[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?

(With apologies for cross-post)
My ten-year-old son is very keen to play Dungeons & Dragons (of the take left fork, pick up ring, drink potion type) - can anyone suggest a good site for him to visit that is (a) safe for 10-y-os, (b) interesting but accessible to a 10-y-o novice and (c) free or at least inexpensive ? It doesn't matter whether its MUDD playing other players or simply finding his way through a maze playing only the computer - in fact the latter might be better to start with ... any ideas ?

I suppose something like Nethack or Slash'Em would be OK for him, if he didn't find the user interface too complicated.

On the more less-D&D-but-more-maze-with-potions-and-monsters side of things, and at the risk of blowing my own trumpet, why not try Ravenskull, which I programmed for Superior Interactive? (www.superiorinteractive.co.uk)

Nethack can come from http://www.nethack.org/ and Slash'Em can come from http://slashem.sourceforge.net/

[Darren] You can do hyperlinks here in the usual way (until I get round to changing the syntax slightly as a spam blockade).

Anyway, did you write the original Ravenskull, or convert it to PC? I vaguely recall owning this for my trusty old Acorn Electron when I were a lad, but there were a number of these types of games it could have been another one... In any case, Kudos!

And there's the original,one and only, Colossal Cave.

[rab] I didn't write the original Ravenskull - I did the PC port. Superior Interactive is of course the descendent of the original publisher of Ravenskull on the BBC/Electron (Superior Software) and is still run by Mr Hanson. I've worked on a number of the PC (and other platform) ports of the old Superior games, and still am for that matter.

Thanks for the info. We'll go and have a look at the suggested sites.

There have been five kings of England called George. The latest was George V. Name the other four.

[Chalky] Oops, have just realised that the Aida question has no George connection :). You could put it in as a trick one, tho :) An alternative would be to see if people can name any hit by Boy George's Culture Club apart from Karma Chameleon.

I'm pretty sure there are quite a few lizards with the word "dragon" in their name (I can think of two off-hand) so I'd avoid that question!
Personally I don't approve of the celebration of St George's Day: simply a slavish copy of the celebration of St Patrick's Day, which itself is an Americanism. At least St Patrick actually had something to do with Ireland: St George is terribly obscure at best and had nothing whatsoever to do with England in the slightest.

(Chalky) What have George Eliot, George Sand and George of Enid Blyton's Famous Five got in common? (Ans. - All women)

As an easy starter, or a tie breaker, how about: From the letters of the name 'George' provide two three letter words which, in essence, have the same meaning. (Ans. Roe and Egg)

[rab] Ah yes, we've had that before, haven't we? Apologies...
[Dujon] I wouldn't call that an easy one, but it's damnably clever. You might also ask what the name "George" actually means (farmer or earthworker).

There has to be a suitable question to which the answer would be "Jorja Fox", but I can't quite think of one.

Paddington...er, no that's wrong. I actually meant Wimbledon. No that's wrong too... I've got it! Kings Cross. Ah - that felt good

Damn - wish I'd seen Chalky's request earlier, I love setting quiz questions, but have obviously missed the Sunday deadline now. BTW [SM] Five kings called George ?
As a matter of interest :

• George III was what relation of George II ?
• What is the name of the constellation representing the dragon
• George fighting the dragon appeared on the reverse of which British coin ? (two possible answers)
• Where did George play with Zippy & Bungle ?
• Name Hagrid's baby dragon
• If Sid James was George, who was The Dragon ?
• Which George had an affair with Chopin ?
• Which country owns Komodo of Komodo Dragon fame ?

It's true. It is also true that there have been two kings of England called George. The latest of which was George II. See?

[Blob] You've got me stumped on the Sid James question.

Either Peggy Mount or Hattie Jaques. I'm leaning toward Peggy Mount.

Bif is leaning in the correct direction !

[Pj] A quick Google found this

blob - I sent you this link anyway, but why not buy your little chaperoo The D&D Player's Handbook. My advice would be encourage him to play it with some friends without a computer. The dice are very cool.