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 am sometimes told that I should not “bang on” about the Economist journal (much in the way that Mr. Cameron tells everyone that they should not “bang on” about the endless regulations that come from that absurd extra layer of government called the European Union), as it is just another leftist publication like the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times (the newspaper for corrupt, politically connected, “business people”) and so on.
However, people continue to defend the Economist so it is worth “banging on” about it.
The Economist stands, at least most of the time and in the case of most nations in the world, for more money for the various ‘pubic services’ and for more regulations (gun control, anti trust – competition policy and so on) as part of its Welfare State ideology and ‘perfect competition’ (i.e. neo-classical excuse for endless government intervention) conception of economics. So its defenders’ claim that it is ‘free market’ is very obviously false.
However, the defenders of the Economist make another claim – that the journal provides coverage of world news that an ordinary newspaper does not.
In a break in a series of Kettering council events I popped out to the town library and had a look at the Economist – I wanted to read its reports on the local elections in Spain and Italy.
There was one line “centre left governments do badly” – no reports on the elections, nothing on what cities and regions were won by who. Even concerning nations in the European Union – the entity that the Economist supports and claims to know so much about.
The Economist fails the final test – it did not even bother have a proper report on either set of elections. It does not provide coverage that ordinary newspapers do not.
I am not an American (I am British – also watch out for my poor spelling), but I have watched the Republican debate, and the interviews after the debate, on Fox News and my impressions are as follows:
On government spending Congressman Tancredo was impressive. He made the point about most Federal government spending being unconstitutional (which I expected Congressman Ron Paul to make, and he did not) and he made the point that various candidates were now saying they were hostile to expanding government spending but that they did not join him in voting against it when they had the chance (another point I expected Congressman Ron Paul to make – and I do not remember him making it).
On detailed military and security knowledge Congressman Duncan Hunter was impressive (for example in explaining what the present military-political tactics in Iraq were), the other candidates tended to talk in general terms and their grasp of some facts was uncertain. For example, Senator John McCain stated (and stated again in the post debate interview) that the division in Congress on ‘waterboarding’ (in interrogation) was between people who had served in the military (who he said were against the practice) and people who had not.
Whatever one thinks of “waterboarding”, the fact was that Congressman Hunter was sitting only a few feet from Senator McCain and had already stated that he had served in the military (Vietnam) and that his son was serving in Iraq.
On illegal immigration Congressman Hunter was at least as specific as Congressman Tancredo (who has made illegal immigration one of main issues). Libertarian minded people are normally (although not always) free migration people – but if you are interested in things like border control Congressman Hunter seemed to know at least as much about it as Congressman Tancredo did.
On abortion all the candidates, bar one, wished it to be unlawful. The one who dissented was (of course) former Mayor R.G. who stated not simply that abortion was a State matter (which would make him anti Roe V Wade without making him give a position on abortion itself), but openly stated that he wished to keep abortion legal (i.e. if he was running for State, rather than Federal, office that would be his position) – although he did state how much he hated abortion and how he wished to reduce the number of abortions (and claimed that his policy on such things as adoption had done this in New York City).
R.G. also replied to Congressman Ron Paul’s claim that American “bombing of Iraq whilst it was under sanctions” (and other interventions in the Middle East) provoked 9/11. The former Mayor of New York did not go into a detailed examination of Congressman Paul’s claims (as he was speaking without permission, the moderators would not have allowed him to speak long), he simply stated (in a quiet but firm way) that blaming the United States for 9/11 was ridiculous and called upon Congressman Paul to retract his comments (which Congressman Paul refused to do) – this reply got a vast positive response from the audience. The audience had been warned before the debate not to applaud – but Congressman Paul’s words did rather change the situation, making a reply and audience response not something that could really be prevented. Later in the debate Congressman Tancredo stated that he did want to be associated with his “dear friend’s [Ron Paul’s] remarks” which ignored the religious motivation of America’s enemies – i.e. their interpretation of Islam which holds that the main infidel power should be defeated regardless of what policy it follows (other than submission to Islam).
