Friday, March 30, 2007

I'm.....So....Ronery...



The more I hear about Gordo the Broon, the more he is sounding like the famous Dear Leader. So much so, I shall refer to him as such from now on.
He has his teeth done with out anaesthetic, hits 18 holes in one, and trots out Tractor productioneseque statistics telling us we are all better off… as if.


No, not only is he Stalinist in his methods, but we have drifted into the sort of state we used to laugh at. But I hear a collective silence from the fourth estate media.
It still goes on about how the country was ruined in the 80s and that it was the worst thing that ever happened to us, and generally supporting the current left wing narrative that he spouts. I have been thinking about why.


To many commentators in the 5th estate we do see it clearly. We see that the liberalisation of our markets and opening up the city and all that feeds of her massive money generation took us from a sort of bottom dwelling nation of strikes, failures, massive structural problems and SuperTax to a place we can do business, as everyone seems to take for granted today.
I have been thinking about why we see this clearly, and they don't.

I believe it is because they genuinely do not grasp what happened

For many years when the country was converted from a failed central nationalised state (Sick man of Europe In 1979) to the financial powerhouse of Europe (4th largest in the world and most competitive in 1997) the state ran everything. At the time they started it, it was believed that the Man in Whitehall knew better than us.
The Man in Whitehall could see to it that it was all 'fair' (rationed) and that suits the Social theory.
As with all the great 'Social' experiments, it failed. Mainly because it took away the threat of bankruptcy and the motive of profit.
Interestingly - people almost always act in self interest - which is why liberalisation works - but on a macro scale. Macro economic solutions (The state cannot afford to keep a car plant open purely to provide jobs for car workers) are hard to sell at the 'Social Justice' level of the scale (I've lost my job at the car plant - and he works in a bank and drives a Porsche - it's not fair!).
The social justice industry is built on this precept.
If someone has what you do not, it is not fair. The bigger the gap, the less 'fair' it is. The City booming when freed from shackles and miners going unemployed is seen as unfair - but somehow charging me a fortune in tax to pay for a miner to sit around not digging coal is fair. Because he is poor and in a marginal Labour seat.

Lets turn this on it's head. If we charged nurses 85% tax to keep redundant stock brokers in a job - would that be seen as fair? Of course not - because nurses are hard workers and bankers rich gits. If you believe in a free economy, you will know that is nonsense, and the more rich bankers you have the more money is available ultimately for nurses and the like.

If you believe in a commanded economy, then all you can understand is that if someone has a lot of something, the system has failed because someone else has less…..and natural to assume that the former is doing it at the expense of the latter.

On this theory 'Social Justice' is built. Making the wiring of the commanded economy fair, or putting those wirers in to a liberal economy. The problem that brings is that the addition of these instruments of state add nothing to the productivity of the nation as a whole, and delivers benefits in diminishing returns.

Clinging to the Socialist ideology - they keep trying harder as the ship slowly sinks, in the vain belief that if we just try a bit harder, tax a bit more, few more laws, then it will work a bit. As it slows down, and things like order, families and communities breakdown, self interest takes over, whether that self interest is economically literate or not - it will start to try and defend it's interests. Hence strikes and massive demands from the Public Sector for more money feeding the fires of collapse around it.

Thatcher gave us a modern liberal economy from the ashes of a failed state in 10 scant years. It is happening all over Eastern Europe right now. The process of liberalising it means cutting out all those heavy chains of the Social Justice industry and letting solutions on a macro scale solve the real issues that Social Justice tries to address - i.e.: Poverty. You just have to get over the fact that some people are going to have more than you, life isn't fair, and if you try and make it fair, it doesn't actually work.

The problem is that isn't a nice easy to grasp idea. It isn't an idea at all. Socialism is an idea, and Libertarianism is only knowing that Socialism doesn't work. If you haven't understood that - and outside of the BBC or the Public Sector or have never had to work your way up, you rarely do have to grasp it, you will only see those years of one of unemployment and upheaval. If you can only see the micro-scale (my local shipyard has closed) you will never see the macro scale (The country has a massively large more economy than in 1978).

All you see is long dole queues, and miners on strike, and less state handouts. If you are part of the Social Justice industry, the public sector or the BBC, then it was a nightmare.
For those of us who generate wealth - wealth on which they dine, it was the shackles coming off of us, and allowing us to work for ourselves for once.

Twenty five years ago, when the memory of the 70s was fresh - Thatcher, Howe and Joseph re-built the country brick by brick, faced down an aggressive dictatorship and fought and won a noble war overseas. She came to power on a wave of euphoria delivered by Britain's working classes.

