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 essential problem of campaigning for the proliferation of handguns is the same as for proliferating nuclear weapons. The suspicion that the first million people who would choose to take advantage of the restoration of legal handgun ownership in the United Kingdom are precisely the million people least trustworthy with such weapons.
The assumption behind the global crusade to keep nukes in the hands of a global establishment is the same as that which would only allow state officials to carry guns.
Yet we have a case example of how nuclear proliferation need not make the world less safe: India and Pakistan. Both sides have governments that are itching for war: the Indian nationalist government believes it would win a conventional war and the Pakistani military regime stands to gain legitimacy from a show of force against India.
There is a balance of terror which ensures that neither side has opted for all-out war, as well as keeping neutral bystanders concerned enough to pressure both sides into staying within certain bounds.
Even deranged leaders seem to accept the balance of terror. One of the curious differences between the First and Second World Wars was the use of battlefield chemical weapons. Civilians in London and Paris carried gas masks during the early months of the second world war in the expectation of gas attacks by the German air force. No such attacks were made because Hitler believed that the British would retaliate (the British government planned to use anthrax bombs).
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Kurdish people living inside Iraq and against the Iranian foreces during the 1980s Gulf War. He did not however use them against Israel or the Gulf states, despite firing missiles at both during 1991.
As a libertarian internationalist, I have no problem with free countries liberating the unfree, by deposing tyrants. I support a global assault on leftist, fundamentalist, racial supremacist and eco-terrorists. However, I have misgivings about wars started to impose global gun control, especially as this is so selective: why no war to disarm North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan, or France? Would Australia be a target, or Brazil, Morocco, Turkey, Japan, Germany and Iran if they planned nuclear weapons programmes?
I have a theory that nuclear powers are simply not allowed to develop crack-pot governments: one way or another they are weeded out. If true one could say “A nuclear armed society is a VERY polite society.”
…or how to die in aeroplanes.
Brian fears that the bracing postion is no good in a plane crash. May I offer a few words of reassurance. This is how I see the pros and cons of passenger jets.
The most comfortable ride (i.e. the least stomach churning) is as close to the centre of gravity as possible, generally near or over the wings and away from the windows. But this is usually between the engines and fairly close to the main fuel tanks. Sometimes the wings snap off tearing this section of the fuselage to shreds.
On the other hand the noisiest and least pleasant ride is usually right at the back, it’s also near the wash rooms which means that the queue will be leaning on your seat. However, provided the tail section doesn’t snap off too high above the ground, this is where survivors seem most likely, especially if they unfasten their seat belts and are thrown clear of the blaze.
Closet smokers who put gum in the smoke detector whilst sitting on the loo having a puff always seem to survive (airlines don’t like to admit this). The forward section is where the best service and most legroom tends to be found, and it is easiest to tell if anything is going wrong (lots of shouting or drunken singing coming from the cockpit are a give-away).
Perhaps they should put laughing gas in the masks which drop automatically when there’s a sudden drop in cabin air pressure… 
It is always a pleasure to meet an American, Mr. Moulton, for I am one of those who believe that the folly of a monarch and the blundering of a minister in far-gone years will not prevent our children from being one day citizens of the same world-wide country under a flag which shall be the quartering of the Union Jack with the Stars and Stripes.
– Sherlock Holmes, as reported by Dr. Watson (from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Noble Bachelor)
Tonight I’m speaking at the Putney Debates in London on the topic September 11th 2001, one year on.
A few thoughts I shall be raising are:
1) The terrorists failed the Machiavelli test of initiating a surprise attack: either kill your enemy or win him over. Al-Qaeda, it can be safely assumed, failed badly with regards to the global capitalist system, and hasn’t won over anyone who didn’t support them or hate capitalism already.
2) The ‘war on terrorism’ fails the test on the same grounds: it frightens people who aren’t enemies, is likely to miss the most dangerous targets, and creates the vehicle for new resentments, desire for revenge etc.
3) I think Bush’s speech was terrible: it would make a great recruitment spiel for any anti-Western gang of killers. Was I the only person who spotted Condoleeza Rice grimacing at a couple of passages? As for UNESCO, the less said…
4) The ‘war on terrorism’ is basically a just cause. That is precisely why it is so dangerous. It contains in its name all the inanity of the ‘war on drugs’ or ‘war against poverty’. It is also perfect for exploitation by government. ‘Ingsoc’ could justify anything in Orwell’s 1984 under the banner ‘the war against terror’. Do we suddenly trust Mr Blair and the man who sprung steel tariffs on the world earlier this year? I notice that on “fairness” grounds we’re all being sized up for a national DNA database in the UK. (It’s unfair on criminals that they get fingerprinted and not the rest of us!!!)