In the post debate interview, on being asked about Saddam Hussain gassing the Kurds, Congressman Paul said “we gave them the gas” (untrue). It did put me in mind of the late Murry Rothbard, with his habit of repeating whatever the latest enemy propaganda about the United States government and military happened to be. It should remind people (such as myself) how rant on about how bad the left are, that not all of the blame America crowd are on the left. And I write all this as someone who opposed the judgement to go into Iraq.
Mitt Romney (former Governor of Mass) was talked of a lot before the debate, but I thought his performance was terrible. He stated that he was “for Second Amendment Rights” but he also stated that he was “for the assault weapons ban”. He stated that he was in favour of getting government spending under control (as all the candidates did – for example R.G. was very strong on this) but also stated that it was a government responsibilty that everyone had health cover, and stated how much he supported “No Child Left Behind” (the extra Federal government funding and regulations that President Bush and Senator Kennedy introduced).
However, after the debate the “text vote” had former Governor Romney comming in second (after Ron Paul) as the winner of the debate – indeed he overtook Congressman Paul in the text voting by the end of the post debate show.
As regards former Governor Romney – those “text voters” must have been watching a different debate to me. Unless his campaign people were doing something.
I know well that the were other people in the debate. The former Governors of Arkansas, Wisconsin and Virginia. But they did not make much of an impression on me – although the former Governor of Arkansas got a laugh from the audience with a joke about former Senator John Edwards. Governor Huckabee also defended his choice to greatly increase road building and education spending in the State of Arkansas. Former Governor Thompson of Wisconsin made a point about how many times he had used the veto (more than all the other candidates of both parties put together he claimed). And former Governor of Virginia Gilmour made the point that he had reached out to racial minorities whilst Governor and also whilst Chairman of the Republican party.
“Well who would you vote for”.
Perhaps it is just as well that I do not have a vote – as I am unsure.
Before all the waffle obscures matters it is worth remembering what the government headed by Mr Blair actually was – a continuation of the government headed by Mr Major.
The same policies, more government borrowing, especially in the latter years of the Blair government, more government spending on health, education and welfare (and undermining of the armed forces), more regulations, and more power handed over to the EU.
On Afghanistan and Iraq it is hard to see the government of Mr Major not supporting the Americans (especially in the post 9/11 climate) so no difference on this either.
It is true that there has been so ‘rebranding’, for example the New Labour people seem to have a hatred of any name for a government body that implies a connection with the Crown – and they like sinister names like ‘the Ministry of Justice’, but how important this will prove I do not know.
I suppose the only real difference might be Mr Brown’s ‘stealth taxes’ with lots of complex ways to increase taxes whilst hoping no one will notice. Such as the Robert Maxwell style raid on the pension funds – which (counting lost interest) has cost about one hundred billion Pounds since 1997 (not much if one says it quick). Of course this might lead to a discussion of all of Mr Brown’s Enron style PFIs and other complex schemes – but I find the subject too depressing.
Anyway there is nothing that Mr Blair’s choice for Chancellor has done that Mr Major and ‘Ken’ Clarke might not have done (even the pension fund raid was under consideration by these people – and I bet they would have sold most of the gold reserve for half what it was worth just as he did), remember the ERM exchange rate rigging?
It was supported by all parties (Labour, Liberal and Conservative) with Mrs Thatcher finding herself forced to go along (with hindsight Mrs T. should have resigned rather than go along with it – after all the swine turned on her soon anyway).
Mrs Thatcher was interesting. Mr Blair (like Mr Major) was just another statist politician.
As some people involved in Samizdata know, I have promised not to write posts attacking the local election campaign of a certain political party – at least until the election is over.
As I have promised this I feel uncomfortable in writing anything that could be seen as an attack on any other political party. So in the following both the name of the candidate and the party that candidate represents will not be stated.
