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]
|
I am sure many of you have by now heard the coverage about the airplane crash into waters off of La Guardia airport in New York.
What I have not heard yet are comments on the fine piloting it took to grease a rather good size metal bird into the water. The pilot could not have had many minutes to think about his options, and yet as far as I can see, he did everything flawlessly.
I just want you all to ponder what it takes to bring a commercial transport of that size down on the water, in one piece, floating and with all your passengers alive.
The pilot and co-pilot of this flight deserve all of the applause we can give them and a heart felt thank you from all the passengers and their families.
Andrew Roberts, the UK historian, pens what can only be described as a robust defence of soon-to-be-ex-US President, George W. Bush. It has stirred up a hornet’s nest of comments, some of which include open support for OBL’s cause, which makes me wonder about who edits the Telegraph blogs these days, if at all.
Unfortunately, this piece suffers from a number of basic factual errors that make one wonder about the quality of the editing of the Daily Telegraph’s print edition, never mind the electronic version. He says, for example, that Oliver North directed a movie about Bush, when in fact he meant Oliver Stone. These Olivers are a bit of a pest: I mean, there’s Oliver Reed, Oliver Cromwell, Oliver Twist, and loads of others. It might rather tickle both Messrs North and Stone – one a rather controversial soldier, the other a former-soldier-turned leftwing filmaker, to be so conflated.
On a more serious note, though, Mr Roberts suffers from over-reach in his understandable desire to set the record a bit straighter. For a start, any believer in the small government brand of conservatism, even a hawk who supported the overthrow of Saddam and the fight against the Taliban, has to confront the continuing expansion of government and debt under the Bush administration. Bush went over the heads of Congress to support the bailout of the US auto industry. Then there is the whole nonsense of No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drugs, Patriot Act, and the rest.
As for protecting America from attack, it is true, that he deserves – as I said some time ago – some, if not a lot, of credit for the fact that there has been no major repeat of a 9-11 sort of attack on US soil since that terrible September morning; and yes, I happen to agree with Mr Roberts that paying a pure “wait-and-see”, defensive posture after that day was not really plausible.
Libertarians continue to argue among themselves, never mind with others and often vehemently, about the proper scope of foreign policy, or whether a libertarian foreign policy is an oxymoron. For me, the principle of self-defence cannot rule out the need, in certain circumstances, to go after declared enemies with a track record of violence and mayhem. Bush went after some of those enemies and made mistakes along the way. But I think, that on foreign policy at least, the judgement of history on this man will be rather kinder than at the present time.
One of my favourite actors, star of the great series, The Prisoner, has died. Here’s a great appreciation of that cult 60s television series by the late Chris R. Tame. It goes without saying that the message of that series – the dangers of an all-encompassing state – are more relevant now than ever.
Patrick McGoohan, rest in peace.
The EU is bleating as people go cold due to Russian gas being shut off due to its disputes with the Ukraine. And the ever dependable Russian polity, moonbats to a man, blame the USA for the crisis.
The pragmatic Slovak government has made the very sensible decision to possibly restart Soviet era nuclear power plants that they were decommissioning as part of their accession to the EU, if the crisis drags on… and in doing so, they show the simple and ‘carbon footprint’ friendly (as if I care) solution to this and oh so many problems… nuclear power. How can a solution that dooms both the Kremlin and Middle East to long term strategic insignificance not be a Truly Many Splendored Thing?
This guy clearly is not impressed by the recent Hollywood film about ‘Che’ Guevara, which I will not be watching:
I wish that Mr. Soderbergh and Mr. Del Toro could live in Cuba, not as the pampered VIPs that they are when they visit today, but as Cubans do, with no United States Constitutional rights, with ration cards entitling them to tiny portions of provisions that the stores don’t even stock anyway, with chivatos surveilling them constantly. How long would it be before Mr. Soderbergh started sizing up inner tubes, speculating on the durability and buoyancy of them, asking himself, could I make the crossing on that? How long before Mr. Del Toro started gazing soulfully at divorced or widowed tourist women, hoping to seduce and marry one of them and get out? Only then could they see why this insipid, frivolous and pretentious movie they have made is nothing less than an insult to millions of people, who really do live like that, and who’ve lived like that their entire lives.
The quote was seen at the blog of David Thompson.
I have said it before and I will repeat: for all its possible charms, I am not setting foot in Cuba until it becomes a haven of capitalist decadence. Not a minute before. Even if that means paying more for cigars and the booze.
Here is a film about Cuba, starring Andy Garcia, which is much more worthwhile.
