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]
|
Equity investors are having a rough time at the moment.
All of Asia’s major stock markets plummeted on Tuesday morning, continuing a bloodbath in share prices that saw London’s FTSE 100 suffer its biggest one-day fall since the 9/11 terror attacks as fears of a worldwide recession gripped the markets.
I wonder what brought that on? Could it be that the lack of easy money going through the financial system will finally impact on company earnings? I have no idea; I don’t work in the industry. But with the bears rampant, it will be interesting and worrying to see our political lords and masters promise ‘interventions’ to ‘stabilise’ the market. Good luck with that!
The US Libertarian Party’s candidate for Kansas State House district 104 is a little bit different. Ferguson has also filed to run for President as well.
Glenn Reynolds famously declared in 2004:
Personally, I’d be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons.
This isn’t quite the same thing, but it is certainly keeping with the spirit. Good luck to Benny Lee!
(via Catallaxy Files)
How’s this for a title and opening for an article:
Gender or race: White male voters face tough choices in S.C.
For these men, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?
The howls of outrage that framing an article in such terms would cause is easy (and rather fun) to imagine. If ever there were two things that should not have have an impact on whom a person votes for, it should be the genetic characteristics of skin colour and gender. Dare I suggest that ideology and honesty might trump those two non-factors every time?
And yet this article will most likely pass without the slightest murmur from a great many people.
Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.
But if it is reasonable for black women in South Carolina to vote on the basis that someone is black or female, presumably they cannot object if other people decide to vote for candidates on the basis they are white or male. After all, it does appear that framing the choice on whom to support on the basis of racism or sexism is perfectly acceptable to the mainstream media. And there I was mistakenly thinking that those things were the cardinal politically incorrect sins of our day! Who knew?
If you are not watching it right now… ‘Dispatches’ is ripping Ken Livingston a new one as we speak…
Would sharia law be preferable to the regime that our current ruling class has in store for us?
I just do not understand it. When Spain capitulated to attacks from Islamic fascists and elected a socialist government who promptly pulled its troops out of coalition operations… a policy we have been told by many that the USA and UK should follow in order to stop provoking the Islamists… that should have been the end of Spain’s non-Basque terrorist problems. Presumably the nice people from the Al Qaeda Global Franchise were utterly delighted by the developments in Spain and were certain to fulsomely reward this behaviour. After all, we are often assured by writers in both the mainstream media and paleo-conservative/paleo-libertarian circles that this is what governments in the West must do if we are ever to sooth Islamic sensibilities: we leave them alone and they will leave us alone, right?
Yet strangely, far from redirecting their efforts and assets to ply their ‘trade’ against the more active members of the coalition, Islamic militants continue to get arrested in ever so repentant Spain.
Gosh, one might almost think that leaving them alone is not enough! Surely some misunderstanding?
The news from Nevada (via the LA Times) is so stunning that, well, I am stunned!
Ron Paul ran second behind Mitt Romney. What can I say? I am a life long Libertarian. I am not used to getting this close to the winners circle!
I am, however, prepared to adjust my expectations, should that become necessary.
I have just chanced upon a copy of the Review section of the Observer of a week ago. In it there is a double page spread, entitled Is this the best way to run the arts?, which is about how various performing enterprises have now got grants they used not to have or who have had their grants increased, and how various other performing enterprises have had their grants cut or abolished.
As is the way in politics, the ones who are suffering are the ones now making the most noise. They blame horrid men in suits who do not understand art. Politicians in other words.
This almighty row has been brewing since just before Christmas when the Arts Council announced the most radical funding shake-up in its history: 194 organisations and individuals would have their grants substantially cut or completely withdrawn. While some cuts may be sensible, others seemed barely thought through, such as the proposal that the Northcott theatre in Exeter lose its entire grant (£547,000) from 2009. Clarie Middleton, acting chief executive, heard the news the day before reopening the theatre after a major refurbishment – funded in part by an Arts Council grant. ‘It’s like planting a bulb but as soon as a shoot appears, you cut it off,’ she said.
Other victims include new writing powerhouse the Bush (a 40 per cent cut), the London Sinfonia chamber orchestra (100 per cent) and Sheffield’s Compass Theatre Company (100 per cent), which had ‘absolutely no idea the company was in a precarious position with Arts Council Yorkshire’ and has since had to cancel a scheduled tour.
But if you want money from politicians, you ought not to be surprised when those same politicians take an interest in the money they are giving to you. After all, they were the ones who stole it, and they have to justify this thievery and to ensure that its proceeds are distributed in a way that satisfies their supporters and quiets their critics. True, the men in suits probably do not understand art very well. But these artists could do with a crash course in politics. They are getting it.
Politicians, especially the ones making the running now, like inflicting a radical shake-up every so often. To feed their friends, they are willing to make enemies, and their “cuts” (i.e. decisions to stop giving you money) are often hastily decided rather than “thought through”. And if they do decide to slash or abolish your grant, why would they warn you about this? As for those among them who are genuinely trying to shun mediocrity and to fund only “excellence” etc., how are they supposed to know what that is, or worse, is going to be next year or the year after? Arts funding is either politics, or a lottery.
The bottom line here is: if you place yourself at the mercy of politicians, they are all too liable to behave just like the politicians they are and show you no mercy at all. The way to avoid being at the mercy of these horrid men in suits is not to depend upon them for any of your income. Oh, it takes far longer to build up an arts enterprise which relies on voluntary support from eccentric or socially aspirational donors, and from customers who are actually willing to pay in sufficient numbers for your efforts. But once you have done this, you are far less vulnerable to politics, and you will have to waste far less of your life doing politics. True, the politicians might still shut you down or rob you blind, blinder than usual I mean. We must all live in the shadow of such threats. But at least, if you are not getting a government grant, closing you down ceases to be a routine decision that the men in suits are liable to make at any moment.
Some while ago now, I wrote this and this (also available as an .htm) on the above subject. Both still stand up pretty well, I think.
Human desire is insatiable. Now, some think this is a bad thing, blaming it on greed and consumerism. But think about Mother Theresa – a saint if ever there was one. Was she greedy? Insatiable? Well, yes, she was. If she could have helped one more person, she would have.
– Russ Nelson, The Angry Economist
The Dissident Frogman brings us some of the highlights in our broadening understanding of our good friends across the English Channel…
Whilst roaming the interweb and dozing through meetings, I have collected the Iron Laws of Human Behavior:
1. You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.
2. The less you know about something, the easier it looks.
3. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
No particular claim to originality of thought is made, but I rarely get through either a political or a business discussion without seeing one or more of them in action. I will caution the reader that noting the application of an Iron Law out loud in a business setting is not without its risks.
Additional nominations and/or corollaries are hereby solicited.
The British Government does not seem to be able to keep anything secret.
Still, this is ‘only’ 600,000 people affected, which is quite modest, when you compare it to other recent fiascos.
|
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.
|