5) President Bush has to leave office by 2008 at the latest. Imagine that Al Gore succeeds him and the ‘war on terrorism’ is still going strong: does the Vietnam war sound familiar?
6) I should make it clear that I would happily fire a missile at Saddam Hussein, regardless of his involvement in last year’s attack, or whether he is building weapons of mass destruction.
Seven years ago I left the Conservative Party and have opposed it’s claim to be a vehicle for libertarian reform. I have contested two local elections as an Independent Libertarian candidate, and would do so again.
Now it seems that “libertarian” Conservative candidates and members of parliament believe that they may have to leave and set up their own party. I agree.
If the libertarians in the Conservative Party really take inspiration from John Galt, they should look at the closing passage of my alternative budget, published in 1995:
“There are many who will hope that the day never comes when a Libertarian Party is founded, to compete in the present electoral system. Whether or not we descend into the pit of party politics, I can see no reason for refusing to challenge those libertarians who remain in the Conservative Party. They are despised and feared by their supposed allies, and only suffered for their money and election time support.
Those libertarians who campaign for the Conservatives, without believing half of the bland collectivist verbiage they are told to support should ask themselves how far they are prepared to go, in the words of Francisco d’Anconia in “Atlas Shrugged”:
“[…] if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world on his shoulders – what would you tell him to do?”
“I… don’t know. What… could he do? What would you tell him?”
“To shrug.”
A few weeks ago I emailed an American who contacted Samizdata, wanting to know about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the libertarian movement in the US and the UK.
I included in my response the sentence: “America is the worst country in the world to have a libertarian party”, without qualification (it would have taken too long to cover all the ground).
However this extract from an appeal email sent out from the US Libertarian Party gives a flavour of one of the problems:
“And, unless we can raise a lot more than $2,375 for ballot access right away, we aren’t going to be able to help other at-risk ballot drives and candidates around the country. We need:
· Up to $6,000 for filing fees and petitioning costs to qualify six U.S. House candidates in Kentucky. Deadline: August 13.
· Up to $4,200 in Louisiana to run a full slate of seven U.S. House candidates. Deadline: August 23.
· Up to $1,500 to qualify a full slate of five U.S. House candidates on the ballot in Iowa. Deadline: August 16.
· Up to $4,000 to petition the ballot in Washington, DC, which gives us a shot at major-party status in our nation’s capitol. Deadline: August 28.
· Up to $5,000 to put the Maryland ballot drive over the top. Deadline: August 5.
And, there may be other drives that will require last minute assistance to succeed.
For example, over the past month, we had to step in and provide $8,000 to Illinois and $5,000 to Pennsylvania to put those ballot drives over the top. Both drives would have probably failed without our last-minute assistance.”
Now compare this with the barriers to entry in the UK.
1) To register a political party costs £150 (about 220 US dollars) for mainland Britain and the same again for registering in Northern Ireland. To comply with this a party has to send in a list of national officers, audited accounts, and a copy of the party’s constitution. This allows the name to be registered and a logo to be displayed on ballot papers. The charge includes a web page for the party which lists public contacts, constitution etc.
2) Local council elections require no deposit and there is a spending limit for all candidates. Ten signatures of local registered voters (who don’t need to be supporters) and the candidate must live or work in the borough are the only requirements. A typical spending limit per candidate is about £400 (600 dollars US). This limit obviously favours poorer political parties.
3) Parliamentary elections (legislature) there is a deposit of £ 500 (about 750 US dollars). Ten signatures from local electorate must be found. The candidate doesn’t need to be local, there is a free postal delivery, and each candidate has a spending restriction. The spending limit is under £20,000 (30,000 US dollars). National campaigning which doesn’t promote individual candidates are currently exempt from spending limits.
4) European Parliament and regional elections are by party list and cost about £3,000 (4,500 US dollars). I forget how many signatures must be gathered but I’m sure it’s 100 or less. For these elections the parties have one page in a booklet sent to every registered voter. In Greater London this amounts to over five million copies.