But seduced by a generation of social justice message, people have forgotten what really happened, history is being viewed through Labour tinted spectacles. The debacle of Major's collapse was not the glory days of Thatcher. The corruption of Labour now makes Hamilton taking a brown envelope to ask a question in the house look honest.

But when Broon goes on spouting his ever more spurious statistics, the MSM coo and bleat about how brilliant he is, and how life fits his statistics. It is no great leap to him getting 18 hole-in-ones, and living like Kim Jong Il. Everyone gets told how well off they are, but no one believes it. The first step is when the public see through the lies. No we are not better off from his tax rises, and he may trot out his stories about more of this and more of that - but it is now like tractor production in the Urals.
All we need is an image of him in a Chairman Mao suit, with a shark tank and a little song about being lonely, and the image is complete.
He has presided over a slide in everything other than public borrowing and public sector employment. It will not be long until we are back where we started.
Phew. That's better. Rant over.


8 comments:

Kate said...

"Libertarianism is only knowing that Socialism doesn't work"

I completely disagree. Libertarianism isn't an absence of Socialism. It's a positive philosophy in its own right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I would also dispute that New Labour is Stalinist. Its methodology is certainly control-freak in the personal sphere but when it comes to corporate matters, I doubt that accountancy Big Four would have prospered so well in Stalinist Russia.

Nicodemus said...

At least you read it!
Welcome your comments. True libertarianism probably is on reflection. The brand I buy into is a whole lot less of a way of life, but I wouldn't call it an ideology. B ut then I lack the philiosphical background to deabte such things.
Big four have indeed profited...and oligopoly if there ever was.

Kate said...

What brand of libertarianism do you buy into then? (Curious)

Oh and I have a further comment on the piece -

"when Broon goes on spouting his ever more spurious statistics, the MSM coo and bleat about how brilliant he is, and how life fits his statistics"

Actually the media have been gleefully putting the boot into Brown for weeks, if not months, now. Especially this week, with this pensions hoo-ha. Anything more different to hero-worship would be hard to imagine!

Nicodemus said...

Fantastic - this almost a fisking!

It dependes which bit of the MSM you get exposed to. I am surrounded by Today listeners, Guardianistas and Indy-lovers. The exposure round here is simply glowing.
In the mean time, turn the page, and he is shown grinning with the troops.

The pensions hoo-ha has been going on since it started - it has taken 10 years for the MSM to spot it. They have been too blinded by the light of his so called 'brilliance'. In my mind he has only done two things. One was going to happen anyway, the other trashed my pension.

As for brands of Libertariansim that I buy in to - my version is by no means the extreme ideology of some. I accept there are limits to it. I'm more of a Libertarian Tory and Libertarian pure. For example - I accept that I have to pay tax. I just object to paying it for Red Ken to jet around pow-wowing with the likes of Fidel and Chavez.

This is great! I am probably going to get a proper fisking of a proper journalist (you) and it will make me give up amateur writing all together!

No seriously, it is good that I get a serious challenge. I am a friday afternoon-at-my-desk writer of this drivel, and anything that improves my argumentation is very welcome.

Kate said...

'This is great! I am probably going to get a proper fisking of a proper journalist (you) and it will make me give up amateur writing all together!'

:-D
Proper journalists are the ones who get fisked usually; I'm not sure I'm hot enough on my contemporary politics to have a go at you! I'd say I'm more on the libertarian-left side of things, but I'd dissassociate myself from most other people who claim that label! That would make me an individualist, right?!!!

Nicodemus said...

Libertarian left I would normally treat as an oxymoron, but according to wiki they exist.
If I were you, I would have no truck with them at all. Dodgy bunch.
I find that on deconstruction of most viewpoints, all but the most close minded Maoists concede that they are lefties on the grounds of theoretcial ideology, as opposed to practical realities of self interest. Even my most Marxist comrade owns a business nowadays, and objects to pettifogging legislation. And he likes lording it up with champers on the yacht.

Kate said...

Hmmm, I think that the self-interest argument CAN be made for left-wing positions. Especially if you accept that people are motivated by enlightened self interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest).

Fundamentally, I think, there's a much more meaningful political division than left and right wing. It comes down to a difference in belief about human nature. If you believe that people are generally fundamentally 'good' then you're far more likely to find libertarian ideas appealing - you believe that people can be trusted with freedom. Whereas if you believe that human nature is pretty nasty and needs controlling - that too much freedom results in a 'Clockwork Orange' scenario - then you're likely to lean towards the authoritarian end of the spectrum.

Nicodemus said...

Fascinating. I think even if people are nasty then they still operate under self interest. Believing in a political system which accounts for this, rather than using the engines of the state to force people to operate to an elite's view of what is 'enlightened' is the fundamental difference between left and right, statist vs. liberty.
Expecting