Mercenary Meme Complex

Obviously cutting my interest is ridiculous

2010-08-27T21:41:00.005Z

Comment on this latest bit of special pleading.

Triffid100
27 Aug 2010, 10:52AM
This article is number 47 in a series of articles titled "My specialist interest group and why it should not have cuts applied to it.)

The editors would like to apologise that due to a calender error, the article about why the police should be above cuts clashed with this article. However, to make up for this glaring error, they will reprint the Film industry article of why they should not have their funding cut.

Thank you and we hope you enjoy this series which is due to finish around October when it will be replaced by the series "My specialist interest group and why it was wrong to cut public funding for it."

Now to be honest I wouldn't cut science funding first either, but as the comment above points out, no one wants their special interest cut, but that doesn't really get us anywhere.

Putting us back in our box

2010-08-24T20:30:00.004Z

I have been wondering of recent weeks if the corporate world is trying to put us back in our box. When I say us, I suppose I mean the ordinary person, the lone blogger, as opposed to the big corporations and the state. By putting us back in our box I mean users of the internet becoming increasingly consumers rather than active participants.

This doesn't seem to be a state sponsored problem for once, but more of an alignment between established corporates and old media with a bit of backing from good old fashioned state censorship. New tech like the iPad seem to be entirely geared at consuming a filtered version of the web and although the death of the browser has probably been greatly exaggerated, apps do offer the user much less control.

Maybe it is just that most people only want to be dumb consumers and it's only now that they are on the web in numbers that this consumerist tendency has become apparent. Still worries me though.

Proud to be human: VSS Enterprise takes to the sky

2010-03-23T18:13:00.003Z

Just last night whilst watching Wonders of the Solar System: Empire of the Sun (the first in an awe inspiring series presented by Professor Brian Cox), my girlfriend opined at the fact that with such an amazing universe out there, humanity spends so much of it's time bickering about trivialities. Although pessimistic libertarians and anarcho-capitalists everywhere no doubt often have similar feelings, this morning an email dropped into my inbox that just made me rejoice at the confluence of those two great human inventions: science and free enterprise.

The email, in a moment of synchonicity, was from Virgin Galactic, announcing that they have completed the first 'captive carry' flight of the VSS Enterprise! The title of this post paraphrases one of the comments, as news like this does make me proud to be human and gives me a chance to revel in the potential of a radical free-marketeer future.

2010-02-16T20:28:00.006Z

I am still looking into the AGW scare and my current thoughts are that I can be reasonably confident of the following:

There has been a statistically significant increase in average global temperature, with fits and starts, over the last 150 years although this has levelled off in the last 10-15 years.
There is a correlation with increased CO2, however it doesn't track perfectly and from what we know of the physics of CO2 radiative forcing it is both logarthimic (as we produce more, the effect gets relatively less for each additional unit) and that, to account for the warming seen, additional poorly understood 'feedback' mechanisms must be invoked.

In essence, I think there is, of course, a valid area of study in global climate, however the current alarmism is not justified given that the current understanding of the science attributes a relatively small warming effect directly caused by CO2 and the feedback mechanisms are poorly understood.

Somewhat as an aside I thought this quote from Stephen Schneider, an arch IPCC supporter, was almost entirely agreeable. Although no doubt people can point to many things he has said as entirely disagreeable, it is worth praising statists when they do get it right:

The transportation sector is the fastest-growing and seemingly most intractable source of carbon emissions precisely because it is the most socialized, subsidized,120 and centrally planned sector of the U.S. economy—at least for favored modes like road transport and aviation. It has the least true competition among modes, and the most untruthful prices, with hidden costs of hundreds of billions of dollars per year for U.S. road vehicles alone.121 These distortions leverage more billions into otherwise uneconomic infrastructural and locational decisions. In particular, the dispersion of uses that causes so much excessive driving is mandated by obsolete single-use zoning rules meant to segregate noxious industries that scarcely exist today. Congestion is specifically caused by non-pricing or underpricing of the road resource: most roads are supported by taxes, not users, so they look free to drivers who behave much as Soviet customers did in demanding a great deal of energy when it looked free. Congestion is not only unpriced, but is further exacerbated by building more subsidized roads that elicit even more traffic, and by requiring developers to provide as much parking as people use when they pay nothing for it. Future generations will marvel that the incredible social costs of these policies—costs intertwined with many inner-city ills—went so long uncorrected: all ways to get around, or not to need to, were never made to compete fairly against each other, and drivers neither got what they paid for nor paid for what they got.

I have always thought that both sides of this debate should consider the alternative scenarios; what would libertarians do if man is proved to be warming the planet?; what would AGW proponents do if there is global warming, but it is entirely natural?; is natural always a good thing?

Hopefully 'climategate' has opened the door to honest debate.

A UK Libertarian Forum

2010-02-16T19:47:00.003Z

The guys at The UK Libertarian have started up The UK Libertarian Forums. Hopefully it is a great success. I don't know if it is just more anarcho-capitalists getting online, or whether more people are 'seeing the light' in the UK, but it feels like anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are starting to take root here.

Hide the decline: When the science isn't settled

2009-12-14T21:07:00.002Z

I would like to write something on climate change, as much to obtain a better understanding of the issues for myself, as to proselytise to anyone else. I immensely dislike the whole tenor of the current debate, if indeed there is any real debate, and strongly object to being labelled with affiliations I do not hold, simply because I might wish to enquire about validity of a hypothesis and the efficacy of policy ideas. Climate change has clearly been a continous process since the Earth formed so the slur of climate change 'denier' is clearly disingenuous for a start. Incidently one might get the impression that I am biased already given the link below, but the main point of that link is the government using alarmist scare stories (I am sure not endorsed by serious climate scientists of any stripe) to terrify our children. If anyone believes that this kind of hyperventilating nonsense is helpful, then I have no time for them as they are not interested in rational enquiry and methods. Also, although the peer review system is a useful process, it is rich of proponents of AGW to dismiss criticisms as not peer reviewed, when they are happy to use alarmist journalism to further their own agendas.

