See How They Run...

Observe, my good Lady Madonnas, in the comments to this item on Taipei's Flora Expo, how Turton runs away when challenged by me on a specific factual claim of his (one which, incidentally, I challenged in the Taipei Times last year when it was first thrown about without regard for the facts here and here). Scroll down further to notice, in the comments to this item on the National Immigration Agency, again over there at Turton's place, how the self-styled "Sage" also runs from my challenge to him.

If Turton had his facts straight then he wouldn't need to point me to Google - which doesn't actually provide much evidence to support his claim, even now more than a year after the World Games finished and the hacks have had ample time to write home about it. Turton doesn't have his facts, but he wants to prance about like he does have them.

If Sage had any idea what he was talking about, he would have answered the question - it was not rude and it was not complex. Of course he didn't know what he was talking about and that is why he slinked away into the shadows.

Update: Turton shows up to box (which is more than can be said for his little sidekick) - but it is not my place to announce the points.

Later: "I retract it." I suppose Turton just got fed up in the end, but look - if you make false or exaggerated claims, you should expect to get called on them and if you have any basic honesty you should always be the first to admit you are wrong; I am content to be held to that standard myself. Yes I know it wasn't the most important thing to pick a fight over, but that World Games malarky last year was nevertheless a disgrace and any defence of it on any grounds - let alone factually dodgy ones - is likewise disgraceful.

To "mx", in case Turton pulls it: My letters aren't intended to benefit twerps like you anyway. Go bungee yourself off a doorstep.

Priorities

Cristy Li reports on the "Restoring Honor Rally" at the Lincoln Monument in D.C. at the weekend.

Bollocks.

I say FREEDOM must come first and Alveda King can stuff her "faith, hope, charity and honor" where the sun don't shine. Her uncle would turn in his grave if he knew what she had said. The conservatives are fucking stupid.

Later...

Yet the progs are even more so; consider the following oxymoron:

"Across the National Mall, Sharpton and others protested, calling the demonstration an anti-government rally advocating states' rights."

Lancing Chou Ping's Bubonic "Core Value" Discourse

Another day, another devious little leftie waving the red flag in the Timid Times:

"Originally, some smaller private universities had unique characteristics, but in recent years they have made compromises in a flirt with empty neoliberal discourse, causing them to expand rapidly based on market-oriented governance principles. Making cost- effectiveness the supreme goal has caused the core values of these schools to be hollowed out."

I will not defend any particular school here, but just look at that blatant red flag. Mr "Chou Ping", who is apparently the chairman of the Department of Applied Sociology at Nanhua University, would be doing very well to first reconsider the question: "what is a market?" because he is clearly laboring under a non-sequitur conception of "market governance". That a so-called private University may choose to cut costs reflects only their circumstances and not the fact that they are a private institution per se. In particular, their circumstances presumably include having a limited capital base from which to operate and the disadvantage of having to compete against other, larger Universities with extant political connections and of course direct funding from State mandated theft from ordinary people.

Now that I've noticed this complementary story, I'll have a letter to write about this dismal topic when I get a chance...

“Without the law, we refuse to have babies,” the demonstrators shouted."

What utter depravity - what these people are calling for is that other people be forced at gun point to cough up the cash to provide them with services which they have no moral authority to claim or else they will refuse to have babies. I say let them refuse - I certainly don't want such compulsive thieves bearing the responsibility of rearing children in any case.

Later...

Sirs,

It would be shameful for any productive person in attendance at the National Education Conference to pay the slightest attention to the insolent demands of the National Alliance of Parents Organization. Not only are these people screaming for compulsory educational services to be procured for their political supporters by means of forced taxation, but they even have the bare-faced cheek to attribute the low fertility rates across Taiwan to the lack of their yearned for stolen services. That is one of the most slovenly and utterly depraved demands on government I have ever come across.

