UKIP and UKIT

David Hickman writes on The Conversation not only about the forthcoming and likely controversial C4's "100 Days of UKIP" programme, but about how independent TV in the UK has changed in the last 10 years.

"In 2004, Ofcom fundamentally altered the balance of power between British broadcasters and independent production companies with the introduction of new “terms of trade”. This happened pretty invisibly to anyone outside the industry, but the effects were profound.

"Under these terms, indies retained more of their rights – meaning, among other things, that the most successful of them became richer. And the richer they became, the more attractive they were as takeover targets. The results were a weakening of the broadcasters’ budgets and power, and the creation of super-indies. The results were a weakening of broadcasters’ budgets and power, and the creation of super-indies which became ever more dominant suppliers to those broadcasters. These conglomerates of production companies were (and are) themselves sometimes owned by some the world’s biggest media players."

Unintended consequences...

But since the media are our collective eyes and ears, liberty for all must also involve restricting the power of "overmighty subjects" (and non-subjects).

Will tomorrow die?

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Simon Harris on Catalonian independence

(Pic source: RT News)

Readers of George Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia” (1938) will remember the author’s strength of feeling for the cause and for his fellows. Catalonia is that kind of place, even now, for there are a number of English people living there who see themselves simply as Catalans born abroad. In the wake of last month’s rallies, expatriates met to discuss the implications of secession from Spain.

 

(Pic via Brett Hetherington)

One of the participants was Simon Harris, who gives an account of the issues and feelings of Catalans in this email interview:

Please describe the October 1 expats meeting, and the fears and hope of attendees.

The October 1 meeting was held at the Antiga Fabrica Moritz and a couple of hundred foreign-born Catalan citizens attended (We don't really like “expat”. It certainly doesn't tally with my experience in Barcelona and smacks of people talking English and drinking G&T on the Costas. We live here and get on with our lives much like the locals despite having been born elsewhere.)

 

The four people on the panel talked of a more prosperous future with a greater degree of social justice.  

The main concern is a possible frontier effect causing a decrease in trade with Spain. But I believe the confrontational style of central government exaggerates this. 47% of Catalan exports go to Spain. Many of the commercial relationships go back decades and are often with multinationals so it’s actually quite difficult to tell where things have been produced. Even the boycott on Catalan cava of a few years ago didn't last long (the alternative was French champagne that doesn't taste the same and costs three times as much). Ultimately, consumers care about quality and value for money so after a period of instability the trade relations will settle at a slightly lower level but at the same time, Catalonia will find new foreign markets. (The area of the economy that will be worst affected is the Catalan banks, La Caixa and Sabadell. Once you've changed your account you don't go back.) 

Our other concern is the general lack of debate. This is partly a cultural problem but also because since the referendum isn't allowed, there's been no real campaigning on either side. People who are active, such as most of those who attended the meeting) tend to be pro-vote and pro-independence. 

What are the arguments for Catalonian independence? 

Firstly, cultural-historical: like Scotland, Catalonia used to be a separate country and was gradually taken over by its neighbour. It still has a strong sense of its identity, which is why the Spanish government has always tried to suppress Catalan language and culture. Catalan was illegal after 1714 under Felipe V and you could be arrested for speaking it under Franco. As recently as 2012, education minister José Ignacio Wert said that he wanted to 'españolizar' Catalan schoolchildren and has since introduce a new education law called the LOMCE which attempts to do so. Although the language of education is Catalan, all Catalan kids are bilingual and in PISA tests (independent EU university tests) Catalan schoolchildren always score above the national average in Castilian Spanish! So the LOMCE is a repressive rather than an educational measure. 

There are also economic arguments. To start with, Catalonia pays far more in taxes than it gets back in investment from Madrid. Yet central government obstructs development in our region and is prepared to accept national disadvantage in order to keep us down. For example, the European Corridor Freight Line which would run from Algeciras, Malaga, Cartagena, Valencia and Barcelona into northern Europe is constantly blocked because it doesn't go through Madrid. Even though it would benefit the whole country, it would benefit Barcelona/Catalonia most. 

Look also at access to airports. Madrid Airport's Terminal 4 has metro, train and new roads - and they plan to spend €16 billion on an AVE (high speed train) connection serving a handful of passengers a day. Meanwhile, connections to Barcelona airport's T1 terminal need improving and Iberia Airlines have just cancelled intercontinental flights from Barcelona. It’s mad. 

The fact that everything in Spain is run by national agencies disincentivises efficiency. For example the hugely profitable Port of Barcelona subsidises the unprofitable ports and hasn't money left to reinvest in its own infrastructure. And so on. 

How has the movement started and grown, and what is the degree of general support? 

Things came to a head when Catalonia's new Statute of Autonomy, which had been watered down and passed by Spanish Parliament and voted on in referendum with 75% in favour in Catalonia, was declared unconstitutional by the national Constitutional Court in July 2010. 

The first demonstration under the slogan 'We are a nation. We decide' took to the streets with more than a million people in Barcelona. Just prior to this informal ballots on independence were organised in villages and towns and the 'Barcelona Decides' ballot took place in the early summer of 2011 with a festive atmosphere and a massive vote in favour. 