N.B. All deposits are refundable to the candidate if he or she scores 5 per cent of the total polled. The two Independent Libertarian Party election campaigns to date have cost less than £100 between them.
The contrast with the US is astonishing: in one state, the LP has to gather 5 per cent of the entire electorate’s support to be allowed to put up a candidate for the presidency. Yet neither Republican nor Democrat party have to comply with this barrier to entry: they are simply excused. In the UK this would require over two million signatures, as opposed to the 6,570 needed to contest every Parliamentary seat.
Another significant problem for the LP is that it is illegal for the party to receive donations from non-US citizens, so I can’t give money to the LP. But I can send money to the US on behalf of the Costa Rica Movimiento Libertario and US citizens can send money to the UK for a British political party, provided donations don’t exceed £5,000 (7,500 US dollars).
I’m currently looking into registering for next year’s London elections.
I really must take issue with the vilification of Hollywood, and warn against assuming that Mr Blair is just a fool.
The last four films I’ve been to see in the cinema are:
1) Spiderman
2) Bad Company
3) Sur mes levres
4) Minority Report
The idea that any of these movies merely panders to minorities is rubbish.
We all know that Spiderman had to be re-shot because of 9-11 and to be frank, the final confrontation with the Green Goblin is a little weak. However, the storyline of the teenager growing up in an unexpected way was engaging and the effects of the New York streets was simply stunning.
The most philosophically impressive movie on this list was Minority Report (despite being directed by Stephen Spielberg). It would have been very easy to lower the depth of Minority Report: the Christian federal agent has two possible motives – is he sceptical of the Pre-Crime idea, or does he merely wish to rule it himself? The doubts he expresses about Pre-Crime are essentially conservative (in the sense of believing in the fallibility of human schemes). I don’t know what kind of movies Friedrich Hayek enjoyed, but I’m sure he would have nodded approval at the script of Minority Report.
Bad Company had a simple gag of having a black comedian playing two roles, one a suave, cultured, CIA agent using the cover of an antiques dealer, the other a street hustling ticket-tout who had to replace the CIA agent for a fortnight. It had the idea of Trading Places except that instead of impersonating a banker, the street kid had to impersonate James Bond. For those who say this is unoriginal, The Prince and the Pauper was probably the plagiarism of a oriental folk-tale.
Sur mes levres, which was made in France was good, but it was a cross between Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amelie Poulain, both films as exploitative in their own way as anything produced by a Tinseltown accountant.
I enjoyed all of these movies and found them a lot better than most of the television I’ve watched recently.
On the issue of commercialism: Ice Cold in Alex (British – 1958) was “probably the longest lager commercial in the world”. French movies of thirties always plugged Dubonnet or milk. On the other hand United Artists studio, founded by Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and others ensured that they would have editorial control and a greater share of their movies’ profits. No film maker I’ve ever heard of refused to collect…
As for Mr Blair. The recent splurge of public spending in the UK marks the end of New Labour’s attempts to portray itself as the human face of Thatcherism. The reason for this is that the political threat to the government doesn’t come from the Conservative Party (apparently some people think “Alan Duncan Smith” the Tory leader “came out” as gay last week). The pressure comes from the Left, which doesn’t believe the Tories can win the next election and therefore see no reason to restrain their lunacy.
This policy is wrong for two reasons: first we know that the extra money cannot produce effective returns without the dismantling of the state command structure, especially in the National Health Service. Second, the extra spending relies on what seem to be over-optimistic assessments of tax receipts for the next two years.
The policy is wrong for economic reasons, but the assumption by Mr Blair that he his greatest political threat comes from the Left is correct. It would not surprise me if the Conservatives failed to make any significant headway in the opinion polls, not because they are rigged, but because the Opposition parties might as well not exist.
There is method in what Blair does: until this year he was set on destroying the Tory party. Now he is set on winning the hearts of his party’s left wing.
The opposition to Blair now comes from us, the libertarians.
After the world cup, Wimbledon, the ‘presidential miscarriage‘ by Cherie Blair, the Prime Minister’s wife.
What is the protocol for such occasions I wonder? Street parties or condolence cards would probably seem vindictive or tacky. Perhaps we should ask if the ‘presidential’ family medical records can be accessed by the Westminster Council’s social services department under one of the pretexts offered under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act.
Then it would be fairly straightforward to ensure that we could be treated to photostats of ultra-sound scans and blood test results in foreign newspapers if not British ones.
