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]
|
I agree with Brian(!): what is the rest of the world like, the UK is the fourth ‘freest’ economy? I recently came across the claim that 10 per cent of the French population (a quarter of the work-force) has civil servant status. This figure includes employees of public sector companies like EDF-GDF (electricity and gas company, which owns private power companies in the UK).
The good news is that even a modest proposal such as ‘natural wastage’: not replacing some of the bureaucrats who retire (at 55), has profound effects. The same is true of public spending: with over 1,000 taxes collected in France, it isn’t hard to find cost savings, just scrapping the 500 most expensive to collect would be a significant shift.
There are two kinds of reformers in France at the moment: the libertarians who want to change the system from ‘dirigisme’ to capitalism, and the European fanatics who want the French state to cut spending in order to keep the Euro afloat.
The French Libertarian forums are already trashing the new government of Jean-Pierre Raffarin. “They’re only cutting income tax by five percent!” Scandalous. They haven’t announced the immediate abolition of the protected status of civil servants. Imagine! Michel de Poncins – a speaker at the Libertarian International meeting in Paris, April this year – sums up the mood writing in French that “Rien n’a changé, tout est pareil” (Nothing’s changed, everything is the same).
It all reminds me of the arrival of Mrs Thatcher in the UK in 1979. Not only was the basic rate of income tax only cut by 3 percent, but VAT (sales tax) went up by almost double to 15 percent. There was no privatisation for years. Trade union reforms took five years to introduce. There were corporatists in the Cabinet!
There are three possible explanations for the new government programme:
1) Raffarin has an agenda which is more tactically cunning than the last botched effort at reform (Alain Madelin announced pension and state employee pay reforms and was removed after a week of street demonstrations in 1995).
2) Raffarin is a willing or unwilling stooge for the old corporatist clique who will block any meaningful reform.
3) Both of the above.
The joke is that whatever the conspiracy, events have a habit of running out of hand. M de Poncins latest book is appropriately enough called “Thatcher à l’Elysée”.
Jean-Marc Messier, the chief executive of Vivendi Universal, is facing the chop after running up huge debts in his sewage to film studio empire.
He’s a product of the French administrative elite that slips from running Edouard Balladur’s political office (former prime minister), to running a public utility, that somehow winds up privately owned with him in charge. This is not a unique story.
What is different is that Compagnie Generale des Eaux (as it was called) is one of the pioneers of private contracting of waste services, and road sweeping in the UK (operating as Onyx). The company also owns Connex, a private train operator in southern England and Southern Water. The group was renamed Vivendi after buying Canal Plus, the main pay-TV cable company in France. So far, J2M (as he likes to be known) was performing as a French business tycoon: the darling of the conservatives and left alike for being a model for French competition with the world.
However, J2M had the temerity to buy Seagram (the Canadian group which owned Universal studios) in 1998. In response to raised eyebrows among the French intelligentsia about French cultural protectionism, J2M said that the French cultural exception is dead. Now he is assailed by both US players (for his financial affairs) and left to hang by his French associates (who regard him as an Anglo-Saxon traitor).
I’m torn between sympathy for a French pro-free-trade businessman (!) and glee at the likely collapse of a political entrepreneur.
I don’t know what Brian Micklethwait has been reading lately, but I looked up some Brian’s claims:
1) fixed-quantity of wealth merchant:
Rand explicitly points out that an entrepreneur creates value. See Francisco D’Anconia speech about the morality of making money, (published by Ayn Rand Foundation as a pamphlet), also in Atlas Shrugged pp 387-391 Signet paperback edition especially the passage:
“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money’. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favour. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.”
Brian declares “My problem is that I so utterly despise Randian philosophy that I cannot make myself take it seriously. I am also put off by the vicious religiosity of so many Randian responses to any criticisms of their sacred texts.”
I don’t think the Randian objection to Brian is his “criticism of their sacred texts”: he doesn’t quote any!
Perhaps their criticism is that Brian probably hasn’t read the “sacred texts” for some twenty years or so.
2) “Altruism”: Brian complains that Randians get all uppity when a libertarian claims to act altruistically. To the extent that this is true, he is right to object to objectively bad manners 
However, my recollection was that there was a distinction between Howard Roark (the take-it-or-leave-it architect in the Fountainhead) and Hank Rearden (the brilliant industrialist in Atlas Shrugged).
