|
|||||
|
Dave Cameron “promises to tear down big government“, presumably by increasing the size of government. I have one question for you, Dave… were you lying in January when you promised to increase government spending from £620bn this year to £645bn next year – rather than the £650bn proposed by Labour… or are you lying now in October when you say you will tear down big government? October 9th, 2009 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Here is a good-looking study of India, a country that, as we occasionally point out, has been and is playing a much bigger role as an economic power. I am pretty upbeat about India’s prospects. By the way, the review of the book (H/T, Stephen Hicks), makes a passing swipe at the Economist magazine that will gladden the heart of that publication’s tormentor, our own Paul Marks. October 9th, 2009 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
The notion that the US blogosphere is going to allow the US state to require it to register certain content is something that has me wondering if some cunning conspiracy was not at work by a shadowy cabal of Good Guys (who inexplicably did not let me in on the plan) luring the enemy into a sort of virtual Teutoburger Wald by playing to hubris and Imperial overreach. These people do not really even understand what the internet is I suspect. I can not tell you how delighted I am. When a body like the Federal Trade Commission commits itself to an unwinnable fight against an almost literally endless enemy with the ability to vanish and reappear at will, it is a clear sign that terminal stupidity has set in, which is really rather good news. Oh and by the way, all you US based corporate drones looking for a few blog harlots to review your magic widgets in return for some free samples, there are large numbers of blogs based outside the USA with extensive US readerships who will be happy to openly invite the FTC to stick their regulations up their collectives arses… that said, US blogs who like to review products are almost certain to completely ignore the FTC, with the more nervous ones just reorganising how they do things (trivially easy: change names/host overseas) to make these absurd regulations worthless. October 8th, 2009 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
This might be the start of the end for Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, who in many ways has the honesty that many of our NuLabour pols do not, to express his sheer brazen enjoyment at the benefits of being in office. But he is a terrible man in many ways – it is not as if he has rolled back the parasitic Italian state, for example. The trouble is, whoever replaces this character will be just as bad. Maybe not as venal, but just as unlikely to shrink the state. October 7th, 2009 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
Sir Christopher Bland (somewhat unfortunate surname, Ed) has a debate in the latest edition of the UK magazine, Standpoint, with Charles Moore, former Daily Telegraph and Spectator editor, as his opponent. Moore – who has vowed not to pay the BBC licence fee tax until Jonathan Ross – a boorish chatshow host and radio DJ – is sacked for a certain incident, challenges the whole idea of tax-financed broadcasting. His arguments are forceful, not least the point that the BBC, as a privileged recipient of funds raised on pain of imprisonment, can and does undermine would-be commercial competitors, therby stifling potential new ideas and models of broadcasting. He points out that while the BBC claims to not be biased, it is in fact biased, and it would be better for such biases to be upfront rather than concealed. I am sure that Samizdata readers are mostly familiar with the standard liberal critique of the BBC’s very existence, so I will not rehearse the argument here again. What struck me, however, is how lame Sir Christopher’s debating points are. Check them out for yourself, gentle reader. Pretty much most of his comments fall into the “only a fool could deny how wonderful the BBC is” and gives variations on how the sky will fall in on the quality of UK television if the licence fee system is scrapped. We get the now-standard sneer about American and foreign TV. Zzzzz. In fact, he rarely engages very energetically with Moore’s points; rather, he harrumphs that Moore is some sort of free marketeer zealot, and of course, brings out the standard BS line that anyone who disagrees with tax-financed broadcasting is a “philistine”. The lameness, the refusal to think in principles of any coherent kind, is really quite striking. It is hard not to smell a certain whiff of defeat. The attitudes of Sir Christopher – no doubt a most civilised and agreeable member of what might pass for the “establishment” in this country – are pretty widely shared across much of the population. His worldview, his inability to understand a world in which the state did not grab such a huge share of our lives and attempt to manage it, is shared, for example, by all those who cannot consider how healthcare will be delivered without a Soviet-model system such as the NHS. Moore makes this point; he even points to the parallel between the old Church of England, and its now-abolished tithe on parishioners, be they Anglicans or not, and the licence fee, which is paid by those who either watch the BBC, or who do not. Bland, of course, just brushes it aside. One suspects that much of his worldview is shared by the likes of David Cameron. Incidentally, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Standpoint. It is a definite plus in the UK magazine scene. October 6th, 2009 | 31 comments - (Comments are closed)
“The fact that there is some populist anger in the country these days is not a shock. The surprising thing is that there is not a lot more of it.” October 6th, 2009 | 3 comments - (Comments are closed)
