I would like to think that the cozy post war socialist consensus is coming to a long overdue end. We defeated the divine right of kings, now we have to do the same to the divine right of bureaucrats.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the day – the ‘consensus’ must be overturnedJanuary 17th, 2024 |
 24 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – the ‘consensus’ must be overturnedLeave a Reply |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
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. |
|||||
We also need to defeat the divine right of elected representatives.
Judging by events in Parliament yesterday the rule of officials is stronger than ever.
The British people want mass immigration ended (and NO what is happening now has got nothing to do with 19th century style “free migration” – the mass immigration now is into a Welfare State which did not exist in the 19th century).
But only about 50 Members of the House of Commons voted to even try and deliver what the people want – the rest (including the Prime Minister) just went along with what the officials (who serve the “International Community” – and regard the British people as “gammons” to be despised).
The next Labour government will be even worse – even more a servant of the accursed International Community.
The Collectivist consensus is stronger than ever – there is going to be no reform, the last serious effort at reform was under Margaret Thatcher and ended with the coup of 1990.
“But the alternative to reform, to rolling back the state, is decay and eventual collapse”.
I know that – I have known that for many years now.
You could argue that the cozy post war socialist consensus ‘worked’, at least well enough, for some time. But I have argued elsewhere that any long lived organisation will have its original purpose perverted and corrupted by the careerists who rise to the top and run the organisation in their own interests. Usually they are supported by second rate bureaucrats who fawn on them, mostly for the patronage that the top bosses dispense. This all takes around 70 years.
At one time people were aware of this, at least unconsciously, and used democracy to strip out the self interested careerists on a regular basis – but this only works if there is a viable alternative. Arguably the rise in ‘populism’ is partly due to the realisation that the cozy post war socialist consensus has a strangle hold on political life and alternatives *must* be found.
‘Original’ socialism and ‘original’ conservatism seem like a dream to me now. But perhaps not forever.
Stuart Noyes – the power of elected people has been in decline since the late 19th century.
So you are calling out “fire” in the middle of a massive flood.
Senator Roscoe Conkling was correct – even if the structure of officials was originally made up of people who wished to serve the elected government, over time (the long term) such a structure would eventually take power.
As for Britain – just about the only matter I agree with Disraeli on is his opposition to creating a class of officials not hired-or-fired by elected people. Over time (whatever the intentions of the first few generations of officials) such a structure must subvert elected government.
If we mean the United Kingdom – it was vastly less “socialist” 60 years ago than it is now, the same is true for the United States.
So the term “post war socialist consensus” makes no sense – especially not in the United States where the late 1940s were a lot less “socialist” than the late 1930s.
The growth of government in the United Kingdom, as a proportion of society and in terms of regulations, started in the 1870s (national taxation reached its low point in 1874 – and regulations started to expand, dramatically, in 1875) – statism in Britain actually declined in the 1950s and very early 1960s, and it declined in the 1980s. These were brief reversals of the historic trend.
Statism has been on the advance again in the United Kingdom since 1990 (the coup against Margaret Thatcher), Prime Minister Liz Truss tried to reverse it – but was removed before the lady could really do anything.
The next Labour government will complete the process of undermining society. The left, since the 1960s, understanding that if they undermine society the “capitalist” economy falls with it.
I confess I read “cozy post war socialist consensus” somewhere and hung onto it. I’ve no recollection of the originator. As DiscoveredJoys says it did work for a while, but eventually anyone in a government position of power will eventually exercise that power to their own advantage and then it stops working.
The “divine right of bureaucrats” to destroy lives and livelihoods for modest gain and at no cost to themselves is, I believe, my own coinage.
Pournelles Iron Law of Bureaucracy applies here.
I know someone who is a bit of a lefty and something has occurred to me while talking to this person. Her worldview is dependent upon pretending that everything in the world is something other than what it actually is. EG:
Illegal immigrants = Refugees.
Poverty = Poorer than average.
Capitalism = Failed economic system.
Socialism = successful economic system.
Anything I disagree with = Far Right.
It seems to be a full time job not acknowledging reality.
Paul Marks – I appreciate the civil service pushes back but I don’t understand how you believe it is in power rather than the government?
The civil service may draft law but on instructions from the government. The civil service doesn’t vote in parliament.
I’d say lobbying groups and business has more power over MPs etc. That’s what’s driving mass legal immigration and net zero.
Treaty obligations and international peer pressure stops our government from binning the ECHR and UN treaties on refugees. Not forgetting the vocal progressive minority.
Leaving the EU was off the table because of business lobbies and politica.
A USA-centric response (but I think the principle applies over there also):
Legislators can’t do everything. They can say “make food safe”, but you cannot expect legislators to understand all about bacteria counts and pasteurization requirements and the like.
So, in the US, legislators have set up agencies – like the FDA, the DOJ, the EPA, etc. – and empowered them to make the thousands of rules and regulations that are needed to (for example) “make food safe”.
So, how far can those agencies go in making those rules and regs? Used to be, they would need some specific direction from Congress and the Prez. Then, in one big case (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)), the US Supreme Court essentially told the agencies to go wild, do what they thought best, and really only consider themselves constrained when a legislature specifically said “don’t do that.”
It’s called “Chevron deference” – the legislatures now give deference to the rules and regs promulgated by the agencies – and the agencies ARE the deep state we so often read about.
And so the EPA and the FDA and DHS could do all sorts of things that the prez (and even Congress) didn’t enjoy. The agencies really now rule the field.
There’s a new case going up to the USSC soon (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) that might end up changing that deference requirement. It would mean that the agencies could only do what has been explicitly called for by legislation. We’ll see.
But that’s how bureaucrats can come to run the world.