When D’Anconia questions Rearden about his motives for creating and putting Rearden Metal on the market see (pp 426-427). No one can read this passage and credibly conclude that Rand thinks entrepreneurs are wrong to think about the general benefit of their actions.
What Rand attacks as “altruism” is the ethical proposition that an action cannot be moral and self-serving at the same time. Rand claims that “altruism” was coined by Auguste Comte. This is confirmed by my French dictionary which also dates the word from 1830. In philosophy, “altruism is defined as the doctrine which considers the devotion to other people’s interests as the ideal rule of morality”. [My translation]
Note that “ideal” in philosophy is not the same as “utopian”: “precise” is a better approximation.
So Rand’s philosophical attack on “altruism” is based on the actual writngs of Auguste Comte, Immanuel Kant and others. (See “For the New Intellectual” p36 New American Library paperback ed.) She attacks among other applications of altruism, the claim that an action is moral if the intentions are good REGARDLESS of outcomes (Kant) [I cheated: I looked at C D Broad’s “Five types of Ethical Theory” p116-139 (ch. on Kant)].
The most delightful description of an altruist comes in the form of Eugene Lawson who at one point claims with pride:
“I can honestly say that I have never made a profit in my life!”
What Rand worshippers do is take the criticism of a system of thought which claims that only selfless actions can be moral, and apply it to every instance of individuals choosing to show compassion, or material generosity, for others.
However, Brian doesn’t frequent the sort of people who actually believe that because a company made a profit, its owners committed a crime against humanity. There is a type of socialist who wishes to replace the word “banker!” as an insult for another word which rhymes with it.
When Rand wrote, these views were more widely held than they are today. Many of those of us who campaigned against such evil nonsense gained the moral confidence to do so from Rand.
So there.
A person who derives quasi-sexual gratification from inflicting enormous pain upon helpless female victims has evil intentions, assuming we consider each human being to have certain natural rights. However, ‘natural rights’ are fiendishly difficult to derive from reason without swallowing unproven assumptions. John Locke had it simple: God made Adam, He gave Adam sovereignty over the world and all its contents. He said that Man shouldn’t kill another man. End of story. If He exists and if belief in His Judeo-Christian form were universal, we could literally announce that the sociopath pervert was evil because God said so. We could also say that property rights exist as a natural right because ‘Vox Dei’.
I regret that this sort of argument is not sustainable for all humans at this time. To announce that the depraved person is irrational, is both practically pointless (he wouldn’t care) and not based on reason at all. The only basis for condemning a criminal other than natural rights is utility – which is close to arguing for a ‘public good’. As I reject the notion of public goods, I can hardly claim that a public good justifies condemnation of someone’s gratification of their admittedly unpleasant (to me) hobby. After all if twelve monsters agree to inflict pain on one victim in secret (so the rest of the public is unaware of the act), it can’t be condemned by utilitarian principles: at some point the aggregate pleasure outweighs the aggregate pain.
It’s no good recoiling in horror at the activities of sadistic monsters (an emotional response), striking out at them, and then trying to justify the action by reason, when the rationale is unsubstantiated. I happen to think that Rand’s account of the identification of objective morality is as good as it gets from a libertarian natural rights point of view. N.B. Brian, who despises Randians, tries to derive morality from utilitarian principles. What he comes up with is decency, not rules for discovering ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Without a theory of natural rights I think libertarians are kidding themselves on the subject of ‘crime’, ‘deviancy’ and ‘justice’.
It’s official. According to an unnamed US government study (reported in the Daily Telegraph) the parts of the brain responsible for sensation in the mouth, lips and tongue are “most active” in obese people. Health fascists conclude that larger men (such as Perry and I) [Ed: speak for yourself!] “like the taste of food too much”, which coming from them is a compliment.
The obvious explanation is that we are in fact superb oral technicians. In less benighted cultures than welfare states young ladies know that larger men make better company. We cook better, have more appetite for life, aren’t obviously short of cash, and have sensitive mouths, lips and tongues. What more could a lady ask for?
It’s nice to know that governments spend money on this sort of research. I think I shall buy some more luxury foods and contribute sales taxes to the state.
I am reading about the late 19th century French anarchists, especially the bomb thrower Emile Henry. He would definitely have blown up his local McDonald’s. Since the Soviet Union was founded, the dominant leftist ideology has been Marxism-Leninism, with a theory of the state, foreign policy and a theory of tactical support for nationalist or radical movements around the world.
