rab] Condolences too. Looks like it's shaken up pen too.

[rab] it's been said, but my condolences are with you and your family. *hug*

[rab]Sorry to hear of your sad news.

[Dujon]You are back in the chase.At the moment I'm chasing the Royals as they seem to be in a bit of disarray.

[rab] My sympathy flies o'er the seas to put a hand on your shoulder. Having lost all my antecedents other than my Mum I know only too well that it's never easy. Chin up.
[Inkspot] Ta. Me too, share prices vary wildly but the dividends should be good with the wedding coming up.

[Rab] aww - that's very sad news. Sounds as though he was much loved so I hope he had a happy life.

[Dujon] Even after all this time I am still learning new things about Celebdaq. Each week I regulaly use JJB’s dividends and returns tools. Last week the guy was Top Trader and reading the interview another penny dropped; yes even after all this time. Up to now I have been looking at Potential Total Gain and Pot Dividend, how wrong have I been. It turns out in his dividend report there is a column “Pot Yeild” this is ratio of price against dividend. This is the column I need to take note of which means buying a low priced celeb not necessarily that with the hightest pot. gain. It would appear that this weeks best buys on Monday were Jamie Oliver (212%) or Vic Reeves (210%) rather than my current holding, Prince William (141%).
I am going to try this out next week just to see, and as long as I buy before midnight on Monday and hold on till Friday there should be a handsome % gain

[rab] *adds sympathies to the pile*

What can you do with a client who wants you to do lots of press releases for him and his organisation, but when you do get them ready, he's too disorganised to sign anything off in time, then panics about how late everything is and so avoids opening your emails, reading your faxes or taking your phone calls until it's really too late to put out the news? *grinds teeth in frustration*

Where is 'e, pen? I'll deck 'im.

[pen] seconded. I'm in a violent mood so me and my size twelves will go and see him.

[Nights'n'Chalks] The idea is to keep the account...

OK - keep the account - lose the loser.
Back to plan A. Me and nights'll sort him, like permanently. His staff probably hate him as well so they'll thank us for the deed, as will you when you find he's been replaced by a considerate but not ingratiating, organised but not anal, phonecall answering fax reading email opening, townhouse AND country retreat owning, National Trust member, recently singled so a bit lonely and needs to get back into the dating thingy, gregarious, amusing, clean smelling, looks-don't-matter-but-not-too-smooth-and-oily [the occasional crooked tooth is always a good sign], spontaneous, generous, PR lady-obsessed, 30-something ...

[Chalks] Sounds perfect. When can you do it? And what should I wear for the first date meeting?

Chalks] Thats me! Apart from the single status and organised bit. Anyway, I'd rather be creatively unsystematic than anal any day...

... and there I was, singing your praises in the Orange Pilg Game - the youngsters are getting restless ...

I know, bless them, but things is all under control - in my usual creatively unsystematic way... (casts another surreptitious glance at a passing PR lady and gets rapped on the knuckles by NotmrsBobthedog).

I have decided that this year I am NOT going to panic quite as much as I did last year. Excuse me, a PR lady has just arrived and I must talk to her about something that has been on my mind...

Yippeee! Friday. Twenty minutes to go. I am sooo gonna big up the snooooze when I get home.

excuse me while i shout excitedly that IT'S SATURDAY AND I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WORK WOOOOOTTT!!!!

sorry about that. but i'm excited that it's nearly midday and I'm still in bed.

nights] You know when it's holiday time when you're woken up by the sound of an ice cream van.

[nights, Tuj] And the dawn chorus stops you from getting to sleep.

I've found out why this site keeps having problems! The truth is here.

[tuj] we have an abnormally large amount of ice cream vans around by us. I keep thinking they play 'tubular bells' but it's actually 'greensleeves'. but an ice cream van playing tubular bells would be excellent. if slightly creepy.

their is a hot site called castlesofspirits.com go their if you dare. if u cant sleep at night not ma fault.they show u hot to levitate people and how to play and make ure own quija board. theirs also pics of real spirits.for those who dont believe in ghosts u got to c it to believe it.

i wanna say hi to ma people in elizabeth nj.and ma enemies they can go down to u know where especially KRITZIA. kritzia i cant stand u.

Gosh, I really need a quija board! I've still got all the quija pieces, but of course I lost the board so I can't play the game any more.

