Decision Time

So now every long-term investor should take note - in Switzerland the principle of private property has been rejected by a majority of the voting population for the implications it is laden with.

The fight against Islam has its' proper frontiers - and the Swiss (along with just about everybody else) have apparently made their decision about what these are.

Either the fight is about the uses to which the western democratic State, with its monopoly on legally sanctioned initiatory and retaliatory force, may be put, or it is about the defence of classical liberal principles of private property, self-governance and free association. It cannot be about both, since the one is being deliberately being cultivated to extinguish the other.

The primary historical significance of the fight against Islam is that it is a proxy by which the western world is waging war upon itself.

"what mechanisms for ideological self sustainability are permissible to libertarians?"

Memory - above all else.

- My comment on this post at Samizdata in which the subject under discussion is the recent decision by the Swiss population to ban the construction of minarets, an important feature of Islamic architecture.

More Climategate

This is an excellent as well as amusing summary of the Climategate scandal.

An Inconvenient Truth

Sirs,

I press upon you once again to cover the story now being referred to around the world as "Climategate". It is currently receiving extensive coverage throughout the blogosphere and even in the environment section of the UK's Guardian newspaper.

There is, in the leaked documents and emails, much evidence indicating that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit have fraudulently "sexed up" the case for anthropogenic global warming. In addition, they have - contrary to the Popperian demand for replicability of scientific studies - refused to release their data for external scrutiny and even colluded to prevent the publishing of skeptical articles in peer-reviewed journals.

The significance of this event is worldwide and spans many areas of government policy in both developed and developing countries across the globe. People all around the world have been, and are currently being told by their governments to swallow wholesale changes to the global economy which make a massive impact upon their individual lives and prospects for the future - all on the basis of a now seemingly undeniably fraudulent claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing average global temperatures to rise.

The longer you ignore this story, the greater the disservice you do to your own reputations and the public's interest in the truth which you purport to serve. Put an end to this shameful evasion of the Climategate story.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Fagan

(Sent Friday 27th November 2009. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)

Re: Climategate Scandal

Sirs

The Climategate scandal is a fast developing story with significant public interest implications.

A brief overview of developments includes the following:

First, it is now generally considered that the release of emails and data code from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia, England was a leak from a concerned whistleblower within the CRU rather than an outside hack.

Second, although many of the email exchanges are personally malicious (which is forgettable), some of the emails show deliberate coordination of efforts to suppress publication of articles by skeptics.

Third, there are also emails which plainly show intention to destroy climate modeling data which was known to have been requested by other scientists under the UK's Freedom Of Information Act (2000). This is a criminal offense.

Finally, much of the coding for the CRU's climate models was so disorganized that it was largely incomprehensible to house technician Ian Harris apparently charged with the task of fitting existing data to the CRU's climate prediction models.

So what you can see in this story, if you only direct your attention to it, is that the current plans for green global governance at the Copenhagen summit are based on a dodgy data set compiled by unscrupulous people who have fraudulently overstated the case for their anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. This is a story with far-reaching implications and the paucity of your coverage so far does not reflect well on you.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Fagan

(Sent: Wednesday 25th November 2009. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)

The CRU Hack

Sir,

The breaking story over the weekend concerning the hacking of the server at the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia, England is perhaps one of the most significant world news stories you will have the chance to cover for some time.

In advance of the coming coverage, I would suggest that one point in particular be borne in mind:

Quite irrespective of one's personal views on the validity of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (i.e. that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, cause global average temperature to increase), it must be remembered that what is at stake here, politically, is whether an increasing apparatus of state control over society, globally networked, is the right way to deal with any problematic climate change, or whether, on the other hand, a rapid dismantling of state apparatus both internationally and domestically would spur the necessary economic development to make technological solutions affordable on a global scale. What is at stake is nothing less than the relationship between the life of the individual human being and the controlling reach of the state.

Just look at what already has been put in place:

- laws and regulations against domestic oil drilling in the United States which thus reduce and hamper human productivity
- laws and regulations that reduce and hamper human productivity by forcing reductions of CO2 emissions from transport
- changes in tax policy to punish and discourage domestic CO2 emissions
- malinvestment of huge sums of taxed funds to support grossly inefficient methods of energy production (e.g. solar power)
- the lack of support for the potentially vastly productive nuclear technologies of both fission and polywell fusion.

Then look at what is currently being proposed:

- yet more punitive taxation which will impede business and human productivity in the form of carbon taxes
- a "personal carbon allowance" extending the control of the state yet further into the details of one's daily economic decisions
- the discouragement of "dirty" (link not working) economic development in developing countries by regulations governing foreign investment.