Not only should their demands be pointedly and steadfastly ignored, but moreover, the underlying premises as to what current schools, colleges and universities are actually worth (and to whom) must be brought under the light of critical examination. Mere common sense alone would seem to warrant considerable prima facie doubt about the connection between education and economic prosperity; when University degrees are as common as muck, there is inevitably a debasement of their value. It should come as no surprise to anyone to learn that many large employers across several industries barely have any interest in a candidate's educational background and are much more interested in evidence of initiative and practical skills. This, of course, woud be a no-brainer to anyone with a brain.

Another reprehensible report which ought to be instantly graded "I for ignominy" was that of Mr Chou Ping, the chairman of the Department of Applied Sociology at Nanhua University, which came in an editorial piece today (Sunday August 29th). Ping wrote of some private institutions that their downfall is being brought about by their decision to make cost-effectiveness their "supreme goal" in accordance with principles of market governance. Perhaps I could have the honor of enlightening Mr Ping as to the nature of his stupendous non-sequitur with the fact that, in all probability, such Universities may be struggling to attract students because, in addition to other problems they may or may not have, they are nevertheless attempting the mad feat of competing against National Universities under the handicap of not being able to rely on a funding stream extorted through taxation. Such Universities may be failing, but it is not because they are private Universities that they are failing - it is because their competition has an immoral and financially significant advantage.

In considering these two cases together, I think it is fair to say that the mere presence of such insolent folly around the National Education Conference does not bode well for the future. The policy goals for any honest government should be the removal of state funding and control from the supply of all educational products and services. Such a general policy would not only complement a commitment to the principles of individual freedom which produce wealth and success, but it would also prevent a great many tragic and farcical cases in which time, money, and many other human values that go into education from being wasted in permanent disgrace.

Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.

(Sent: Sunday August 29th 2010. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)

Update: Results of that demented conference? Here's one: subsidies for kids going to kindergarten (which therefore paves the way for further political control of how kindergartens are operated including those that are nominally private). Far from being a reason to have kids, this is yet another reason NOT to have kids.

"Who, Whom?"

Sirs,

It would surely come as some relief to Robin Winkler to know that he is safely mistaken in his diagnosis of Taiwan's disease.

Winkler's chastisement of the KMT for undermining "the rule of law" is a superficial, and perhaps even a dishonest analysis. The facts to support his argument may be granted, but, by framing them with those four mirror words "the rule of law" he diffracts the light away from the true nature of what is happening: this is not simply the behaviour of a “rough” executive; Taiwan is quite literally being invaded.

First, there was not, is not, nor can there ever be, a single example of when Winkler’s so-called "rule of law" does not devolve to, or in the more salient cases degrade to, the rule of men. For sure there is ample question of the degree to which that may occur, but the relevant point is that Winkler's "rule of law" has always been little more than a rhetorical flourish promoted by popular ignorance to the status of, as he puts it, a "fundamental value of Western society." It is not and nor does it make any sense to think of it as such, for the obvious question to put to him would be why the overall design of U.S. legal architecture which he refers to with his mendacious phrasing was designed like that in the first place. The answer to that question is this: the limitation of the powers of government so as to protect the freedom of the individual.

Again: the freedom of the individual; the idea that was, is and always will be anathema to Chinese (and not only Chinese) conceptions of society.

Clearly, the failure of democratic government in Taiwan to prevent the degradation of this "rule of law" to this sinister "rule of party" is neither unique, nor should it be any provocation to surprise; in fact, the U.S. itself furnishes any honest student with plentiful examples of this trend, both historical and current. The warp of democratic government in Taiwan may have been exacerbated by the pre-existing organized power of the KMT, but even that itself is fully explained by the initial design flaw: a central, unified legal architecture which concentrates political power under a territorial monopoly rather than diffuses power as far as possible toward the individual.

The last time Formosa was plunged from the beginnings of Western enlightenment into the barbarity of two centuries of Chinese darkness came about as the result of the sudden invasion of Chinese power with Zheng Cheng Gong back in 1661. Today, the weapons of combat are different - legal provisions for land theft instead of junk boats and so on - but the nature of what is happening is similar.

Perhaps a better concept for understanding Taiwan’s current problems was given by the rather unlikely benefactor of Lenin with his famous formula: "who, whom?"