I went to a seance on Thursday night, as it happens. It was good fun, and we managed to contact the spirits who played around with some objects on the table, banged it a few times and then buggered off. All in the name of scientific research of course.

Meanwhile, my ongoing battle with Jerry continues. I was always suspicious that the bait hadn't been taken and in fact all it did was make him tiptoe more lightly around the kitchen. Confirmation came after I scattered a little flour on the floor, expecting to find ickle paw-prints in it the next morning. Sod that - he came and ate the whole bloody lot! So the snap traps came out, and again he's proved himself to be a canny bugger and has steadfastly avoided them (despite one of them fitting snugly inside his entry channel).

It turns out that the right thing to do is to call the landlord's agents, who have a dedicated mouse man who'll come out, do a thorough investigation and block up all the hole. So this should all be over soon I hope...

[rab] Have you not considered Tom ? Have you a friend with a moggy you could borrow ? One night would probably dod the trick.

Dr Mouse is coming to visit at lunchtime, so we'll see what he does.

Dave's squirting stuff in my holes as we speak.

[rab] That's more than I wanted to know.

Dave was fab! Tracked down all the mouse activity, and took the belt and braces approach of sealing their entry points and slapping down not one, not two, but three different types of bait. He does a repeat visit next week to seal up the one remaining hole (which is there to let anyone out who might have been hiding in the airing cupboard) and laugh in the face of dead rodents.

there were little trays of rat poison on the floor when we moved into our house. they're still there. I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

I won't be e-pilging this evening, I'm going to an open mic night because a friend of mine is going to get up and do some damien rice and some of his own stuff. my housemates and I will sit at the back and clap supportively, or get rat-arsed, one of the two. actually probably both.

rab ] I am assuming that that isn't the same Richard Wiseman who is head of the Legal Department at Shell ? I met him once - very nice chap, but looked like he had been washing himself in money.

[st d] How does someone look when they have been washing themselves in filthy lucre? Pretty grubby, I'd expect.

[st d] I'm guessing not.

(rab) Your "ongoing battle with Jerry" makes me think of those old farts (and not-so-old farts) who cannot accept that WW2 ended some time ago.

It did? Blimey.

I have just accidentally tipped coffee over a particularly hated job bag containing piece of work which I have taken a week and a half longer to complete than I should have done, purely because I don't like doing it. This makes me believe that malevolent forces exist on Wednesday mornings. Unfortunately the coffee also went over my leg.

oops.

[pen] Have you noticed how coffee expands when freed from the constaints of a cup/mug? One knocked over mug of coffee can flood an entire desk, soak into reams of paperwork and fill a couple of drawers.

.. and possibly does the most damage when deftly tipped over a computer keyboard where it completely disappears!

[pen] a job bag, eh? Reminds me of my student hols when I worked on a geriatric ward ..

sorrysorrysorry - I'm just talking shite, as usual

And remember that if you do spill coffee on your desk: save the phone and the papers before worrying about the keyboard (keyboard £20, phone £200 if it's a clever one, papers probably several hours of your time).

I think job bags exist to protect their hated contents from coffee. The papers within are only soggy along one edge. The coffee in my keyboard was soaked up by all the crumbs already in there. My phone was protected by a layer of papers. In other news, I was taken out for lunch today by my boss. And no, I'm not about to lose my job :o)

Scientists have observed that coffee is 20-30% more spillable than tea.

[rab] can you quote your source?

R. A. Blythe (2005) Private communication.

Pen] He lies. Check out so help me God.

I am currently in a bidding frenzy on ebay for a batch of whopping great blue, football-sized Agapanthus flowers with which to beautify my garden come the summer, when I'm having a Birthday Garden Party. I also bought some other stuff this morning, and I should win another one this afternoon for violet Surfinias. I just had to tell someone - no-one in the office is interested and it's soooo exciting.

[pen] It is exciting when it gets to the last minute and you are still the highest bidder. I was outbid twice in the last 3 seconds on one occasion. Selling can be frustrating though. I had 8 people watching one item and I only got one bid in the end.

Hmmm, should I bid on those Surfinias . . . . .

[Boolbar] Don't you dare!!

The blue Surfinias are mine, MINE, ALL MINE!!! mwahahahahahahah!

Surfinias? Are you sure they aren't the Smurfinias - the little blue characters with bleached hair and a funny hat riding a surf board? I suppose they'd still make cute garden gnomes.

