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]
|
The beginning of the end? Brian Micklethwait once engaged me with an interesting, pet theory of his. It goes something like this: you can always tell when an organisation or institution is about to die because, just before they expire, they spend gargantuan sums of money on a big, swanky, impressive, dedicated headquarters.
Brian has a bagful of interesting theories which may or may not hold water but it is the one above which flagged up for me when I read this:
“On September 30, the U.N. unveiled plans for a billion-dollar, top-to-bottom renovation of its New York headquarters. The plan also includes the construction of a new 30-story office tower, which will displace a public playground next door.
Brian, you’d better be 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.
|
This theory is not original to you. It is part of “Parkinsons Law”, C. Northcote Parkinson. This book is a must read for all libertarians.
If the US removed its funding, the UN might relocate to a more sympathetic clime like Brussels.
It would be a fitting move!
David
You are quite right about the Parkinson provenance of this theory. That’s who I got it from, and I hope I have never claimed otherwise, even in conversation. It’s just that when telling someone about something you believe to be true, you can’t always be telling them also who else has said it first. Besides, David doesn’t care for footnotes.
My favorite example of the phenomenon, supplied by Parkinson, is that the decline of the British Empire dates from the moment when its headquarters moved out of a hired room in a hotel to a big new building in Whitehall.
Did Enron build itself a big new headquarters, at some point not long before its implosion? Worldcom? Arthur Anderson? Here in London it is often said Lloyds has yet to recover from the period during which it was (a) building its swanky new building and (b) taking its eye off the ball.
But, I wonder how the Pentagon fits in with this?
The Pentagon, internally, is (somewhat) functional and ugly, not impressive or swanky. The interior very much looks like what it is — a building thrown up in sixteen months as a fast-but-comprehensive solution for a lack of office and records space while expanding the Army to fight WWII.
It is being renovated, but that’s because it’s in violation of building codes, fire codes, workplace saftey regs, and has sixty-year-old deteriorated electrical, plumbing , heating, and ventialtion systems that have regular failures.
Though, admittedly, the limestone-and-concrete simplified classical facade looks nice.
I might also point out the Democratic Party has just finished building new, expensive, swanky headquarters…
Hmm. Interesting theory. I know that right before the tech stock bubble burst all the usual suspects (Yahoo, etc.) were building insanely elaborate corporate HQs. Should have stuck to garages and dorm rooms I guess.