On Sunday I came upon a political leaflet. Along with the normal fluff about loving Association Football (candidates, of all parties, really do write stuff like that – some of them even list the pubs they go to) I read the following:
“I have been involved in campaigning for the … party since the age of 6, leafleting and canvassing…”
Now I hope that that “6” was a misprint for “16” – but, such are the times we live in, I can not be sure.
Like most ‘evil free market people’ I hold that collectivist (i.e. big government) ideas taught at schools and universities give the media a built in bias in favour of big government and against liberty. I am sometimes asked to give a specific example of what I am talking about and I will now do so.
A recent edition of Newsweek magazine attracted my attention because it had Europe at 50 in big letters on the front cover.
It turned out that the cover indicated a story about the European Economic Community – European Union (50 years old this year). This story being the normal nonsense, crediting the EU (rather than NATO) with peace in Europe, and crediting it with the economic recovery after World War II. Something that was actually achieved by the policy of deregulation, such as the scrapping of price controls, and tax reduction followed by finance minister Ludwig Erhard in Germany from 1948, and by political leaders in some other European countries.
However, it was a story in China that really interested me. New government spending increases in China were justified on the basis that they were in the spirit of “FDR’s depression busting” policies in the 1930’s which countered the “blows of the free market”.
In fact President Roosevelt’s spending schemes and regulations helped prolong the depression. And the depression was not caused by the ‘free market’ , it was caused by the boom and bust monetary policy of the Federal Reserve System.
In 1921 a previous government credit-money bubble, that of World War I, had burst, and the government of President Harding did nothing much, other than cut government spending, and the economy was well on the road to recovery within six months.
In 1929 another government credit-money bubble bust, that of the late 1920’s – caused by Governor B. Stong’s, of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, policy of trying to support the overvalued exchange rate of the British Pound by a loose credit money policy with the American Dollar.
The administration of President Hoover (contrary to the ‘did nothing’ myth) went in to overdrive – doing all the wrong things. Trying to hold up wages (in order to protect “spending power – demand”), by rigging agreements with industry, agreeing to more government spending, and agreeing eventually to a large increase in both domestic taxes and, in 1931, in the tax on imports.
The administration of President Roosevelt carried on the interventionist policies of President Hoover and, in some ways, deepened them. Thus making the depression the longest in American history.
Why do the good people at Newsweek not know any of the above? Why do they, instead, write of FDR’s “depression busting” schemes, and the “blows of the free market?
It is because of what they were taught at school and university – as simple as that.
People can not be expected to understand current events (such as the government schemes in China) if they have been taught a false view of the past.
“I love you, and I am a socialist”
This is what I, via the wonders of television, watched being said to David Cameron.
A young doctor made this comment to Mr Cameron when this leader of a British political party turned up at a demonstration of doctors and, whilst denouncing the Labour party government for not providing jobs for all qualified young doctors, promised “every single one of you” a job (or words to that effect).
To some people the above proves that Mr Cameron is a good leader of the Conservative party, to other people, such as myself, the above shows that David Cameron is not the leader of a ‘Conservative’ party at all.
We see the same facts but interpret them differently.
I recommend the Institute of Economic Affairs latest publication, Patricia Morgan’s ‘The war between the State and the Family: How government divides and impoverishes’.
This is a work in the tradition of such writers as Charles Murray showing how the combination of various government benefits and schemes (rather than any one benefit) have helped undermine the traditional family and increased welfare dependency and poverty, both in Britain and in other countries.
One of the important elements of this little work is that it shows that many of the very people who denounce the increase in inequality (for whilst there has been no great increase in absolute poverty, as the income of a person on benefits today is at least as high as that of many working people in the 1940’s, there has been an increase in inequality) in various Western nations have supported the policies that have undermined families and increased inequality.
Also the work shows how the targeting of the ‘truly needy’, something done by Conservative governments from the start of the 1980’s onwards by, contrary to media reports, increasing government support for such people, had very bad consequences.
