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]
|
Paul Marks points out that it is the spending rather than the taxing which is the root of governments woe
People (not just us evil libertarians) often complain about taxation and there have been many attempts to reduce or at least limit it – these attempts have mostly been unsuccessful.
Few governments tax in order to create piles of money in their store houses – governments normally tax to spend. If we are to limit (let alone reduce) taxation it is government spending that we must fight. Limit one tax and the government will increase another – limit them all and government will borrow, ban borrowing and the fight come back to spending – i.e. (in the end) the fight is about government spending.
As far as I know there is only one State in the U.S. which shows (in its’ laws) a clear understanding of this and that State is Colorado. Colorado has many problems and I would not claim it is the most free market State (although it is one of the smaller government States), but I think that its spending based version of a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” has, over the few years of its’ history, proved to be useful thing.
In Colorado government spending can only be increased in line with an increase in population or an increase in prices (yes I know there are all sorts of problems with the idea of a price index – but I will not go into that here). This would seem to a be a very moderate limitation – but (as far as I know) there is not another State in the Union that has such a limitations. Over the last few years Colorado has reduced the burden of taxation (i.e total taxes as a percentage of income – not reduced one tax and increased another) and balanced the budget.
The key really is government spending. To convince people that if they want some special benefit from government another benefit will have to be abolished (not just the total spending of the government increased).
In the end the fight has to be about spending. Whatever waffle either side comes out with about the “institutions of a just society” what matters is where the money goes. If we allow people to convince others that government spending is a “good thing” then all the anti tax and anti borrowing campaigns in the world will not save us.
Paul Marks
Paul Marks reminds us that the motivation to do good does not ensure good is actually done
Today I read the obituary of John Rawls (who died on Sunday) in the Daily Telegraph. Dr Rawls was a brave soldier, a loving husband and a good father to four children – he was also kind and polite to all who encountered him.
However, Dr Rawls was also the author of “A Theory of Justice” (1971) the main modern justification for the ever increasing burden of the welfare state.
According to Dr Rawls no one had any right to increase their income or wealth unless they could prove that by so doing they improved the economic life of the “least favoured”. Just not harming the least favoured would not do – as inequality harmed the “self esteem” of the poor.
Interestingly I also read in today’s Daily Telegraph a little example of how Rawlsian type thinking works out in practice. In the Spanish region of Valencia the government is working in a public-private partnership to improve the lot of the least favoured. Private developers produce a plan for the creation of urban zones (flats, shops, places of business and so on) in sparsely populated coastal areas, the government judges the plan and then levies a tax on land owners in the area to provide such things as roads and drainage.
What a wonderful thing – from either a Rawlsian or a utilitarian point of view.
However, the plan means that retired people who have bought properties by the coast have to pay the government lots of money (or have their property taken away) for roads and drainage (and so on) that do not benefit them.
Why do I think that Rawls (kind and decent man that he was) would have been disgusted by this sort of thing?
before you say “but that is the corruption of the idea” – maybe so, but that is statism in practice.
Paul Marks
Matthew O’Keeffe warns libertarians to be mindful of the company they keep
Antoine Clarke wrote a piece last week called Against Paranoia which got me thinking. In it he lamented:
“the tendency among Libertarians to worry obsessively about every infringement by the state, to link up instances of state oppression, and to deduce from this either that there is a vast campaign to destroy freedom, or that we’re powerless to combat the tide of enslavement. This makes us seem obsessive, paranoid and miserable company, except to others of a similar emotional condition”.
I had similar misgivings about the attendance of a leading conspiracy theorist at the recent Libertarian Alliance conference. Why do we keep such company?
Consider some of the good things in life: the English language, the Common Law, money, the market economy, etc. As libertarians, we appreciate all too well that none of these things were invented by any one well-meaning academic, lawyer, banker or economist. On the contrary, all of these things have arisen by way of a spontaneous order.
Conversely, consider some of the bad things: poverty, for example. I believe that the welfare state manufactures poverty for a variety of reasons to do with incentives, moral hazard, taxation, misallocation of resources, the general inefficiency of the state machinery etc. etc.. What I do not believe is that there is a group of sinister statists somewhere conspiring on how best to impoverish our inner cities.