It is interesting that one can hold heterodox views in other areas of science whithout becoming a social pariah at hip London dinner parties, or indeed without anyone caring at all. As an example and somewhat ironically given the context, I doubt the 'Copenhagen' interpretation of quantum mechanics, in fact I prefer the De Broglie–Bohm or Pilot-Wave theory of quantum mechanics, where incidently the debate appears to be alive and well. Why am I socially allowed this opinion, but not a similar minority view on climate change? Is it because of the science, or the perceived policy implications of the science? Why has 'sceptic' become an insult instead of an eminently sensible position to take when confronted with a decision to accept monumental impositions of society?

In a field entirely unrelated to climate change, I have just finished The Nurture Assumption, which holds that children's personalities are formed in the main by interactions with their peer group and the parents have little to no effect, other than through their genes. This is a controversial position, which flies in the face of the scientific 'consensus' amongst social psychologists. Now whether or not this author is correct in her theories, I doubt my agreement with her position is likely to get me metaphorically lynched by devout believers in the 'nurture assumption', yet as far as I am aware she does not have a vast catalogue of peer-reviewed papers backing up her theories.

Having expressed my objections to some of the cartoon portrayals of those who might query the anthropomorphic climate change movement (complete with policy implications), I would like to look at what evidence there is and see where that leads me. Although anyone who reads this blog will appreciate I am unlikely to like government 'solutions' for any perceived problems, this is a different issue to the truth of AGW. So I would like to concentrate on whether that is an issue or not first and then discuss what solutions there might be if it is, or were to become, a problem. I would add at this juncture that anarcho-capitalists do need to think about what our solutions are even if the current scare turns out not to be true, since there is nothing logically impossible about dispersed processes causing global catastrophes.

Using your taxes to scare childen with lies

2009-12-02T18:15:00.002Z

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

A new start

2006-07-03T15:23:00.000Z

Well, leading on from me claiming to have another life offline, I have found myself a new job! Oddly enough the interview seemed to be going the worst out of all the interviews I have been to (although obviously I failed to get offered the previous jobs) and yet they offered me the job on the spot. I probably should have been more composed than I was, but they rather caught me by surprise! The salary was excellent though and the job certainly looks interesting, so I think I may well have landed on my feet. My girlfriend has also got herself a new job that sounds like it could offer her a lot of opportunities, especially the potential for travel, something she is keen to do more of. So, after a rather stagnant period since we both wrapped up our long-winded educations, it seems like it is finally onward and upward.

It is instructive to look back at how both my girlfriend and I arrived at this point in our careers. From my perspective I would advise any graduate to pick who they work for as carefully as possible, with a mind to where they want their career to go in the future. This is to avoid finding yourself drifting into a career path that fails to motivate or excite you. From my girlfriend's perspective, I think she would advise caution in pursuing post-graduate qualifications, they may not necessarily lead you where you initially thought they would. That is not to say that such qualifications will not give you an edge in the job market or allow you to aquire tremendous knowledge, they will. It is to say that such knowledge comes at a high price; it requires a strength of commitment unlikely to be reached by those who are either not interested enough in the subject or who are merely using the qualification as a means rather than an end in itself.

Perhaps I am idealistic, I still think there are intellectual, as well as financial, rewards in the pursuit of knowledge and work.

Another two kinds of people

2006-06-23T07:56:00.000Z

Statements starting with 'There are only two kinds of people in this world...' have become a bit of a cliche, but I think the following binary view is still worth considering. The opposition I speak of is between those for whom justice resides in ends and those for whom justice resides in the means. It is an insight that has no doubt been expanded on in depth elsewhere and I hope to do some more research when I have some spare time, but even in its basic form I think it is key to much of the conflict of ideologies.

If it is not immediately apparent, Anarcho-Capitalism is predicated on justice residing in the means used, not the ends, one of it's chief observations being that people hold varying, often incompatible ends. Once this is understood, it is immediately apparent that any ideology that holds the ends as its justification must necessarily be coercive, as the justified end will have to be forced upon those who do not agree with it. This is an essential aspect of collectivism of all types, social conservatives and puritans fall prey to this thinking as much as the run-of-the-mill socialist.

I suspect the majority of people do not base their thinking strictly on one or the other approach, but rather stick to non-coercive means for the most part, whilst turning to coercion for an end they particularly value. Unfortunately in a democracy this means that for any given issue there is always someone who believes the ends justify the means, and they tend to be the ones 'shouting the loudest'.*

*For example these loathesome, subhuman, congenital losers.

iQuote of the day

2006-06-13T11:57:00.000Z

doktorschadenfreude said...

"Apple stores are for people who think Gattaca represented a perfect utopian future (apart from the bitter cripple and genetically impure dude)."

via Idiot Toys

Going Postal

2006-05-18T12:12:00.000Z

So, the British government has decided to bail out the PO's pension scheme to the tune of £1.75 billion. This is the same Post Office we are told is moving with the times, upgrading, even turning a profit. Odd how a (basically state backed) company can claim to be turning a profit whilst simultaneously requiring subsidies. However, this bail out is not the truely ingenious part, no that comes with the regulatory body who, in their wisdom, have fixed the price of stamps and hence stripped the Post Office of their ability to set prices in line with their own costs and the market. So the end result is that, to save some money on the cost of stamps, everybody's taxes go up (or at least are diverted from other areas).