The extreme right-wing Partido Popular (they say they're conservatives but the party was founded by former Franco ministers and current leaders have ties with the fascist Falange party) came to power in Spain in the autumn of 2011 and tension increased. In 2012 on La Diada, the Catalan National Day (September 11^th) more than 1.5 million took to the streets of Barcelona under the slogan 'Catalonia, New European State' and for the first time independence for Catalonia became a majority opinion. 

The 2013 Diada demonstration was the “Catalan Way” in which 1.5 million people joined hands from Catalonia's southern border to its northern border with France, and in this year's “V” 1.8 million people created a human mosaic in Barcelona. Both events were perfectly organised and there has been no violence of any kind. 

Current support for independence stands at roughly 50% in favour with 25% against and 25% undecided. These figures vary by 5% in either direction, depending on the poll. 

What is the attitude of the Spanish Government, the EU and supranational bodies? 

The Spanish government has refused to negotiate on the main issues.  

A few days after the 2012 Diada, Catalan President Artur Mas met with Spanish President Mariano Rajoy to discuss changes to tax policy. Catalonia currently pays €16 billion in taxes (net of inward investment) to central government; this is 8% of Catalan GDP, making it the most highly-taxed region in Europe. Rajoy refused to discuss the issue. 

The other complaint involves language and education. Under the Education Minister’s LOMCE plan to 'hispanicize' Catalan children, it will be possible for students to go through their whole school career without learning any Catalan. The Spanish Constitutional Court also obliges the Catalan government to pay for private education exclusively in the Spanish language to any parent that asks for it. Yet even in the atmosphere of tension only 40 families in a population of 7.5 million have requested this. Why? Because the Catalan education system is very good as it is and guarantees a high level of integration. 

In Autonomic elections in November 2012, 4 parties included a pledge to hold a referendum in their manifestoes, so now 86 members out of a Catalan parliament of 135 deputies are committed to this. The Catalan government presented a proposal to hold a referendum on November 9 in the Spanish congress, which was voted against by all the major Spanish parties and defeated.  

The Catalan parliament then drew up a law of 'Non Referenderary Consultation' (a non-binding question to find out how many people are in favour of independence and also allow debate from both sides); the Constitutional Court decided that too was unconstitutional and threatened to suspend for life any civil servant who engaged in any sort of organisational activity. 

As a result last Tuesday (14 October), President Mas announced a 'participative' vote would take place without using the census (voters will register using their ID card on voting day), volunteers rather than civil servants would be involved in the organisation and polling stations would be restricted to facilities owned by the Catalan government. 

The Partido Popular government in Madrid is considering taking it before the Constitutional Court as I write [15 October]. It should be noted that many see the Constitutional Court as biased in favour of the Spanish government: some of the judges are former Partido Popular activists and only gave up membership after being elected. 

The attitude of the EU and other supranational bodies is that it is an internal Spanish issue. 

Could you comment further on the November 9 “consultation”? 

Because the consultation is organised by the 'Yes' camp it is unlikely that many Noes will bother to vote, but if as expected 2 million Catalans vote 'Yes' this will be a very strong message to the world. Either way the Spanish government lose. If they ban even this watered-down consultation, they'll look like fascists. If they let it go ahead, the world will see a festive peaceful Catalan society make a powerful democratic statement. 

What are the movement’s chances of success, and what processes would be involved in legal and economic separation? Would Catalonia choose to remain in the Eurozone? 

I think there are high chances of success. Although the participative vote on November 9 isn’t a referendum, the message will be clear if there is a massive turnout. This will be a prelude to 'plebiscitary' elections in which pro-independence parties form a single candidacy with the promise that if they win, independence will be unilaterally declared the following day. 

The Catalan Commission for National Transition has been meeting for the last couple of years and has produced 18 reports on different aspects of the future state of Catalonia. They published a 1,000-page white paper 10 days ago so many things have been considered. 

As there won't be agreement with Spain there will be difficulties, principally in setting up a Treasury and collecting taxes and Social Security. 

Obviously, international recognition will be crucial but if everything is done in a clear and transparent democratic process there shouldn't be too many problems, apart from anything else because Catalonia has a large economy with international exports and is home to multinationals. 

How would you view Catalonia’s economic and social prospects afterwards? 

Obviously, there would be an unstable period before internal infrastructures are in place and international recognition comes. If we can get through that I'm highly optimistic. 

Catalonia has a strong economy centred on its vibrant capital Barcelona. Catalans are creative, gregarious and above all peace-loving. As the demonstration of only 38,000 people in favour of staying in Spain showed last weekend, the strength of feeling in the anti-independence camp, whilst it exists, is not as bitter as Spanish politicians would like us to believe. 