The point is that, as libertarians, we should appreciate the law of unintended consequences. Where our enemies see a world full of evil capitalists, Zionists, or whoever, we should have a view of the world which is more adult than is. And, because we appreciate unintended consequences, we should see a world full of irony – leaving us with a world view which is also humorous rather than sour. Let’s leave the paranoia and misery to the statists.
Matthew O’Keeffe
Paul Marks laments attitudes in Britain to anti-tax protests.
Those people who know me will know that I like family owned enterprises (more common in Germany than in Britain these days) and that I like the people who are at the top of manufacturing companies to be trained in such things as engineering rather than such things as law (I sometimes feel that many British managers think a “machine tool” is something to do with kinky sex). But, have no fear, I will say no more about my personal prejudices – and I fully accept that Germany has higher government spending and (in some ways) more government regulations than Britain.
However, something has caught my attention recently. In Germany a pop song denouncing the German government’s tax increases has reached the top of the charts.
In Britain taxes are increasing much faster than in Germany (government spending and regulations are increasing at a faster rate also) and, sure enough, a pop song has been written that attacks this increase in taxation – and the song was mentioned on B.B.C. Radio 4’s “Today Programme”.
But in Britain the anti tax protest song is not being treated seriously even, it appears, by the man who wrote it. Nobody expects this song to get to the top of anything – even though the British government have also told lies about tax and are increasing taxes more than the German government is.
Is the basic culture of Britain so collectivist that a protest against statism is automatically a joke?
Paul Marks
Jacob Resler wonders what would have happend to Britain in World War II if the United States had taken an ‘even handed’ approach between the UK and Nazi Germany.
The British Government has imposed a de facto embargo on the supply of defence related items to Israel. A spokesman of the Israeli Defence Ministry by the name of Mr. Kuti Mor confirmed this in an interview. There were 130 items that the Ministry of Defence whished to purchase from British suppliers, but an export permit has been denied by Britain. British officials said it was their policy not to send military supplies to zones of conflict though they never openly declared an embargo. Most of the items were spare parts, and two of them have been cited as examples: one is a pyrotechnic charge needed to eject the pilot from Phantom fighter planes in emergencies; the other is a small engine used in unmanned aircraft (drones).
It seems Britain’s government idea is that the best way to fight terrorism is to punish its victims. In this Britain fits very well in the EU, it behaves exactely like France, Belgium or Germany. (I could not think of a worse curse). Interesting what would have happened in both World Wars if the US had adopted a policy of not sending supplies to zones of conflict. I think this piece of idiocy needs to be more exposed to the public.
Jacob Resler
Patrick Crozier pins the blame for the strike firmly where it belongs
The firemen (don’t expect me to use the virtue fascist term “firefighters”) have kicked off an eight-day strike. The Evening Standard (and I am sure a whole host of other worthies) have chosen to single out the unions for blame.
Poppycock. It is the sole responsibility of the government to provide firefighting services as no alternatives now exist. If it fails to do so then it is it (the government) and no one else who is at fault. If they find that they can’t sack striking firemen then that is again their fault for either signing no-dismisal agreements or making such action illegal (I am not sure which, if any, applies in this case.)
I think (but I am damned if I can find the quote) Enoch Powell once described unions as “pure as the driven snow”. He was right.
In expectation of an obvious comment… Yes, I know ultimately it is our individual responsibility to provide ourselves with fire-fighting services. I do not know if it would be legal or not to do so but the fact that the state usually provides one and taxes us for the privilege tends to crowd out the alternative.
Patrick Crozier
Frank Sensenbrenner sees the triumph of subjectivism in the British legal system. The victim’s perception of the nature of a crime now replaces analysis of the objective facts.
It seems that in David Blunkett’s Britain, it has become a greater crime to offend the opinions of a select class than to infringe upon their rights. Natalie Solent recently reported on Robin Page’s arrest. Mr Page, a reporter for the Daily Telegraph, was arrested for inciting racial hatred after stating that rural individuals should have the same rights to legal protection for traditional events as other minorities, such as blacks, Muslims, and gays.