[pen] we're excited for you. interior design is a worryingly popular thing in our house. our favourites list on our cable box runs 'sky one', 'UKTV Gold', 'sky sports news', 'UKTV Style' - whu?

The only interior design I did as a student was pinning up posters and checking down the back of every settee in every house I lived in for loose change and valuables. Only ever found forks stuck about with Nuttalls Mintoes though.

pen] I read that as ".. and chUcking down the back of every settee in every house ..." :-)

nights] Exterior design, shurely?

So Rover has come finally to the end of car production. Although I am sad to see an end to 6,000 jobs and all the supporting industry. It has been a slow motion car crash and inevitable as Phoenix tried to maintain the existing levels of mass production. My hope is that the administrators will come to an agreement with someone like Alchemy do build a niche market MG even though this will be with a much reduced workforce.

This weekend will be further decoration of the living room. As background I tune the Freeview box to digital radio, lots of channels but end up listening to 6Music. I tried Q but after hearing The Waterboys for the third time in as many days and accident lawyers, next stop is Kerrang!

You can't imagine the French government allowing Renault or Citroen to go bust or the Germans BMW, Audi or Daimler, can you? So how seriously does the government take manufacturing? Not very, as we all know.

Why pay them to make what no-one wants to buy?

I don't see what more the government can do. They've offered big injections of cash, they've tried to broker a deal with the Chinese car company... If a private company cannot compete and goes under, it's not the government's responsibility to keep it afloat any more than it is anyone else's. I think it's pretty good that they did as much as they did.

Why should the workforce get screwed over for management's incompetence (and squirreling away of large amounts of cash from the company, from some reports)? And if Rover cars really can't be sold, turn the production lines over to something useful, like public transport.

[Irouleguy] Exploring the possibilities of keeping the business going is precisely the administrators' job. But in the end, if they can't find anyone who wants to run it and has a credible business plan, it goes under. That is unfortunate for the former employees, but losing out when the people you work for fail is one of the risks of any sort of employment.

I have never understood the fetish about manufacturing. I mean, Rover makes a car in the midlands. Fine. But if you want to buy the car in Glasgow, say, then you need someone to transport it, which means a services sector. And then you want to buy it, and you probably don't have several thousands pounds in cash on you, so you need a bank, which again means a services sector.

The point is that the product that interests you is not a car sitting on a lot hundreds of miles from you that can only be purchased for cash on the nail. It is a car available for delivery in Glasgow in exchange for a bank draft. And that requires services every bit as much as it needs manufacturing.

In Glasgow I thought they just nicked them. Oh well, live and learn.

Raak] Unless the government steps in and does something, like nationalise it. Governments used to do that here, and they still do on the continent and elsewhere. When exactly did it get written that the market has the absolute power to screw us all over?

[Irouleguy] I.e. subsidise it with other people's money. When exactly did it get written that every incompetently run business has the absolute power to put a trowel into my pocket?

(Raak) When the railways were privatised, amongst other instances. The Government subsidy to Train Operators and Rolling Stock Leasing companies is huge, and vastly more than was available to BR. Large amounts of public money disappear into private profit. So the true answer to your question is; "when the current political dogma has to be satisfied". There's a lot of it about, worldwide, and always has been.

Littlewoods is shedding 3000 jobs and closing most of its 'Index' stores. Will there be a march on parliament and hundreds of millions of pounds in government aid?

Raak] What Rosie said, plus the Common Agricultural Policy (which puts your money and mine into the pockets of the royal family!), the Export Credit Guarantee Department (which ensured that when arms manufacturers flogged stuff to Saddam Hussain and he didn't pay up that you and I paid for it), the 'guarantees' given to PFI contractors....

(Irouléguy) I was going to mention all that, so I'm glad you did. Also, many countries practise protectionism. A typical example (the legally-enforceable Buy American policy of many US institutions) cost me my job in 1998.

Also it doesn't help that the average CEO's salary has risen to a truely incomprehensible sum. Oh, your company is out of money? Mayhaps it's because you were paying yourself thirty million dollars a year for a job consisting largely of assigning yourself more stock options. Fortunately you'll never feel the sting of unemployment because you write yourself off as a personal corporation for tax purposes and you don't need one of those silly retirement accounts because you have more money than King Solomon. Sadly four thousand people have lost their honest, hard-working jobs, but if they're that honest and hard-working I'm sure they'll land on their feet.