Originally from Nottingham in England, Simon Harris arrived in pre-Olympic Barcelona in 1988 and immediately fell in love with the language, culture and history. He has now lived half his life in Catalonia, where he first earned his living as a musician and then as a teacher of English at the British Council and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and translator of Catalan and Spanish. He published his first book 'Going Native in Catalonia' in 2007 and since 2011 has run the tourism website Barcelonas.com. Simon is an active campaigner for Catalan independence. Find out more on Simon’s blog - http://independence.barcelonas.com

“Catalonia Is Not Spain: A Historical Perspective” by Simon Harris will be published by 4Cats Books in early November. Buy from:

4Cats Books

Carrer Mallorca, 299
Pral 2a
08037 Barcelona
books@barcelonas.com

 READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Neoliberalism vs. freedom

Here is Mary Wakefield in this week's Spectator magazine, on the use of mainstream Hollywood entertainment to desensitise teenage war criminals:

"Joshua Milton Blahyi (General Butt-Naked to his foes) ... was once a warlord in the Liberian civil war. Back in the bad old days, Joshua specialised in turning boys into psychopaths...

"He began, he said, by promising boys status. ‘They followed me at first because I was powerful and strong, and they wanted to be important like me.’ It was crucial that this first step was freely taken; that it was their choice. After that, the monster-making began. They were shown violent movies. ‘So they can see,’ said Joshua, ‘that these people in the movies, they intentionally shoot people that die, that killing is just a Hollywood game.’ Hollywood movies, I asked, not African ones? ‘Yes, Hollywood films.’

"The next step was to let them play with guns, shooting blanks, showing off, pretending to kill, and then: ‘We give them a knife to stab dead bodies,’ said Joshua. ‘At first it is hard for them, they feel fear. Later they are stabbing the bodies on and on… On and on and on.’

"...You must escalate the violence all the time, he said, so as to keep the boys in line. Once they’re happy killing, you make them rape, torture, behead. There are things Joshua made his young recruits do that are too horrible and too sad to repeat..."
 
Overleaf in the print edition, we have James Delingpole's panegyric to violent computer gaming, headed:

"The greatest joy of playing Grand Theft Auto V? It lets you give the finger to the PC brigade. It’s condemned for its outrageous sexism, racism, misogyny and violence. But it’s damn good fun."

And one in the eye for his false opposite, "feminazis".

John Ward's piece last night also has a go at the brainless dichotomies offered by neoliberalism, starting with:

"Problem: On the whole, regulators of markets have no experience of commercial life….and thus they tend to both miss the villainy – and come up with daft regulations that just get in the way.

"Neoliberal solution: Deregulation. No more regulators at all."

We have seen what financial deregulation has done since the 1980s. And the latest twist is global regulation in favour of big money - TTIP and so on.

Neoliberalism - as far as the term has any sense to me - may be neo, but it is not what I understand by liberalism. It is not about promoting the freedom of individuals, but - as far as I can see - destroying their defences against oligarchic power and wealth. Now international law is co-opted, so for example if GATT stalls at Doha in 2008 because smaller countries worry about American export disruption to their domestic markets, the US crashes into the TPP to find another way round. The juggernaut rolls on.

From a review in the Sydney Morning Herald
of Ludwell Denny's book, "America Conquers Britain" (1930).

This week also, Charles Hugh Smith looked at the "clerisy", those who serve themselves by serving the world's would-be masters:

"The Status Quo around the world--from France to China to the U.S.--is optimized to protect its Elites and the sprawling Upper-Caste of academics, managers, think-tank toadies, technocrats, apparatchiks, functionaries, factotums, lackeys and apologists who serve the Elites, and are well-paid for enforcing the Status Quo on the disenfranchized castes below..."

What a shame it would be if, in his efforts to get noticed by Rupert Murdoch, Jame Delingpole should eventually find himself wearing the livery of the clerisy.

Can anything stop them? "What chance has the world?"


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

MAD

AK Haart raised the question of how over-entertainment and superinformation are changing us. I think it's at least as serious an issue as the phoney drugs war.

Mentally Addictive Devices (MAD) seem to me to be shortening attention span, overstimulating and exhausting the mind with trivial and repetitive tasks, and fostering a hazy expectation of instant gratification in other aspects of life.

They also divert attention from pursuing action that furthers one's real long-term interests - there are students flunking college because of their addiction to computerised role-playing games.

And they override alertness to real physical risk. Look at those who walk blindly across a road while on their cellphones; and the poor girl murdered on a Birmingham bus last year had previously noted the strange behaviour of what was to be her killer, but had merely commented on it on her phone - I think the phone gives the illusion of society and so misleads one into a false sense of security.

What if Orwell's eternally ruling Party had realised that you could subjugate the people with endless dreams?


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Constitutional questions

"The Arrival of William III" by Sir James Thornhill. Original uploader was

Raymond Palmer at en.wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia;

transferred to Commons by User:Magnus Manske using CommonsHelper.

(Original text : South Wall of the Painted Hall, Old Royal Naval College,

Greenwich [1]). Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Email today from myself to Dr Andrew Blick, of the Constitution Society:

"Dear Dr Blick

Would you or anyone else from the Constitution Society be prepared to discuss the proposition that Britain's 1973 entry into the EEC was unconstitutional?

In particular, how do the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Monarch's Oath of Office bear on the issues?

(We leave aside for the moment the complications regarding the subsequent referendum of 1975, itself made questionable by the withholding from the public of intragovernmental legal and constitutional advice, and partisan misrepresentations to the public by the then Government, news media and other parties.)

Was our entry into the EEC in 1973 not ultra vires?