At the heart of the subject is the definition of inciting racial hatred. A libertarian perspective would conclude that inciting racial hatred would be advocacy for direct action to deny liberties and rights to a certain race or group, as opposed to merely voicing bigoted opinions. No matter how repellent one’s opinions are, if one is only disparaging certain groups, as opposed to suggesting criminal action against them, it is free speech. After all, no one is forcing anyone who might be offended by free speech to listen to it. Most of history’s famous human rights campaigners such as Martin Luther King, Steve Biko, and Mahatma Gandhi used the same construct as Mr Page. They did not advocate hostilities against their oppressors, but demanded equal rights. Today, suggesting similar ideas is racial hatred.
There is deep hypocrisy in the enforcement of the Public Order Act in this context. While Mr Page stewed in prison for advocating equality, Sheik Abu Hamza and his cohorts preach the slaughter of infidels on the streets of London and by main landmarks. Surely proposing murder is a greater crime than proposing equality? Just a look at Al Muhajiroun is bad enough. While Mr Omar Bakri Muhammad is certainly free to preach whatever he likes behind closed doors, to allow him to advocate crime in public is too far.
In addition, the Public Order Act may go too far. According to an official government website, racial hatred is defined as threatening, abusive, or merely insulting behaviour. Also, was looking at what laws enshrine hate crimes against gays, and it looks even worse in that respect. According to Rainbow Network the perception of anyone that a crime was a homophobic or racially motivated attack is enough for it to be deemed so.
Therefore, Samizdatistas de Havilland, Carr, Cronin, Micklethwait & Amon, I look forward to seeing you as a fellow defendant versus The Crown when they get around to prosecuting the Samizdata Team for hate speech, as I’m sure there’s some idiot in Islington who’d deem Samizdata ‘hate speech’.
Frank Sensenbrenner
Jack Bell makes a timeless point and leads many at Samizdata.net wonder if not just Iran but some Western societies are not well overdue for Jefferson’s prescription.
Reason has an editorial everyone should read. It discusses the story of Dr. Hashem Aghajari who is facing a death sentence in Iran because he called for secular and religious reform. He has turned down a negotiated appeal with the religious courts of Iran because, as Dr. Aghajari says
“… those who have issued this verdict have to implement it if they think it is right or else the Judiciary has to handle it.”
Basically he is willing to die to make his point.
In these days of jihad where our focus is on the religious fanatics and their facist fellow travellers, it is good for us to know that there are also those in the Middle East who share our belief in the rights and dignity of man and the liberty of the individual. In freedom from religous and secular tyranny. Share it strongly enough to pay the same ultimate price as was once paid here in America to secure those very rights for us.
I wonder how many of us will be standing up for the count in a decade or so if (when) the apparatus of protection we are so busy erecting is used for darker purposes? Personally I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:
“What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
Jack Bell
The police in Britain have been busy smashing down doors and dragging people from their beds.
Yesterday it was wicked people who were connected to child porn (at least the police said they all were – even though hundreds of people have been arrested over the last few days).
Today however it will be people guilty of ‘hate crimes’ – after all, posters on the London Underground warn that to ‘verbally abuse’ people on grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation�is a crime and will be punished.
So who will defend people who have said nasty things? After all they must all be guilty – otherwise the police would not have dragged them into the street (with the other people who live in the street looking down from their bedroom windows).
Yesterday the Prime Minister made a speech (after the Queen’s opening of Parliament). The Prime Minister explained to us that Britain is stuck in the past with a silly devotion to 19th century concepts of civil liberties – such things as trial by jury obstruct the modern state and must be further ‘limited’.
Kevin Connors thinks the Democratic Party is in even worse shape than many think
In his National Post article, Matt Welch has the audacity to assert that California Governor Gray Davis, perhaps the most loathsome major office holder in America today, is a front-runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2004. He has a snowball’s chance in hell, but the fact that an idea so preposterous would even have currency is telling of the sorry shape of the party.
At least a plurality of pundits agree that the nomination is Al Gore’s for the taking, if he wants it. because “that’s the way things are done.” But he’d have to totally reinvent himself to be more than a joke in the general election. The same can be said of Tom Daschle, Joe Biden and Dick Gephardt; they represent a Democratic party that the electorate has roundly rejected in this year’s election.