...
On a separate note, I want to see someone jump twenty motorcycles with a full size bus.

hello everyone, since university work is building up and building up at an alarming rate, I don't really have time to keep playing MC, sadly. I hope to be back in the summer, but for now I'll say goodnight and hope you all have a LOT of fun in Rugby. (crossposted)

Take care, even us new fellows will miss you.

[Rosie, Irouléguy] But your examples really just support Raak's point. Raak says "we shouldn't subsidise companies that make stuff that no-one wants to buy". Your response seems to be "we should, because, look, here are lots of other ridiculous cases where the government subsidises companies that make stuff that no-one wants to buy". Raak would respond (I guess) "Absolutely. Scrap the CAP and export guarantees and all of those other stupid policies as well". In other words, in rebutting Raak's rhetorical point ("when exactly did it get written...") you end up buttressing his substantive point.

Which raises the question: is having people out of work "bad" for the wider economy? (It's obviously "bad" for those people who aren't being paid, but the economy doesn't care about people so that's an irrelevant concern). If the answer is "yes", is it right for a government to find ways to get people into employment?

There is a simple (simplistic?) argument that goes that it's cheaper and better for the economy to have a person producing 1000 units of value to the economy and paying them 1500 units to do so if the alternative is to pay them 1000 units to do nothing. This means government intervention and subsidy, because although it's good for the economy it's bad for any individual employer.
I know there are all sorts of arguments about market distortion, structural inefficiencies, impact on long-term competitiveness etc. (I'm sure CdM can come up with plenty of them). And yet it seems to me there's still a fundamental truth in there which those arguments don't eliminate - especially if aid and subsidy is carefully aimed and time-restricted.
Having said that, Rover was dead in the water 5 years ago and the 6000 working there have had 5 years more work and pay out of it than they had any right to expect. It is not a suitable recipient for further aid in its present form or on its present site. All the government can do is help to manage the transition to other jobs for the people concerned.

[rab] Every day out of work for someone who is able to work is a day's labour lost forever. Labour is the most perishable commodity there is. The fewer people who work, the less stuff is created. So yes, having people out of work makes us all poorer. Of course, I'm taking the view that the more stuff we have (including intangibles such as art and clean streets) the better; someone who takes the opposite view, that the less stuff we have the better, like some extreme environmentalists, would presumably want to see unemployment rise as high as possible, and will be celebrating that a manufacturer of evil machines has finally gone out of business.

[rab] You also take the view that all jobs result in "stuff being created," which isn't necessarily true.

[Darren] Do I? Or did you mean Raak?

[Darren] Assuming you meant me, yes, there are unproductive jobs, such as, according to the stories, a lot of the management jobs at Rover. Paying people a fat salary to do nothing does nobody any good, including the people paid the fat salary.

Yes, I meant Raak. Sorry about that.

CdM] You're right in that I wasn't defending the practices I listed (and I'm pretty sure Rosie wasn't either). The point we were making was that it's a conscious political choice for the government to let Rover go to the wall, and that this is a bad thing. I'd echo most of INJ's and Raak's answers to rab, as well. I think it is the government's responsibility to do something about employment.

There's a really lovely argument in Peter Singer's The President of Good and Evil against the "it's my money" position re: tax (and by extension re: interventionist economic policy), which I'm now going to have to dig out and mention. There we go, the book was useful for something after all.

[Projoy] That should be interesting. It is my money. By what right does he claim the government gets to take a cut of every business transaction?

[Irouléguy] By that reasoning, pretty much everything is a conscious political choice. Your local newsagent closes down? Conscious political choice -- the government could have paid them two million pounds to stay open. You chose to go onto the internet today? Conscious political choice! -- the government could have bribed you not to.

If you want to make an argument for why the government should intervene in this particular case (and a good argument has to be one that also explains when the government should not intervene), then that's fair enough and I would be interested to hear it. I have to say I think Raak's summary is the appropriate one here, though: Rover were making something that people didn't want to buy. The End.

(On the other hand I disagree with Raak on the 'it's my money' argument, but I think that is a whole different debate.)