Now, I by no means defend the Post Office, if it's management have got into a situation where the PO will either go bankrupt from the pensions black hole or have to raise prices so much that it will go out of business anyway, then so be it. If a company is inefficient it should fail and it's competitors take over, fixing prices and subsidising is a gross distortion of the free market and, regardless of any perceived short term gains, will always lead to worse results in the long run.

Chomksy - Oxymoron incarnate

2006-05-11T08:30:00.000Z

What is it about those on the 'left', who claim to be libertarians, to offer people freedom, that invariably translates into calls for the creation of the most illiberal, corporatist, unaccountable, transnational bodies? Well, at least this comment gives us a name these so-called defenders of our rights can rally around:

Chomsky should start his own political party some day. He could call it "Anarchists for World Government".
Posted by: Steve Edwards
May 11, 2006 at 06:56 AM

For Update's sake

2006-05-09T07:54:00.000Z

It seems clear that to get a committed readership for a blog, one needs to update on a regular basis, probably daily if not more. This is quite a commitment for the lone blogger who has a life as well (believe it or not I do) and I have started to think that as the blogosphere develops it will be the team blogs that survive the test of time. I think a blog needs a certain momentum, once this has occured the regular commenters reinforce the main posts of the blog. Maybe this blog will achieve that momentum if I post more regularly, perhaps shorter more frequent posts? Or perhaps I should get my own team? After the short time I have been blogging I now see why so many blogs end up abandoned, something I will make every attempt not to do, especially since I think in general blogs are far more interesting than static websites.

Sblargh

2006-04-11T15:36:00.000Z

I've added Sblargh to my links, unfortunately for me the site is in Portuguese, which I can't read, but it needs to be there if for no other reason than quotes like these:

"I like the lazy more than the incompetent, at least lazy people achieve their objectives."

I like this guy!

My, that's an offensive weapon, that is!

2006-04-07T07:57:00.000Z

A couple of days ago the BBC news ran a piece about the ridiculous proposal to have airport style scanners at all train stations. In support of the argument for the scanners the BBC refered back to the purported vast numbers of knifes the police have confiscated from the general public in the past. In part of the film the police displayed the fruits of their policy to 'protect the public'*. In amongst the assorted collection of penknifes and the odd flick knife, a knife not dissimilar to the following one was on show:

Good work chaps.

*Pull that off. My, that's an offensive weapon, that is.

Blog VS MSM showdown

2006-03-30T10:50:00.000Z

Help this guy out by completing his questionaire (every one loves random surveys don't they?). He is examining the influence of 'journalistic blogs' (which I think he basically defines as blogs with news content as opposed to personal content etc.) compared to the MSM. Sounds like an interesting undergrad project, hopefully he will publish his results in the blogosphere!

Any excuse for a new terrorcrat

2006-03-27T09:03:00.000Z

Hat tip to my girlfriend for noticing this one; now that Scotland has introduced a smoking ban in public* places it suddenly needs a vast army of 'smoking enforcement officers'. From the TV report on these officers it appears that these new state employees warrant fancy business suits and have to operate in pairs (and I doubt it is two for the price of one!). So yet again 'public health' is a convenient excuse for the state employing ever more non-workers and placing ever greater strain on the productive sector. It is amazing that that Edinburgh City Council has trouble emptying the bins or maintaining the streets, but it can afford to divert vast resources into stopping people lighting up.

Just another day in the life of the state.

*I say public, but it is obviously a pretty incoherent definition of public that includes privately owned businesses.

Morons abound

2006-03-13T14:07:00.000Z

It makes one wonder at the general intellectual prowess of the people of Great Britain when reading letters to a broadsheet newspaper that contain statements as inane as the following: that the airline industry;

"receives enormous subsidies by escaping tax and VAT on fuel."

You, sir are officially moron of the day.

Thank goodness the government gives me such a massive subsidy, what with letting me keep half my wages and all. I feel rather nauseous.

The forbidden fruit

2006-03-03T11:29:00.000Z

Apple do not seem keen on filling you (or more precisely your ipod) up with musical goodness, at least not if their pricing policy is anything to go by. From this article at The Register, Jim Griffin, former director of Geffen's technology group points out:

"It costs $20,000 to fill an iPod from iTunes Music Store."

So, yet another good reason not to use Apple's proprietary software or hardware, that combined with the reasons alluded to in this post about leftie ipod owners over at AngloAustria. I'd note that my comment about socialists (at least in places like the UK) being seen to be cool rather than being rational is not quite correct, as pointed out, I should have said they are rational in-so-far as acheiving their aim of looking cool, rather than my prefered aim of buying an mp3 player that is actually good at playing music (good battery life, simple interface, good sound quality, etc). Anyway, I will be sticking with my stylish Antec encased PC and my glowing Creative Zen thanks all the same Apple!

Makes your skin crawl...

2006-02-24T09:04:00.000Z

George Monbiot is hardly my favourite columnist, but this article just goes to prove the old adage that a stopped watch is right twice a day. Monbiot cites the introduction of subcutaneous implants as a security measure and then looks out how this rapidly advancing technology could become widespread in current situations where people are tracked (i.e. mental health facilities, hospitals, the military, etc.). His main point is that these types of uses for tracking implants will not be objected to, people will probably accept them in these situations without complaint, even if they are not compulsory.