The debate must surely be more urgent as we face the consolidation of power in the EU by the introduction of majority voting in November.

Is there anybody who can provide authoritative comment?

P.S. Further, is it not the case that Magna Carta's significance since 1689 is purely symbolic, without any legal force whatever? King John may have agreed to bind "our heirs in perpetuity" (Clause 1 re the English Church), but did not the Revolution put the monarchy on an entirely new basis? MC may be our Pole Star, but not our pilot."

Dr Blick is on holiday, but I hope for a reply.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Magna Carta - the tree of freedom is plucked bare

Images adapted from: BBC, Saga's Cottage

 

We think of Magna Carta as a bulwark of English liberty against arbitrary State authority, and it was seen as that at the time:

 

From a list of inscriptions found in Tewkesbury Abbey:

 

309. In the Presbytery (the second brass from the south).
 

(Clare chevrons) Gilbertus de
Clare nomine primus

comes Glocestrie 6s et Hertfordie
5s Obijt 25o Octobris Anno dni 1230.
(pen) Magna carta et lex
caveat deinde rex (scroll).

 

Translation:

 

Gilbert de Clare, the first of that name, 6th Earl of Gloucester and 5th of Hertford, died 25th October A. D. 1230. Magna Carta and law, let the King henceforth beware.

 

That same inscription was quoted by Stanley Baldwin less than 80 years ago:

 

" "Magna Carta is the Law: Let the King look out."

So it has always been with tyrants among our own people: when the King was tyrant, let him look out. And it has always been the same, and will be the same, whether the tyrant be the Barons, whether the tyrant be the Church, whether he be demagogue or dictator — let them look out."

• Speech at Westminster Hall (4 July 1935); published in This Torch of Freedom: Speeches and Addresses (1935), p. 4

Yet very little of Magna Carta remains in force, as A P Herbert pointed out in his humorous "Misleading Cases" piece from 16 February 1927, "Rex v. Haddock: Is Magna Carta Law?" Albert Haddock is trying to get out of (or have reduced) a parking fine, but the judge says:

 

"... it was argued before me that at least that portion of Chapter 29 still has effect which reads:

 

'Nor will we proceed against a freeman, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.'

 

But it was proved in evidence that in fact this method of condemning the freeman is the exception rather than the rule, and it was suggested that this portion of Magna Carta must be interpreted in the light of recent statutes, so that it reads:

 

'Nor will we proceed against a freeman, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land, or Government Departments, or Marketing Boards, or Impregnable Monopolies, or Trade Unions, or fussy Societies, or Licensing Magistrates, or officious policemen, or foolish regulations by a Clerk in the Home Office made and provided.'

 

The judge in that story also points out that notwithstanding Clause 40, the law is known for its delays - and expense:

 

"... much justice is sold at quite reasonable prices, and ... there are still many citizens who can afford to buy the more expensive brands."

 

What's left?

 

From the BBC:

 

"Only three of the 63 clauses in the Magna Carta are still in law. One defends the freedom and rights of the English Church, another relates to the privileges enjoyed by the City of London and the third - the most famous - is generally held to have etablished the right to trial by jury.

Below are the full translations of the relevant clauses from the 1215 copy of the Magna Carta held at the British Library.

1. Clause 1: The liberties of the English Church

"First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.

"That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

"To all free men of our Kingdom we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs."

2. Clause 13: The privileges of the City of London*

"The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs."

3. Clauses 39 & 40: The right to trial by jury

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "  "

How few leaves are left on the tree of liberty! And if so many have been blown away already, what guarantee do we have that the rest may not fall?

If we love the idea of liberty, we shall have to re-assert it, and there are new aspects that we might wish to address in a modern version, particularly the endless spying by the State on its citizens.

That's if we can call the State to account any more. After all, we are not powerful barons, nor (it seems) is the Crown in Parliament fully sovereign.

The 800th anniversary of Magna Carta falls on 15 June 2015. Should we do something for that day?
__________________________________________________

*See Graham S McBain's "Liberties and Customs of the City of London – Are There any left?" (2013) - www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ilr/article/download/28685/17142


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

President Obama and Executive Orders

It is being said that President Obama is over-fond of issuing decrees in the form of Executive Orders. The answer is yes - and no.

The graph below shows how many Orders each US President has issued, and it is clear that the twentieth century has seen an enormous increase in the use of this legislative tool.

I find it harder to get similar information on UK Orders in Council, but the picture is clear: the Executive has become addicted to short cuts in the exercise of power. There is certainly something to worry about, but equally certainly President Obama should not be seen as culpably exceptional.

(Click to enlarge)

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Freedom and survival

This week saw the death of Hiroo Onada, a WWII Japanese soldier who continued his guerilla war in the Philippines until 1974. Although he killed 30 indigenous people over these years, most of us must have respect for a man fighting on alone for so long.

Except he wasn't on his own for most of that time, as the Daily Mail reveals: "Three other soldiers were with him at the end of the war. One emerged from the jungle in 1950 and the other two died, one in a 1972 clash with local troops."

Lone survival is a familiar motif in films, not so much in real life. In some tribal cultures, the punishment for major crimes such as murder was not execution, but simply shunning. Without the material and psychological support of their community, most individuals would die. Even Alexander Selkirk, the inspiration for Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, nearly broke his back hunting game.