CdM] I don't think the first point follows at all. The closure will cost something like 5,000 jobs at Longbridge, plus up to 15,000 in suppliers - that's up to 20,000 wage packets taken out of the local economy, which will then have a further knock-on effect across the West Midlands. Any government would have to take a position on an economic event of that magnitude. The tens of thousands of people whose lives are blighted is why the government should intervene - and I don't see why a coherent case for that depends on saying that if it were a different set of people the government shouldn't. Obviously I don't think every failed small business is a case for government intervention, but I think that's something of a straw person.

As for Rover making something that no-one wanted to buy, again some exaggeration: Rover couldn't sell enough of what it produced to persuade the people with the money to invest in it, which is a rather different matter. And then there's the little matter of the £500 million hole in Rover's finances (allegedly). Taking the money and running comes to mind.

I actually think this Government is being quite brave in letting Rover die. 30 years of government subsidies of BL et al has failed to produce a company that comes close to making a profit, let alone a decent product. Whilst I fully accept Irouéleguy's argument is pertinent, that volume of investment would shirley be better placed in other sectors where there was a chance of making it work? And to do this in the run in to a general election is, perhaps, unprecedented. And before the accusations fly, I do not (and have only once) vote(d) Labour.

But I do work for a rival car company...

[Irouléguy] Something like 300,000 businesses close down in the UK each year (the vast majority of them small businesses). Even if those companies are all single-person enterprises, that's 300,000 jobs, plus I don't know how many suppliers, not to mention further knock-on effects across the entire country. Any government would have to take a position on an economic event of that magnitude. The hundreds of thousands of people whose lives are blighted is why the government should intervene.

I don't think small business failure is a straw person at all. Tell me why Rover should be bailed out, as opposed to 5,000 randomly selected small businesses.

Please accept my humblest apologies for the cross posting. The new Rugby event games have now been posted here - or if the link doesn’t work – in the Orange Pilg Game.

The sleepover event, entitled That Went Off Very Well, looks as if we have a record number of players – but more are always welcome. Kind regards, James the dog.

I used to have a P6. It were lovely. I know it isn't "mass production" but we are still (we = uk) making world class cars to wit, the TVRs of Blackpool, and from Kensington, the humble BRISTOL. Check out the "FIGHTER".

I must say I'm entirely with CdM on this one. And not just because I don't like cars, either. Last time I got made redundant, the government didn't step in with a cash injection to my company so it could keep me on. But it did provide benefits until I found a new job. I'd have thought that the task of the government in cases like this is to try to help people back into work - which this government has done admirably with its various schemes - rather than artificially subsidise a company that clearly isn't going anywhere. If you think that it should do that, then at what point do you call it a day? Would Rover still exist in 50 years' time as a bizarre, quaint hangover from the past, pointlessly making useless things, a kind of manufacturing Sisyphus, paid for by the government simply because it's a grand old institution, like the monarchy? I'd say that if there is a point at which you just can't do any more, and surely there is, then that point has been reached.

Hi all! Sorry about the AVMA débacle. I really rather thought there'd be internet in ONE of the hostels I was staying in. But alas, twas not to be. Looks like it's going at a rollocking pace since I left though so I shan't intefere :)

I googled Peter Singer -- see, e.g. here. He's a hard-line utilitarian, who believes that defective newborn babies should be killed, and that meat-eating is wrong. Is his argument for taxes that the government will use our money more wisely than we will?

[Raak] Sorry, I haven't looked it up yet and I can't remember all the details of the argument off the top of my head. I'll try and find it and post it for critical review here, as I found it pretty persuasive I must admit. (BTW, aren't you a hardline utilitarian too? The Rover argument hints that you are.)

Mm. On second thought, maybe it doesn't. I think the gist of the Singer argument on tax is that we all subsist within superstructures of wealth, and that "your" money wouldn't buy you anything without those superstructures, and those superstructures have costs that you don't generally pay directly, but you can, sort of, in a way, if you will, pay them indirectly via tax. But as I say, I don't remember the detail and may have that wrong.

Ah, he gives a précis'd version of the argument on this page. It's sort of how I put it, but not quite.