The fact that all this is not particularly objectionable in and of itself is paradoxically the most worrying aspect of such developments. How long before states see the potential in this technology? How long before babies are tagged in hospital, ostensibly to prevent kidnapping and the like, but where function creep rapidly expands the system's scope - preventing truancy at school perhaps? Eventually with so many young adults having grown up with such implants making them mandatory will no longer be politically difficult and we will have sleepwalked into the ultimate Orwellian state.

Paranoid? Perhaps. Yet we see how hard the government twists and turns to introduce ID cards and to be honest most of the opposition is due to cost rather than principle. What if your "citizen tag" was cheap, easy to use and you were virtually unaware of it, I'm not sure those of us concerned with liberty will be pleased with the number of people who are fundamentally opposed to the state tracking and controlling our lives.

Should food be free on eating?

2006-01-06T15:29:00.000Z

Miss Sudha Shenoy comments on this post about the NHS at the Adam Smith Institute Blog;

1. “They are making huge savings...” Where? Where? Who benefits from these so-called ‘savings’? Have taxes been reduced?

You are not suggesting we should take money out of the NHS? The horror of it! You have to remember who the NHS is for, it has to think of the interests of it's employees first, obviously. Thus any surplus will naturally be consumed by increased salaries, especially of those smart civil servants who helpfully unburdened the government of the responsibility of healthcare (the private sector is always a good scapegoat when things go wrong), whilst simultaneously retaining control of the money and expanding the complexity of the bureaucracy required to manage these 'partnerships'.

2. “Taxpayers’ funds should be spent on cost-effective health care..” How cost-effective—when that same taxpayer simply stumps up whatever suppliers charge? Taxpayers don’t go bankrupt from unwise buying.

So elementary, and yet a fact that seems to escape the majority of people. Government cannot do cost accounting, ever, at all. It has no feedback mechanism for evaluating cost effectiveness as it is an enforced monopoly supplier.

3. Why not provide supermarkets on the same principle? The state pays all grocery bills, but the market provides the groceries. Surely this would result in cost-effective supply of groceries—wouldn’t it?

Because food isn't essential... uh... no... I'm confused! Socialism must be a synonym of cognitive dissonance.

A stronger point the statists might make would be to note that healthcare is essentially a service based on insurance (i.e. often costly treatment is required for short, unpredictable periods, whilst there may be long periods where no healthcare is required), thus they could try and make a case for compulsory insurance, arguing that without compulsion people would underestimate the costs and risk and fail to protect themselves adequately. However, even given this thesis (one which I would also contest, for reasons I will not go into right now) , the argument only goes that far and no further, giving no reason why any services should be directly run by the state. Indeed that state would only be requiring and monitoring insurance contributions.

However my digression is moot, the Adam Smith Institute is not arguing that the state should merely ensure individuals provide for their own health or even that it should subsidise the poor's healthcare insurance. The user of healthcare services will not benefit from "choice and the competition between new, diverse providers" if these services are still funded and administered through central government. The Adam Smith Institute is essentially arguing that the state should continue to control and administer healthcare from the centre, a dangerous line of thinking that has exactly the same repercussions as Miss Shenoy implies it would have (and has had) in relation to food production; at the minimum creating artificial shortages, as already occur, and potentially far worse. One need only look to the biggest famines in history - oddly enough a result of centrally planning and controlling food production.

Maybe this is a position that the Adam Smith Institute believes is pragmatic in the current politcal climate and, if it was their decision, would ultimately welcome wholesale privatisation of healthcare provision in the UK. One can only hope.

Blair gives up rebate

2005-12-19T14:11:00.000Z

Tony Blair's spokesman said: "The rebate is fully justified, full stop."

Thursday, 19 May, 2005

Mr Blair said the rebate was the result of a "distortion of expenditure" and "if we remove the rebate, we have to remove the reasons for its existence".

Tony Blair, Saturday, 18 June, 2005

"It is no way that we will give up rebate without a fundamental agricultural reform,"

Tony Blair, Friday, 2nd December, 2005

Trust me, I'm Tony Blair...

Quote of the day: CAP

2005-12-16T14:34:00.000Z

Kudos to Charles Crawford, British ambassador to Poland, who called the Common Agricultural Policy;

"the most stupid, immoral state-subsidised policy in human history, give or take communism".

2005-12-09T13:08:00.000Z

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

An open letter to the apathetic

2005-11-27T00:52:00.000Z

Many people do not so much disagree with the anarcho-capitalist analysis of the defects and injustices of the state, so much as care to little about it, contented as they are with their own lives. In a reply to one such person I wrote, roughly, the following and thought it was worth publishing here.

One of the problems with the 'I'm alright jack' attitude is that it may well be true now for some individuals, but as the financial services waivers warn; past performance is not necessarily indicative of future returns. In less vague terms the trend for those past sixty years has been an ever increasing tax burden with the requisite bureaucracy and increasing intrusion into our lives. In the case of the UK, the tax burden in 1900 was around 13% of GDP, whilst by 2000 it was over 40% and has seen significant rises since. (I took these statistics from a parliamentary paper as it is always good to use the states own publications against it!).

As the state consumes more and more of a country's wealth that country becomes commensurately poorer. Furthermore I would suggest that there is a tipping point a little way over the 50% taxation mark where the private sector begins to collapse under the pressure. This is not merely a failure of whichever political party happens to be in control (although they certainly play their part), it is an inherent structural failure of any statist institution. This view is clearly born out by every conceivable statistic tracing our personal and economic liberty over the past hundred years.

I hope those of you apathetic about politics (in its wider sense) find that disturbing and at least worthy of some consideration and this is the least of it, but I have said plenty elsewhere about the lack of justification for the state or how the majority of people would be personally better off without it. Whether you are an anarcho-capitalist or not I find it naive to believe that the welfare-warfare state can just carry on its merry way, it is a dangerous if popular way to think.

