Shut up. Be happy.

Here's Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas, speaking last year (passed me by at the time) casting a critical eye over the government's superficially silly, but actually rather sinister happiness agenda. Happily (!) the gov has gone a bit quiet on this one, although no doubt the policy wonks are still beavering away with their plans to put Soma in the water supply.

Part two here.

In praise of Sir Walter Ralegh

Without any doubt in my mind, Sir Walter Ralegh was one of the greatest Englishmen who ever walked. I was recently furious to learn of the disgraceful conduct of his ludicrous trial for treason. Let it be remembered that the official version of events are often stinking lies. Sir Walter; working for the Spanish king? Even to write it, I feel like spitting, but I won't, as it's my carpet.

The reason for wishing to express my love and respect to Sir Walter is the pipe I have just enjoyed. My dear grandfather used to smoke a pipe, and his brand was Gold Block. Not too long ago, I inherited a couple of his pipes and, in the tobacconists of London town I sought out a pouch of his chosen poison. Now, there is much to learn, I am sure, of the art of pipe smoking, but when the planets align, and a glass of whiskey is to hand, it's a damned fine way to end the day, and for that I pay homage to my dear grandfather and to the great Sir Walter Ralegh, who brought back that naughty herb to this island.

P.S. Fellow blogger Mark Wadsworth has foolishly decided to dispute my spelling of Sir Walter's surname. As the signature below shows, 'Ralegh' is how he wrote it. So there!

Happy Christmas

Happy Christmas to all my readers.

Excerpts from Arcangelo Corelli's Christmas Concerto for two violins, cello, strings and basso continuo in G Minor "Fatto per la notte di Natale," Op. 6 No. 8. Performed on original instruments by San Francisco Early Music Ensemble Voices of Music.

Paying my respects

Although I have at times criticised Peter Hitchens, this doesn't change my respect for him. His diagnosis of the problem is almost invariably correct. It is his recommended course of treatment that I must sometimes take issue with. I am a libertarian free trade liberal, he is a conservative (an actual, proper conservative!). As such, we start and end in different places, but part of that journey is down the same roads.

So, my thoughts are with Peter on the sad news of his brother's passing, and with Christopher's family. Peter has written a piece in memory of his brother, which is, unsurprisingly, touching. As the author at Witterings from Witney notes, thank heavens we still have one Hitchens left.

Here's Peter in action at a recent debate on national independence at Policy Exchange. As always, he's worth the price of admission alone. His first speech starts @24:38, and, in addition to various other points, he sums up well at the end @ 1:16:10.

(I will avoid his contribution to the debate on legalising drugs further down the page for the moment).

Around the world with Henry Rollins

Interesting fellow.

Regulatory Idolatry

The fatal pile-up on the M5 has unsurprisingly led to calls from the usual suspects to ice the government’s plans to increase the maximum speed limit. As the cliché goes; speed kills.

However, this terrible accident does not have any bearing on the issue of changing the speed limit. Only those who have succumbed to what I would call regulatory idolatry would think it any way connected. The sin of idolatry involves making a statue of God and then worshipping the statue. In terms of the metaphor here employed, the god is road safety. As any decent driver knows, driving safely means driving at an appropriate speed notwithstanding the speed limit. Unfortunately, the rule-loving idolaters seem to have twisted this simple wisdom into something very different, that driving safely means driving within the speed limit.

The danger inherent in this creed is not so much that people are prevented from driving as fast as they wish, but rather that they will be deluded into obeying the speed limit without due regard to the conditions. I cannot pass much comment on the M5 crash, but it is, I would say, incontrovertible that some drivers were driving too fast, irrespective of any speed limit. Given the reported conditions of low visibility, the speed limit i.e., the maximum speed you are permitted to go by regulation, is irrelevant. Only a fool or an idolater could think otherwise.