Many libertarians may be wary of someone like Patricia Morgan who clearly supports the old style family of wife looking after the children and husband bringing home the money: the dream of the Victorian working class which, by the end of the century, they had largely achieved, and this suspicion may be increased by Dr Morgan’s support for favourable treatment of the traditional family by the tax system; which was something that was only important in a few decades after the World War II – as before the war the majority of families did not pay income tax. But her arguments should not be dismissed out of hand simply because she is a “reactionary”.
Patricia Morgan argues that what has happened over the last few decades in Britain and some other nations (the vast increased in the percentage of births out of wedlock, the growth in one parent households, and the vast growth of dependency on money from the government) is not some ‘natural’ example of ‘social evolution’, but has been driven by government policies – policies of governments of parties of both “left” and “right”.
Certainly Dr Morgan may be attacked for implying that everything was O.K. with the family before the state became involved (as I have stated above the situation where the vast majority of families earned a decent income and were free of government support and abject poverty was an achievement of economic and social development over the Victorian period, it was not always so).
Also Patricia Morgan can be attacked for a Chicago school style ‘economic man’ approach where human beings react to monetary incentives almost (although not quite) to the exclusion of other factors.
However, one does not have to believe that the growth in government support has caused all the negative developments, in Britain and other lands, over the last few decades to believe that it has helped cause them.
With the advance of technology and economic development over the last few decades families should be stronger and poverty should be much less. Just as family life was vastly better in 1901 than it had been in, for example, 1837. Yet who would argue that families are stronger now than they were in say 1960?
Also the changes in behaviour (not just in Britain, but in such nations as the United States, Australia and New Zealand) can often be dated back to the specific years in which there were changes in the benefit structure, and (in the case of the United States) certain changes in benefit structure can be argued to have achieved the ‘impossible’ task of, in certain respects, turning the clock back.
Whilst this does not prove Patricia Morgan’s case beyond all doubt, it does mean that the case of this lady is worth a look.
The House of Lords of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland was formed (informally by Simon de Montfort, although some would trace it all the way back to the Anglo Saxon Witan, and formally by Edward the first) of the great landed families and the bishops – first just of England, then of Wales, then of Scotland and finally of Ireland (now just Northern Ireland).
The dominant opinion today holds that it is wrong for a House of Parliament to be made up of the aristocracy plus a few Bishops. So first the powers of the House of Lords (or House of Peers as it is more formally known) had its powers greatly reduced by the Acts of 1911 and 1949, then in the 1960’s an unwritten convention came into existence that no new hereditary peerages would be created, only life peerages. Perhaps this was on the Thomas Paine grounds that “hereditary legislators are as absurd as hereditary mathematicians”. Although Mr Paine never explained what was so good about elected mathematicians or what upholding the traditional principles of law had to do with mathematics anyway.
The government headed by Mr Blair has got rid of almost all hereditary peers, thus leaving the Bishops, in modern times joined by the Chief Rabbi and so on although by appointment, not by right, and the ‘life peers’, the people appointed by recent Prime Minister – mostly by Mr Blair himself. It is felt by most members of the House of Commons and by many outside it that only elected people should be part of Parliament and they are pressing for a fully elected House of Lords.
This would at least have the virtue of there not being ‘second class’ members of the House – as would be the case if some members of the House of Lords were elected and some were not. However, it does miss an important point. If the House of Lords is not going to be a House of Lords, why have one at all? Why not just have the House of Commons? After all many respectable nations (Norway, New Zealand and so on) have a ‘unicameral legislature’.
The United Kingdom (for all the existence of the Welsh and Ulster Assemblies and the ‘Parliament’ in Scotland) is not a federal country. So how is this second elected chamber to be elected?
If it is elected in much the same way as the House of Commons it is just a waste of money as it will mirror this House, and if it is elected in some way to counter the House of Commons there will be conflict between the Houses (not in, say, the sense that there is sometimes ‘conflict’ between the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, but real conflict). In the past a government with a ‘radical agenda’ could always say “we are elected and you are not, so you may delay us – but in the end you must give in on the fundamental points of our platform”, this was as true for Mrs Thatcher as it was for prior radical Liberal and Labour party governments.
