Comment just attached, by "Malcolm", to my posting here a while back entitled Austrianism as Number Two:

Newsnight has just introduced its story on Ed Milliband's decision today to back the government's pay freeze by playing the Keynes v Hayek video from Econstories.tv

The narrator even described it as a "fabulous" video that is "easily the most entertaining explanation of the issues" - as closely as I can remember the wording, anyway.

I realise I'm commenting on a posting that's six months old, but I'm hoping Brian, as the original author, gets automatically notified of comments. That the video is being used to give context to a now-current news item is certainly consonant with Brian's original theory about Austrianism as the new #2 (with apologies to The Prisoner).

I did get automatically notified of this comment. Many thanks for the kind thought. However, I also clocked this Newsnight snippet myself, and added an off topic bit in a comment I also added to the earlier posting today about SOPA, which Newsnight is also reporting on, thanks to the Wikipedia black-out that Rob Fisher noted.

The more I ponder those Keynes v Hayek videos, the more of a stroke of total genius I believe them to be. They play especially well with the BBC, because the BBC is never happier than when explaining an issue in terms of competing arguments. Yes, the BBC is often "biased", in the sense that you get a definite idea of which team they may prefer (which may not be yours), and which team they choose to give the last word to. But the "other" team often gets a more than fair crack of the whip.

As I made clear in that earlier posting of mine, the real sufferers from this kind of bias are the "other other" teams, so to speak, the ones who don't even get a look in, the ones who are shown as being not even wrong, on account of not even existing.

To quote Rob Fisher in the posting immediately below, about Detlev Schlichter's performance on the BBC's "Start The Week" show yesterday morning:

All in all not a bad day for the spreading of Austrian ideas.

Which adds up to two consecutive not bad days for the spreading of Austrian ideas.

As Brian Micklethwait informed us ahead of time, Detlev Schlichter appeared on the BBC Radio 4 programme Start The Week on Monday. A podcast of the programme can be downloaded. Remember that all of this is being talked about on the BBC, on Radio 4, which I imagine is listened to by lots of Guardian and Independent readers. Austrian economics is now Being Talked About, as Brian might point out.

The programme opens with Economist columnist Philip Coggan talking about the supposed conflict between money as a store of value and money as a medium of exchange. Creditors will always want a fixed supply of money and debtors will want an expanding supply of money, and this seems true enough, up to a point. Coggan goes on to point out that the biggest debtor is government and governments have always been very keen on expanding the money supply. He also explains how banks' interests are aligned with the governments because the expanding money supply props up asset prices. There is no way out except by defaulting or inflation.

Angela Knight of the British Bankers Association is worried about more immediate matters like tomorrow and the Eurozone crisis.

Detlev Schlichter is up next. He says that paper money systems have been tried throughout history and have always failed; have always been implemented to fund the state. The failure mode is either a return to commodity money or hyperinflation. He clarifies Coggan's point about conflict between debtors and creditors by pointing out that in a voluntary contract both expect to benefit. They would both like a means to honour that contract with money that they can trust. This makes sense because if debtors routinely get the expanding money supply they want, this ultimately will get factored into the price of the loan.

Coggan says that the trouble with the gold standard is that it imposes more austerity on governments than the voters will stand. I think Schlichter agrees, which is why he is predicting hyperinflation.

Maurice Glasman says that capitalism requires 'exploitation' of humans and their environment and short term returns. Detlev is ignoring the imbalance of power between the debtor and creditor. After that I couldn't follow what he was on about.

Schlichter responds to Marr's questions by saying that expanding money supply is right now being done to stimulate the economy rather than just to fund governments. Furthermore he is not suggesting that we walk around with little sacks of gold; payment technologies do not depend on state fiat currency. The BBC listeners are reminded that money is not backed by gold and that it's just an invention of the state. Schlichter advocates removing the state entirely from money. Consumers should control what is produced in the economy by sending price signals, but this does not work because of the expanding money supply. If we went back to gold, as has been done before in Britain, markets would correct. Andrew Marr is incredulous: interest rates shooting up!? In this day and age? Yes, says Schlichter, calmly, it is essential that savings and investments are coordinated by interest rates.

Philip Coggan says going back to gold is possible but very unlikely, but could arise from complete collapse of the system, Zimbabwe-style, but this is not imminent in the next two or three years. Schlichter agrees that politicians are unlikely to take that decision. Over the last 40 years, since the whole world has been on paper money, we have had unprecedented money expansion and, surprise surprise, the whole world is in a mess. If we suddenly went back to hard money now it would cause a sharp correction and a recession. So Politicians will avoid this and in so doing cause a worse outcome.

Angela Knight is asked whether bankers are failing savers by getting into league with the government and she avoids the question, but agrees that banks should not be protected and should be allowed to fail. But there are a lot of Buts that I didn't follow.