[Projoy] I've always thought of Raak as more of a libertarian. But I would be interested to know how he describes himself. As for "whose money is it anyway", variants of that kind of argument certainly predate Singer. Broadly speaking I take the view that our ability to transact is only secured by governments that protect property rights, enforce contracts, jail muggers (unless they are managing large corporations, of course), that kind of thing. The social contract that we agree to is that, in return for these guarantees, we accept that governments have the right to tax us. And once that right is established, there are then good public policy arguments for various kinds of taxing and spending by government. That's pretty loosely articulated, but then it is very late here in Singapore. :-)

[CdM] Libertarian, definitely. And there is a libertarian answer to the question of how things could work without governments, for which see David Friedman's book The Machinery of Freedom (which I haven't read, but I have read a lot of his postings to Usenet). He has a web site with related essays and sample chapters from the book.
       The problem with the social contract idea is that it isn't a contract in any reasonable sense of the word. I don't have a choice about it (beyond emigrating to live under someone else's social contract) and its terms are nowhere defined. In practice, they are defined as obligating people and governments to do exactly what the person invoking it thinks they ought to do. It's as empty as religionists explaining how the elephant got its nose by saying God made it that way.
       [Projoy] I don't see there (in the "Compassionate Conservatism and Tax Cuts" section) any argument that these things must be done by governments, only the unsupported assertion accompanied by (to borrow an epithet he uses a few sentences later) a simplistic caricature of the idea. So where he says that "it's our money" is a simplistic and indefensible way to think about tax, I would say it's a simplistic and defensible way to think about tax.
       Something that might be worth reading alongside Singer's utilitarian writings is C. S. Lewis' The Abolition Of Man.

Yes, obviously the argument is worked through a bit better in his book. But regarding the social contract, I'm more with CdM, on the assumption that when he says "we agree" he's using it as shorthand for "we accept perforce as the collective behaviour of our species, appreciate the logic, whether we agree or not, and find a way of functioning within the social contract". As a bleeding-heart liberal, the trouble I always have with libertarian arguments (at least as I've heard them advanced) is they are fundamentally unempathetic and callous. They also tend to massively overestimate the effectiveness of individual choice compared to collective effort and, critically, most people's reasoning ability. I'm not being snobby here, I just mean that there isn't time in a human's life to individually negotiate the details of their relationship, financial or otherwise, to everyone they deal with: hence trade unions, hence law, hence social conventions, hence - in short - collectivisation. Libertarianism to me is fine in smaller, simple communities than our current ones, but personally I'd rather have electricity, free internet infrastructure, safe dwellings and (when necessary) unemployment benefit than a basket of berries and nowt else.

BTW, inasmuch as I have a philosophy, it probably is of the utilitarian greatest-happiness variety...

[Raak] We would all have ponies.

[Raak] To add to that, I typed up the relevant bit of the Singer argument, which is here for a short while.

er... and hopefully your browser will word wrap that.

Brad DeLong's follow-up to Belle Waring's post is pretty good, too.

[Breadmaster] Am I right in presuming you will be in the philosophy department at NUS? I ask as a big fan of the John Holbo/Belle Waring blog...

Raak recommending C.S. Lewis? There's a thing. For what it's worth, I was under the impression that libertarianism was a political stance, not a moral philosophy.
[CdM] That's right. But what is this blog? Actually, right now I'm mired in indecision, wondering whether going to Singapore would be the right thing to do or not. I'm not certain I want to be an academic, but that's what it would basically channel me into. Plus, of course, being away from my girlfriend for a long time would be a bad thing. I hate making decisions!

[Projoy] Singer is advocating relativism about property. Property is whatever local custom and law says it is. If local custom and law says the government owns your whole salary, why, that's just how it is. They can own your firstborn, or you yourself. That's the social contract you somehow accepted when you got born, and any silly idea you have about owning things that the government says you can't is just an illusion. The government owns everything it provides, and it owns everything it needs to take from you to provide it. Lest you think I'm exaggerating, I have actually heard someone argue (before the Wall came down) that East Germany was perfectly justified in shooting people attempting to escape, because such people were stealing the upbringing and education that the state had given them, and which therefore gave the state a property interest in their person. Singer even comes straight out and says "A system of government is conceptually prior to property rights." Who's ignoring human nature now? I mean, most larger animals behave like they have some sort of idea of "my stuff", never mind human beings, and they don't have governments to enforce the idea, they do it themselves. In just about any political philosophy but Singer's, governments are instituted to secure pre-existing property rights.
       A key concept in discussions of libertarianism is, "Utopia is not an option", so when Belle Waring brings in "libertarian utopia" I pretty much lose interest, even though she's recounting a discussion involving David Friedman. The wishful thinking can be found just as much on the other sides. Look here to see what you can do to Make Poverty History: email the PM, send postcards, sign a petition (of breathtaking fatuity), wear a white ribbon, and "call for change and make it happen"! Let's wish for government to give everyone a pony! At least Singer gives 20% of his income to charity.
       [CdM again, re Brad deLong] Go back to those earlier writers and ask them to imagine a world without servants. Go back earlier and ask people to imagine a world without slaves, or (say, in mediaeval Europe) a world without Christianity. You would get the same incredulity as you do at present asking most people to imagine a world without government.
       [Bm] I see it as a political stance grounded in the moral philosophy that everyone has a duty to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, and to make the very best of what they're given by fate, nobody else owing them anything but what they freely choose to give. That is not by any means the whole of morality -- it is largely disjoint from the Tao admirably expounded by C.S. Lewis in the book I mentioned -- but I regard it as an essential part of the whole.

