Piracy: Western decadence

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/08/piracy-test-for-moral-inversion.html

"It is relatively recently that piracy worldwide was suppressed - just the past couple of hundred years. The main agents were the British Navy and also the navies of the other great European powers. However, piracy was long enough in the past for wishful-thinking pacifists to imagine (like Shire hobbits) that peace and plenty are the natural state of affairs, and need not be defended, need not be fought-for.

***

Therefore, the fact that piracy has been allowed to re-emerge over recent years as a highly profitable business - unchecked and essentially unpunished and despite technical developments which make the suppression of piracy easier than ever in the past - is the most conclusive evidence that could be imagined to demonstrate Western decadence: the reckless, complacent, futile, hand-wringing, self-absorbed, morally-paralyzed blindness of Western political leaders and their ruling elites."


See http://james-notepad.blogspot.com/2011/08/build-more-prisons-paradox-of-continual.html
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-mises-to-carlyle-my-sick-journey.html

"So we see that an English government of the Victorian era - without DNA testing or closed-circuit TV - managed to largely abolish crime. We also see that the present-day government of England (and of other places governed in the same way) pretends to want to abolish crime - but to be unable to do so." 

Eugenics and antinatalism

http://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/: a blog attempting to create "a viable and just political philosophy consistent with likely truths of human biology and evolution."

---

Anti-natalism is the belief that life should not be brought into existence. David Benatar's book, "Better To Never Have Been", sets out the case masterfully, and I recommend it unreservedly.

As we know, existence is not a property. Essentially, Benatar makes the point that to bring someone into existence to experience a life wholly of pleasure does not benefit them. If you hadn't brought them into existence, they would not mind, because they wouldn't exist. On the other hand, bringing someone into an existence where they will experience pain, does them harm. There is an asymmetry between pleasure and suffering. If a potential person does not exist, their potential pleasure is not a good reason to create them, whereas their potential pain is a good reason not to create them. Everyone's lives are almost certain to contain at least some pain/suffering, therefore no one should be brought into existence.

(Benatar considers the idea that some people should be brought into existence because their suffering is outweighed by the pleasure they bring to others ("using people as means, not ends"). He proposes a "phased extinction".)

---

One fact that Benatar considers is that people don't really appreciate how bad their lives are. We notice that our lives are much better than disabled people. But we too lack many abilities. We don't notice how bad our lives are compared to what they could be, if, say, we had the ability to fly.

In http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2009/02/unwelcome-guest.html, Deogolwulf makes the point that Charles Darwin was a eugenicist: he correctly thought that superior races should inherit the earth. Insights from the world of antinatalism support this. If we can have some influence over which beings are brought into existence -- and we do -- we should use this influence for eugenic purposes, to bring in to existence beings with superior abilities.

A theory of charity

Or, Kaldor-Hicks charity. 

An action is Pareto efficient if it makes some people better off without making anyone else worse off. Pareto efficiency is achieved if there are no actions remaining that can be made without making anyone worse off.

In practice, however, there are few actions that do not make at least some person worse off. An action is Kaldor-Hicks efficient if people made worse off could in theory be compensated. They do not actually have to be identified and compensated. This allows us to identify actions which move us closer to Pareto efficiency.

I claim that a charitable action should only be undertaken if the person receiving the charity could in theory compensate the person giving the charity. While this condition is not enough to make charity morally obligatory, I claim that if the condition is not fulfilled, it is morally obligatory not to give charity.

For example, if a homeless beggar could use an amount of capital to get back on his feet, he would then be able to pay back the capital (he doesn't -- that's why it's called charity, not a loan). The capital "makes a return"/"makes a (social) profit".

"You know it's so easy to lose everything. But it's so, so tough to get it back."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14372195
http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html

But if this wouldn't happen, then the charity is wasted. It would have been better spent on something else. We all want to maximise the good done by our charitable donations. http://timworstall.com/2011/09/04/if-warren-buffett-thinks-tax-is-so-great-whys-he-giving-all-his-money-to-bill-gates/
If charity does not "make a return" (in a Kaldor-Hicks sense) then it will just be required again, and again, and again.