One of the reasons why people get so cross about the cost of petrol is the knowledge that a high proportion of the price paid at the pumps is accounted for by tax, rather than the cost of extracting, refining and distributing the stuff. The same goes for a pack of cigarettes, pint of beer or a bottle of wine, to name a few. With a lot of grocery produce, such as your humble carrot, most people may not appreciate – yet – how much of the cost of getting those vital vitamins is accounted for by government-created production costs. Well, there have been a flurry of stories on the wires about a recent EU Parliamentary vote to ban dozens of pesticides that are deemed harmful. As a result, farming groups claim, output of crops will fall and presumably, if other things remain equal, prices will go up at a time when household budgets are under strain. It does not seem to have occured to policymakers that a simple option would be to put what chemicals are used to treat crops on a packet so that consumers can figure this out for themselves and take an informed decision.
The trouble with stories like this is that the votes to ban X or Y at the EU level rarely gain a lot of coverage for more than a day or so, and then the issue tends to fizzle out, of interest only to obsessives and geeks like yours truly. A busy populace, worried more about their jobs, mortgage or children, will hardly dwell on the issue. But when Mr and Mrs Briton wonder why on earth it costs so much to buy basic groceries, the temptation will be to imagine that it is the fault of big, evil supermarket chains, for example. Rarely will the cause of the cost be seen as stemming from bureaucrats and European MPs.
Of course, it may well be that the chemicals being banned are as harmful as is claimed, although given the way these things work, I doubt it. We are told that for a healthy diet, your average person requires several servings of fruit and veg a day; such things are considered good for warding off cancer. Even if there is a health risk from chemicals, the health risk of not eating enough vegetables because of high costs is even higher. These things involve a trade-off between one set of risks and another, rather than some imperfect and perfect state. If such chemicals are banned, resorting to grow-your-own is hardly a viable alternative, since modern farming can, through economies of scale, achieve better yields and lower costs-per-output than someone tending their vegetable patch. And importing fruit and veg from countries such as Spain via air transport, for example, is also becoming less attractive an option due to increased fuel prices and governments’ taxes on air travel.
Once again, the Forgotten Man gets the shaft. This chemicals ban, like measures such as “employment rights”, paternity leave or 35-hour weeks, impose costs on the populace without a government having to take the potentially visible and unpopular step of raising taxes. Joining the economic dots is hard. I just hope that some in the MSM try and do so occasionally so that the message gets through. We bloggers cannot do it all on our own.
Update: in the comments, one person argues that I have contradicted myself by pointing to public apathy or lack of time to scrutinise EU actions, on the one hand, and my stress on the ability of consumers to read packaging labels, on the other. There is no contradiction, though. People shop daily, weekly, monthly, etc. They constantly come up against labels, look at packaging, see advertisements, surf the Net looking at products, and so on. One of the great things about markets is that it is a constant provider of information. Not always accurate, of course. By contrast, once an EU directive has been imposed, that is usually the last that any ordinary member of the public will hear about it. As soon as a law is passed, the media and political wagon rolls on.
When I saw this:
California may accept military identification as proof of legal drinking age under legislation proposed after a group of Marines were denied service because they weren’t carrying other documents showing they were at least 21.
[…]
The legislation comes after a group of Camp Pendleton Marines attending a banquet in Temecula were refused service when none was able to produce any identification other than their military card.
The cards include the holder’s picture and date of birth. What the cards don’t have printed are height, weight and other physical characteristics, which are encoded in a magnetic strip for security purposes. Because that information isn’t visible, the cards are not officially recognized by the state as proof the person is old enough to purchase alcohol.
I thought
— Wow! an extension of personal liberty; pity it is only for state employees.
Then I thought
— ‘Wow’? Is that really the reaction to such a feeble easing of regulation? Surely there are plenty of better things happening all the time?
And I thought. And I thought. And I discovered I could not think of any significant withdrawals of the (western ‘liberal’ democratic) state from the personal lives of its citizens this side of the millennium. It is too depressing (and would involve half an hour of futile typing) to list the obvious encroachments — in 2009 so far.
Please prove me wrong by providing copious examples of liberty expanded.
Excellent, a new skycar prototype will be travelling from London to Timbuctoo, via ground and air. There is a nostalgic coolness about skycars as they reflect a legacy future where 1940s starlets are rescued by a world of modern skyscrapers and heroes in jetpacks. In reality, the car will be driven by the SAS and the Foreign Office provides its doleful advice that adventures are ‘dangerous’. Couldn’t they go to Cleethorpes instead and why can’t we force them to, thinks the man from the FO?
