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 ever-reliable Jamie Whyte has a superb piece in The Times in which he identifies quite precisely what’s wrong with ‘the precautionary principle’:
Suppose that, in return for an annual premium of £1, someone promises to pay you £1 million if you are abducted by aliens (such insurance exists). … You lack the information required to know if the insurance is a good deal. It is in such situations of uncertainty that the precautionary principle is supposed to apply. … [T]his principle tells you to buy the ticket. You should incur the £1 cost of the premium if there is any chance that it will save you from the greater cost of experiencing an uncompensated alien abduction. Whenever the prize is greater than the bet, and you do not know the odds, the principle says you should gamble. Bookmakers must dream of the day when punters bring such wisdom to the racetrack.
That’s a very illuminating parallel. What those who preach precaution are doing is secretly evaluating the likelihood of the Very Bad Thing we are supposed to be scared of as certainty, and their avoidance policy as perfect.
I would add, now Whyte has given me the right analytical start, that the way that the problem is usually posed should give this away directly. The precaution preacher says that: the Very Bad Thing (B) may be unlikely, but it is so very very bad, that however unlikely it is, it is too horrible to contemplate not doing onerous things P prevent it. It might as well be certain, but for P. That is implicitly a claim that both B is infinite in horribleness and that P is guaranteed to reduce its (unknown) likelihood.
Not only is it a bad bet, but the claim to the efficacy of P should be treated with skepticism. As well to remember that when dealing with Greens, securocrats and panic-mongers of all kinds.
In one of several articles supporting ‘universal’ (i.e. tax funded) health care in the United States in last weeks Economist magazine (the people who control it call it a ‘newspaper’ for tax reasons), the line “nobody denies” that the lack of a “universal health system” undermines “economic security” in the United States was used.
It was the words “nobody denies” that interested me. A very obvious obvious lie, as a great many people deny this, but I had heard this sort of lie somewhere before. In another article it was said that some Conservatives wished to “do nothing” about health care – good ‘conservatives’, like Mitt Romney, of course wished to go along with the demands supported by the Economist for ‘universal health care’ (see above).
In reality many American conservatives have long argued for less government subsides and regulations, what with government subsidies and regulations being the main reason that health care is expensive in the United States today. But the idea that anyone could want less statism was not even mentioned, let alone refuted – a ‘conservative’ (of the bad sort – i.e. someone who did not want more statism) was simply someone who wanted to “do nothing”.
I had seen that lie someone before as well. And then I remembered – these are the methods of John Stuart Mill.
In, for example, Principles of Political Economy (1848) whenever J.S. Mill comes out with a demand for more statism, whether it be for police, or for government supply of water or other things, he tends to say something like “nobody denies” that the government should provide X, Y, Z. It was a lie as Mill knew perfectly well at the time as many of his contemporaries did did indeed deny these things – but it was a useful lie in that it meant that he did not have to refute their arguments because he pretended that opponents of his statist views did not exist.
J.S. Mill did a similar thing with the theory of economic value. He did not refute the arguments of such writers as Richard Whately and Samuel Bailey who had largely discredited the labour theory of value in the English speaking world (it had never been the main theory of economic value in the no- English speaking world), he just defended the theory of his father James Mill and his friend David Ricardo by saying the labour theory of value was “settled”, no one denied it. Again a blatant lie – but a very effective one when dealing with young people whose first (and in many cases last) book on Political Economy would be J.S. Mill’s work.
As for ‘conservatives’, J.S. Mill was careful to avoid writing much about conservative minded people who had ideas to roll back the size and scope of government activity, such as Edmund Burke (although the word “conservative” was not used in Burke’s time, J.S. Mill knew of him via the Mill family and friends membership of the “Bowood Circle” a informal grouping of people who were sympathetic to some of the ideas of the French Revolution and hated Edmund Burke). It was much better to either write about poets like Coleridge, or to pretend that conservatives were just ‘stupid’ people, who wanted to ‘do nothing’.
J.S. Mill wrote and spoke like this because he was a utilitarian, i.e. he defined right and wrong in terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’, defining ‘good’ as nice consequences and ‘evil’ as nasty consequences. It is quite true that he did think in terms of “higher and lower” pleasures, but that “good” might not mean pleasant or that “right” might not mean “good” was not something he was willing to concede.
In short he was a man without an ethical basis for honour (I do not mean that as abuse – I mean it as statement of fact). To such a man such old sayings as “death before dishonour” are simply the ravings of mad people, and refusing to break faith even at the cost of one’s life is irrational. If to lie produced good consequences (with “good” being defined as the greatest happiness of the greatest number) then he lied. And his followers follow in this tradition – right to the writers in the Economist to day.
“We are proud to be associated with the founder of modern liberalism” is the sort of response I would expect from such folk (although no response at all would be more in their tradition). This shows the vast gulf between modern ‘liberals’ and conservative minded people. Although, almost needless to say, there are few such folk in the British Conservative party.
