbard to have argued that the cold war was a delusion and that the Soviet Union was not really a clear and present danger is so preposterous on so many levels that I am not even going to elaborate why. If you can not figure out that one yourself then this article is not addressed to you. In fact, please stop reading and get lost.
Otherwise, read on… → Continue reading: Ron Paul – so what is a pro-liberty hawk supposed to think?
|
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.
|