How depressing!

2005-11-23T11:55:00.000Z

Apparently I am an insignificant microbe in the The Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem. Well, all I can say is microbes are an important part of any ecosystem, so there!

Blair needs a bit of education, education, education

2005-11-03T20:42:00.000Z

When asked about the government's trampling of civil liberties in it's supposed pursuit of terrorists Mr Blair told today told the BBC that the

"...civil liberties of the majority who need protection should come first,"

Now, quite apart from the fact that this and previous governments have significantly contributed to the terrorist threat in this country and proved stupendously inept at doing anything sensible about such threats, Mr Blair has shown his complete inability to grasp even the most rudimentary political concepts. The arguments surrounding this so called 'anti-terror' legislation have nothing to do with the civil liberties of terrorists, why would anyone care about such things other than those addicted to human rights legislation. Obviously the arguments are about the liberties of innocent individuals. However, what is more important than even this willful misunderstanding is the implication of the above quote, namely, he is not talking about civil liberties at all with regard to the 'majority' if indeed he could be considered to be talking any sense what-so-ever.

I shall explain it slowly for Mr Blair, civil liberties are our protection from government. I can't put it any more bluntly than that, and since that is the case it makes Mr Blair's comments incoherent gibberish. For his further enlightenment:

One's freedom to exercise one's rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country.
Fundamental individual right protected by law and expressed as immunity from unwarranted governmental interference

(From Wordnet at Princeton)

The 'Big Beast' is slain

2005-10-19T08:52:00.000Z

Thank goodness Ken Clarke is out of the Tory leadership contest, at the very least Britain will not have three totally pro-european-integration parties. It would seem Liam Fox has the best credentials for rolling back the state, but I predict that the Tories will go for style over content and Cameron will be in - I would love to be proved wrong.

A tribal animal?

2005-10-08T23:51:00.000Z

The conception of the human mind as a blank slate, so beloved of those of socialist bent during the twentieth century, has been thoroughly discredited by modern scientific analysis. Academics such as Stephen Pinker through his book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, have brought the fallacies of the blank slate view of human development to public attention. This being generally accepted, an arguably opposite point of view has re-emerged, more closely allied with the conservative conception of human nature, something akin to the idea that humans have their natural station in life. It seems reasonable to contend that the truth is somewhere in the middle of the nature-nurture debate and that the exact percentage influence of either is relatively un-important in any analysis of human behaviour.

With that preamble, it is interesting to examine the question of whether humans possess an innate tribal instinct derived from our socio-evolutionary past? This does seem pertinent to the functioning of an anarcho-capitalist society, for if humans are indeed more tribal when unconstrained by the divisive policies of the state then Hoppe's analysis of communities formed along 'tribal' lines being more prevalent than today does appear to stand up.

Personally I feel little tribal loyalty and see myself as a radical individualist, obviously not shunning friends or family in a hermit like manner, but in so far as denying any particular need to belong to a collective social entity greater than my immediate social circles. Others, however, clearly feel differently; the supporting of sports teams, political party loyalty, patriotism, all betray a need to belong to the greater (tribal) collective. Whether tribalism is inherently widespread or not, it does not affect the basic economics of anarcho-capitalism, which stand up regardless of the social arrangements any individual or group of individuals pursue. What it would affect is the social character of society. I would argue that anarcho-capitalism encourages heterogeneity as there is no centralised homogenisation, but, if tribalism were prevalent, then it seems likely that society would evolve towards homogenous enclaves in a heterogeneous network.

My personal opinion, as in the nature-nurture debate, is that society would exist as a mixture of both, as indeed it appears to have done historically. On the fringes homogeneity will increase as like minded (or otherwise alike) individuals group together to reinforce their own set of values and beliefs, whilst the urban dynamos will remain, where heterogeneity is demanded by the complex networks of a modern economy.

Quote of the day

2005-09-30T12:37:00.000Z

You do have to wonder what free speech actually means to some people today, certainly the government does not believe it means one should be able to say what one likes. I sometimes think it is a blessing that I am uninfluential enough not to have my comments generally monitored for any possible cause of offence.

Perhaps that old boy who mumbled “nonsense” at Jack Straw was thrown out because organisers thought he was being offensive to the foreign secretary community.
Mick Hume in The Times

BBC News 24: Your Quackery Channel!

2005-09-17T12:44:00.000Z

It beggars belief what the BBC will use the money exhorted from us for, the latest useless piece of misinformation was a set piece on ‘bioresonance’. THis morning BBC News 24 reported what is, according to them, an amazing new treatment to help smokers quit. A British Bioresonance page explains the 'technical details':

The underlying theory behind this is that all matter has a resonant frequency and every cell in the body resonates at a particular frequency. This takes the form of an electromagnetic field and groups of cells In an organ or system have multiple frequency patterns which are unique. Hence, the whole body has a complex frequency make up which can change or become distorted when affected by illness. If you accept that the cells are controlled by electromagnetic fields then it is possible to introduce healthy frequencies to re-balance the whole body and provide an environment where the body cures itself.

The key sentence here seems to be 'If you accept that the cells are controlled by electromagnetic fields", well no I don't, as far as I know there is no evidence to support this anywhere and clearly the proponents of 'bioresonance' want people to take their proclamations on faith. If it were true that this machine could alter our 'electromagnetic' field at will, which in turn affected all the regulartory interactions of our cells, surely this would make it terrifyingly dangerous and not to be used for something as comparitively trivial as smoking addiction?