(Sent: Saturday 28th August 2010. Published in the Taipei Times Monday August 30th 2010).

Note: Look how they mangled my letter to make me look as illiterate as they are! Get this and c/f the relevant paragraph above:

"...but the relevant point is that Winkler’s “rule of law” has always been little more than a rhetorical flourish promoted by popular ignorance of [to] the status of what he calls a “fundamental value of Western society." It is not and nor does it make any sense to think of it as such...."

Goddamn it - that little change from "to" to "of" ruins the succeeding sentence. A reduction of the word count was no justification to go dicking about with it like that; I don't know whether this was malice or stupidity at work, but it is ridiculous either way.

The Supposition Of An Equivalence Between Light & Darkness

"...I must say I'd be uncomfortable stating that one culture is superior to another."

The principle achievement of the Dutch East India Company in Formosa was the unprecedented scale of the strategic integration and profitability of their operations. The period between the mid 1840s (following the conclusion to the First Opium War) and the betrayal of British-Formosan interests by the FCO in London during the last months of 1894, was a period of growth in industry and technology in Formosa - including, for example, the production of camphor for use as celluloid in photographic film. During the Japanese colonial period between 1895 and 1945, the modernization of industry, civil infrastructure, architecture and agriculture proceeded at some pace. During the early years of KMT rule over "Taiwan", the island was protected from Chinese invasion by U.S. military might and political will. The gradual re-opening of Formosa to further trade with the outside world and foreign direct investment led to general and rapid improvements in living standards. The democratic reforms of Lee Teng-hui in the 1990s were also something of a step forward.

However, my question of any street-pusher of cultural equivalencies should be this: in what sense can the period of Formosan history between 1662 and the mid 1840s, that near 200 year period of Chinese rule, be judged as equivalent to the Dutch, British, Japanese and modern periods?

The Importance Of Applying Thought To Action

Sebo Koh talks a limited degree of sense on the military aspect of Taiwan-China relations:

"For a small country like Taiwan ... defense strategy must include “pre-emption” and “retaliation” capabilities. As former US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld said in his farewell speech at the Pentagon, “Weakness is provocative.” Only by making an attack on Taiwan prohibitively costly is it possible to prevent war."

But of course the inevitable crushing of such possibilities beneath the giant centripetal caveat is painful to read:

"However, given President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) goal of eventual unification and the friendly Taiwan-China relations, the above “wishes” would be very difficult to realize, even when the increasing cross-strait military imbalance in Beijing’s favor is evident."

It is no good whinging on about buying subs and helicopters if neither you yourself nor the political leadership will act to make it happen. Defensive thought must be framed within an overall context of political and military strategy gearing different tactics to different loci of action falling within your own range of capability. Such defensive thought by serious people must be advanced now while the manifest signs of what is to come are still in their "early" stages.

U.S. Perspective

At around the six minute mark into this interview, Thomas Sowell flags this November's congressional elections in the U.S. as the point of no return - after which, if the Democrats are not kicked out from both Houses, the ruination of the U.S. by the Professional Left will effectively become irreversible. My only wonder is whether that point has already been crossed. Even if current New Jersey governor Christie were to be elected President in 2012 with a supporting Republican Congress, there are too many obviously secondary, but politically sensitive structural problems (i.e. traps) for him to fall into, such as wasting far too much time trying to reverse Obama's healthcare bill. Prior to that, and a going concern now, of course is the question of Iran - a question on which, demented socialist though he may be, Christopher Hitchens has always directed his answers on target.

Yet the largest and most serious target for any serious new government in the U.S. has got to be monetary reform first and the denationalization of U.S. currency. The unstoppable growth of Federal spending has followed from the concentration of monetary power, and is one reason why Taiwan is in the dangerous slippery slope situation it is now. Anything less than the abolition of the Federal Reserve and the legal tender laws will instantly amount to failure to stop the rotting decline of the U.S. from the inside out, and even if a new President were able to scrap the laws regulating legal tender, much more would need to be done by ordinary U.S. citizens to arrest the more general decline. The rotting of the U.S. - and consequentially, the rest of what remains of a formerly civilized world, really has reached "world-historical" proportions; this is the scale of event on which Nietzsche so often wrote so incisively. It certainly puts the Taiwan question firmly into perspective.