But, with an elected ‘House of Lords’ or whatever it is to be called, they could turn round and say “we are elected as well and you are not getting out of the EU” (or whatever the measure was).
Lastly my fear is that an elected second chamber would be elected using proportional representation, thus meaning an alliance of leftist parties would hold a majority for ever, and would be elected on a regional basis – part of the old plan to divide the United Kingdom (really divide England ) into €uro regions under the control of the European Union.
“Where is Karl Rove?” is one of the things the only member of the jury I watched talking to journalists said the jury in the trial of Lewis Libby talked about (although, of course, he stated that they spent most of their time on proper examination of the case).
First some information: And information presented to you (dear readers) by someone who did not support the decision to go into Iraq in 2003.
The man who leaked the fact that Mrs Wilson worked for the CIA was Richard Armitage of the State Department, not Mr Libby, Karl Rove, the Vice President, the President – or the man at the local shop.
Mrs Wilson was an employee – not an agent of the CIA.
Saddam Hussain did try to get uranium from Niger, along with various other places. So the claims of Mr Wilson that the Administration was telling lies about Saddam were wrong. Whether being wrong would concern Mr Wilson (a giver of money to the 2000 Gore campaign) I can not know for sure – but I would be astonished if it did. → Continue reading: “Where is Karl Rove?” : The trial of Lewis Libby
It has often been pointed out that whilst government spending is seen as a proper way to express compassion we (meaning those of us who believe that government is too big) can not win.
The above was brought home to me, yet again, yesterday. I watched a person being interviewed by a television presenter, and the person was requesting yet more government spending.
A decade ago a new government scheme was set up to pay for medical cover for children from poor families not already covered by Medicaid (the ‘working poor’). As welfare state schemes tend to do, the scheme has greatly grown in expense and yet ‘essential needs’ are not being met and so the person was on television (with the full support of the television interviewer) saying that the budget suggested by President Bush was not enough.
That is right, the wild spending George Bush (a man who gives the impression that he has never come upon a welfare state scheme that he did not like) is being attacked for not spending enough taxpayers money.
The man who was speaking was Republican Governor Perdue, from conservative Georgia, who was in Washington DC (with other State Governors) to ask for yet more taxpayers money. After all Georgia has implemented the scheme ‘aggressively’ (this was assumed to be a good thing to do) and, therefore, was facing a serious financial problem. As the people talked film was shown of a poor little child getting medical care (subtext – if you oppose the scheme you are a monster).
And the interviewer? A presenter for Fox News (the only non leftist television network). If the ever-more-government-spending-on-welfare-state-schemes position wins by default (for there were no arguments) when the people in the conversation are a Republican Governor from a conservative State and a presenter from Fox News then what hope is there of victory, what hope of rolling back government? At present not much.
One can trace the roots of the problem as far back as one likes. Some trace it to the error made by the German Samuel Pufendorf and other scholars, in confusing taxes and government spending with the virtue of charity (as if there could be such a thing as compulsory charity). FA Hayek even traced the problem right back to human nature evolving when humans lived in hunter-gatherer packs, so that there is always a danger of civil society (or the ‘extended order’) breaking down under the pressure of our near-brute instincts – the atavistic instinct for ‘fair shares’ dignified as the doctrine of ‘social justice’.
However, be at that is it may, the belief that government spending = compassion is clearly deeply rooted. Is there anything that we can do?
Well we can argue against ever bigger government and we can try and get these arguments to the public. But many people before us have tried to do this, over the decades, and they have failed to roll back government or even prevent its growth (although we do not know how bad things would be if they had not tried). And we can do all we can to help people in need, but all the efforts of charity (or ‘benevolence’, or the ‘independent sector’ to those who have been taught to think of ‘charity’ as a dirty word), have not convinced most people that ‘helping’ is not a proper role for government.