UPDATE: It may be worth reading this at Longrider's

News Round Up

There's a lot going on in these interesting times of ours. I'm somewhat lacking in energy at present, but a few things caught my attention. Firstly, there's the Greek referendum. Then there's the removal of all the Greek military chiefs. It wasn't that long ago when Greece was under a military dictatorship, so it makes me wonder what provoked the decision.

(Hat tip: The Boiling Frog)

On the Eddie Nestor's Drive Time show (Radio London) I heard an interesting, or should I say disturbing interview with Andrew Symeou, an innocent man bundled off to Greece and held without trial for almost a year, thanks to a European Arrest Warrant, even though there was not a shred of evidence against him, and the British courts knew it, but handed him over anyway, claiming there was nothing they could do. This kind of thing, and his case is not the only one, is why freedom-loving people hate the European Union, and why people who support it are traitors and scum.

Meanwhile, I learn there are plans afoot to criminalise squatting. I must declare myself against such a measure. After the last government, you'd think there was nothing left to criminalise, and it is a shame, albeit one that does not surprise, that the current government is carrying on with the programme. The main problem with squatting is the cost of taking legal action to get them out. This could be addressed by finding ways to reduce those costs. Making it a criminal offence is bound to lead to acts of injustice. It is already, of course, a criminal offence to break and enter, and there may be scope for examining the borderline cases, where the squatters are clearly taking the piss, but I am not convinced criminalising such matters is the answer.

Finally, over in the US, the Fast and Furious scandal seems to be growing, with hideous troll Janet Napolitano lying through her teeth that she knew nothing.

Thoughts on housing

Additional to the issue of the EU mentioned below, another subject which came up on the BBC's Question Time was that of housing, mainly "social housing" and the difficulty first-time buyers are facing getting on the property ladder and the rest of us are facing paying the mortgage. The issue was raised due to Miliband's comments about allocating "social housing" on the basis of good works, rather than need.

It has long been acknowledged that one of the problems with welfare is that it creates perverse incentives to increase the very things it is intended to alleviate. If housing is allocated on the basis of need, then it becomes an advantage to be needy.

As a libertarian, my default position is to assume that the state makes problems worse. So, in the case of housing, my remedy would involve the state getting out of the housing business. This is not based on callousness, but rather a genuine belief that the free market is far more capable of handling the allocation of scarce resources than any system of bureaucratic management. Furthermore, I see the distinction between "social housing" and other forms of housing as essentially spurious. Everyone needs a home, after all. By rejecting the free market, we are confronted with the problem Ludwig von Mises identified with regard to socialism, namely the impossibility of economic calculation, once the market approach is abandoned. It is no longer a matter of what any particular person can afford, but rather an amorphous "need" that has no effective limit. The same thing applies even more so with regard to healthcare.

There are no easy solutions to such a major issue. As ever with economic matters, sooner or later we must consider the elephant of the monetary system, and all the harm and distortions that causes. When the subject of inflation is discussed, rather than the original definition of inflation as an expansion of the money supply, what is meant is the increase in prices. The official measure of this is based on an arbitrary selection of goods and services, which does not included the cost of housing. We have often been encouraged to view the steep rise in the price of housing as a good thing, at the same time as being taught that a similar rise in other prices is bad. The cost of housing has risen in part due to a shortage of supply and in part due to the artificially low interest rates, thanks to the central bank interfering with the market.

Another matter concerns land ownership. Although we often hear that Britain is overcrowded, in reality the population is crammed into a small amount of the land mass, with vast tracts remaining undeveloped. When we look at the ownership of the land, we might almost be reading from the Doomsday Book! It is, however, somewhat late to seek redress for the expropriation of land at the time of the Norman Conquest.

Then there's the issue of planning laws and nimbyism ... but that's enough thinking for now, my brain's beginning to ache.

An anti-interventionist speaks

Back in the days when I gave a toss about football, I used to make a special effort to wear my colours after the team I supported had taken a beating. If they'd lost a cup final, I'd pull that shirt on. I figured it was more important to wear it that day than on the fair-weather occasions.