As well as natural barriers, the team has been warned about the threat of kidnap in volatile parts of Africa and the car will have to negotiate a minefield in Mauretania – “I might fly that one,” said 45-year-old expedition leader Neil Laughton.
When the need for flight arises – estimated to be for 40% of the journey – a ParaWing, a parachute of the type used by paragliders, will be dragged behind the modified off-road buggy and the propeller on the back of the vehicle will boost the Skycar down whatever happens to be serving as an improvised runway. When it reaches 45mph, enough lift should be generated to get the car airborne, its weight supported only by “a silk handkerchief, a large one at that”, said Laughton.
The adventure is referred to as an element of “mad Brits“, another phrase redolent of passing qualities. More details on the car can be found here, though one must accept that not all prototypes will be stylish Italian jobs. This one looks more like a souped up Dune buggy.
“Let me say it again, the only newspapers around in the future will be very upmarket, all the downmarket stuff being more readily available on the internet or in magazines made of pulped squirrels that will be handed out free to the unemployable and the insane.”
– Bryan Appleyard. Those squirrels cannot catch a break.
This gloomy Bloomberg article, talking of capitalism’s global “winter of discontent”, argues that the current troubles are the first globalized crisis for free enterprise. Well, when an article makes an error in the first paragraph it does rather dim one’s enthusiasm for reading on. Arguably, we have had cross-border crises in markets dozens of times: the recession of 1870s, the Great Crash of the 1930s, the 1970s oil-shocks and stagflations in the US and UK, the early recession of the 1990s in countries as different as far apart as Japan, UK, Germany and US, etc. Maybe the sheer extent of the malaise now is what has struck the Bloomberg writer, but truth be told I think this is a matter of degree. According to this excellent book, markets were in fact more globalised 100 years ago than they are now.
To use one of my least favourite words, there is now a constant “narrative” as to how the recent turmoil somehow proves that unregulated capitalism has failed and too closely interlinked. Quite how anyone can, with a straight face, argue that financial markets have been unregulated in recent years is a joke. Here are some of the regulations financiers have been dealing with, often with counter-productive results:
- Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (known snappily as MiFID). This is designed to make EU financial markets more competitive, but as so often is the case, has been designed to raise barriers to entry in certain fields and has led to a rise in regulatory costs and loss of choice.
- Basel II bank capital adequacy rules. How’s that working for ya?
- Patriot Act – the finance provisions
- Various anti-money laundering laws
- Tax information sharing treaties (various)
- UK capital adequacy regulations of financial advisers
- UK laws banning/controlling certain types of financial advertising. Apparently, we poor saps need protecting from crooks. Shame none of the big banks spotted Bernard Madoff then.
- Restrictions on sell-side analyst research. This is built on the quaint idea that analysts working for banks should be models of Corinthian virtue and not have a bias.
- Sarbanes-Oxley accounting laws – these have been a disaster, encouraging a flight of US businesses offshore, killing IPOs and squeezing new business formation.
- And last but not least: central banks. These are state institutions, issue monopoly money and have been behind much of the current trouble. Sometimes, when reading criticisms of “unregulated” capitalism, you might imagine these banks are purely commercial entities.
I am scratching the surface and I am sure readers can come up with more rules and regulations. Every time any of you good readers hears this canard about “unregulated capitalism”, call them out gently for this and ask them in what field, apart perhaps from security or medicine, are activities more heavily regulated than finance?
Update: oh, I should have mentioned the US federal housing agencies such as Freddie Mac, and their contribution to creating a massive moral hazard problem in the house lending market.
The splendiferous Doc Searls has an alarming article about an outfit called the Global Internet Freedom Consortium.
Global Internet Freedom Consortium sell tools to break the Great Internet Wall of China. Cool. They also sell the private details of their clients who have purchased these tools to ‘vetted’ companies for ‘personalised advertising’. Extremely un-cool… catastrophically so if one of the ‘vetted’ companies turns out to be a front for the Chinese government.
I despise most internet ‘push marketers’ at the best of times (not only does it not really work, it is intensely annoying… those two points are not unrelated) but to sell that sort of client list to any third party is just all kinds of a bad idea.
These do not sound like people I would care to trust my liberty and quite possibly my life with if I was planning to most righteously dig a hole under the Great Internet Wall. I know two people in China who do exactly that on a regular basis and this article is probably the fastest way I have to let them know about the worm in the “Global Internet Freedom Consortium’s” apple.
The moral of the story? Read the fine print when buying the tools you need to stick it to The Man… before you pull out that credit card.
Quite possibly the greatest video ever…
… the pure essence of speaking truth to power. This video has no sell-by date.
a tip of the kevlar battle-bowler to Clark Carter
|
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.
|