Perhaps only the bankruptcy of the Welfare States of the modern world will make people think again. It is possible that even bankruptcy will not make people turn against statism, perhaps ‘pack instincts’ will take over totally with total collectivism and the break down of civil society. However, if we keep on arguing as well as can and trying to get our arguments before people as much as we can, then perhaps people will consider the path of freedom, the path of voluntary interaction that is civil society, when social and political bankruptcy finally occurs.
I am sometimes asked why I seldom write about matters in my local part of the world. Partly this is because local events are too depressing, but it is also that there is a ‘culture clash’ between myself and the local environment, something that becomes even more apparent if you compare the political fate of ‘conservatives’ in Kettering Northamptonshire and Kettering Ohio.
Recently a political leaflet from the ‘Conservative’ party landed on my doormat. The leaflet boasted of the ten thousand Pounds that ‘Conservative’ Country Councillors were each spending on local projects.
For a few seconds I was impressed. True some of the councillors are wealthy people, but none is the league of Bill Gates – ten thousand Pounds is a lot of money for them.
But then I understood that it was not their money. It was local taxpayers money that the County Council, which is ‘Conservative’ party controlled, had given to the councillors to be spent on various projects.
Now in some parts of the world this would be called a ‘slush fund’ or ‘pork’ to buy votes. But in the United Kingdom it is called ‘pavement politics’ and is considered entirely ethical rather than corrupt ‘political machine politics’.
How different things are across the Atlantic when you consider how the Republicans lost Congress partly for following a similar line of policy with many of the ‘pork barrel’ projects getting so much negative publicity with suggestions of impropriety. The Republicans in Ohio (Kettering Northamptonshire is the ‘sister city’ of Kettering Ohio and there are links between the Ohio Republicans and the Northamptonshire ‘Conservatives’) turned the State into the third highest taxed in the nation – and thus lost control.
The problem is that the situation is different. The Northamptonshire ‘Conservatives’ really are not being corrupt by the prevailing local standards in Britain. It is just that their minds are so different to mine that no real mental link exists – it is of limited use to write about people one does not understand.
There has been a lot of talk about ex President Carter getting a ‘grammy’ for the audio verison of his latest it-is-all-the-fault-of-the-Jews book. And certainly he was honoured in the company one might expect. The ‘Dixie Chicks’ were honoured with three awards in spite of their commercial decline (Bush bashing trumps anything else), as was a gentleman whose songs are largely about ‘niggerz’ and his practice of beating up his ‘Ho’.
The award ceremony was, as it happens, held on the 28th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution – an event that occurred after then President James Earl Carter sold out the Shah. I wonder how many in the audience noted the irony.
However, ex-President Carter is not alone. There seems to be a broader movement in the South (for some time considered generally the most conservative part of the United States) towards something that reminds me of the late 19th and early 20 century Populism.
The Populists sometimes operated as a party in their own right, and sometimes as a faction of the Democratic party in the South (after the end of Reconstruction the Republican party virtually ceased to exist in the Southern States – so a lot of politics was between factions of the Democratic party) against conservative ‘Bourbon’ Democrats.
The stock in trade of the Populists was hatred of big business, the rich, Roman Catholics and Jews.
Ex Senator John Edwards recently got into trouble for having two bloggers on his pay roll who specialized in obscene attacks on (for example) the Virgin Mary. Many were surprised that Mr Edwards did not fire these staffers – but he is no fool, and it not just a matter of fear of revenge from the left of the blogosphere if he did fire them.
As long as the attacks can be kept as anti-Catholic as opposed to anti-Christian he may be fine – indeed these attacks may even help him. Although he may be making a mistake, as the principle reason that his staffers hate Roman Catholics is the Catholic position on abortion – a position that many Protestants (and Orthodox Jews and some atheists and others) share. → Continue reading: President Carter and the return of the Southern Populists?
|
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.
|