Now, contrary to the BBC report, this quackery is not a new invention, it is simply old pseudo-science being applied to the most recently news-worthy sector of gullible people. According to Quackwatch this 'technique' has been being used for years as a supposed cure for cancer of all things! Seems then that since it didn't really work on something as deadly as cancer (quell surprise), its 'practioners' have turned to something a bit easier to use their expensive fancy machines on, something where they can be guaranteed a good wholesome placebo effect with at least a few of thei victims. Someone named Martin Keymer is credited with this brilliant advance in bullshiting the general public, although bizarrely such a 'brilliant researcher' in biophysics is nowhere to be found in the peer-reviewed, published articles of PubMed.

Now there is indeed a lot of pseudo-science out there to entice gullible (and unfortunately often vulnerable) people, but the issue here is that my money is being used to promote this rubbish and I am incredulous that even the BBC could fall to this level of abismally uncritical reporting. Now I don't usually get as worked up about the BBC as these people, but it sickens me (pun intended) that the BBC still claims to exist as a 'public service' whilst reporting this drivel as fact.

Free advertising for Anarcho-Capitalism!

2005-09-09T07:57:00.000Z

Thanks to SilasXdX at anti-state.com for pointing out the free advertising over at Wikipedia (as of today, 09.09.05). There had been a lot of hassle over the Anarcho-Capitalism article being included as part of anarchist history, mainly by 'anarcho'-communists spoiling for a fight, but I tend to think it isn't worth bothering with this particular breed of socialists anyway. The Ancap article stands up as an informative and unbiased account on its own. Well done to all those who researched and constructed the article and for getting it featured on Wikipedia's front page!

Housekeeping

2005-09-06T19:15:00.000Z

I had changed the comments to registered users only as I was getting annoyed at the obvious spam, but I have no discovered the joy of trying to decipher wiggly words made up by blogger.com! This simple pleasure does now mean that any real human can once again comment without necessarily having a blogger account (although why wouldn't you want one?). Apologies for those who wanted to comment recently.

Seven-year-olds hooked on drink

2005-08-17T14:34:00.000Z

A fantastic headline from Monday's Metro, if somewhat of a bare-faced lie. Firstly the article implies there are huge swathes of the under-eight population attending AA meetings, when it in fact turns out that an Edinburgh hospital reported a single incident of a seven-year-old that had been persuaded to drink by older children. Even for this one, admittedly concerning, case, it hardly follows from a visit to hospital that the child is "hooked on drink" as the Metro so graphically puts it. I realise newspapers need gripping stories, but it belittles real issues when the truth is stretched so far as to be trivial.

The Times has a rather less hysterical article on 7-year-olds treated for alcohol intoxication, although even here I take issue with some of the implications. The article states that a "quarter of school-age children admitted drinking alcohol every week". Now, as a child from I young age I drank alcohol; given to me by my parents. What terrible parents they must have been? Well, no, I had watered down wine with my meals and the occasional beer as I got older. See, the social issue is that when you make things taboo you positively encourage rebellious teenagers to indulge in such behaviour. The much beloved continental attitude to drink is to do with a culture where drink is not a taboo, but is integral to wider social patterns. This means that what we need is more personal responsibility from parents; they need to act as positive role models with regard to drink. The government cannot and never will be able to legislate culture.

Lastly, I'd like to see these advertisments for drink aimed at seven-year-olds and the proof for how going on at young children about drink and drugs has made a blind bit of difference to the rates of consumption of either. The light at the end of the tunnel of the 'teach them when they're younger' education programs is that there is only so young a child can be, before the whole idea has to be given up as nonsense.

An anarchic anomaly

2005-08-08T20:24:00.000Z

I recently came accross a site about Kowloon Walled City which was a hugely dense settlement (claimed to be the most densely populated location in the world at the time) that had a limbo like existence in Hong Kong until it was torn down in 1993. Britain and China disputed who should control and govern the land, the upshot of which was that neither did, effectively leaving the area free of state interference. The website says:

Basically the indecision and ignorance between the two countries over the occupation of KWC lead to the city's lack of government, and its inevitable self-organization [my italics] and problems with crime and drugs.

Without knowing any of the political background of the authors of this site I thought it interesting that they thought the self-organisation of the Walled City was inevitable without government. Perhaps they meant it in a derogatory way, in so far as the people of the city were forced to self-organize, but even if that was their intention it does show that humans have a remarkable capacity for self-organization as a community without government having to tell them how.

Obviously as an Anarcho-Capitalist I am not particularly concerned about the 'drug problem', I'm sure the biggest issue in the Walled City was drug-lords created by the very government policies that are supposed to eliminate them. As to the crime rate without state police to help out (and excluding 'drug problems') the website goes on to say:

Chan Pui Yin arrived in Hong Kong from Chiu Chow [China] county in 1947, opening his own herbal medicine store in KWC eight years later.

"Once I'd settled here I found that there was less crime in it than outside. Although the police were not around there was a volunteer group to help keep the peace. It is a bit like back home in the villages of China - a harmonious state of anarchy. I don't really want to move."

The inhabitants were mainly poor migrants, especially dispossesed Chinese, and so had limited resources yet they managed to collectively create this impressive structure. Kowloon Walled city obviously had its fair share of problems, poor rubbish disposal systems being a major one and the lack of natural light in some areas, although this is a general feature of a lot of Hong Kong's high density living. However, the point remains, essentially a city of up to 50,000 people peacefully existed in a state of anarchy for over 100 years until the do-gooder government decided to tear it down and throw these people out of their homes.

A belated quote...

2005-08-06T17:34:00.000Z

"By definition you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber."

John Howard
Australian Primeminister

You're right there, John!

