Mercenary Meme Complex

The Bansturbators

2008-05-22T21:25:00.002Z

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!

2008-05-02T23:13:00.002Z

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

2008-03-06T22:16:00.003Z

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

2007-11-17T16:02:00.000Z

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

2007-11-14T21:16:00.000Z

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

2007-11-05T23:10:00.000Z

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

2007-11-03T16:46:00.000Z

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.

Where now for the Liberal Democrats?

2007-10-15T22:02:00.000Z

So Menzies Campbell has resigned. It is somewhat surprising to me that it happened so soon, but it was obvious that Menzies didn't have the media savvy to stay as party leader. What will be interesting is which way the Liberal Democrat party goes. Will it become more economically liberal now that there is a (at least perceived) revival in Conservative economic liberalism? I think this is actually quite likely, although more as a matter of image than substance. For example, I would be amazed if the Liberal Democrats argued that the tax take was 10% too high.

I still wonder which is better for a free society; is it better that the parties differentiate and at least one supports more economically and socially liberal policies, or is it better that all three converge on the mythical 'centre ground' and show up politics to be the farce that it is?

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear

2007-10-10T21:11:00.000Z

I do wonder if any of the people who continue to parrot the inanity in this post title watched the documentary on China's missing children. The relevant part was when one of the couples described how you were essentially a non-person without the requisite state approved identification. How could you get in this terrible situation? Purely by having a father under 22 or a mother under 20, who would be too young to be allowed by the state to marry, thus unable to get a marriage certificate, thus unable to get a birth certificate, thus unable to get their child a state ID, making the child a pariah from birth.

This all done in the name of population control. Whilst the British government has never been communist, the deep green watermelon types have similar thoughts on population growth and advocate the state dealing with it. Given this background and the State's never ending quest for more control over it's citizens a similar scenario in the UK is not quite as unlikely as it first appears. Anyway, regardless of its likelihood, it nevertheless shows up the old trope in the title as the drivel it is.

Where to go for ideological debate?

2007-06-25T22:13:00.000Z

To be a freethinker one has to be open to alternative viewpoints and give them serious consideration. As a blogger one tends to network with other like-minded individuals, which does not provoke as much introspection as might be necessary to hone a rigorous intellectual defence of one's position.

However, if one accepts the logical coherency of anarcho-capitalism, one must necessarily reject the coherency of alternative popular political stances, so where to turn for real thought provoking alternative views and criticism of one's position? I would be interesting to know if any ancaps or libertarians generally read particular blogs that come from a different philosophical or theoretical position. Certainly the blogroll of this blog is very ancap biased.

Scottish Independence

2007-06-18T20:02:00.000Z

A good bit of satire from Freedom and Whisky on the increased likelihood of an imminent referendum on Scottish Independence. Basically the Conservatives in Scotland think an early referendum would give them more chance of getting a no vote to Scottish independence and put the issue to rest. However, the polling seems indecisive and if the SNP get the timing right there is a chance, albeit slim, that the Scots will vote yes.

The lack of Scotland Effect

2007-05-24T20:16:00.000Z

I am intrigued that the formation of an SNP government in Holyrood (albeit a minority one) has had so little impact on the political landscape in England. I would have thought it was quite a kick in the teeth for Gordon Brown, but obviously not.

Since I was away Gordon Brown has also officially become the primeminister in waiting, that seemed to be a bit of a damp squib as well.

Perhaps both these events were so predictable that there was nothing left to say about them when they happened.

So this probably wins some kind of award for most un-interesting post ever...

The real space race begins

2007-04-25T20:24:00.000Z

If you're a regular reader (difficult due to my irregular posting habits, I know), you will probably have guessed what this post title refers to; yes, it is commercial space flight. Although I am as impressed as anyone with the fact that man has made it to the moon, the way we went about it was not so impressive, i.e. the reason for going was pure machismo and the cost was a stupendous burden for very little benefit. The converse is true of commercial spaceflight and what is much more interesting now is the following from Virgin Galactic:

"Scaled Composites is progressing well in producing what will be an exceptional spaceship and launch system. Test flying of the system will commence in 2008 and we expect to start commercial operations towards the end of 2009."