The fact is that, although there are many honest scientists on both sides of the question, the AGW hypothesis has opened up a vast prospect for further indirect increases in state control over society that ARE totalitarian in nature, quite irrespective of the political affiliations of any scientists. Even were one to regard the AGW hypothesis as true, it would nevertheless be a serious fault to fail to notice that so many of the publicly touted solutions are by states seeking increases in state control over society.
Lest it be forgotten, this has been the basic political conflict of the western world since at least the time of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece. Freedom versus Servitude. The Individual whose life is his own, or the Party Member whose life is as a mere functionary of the State. This is why the Americans fought their war of independence against the British. It is the reason why Britain and the United States' refusal to stand up to the Soviets and Mao's China after 1945 is an enduring disgrace (all of Taiwanese nationalist politics is essentially a minor consequence of this thoroughly reprehensible failure). There are even echoes of this most basic political conflict to be found in the writings of first century BCE Confucians in China.

I urge you at the Taipei Times not to neglect this point, for it is the essential context which animates the increasingly acrimonious debate over the AGW hypothesis.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Fagan.

(Sent Monday 23rd November 2009. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)

Forget The ECFA

Sirs,

William Lowther reports (Saturday 21st November) the chairman of the Congressional US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Carolyn Bartholomew, as saying that "Beijing continues to comprehensively plan, direct, support and control its economy". I shall restrict myself to two comments on this.

First, although the content of Ms Bartholomew's remarks would not be news to anyone but the most deluded anti-capitalist, the fact that such remarks seem to have some currency in the U.S. Congress is interesting. I wonder whether similar remarks about Washington are made by officials of corresponding rank in Beijing. For the fact is, whilst Beijing depends upon a U.S. market for their export commodities (hence their currency manipulation), Washington depends upon the Chinese purchase of U.S. government debt (hence their near-silence on Taiwan). The people of Taiwan should look to the governments of neither the U.S. nor China for their economic future because the long-term prospects for both look positively Soviet. The people of Taiwan should look to cut back the scale of their own government. Here are some problems areas:

Banking - the Bank of Taiwan prints a fiat currency backed by nothing, and the commercial banks are all fractional reserve.

Education - there has been significant State malinvestment in schools and universities for decades.

Healthcare - the "health insurance" is both a tax on the young, and a system of welfare for the large pharmaceuticals.

Transport - the high speed rail has enormous debts which threaten its' closure and significant losses for the banking sector.

Military - the costs of Taiwan's superfluous army unnecessarily diverts much needed funding from the navy and the airforce.

Bureaucracy - how many souls have become pointless public burdens in the State bureaucracy on the promise of handouts?

These are all areas of significant public spending which, if cut off from further State funding, could present significant business opportunities to enterprising Taiwanese people to produce goods of value to other Taiwanese people. Forget the ECFA; large scale public spending cuts would be a genuine economic "stimulus". I once again urge you at the Taipei Times to shift your editorial and reporting focus away from your state-centric tunnel vision and toward consideration of the lives and freedom of individuals.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Fagan

(Sent: Saturday 21st November 2009. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)

Cooked Books?

Sir,

I read William Lowther's front-page piece in thursday's Taipei Times, with some interest. Although the conclusion with which he leads will certainly receive support in some quarters, Mr Lowther failed to direct your readers' rapt attention to the facts which would seem to warrant his conclusion.

Since your own reporting (!) on China's third quarter economic performance revealed little of interest to a discerning reader, perhaps I may be permitted to perform this service here in your letters page for free:

There have been, throughout this year, some rather suspicious discrepancies in the published statistics. Figures showing increases in industrial output on the order of around 10% do not sit well with figures showing continuing drops in electricity consumption from between 5% and 10% throughout China's most important industrial provinces (e.g. Sichuan, Guandong, Zhejiang). Although Chinese officials attempt to explain such apparent discrepancies away as being due to changes in products and manufacturing methods, it seems to my conniving mind that there is a more obvious conclusion to draw.

China's official statistics on the state of their economic performance are not to be trusted.

Please make a start at doing your jobs properly.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Fagan

(Tipped off by this piece by Brian Micklethwait over at Samizdata).

(Sent: Thursday November 12th 2009. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)

Contra Jean-Pierre Lehmann

Sir,

I am moved to challenge the monstous piece by Jean-Pierre Lehmann in the editorial section of 11th November.

Mr Lehamann would do well to actually consider the question of why western Europe has not torn itself apart since the end of WW2. It had nothing at all to do with the EU, and rather a lot more to do with the power of the American military harnessed under NATO. Without NATO, western Europe might very well have been crushed by the Soviet Union.

