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]
|
It is a sign of how old this stuff makes me feel that I remember when Prince Charles delivered That Speech when he denounced plans for the extension to the National Gallery off London’s Trafalgar Square. I remember the stir that this speech caused, and how it prompted some people to suggest that Prince Chuck had no business opining on such matters and should shut up and focus on trying to make Princess Di happy, etc. But for all its flaws, the speech did highlight the frustrations that many folk felt, and still feel, at the sheer ugliness of some – not all – modern buildings. Being an ardent free marketeer, I object to state – not private – planning laws to enforce a notion of beauty, which after all is in the eye of the beholder; but unlike perhaps some classical liberals, I do get the point that a lot of modern, or even supposedly traditional buildings, are insensitively designed, ugly, and in many cases, they don’t actually function as buildings very well. My worry is that the “cure” of planning laws and listed building rules can be sometimes often worse than the disease. A listed building law can prevent a crumbling building from being intelligently refurbished, for example. And it is worth observing that left to itself, urban landscapes can develop, without planning of many kinds, a kind of “spontaneous order” (a la Hayek) that while it may not have the top-down planned elegance of some cities, has its own beauty and vigor. As I say, this stuff is subjective.
My thoughts on these matters were prompted by watching the BBC news this morning. A very angry, bearded guy who apparently speaks for the modern architecture profession is denouncing the Prince for his views, for apparently frightening off architects, for pandering to “public opinion”, etc. (I have no idea who this character is, nor greatly care). Even if this guy has a point, every time I watch an obnoxious performance like this, it is easy to see why Prince Charles’ views on architecture get so much attention. We live in an ugly world – is it no surprise that so many people would like something a bit nicer?
Related thoughts by Roger Scruton.
As a book it has its flaws – it does not pay enough heed to the role of Web 2.0 media – but in the light of recent events about politicians’ use of taxpayers’ money, Peter Oborne’s study of UK politics reads better than ever.
A question worth asking, in the light of all this, is whether a less corrupt political class would be better, or worse, at reining in public spending? In the 18th Century, for instance, the UK parliamentary system was deeply corrupt; there was a vast network of jobs and sinecures doled out to enforce political loyalty. And yet despite the drawbacks, the UK managed to forge an Industrial Revolution, build a large and effective navy and help to defeat Bonaparte and all those supposedly more efficient Frenchmen. The central point that needs to be remembered is that the corruption and venality of the UK political class of today coincides with a point in our history when about 80 per cent of the laws and regulations affecting we great unwashed are not written in Westminster, but in the EU; and further, that the state exerts a vastly greater degree of control over our lives now than was the case in the era of Pitt, Burke and Fox. So this stuff is both a sign of the unseriousness of our political class on the one hand, and also a sign of how much more the state and its functionaries matter, on the other. Cleaning up politics will not address the central problem that the state plays far too big a role in our lives in the first place. Take away the jam, and the flies will not be such a pest.
The first 10% off public spending could be painless for the public and popular.
– John Redwood
This report says that the debut of the latest Star Trek movie has set box office records. I am not a big ST fan – I prefer series such as Babylon 5, Battlestar G., Firefly and so on, but the trailer for the new film looks pretty good.
Long time readers know I am part of the senior leadership team of the National Space Society and specifically the person charged with oversight of the conference which happens around this time each year.
We are going south to Orlando, Florida this year; the hotel is marvelous and the program likewise. Our Orlando conference management team and our HQ have brought together an excellent group of speakers. Most of the powers that be within the new commercial space industry and from NASA will be there. (Notice one dour visage within the photo gallery belongs to our own occasional writer, Taylor Dinerman. )
If you happen to be in that part of the country, or can arrange to do so, I highly recommend dropping in. You can register here.
I do not have time to be a speaker myself and will be racing from task to task, but if you spend some time in the hallways and corridors you are likely to see me transacting society and commercial space business in between board and committee meetings.
Be there, or be a groundlubber!
Articles like this help even an intolerant short tempered swine like me forgive the Ludwig von Mises Institute for some of its people’s a priori history and America-and-Britain-are-always-wrong view of war.