The Tory conference was designed to bring home to the public the notion of truth and responsibility. Some would say that the release of such headlines as raising the retirement age, freezing public sector pay and “telling it as it as” are a democratic version of spanking. The toffs transposing their public school predilections on the masses. Yet, the very basis of this approach is paternalist. The public must be schooled and directed towards the appropriate outcome. For the Tories, the outcome is fiscal sustainability, the only time that word appears truthfully in their canon. However, the majority in democracy have an incentive to socialise their irresponsibility, allying with government to inflate their debt away or maintain redistribution. Such a system is inherently unstable in the long term. After all, under Labour, welfarism has moved onto secondaries. An interesting experiment is under way. Do turkeys vote for Christmas? Short-term slaughter and, possibly, long-term satisfaction. October 6th, 2009 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
At the bottom of the interventionist argument there is always the idea that the government or the state is an entity outside and above the social process of production, that it owns something which is not derived from taxing its subjects, and that it can spend this mythical something for definite purposes. This is the Santa Claus fable raised by Lord Keynes to the dignity of an economic doctrine and enthusiastically endorsed by all those who expect personal advantage from government spending. As against these popular fallacies there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens’ spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity. – Ludwig Von Mises as quoted by Toby Baxendale October 5th, 2009 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
Tory politician and London Mayor Boris Johnson bets that Tony Blair will not get the post of European Union president, a role that will carry enhanced powers if or when the Lisbon Treaty (or Constitution) gets rammed through. He argues that countries such as France will not tolerate having this former big mate of George Boooosh take the role, representing not just France but 500 million souls across an entire continent. Boris has a point: Blair is still heartily detested in France for arguably the one act that makes me think quite well of Blair – his determination to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, even if one would choose different justifications from him in that course (an argument that continues to divide libertarians, by the way). Nevertheless, Boris’s underlying logic is strong: it is monstrous that a man who played a part in ensuring that Labour failed to honour its 2005 election manifesto pledge over a EU referendum on the EU constitution should be in the frame for the job that this Lisbon Treaty stitch-up has made possible. And as the Treaty is more or less the same as the Constitution, the position taken by Blair and by Gordon Brown represents their contempt for the democratic process. But remember, however much one might loathe Mr Blair and the transnational progressivist, corrupt politics that he represents, it is the very idea that the EU needs some grand president at all, not simply the personality of this rather creepy individual, that should be kept front and centre. Even if the holder of the office is some drone from central Europe given to vacuous pronouncements on “good governance” or whatever, no such post should exist. It is hard, I know, to play the ball and not the man. Of course, there is another theory: if Blair is elected to the job, his strutting, fake-charm might actually help discredit the idea of a EU presidency per se. Perhaps, though, that it is being too clever on my part. October 5th, 2009 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
Starbucks was bad enough but McDonald’s is worse – An anonymous art historian at the Louvre in Paris, reacting to the news that a McDonald’s will soon open at the famous museum. Come to think of it, when I visited the Louvre earlier this year, I discovered an exhibition devoted to “The Da Vinci Code”. Might I suggest that this is much, much worse. October 4th, 2009 | 30 comments - (Comments are closed)
It’s no secret. No secret at all. Every second or third blog I read has stuff about it. Film Director Roman Polanksi (Repulsion, The Pianist) did something bad of a rape-like nature to a teenage girl several decades ago, and lived in Europe from then on. But now they are going to extradite him or not as the case may be, from France or Switzerland (somewhere European), and big cheese lists of Hollywood big cheeses are saying he’s a great artist and therefore regular morals and laws and suchlike don’t apply to him, ease up, forget about it, freedom of artistic expression, it wasn’t really rape (“rape-rape” as Whoopi Goldberg (Ghost, Girl, Interrupted, Rat Race) has famously put it), it was her fault, it was her mother’s fault, it was the judge’s fault, blah blah, and the rest of us are saying: bullshit you evil bastards. If you care about the details you now know them. I care about the details, a bit, and I too am of the bullshit you evil bastards tendency. Not my point here. No, what interests me about this ruckus is how the internet has so completely changed the rules of such debates, and so completely wrong-footed the big cheese evil bastard team. → Continue reading: How the internet has put Roman Polanski and his idiot Hollywood defenders in the spotlight October 4th, 2009 | 63 comments - (Comments are closed)
I have not laughed so hard in weeks.
Thigh slappingly funny stuff! At least the Telegraph put “massive change” in quotation marks. Given that Dave has been bending over backwards for years now to make it clear he is the embodiment of ideological continuity and to promise nothing without wiggle room for backtracking later once he gets what he wants, the latest rebranding as daring radical saviour is truly our old chum “The Big Lie” in use once again. So lets fill in that “memory hole” that Dave knows all his previous statements have vanished down… The “massive changes” he plans are more Blair/Brown style regulation and political direction of the markets:
And this is the jackanapes whose “massive changes” involve promising to expand the bloated state, just a wee bit slower than Labour, and I quote from earlier this year:
So guys and gals, about that promise of “massive change”… Thank God we have those valiant seekers of truth in the media, so key to our sainted democracy, to challenge the utterances of politicians and confront them with their own contradictory remarks when they make them and… oh… hang on… October 4th, 2009 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||