What we see today is the non-Marxist-Leninist left, the people who agree with the ‘anarcho-communist’ critique of the Soviet Union, but support a mixed bag of causes united only by a hatred of government-corporate business interests. The anti-globalisation campaigns of the 1890s resemble the current crop, except that they had more guts and were more likely to be literate. Other interest groups are attempting to cash in: the trade unions and public sector welfare interests. This gives an incoherent feel to the protests: e.g. simultaneously demanding an end to money and increases in the minimum wage.
The strategy for combating Marxism-Leninism isn’t necessarily the right one for opposing “non-Marxism-Leninism”. Cruise missile bases in South East England won’t help. Spook operations contracted out by a consortium of big business and security agencies to pro-capitalist radicals are probably worth reactivating 
Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph carries contradictory signals about the €uro. Ignoring an interview of Gerhard Schroeder the German Chancellor, I notice a report – tucked away in the Business section – that the €uro “Stability Pact” is on the verge of collapse as four of the 12 euro members break ranks to run up public sector deficits beyond the 2.5 per cent of GDP limit. France, Italy and Portugal look set to copy Germany in this trend. This is flatly contradicted by the exchange rate evidence: the euro has risen sharply since March against both the US dollar and the pound sterling.
On the one hand I tend to look at the exchange rate: if it rises above 1 US dollar then the Eurozone is probably doing something right (or the rest of the world is going to pot faster). On the other hand the reporting of the euro money supply is noteable by its absence. If the Stability Pact fails, the orthodox view is that the €uro will break up.
Yet the orthodox view of the pound when it broke out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in September 1992 was exactly the same as the orthodoxy on the €uro. The currency would dive, inflation would take off etc.
The World Cup is a positive image of globalisation: it isn’t a government project, it’s racism free, it’s about as capitalist as it gets and celebrates individual and team efforts. It also allows national hatreds to be acted out without anyone getting killed. Even the refereeing is generally better than some previous shockers.
Especially wonderful has been the willingness of Japanese spectators to ‘adopt’ teams and players regardless of national origin. The sight of Japanese supporters of Belgium against Brazil was surreal.
I’ve looked up the biographical details of the French cabinet and discovered that three of them are members of Alain Madelin’s Democratie Liberale party. I’m making enquiries as to whether they’re from the libertarian faction or the soggier ‘liberal democrat’ wing (I think I’ve met one of them).
The fact that the prime minister and the health minister would both have been pushed by Madelin could be exciting. It’s the first piece of evidence I have that the new government just might be serious about tax cuts, welfare reform, reducing the number of public sector officials and cutting regulations such as the ludicrous 35 hour week. I’ll keep you posted…
Walking down Kilburn High Road (a heavily Irish area of London) shortly after the Irish defeat to Spain in the World Cup was a surreal experience on Sunday. What made it even more bizarre was to find a boarded up shop window which carried a few bill posters. Among the promotions of garage music and pop magazines was a fly-poster showing an IRA sniper with the caption “Freed!”. Underneath was a huntsman holding a foxhound and the caption “Jailed?” The stencil-like signature “Real C.A.” [Real Countryside Alliance] explained the poster’s origin.
Of all the places in the United Kingdom for such a poster to appear, the Kilburn end of Belsize Road is about as unlikely as they come. That the poster wasn’t defaced in any way suggested it had only just been placed. English toffs chasing foxes are hardly perceived as ‘brothers in the struggle’.
It did occur to me that the Countryside Alliance was created as a ‘Real Conservative Party’ in 1998, following the moral and practical collapse of the Conservatives under John Major and William Hague.
Now the Countryside Alliance has turned ‘New Labour appeaser’ and is being challenged by a provisional wing.
Can anyone tell me how I get a copy of the poster? I would like one for myself and a couple of spares for forthcoming birthday presents!
I would like to qualify Natalie Solent’s agreement with Brendan O’Neill that right-wing is “out of the mainstream”.