I believe a lot of standards come from global institutions such as Codex Alimentarius. Automotive standards and many others from other such institutions. Yet immigration whether legal or illegal isn’t standards.
As previously stated, NGOs and other lobbying groups, businesses, international political peer pressure from eg the US over the Good Friday Agreement or the rest of the world over UN treaties has far more power over our elected representatives than our civil service IMHO. To the best of my knowledge our TCA with the eu also has requirements to stay in the ECHR? The coffin lid.
“You could argue that the cozy post war socialist consensus ‘worked’, at least well enough, for some time.”
It worked because of the time it existed in. From 1945 to 1990 a huge proportion of the world’s population was forcibly excluded from involvement in the world economy. China, India and the USSR to name but three were largely closed economies. Continental Europe and Japan were ravaged. Any production system can be made to look good when there is a shortage of everything, as there was in the post war period, the world having spent 6 years destroying capital left right and centre. The UK economy could afford to be unproductive, because there was no competition. As soon as there was (the rise of the cheap Japanese motor bike and car for example) the UK’s real performance was exposed. The ‘success’ of the post war socialist consensus can be judged by the fact that German GDP per capita exceeded the UK’s by the early 70s, a mere 25 years after its economy consisted of a pile of rubble.
It is meaningless to debate whether external groups or bureaucrats exert the most pressure on politicians as both groups have the same objectives.
I would also like to point out that bureaucrats do get a vote, the same as everyone else. They elect representatives in Congresses and Parliaments and Diets and Dumas in the US and UK and everywhere else. Every time some candidate says “I’m going to get rid of red tape and cut bureaucracies back” those people get to vote for the other guy. After all, who is going to vote their own job away? And on the rare occasion a government agency does manage to solve a problem, the agency either needs a new mission or they risk being eliminated so they do get to give testimony at hearings and call in favors and all of that to ensure the mission creep and budgets continue.
Actually, that’s backwards. The problem in the US is, can politicians even expect to have any influence on bureaucrats anymore?
The ‘crats have Civil Service protection. To craft a legislative order that tells the ‘crats that they must do (or not do) something requires a House and Senate and president all in accord, so that they may pass actual legislation directing agency philosophy.
In this age of legislative deadlock (which I normally like), agencies can operate with impunity, because they know that Congress isn’t able to pass legislation that corrects them.
If Chevron deference falls, the agencies are going to have to point to specific enabling legislation that directs them to, say, tighten vehicle emission standards to the point where no ICE vehicle can meet them. Currently, all they need do is point out the lack of legislation that prohibits them from doing so.
They’re running the country, while the politicians watch and wish they had the authority instead.
@bobby b
There’s a new case going up to the USSC soon (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) that might end up changing that deference requirement. It would mean that the agencies could only do what has been explicitly called for by legislation. We’ll see.
Or perhaps more accurately, the agencies can do what they want but you can now sue them, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and have some hope the courts will say they went too far.
However, it would be a step forward. Perhaps we can call it the “freedom deference”.
If anyone wanted to hear some well-spoken arguments in the Chevron deference case (that was argued today), here‘s a place to do it. (You can also get the .pdf transcript.)
(Yeah, it’s kind of geeky, but worth the time if you’re into the legalities. Clement is worth listening to no matter what case he’s arguing.)
ETA: This is kind of fun too – https://loperbrightcase.com/ )
Could it be that, Like Japan too, Germany being a pile of rubble eventually worked to their advantage? When John Bloor bought the Triumph Meriden site in, I think, the early 1990s, machinery from the inter war era was still in use. Yes the BSA-Triumph group management can be blamed for the chronic lack of investment but Germany and Japan didn’t really have any choice but to build from scratch.
Really? Things may be bad now but not this bad…
Airline industry: nationalised 1939
Steel industry: nationalised in 1949
Automotive: mostly nationalised 1975
Travel agents: mostly nationalised between 1948 & 1971
bobby b,
The aim in the anglosphere is to transfer all power to the bureaucracy and reduce the politicians to ceremonial/PR roles, rather as we Brits did with the monarchy. This is also the intention of the EU. Naturally different political systems will achieve this differently. It’s about half way through by my estimation, still a few loose ends to take care of, Trump, Farage etc. but nothing short of a military coup will stop them now, certainly not voting. The democracy experiment is pretty much over.
It is meaningless to argue who has control. The simple answer is not us.
The people of the UK have virtually no power. One act during one day every fives years is all that qualifies us as a democracy.
I agree with the conclusions of those who firmed the Harrogate Agenda. Direct democracy.
I would like to think that the cozy post war socialist consensus is coming to a long overdue end. We defeated the divine right of kings, now we have to do the same to the divine right of bureaucrats.
I’d be fascinated to know how you propose doing doing this.
Democracy has given you the form of governance you have. You really expect democracy to remove it?
People vote for bureaucrats
1) They wish to do what they want to, whilst wanting other people prevented from doing what they don’t approve of. (And they’re quite willing to accept restriction in the first to further the second.) Requires bureaucrats to administer
2) They wish the benefits of production to be taken from those who produce more to be given to those who produce less.(The majority will always be in the latter) Requires bureaucrats to administer.
You really think the majority will vote against what the perceive as their own interests?
The only way you are going to get want you want is through fascism. I’m easy with that but I can’t see it going down well here.
LOL. Oh mate, we’ve already got fascism, just not the version you want. What do you think the technocratic public-private ‘partnership’ Net Zero Blairite bollocks pushed by both parties is? Imagine Oswald Mosley but mixed race & with an LGBTQXYZ armband.
So mass stupidity rather than elite stupidity. I am inclined to agree with Guy Herbert on that score: “democracy makes a fine brake but a terrible steering wheel”