I have not written about the subject of the Chrysler bailout so far since, not being close to the action in the US, I did not feel I had much to say that was not already voiced by the US blogs. But it does occur to me that there is a general problem right now in the way that the US administration – and arguably the UK one as well – has been acting in respect of bailouts of certain industries, such as carmakers as well as banks. What do I mean? Well, this report (H/T: Instapundit) suggests there is real fear about the “Nixonian” tactics employed by Mr Obama’s administration against bond-holders who have been angered by the expropriation of their capital via the Chrysler bailout.
For those who have not been following this story, bond-holders have been pushed to the back of the queue, as far as potential recovery of capital is concerned, with the auto union membership getting preferential treatment. Maybe Mr Obama figures that investors can be rained on right now because it is more important to get the votes and support of traditionally Democrat-leaning car workers. With mid-term Congressional elections a couple of years away, he will have his sly, Chicago machine-politics mind working out how to garner important support in the event that the US economy is still sluggish by that time. But pissing off investors – such as, let it be noted, pension funds – is not smart. The US requires large amounts of capital for any economic recovery that may take place. Ask yourself one of the most basic questions any investor should ask: can I get my money back if I need to? If the answer is no or only maybe, and if there is the threat of governments robbing investors, then less investment occurs. The problems of such behaviour explain why, for example, Africa has been such a bad investment bet for so many years.
It is an ugly business. Part of the trouble with the automakers is that even if they had been put into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy process, with the banks and bondholders put on a more even footing for any recovery of assets, there is still the issue of what to do about the enormous unfunded pension obligations that these heavy industrial companies have. It is the same with airlines and steel. I have heard it said of British Airways – to take a UK example – that is is a pension scheme that happens to have a lot of aircraft. The pension tail can wag the corporate dog. And that is a hideous issue to deal with against the background of an ageing population. So in fairness to US policymakers, running down Chrysler involves dealing with a lot of tricky contractual issues.
Even so, it strikes me that the Obama administration is showing a level of political ruthlessness and “bugger-the-investor” attitude that is hardly going to endear people towards investing in that economy. My fear is that Mr Obama is making the cynical calculation that memories will fade; after all, how many investors in the UK remember how the Blair government, in the form of the charmless Stephen Byers, the-then industry minister, shafted investors in Railtrack?
Like I said, an ugly business.
There has been endless fuss about MPs expenses. Most of it is either with a tone of envy, or focussed on the apparent dishonesty of some claims. I’d like to suggest thet there has been a much more malign effect in the massive inflation of the parliamentary allowances system in the last 20 years.
Career politicians with no outside interests have been effectively exempted from the tax system as it applies to everyone else. Their tax returns are even dealt with by a special office. (For a while the Revenue has produced a special suplementary return form for parliamentarians. I saw one in the early 90s when helping an MP with his bookkeeping.)
This makes it easy for them to tighten the screws: raise rates and rake-offs, increase the tax-collector’s powers, without caring to comprehend the consequences. It also gives them the idea that everyone else must be milking the system: that rich people have got rich by postitional parasitism, since that’s how you get rich either as an MP, or as one of the providers of government services that they deal with among the quangocracy and PFI tsars.
The Prime Minister’s reaction to this: to try to isolate MPs further, by ‘naming ang shaming’ those who make money honestly in the outside world, and do therefore have some idea what things are like for the rest of us.
I couldn’t give a damn about peculation. It is the isolation of politicians, particularly, but not exclusively, politicians of the present ruling party, as cushioned servants of the state that is fundamentally corrupting. The theory of parliament, the root of its legitimacy, is that it stands between us and the rapacity of the crown, and holds taxes to what are fair and reasonable and are applied in the interests of the kingdom as a whole. That was the ground for the Great Rebellion and the Glorious Revolution. It was the ground on which de Montfort set up the first parliament, attempting to settle an earlier revolution.
Once parliament was filled with the independent rich, well-heeled professionals, and the sponsored, among the latter the old Labour members whose unions or philanthropy paid for them to live in Westminster. They had interests, they had views, but they were self-chosen, not neatly alligned with one another, not bound by a party machine, not tied to the public purse-strings or the rehearsal of instrumental populism.
That is what has been corrupted away almost completely. MPs have been reduced to gold-edged agents of the state, and have prospered the more, the less resistance they have offered the executive. Ministers are often closer to mouthpieces for their departments than their masters. They don’t control the state for us, because the state devotes our resources to keep them in a distanced shadow-world, immune to the effects of what they do at its motion.
