The Bansturbators

Back again for another round, as some survey or other tells us that alcohol related problems and illnesses are costing the NHS more than ever before. The Bansturbators are right there telling us how alcohol should be even more expensive. Having recently paid £4 for a pint in London, I've got a few things to say to those who think alcohol is cheap. Then again they would probably say that the 'problem' has now moved into the home and this time it is cheap booze in supermarkets to blame.

To be honest I am not inclined to argue about whether I am, or anyone else is, drinking too much alcohol. The point that is always avoided is the question of why we are forced to pay for other people's healthcare in the first place, those of power hungry and paternalist instinct always go for more control and restriction on our actions. The irony is that these very same people are the ones to complain about the lack of responsibility in todays society.

Of course the obvious thing to do if you are worried about everyone bearing the cost of the excesses of the few is to have real insurance in healthcare. Then if you get ill through the wilful downing of 15 pints or a litre of vodka it is only an argument between you and your insurer whether they should pay for your treatment. Even better than that, there is usually no argument, as with real insurance you are clear that it doesn't cover you for intentionally damaging your health. This solution means people taking real responsibility for their own well being, having to accept the consequences of their actions and being allowed to live with the level of risk they are comfortable with.

LOL - Boris Wins!

Ah, much hilarity as that snide little dictator loving twerp RedKen gets thrown out on his ear. Boris probably won't do anything great for London, but at least he has a sense of humour and doesn't play on the divisive politics of envy and self-righteousness. It all entertained me anyway and in the final analysis that is about the best we can expect from politics.

The Galactic Garden of Eden

Okay, since I discovered that the occasional person does indeed read this blog, I thought I'd better put up a new post quick before I lose their attention (stop laughing at the back!).

Basically I have been pretty busy out there in the real world and haven't been paying much attention to online goings on. Politics has also been rather depressing lately, although for some hilarious Austrian commentary on current financial and political affairs just check out AngloAustria.

Anyway one thing I have thought was worthy of further investigation in the last week or so is the online game Eve. This is a MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game) and the really interesting part from an Ancap perspective is that it appears to have a functioning economy. The game is set in another galaxy (possibly far far away) and has you starting off in the spaceship version of a Nissan Sunny, with part of the aim being to trade, manufacturer or fight your way up to better ships and equipment. The difference with other such games I know of is that fighting although not discouraged is not necessarily a central part of the game. In game you can either do things on your own or form or become part of a corporation. Players who have been playing for a while tend to be part of a well established corporation and these companies actually function on the principles of the division of labour.

I haven't gone into it in much depth yet (it's that time thing), but I would recommend downloading the free demo and having a look for yourself. Although technically the game actually has a nightwatchman state, I'm sure the economic developments in the game (a functioning stock market, etc.) will make an interesting study.

Upping the stakes

Whether we should be worried about foreign governments having stakes in British industries, directly or through intermediary funds or companies, is an interesting question. Although clearly the Anarcho-Capitalist position is not to have state ownership of any companies (or indeed to have states), essentially if foreign states buy British companies then their tax payers are subsidising British industries, freeing up capital to be used elsewhere in the British economy. Thankfully the British state is relatively relaxed in this regard which benefits us all, unlike the French government in the case of Enel:

Enel's interest prompted outrage in France and the French government intervened to encourage a merger of GDF with Suez to create a national champion impenetrable to foreign bidders.

Which is rather hypocritical given that the French government supported Électricité de France owns 100% of EDF Energy - a merger of London Energy, SWEB Energy and Seeboard Energy. Although the British government seems to have some reservations about security with regard to energy provision:

[When] Gazprom showed interest in acquiring Centrica, ministers considered ways to block any bid, and may even have warned off the Russian state monopoly.

I would argue that this is ridiculous, as energy distribution is geographically tied. If another state tried some kind of blackmail using the energy companies they had acquired it would be a simple matter to commandeer said companies and it would be doubtful that British employees would be complicit in the foreign blackmail of their own country. In this scenario it would seem to me that Britain would be paid for the company, then British interests could regain it for free and, if wanted, sell it again!

Moore shoots self in foot

Richard Garner has an interesting post on The really real Sicko, showing some of the realities of the 'great' Cuban medical system. I am amazed that anyone in Britain can possibly take this film seriously if it is trying to suggest that other countries would want to emulate our crippled (pun intended) system.

Speculating on the Police State

The British state has seemed intent on the introduction of ID cards and the cataloging of us like so many lab rats and the British population on the whole seems to have remained pretty docile about the whole thing. However one wonders if they may be getting jitters given the following excerpt from The World this Weekend, a Radio Four show;

[24:45] R4 : Let me ask you if I may one very quick question about that. It's been suggested that one of those policies, the ID cards, may be dropped from the Queen's speech, that the idea that they should be compulsory for UK citizens is an idea that the government is retreating from. True or false?
[24:59] Harman: Well I think that that's false. We are absolutely clear
that we are going to have proper bio-metric-iden-ti-fication for people from
abroad who are in this country, that we are --
[25:10] R4: But for UK citizens, people who actually are citizens of this
country?
[25:13] Harman: There's no change in our policy [that has] been announced,
and that's just speculation.

It would no doubt be too much to hope for that the past failures of similar schemes in other states, viz. The Australia Card, would give pause to our own ruthless authoritarians.

In evidence to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, 1986, Justice Michael Kirby, President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, observed "If there is an identity card, then people in authority will want to put it to use....What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society and the power and authority of the state over the individual".

Democracy: The God that failed

New research has confirmed what Anarcho-Capitalists and other freethinkers have long suspected; 45 of public will vote for last person they saw on tv. This groundbreaking research is thoroughly backed up by rigorous statistics, at least on a par with a government press release.