Fully operational commercial spaceflight could be one of the true breakthroughs in my life time, allowing an efficient sustainable exploration of the solar system and beyond. I won't try and predict how fast this will happen, but it seems likely that we are a stage similar to that of 17 December, 1903.

Also exciting is that not all the fun will be in America, as Spaceport Sweden intends to be Virgin Galactic's base of European operations.

Cameron the weathervane

2007-03-26T20:43:00.000Z

Tonight, Peter Hitchens presented a Channel 4 Dispatches programme on Cameron's rise to the top in the Conservative party and although I am always happy to bring down any politician, I find it odd the way in which Hitchens attacks Cameron. One of his main points was that Cameron has forgone principles in favour of a populist media driven bid for power. What surprises me is that Hitchens is surprised. Cameron is doing exactly the right thing to progress a career in politics; he is directing his party in the manner that will gain most support, principles are irrelevant.

Hitchens is disappointed that the Conservatives have abandoned principles for a naked grab for power, but this simply proves that in a democracy the kind of vague feel-good jargon that Cameron peddles is exactly the stance that wins elections. It is precisely those who do hold a set of logically consistent principles who fail to achieve power in a democratic system. This is because most people are not driven to vote by logically consistent principles, but by emotions.

This is what is meant by the 'centre ground', it is not really the centre of anything, more accurately it is the absence of any underlying philosophy. If it does have a guiding principle it is expediency. This is what all democratic systems become, an inconsistent assemblage of policies designed to appeal to the current emotional condition of the majority of the populace. Assuming the polls are accurate, in a very real sense we do still live in a democratic country, it is just that democracy is not what some people thought it was, i.e. about principles.

I believe in TV

2007-03-19T19:54:00.000Z

After watching The Great Global Warming Swindle I was tempted to write up my thoughts on the science behind this programme and whether or not it did debunk the widely held view that humans are directly causing the world to heat up to cataclysmic levels. However the debate at Samizdata probably illuminates the general thinking of those already unconvinced by Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I do think it odd that there has been no decent critique of the science in that programme (at least not that I have seen, let me know if you have seen different) and that the attacks are mostly ad hominems against the 'raving marxist' Martin Durkin who made it. Of course I do think it somewhat ironic that the followers of the Leftist cause par excellance are having a go at someone for being a Leftist.

"Durkin laughs about the fact that many environmentalists fancy themselves as leftists, yet ‘they are always exposing me…as a leftist!"

However, the thing that has caught my attention most since the programme aired was how easily former stalwarts of the Global Warming movement are swayed. I have heard a number of people, previously fully convinced of Global Warming and the need for much government intervention, suddenly pipe up and explain to all and sundry how anthropogenic CO2 has virtually no effect on global temperatures. Now, leaving aside the veracity of the programme, how fully can you have thought through and been convinced of your position to be swayed in the opposite direction by one prime time television programme?

I'm not suggesting that those who considered there to be some truth in Global Warming and were moved slightly away from that position are behaving at all strangely, but I do think it odd that those all for heavy taxation to prevent impending doom one minute, are suddenly doubting the whole thing the next! Whether the contents of this programme are acurate or not I will leave for you to decide, but before we rush headlong into more statism, it is worth pausing to consider just how certain Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates actually are.

Web TV

2007-02-24T14:44:00.000Z

I find it very exciting that TV is moving more towards the web rather than through the more usual analogue and digital channels. An example of this is the site 18 Doughty Street, although it is unabashedly conservative, it nevertheless shows off the potential of streaming media over the internet to supplant mainstream television. Not surprisingly attempts of the BBC, that bastion of socialist statism, at web based television are far inferior to privately funded attempts.

As this technology is becoming easier for the average person to use (surely aided by sites such as YouTube) it will become possible for a far more diverse set of broadcast media with much higher levels of interaction with the audience. This is obvious as the internet is the ultimate expression of complex multi-channel communication. Now who is going to set up Ancap TV?