Species of forum threads

2005-07-31T21:59:00.000Z

As you work your way through various forums and comments pages on the internet you begin to see similar patterns emerge. Two that I have most recently encountered go along the following lines:

Type 1 - A new user posts a torrent of mindless drivel, usually under the pretext of being so sophisticated and above the grasp of the other forum members. The forum regulars then, quite rightly, deride the post for being an inane stream of nonsense. Then up pops the original spammers knight in shining armour, who points out to the forum regulars that they should stop being so snobbish and engage the spammer. The thread is then usually abandoned, as there was never coherent point to it in the first place.

Type 2 - The classic grammar/spelling attack. Now I have some sympathy with this as it is annoying when someone cannot be bothered to make their posts generally conform to some kind of comprehensible English, however this type of response is usually nitpicking and there are situations where posters are either very young or are afflicted by dyslexia and the like. The entire thread then degenerates into an argument about spelling, grammar and punctuation, which is not particularly interesting to anyone except pedants.

Type 1 really annoys me, but I could be prey to being involved in Type 2 as some people could really do with brushing up on their English. If anyone else has noticed threads with recurrent themes, post them here!

The benefits of subjective morality

2005-07-24T14:08:00.000Z

Just to clarify the last entry, it would seem to me that subjective morality is an advantage to ancap for two reasons. Firstly it makes the idea of positive claims on others impossible as there is no objective standard by which to judge such moral claims between individuals. Secondly ancap does not need a moral framework, as such, to be valid since no individual is bound to abide by anothers subjective judgement on moral issues.

Obviously the area is more intricate than I can state in a couple of blog posts and I know a great issue of contention is the definition of positive and negative rights. Perhaps the term 'negative rights' is misleading and it would probably clarify the issue to say that they are not a type of right at all, but simply a lack of postive rights.

With reference to lawmaking the distinction between positive rights and their absence should be clear. As Murray Rothbard states:

"It is not the business of the law to make anyone good or revant or moral or clean or upright."

When is a right not a right?

2005-07-20T20:31:00.000Z

Well, when you are a moral relativist for one. The arguments for and against natural rights theory are long and intricate, so for this piece of commentary I will assume one is a moral relativist and explore how this would affect holding Anarcho-Capitalist principles.

The essence of moral relativism is that morality is subjective and hence an individual creation, be it through the prism of genetics and/or upbringing. Since all morality is derived from an individual perspective it follows that there can be no objective moral definition outside of the individual, in other words there are ethical systems intrinsic to us as subjective beings, but no independently verifiable moral code that we should follow. This point of view has some immediate benefits, the most obvious being that if morality is subjective there is no right to impose your version of morality on others. At first glance this all ties in well with the general consensus of Anarcho-Capitalist ethics, i.e. the principle of non-coercion and/or non-aggression.

Unfortunately it is not as straightforward as this. For example if morality is subjective an individual can, from their point of view, quite self-coherently create what they consider a set of moral absolutes. Then we are back to the situation of the potential imposition of morals with force, one of the hallmarks of the state. However, this situation can be avoided. This is so because it is still a logical truism to say that positive hypothesis need proving whilst negative hypothesis stand until a positive hypothesis can be verified to counter the negative situation. In more simple terms, the Anarcho-Capitalist does not need to acquire absolute rights to go about his or her business, but only to take the logically sound position that no such right exists to impinge upon their business until such time as a positive right can be objectively verified.

To my knowledge no one has ever conclusively verified a positive right and, as such, Anarcho-Capitalists can be moral relativists without accepting either the 'ethics' of those who wish to impose an absolute morality or those who in any other way act as if they held positive rights to another's liberty.

Anarcho-Capitalists, one and all... maybe

2005-07-19T21:28:00.000Z

I have just added several links to Anarcho-Capitalist blogs, at least they all seem to be anarcho-capitalist to me, but if anyone feels they are not I will be happy to revise my link structure!

The good thing about Anarcho-Capitalists is they generally are happy to call themselves such, at least if not in a room full of bloodthirsty statists. It does seem that humans work the best together when they have something fundamental to hate, and the state is pretty fundamentally hated around these parts. There would of course be disagreements on how best to live ones life in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, it is simply that no one would be in the position to use the state apparatus to dictate the outcome of those debates.

A good start to making poverty history...

2005-07-17T11:53:00.000Z

A nice little logo for all of you who were annoyed at the SSP's anit-freedom propaganda campaign. Just to let them know, we can doctor logos too.

In a very perceptive post, idlejimbo puts across the 'anarchists' side of the story in the regards the Edinburgh 'protests' and their aims and objectives.

With regards the comments on this blog, they are now open to all and since I know 'at least' two people have read this blog I await further enlightenment!

Confirmed: ID cards will not prevent terrorism

2005-07-08T23:37:00.000Z

The BBC reports what we have been saying all along, specifically ID cards 'wouldn't stop attacks' like the ones in London. When asked if ID cards would have prevented Thursday's atrocity the repugnant, spineless Charles Clarke answered:

"I doubt it would have made a difference. I've never argued ... that ID cards would prevent any particular act."

So we should be sure to remind Mr Clarke of this statement repeatedly in the future.

Terrorists can always find a target

2005-07-07T11:28:00.000Z

It looks very much like Al Qaeda have struck London in a sickening attack on the Capital's infrastructure. Currently four bombs have been confirmed and there seems to be some possibility of more that were not detonated.

Tony Blair made a statement at midday and claimed that we would defend our way of life against such terrorists. It would be relieving to think that he was sincere in defending our freedom, however it would be a manipulative ploy to use this as an excuse for such un-liberal measures as ID cards. It can only be hoped that such blatant opportunism will not be forthcoming. At this moment we would do well to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin;

"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve
neither security nor liberty."