The multiple challenges facing us - economic, environmental etc - feed the fantasies of doomsters and individualists. But if and when a whole society collapses, the disaster crushes all, not just the weak and ill-prepared - where were the rich Mayans to be found after their civilisation fell? Not drinking chocolate in some comfortable enclave among the ruins.

However, apocalypse is another hackneyed cinematic motif. As energy resources dwindle and become more expensive, it's more likely, argues John Michael Greer, that we shall see a series of economic resets, rather in the way that the coals burning in a hearth fire suddenly shuffle a bit closer together from time to time. That's something for which we can prepare, he says, and lists a number of technologies that would go towards making a sustainable local economy.

So far, so good. Yet even a cooperating community has to consider external threats. Aldous Huxley's 1962 novel "Island" depicts a society that is orderly and designed for the happiness of all, using a combination of accommodative social mores, neo-Buddhist wisdom and side-effect-free psychotropic drugs. It is overthrown when foreign oil companies move in...

"Island" is an imagined resolution of the potential disharmonies at two of what I have called the "Three Levels Of Freedom" - the conflicting or self-destructive drives within the individual, and the relationship of the individual with the group. The tragic ending is caused by a conflict at the third level, one group (the islanders) versus another (the greedy and powerful outsiders).

Worries about various potential dislocations in the global trading system are leading commentators such as Charles Hugh Smith to consider how to increase local resilience, as for example in Thursday's post, "A Thought Experiment In American Autarky". Here he is thinking on a national level, but the deeper the crisis, the greater the possibility that even countrywide arrangements could break down. Empires and nations have fractured before, as Germany did in the Middle Ages.

Most likely to survive, perhaps, are communities large enough to provide themselves with all the necessities of life (and sufficient diversity to stave off the problems of inbreeding), but protected from outside disruption by remoteness or difficult terrain. That reduces the threat of Level Three conflict, especially as technological deterioration in the long term makes it harder to wage war over long distances and great obstacles.

But material goods are not enough. There is also what one might term social wealth - shared ethical and cultural values that promote harmony and mutual support. Otherwise there will be unnecessary suffering and tensions that could tear the community apart - as Norman Cohn demonstrates with multiple horrific examples in his famous work about medieval uprisings, "The Pursuit Of The Millennium". Cohn's thesis is that the ground for revolution was prepared by want and insecurity, especially among the growing proletariat in urban areas.

Ironically, the trigger for insurrection was often an individual who had overcome his internal conflicts - achieving Level One freedom - and so could act without moral inhibitions. If one accepts the Freudian tripartite division of the psyche, such people had extinguished their superego and as full-blown psychopaths could lead their fellows in a merry, lethal dance toward ultimate calamity. (A major modern example would be Chairman Mao who, we see in a chilling 2005 biography, defeated his father's authority when a boy by threatening suicide, and one of whose early poems looked within himself and saw a mighty rushing power like a great storm, unstoppable.) So society has a stake in the mental and spiritual health of all its members, as well as their material well-being.

The long-term survival of humanity, and its prospects for reasonable contentment, requires vigilant and equitable balancing at all levels, from the mental stability of individuals, to whatever is the accepted "social contract" in society, to careful international diplomacy and robust economic arrangements. The struggle for freedom and happiness is not a solitary quest but a multi-player, multi-dimensional one; none of the Three Levels can be ignored.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Fight back against self-organisation

A lovely contrarian piece from Lifehacker: dump your to-do-list. Just do one thing at a time.

I can see the logic in this: when I've listed all I have to do, the heart sinks and then I rebel against the lot. When you've planned your life too systematically, the life-impulse within you is driven to smash the system. A degree of disorder, of randomness, of openness to change, is like opening a window in a stuffy room.

"Delight in Disorder" by Robert Herrick:

A sweet disorder in the dress
Kindles in clothes a wantonness:
A lawn about the shoulders thrown
Into a fine distraction--
An erring lace, which here and there
Enthrals the crimson stomacher--
A cuff neglectful, and thereby
Ribbands to flow confusedly--
A winning wave, deserving note,
In the tempestuous petticoat--
A careless shoe-string, in whose tie
I see a wild civility--
Do more bewitch me than when art
Is too precise in every part.

Is it officially permissible to be a Christian? Or indeed, anything?

Here in the Daily Mail is a sample of the hoo-ha about nurse Caroline Petrie, who was suspended for offering to pray for an elderly patient. (She also used to leave a mildly evangelical Christian pamphlet.) The patient says, "I have Christian beliefs myself, but it could perhaps be upsetting for some other people if they have different beliefs or thought that she meant they looked in such a bad way that they needed praying for."

Both parties seem reasonable and decent. What's worrying is what happens when officialdom gets involved, as the rest of the story shows.

But I'd love to see a Philadelphia lawyer let loose on the "Nursing and Midwifery Council code" (full text here) which Mrs Petrie is deemed to have breached. By implication, this code regulates not merely conduct, but opinions and even religious faith.