[Raak] Interesting. When Singer says "a system of government is conceptually prior to property rights" (rather than, say, chronologically prior) surely he doesn't mean that before we had governments we had no property. What he means is that when two people, or indeed other animals come into conflict over property, there immediately emerges some means of deciding priority: strength, guile etc. Out of the two organisms you have a system of government (note that Singer does not say government itself). When 'strength of numbers' becomes the deciding factor in terms of who gets the resources you have something even more recognisable as a system of government. These arrangements are transitory, unstable, inefficient. Surely what we see in our own far more effient and abstract systems of government is the ossification of many iterations of this sort of process? (i.e. Government is inevitable, discuss). Even a world without a nominal government, run, say, by communities of interest or corporations there would be a de facto pecking order, wouldn't there? Assuming this world had such things as property rights, the big corps would be a system of government.

[Raak] How do you react to the following? "Your property is what anybody stronger than you lets you own and that you don't surrender to anybody weaker than you, or vice versa."

[Projoy] Ha! By yielding I overcome! "Property" doesn't exist as a real thing in itself. Neither do "rights". "Property" and "rights" are ways in which people conceptualise how people should relate to each other. So, your hypothetical statement is an accurate description of who actually gets to own stuff, but not a description of most people's various ideas about what constitutes property and who should have it.

[Projoy, your previous message] I don't see two dogs fighting over a bone as a government, nor two tribes fighting over territory. If the word "government" is extended to mean "whatever way people arrange of living together" then even the hypothetical world of David Friedman's book has a government. But that empties the word of usefulness. Governments, that we call governments, have just this in common: that they impose by force a monopoly on the use of force to settle disputes.

I've just been investigating Time Capsules for a PR stunt proposal... and then looked at my horoscope which said: "Consider the long term today." (Cancer, Jonathan Cainer) Ha.

[pen] Do you take time capsules (3 times a day with meals) to give you more time to do things?

[Boolbar] Yup.

[pen] That must be me too then. I don't read horoscopes, so I have to take mine second-hand, obviously. Thanks.

I once owned a cook book by Jonathan Cainer. It consisted of recipes like, "Open can. Put beans on plate. Serve." and some strange gubbins about how vegetarianism was an affirmation of life. He's a man of many talents! If only he used some of them.

[Raak] You're dismissing Belle Waring's arguments because she uses "libertarian utopia" as a tongue-in-cheek description of the kind of society that Epstein, Barnett and Friedman are discussing. But leave that phrase aside if you like: I think her one paragraph synopses of their arguments is pretty close to the money.

As an economist, I am sympathetic to the view that we should encourage the value-creating possibilities of private contracting between individuals, and as a social liberal, I am sympathetic to the view that we should limit government intrusion into private decisions. Those are positions that loosely ally with libertarianism. But I am also aware that, in the real world, private transactions frequently have significant consequences beyond the transactors, and libertarian arguments start crumbling rapidly one you take this seriously. (Epstein recognizes this in his contribution, and so ends up advocating a form of state that is not really that different from what we already have; he would simply like to see less government regulation.) The key paragraph from Belle Waring's argument is surely this, though:

Now, everyone close your eyes and try to imagine a private, profit-making rights-enforcement organization which does not resemble the mafia, a street gang, those pesky fire-fighters/arsonists/looters who used to provide such "services" in old New York and Tokyo, medieval tax-farmers, or a Lendu militia. (In general, if thoughts of the Eastern Congo intrude, I suggest waving them away with the invisible hand and repeating "that's anarcho-capitalism" several times.) Nothing's happening but a buzzing noise, right?

