The Bewilderness

The loneliness of the long-distance libertarian

Ron Paul came fourth in the South Carolina with 13 percent of the vote and has received some local endorsements. The comparison with 2008 is worth considering: from 3.8 to 13 percent. How much of this is due to the economic misery and political disillusionment with the mainstream? For now, Paul's activities within the GOP have thwarted the groundswell of any potential third party straddling social and economic liberalism.

Paul has already performed far above media and political expectations; on some criteria, he is the second most successful candidate after Romney in the primaries so far. A win for Paul in a state would completely alter perceptions. 

Can Paul win? This depends upon two factors: how far the GOP is willing to support Mitt Romney in a flawed quest for electability and, how far, conservatives would swing behind Paul in the event that Gingrich and Santorum fell away?

We need questions, not answers

Zero State is a new grouping that has emerged out of the inchoate slew of groups and personnel straddling futurism and transhumanism in the United Kingdom. Following the mutations amongst these associations over the last decade, one could get cynical about the lack of 'take off' one finds in a movement. A similar parallel could be drawn in the quest for liberty.

So, we find that the latest permutation seeks not to mainstream transhumanism, but to embrace the values and broaden participation. Admirable goals, no doubt and mood music to the major focal point of this post. Without quoting from the text, a troubling manifesto was put up for comment on a mailing list as a response to the financial crisis. The first paragraph blamed the financial crisis on capitalism and deliberate actions by a cross-section of government and the richest 1%. The result was that the middle class were paying a redistribution to the rich. The redistribution to the rich exists but I was loath to recognise agency in such a confusing and unknown situation. Within the text, such sentiments did denote class war and the politics of envy; sentiments indistinguishable from any utterance of the Labour Party or the radical left. This led me to think: if we are unable to understand what has occurred so far (since we can read a slew of competing narratives), what would transhumanist interests bring to the table? And I think that this is an important question, since these interests, these values distinguish us from the peddlers of traditional fictions.

One of the key factors of the banks has been a misreading of risk; part of the area that plays into the research on cognitive bias and other factors that can skew thought and action. Should we ensure that there are women traders to break up the dominant effects of testosterone? Should we ensure that all risk officers are women (the mother of all Battles?) Do we need to consider the effect of archaic institutional perspectives on what has occurred? Corporations, regulators and hedge funds all date from the twentieth century. They find it difficult to receive, process and act upon information; the complexities are too tangled in certain circumstances. (That does not prevent us from identifying those companies that were just stupid: loading themselves up on badly rated debt and foudering as a result).

The emphasis should be on questions, not an narratives. Adopt a story and you will instantly slot yourself into an existing narrative; one based on its own assumptions, not the evidence.

 

 

Register the registers, as they pile as high as a tower crane

Here's to the Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations (2010), setting out the needs for a register on cranes. This is a regulatory response to the deaths and injuries that tower cranes have caused over the last ten years. Each crane must be registered after they have been examined under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. But they will not apply to self-erecting tower cranes or mobile cranes.

How will a register of cranes prevent death? Given the number of construction sites in the United Kingdom, it is unlikely that policing registration will identify an unsafe site. Indeed, focus on tickbox registration could distract from the priority of securing an unsafe site.

The information to be submitted includes the name and address of the crane's owner or lessor, the construction site's address, serial number or some other information that identifies the crane, and whether the exam "revealed any defects involving imminent risk of serious personal injury," according to the guidance.

Will this force a company to undertake such an examination? Will a negligent employer change their tune due to a new form, or will they lie when they fill it in? Why is this required as there is no evidence that the new regulations will save lives? Indeed, new health and safety attitudes now kill...

A more libertarian Britain?

Looked at through the prism of politics and the headline that the British are more conservative could just about hold water. The new British Social Attitudes Survey has found that the British are less inclined to support redistribution or other forms of economic collectivism and are more tolerant of lifestyles considered deviant a generation ago.

Only two in five want more spending on public services such as health and education, the lowest level since 1984. The same proportion want greater redistribution of income from rich to poor compared with more than half of the public in 1994.

The survey, conducted by the National Centre for Social Research, found that sympathy towards the unemployed and other welfare claimants has also diminished. More people believe that benefits prevent people “standing on their own two feet”, with only one in four disagreeing. That compares with half the population disagreeing in the 1980s. There has also been an increase in those who feel that many on welfare do not deserve payments.

In terms that we understand the British have shifted towards a more liberal or libertarian mindset. Presented with the evidence of the New Labour years, they are far more sceptical of governmental action and far less forgiving of tax rises. There is no distinction between the orientation of their economic and social values except that imposed by political journalists.

The Tories will feel aggrieved that their socially liberal outlook, developing from the libertarian struggles of the 1980s, is not recognised; but optimistic that they are more 'in tune' with general attitudes.

Transhumanism and libertarianism: a weak case?

Is transhumanism predisposed towards libertarianism? In the IEET's use of the words associated with freedom and knowing location within Enlightenment values, transhumanism remains a broad church with an appeal to the left. Why is this so?