Further Militarization Of Civilian Government In The U.S.

This technology is part of ongoing preparations by government in the U.S. to further intimidate U.S. citizens. The pretext of scanning for potential terrorists, in use throughout U.S. airports, was the real weapon, which in the absence of spirited public opposition (i.e. market boycott and direct action tactics - not whining on Facebook or wasting money on lawyers), has carved out further ground for the surveillance use of X-ray scanning. The conclusion is inescapable; the man from Saudi Arabia is winning.

Link courtesy of Beck.

The Rights Of Nature

"Changing your priorities for political action.

I do not begrudge anyone acting on values that I don't necessarily share (though I certainly don't wish the dolphins any harm), but your tactics can only work if we first demand the removal of the legal provision for expropriation.

To have even a remote chance of accomplishing that, we should work out a program of direct action to oppose the expropriation of land wherever it may occur on the grounds that this is a direct violation of a universal right to private property - not because of the extinction threat to pink dolphins. The threat to private property, though it is most obvious with land, has far more universal implications and in this way can affect anyone, whereas the threat to dolphins can only motivate a minority of people.

Only if respect for the inviolability of private property can gain popular support can there be a chance of removing the power for expropriation - which would then allow you to save the dolphins using a tactic like this.

Of course, the time scale is such that it may be too late for the dolphins. But it is not too late for the people of Taiwan who are elsewhere under threat of expropriation and it is not too late to save other aspects of the existing ecology.

You need to create political fear of violating private property if you are going to have a chance of success."

My comment here. They do have the correct tactic in mind, but the lack of any strategic context for it is a consequence of them being the kind of Proust-reading lefties that, in my experience, most environmentalists inevitably are.

Update: after suspending my disbelief and trying to help this TNCAHD guy, he kicks it back in my face. Fine, but reality will catch up with him and his pink dolphins sooner or later and I will not make it any of my business to intervene when it does. I'll give everyone a chance - but one only - I'm not going to waste my efforts on irredeemable fools.

They Didn't Get Her.

This story in the Taipei Times yesterday compelled my attention:

"Chu Feng, a native of Dapu Bourough (大埔), Jhunan Township (竹南), Miaoli County, was found dead on a chair on the porch of her house after swallowing a bottle of insecticide without leaving a suicide note behind on the morning of Aug. 3."

Human beings are not born to be creatures that serve a collective hive - these depraved bi-pedal insects may have stolen her land, but Chu Feng Min made sure they did not take her soul. I will think of her tomorrow when the ocean envelopes me for my morning swim in defiance of Tainan City Government ordinance.

Daniel Cloud

"This difference is not one between Chinese and Western culture, though that’s what your masters want you to think - it is the difference between free people and serfs....The West got to where it is by being what it is, and many revolutions against the dead hand of tradition were required in the process. Ideas matter, so freedom matters. To believe in a third way between freedom and slavery is nothing but a form of cowardice, a failure to come to grips with what’s really necessary. Freedom is frightening. So are you men, or mice? Do you really expect that a timid, trembling, obedient mouse will ever rule the world, will ever take real power away from the people who dared to tame the lightning, and travel to the Moon?"

I disagree with quite a few bits of this piece by Daniel Cloud, but it's generally on target especially with regards the monetary aspect of current and future events. The effect it seems to have had on these people however, has been to cower them into polemical pantomime.

Environmentalists For Shame

These people are fucking stupid. I will not put it any more politely than that. Yes, if you care about the environment, this is the right tactic to adopt - buying the land and defending it with direct action tactics - which is similar to what I advocated should have been done to help the farmers in Miaoli County earlier this summer. Two points: first, if birds are more important to you than people, then you are fucking stupid, and second, if you will not defend the private property principle, by for example standing in solidarity with the Miaoli farmers, then you should expect to have your 1000 hectares expropriated right out of your sorry ass just as soon as KPTC can buy itself the right politicians, administrators and judges. Stupid fucking idiots.