I can only hope that there are no more bombs and the number of casualties are few. Like everyone I hope friends and colleagues in London have not been affected by this tragedy and for the people who have, my heartfelt condolences. Samizdata is currently covering events in London where I think the sentiments expressed here are generally echoed.

Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes

2005-06-29T19:03:00.000Z

The Adam Smith Institute blog has a good concise post about the heinous Identity Database Scheme, which points out that identity cards failed to stop the Madrid bombings, will not apply to illegal immigrants (especially since if the don't have a passport how would they magically get an identity card?!) and finally bear little relation to benefit fraud (which is mainly to do with claims whilst working not false identities).

As the Adam Smith Institute accurately observes the biggest threat to civil liberties is in fact the database itself. Numerous points need noting:

If MI5 et al already can access this information why do we need to implement an incredibly expensive and complicated new system.
Once such a system is implemented it is infinitely expandable and as with all statist projects, it will be expanded.
Finally, who will guard the guards. This objection goes back to antiquity and is as sound now as it was then - Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes

If you are not already convinced check out NO2ID and Sean Gabb on detailed reasons to oppose identity cards.

Since this blog is concerned with the Anarcho-Capitalist meme it seems very fitting that there has been talk on the web of the identity card bill becoming 'Blair's poll tax'. I am more than happy to spread this meme, so I hereby release it into the internet wild!

Privacy is a right not a privilege

2005-06-26T18:15:00.000Z

I hope people will make a pledge against ID cards here. This is the most insidious and authoritarian bill this facist government has yet embarked upon. I call them facist in a literal sense, this government is militaristic and contemptuous of individual freedoms and civil liberties. A compulsory ID card allows the government to track your life, centralising, collating and cross-referencing information on all aspects of your existence. The idea of 'nothing to fear, nothing to hide' is facetious at best and downright dangerous at worst. Only those with a total lack of imagination are unable to see how personal information can be used to manipulate enemies of the politcal elite and their cronies. With such intrusive tracking of our lives it would be simple to concoct stories based on circumstantial evidence to discredit opponents. Anyone who is aware of current affairs knows how easy it is to discredit people with mere accusations of wrong-doing or questionable associations.

ID cards will do nothing to prevent terrorist or criminal actions as ANY system is open to forgery, corruption and circumvention, what they will do is shift the balance of power towards the state, whereby citizens will have to continually prove their innocence or be excluded from modern society. Privacy is not a luxury handed out by the state, it is a right only to be rescinded on the basis of the stongest evidence of guilt handled through a transparent judicial process.

This is a heinous bill and anyone with any shred of respect for liberty and justice should oppose it absolutely.

When words become deeds

2005-06-26T12:50:00.000Z

It was interesting watching Jonathan Dimbleby this morning where it was suggested several times that lifting trade barriers to Africa might actually be a better way of alleviating poverty than simply throwing more money at the problem. This is to be encouraged as free trade (free trade IS fair trade) is what is really needed in Africa, which will itself encourage the toppling of corrupt dictatorships. Interestingly enough in Somalia where western interference was bloodily put down there are areas of increasing wealth with no effective government. People often suggest that Anarcho-Capitalists might like Somalia, well although I would not personally like to live there, it is interesting to note that Somalia has a flourishing mobile phone network without any government to control the airwaves. Many more 'stable' African countries have nothing like it. A provisional conclusion might be that what Somalia needs is not more government, but less impediment to trade with the west.

Unfortunately all this good work on Dimbleby was undone by the usual socialist 'pie in the sky' economics where privatisation was an evil forced upon African countries in return for debt cancellation and liberalisation is used as a dirty word.

Over on the BBC libertarianism was even mentioned in connection with the Conservative party, although frankly I am sceptical. I seem to remember being told of other Conservatives claiming to be libertarians whilst simultaneously clamouring for more state intervention. The media love to lump Libertarians together with Conservatives as 'the right', but, if those terms mean anything, then Libertarians are most emphatically not right-wing (as a previous essay on cuthhyra makes clear). Having said that one of the commentators was correct in saying there is a large libertarian streak in the British people that is woefully under-represented, but if the Conservatives are going to make any inroads into it they must be much more forceful. Schemes like school vouchers should be non-negotiable and implemented as soon as the Conservatives are in government, tax cuts should really be cuts, 1% of tax returns is pitiful it should be along the lines of 10% if they expect to be taken seriously (with more cuts in the long term). Privatisation and closing down of civil 'service' bureaucracies should be a priority.

There are some interesting noises in the media today, which I wholey support, however, I don't hold my breath that words will translate to deeds.

Moneyed socialists; Their intellectual error

2005-06-22T23:28:00.000Z

It just seems that whenever one is berated for being too concerned with money it comes from a 'socialist' who has no money troubles themselves. Money is merely a convenient method of exchange and it is only those confused about the purpose and use of money who believe it to be inherently evil (or, equally wrong, but more sophisticated, that money in and of itself is morally destructive). Money allows us to convey value, often through complex chains of transactions, via many people we may never even meet. What is clear is that for any given monetary unit, it's value will decrease with the increase in supply. This is true as much for the individual as it is the true cause of inflation in an economy. Of course in the case of the individual the objective value of the monetary unit remains constant and only the subjective value varies.

Some basic understanding of what money is and why it is necessary may clear up the misconception that capitalist activity is merely the accumulation of money and show how without money complex transactions are impossible making us all worse off.

A blog too far

2005-06-18T20:44:00.000Z

To complement my website I have decided to start a blog. This will allow people to comment on both the website and any posts, which will hopefully be of interest to anarcho-capitalists and libertarians, especially those in the UK.