Firstly, the discourse of enhancement has become nestled within arguments concerning regulation and state provision, drawing upon existing academic work on the relationship between health, state and technology. Hence, the clear ties between transhumanism and the bioethics community. There is no rival school in the ivory tower.

Secondly, this institutional reliance on the left will focus upon positive notions of freedom, using the state to develop enhancement. Another drawback for a liberal approach: as its arguments cannot favour enhancement of humanity within the existing provision of health.

I am sure there are other historical reasons why the movement has shifted towards social democracy within its arguments, primarily based upon better organisation and mobilisation on the part of the Left. And that is a testament to their achievement.

Bumbles of east anglia

The propensity for libertarians to disbelieve 'official', 'public' or state-financed work could be viewed on a par with the finger-pointing of anti-capitalists who sniff interest in every corporate donation. Yet, it is not. Those who deride the corporations tend to see no wrong in public action, since the collective is always morally beneficial. The world-weary fighter for freedom is far more sceptical of any agenda promoted by any particular lobby or interest.

Let us not forget that the catechism of climate change is funded from public and private sources. Any lobby faced with the thwarting of its ideology at the expected moment of greatest triumph reveals its limitations. The reversion to denial, verbal assault and language reminiscent of communism:

He [Ed Miliband] said the former chancellor Nigel Lawson and former shadow home secretary David Davis were irresponsible and were acting as "saboteurs".

Is the answer to throw them into camps? Trends in the groupthink of its political supporters, wedded to the authoritarian apparatus of New Labour, have proven very worrying. The policy has come to be perceived as a sacred duty, the questioning of which becomes a trespass.

The stupidity that characterises their thought extends to their science. I am charmed at the thought that bumbling scientists, taking a 'string and sealing wax' approach, proved unable to even set up a programme for data analysis. No audit trail or commercial standards were reproduced within the university, and that oft-quoted British charm of 'muddling through' did not work. The CRU thought that something would turn up. It did: the blogosphere.

The only way to salvage any understanding from this mess is the obvious point: outsource the data analysis to a private sector company whose lifeblood depends upon a proven record for reliable data analysis. Not some internal investigation without the wit to understand conflict of interest.

Paris Freedom Fest I

The Paris Freedom Fest ended yesterday, as a joint conference of the Libertarian International, The International Society for Individual Liberty and the Manifesto Club. The four days were tiring, and some may say that such a stretch of libertarian individual doublethink was too much of a good thing. Nevertheless, the Fest was a success given the short notice within which it was organised and venue difficulties that were reported.

There has not been much reporting of the meeting in blog terms, though Todd Seavey feared that, as it was Europe, the participants would all be oxymorons ("libertarian socialists"). Far from it. The list of speakers showed that this was a diverse and divergent cadre of thinkers who shared similar values and principles but did not agree on method, action or outcome.

The final thoughts on the overall Freedom Fest were that, whilst it did recharge the moral battery worn down by agitprop statist rain, a more structured framework for further action may have been useful. A programme or a manifesto is counter-productive, as libertarian activism demands an individual choice and commitment after considered reflection. Perhaps the signposts wbout where to go could be more clearly marked.

I shall write up some further notes on individual talks and themes over the coming weeks, time permitting.

Your supermarket is merely an agent of the state

A 'report' tells supermarkets how they should sell their products and, presumably through some sort of survey, has concluded that buy one get one free (the bogof) should be told to bog off. Through a pernicious extension of the target mentality to the private sector, the civil service is now imprisoning the free market and private sector actors within its remit:

The report said that the new industry target on food waste, which would be set next year and cover the period to 2015, would have to save households at least £370 million a year.

Supermarkets will be encouraged to phase out bogofs on perishable food. In the interim, they will be required to give shoppers advice on how to reduce wastage, for example with labels on whether items can be frozen and recipes for overripe fruit and vegetables.

Disturbingly, a similar approach is also championed by the Tories, under the brand of libertarian paternalism. Families and individuals have to be nudged towards the social good; another stick for the professionals to think up ways to constrain and channel our thoughs and actions.

If government wishes to embark on a diet, the social good resulting from its decline would outweigh all the targets and pleas for the continuation of its existence that DEFRA comes up with.

Decimate the state

Needs must and the Romans acted. We can add one last item to the list of what ever did the Romans do for us. Although we are more civilised (measured by less blood!), we can gainfully deploy their policy of decimation, on an annualised basis.

Forget wishy-washy arguments about repeals or sunset clauses. Every year, cut one in ten who receive a payment from the state: one in ten able bodied citizens who idle their lives away and receive a pay as you go pension afterwards (an idea that only ever worked on mobile phones!); one in ten quangos (or just abolish them all in go); one in ten departments of state; and one in ten Members of Parliament, either from the Lords or Commons. Ringfence defence personnel for nightwatchmen status and we have a blueprint for a downsizing classic.

I am a yacht-fondler

Brown does not even come close: though this is an accolade:

One of the words Brown uses most often in private to describe the Tory leader is "libertarian": a word that conveys his belief that Cameron's "compassionate conservatism" is mere window-dressing, but also hints at a decadent strain of Tory libertinage, drug-taking and yacht-fondling.

I expect yacht-fondling to be outlawed in the next Parliament.