Sirs,

Apropos your report today (Saturday 21st August) by Loa Iok-sin on the attempt by an environmentalist group to purchase up to 1000 hectares of land in Changhua County to prevent the construction of a petrochemical plant, perhaps you could send another staff reporter to ask the Miaoli County farmers what they think of the fact that, whereas 50,000 people are apparently prepared to act to save birds and pink dolphins, none of these people were similarly prepared to help save them and their farms from expropriation.

Shame on these environmentalists.

To hold up a bird or a dolphin as of greater value than another human being - which is the only calculation that could possibly account for the comparative inaction of these 50,000 people when the Miaoli farmers were having their land stolen by the government - does not bode well for the future of Taiwan. Such people had better not dare to speak of "human rights" in my presence.

Is it not also heavily ironic that the very tactic which these people have adopted - the purchase of land - itself presupposes the integrity of the principle that property be privately owned, i.e. the very principle that these people stood back and watched the Miaoli County government trample upon just a few months back?

For shame - and may it stick to their souls like petroleum and never wash off.

Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.

(Sent: Saturday 21st August 2010. Published in the Taipei Times Tuesday 24th August 2010) Update: this letter seems to be getting an unusual degree of exposure as the viewing figures have already surpassed the 1000 mark and are still rising even though it was only published yesterday. In my experience, the viewing figures for letters usually trail off around the 800 mark, but only after a week or so of them being published.

American Disgust

"The Times wants to draw a sympathetic portrait of the heroic Obama cadre that suffers so much on our behalf. These are six-figure jobs that wear out one’s hands on the Blackberry, true, but serve as valuable stepping-stones to even higher-paying corporate jobs. And this is still a recession. This raise-the-bar griping will not go down well with the coal worker in Montana, the welder on a 30-story scaffold, or the oil worker offshore (e.g., it is not as if a Blackberry is going to blow up in one’s hands, or an acoustical tile is going to fall and crush one in the West Wing). It is all too reminiscent of the various explanations we’ve heard for why Michelle’s Costa del Sol sojourn was an understandable and much-needed refresher before the more arduous odyssey ahead on Martha’s Vineyard."

That's Victor Davis Hanson on how the current champagne socialists in the White House are celebrated by the New York Times.

40% Of GNP

“Although accumulated debt is approaching the cap, we will never exceed that,” Minister of Finance Lee Sush-der (李述德) said when asked if the government planned to revise the Public Debt Act (公共債務法), which sets the combined debt ceiling for the central government at 40 percent of average nominal GNP for the previous three years.

The NT$4.7 trillion loan accounts for 37.79 percent of GNP.

I don't believe the Minister of Finance for one second. All that will happen is that either the accounts detailing the public debt will be artificially redefined (perhaps using PPFs) so as not to contradict the Public Debt Act, or that the 40% of GNP specified in the Act will be further "clarified". Significant public spending cuts - especially to education and healthcare - are as vital to the promotion of individual freedom as the continued growth of government spending in these areas is necessary to the survival of our current collectivist political economy. The continuous growth of government spending - here and elsewhere of course - is simply unsustainable.

Toward A Neo-Confucian Strategy Of Neutralization

J.Michael Cole wrote up an op-ed which he calls a "call to action" which was also published in full in the Taipei Times on Monday. In this piece, Cole took aim at "opinion writers" whose pieces appear in newspapers such as the Taipei Times. I include myself within this group since I have had, I think, sixteen or seventeen letters published there over the last eighteen months (and many more unpublished) and so I want to answer the challenge on my own terms.

We are living through a period of history in which events with decisive implications for the future are on the cusp of unfolding, or in some cases are already being played out. However unlikely the actions of any one individual are likely to affect the outcomes, all of us face the simple choice of evasion or confrontation. There is no getting out of this, for even ignorance of what is happening can only be achieved deliberately.