The thought comes to mind as I begin stating my opposition to my country's military intervention in Libya, at a time when the success of that action is being loudly trumpeted by politicians and the press.

I should first state that I wish the people of Libya peace, and hope that the war will come to an end, and that the people of Libya have a right to liberty and to choose their own government. I certainly will not stand in the way of a popular revolution any more than I've stood in the way of the Nato aggression. My opinion is inconsequential anyway and I know it.

Is it a good thing, if Gaddafi falls? I don't know. I am not Libyan, and I don't know what will replace him. Will the people be more free? Likewise, I don't know. There are reasons for hope and reasons for fear. When all the dust and the debris is cleared away and order returns, will the ordinary Libyan be better off? Only they will be able to answer that.

The usual attack on the non-interventionist is based on a perceived lack of compassion for the suffering of the oppressed, that we would stand idly by as innocent victims are shot down by government thugs. Nothing we can argue back, about the number of deaths caused by the intervention itself seems to remove this taint, especially as we are never told how many deaths Nato causes, neither in Libya, Afghanistan nor Pakistan. There are reports of militants, which as far as I can gather means post-pubescent males. For those who happen to be anywhere in the vicinity, a terse regret may be muttered. But let me answer the charge: Yes indeed. If the government had listened to me, they would have not have bombed Gaddafi's forces on the way to Benghazi. And this sticky blood would be on my hands. But why does none of the blood of the Nato victims attach to the interventionist hawks? Of course, I know that one: because Nato's the good guys, and when they bomb and strafe, it's with love in their hearts. Such casualties are unintentional.

One of the cards we like to play is what is known to our adversaries as 'whatabouterie'. We point to all the other places where our government do nothing in very similar situations, or actually supports the kind of violent repression Gaddafi is accused of. Clearly its not the shooting of protestors per se, which has incurred the wrath of Nato.

But, cry the hawks, we can't do everything, can we? And just because we can't do everything doesn't mean we shouldn't act when we can.

Or else we may point out other agendas, such as kicking the Chinese out of Africa, grabbing the oil and the gold, carving up the reconstruction between friends. We might reflect on the blatant misuse of the UN Resolution, which has been stretched to the point of disintegration to cover what was always the plan: regime change.

However, these are minor matters for the inteventionists, especially on a day like today. They will be feeling good. They will be camping, as ever, on the moral highground. It was they, at least from the comfort of their armchairs, who liberated Libya and made every tyrant quake in their jackboots. They must learn the lesson of Libya, and that lesson is; tyranny's fine, just as long as you do what we tell you, and keep taking the dollar.

So, notwithstanding what the future holds for Libya, we can expect to see more interventions, more Nato playing the policeman of the world, and a continuation of this country's self-righteous belief that; once the good guy, always the good guy. And my view will remain the minority view, heaped anew in fresh ordure. Misunderstood, indeed. Contemptible, perhaps. But stubbornly held.

Guns don't kill people, bears kill people

I have great sympathy for the family of Horatio Chapple and for the other young people injured in the polar bear attack, but it seems clear that the organisers of the expedition did not take proper precautions. Someone should have been on guard. Furthermore, it seems that the hysterical level of gun control in the UK has contributed. I can't help thinking that this wouldn't have happened if British people were more habituated to using guns.

Boden: I have a theory

Johnny Boden, well-healed chum of our potato-headed premier and mail order boss, has launched his expansion into France with an interview slagging off the country and its fair maidens. Not sure that's a good idea, but what do I know about marketing? The Telegraph tells us:

Boden, the successful mail order company that the Eton-educated entrepreneur founded in 1991, will launch a catalogue in France later this month. However in a magazine interview yesterday Mr Boden said that he associates Paris with “stroppy” women and described the South of France as “grim”, comments that may not endear him to his new target audience. Describing the French, Mr Boden said: “I always come back from Paris and say to my wife ‘God, they never smile at me!’ It’s hard work. I try to flirt with them but they’re not having it".