I can’t wait for Mr Brown to publish what he thinks are damning details of member’s outside interests. We have had quite enough of inside interests. It will be an excellent guide who to vote for.
Regulars may have already come across this article, but if not, click on the link as this is a good item showing that the “Austrian” school of economics, in particular, did predict the credit crunch and the problems associated with it. It is just no good for folk to prattle that “no-one saw this coming” yadda yadda. (H/T: Adam Smith Institute Blog).
As an aside, the award-winning FT journalist, Gillian Tett, whom I once met many years ago, has a book out about making the argument that modern financial engineering has to bear much of the blame for the crisis. I have not seen many reviews of it – is it any good? My worry is that no analysis of the crunch makes sense if you ignore the broader issues of how financial systems become deranged in a world of fiat money in which central bankers start to believe in their own myths and where the rules create perverse incentives. Blaming derivatives for the crunch is a case of shooting the messenger, methinks. Even so, I’d be interested to see what Tett has to say. She holds a doctorate in anthropology, by the way, which gives her a bit of an insight into things like crowd behaviour – a very useful insight indeed.
As here, for instance. Via Liberty Alone, I learn of a remarkable new recruit to the ranks of those who are panicking about the pandemic. Yes, it is none other than the US Libertarian Party. They have just issued a press release reprimanding the US state for not being statist enough about this medically trivial event, which is in any case only being plugged up in order to divert attention away from other governmental blunders and to excuse further governmental usurpations, despite all the blunders. Why can’t they see that? Or don’t they care about such things any more? One can imagine a true “pandemic” that really did need measures like draconian border controls to defend against it (sickness is the health of the state), but if this trivial flu variant is it, then, to put it mildly, an explanation to that effect should have been added.
The UK Libertarian Party should treat this pandemic pandering as an awful warning of what happens to small parties – parties “of principle” – who become gripped by the desire to pile up lots of mere votes, and who forget what they were started to accomplish. First they pick a regular politician to lead them, and he then picks more regular politicians to help him, and before you know it, they are behaving like regular politicians.
But it is more fundamental than that, I fear. Start a political party, and before you know it, it is behaving like a political party. LPUK beware.
On the day that the UK starts to roll out its planned and useless ID card project, in Manchester, there are pictures all over the web of the Prime Minister. The background seems appropriate. I mean, it was obviously not deliberate but how the f**k did Brown grin away in that ghastly way of his and not realise what was in the background? We have to face the rather sad fact, in my view, that the PM has lost it.
I bet the Private Eye picture editor is working hard to come up with a nifty headline and quotes for its next edition.
I guess it was inevitable. Football, like other aspects of life, has been hit by the credit crunch. In the case of Southampton, a team that once graced the top flight of the English league and has boasted some notable cup wins – famously winning the FA Cup in the 1970s – it has suffered terribly. It is now in danger of extinction. My own team, Ipswich Town FC, was in administration a few years ago although it has been since taken over by Marcus Evans, the man who owns the eponymous conference organising company. Ipswich also has appointed former Manchester Utd and Ireland international player Roy Keane as its manager (gulp, nervous laughter).
Henry Winter, one of the main football scribes in the print press, believes Southampton’s local council should buy the team. He argues that the council and the lucky taxpayers of the south coast will be getting a bargain. Maybe. But it is not the business of councils to be spending money on what has been the money pit of professional sports, particularly when a place such as Southampton has many competing demands for public funds, such as policing, garbage collection, road maintenance and so on. As I said, when my club was in financial dire circumstances, no doubt some people would have been happy to see the Suffolk taxpayer foot the bill to put The Blues back on top. But wiser heads prevailed.
The sad fact is that football clubs can die if the finances run out. We have seen teams like Leeds Utd hit by unsustaintable debts in far happier economic conditions. Even mighty Man Utd has heavy debts stemming from the leveraged buyout by the Glazers, while Chelsea is kept in the lifestyle to which it is accustomed due to Abramovich’s huge Russian oil wealth. The economics of sports clubs are a murky affair at the best of times. So my message to Southampton fans is that it is better for a hard-nosed private investor to sort out the club than a bunch of politicians. If Southampton really is a bargain, why are public funds needed – surely a canny entrepreneur will spot the opportunity? I hope someone does.
I sometimes wonder why as, a football fan, I put myself through all this heartache. My wife shakes her head in wonderment.
|
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.
|