The code commands nurses to "Be open and honest, act with integrity" and straightaway gives a very contentious clarification of the term "integrity": "You must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity." The managers at the health organisation for which Mrs Petrie works clearly understand "equality and diversity" to cover religions. The logic of this is that Jews, Muslims and Christians (among others) cannot work as nurses - for note the word "personal" in that order. It may be that atheists would also be precluded.

All this results from two things: the State getting too big for its boots; and in attempting to govern every aspect of our lives has delegated insanely wide-ranging powers to quangos, who make and apply rules with a whim of iron. The professions and semi-professions - doctors, teachers, nurses and so on* - all have their own little councils to terrorise them. Such prodnosing easily magnifies a "storm in a teacup" into an issue that could affect your job, wealth, family life and physical liberty.

We need a Constitution to limit the powers of would-be tyrants, even if they are now soft-handed, well-dressed ones. Resist the Red Armani Choir.
_______________________
* ... even foster parents.

Personal choices

I have always been a great believer in personal choice, as I defended in the recent discussion on drug use.

Sometimes, however, I feel a surge of the draconian autocrat that comes from the Prussian part of my ancestry.

Such is the case today: Nadya Suleman, the mother of the octuplets born this week, is already the mother of six other children. She is unmarried, unemployed, and on disability for a back injury at work 10 years ago. In spite of all of those problems, and the fragile state of the US economy, she found a doctor willing to implant another 6 embryos in her womb (2 split later).

Go drugs!

Gary Becker thinks we should legalize and tax drugs. Look at how this approach has decimated alcohol and tobacco usage, for example.

And the joys to be had from drugs! As the Moroccan saying goes,"A pipe of khif before breakfast is worth a hundred camels in the courtyard." Though I think the Devils' Dictionary needs updating: we need slogans like, "A six-pack of wife-beater in the morning is worth a hundred business calls", "Sixty a day is worth death before sixty", "Dropping a tab is worth the risk of grinning at the backs of your hands for the rest of your life."

So what's it to be, Falstaff or the pain-in-the-mule Puritans?

I think it's to do with work. In the old days, the ordinary person couldn't afford (financially or otherwise) to be almost constantly intoxicated; now, most of us are richer than Roman Emperors: central heating, carpets, hot water, ice cream, multimedia entertainment 24/7, no starvation if you don't work. Once, the Tree of Idleness was for the few surviving old men, who were past it; now, while we still have The Energy of Slaves (ie. machines and fossil fuels) to do the hard stuff for us, we don't know what to do with ourselves.

Freedom makes you fall apart.

Preparing for the Abolition of Freedom in the USA

How many Americans are aware of this?:-

Establishing Martial Law in the United States

(htp: Global Research; referred to me by Paddington)

UPDATE: see this from Jesse re New Hampshire's Resolution HCR 6! Freedom is in the air again!

Rolling back the State

... won't happen. Only a major disaster is capable of breaking the hands that are strangling us. But maybe that is what is now on its way.

Mish reported yesterday how the banks are insolvent, and in his opinion monetary reflation can't work , for three reasons:

1. Putting more cash into the system to create inflation to reduce the real burden of debt, won't create jobs, raise wages, or stop outsourcing (China's nominal GDP per capita is $2,483, America's $45,725, according to IMF figures).
2. But "quantitative easing" - monetary inflation - will lead to a currency drop (if it succeeds) and the reaction will be a raising of interest rates as lenders try to protect the real value of their loans.
3. And if government creates jobs directly, it again skews the economy, giving higher importance to the objects it chooses than the market would, if left to itself; in short, what economists call "malinvestment".

A longish essay over on Mises looks at how the State has seized the wealth and assumed many of the functions of the private citizen, and how the First World War and subsequent events helped accelerate a process that had begun long before.

Back in the 70s, I came across the work of Ivan Illich. His general thesis was that the State takes over activities that previously we performed ourselves - teaching our children, tending to our sick and injured, etc. These functions are then made into organisations with big buildings, many workers and officials, and large budgets - all paid for by taxation. Sociologists call this "reification". It increases the size and power of the State - and here we are.

They don't even do the job well.

As someone in education (as well as finance), I don't subscribe to the airy assertion that "our youngsters leave school illiterate", but they don't read or write as much or as well as they did, and what the liberals have done to the curriculum in English (for example) is painful to see. Heads of English in secondary schools in the 70s literally burned or threw out their schools' textbooks and coursebooks (I remember hearing of three separate cases); but the temptation to micromanage returned. It's like the historical irony that saw the French kill their King and end up with an Emperor.

And having seen the medical service in action on my wife a few years back, I no longer have the blind faith in doctors that I used to have. Phil Hammond (the GP/journalist/entertainer) tells us that the NHS kills or maims about 10% of its hospital patients, and Illich was ahead of him again (Medical Nemesis, 1974).

That's not to say we don't need doctors or teachers, but once created, institutions develop a will to live and purposes of their own, and can drift perilously off-task. Individuals who join them can become sidetracked by career opportunities and political hobby-horses, and in any case have to accommodate themselves to working in a structure run by others who have already done so and altered the operational rules to fit their interests.

Looks like the banks have done the same.

We have to hope that, however painful, after the coming changes there may be some better balance between the citizens taking care of their families, and that black hole of wealth and power, the State.