In 1992 the British left was utterly convinced that Labour would win the election. I know this because I spoke to activists from the Communist fringe to the social-democrat Labour ‘wets’ who want deals with the Liberal Democrats. All were convinced at 10pm on election night that Neil Kinnock was the new prime minister. On 1st May 1997 the same people were convinced that “something will go wrong”, “somehow the Tories would narrow the gap”. On both occasions, most Conservatives agreed. I made over a hundred pounds (a fortune for me) in bets with these people about the outcomes of these elections.
My trick is extremely simple. I have noticed that the last people to understand what’s going on are the inner cabinet. In concentric circles around the elite are rings of isolation from the truth. The people who know most are those who spend the least time watching TV political programmes, never listen to the Today programme and don’t rely on reading press clippings for their news gathering. Never speaking to a national politician or spin doctor is a definite advantage. I try to make a point of listening to as little as possible of what politicians are talking about. I also find that it keeps me relatively sane and in good humour.
Instead of asking Alistair Campbell or his Tory equivalent who’s going to win the next election (which is literally how most of the media decide, especially foreign correspondents), I talk to people about the World Cup, house prices and the pleasures of “cheating” the Chancellor out of cigarette and alcohol taxes. Asking about family discloses the local horrors of crime and the national health service.
My conclusions on the National Health Service are that the system is expected to collapse soon, that if this can be avoided by massive tax rises that’s fine, but there is a deep worry about what the future may hold. The public private partnerships are seen as publicity stunts or dodgy deals to enrich politically connected businessmen. At best it is considered a stop-gap solution. The problem that is not being addressed but which is on the minds of many people is “How the hell am I going to afford health care for myself and my family when the NHS collapses?”
On education, as Brian has reported elsewhere, there is a growing underground of teaching going on, not just home education but extra tuition for children. This is primarily a growth industry in the poorest sections of British society and is almost completely unknown to politicians.
On the third world the idea that British experts can or should do anything is a minority view.
The idea that the Common Agricultural Policy is bankrupt morally, financially and practically is almost universal. There is no debate necessary on these issues, what is lacking is the product, the advert for a business that offers a solution rather like the solution to traffic jams mentioned below by Tom Burroughes.
In this respect there is little to be gained from telling international aid obsessives that they’re wasting our money and their time. Everyone else knows. If I were on a TV programme talking about Third World poverty I would make two points: 1) that there is nothing outsiders can do if the locals don’t understand the value of trade and the rule of law, 2) that viewers who care should write to MPs, newspapers a short letter or email saying that the CAP is a disgrace and must be scrapped at once.
If proof that the public debate is way ahead of what the ruling class calls ‘political reality’ is needed, a look at the political demise of all the Clinton/Blair clones around Europe and the USA should be instructive.
The shattering defeat of the British Conservatives in 1997 has been matched by the left in France, Spain, Italy and is likely to be followed in Germany. Gerhard Schroder’s main selling point used to be that he was “Germany’s Tony Blair”. Today his best hope of avoiding oblivion would be a German victory in the World Cup. Defeat to England would be catastrophic (i.e good). Democrats in the USA are reduced to sending out pictures of themselves standing next to president Bush to try to hold onto their fiefdoms. Will anyone remember what these guys were saying about Mr Bush less than two years ago in connection with Florida?
In Britain the Conservative Party is outside the mainstream, almost everywhere else the ideas of free markets and opposition to total welfare statism look to be if not dominant, at least competitive.
The €uro is quietly picking up in the foreign exchanges as the balance tips towards welfare reform. I reckon we will either see remarkably swift demolition of state welfare programmes in Europe, or the €uro is going to lose some of its members. The Euro-socialists are desperate for Blair to take Britain into the €uro soon. British socialists are beginning to wonder if staying out might not be the best way to keep the socialist welfare system going a bit longer. Labour euro-sceptics don’t want to protect the monarchy from Corpus Juris or prevent a European with-holding tax. They see the euro as an expensive policy which will lead to international currency traders deciding what the government is allowed to spend on the NHS. They suspect that Socialist parties will either be socialist and be over-ruled by the bankers, or ditch socialism and be ditched by irate public sector workers. If the recent French experience of the Socialist Party is anything to go by the Labour socialists have a point.
It can’t be a coincidence that the issue that has most agitated Libertarian Samizdata lately: the RIPA, has seen a government back-down (at least for a while) which was prompted by amateurs taking on the government and the Tories playing catch-up. The ‘Grauniad’ (Guardian) readers may shout to each other how important they are, but hardly anyone else is listening.
|
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.
|