Great piece today in the Times (of London) asking why businesses are not more vigorous in defending themselves and why they do not demand that people, as individuals, stop looking to the ‘blame culture’ and demand that people take more responsibility for their actions:
So where is the business voice telling us that we the public – egged on by politicians, the media and NGOs – have got it all wrong? Where are the companies fighting back at the wilder allegations of publicity-hungry campaign groups, self-interested organisations and junk scientists? I’ll tell you where they are: they are at corporate social responsibility conferences, “engaging” with other people’s agendas.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with listening. Companies must always listen, learn and seek to improve. But this ‘engagement’ is too often a one-way street: the terms of engagement are dictated by others. The ‘corporate responsibility’ agenda in particular is dominated by anti-business campaigners. And their style is not generally to engage; it is to criticise, demand and oppose. This is understandable: NGOs, like the media and politicians, all thrive on conflict. Quiet and constructive dialogue is rarely in their interests
Amen, brother. One quick observation from me on this is that the litigation culture, which is still far worse in the United States, has spread to our shores; also, the general desire to blame others for our misfortune is possibly also a side-effect of the Welfare State and encouraged by the MSM.
Nice to see such forthright sanity from a major newspaper.
The Libertarian Alliance has published a new pamphlet by Samizdatista Paul Marks called A Critique of a Critique: An Examination of Kevin Carson’s Contract Feudalism.
He is in splendid and splenic form, I am pleased to say.
At last, a blow is being struck for truth, justice and equality:
Gingerism in the workplace could form the basis of formal grievances or constructive dismissal cases, an employment lawyer has warned. The news comes in the wake of one Newcastle family having to move house because of abuse about its members’ red hair.
The Chapman family has moved home three times in three years in the Newcastle area because of abuse directed at its six red-haired members. Kevin Chapman told reporters that his 11-year-old son even attempted suicide after becoming depressed following years of abuse.
The story has led to speculation about whether insults over red hair could have the same legal status as insults regarding a person’s race or gender.
This country is plagued with ugly and unchecked gingerism which is completely unacceptable in a multi-folicle society. According to scientifically-proven statistics more than 100% of ginger-haired people die before the age of 6 due to ruthless oppression and rampant pilophobia. This has serious repercussions for their future employment and housing prospects. This is the worst problem facing the world today and it is high time that the politicians did something to combat it. Hirsuitism must stop. Full stop.
There is an article on the Guardian site called Throw a pebble at Goliath: don’t buy Israeli produce, by Yvonne Roberts, in which she urges people to boycott Israel because of its human rights record.
Now I know nothing about Yvonne Robert and have never even heard of her before, but I assume she also an avid campaigner for people to boycott products from Cuba, Burma, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China (good luck doing that), Iran, Syria, Belorus, Zimbabwe, North Korea (assuming they actually produce any products) etc. etc. etc… after all, if she is such a tireless campaigner for human rights, surely she could not possibly feel it was alright for people to trade with all those places, given the state of human rights in those places. Right?
Anyone want to take any bets on this?
I do not have any time for Scientology (bunch of total loons, judging from their stated beliefs). I am not a fan of religion, full stop. Believing that one’s sins get removed on account of a guy who was tortured and killed by Romans, or believing that we come back on this Earth as animals, or get something called Karma, or Original Sin, are just so much rubbish to me. I do not think life lacks meaning without some Supreme Being. But then plenty of highly intelligent folk believe in these things, and pose no threat to me, nor do their adherents expect me to support their views. For me, tolerance is what counts.
Even so, religions, certainly those which make enormous claims about the world and arguably, mess up the lives of the people they influence, deserve to be scrutinised hard. For that reason, I watched the BBC ‘Panorama’ show on Monday and I must admit that it was a pretty compelling bit of television. The journalist who completely lost his temper with some very dubious characters from the Scientology outfit has my sympathy (yes, I am sympathising with a BBC journalist). These folk are jerks, and employ tactics that, as the journalist said, would not be the usual operating procedure of your average Anglican vicar.
On a lighter note, here is a reference to the classic South Park episode on Scientology.
What should be the collective noun for moonbats?
I was struck by this interesting spin appearing in a BBC news report (not the BBC’s fault, they just printed what the spokesman said):
The Commons public accounts committee, headed by Edward Leigh MP, said urgent action was needed to ensure an adequate service was provided.
Its report said the electronic patient clinical record, central to the project, was already two years late.
But the government said the MPs’ report was based on out-of-date information.
Does this mean the system is less late than it was, and that time flows backwards in the NHS? No. Not even the current administration would try to sell that.
Has it been completed in the meantime? No. Limited trials begin in Bolton sometime soon (so Lancastrians in particular should attempt to opt-out while they can).
Does it mean there will be more up-to-date information presented by the government to prove the committee wrong? No. The government resists providing information about ongoing projects as much as it can, even to the public accounts committee. Giving out detailed evidence voluntarily (let alone in a checkable form) is unknown.
What it means is the government wishes you wouldn’t pay attention to the committee report at all, and wants you to believe it is of no value. Since the committee relies entirely on material presented by the government, simply saying it is wrong presents some problems. That might be taken as admitting government numbers are unreliable. But by saying “out-of-date”, it implies some fault in the committee without specifying quite what. You are invited to believe its conclusions are not valid and discount everything it says on that basis.
The pope is publishing the first part of his book Jesus of Nazareth. An authorised biography, I guess.
I wish I could play the piano well. What skill that you lack do you most wish you possessed?
I love the Far East. And hey, this may be my all time most crass post to Samizdata.
|
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.
|