There are also however, questions of analysis and strategy on which we may differ in giving answers. Cole, Turton and the majority of other foreigners in Formosa see events primarily in terms that reflect their social-democratic outlook - so they tune their anxiety much more toward some aspects of what is happening, particularly, for example, the changing electoral fortunes of the political parties and their various candidates, whilst allowing themselves a greater range of "laxitude" (to coin a term) on other aspects - e.g. attacks upon the integrity of the private property principle. Regular readers of my blog (if such persons exist) will know that my perspective is very different from this; the chief value to me is individual freedom - and so I see democracy as an especially insidious part of the problem precisely because of its incidental association with freedom. It being the case that there are such differences of viewpoint, the question must be asked at some point of what degree of cooperation I can have with them. Obviously we all oppose the actions of the government in Beijing, and we can even agree sometimes to oppose the government in Taipei. How we may choose to act on this common ground however is not necessarily obvious.

What I want to do in this piece is to sketch out what I think are the areas in which I will act and in which I would like to see others follow my lead.

Since the obvious threat is the encroachment of Chinese political power into our lives here in Formosa, action is needed either to repel this power, or to neutralize it as far as possible. The political parties at one point offered some chance of repelling Chinese power, but the last six years of democratic government in Taipei appear to have significantly marginalized this possibility; the incompetence, corruption and stupidity of the DPP government sickeningly dovetailed with the treacherous stalling by the KMT on the purchase of military upgrades from a Republican U.S. administration. Of course, the current KMT government has simply furthered this policy of appeasement of Chinese power but without the time-saving grace which historical defenders of Neville Chamberlain can claim. Moreover, the idea of political repellent depended not merely on the actions of a democratic government in Taipei, but also of the commitment and readiness of western (i.e. U.S.) political leadership to stage military intervention in the Strait. Not only have the actions of the Taipei government created further difficulties for any attempt by the U.S. Navy to do so (i.e. in terms of not being militarily prepared to hold off Beijing to allow a sufficient time window for the opportune arrival of U.S. forces), but in addition to this, the U.S. government has already stretched its political capacity for military engagements (not its military capacity for such engagements) elsewhere and has even elected a Democratic President (the Democrats have a terrible record on China and Taiwan). So it seems that any realistic chance of repelling Chinese political power from Formosa is now so marginalized as to be unworthy of any exhausting effort.*

That leaves open the question of whether, or perhaps to what extent, Chinese power over our lives in Formosa can be neutralized. This question has long been on my mind, because I see the threat not merely of the direct exercise of political power here from Beijing, but of the government in Taipei evolving "peacefully" into something approximating well enough the totalitarian impulse in Beijing. The threat of this "peaceful evolution" exists not only with the KMT but with the DPP too because of certain results their political ideologies commit them to. I do not think that Turton, for example, can see this, let alone capture it through either of his two political lenses (his social-democracy focuses far too narrowly on the minutiae of party insects, whilst his position as a "greeny" necessarily directs his view out into dizzy celestial utopianism). Thus a strategy of neutralization makes sense irrespective of whether the totalitarian creep comes openly from Beijing or under the cover of "democratic self-determination" in Taipei.

However, neutralization is necessarily a long term strategy of damage control. It is not, in itself, a solution to the problem. The necessity and importance of achieving an actual solution integral to the value of human freedom will not be and cannot be diminished, but it is something I will restrain myself from here.

Strategic goals of a policy of neutralization would have to encompass, to whatever degree possible, those areas of life in which political power may be most sharply imposed and keenly felt. They include the following:

1) Education and in particular language and popular understanding of history.
2) Cash (i.e. the destructive potency of monetary debasement).
3) Essential areas of economic exchange; utilities and communications.
4) Military and paramilitary force of arms.

Doubtless there are a myriad other areas of life in which Beijing may exert political power (e.g. transport, healthcare etc) but it seems to me that those are the top four of greatest strategic import. The development of suitable tactics to apply in each of these areas to the goal of neutralizing political power may be worked out and implemented by a very small fraction of the population. Some particular goals will include the following:

a) The printing, storing and distribution of important literature in both languages.
b) The transfer of liquid assets into preferably concealable commodities.
c) The purchasing of utilities technologies that allow for independent operation and transfer among individuals.
d) The initiation of physical training and procurement of defensive technologies.