Panorama Puritans

2006-11-29T00:10:00.000Z

Never mind 'Auntie', the BBC should be nicknamed 'Nanny' (or perhaps the less cuddly 'Authoritarian Socialists') after broadcasting this tripe. The Panorama program that I am referring too was 'investigating' the world of online gambling. Now there was so much bias, underhand implicating and misinformation going on it would be hard to describe it all in one blog post, but I shall try and give you a flavour. My specific problem was with the handling of poker, although the more general stance of the program makers was clearly at odds with any kind of libertarian or even generally liberal attitude to the law.

First online poker was described in it's basic workings, along with some examples of the people who make money playing as a living and those with enough business acumen to take advantage of the potential of online poker. Then suddenly these were juxtaposed with a woman who had gambled away thousands of pounds of other people's money on the horses. Now clearly we are supposed to infer that this is the 'dark side' of online gambling, which it could arguably be, but what it is clearly not is the 'dark side' of poker. Whatever else one may think of gambling, the particular game of poker has a certain degree of skill, otherwise there could be no consistent winners.* Incidentally, even this biased broadcast left you with no doubt that there were winning poker players, so how it could brazenly equate that with the fleeting luck of a not-too-bright woman betting on the gee-gees, then losing it all, is beyond me. Horse race betting is specifically tailored to make sure bookies come out ahead; poker is a game between players who are on a level playing field. The house does not take players bets directly; it merely charges them to play at their tables, a perfectly equitable arrangement.

The other point that particularly grated was the way the program portrayed The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (the USA passed recently) as some sort of pure moral crusade against 'evil' poker. If that were really true why are fantasy sports and horse racing exempt?

Finally the program went into overdrive to hammer home how terrible online poker was. This was done by the presenter telling his resident poker pro to play way above his bankroll (i.e. to play at tables where he could wager all the money he had on one had), predictably enough he lost it all. If the program had really been interested in helping people avoid trouble would it not have been sensible to at least mention bankroll management in passing? In fact I am almost as annoyed at the poker pro for not pointing out that this is nothing like how he plays poker, but then he was probably having a laugh at the earnest presenter's expense.

To the BBC, you stop thieving my money, I might just listen to your advice on what to do with my earnings, although considering this effort, I doubt it.

*It is theoretically possible that winning poker players are simply statistical anomalies, but I would be willing to make bet (somewhat ironically) that their number, consistency and success rate makes it highly improbable that their winning is pure luck.

RIP Milton Friedman

2006-11-17T09:54:00.000Z

A great man who clearly changed the world for the better. To my mind he did not quite go far enough in his pursuit of freedom, but if the world now turns to the ideas of his sons, Milton will have done another great service to humanity from beyond the veil.

My sincere condolences to David and Patri for their great personal loss.

Greenpeace want you to turn ALL the lights out

2006-10-24T09:04:00.000Z

I notice Greenpeace are up in arms because the Queen (or whoever advises her) wants to light the Palace so that the tourists and see it better in the gloomy evenings of a British winter. Now I have no fervent opinion either way, it seems their business what they light up (with the usual proviso of not using my money to do it of course). What I don't understand is where Greenpeace draws their line in the sand? For example they say the palace will be "lit up like Blackpool Tower", that implies a certain frivolity about the lighting, but does that mean they don't think Blackpool Tower should be lit either? How far do we go, at what stage is lighting permitted? Football games seem to use a hell of a lot of electric light, maybe we should force them to only play on sunny days? I certainly hope the Greenpeace office isn't open outside of daylight hours, although no doubt they think their logically inconsistent outpourings are worthy of electric lighting.

'Natural Rights' are ultimately foundationalist

2006-10-24T08:54:00.000Z

Johan at frimarknadsanarkist has an old essay Rights Do Not Exist on ASC. Unfortunately the subsequent comment thread seemed to descend into people ranting about how not believing in 'natural' rights meant you want to kill babies and the usual non-sequiturs!