Then there is this statement, in reference to Jacques Delors fear that the EU could "unravel":

"While such an outcome may be improbable, it would be complacent folly to dismiss the possibility. No institution, society, or civilization can survive purely on autopilot."

To conflate the European Union, a monstrous uber-tier of government teetering over the heads of the European peoples already struggling with the burden of their own governing elite, with "civilization" itself is precisely an attempt to conceal the real nature of the EU.

Government is not society. To conflate the two is to admit to looking upon one's fellows through totalitarian eyes.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Fagan

(Sent Wednesday 11th November 2009. Unpublished by the Taipei Times).

Life "Sustainability"

Sirs,

In response to Sunday's news item ("Ma calls for more university classes taught in English" - by Mo Yan-chih), I'd like to offer some critical observations relevant to Ma's announcement.

Mo Yan-chih reports Ma as saying:

“If we refuse to make changes, great teachers and students will be gone and it will be more difficult for us to raise competitiveness...”

This reported fragment is ambiguous. In what sense did Ma intend his use of the notion "competitiveness"? Was it in relation to general economic activity or was it in reference to the universities of Taiwan, i.e. making them more competitive against universities in other countries? Unfortunately, nowhere in the remainder of Mo Yan-chih's article is Ma's meaning clarified. If Ma had intended it in the former sense rather than the latter, then that is substantially different although I suppose it would strike most people as obvious that more competitive universities would improve general economic competitiveness.

Yet there is overwhelming evidence that this is simply not true.

Two months ago, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, in China, reported that graduates from Chinese universities were earning salaries equal to or in many cases even less than those of migrant field laborers from South East Asia. The situation in Taiwan is not vastly different. How is it that a young person spending large sums of their parents' money (often financed by debt which they may or may not be able to afford) and using up to four crucial years of their young lives only to graduate to employment at a deli counter or a KFC a way of "raising" general economic competitiveness?

It is transparent lunacy.

Earlier in Mo Yan-chih's article, he reports Ma as saying this:

“Higher education in Taiwan should not keep its doors closed any more."

Might I suggest that the imperative is precisely the opposite - it is high time that many of Taiwan's universities and technical colleges were deprived of all State funding. Such a policy would not only result in the closure of many smaller, less prestigious universities, but, perhaps more importantly, it would force the government into repealing and relaxing many other laws and regulations that stand in the way of entrepreneurial start-ups. For the simple fact is this: the best way to raise economic competitiveness is - to allow young people to learn to compete economically. The traditional Chinese attitude of reverance toward education, along with disproportionate State support for education, is destroying the potential for many young people to create and sustain their own lives.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Fagan.

(Sent: Sunday 8th November 2009. Published by the Taipei Times Monday 16th November 2009)

What Is, And What Is To Come...

Let's not forget about the inevitability of collapse -- the EU and its constituent national governments are unsustainable.

The EU is by far the world's largest fossil fuel importer, in a world of finite fossil fuel supplies. Most of the EU governments have Ponzi-type pension schemes which will collapse, along with unsustainable government debt. Even poster-girl Germany's trade surpluses are unsustainable in the long term; when the customers collapse (or switch to Chinese goods), Germany too will be in the pit along with the rest of the EU.

- Commenter "Alice" at Samizdata, November 5th.

It doesn't take much vision to generalize this conclusion - which other countries are dependent upon fossil fuel imports, have burgeoning State debts linked to life-control schemes (education, healthcare, "social security", infrastructure, law and "order")? That description fits most of the western world including those places in which governments have sought for decades to emulate their western counterparts. The obvious objection to bringing home this conclusion of inevitable collapse to other places outside of the EU is that there is variation across such places in the significance of their energy-import dependency and in the significance of their State debts.

But what really are the chances of doing anything about it, and removing that modifier "inevitable" from the conclusion?

On energy alternatives, nuclear is the obvious one but still suffers from a general political unpopularity. Renewable energies are, for the most part, economically retarded by chronic technological problems (e.g. the lack of good batteries for storing solar energy). Additionally, renewable energies are tainted by the sermonizing of their supporters - even if they are economically retarded, everyone must be forced to use them anyway in order to halt the "inconvenient truth" of global warming.

On State debts there are similar problems. Minor cuts in public spending here and there can sometimes be accomplished without too much political cost, but unless (and probably even if) that is made a regular, pan-political government policy across successive administrative terms, it is a hopeless option. Massive cuts in public spending, not to mention wholesale sell-offs of centrally important State industries (e.g. education and healthcare) are still way out in the realm of political impossibility.

In respect of both the problem of energy and and the problem of State debt, the underlying causes lie with the electorate - or more specifically with the distorting psychological and cultural effects that a forced relationship between persons must always bring about.