Assisted suicide should be legal. 

The Left cannot understand colonialism

The Left cannot understand colonialism because they cannot understand profit. They cannot understand that it is possible to make a profit without being exploitative.

Successful colonies must make a profit: that is, they must extract resources etc. Colonies that do not make a profit are unsustainable.

But that does not mean the poor countries lose out. Quality of life and productivity improves for the natives. Under colonialism, more wealth is created than would be otherwise. More wealth remains even after the colonial profit has been taken.

It is right for developed countries with spare capital should lend it to poor countries. That way poor countries can develop faster.

"Punish the rich, hurt everybody"

Dennis Sewell, The Spectator, 3rd September 2011

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7204948/punish-the-rich-hurt-everybody.thtml

"HMRC also identifies a tiny group of the super-rich, upon whom we have become dangerously reliant. These are 14,000 taxpayers earning on average a little over £2 million each. If just one thousand of them were to leave the country, the economy would have to generate 300,000 extra new jobs, paying £20,000 per year to make up the resulting shortfall in the tax take."

What is Reaction?

http://declineofgenius.com/politics/what-is-a-reactionary-07122010/

Reaction, or Reactionism is a political philosophy which has emerged in recent years from blogs on the internet. Its followers are "reactionaries" or "neo-reactionaries".

While it is a coherent political philosophy, it does not flow from a set of axioms (like libertarianism flowing from "natural rights" or conceptions of property). Rather, it is a collection of coherent but not necessarily related ideas. As such, it is called "Reaction" largely for want of a better word.

What do reactionaries believe? 

Reactionaries believe in the following:

• Small, strong government.
• Democracy is bad. The solution is some for of autocracy. 
• "Almost every transition from a lawful aristocracy or lawful democracy to a lawful democracy has lessened the quality of governance." "only the polities with the strongest traditions, most educated people, greatest cultural ethic of fair play, and most established institutions can hold lawful elections without having those elections devolve into corrupt and violent gangsterism."
• Force is necessary to maintain control of the state against the masses. 
• Human rights do not exist. 
• Colonialism was good.
• For-profit government with no democracy kept the government small, strong and provided a basis for freedom and economic development. 
• The end of colonialism was a disaster for all involved. 
• Zero inflation. Either through a wise government not inflating its currencies, or through people being free to use competing non-government currencies. 
• Human Bio-Diversity, or HBD. Different races have different average IQs. 
• Marriage is good for society. 
• Neo-Cameralism: for-profit government owned by a joint-stock publicly traded corporation. 
• Formalism: formal ownership should be the same as actual ownership. Sovereignty can be split but not eradicated. Any decision has a person or organisation who is sovereign regarding it and can overrule anyone else. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/07/race-modest-proposal.html. "Society should stop lying to itself."
• Dependents should be recognised as such. In exchange for being a dependent, their guardian should have certain rights over them. 
• Land taxation. A sovereign's income should come from the territory they own. Land taxation is a simple and efficient way of collecting it. 
• Tax is rent, not theft. 

Some quotes about Reactionism:

• "But unlike the older reactionaries, who belonged to what is sometimes known as the throne and altar school of conservatism, modern reactionaries will be skeptical of everything, including throne and altar, because we realize that most of these institutions have sold out to mass man." http://mangans.blogspot.com/2010/12/reaction.html
• "Broadly, I take reactionary to include anyone who is seriously and openly opposed to democracy." 
• "I take it 'reactionary' means you want to make the U.S. into a giant version of Singapore. Talking about non-democratic systems, Singapore is the perfect embodiment of everything you guys believe in." 
• "order is simply good, and chaos is simply evil"

List of reactionary blogs:

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/

http://foseti.wordpress.com/

http://mangans.blogspot.com/

http://intellectual-detox.com/

The Left on the NHS and free schools

"The lies aren’t some artifact of her misunderstanding the debate, they are the entire contribution from the left. Because they have no substantive contribution to make, they need continuous propaganda to ensure their supporters don’t get distracted by the facts." 
http://timworstall.com/2011/09/04/shirley-williams-daft-old-bat/

Poem, by Mencius Moldbug

Hanged in the lovely month of October,
My troubles were not over. I thought Hell;
But went to Heaven, where bull-necked
Angels grabbed and threw me down.
Straight they dragged me to the edge
Of a cloud, where from a long bar
I was hanged again - and this time, drawn,
My bowels burned before my eyes. For
Hours the black drops welled and shot
Twisting to the old and distant earth:
Indescribable. But next day
I was healed; so they could melt me
To hipbones in a tub of cold lye.
In Heaven you never lose consciousness.
And there is no Hell - but this Heaven,
Unroofed against the freezing fog,
Whose God is Jean Cauvin's,
Whose dirty work is His alone; nay He
Glories in it; so it went on. The
Cross? Oh, yes, the cross; many
Times; ingeniously refined. Did I
Cry, why? Many times. To no answer
But the ungentle angels. Finally
I understood; and some time later,
Was smelted of my crimes. My soul
Was good silver, thinner than paper,
Stamp-small; such remained; such
Big angels brought before the Lord.
Who spoke formalities, and sent me
Back to the one hell, this earth,
Where it is summer always, where men
Are animals, where I whisper
Like a leaf in the perfect breeze.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/poem.html

Secession

http://tfiafc.blogspot.com/2011/06/call-to-arms-democracy-via-secession.html
http://www.box.net/shared/tco3u7xh2hceodto70b0

Obviously England needs a Secession Party. The purpose is to end redistribution of wealth from the productive to the unproductive, and thus lower taxes. This cannot be achieved through electoral politics, so the solution is to split the polity. Other good reasons include a more responsive political system (smaller electorate: more influence per person), more competition between the seceded regions, and thus lower taxes and regulation. Smaller states, and indeed city-states, are better. We cannot terminate payments to Scotland without taking away their votes, and we cannot take away their votes without paying them to keep quiet. The only way to do it is to split the polity. We cannot keep control of Scotland for our own purposes (tax) unless we either pay them (contradictory and unacceptable) or use the army to crush rebellion. There is no public appetite for this and the army would not obey. Secession is the solution.

At the very least, this would be a Secession Party for the whole of England, to stop transfers from England to Scotland and Wales. But it could cover a smaller area than England. The advantage of an England-wide party is that this helps it avoid being a single issue party, thus giving it broader appeal. It would be easier to insert the policy into an existing political party (the Conservative Party) if it was for England to secede.

Unlike the Scottish National Party, our manifesto commitment will not be to hold a referendum on secession, it shall be to UDI: to unilaterally declare independence from the United Kingdom.

This might be easier after we have elected police chiefs, because then a member could be elected Local Police Commissioner. The police would then legitimately owe allegiance to the new government against the old. Countries are ruled (laws enforced, taxes collected) ultimately through their police locally and army nationally. It is the police who arrest those who break the law and the army who arrest police who are not obeying the national government. So having the police on side is essential.


The only way the UK could prevent secession is therefore to use the army. Hopefully the army would not be willing to fire on civilians. But it could still arrest the police. If the Secession Party won a majority in the House of Commons, this would not be a problem. But a much smaller area of secession would not be able to do this.

Where should secede?

• London
• London and the Home Counties
• Brighton
• Hull

The area shouldn't be an enclave. Hull has its own communications network, and is a natural port. Brighton or similar places are on the coast and could build a port. Many of them could secede.

Many places could benefit massively from freedom from the United Kingdom. They would de-tax and deregulate, and become fantastically productive and wealthy.

London and the Home Counties don't have as much scope for growth. However, it would still be worth them seceding in order to keep their current wealth.They would need to keep coastal access.