Johnny, maybe it's you.

Every day trade-offs and random thoughts

In the last week I've seen two street bins on fire. Applying Occam's Razor I conclude that they were both set alight by a cigarette from someone who thought he was doing the right thing. In retrospect, it would have been better to toss it in the gutter with all the rest.

My attitude to littering is one of severe intolerance, coupled with an indulgence with regard to cigarette ends, which don't count, mainly because they're burning! You can hardly put them in your pocket, can you?

Some would think me a hypocrit. Could they not be made bio-degradable? Instead they seem to be fashioned from the stuff Alec Guiness discovered in 'The Man in the White Suit'.

Meanwhile, changing the subject I note Alcohol Concern are running a survey on advertising and young people. Is it just me, or are these questions skewed somewhat? E.g.,

Alcohol ads on TV should be:
Banned from television altogether?
Limited to after the watershed?(9pm when young children have gone to bed)
Shown at any time of day or night?

Almost every question asks about banning something, and it is part of a campaign to lobby the government to ban stuff, so it's hardly an objective piece of research. Not that I like to see 14-year-old girls lying catatonic in the streets, but neither do I like to see a man with a beard producing his passport at a supermarket check-out, simply to buy a bottle of wine; frankly ridiculous in my view. Thankfully when I was under-age it wasn't such a big deal. Apparently Turkey's just raised the legal age to 24!

Too early

I've got a new alarm clock, or to be more specific two bloody pigeons are attempting to colonise my balcony, and create a love nest amongst the plant pots. They beat a hasty retreat when my naked, blurry-eyed figure hoved into view, and I will have to ensure they get the message and find themselves another place to perch and coo.

Personally, I'm more pro-pigeon than a lot of people, who denigrate them as 'rats with wings', but I have limits. Still, thanks to my feathered-friends, I did see a rainbow this morning.

Mesmeric

An off-hand comment from Dick Puddlecote provoked me to YouTube 'tumbleweed' and first up I came across this, which is quite bizarre. I make no apologies for the soundtrack of children laughing, which I personally find quite infectious.

Mystery man steps forward to claim Lord Lucan capture reward

A mysterious and as yet unnamed man is claiming to have finally solved the years' old riddle of Lord Lucan's disappearance with Scotland Yard snapping at his heels and a bloody murder in his wake.

Mr X described the moment he came face to face with the lunatic Lord.

"I had taken my boat out into the Solent for a spot of fishing, and there, halfway out to the Isle of Wight he emerged from underneath a tarpaulin on the deck. I recognised him immediately. I demanded his surrender and, as he lunged at me, with a look of pure evil in his eyes, I knocked him over the side with an oar. The authorities haven't found the body yet, but I can guarantee you it's out there somewhere, if the fish don't eat it or the currents carry it off."

No official comment from the police has been forthcoming, but unofficial sources expressed scepticism. "This guy's known as a bit of a bullshitter," said one.

General knowledge

Who is this?
	It's that Dr Seuss character, the Grinch
	I think he works down my local bank
	It's Herman van Rumpuy, President of the Brussels Institute for the Destruction of Democracy
	I don't know, but he gives me the creeps
	Other
pollcode.com free polls

Chomsky: dissembling bastard

I saw this some time ago, and ever since I wanted to refute it, but haven't until now summoned the energy to do battle with Chomsky's gattling gun delivery of lies and fallacies.

Firstly note the deadpan world-weary tone. This allows him to brusquely discard certain points that otherwise would confound him. Also note how he talks about America, and stresses how different America is to the rest of the world. In the same way with discussing Adam Smith, who he mis-represents outrageously, Chomsky is relying on the ignorance of his audience. The suggestion that libertarianism in America means the complete opposite to libertarianism in the rest of the world is nonsense. It is a way of thinking that draws on certain traditions and the work of various thinkers, and in different places it may have different emphases, but it unites on the core principles, one of which is, and has always been, a belief in free trade and laissez faire.