The Oath

President Obama has re-taken the Presidential Oath, merely because he'd said the word "faithfully" in the wrong place (though still correctly, in grammatical terms). But it matters, because the wording is precisely set by the Constitution. And what a serious oath it is:

"I do solemnly swear (or, affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Vice-President's oath is set by Congress, and in its latest (1884) wording is even more determined to leave no room for lawyerly ratting-out:

“I do solemnly swear (or, affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

A foreigner who wishes to become a US citizen must say:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

My brother took this oath last year, and knowing him, will have meant it and will uphold it down to the last punctuation mark.

Compare that with the British version, with its room for legal manoeuvre and evasion:

"I (name) swear by Almighty God (or, “do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm”) that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law."

I could wish that all our holders of political office in the UK would be compelled to use the American wording, substituting only "Kingdom" for "States of America".

And we appear to have forgotten (and compare it with the current US citizenship oath above!) the following extract from the Oath required by the 1689 Bill of Rights Act:

"I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."

George III, whose actions were part of the causes of the American Revolution, knew the power of his Coronation Oath: “Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Oath? [...] I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my Oath. If I violate that Oath, I am no longer legal Sovereign in this country.”

The Monarch's Coronation Oath has been amended (e.g. in 1937 - removing a vital reference to the "law and Customs" of the Kingdom) since then; and although the Common Law is enshrined in the 1701 Act of Settlement, it may have to give place to Europe's directives and such rights as its legislators are minded to grant (and, presumably, amend, suspend or withdraw).

In some senses, Britain is a younger country than the United States of America; and perhaps the worse for it; for here, I fear, one's word, oath, anciently (I believe) one's gesa, and the law itself, have become sandy; not a rock on which to build.

Standing your ground

Libertarians enjoy challenging others' assumptions, and it's invigorating. But it's also time to challenge the assumptions of libertarians: freedom-lovers, make your case.

Here's a couple of shots between the redoubtable Devils' Kitchen and myself, from a couple of posts back. To me, this isn't about drugs, essentially; it's about whether we are, or can be, free.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Sackerson, "How is it reactionary to wish to protect young people from habits that impoverish and enslave them (and this is what black communities object to)? I think perhaps some libertarians haven't really defined what they mean by liberty."

I am all for proper drugs education; however, it is worth noting that I had a considerable amount of it, and it hasn't stopped me from taking just about every drug on the planet*.

And do you know what? I have never had to have any kind of hospital or other treatment; I have never lost a job; I have never even been late for work, after having taken drugs.

I have never assaulted anyone (most drugs, other than alcohol, put you in a frame of mind in which violence is the last thing you want to indulge in), nor hurt anyone, nor even caused a public nuisance whilst on drugs either.

I am not addicted to drugs either, despite heavy usage of a few of them (most are self-limiting, in that the effects begin to wane after a period heavy usage).

I have, on the other hand, laughed like a demon, make some excellent friends, danced, thrilled, been immersed in music in a way that's not possible sober, and had many fantastic times whilst on drugs.

You see, what I chose was to take the education that I was given, and the advice of friends, and my own experience, and indulge in a free and informed choice.

That is libertarianism, and it is still no business of yours what I put into my body, as long as I am willing to pay the consequences. And I am: that's why I am privately insured up to the hilt.

DK

Sackerson said...

DK: thanks for visiting, I'd have drawn a chalk circle if I'd known you were coming.

I agree that alcohol is pernicious and have argued that rather than attempt to ban it, we should reduce its availability a bit - currently you can get it from the supermarket, post office, petrol station etc. And it does make many people horribly aggressive, so there is an incentive for others to band together and act in this way.

I do understand that there are many functioning drug users (as indeed there are functioning alcoholics), and the question of product purity is certainly one of the arguments propounded for legalisation and regulation. Set against that is what might then happen. If the research referred to by Paddington above is correct, the tendency to addiction is genetic, so the principal factor is opportunity. If only 5% have the fatal flaw, and these products become as available as a six-pack of wife-beater from Tesco Express, we could go from thousands of addicts to millions.

So one issue is how do you weigh your wish for a certain kind of pleasure, against the awful suffering of some other people? Is this corner of libertarianism less a struggle to be free of oppression than it is callous selfishness?

And there is a deeper question of the founding assumptions of libertarians: are we really free and rational in any case? If half our behaviour is genetically determined, and much of the rest conditioned by social expectations, drug-taking is not the blow for liberty that it was represented to be from the 1960s onwards. You yourself say "...I chose was to take the education that I was given, and the advice of friends, and my own experience...", which makes me think that your "free and informed choice" was conditioned by the example and advice of your friends, and the opportunity to take part yourself. Indeed, this is how I started on cigarettes and it took me a decade to get back off them, so I have some idea how unfree we really are. You'll see from my next post that I query whether public schools such as Eton had a drug problem as early as the 1960s, and "as the twig is bent, so the tree will grow".

I think we are in an age where the Enlightenment philosophy is as under threat from geneticism (and determinism generally), as Creationism was when evolutionary theory was formulated. Sartre refused to accept Freud's theory of the unconscious, because it fatally undermined his own position on existentialist free will.