Of those currently in the spotlight, only John Kerry would seem to have the least chance in November of 2004. But, I believe, he still falls far short of the mark. Joe Leiberman, while he has looked good vis-a-vis the War on Terror, is still quite tainted from selling out his moderate principles to share the ticket with Gore in 2000. And, sadly, there’s always his religion to consider.
What the Democrats need at this point is a knight in shining armour. An otherwise unconsidered figure to come riding in out of the shadows and save the day. I assert that The man to fill the bill here is Sam Nunn. At 64 and retired from the Senate since 1996, the Georgia professor and attorney is still quite active in politics and business. His moderate credentials are solid, he is highly respected on matters of education, defense, and foreign relations and is very well liked both in and out of Washington (but apparently not North Korea). Sam Nunn is the last best hope for the Jackass Party.
Kevin Connors
Paul Marks puts on his kevlar battle-bowler and sticks his head above the ramparts to criticize the Libertarian Party for its role in… helping statism!  Now duck, Paul!
Both the proposition to legalise the growing of hemp (rather than importing hemp products from Canada) and the proposition to put ‘jury nullification’ (i.e. returning to the traditional practice of juries judging both fact and LAW) into the South Dakota Constitution have voted down.
One of the main reasons these propositions were voted down seems to be that they were associated with the Libertarian Party (which is seen, rightly or wrongly, to be a bunch of freaks).
The Republicans have failed to gain the South Dakota seat by 500 votes.
And the Libertarian Party (with its normal 1 percent or so of the vote) has cost the Republican party the Governorships of Alabama and Tennessee.
This will mean (for example) that Tennessee will now get a State Income Tax (the Republican was a very good man – utterly opposed to a State income tax).
True the L.P. failed to prevent the Republicans retaking the Senate (despite a very big effort to defeat a good man in New Hampshire – Sununu managed to beat the Democrats and their de facto allies the Libertarian Party).
However, this can go on. The Libertarian Party people must understand that their work simply helps expand government (see the Tennessee example above). If Libertarian Party people do not think that the Republican party is free market enough (and I agree with them that the Republican Party is not free market enough) then they should join the “Republican Liberty Caucus” and make the Republican party more free market. If the Republicans had backed the two pro-freedom propositions in South Dakota they might well have passed.
The energy of Libertarian Party activists is helping statism. The Libertarian Party takes just enough votes to cost the Republicans close elections and the statement “the Libertarian Party backs X proposition” is enough to defeat that proposition.
This is madness, please stop it.
Paul Marks
Alice Bachini observes that many want to penalize success. Nothing unusual there!
I don’t exactly know what the Centre For Analysis Of Social Exclusion is, but it doesn’t sound good to me. So its suggestion that our crumbling state-funded universities should be allowed to charge students top-up fees might seem at first very sensible and welcome.
However, what this frighteningly-named body actually wants is for state-educated pupils to be exempt from those fees. In other words, it wants people who fund not only their own children’s education but also those of other people’s children, through their taxes, to continue doing so at university level, only much much more heavily. To the tune of up to ten and a half thousand smackers a year, in fact. Because this is “fair”. Of course.
“Parents of students from independent schools have signalled their ability to pay for education and research shows that these students earn significantly more in the labour market,”Abigail McKnight, a research fellow at the Economic and Social Research Council’s centre, said at the weekend.
Quite so. Independent schools produce pupils better equipped to do well in life and earn more money. Success breeds success… and it seems that to many this is an outrage: how dare they! They must be made to pay!
So, the redistribution of wealth, in advance of the event of actually earning it, on the basis that one’s parent’s did so first; what do we call that idea, I wonder?
I doubt that these proposals will get through, but the fact that they can get taken even slightly seriously for a second demonstrates, in my view, both the latent socialism in New Labour institutions, and the acceptability of socialism in Education circles. Well, socialism isn’t going to help British universities one little bit. Until they get free from the state and allowed to charge money where they want, their towers will keep crumbling and they will continue to leak their best people across the Atlantic.
Oh bother, I should start saving up for those Harvard fees right now.
Alice Bachini
|
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.
|