For myself, I have already began acting on this strategy as a natural consequence of who I am; no artificial manipulation of character and disposition is necessary in my case. Whether others follow my lead is not something I can be directly responsible for - the choice is up to you: evasion or confrontation. I might add however, that a strategy of neutralization, whilst it is a strategy of confrontation, is nonetheless somewhat Confucian in that it emphasizes indirect modes of confrontation. I don't see any reason to think that direct confrontation by a strategy of attempting to democratically re-capture the government in Taipei is something that will either (a) slow down the advance of Chinese political power, or (b) maintain any integrity to the value of individual freedom.

So there it is - my brief answer to J.Michael Cole's challenge. My beckoning to you, dear readers, to follow my call and begin to confront the Chinese totalitarian impulse taking root here on Formosa. A comradeship of suffering, endurance and perhaps eventual triumph (to paraphrase Churchill): that will be the nature of any cooperation I have with others in this.

*Nevertheless, a certain degree of alertness must be maintained to be able to capitalize on certain errors made by those wielding power in both Taipei and Beijing. The possible election of a Republican U.S. President in 2012 for example (I am thinking of New Jersey's Governor Christie as the "best choice" even remotely likely to be available) may afford some opportunity to confront Chinese political power (I am not, however, overcome with expectation by this possibility).

Freedom, Sans Adjectives.

Turton links to this story about the U.S. President making a speech about the so-called "ground zero mosque":

"Obama's speech on the Community Center at Ground Zero was a totally awesome move. Let's hope that newfound spine starts showing up elsewhere."

My comment is as follows:

On Obama's speech - I quite agree with its' awesomeness but only if we stipulate to the archaic meaning of that term. The "ground zero mosque" is a private matter as far as I am concerned - Stephen Pomerantz is perfectly within his rights to sell his property to whomever he chooses; it is nobody else's business. Conservative opposition to this is a blatant attack on freedom. However, it is hypocritical for the left to laud their defence of the Cordoba project as an example of them being the true defenders of freedom and reason. They are not, and neither are you Turton.

Obama is quoted in the article as saying:

"This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

It is just such a pity that their commitment to freedom itself - understood to encompass the far more important economic, social and legal range of the concept's implications - is also unshakable... because it has been knocked out of popular consciousness.

Road Safety vs Police Intimidation

So the Traffic Division of Taipei City Police is going to begin a "crackdown" (i.e. more legalized theft, threats of violence and stop-searches) on scooter drivers. The rationale given for this is to improve safety and lower the number of annual traffic fatalities.

I have long meant to write a (necessarily) very, very large piece on traffic and driving in Taiwan; this however, will simply be a quick note to the Timid Times:

Sirs,

The stated rationale for the Taipei City police "crackdown" on scooter drivers of improving road safety on which Mo Yan-chih reports today (Friday 13th August), is both false and dishonest. It is false to claim that police intimidation tactics reduce fatalities - if this really were so, then why haven't the police always maintained a high level of intimidation? It isn't as if the police will run out of money. That obvious logical objection aside however, the chief reason why police intimidation does not improve road safety is that most traffic accidents are caused not by violation of traffic laws, but by the criminal negligence of drivers. There is nothing more important to a good driver than what is happening on the road around him at all times - a driver who does not pay scrupulous attention to the road at all times is a dangerous driver, even when, and perhaps especially when, he or she behaves within the enforceable scope of traffic laws. For example, failure to check mirrors properly, signaling too late and even outright day-dreaming are all extremely dangerous and extremely common behaviours which are not, and cannot be adequately captured by traffic law. Merely enforcing traffic law with more gusto will have zero effect on behaviours such as this that actually do cause traffic accidents. All this being the case, it is hard to avoid attaching a conclusion of dishonesty to this claim that police intimidation tactics do actually reduce fatalities. I would gladly examine any statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

Aside from issues of infrastructure quality, maintenance (or lack thereof) and ownership, the principle solution to the problem of poor road safety must be psychological in the sense of education and normative pressure toward promoting road awareness and shifting drivers' sense of responsibility away from robotic observance of traffic laws and toward ourselves as fully cognizant adults capable of paying attention to the road and thinking about what we are doing. Such solutions however, cannot be mandated by government laws and least of all by this country's utterly absurd and worthless licensing system. It is impossible to force people to think by threatening them with violence; it is a responsibility that people have to take upon themselves and encourage among others by social pressure - not the violence of government. To believe otherwise is to commit oneself to the childishly nonsensical and yet monstrously common precept of mind control.

Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.

(Sent: Friday 13th August 2010. Published in the Taipei Times Thursday 19th August)

Update: there seems to be the germ of an argument on this topic over at J.Michael Cole's place.

Photo Op

I was very fortunate earlier this evening to be able to take some new shots of the view out toward the mountains of Tainan County from the crest of Siaodong Road. The rain fell at just the right time to clear away the usual haze, so I grabbed five minutes or so with the camera on my way to work. Looking at the set I took, there are a few minor things with which I'm slightly disappointed, but I was pushed for time and on the whole I think they're pretty good. The one I've refitted my blog header with isn't necessarily the best of the bunch but it suits, and is I think, an unambiguously vast improvement on its predecessor.

A "Friend" Of Taiwan...

"Wow ... anyone got some kicker points that you would raise in rebuttal of the above arguments?"

How about this: your friend is not "highly educated", he's a goddamn fucking retard - and so are you for not immediately shoving his nose into the following facts:

1) The proverbial "gun to one's head" in the form of Beijing's ballistic missiles targeted at Taiwan fatally contradicts any notion of "rapprochement" or "reconciliation". The integrity of those words to any principle of human freedom literally falls to pieces under that condition.

2) Chinese nationalism has nothing to do with Taiwan and is merely the squirting of resentment from the ubiquitous masturbation of a political inferiority complex - which has been going on for at least 168 years and counting...

3) "Taiwan's autonomy", apart from being an oxymoronic absurdity (individual people can make value selections, but an entire country cannot), has nothing to do with freedom. Any deal with Beijing is going to be paraded around with that word "autonomy" (and it's best mate "democracy") splashed all over the goddamn place for the simpletons to grin at and say it's just like Britain and Ireland. Christ on a fucking banana bike...

What is wrong with you Ben? This should be OBVIOUS..."

My comment at Ben Goren's place - not very polite language, I know, but he deserves it for having all the situational clarity of a confused squirrel on the wrong end of a toothbrush.

Update: Interestingly, Ben seems to have removed that entire post from his blog; the link to it will therefore no longer work. I suppose if you cannot bring yourself to respond intellectually to fiercely worded criticism, then simply choosing to erase it is the easy option. I am taking this to mean that I am no longer welcome to comment at "Letters From Taiwan".

The Bedrock Of Britain

"So the land remained (in the attack of J. Bentham - a man who dreamed of 13 great departments of state controlling every aspect of human life) "feudal despotism" in theory and "anarchy" in practice.

But it was a rather peaceful "anarchy" (outside the big cities). True there were no police - but people could call on the general population to help them, and population generally did (even in the big cities).

Marxists might cry about false "ideology" distrating the poor from their true "class interests" and other folk today might talk about how the property of the rich was not "justly acquired" (to this sort of person no individually owned property is "justly acquired" of course - to find a flaw in ownership they will search all the way back to the Ice Age if they must), but the fact remains that if a rich man or women (in rural area or city) was attacked by robbers and called for help - they could expect to be helped.

Not only would the rich person be likely to be armed (poor people were quite likely to be armed also) - but they could count on the active help of poor people if attacked by robbers (either in their home or walking in the streets).

This basic respect for property rights was the bedrock on which everything Britain achieved was built.

"Anarchy" with general and active (i.e. people will join with you in defence of your property) respect for property rights (in both person and possessions) is the foundation of progress - "anarchy" without such general and active respect is indeed evil 'chaos'."

Part of Paul Marks' excellent first comment on a Samizdata piece about a WSJ review of Joel Mokyr's "The Enlightened Economy" by Brian Micklethwait.