So I think libertarians should move from questions of law, taxation, social liberty etc to re-examine the ground they are standing on.

Two cheers for deflation

A pattern is emerging.

Jörg Guido Hülsmann, on the Mises site, says deflation does not ruin the economy as a whole, but destroys the parasites who exploit the potential of fiat money. Parasites like (alleged) Ponzi-style fraudster Madoff and his clients, who deserve what they've now got, Mish judges.

Jesse says that "financial capitalism" seeks to use the money system to develop a dictatorial New World Order, and will be defeated when the dollar fails as the world's reserve currency.

Brad Setser wonders whether the dollar has reached its zenith; which implies that it may begin heading for its nadir.

Desperately holding back the inevitable is the US Federal Reserve, says Jim from San Marcos, who (although the Fed is refusing FOI requests) suspects that its $2 trillion in emergency loans is equally divided between support for banks, credit cards and the stockmarket. (I wondered what was being used as the robust cloth on the Dow's trampoline, and covert official support may be the answer.)

As I argued yesterday, the straightest path would be to destroy fraudulent, oppressive debt and those who introduced it into the system. For so many families, the bank is the fattest kid at their kitchen table, and nobody knows who invited him.

For a long time, I've been recasting financial issues as issues of power and freedom. If Jesse is correct, we are reaching a turning point in the battle. I hope we may soon say, as Churchill said of El Alamein, "A bright gleam has caught the helmets of our soldiers and warmed and cheered all our hearts." It would be worth the blood, toil, tears and sweat.

Carte Blanche; take cover!

We're back in the days of Dumas' Cardinal Richelieu (*), as London Banker points out. He quotes Section 8 of the proposed new US financial legislation:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

How is this to be subjected to democratic accountability?

I essayed a paranoid spoof on Friday, only to find it exceeded by reality. See Karl Denninger for more details of the amazing, autocratic powers proposed in the new US financial legislation.

This is not a sweary blog, but if that becomes law, head for the bl**dy hills.

Denninger also explains how the $700 billion limit can be manipulated to absorb infinite amounts of bad debt, by discounting on resale and then taking on more fresh garbage. He says:

I predict that if this passes it will precipitate the mother and father of all financial panics, although exactly when the "short bus" riders who inhabit the equity market will figure it out remains to be seen.

_____________________________

(*) see Wikipedia:

"Dec. 3, 1627

It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has done what he has done.

Richelieu"

Here is the news

In the public interest, short-selling is banned until further notice. Minimum buying prices will be observed, enforced by the new market regulator, OfPuff. If necessary, all sales of stocks will be subject to official clearance. Traders must demonstrate an awareness of their social function or attend re-education classes.

Gloom and despondency are prejudicial to the health of our economy, and no responsible Government would stand by while bad news was published without restriction. By order of the Privy Council today, all editors of print and electronic news media (*) are, by virtue of their position, to be deemed civil servants and will be bound by the Official Secrets Act, to which certain annexes have just been appended.

We have pleasure in being able to disclose the final results of the 2010 General Election (for full details, see page 32, or Ceefax page 801). The landslide victory will be welcomed by all true patriots, as will our decision to cancel the Election, for reasons of economic efficiency and also because, given the inevitability of the outcome, the process is otiose and a wearisome distraction for voters and a reinvigorated Government that is determined to get on with the job of steering us through these challenging times.

UPDATE - MY SPOOF WAS FAR TOO TAME:

(*) I should now add, all financial institutions:

"(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;"

See Karl Denninger on this latest, utterly undemocratic outrage by the US Government.

Accountability - but not to the citizens

Reuters reports yesterday that a bank in Abu Dhabi is suing Morgan Stanley, Bank of New York, Mellon and the ratings agencies for fraud relating to understating the risks in the complex debt packages at the heart of the credit crisis. (htp: Jesse)

Answerability to the voters is so last millennium, pace idealistic dreamers like Karl Denninger; but money talks.

If voting made a difference, it'd be Paris Hilton for Prez, and do you know, she could be a surprisingly good choice. Much more can be achieved laying on a sun lounger than crashing around the world. A film quote from Lawrence of Arabia:

Colonel Brighton: Look, sir, we can't just do nothing.

General Allenby: Why not? It's usually best.

And what a pleasant change it would be, to have a politician who only pretends to be dumb. I can just imagine her sweetly commanding some tough dudes to go and give the financiers the drubbing they deserve, then turning her attention back to her fashion magazine.

Yes, it's money that talks and the people are dumb. In 1930 Ludwell Denny wrote, "Too wise to try to govern the world, we shall merely own it. Nothing can stop us." America forgot that lesson; rising foreign powers now pay the piper, and will call the tune.

If you can't beat 'em... every dollar and pound you save in your bank account, is a vote in this new electoral system. With luck, one of your descendants will be accepted into the Superclass, while the rest vainly try voting for improved social security and healthcare; when the well is dry, the vote won't fill it. The freedom for which America thinks it stands, isn't founded on supplication. As here in Britain, it would be a hard road back.

Perhaps Chesterton's observation on Christianity may apply equally to the US Constitution: "[it] has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."