I am completely with her here: it is at this point that I think libertarianism utterly loses touch with reality. Private contracting without some institution to enforce contracts is infeasible, and private provision of contract enforcement strikes me as much scarier than enforcement by a democratically elected government. (Perhaps that's what comes of visiting countries where ordinary restaurants are guarded by men with sub-machine guns.)

Oh, and you are completely misreading Brad DeLong. He is not saying that Smith, Hume, Hobbes, et al. couldn't imagine a world without government; he is saying the exact opposite. He is saying that they know it to be a crazy idea because they can imagine it all too well.

I haven't thought about this too much, or read any of the references (hmmm - pursuing as ever the highest standards of academic rigour...). However my immediate reaction to the concept of "no government" is a feeling that such a thing would in fact be unstable. For without government, it is surely then impossible to have an army. Without an army, you leave yourself open to invasion from a power that does have an army, and you're back to having a government. If there were no governments, as there once weren't, a nucleation event would surely propagate. Or am I being too simplistic?

[CdM] On the last point, I don't think I am misreading: the hypothetical responses of Smith et al are those of people unable to imagine the alternatives. (As a digression, I would not be surprised -- except by my living so long -- to see in a century's time the relationship of "employment" being regarded as as degrading as "keeping a servant" is regarded by many people today.)
       Having just read the Reason article that Belle Waring had such fun with, her summary of Friedman is way off. There is no wishful thinking in Friedman. Speculation, certainly. Waring is speculating as well, speculating about a world in which the governmental restraints on people that we see around us are absent, but ignoring all of the proposals for what might replace them. Let's wish for no-one to have a pony!
       The fundamental problem of having a government to secure public goods is this: how do you restrict the government to doing only that? Looking around at the world, it seems clear to me that nobody has found a solution to that problem. The thing that governments are most effective at is securing and extending their own power.
       [rab] The idea is that there are other institutions instead, ones that do not take the form of a small group of people (elected or otherwise) telling everyone else what to do. As you point out, the original state of institutionless nature was in fact followed by governments.

[Raak] How do you restrict anyone to securing public goods? Whether they are government in name or (part of) government by fact? Constitutions, bills of rights, checks and balances all seem like a good start to me.

[Raak] re your previous points about convention determining property... I think you are overstating it in a way that suggests Government is not continuous with us, the people. You could justifiably accuse me of cultural myopia here, I suppose, because I'm thinking mainly about democratic governments of the type I've directly experienced, but there is an extent to which governments may be closer to a genuine contract than the simple fiat of convention or the powerful: democracy, including lobbyism etc. is it. I'd be interesting to know whether your argument is based on a greatest-happiness idea and if so how libertarian mechanisms follow from that. As I mentioned before, my problem with systems based on high personal responsibility is that they do not recognise the moral value of protecting the weak. It strikes me that you have to bite the bullet and say (as you once jokingly put it) "a man who doesn't have enough friends to pull his plough had better starve".

Also, I note you haven't really responded to the argument about social capital.

s/interesting/interested

Salisbury is festooned. There's a re-enactment of the mighty battle plus lots of celebrations in the market place tomorrow. I'd happily place a bet that every school age child in our district knows who St George is.
On this subject ...
I could do with some help because I have very little free time ... I have to compile 10 questions for our Sunday Quiz night [coincidentally the pub is the George & Dragon] on the theme of George & The Dragon so I need 5 'George' questions and 5 'Dragon' questions - not just historical ones. 2 easy ones that spring to mind are "what is the name of the actor who played George in George and Mildred" and "the full name please of the lizard that has the word dragon in its name?" That sort of level. Any further ideas would be much appreciated ..

Erm.. name of the Rentaghost dragon.. island to have been awarded the George cross.. origin of the phrase By George!..

thanks rab :-)

You could ask for the translation of the motto of Hogwart's school: "Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus". How many King Georges have we had? (or how many Georges reigned in the eighteenth/twentieth century?). Who wrote "Aida" and what does his name translate into English as? What was George VI's real name? Who wrote "I Got Rhythm"? (or which of the following pieces/novels/whatever were written by a George?)... Who performed "Georgy Girl"?

The name of the Dragon in The Hobbit...

Gosg - thanks Projoy :-) :-)

Gosg?