His discussion of the 'tyranny' of corporate America is so over-the-top, he is lucky to be speaking to an audience of sycophants, because any sceptic would have trouble stiffling laughter. As is often the case, there is an ounce of truth in his pound of lies, but let us ponder what he is suggesting. I work for a living. I do not have freedom of speech at work, insofar as I am not free to insult my boss. But what are the consequences in this 'tyranny'? What can my boss do to me? Why, only dissolve the contract between us, and fire my arse. I then walk away, a free man, to seek other employment. Contrast this with what a tyrannical government can and does do to those that offend its delicate sensibilities. However bad Microsoft is, there aren't prisons filled with ex-workers who called Bill Gates a geeky twat. No one is tortured. No one is strung up. Chomsky belittles the meaning of 'tyranny'. Sure, we can go looking for examples of Pinkerton shooting up strikers, but the question with such matters is for the courts of the land, and no company is, in principle, above the Law. Tyrannical governments put themselves routinely above the law. Tyrants often claim to be the law.

Moving on to Chomsky's ridiculous views on the division of labour, which he claims to have picked up from 'the real Adam Smith'. What anyone who's read the book knows, is that Smith contradicted himself pretty severely on this subject, but never did he put forward the undiluted Marxoid views of the Chom. Whereas Smith extolled the division of labour as the very substance of society and its advance, in a later part of the book, he criticised it for weakening the martial character of the nation. But Chomsky wants to dismiss the main argument and focus only on the later comment, which he seasons liberally with Marxist utopianism. Without division of labour, we'd all be living in mud huts. Those that call for the end to division of labour are utopian millenarians who seek the destruction of the world, such as Karl Marx. The closest to the true marxism was practiced by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, who achieved, in Marxian terms, a 33% success rate, in other words they killed one third of the population if Cambodia. No doubt Chomsky would approve.

What does liberty mean to Chomsky? From what he says, it must be the Hegelian liberty: that being, the abandonment of individualism into an amorphous blob called Man. Freedom from the alienation of not being merged with the Godhead, or whatever mumbo-jumbo that dissembling charlatan came up with. Best summarised by Orwell: (Hegelian/Marxist/Chomskist) freedom is slavery.

That's all I'm saying for now, but readers; expect an edit.

Those evil papists

I'm busy arguing with the godless over at Cap'n Ranty's, a sport I sometimes enjoy, partly I guess because I like being contrary and also because they seem to have just as much irrationality as any God-fearing soul.

This recent flare-up is over the Pope's comments on the child abuse scandal, which I would say have been willfully twisted to claim he has excused and justified such crimes, which he has not. What you could say is that he has sought to spread the blame wider than the Church, onto society as a whole and the amoral, decadent zeitgeist which pervades the culture, and this seems a little clumsy, in the circumstances.

Anyway, to further enrage the Dawkinites, here's a lovely hymn from the Choir of St. John's Catholic Chapel at the University of Illinois - 'Lord of All Hopefulness':

Happy Christmas to all my readers

Ironically it was reading Richard Dawkins' sneering Guardian article attacking the Pope and the usual procession of smugger-than-thous in the comment thread that spurred me to this post.

So, to all of you who have visited this year, I wish you well, and hope that God will bless you this coming year and lead you in righteous ways.

(pic - Botticelli from this site of Nativity Scenes in Renaissance Art)

Sauce for the gander: part 3

I've always loved card games. I associate them with happy memories from my childhood of family gatherings. I think they are a good means to teach children good manners, not to say maths. They also give an opportunity for them to compete on an equal footing with the grown-ups. I have, over the years, accumulated a modest collection of playing cards from around the globe, but Dick Puddlecote draws my attention to one I will not be attempting to acquire - a crude propaganda tool from the anti-smoking puritans.

Well, two can play at that game. Not that I wish to encourage anyone to smoke. Indeed, I believe the hysterical nature of the anti-smokers is probably counter-productive, by mixing legitimate health issues with authoritarianism and lies.