As I’ve just eaten, I’d rather not pursue this line of thought any further.
[Editor: Given that some responses have rather missed the point Antoine was making, let me point out that Tony Blair wanted to give mere local authorities the power under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act the ability to access the private medical records of pretty much anyone. As a result, some lowly council functionary might have got hold of hapless Cherie Blair’s medical records involving her miscarriage and given how insecure local authorities are, they could have ended up in the press. Of course Tony Blair would not want that, but then why should anyone be subject to the state prying into such private matters? That is the point Antoine was making, not some vindictive jab at Cherie Blair]
To compare Chris Patten with Marshal Petain is a disgraceful slur.
In the first place there were German troops marching through the streets of Paris and 13 million French civilian refugees trying to escape a war zone when he agreed to the Armistice. What’s Patten’s excuse?
Second, I don’t know how Patten would have coped with defending Verdun in 1916, and glad I am too…
Third, Petain , and I only discovered this recently to my great surprise, wasn’t anti-American and pro-euro-union.
Fourth, Petain only shook hands with Hitler, he didn’t kiss his …
The decision by a British court to rule that HM Customs & Excise does not have the right to 1) reverse the burden of proof, 2) use intimidating tactics against cross-Channel shoppers, and 3) seize vehicles without evidence of smuggling, is a victory for free trade, but a victory for the European Union too.
The ruling was based on a claim that the actions of a British state agency violated rights enshrined in European legislation and that the British government had repeatedly exceeded its powers by ordering Customs’ officers to violate the freedom of movement and free trade. It is worth considering what the judges would have done if the UK had left the European Union, let us say on 1st January this year.
There would have been no basis for bringing the case to court: HM Customs & Excise have always had powers to seize ships carrying contraband and the redress against unfair decisions has generally been poor. The government regulation could never have been challenged (at least since the early part of the twentieth century). What the behaviour of Customs officers would be like: border guards in Nazi Germany perhaps.
As the Euro-sceptic camp never ceased to remind us, parliament was sovereign and could legislate to designate a man, as a woman. But I don’t think many people in the UK are going to cry over the lost powers of the British state. The EU is remote, but so is the British government. Black market alcohol and cigarettes will become cheaper as fewer shipments are seized. The EU will be seen as the defender of individual freedom in this case, making it appear a little less hostile. It also looks as if the UK has stumbled into having a written constitution.
A final thought. We now know that if the UK pulls out of the EU, alcohol, fuel and tobacco taxes would certainly rise.
Adriana and Perry have discussed Leah McLaren’s articles but the problem isn’t that English men are all closet poofs. The problem is that Ms McLaren’s sampling method was unscientific. “Old Etonian skinny boys make poor lovers” is hardly news. As I pointed out some weeks ago, she should have followed expert opinion: larger men have more sensitive mouths, lips and tongues. This makes us heartier eaters and no doubt better kissers. Typical of a North American health-freak snob to get it wrong.
EDF is the state monopoly electricity company in France. It owns numerous private power companies around the world, especially in the UK. President Chirac proposes to keep EDF as a nationalized company at least until 2004 and to refuse foreign competition in France (the Socialists agree).
However, an interesting dissident is Nicolas Sarkhozy (Minister of the Interior and successful Mayor of the Paris suburb of Neuilly). He is reported as saying privately:
“I’m for the privatisation of EDF, but it’s not possible right now because we don’t know what it’s worth.”
The report appeared in Le Canard Enchaine, so it probably wasn’t an intentional leak on the part of the Minister.
One of the failings of the French libertarian/classical liberal politicians is that they don’t have a model for change that includes tackling unions and re-assuring voters about crime (most French libertarians talk of cutting public spending on police forces). What the ASI and Tim Evans refer to as “Micropolitics” and creating incentives for the bureaucrats to go along with reform is alien to French libertarians: they’re divided between executing them or sacking them without a pay-off.
Nicolas Sarkhozy is a conservative in a more Thatcherite mould: horribly compromising with corporatism at least 60 per cent of the time, but who also knows that the left is the common enemy.
It will take some sort of coalition between people like Sarkhozy and the French liberals to get reforms moving in France. The more I look at the French scene the more I feel the lack of a French Freedom Association and a French Adam Smith Institute. Their students could use a Paul Staines too.
|
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.
|