However, an interesting question is what exactly natural rights sympathisers mean when they use the term rights. I think they are correct in saying it is more than mere approval or disapproval, maybe it is just a 'right-for' as someone mentioned in that thread. In this case it comes down to your ends and as I have argued before, ancap is about means not ends. So although 'natural righters' generally have similar ends to me (i.e. individual freedom) which generates similar 'natural rights' to the preferences I hold, ultimately their 'rights' are still ends based and categorically not universal.

It was also admitted in that thread that virtually all, if not all, argument about positive principles rests on shakey ontological grounds. Now this is fine for a non-rights inter-subjectivist ethical system, but is highly problematic for a foundationalist system of natural rights as we have the same old problem of no universally agreed foundation or even definition of the problem.

It's quite simple really

2006-10-19T13:11:00.000Z

"Ethics is in origin the art of recommending to others the sacrifices required for cooperation with oneself."

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)
A Free Man’s Worship and Other Essays, ch. 6 (1976).

What's so natural about rights?

2006-10-17T22:21:00.000Z

As an anarcho-capitalist I do not hold with the idea of a positive right, in that such a right automatically entails the bondage of the individual to the collective. However, I am now also beginning to doubt the usefulness of trying to argue from negative rights, this is partly because it seems to create situations where negative rights suggest one course of action whilst the would be adherent of negative rights prefers another course of action (suggesting that the negative rights have somehow broken down in the particular instance). It is also because in situations where we do want the effect of negative rights, we can eliminate the need for 'rights'. An example of this is your right not to be killed, surely this is equivalent to the lack of anyone else with the right to kill you. I think this line of reasoning can lead to an non-rights based explanation for why anarcho-capitalism is the preferable system for the general furthering of individual goals.

This article, A Positive Account of Property Rights, by David Friedman, led me to thinking that maybe rights (or more specifically 'natural rights') are actually problematic for a systematic description of the basis for anarcho-capitalism. Rights are still talked about here, but they are specifically contractual, not philosophical. This then explains their origin and integrates them into a more evolutionary system, which has the potential to deal with the ambiguity apparent in philosophical systems of rights and ethics.

A lady with your drink?

2006-10-16T21:20:00.000Z

Well, I haven't been pouring over many dusty library economics books recently, instead my girl and I have been experiencing the more glamourous side of London nightlife. After much drama (including my girlfriend trekking over to the venue) we managed to get tickets to see Dita Von Teese at London's Koko Club, a show which had sold out in hours rather than days. Apparently it was her first performance in Britain since 1998. Interestingly we later saw tickets on Ebay going for as much as £255 a piece! (There's some economics for you - supply and demand, there was a hell of a lot of demand and very little supply!).

Unfortunately when we got there the queue was round the block and unless you were one of the first in you got to see nothing. Fortunately, a quiet word in a few ears got us into the VIP lounge (with other such notables as Amy Winehouse & Gary Kemp, who we think was standing next to us, but to be honest wasn't as interesting as the spectacle on stage) where the view was far superior and a stroll to a virtually empty bar, much more civilised.

I'm not sure how you review a show involving a scantily clad woman splashing about in an oversized champagne glass, but if you get the chance to see her (and it may mean a street brawl for a ticket) I'd recommend it. The main impression I took away from the performance is of someone who is able to look glamourous, amusing and alluring without looking trashy - a character that many of todays 'celebrities' clearly find painfully difficult to achieve.

Back to the future

2006-09-11T21:21:00.000Z

Well, at least back to what I would consider the present, in that we finally have broadband in the new flat. I was actually surprised how much I have come to rely on always accessible internet and I imagine I (and others) will only get more so when internet access is widespread on mobile phones. It is basically that the internet provides such a huge quantity of instantly accessible information. To inquisitive minds this is a positive boon. Although much of what I look up is no doubt trivia, there is still a substantial amount of serious knowledge that I would either not have discovered or taken longer to discover were it not fot the internet.

An apt acronym

2006-07-06T10:32:00.000Z

"...has anyone ever noticed that The War Against Terrorism is never abbreviated as TWAT?"

'baggy' @ bash.org