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]
|
Presented without comment An article in the Telegraph by Colin Hines: Seeing off the extreme Right with progressive protectionism
It begins,
Tim Worstall’s piece accusing Compass and me of promoting “fascist economic policy” is a libellous smokescreen, hiding the fact that it is the very free market economic policies that he promotes that are bringing about the economic stresses and rising insecurity that allow and will continue to encourage the rise of the extreme Right.
|
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.
|
Why is that these Neo Mercantilists can’t grasp that the “protectionism” they advocate requires enforcement?
Enforcement requires authority. Authority to enforce becomes authority to control.
Mercantilism inevitably protects vested interests; stifles or exiles innovation.
As for the French choices, read the history of the “Calico Prints.”
The market systems that have evolved in tandem with mechanized production, leveraged by non-human, non-animal, widely available and transferable energy; systems that have never been totally “free” from social and political constraints in their patterns of self-regulation, baffle these “progressives” and so they turn to control of production, through attempts to control its objects, principally by political means – and politics today is the representation and advancement of interests.
Scooped you on this one(Link) yesterday Natalie 😉
Upon reading the terms “environmental activist” and “progressive protectionism” in the same sentence I instinctively want to reach for a gun. Happily, since leaving England, there’s a 9mm to hand right to hand, holstered on my hip.
The rest of Hines’ piece comes off as rather stilted and clumsy, liberally salted with the “big words” that those of limited intellect use indiscriminately in an attempt to borrow gravitas.
I know nothing of Mr Hines, save for this article. He may be a very clever man, for all I know, but this piece portrays him as the type of idiot that one often meets in a pub, drunk and overreaching.
Re: The above. Please excuse my own clumsiness, repetition and the missing comma in my first sentence. In my defence I plead that more than one cat required some fuss while I was typing.
So, a fascist objects to being called out as a fascist.
Cry me a river.
RRS:
because to them these things are a feature, not a bug.
Isn’t the point that Hines is blaming Worstall for his, Hines’, opinions? Or am I missing something?
Sure, Rob, blame the cats. 🙂
The problem with the selling of government favors is that government has those favors to sell in the first place.
Indeed.
If a company seeks to maximise profits by currying government favour, it’s actually doing The Right Thing, at least w.r.t. it’s obligation to its shareholders. It’s the government that is, as ever, the problem.
If it truly is libellous, sue. I suspect, however, that Tim could very, very easily prove it to be a fascistic policy, certainly one persued by fascists throughout history.
This might prove a bit embarassing for Mr Hines.
So according to Hines, open markets and international competitiveness “invariably results in politicians being forced to drive down tax rates, constrain social and environmental improvements and preside over the eradication of countless local jobs and small business opportunities.” The first two are features, not bugs, and the last one is simply false.
Hines wants the government to control everything, even if it doesn’t actually (de jure) own the means of production. That’s a textbook definition of fascism.
Recommend: QOD
Hey mebbe I should use my last name??
I don’t deserve Quote of the Day credit for that, RRS. It’s not at all original to me.
I don’t think a statement can be both a smokescreen and libelous.
Tim Worstall is feckin awesome
I like the way Hines is having his ass handed to him by his commenters.
And as always, Tim has the truth of it. Anytime trade is controlled by government for the betterment of “the citizens” / “the people” / “the state”, it’s authoritarian and likewise fascist.
Communism wants to own, the means of production; fascism simply seeks to control it. Both are repugnant, and both contain the seeds of their own downfall.
It is astonishing that anyone could think that “free market policies” have been followed in recent years.