Should the Secession Party pursue local or national government? Both.

Control of Westminster would allow dismantling of the UK, which would benefit each new country. For example, Scotland and Wales would have an incentive to become productive. The North and the South East of England could become new countries (I favour the names the Kingdom of Northumbria and the Kingdom of Wessex). However, for a Secession Party to gain control of Westminster, it would need to win the majority of seats in the Commons (could form a government with the Scottish Nationalists). This would be easier if it was a Secession Party for the whole of England (i.e. the Conservative Party with a new policy).

Control of the County Councils of the Home Counties would enable UDI without control of Westminster. But they would need to somehow gain control of part of the army, or hope that the UK would not use the army, or that the army would not obey the UK's demands to crush the rebellion.


Strategy

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/06/patri-friedman/beyond-folk-activism/

The Free State Project aims to encourage like-minded people to move to New Hampshire, as a practical alternative to changing other people's minds.

A Secession Party would only put up candidates in the area it wants to secede, and would encourage potential supporters to move there. E.g. the Hull Secession Party would only field candidates for Hull parliamentary constituencies and local and county council elections.

Also 

The True Election Party. Slogan: "one vote once".

Reactionary heroes

• Sulla
• A general: never lost a battle; the only man in history to have attacked and occupied both Athens and Rome. Twice consul, he became dictator, executed thousands, and neutered the Plebeian tribune, thus preserving the power of the aristocracy and the senate against the people and democracy. He then resigned the dictatorship and was elected consul for the second time.
• Charles I
• "For the people.   And truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whomsoever.   But I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government; those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own.   It is not for having share in government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them.    A subject and a soveraign are clean different things, and therefore until they do that, I mean , that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves." 
• Ian Smith
• "I told you so." Declared independence from the United Kingdom rather than give in to democracy in Rhodesia. Rhodesia was destroyed by sanctions from the International Community, who gave power to Robert Mugabe, who destroyed the country. Life expectancy is now the lowest in the world, having declined from 60 in 1990 to less than 40 now. There are frequent famines in what used to be the "breadbasket of Africa", and Zimbabwe now relies on aid from abroad. This is blamed on "erratic rain". Rhodesia never had "erratic rain" problems.
• Lee Kuan Yew
• Singapore remains low tax and regulation through suppression of democracy. 
• The Duke d'Alba
• Imposed order and tax by executing thousands. 
• General Pinochet
• Imposed low tax and regulation by suppressing democracy.
• The White Rajahs of Sarawak
• Ruled a happy, prosperous state for a hundred years until destroyed by the British after World War 2.
• Porfirio Díaz
• Ruled a successful, prosperous state until he started to encourage democracy. Under Díaz, Mexico was ahead of the U.S. in learning and the arts.
• Enoch Powell
• Eloquent opponent of expansions of democracy. He opposed reform of the House of Lords, which would reduced its power relative to the Commons, and expansion of the electorate whether by the Reform Acts or immigration.
• Lord Cromer
• Consul-General of Egypt. Ruled a country of 10 million with 1000 British civil servants and 5000 soldiers, and profitably.

Programme for reactionary government

A reactionary government will liberalise the economy and abolish democracy. It must formalise power, so that the people who appear to hold power are the same as the people who actually do.

How will it cement its power?

It must write a new national curriculum to explain the principles of non-democracy. History lessons will demonstrate the unusualness of democracy. Novels such as "Starship Troopers" could be studied in English Literature lessons.

The state broadcaster will encourage self-reliance instead of socialism. Universities will produce research designed to support the self-reliance and the new state over socialism. Control of university funding will encourage such research.

If the state broadcaster and the universities cannot be reformed, they will have to be dissolved, like the monasteries, as competing power centres.

The state schools will remain, because they definitely can be reformed.

The armed forces will also have to be reeducated to ensure loyalty to the new principles of the state. This should not be difficult. Different ethics classes, and a different selection of military history, will show that taking the necessary measures to preserve the government from the people are both moral and easy.