Philip Coggan says bankers have become so important because of the credit money expansion of the last 40 years. For some reason he brings international trade into the conversation. Knight starts waffling about ATM machines and the disruption to people's lives that a move to gold would entail. Schlichter says that gold works fine in an international economy (after all, gold is gold wherever you are). When he talks about disruption he is talking about the correction of the accumulated imbalances in the economy. It's clear he doesn't know what Knight is on about, either.

Maurice Glasman makes a distinction between… oh I give up. The man is completely incomprehensible.

Coggan and Knight dignify him far too much by conversing on his terms, which wastes most of the last 15 minutes of the programme. Schlichter disagrees with him completely and gets in a point about how Germany's success after WWII is a result of its relatively hard currency which encourages savings and avoids asset bubbles.

So there we have it. Coggan and Schlichter have their differences but would have appeared very close to each other to the BBC listeners. Knight didn't really say anything, and Glasman was the token lefty who only other committed lefties would have been cheering along with. All in all not a bad day for the spreading of Austrian ideas.

Wikipedia will be going offline tomorrow to protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act. So will Reddit. This kind of protest could have some effect because ordinary Wikipedia users from all points in the political hyperspace will be told just what a terrible idea SOPA is, and a lot of them will get it.

CNET has a useful FAQ about SOPA.

Ben Pile at Climate Resistance notes Steven Pinker's latest book:

In this startling new book, the bestselling cognitive scientist Steven Pinker shows that the world of the past was much worse. With the help of more than a hundred graphs and maps, Pinker presents some astonishing numbers. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. The murder rate of Medieval Europe was more than thirty times what it is today. Slavery, sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were unexceptionable features of life for millennia, then suddenly were targeted for abolition. Wars between developed countries have vanished, and even in the developing world, wars kill a fraction of the people they did a few decades ago. Rape, battering, hate crimes, deadly riots, child abuse, cruelty to animals—all substantially down.

Sounds good, and all very plausible. But how to explain it?

Thanks to the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, bargain rather than plunder, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

I am not sure about that government bit. Perhaps "rule of law" might be more accurate. Perhaps the Amazon reviews can shed some light. Says one reviewer:

Pinker challenges the two prevailing views of human nature - Rousseau's view that the noble savage has been corrupted by civilization, and Hobbes's idea that human greed and violence can only be curbed by strong government. The first view is common on the left of the political spectrum, the second among conservatives. The reviewers who think poorly of the book may have been upset by the fact that Pinker rejects both positions. Instead he shows, with a mass of evidence and interpretation, that violence has declined through history. We seem likely to have started with the high levels of inter-group killing found in our chimpanzee cousins, eventually to be tamed by the slow development of effective government, peaceful trading and eventually Enlightenment thinking.

Says another:

Words like `democracy', `government' or `gentle commerce' are not seriously analyzed. Consequentially, his view of history is a very mechanical one: we were extremely violent in the past and thanks to the Leviathan and `gentle commerce' we have become better persons. We either accept the political and economical assets of our era or we risk going back to violence and chaos.

My sense is that Pinker's evidence for decreasing violence over time will be very interesting to see, but his explanations for why this is so will be less interesting. I think the answer is that technology makes us less violent, by making our lives overall so much more comfortable that violence seems even more out of the ordinary, and so to be avoided, than it otherwise would.

The best debater was, without doubt, Newt Gingrich. He would tear Barack Obama apart in a debate.

A good way of understanding just how good a debater Gingrich is may be to compare him to Ron Paul - someone whose opinions I often agree with more than I do with the opinions of Newt Gingrich.

Ron Paul was asked about a radio interview where he appeared to say that Bin Laden should not have been killed by the Navy Seals (I, and a lot of other people, predicted that he would be asked such questions by Obama if Ron Paul was the nominee).

The only way out of such a position is to apologize for one's confused speech and say "OF COURSE BIN LADEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT".

Instead we got a long complicated reply, comparing (at one point) Islamist terrorists in Pakistan to Chinese dissenters in the United States, and saying that the reason that people attack the United States is "because we bomb their countries all the time".

And on and on (Taliban allies against the Soviets - the Taliban hardly existed at the time, Taliban totally different from Bin Laden's supporters NOT TRUE THEY HAVE THE SAME THEOLOGY, and...).

Ron I agree with you that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proved to be a mistake - and I was still almost booing at the television screen as you spoke (a lot of people actually present at the debate could not stop themselves booing you - how you spoke was just so offensive). I agree with your policies (on just about everything), but they way you express yourself........ You do not just sound silly (and make errors of fact) you actually sound hostile to the United States and the West in general. As if you were an enemy of the West - you are not, but you sound as if you were.

And Newt Gingrich - he told a brief story about Andrew Jackson and "killing the enemies of America" and had everyone cheering him. As he did on virtually everything else...

"But he is still wrong about the issues" - no more wrong than Mitt Romney, Rick Perry (less than one percent of the vote in New Hampshire) and Rick Santorum. And he can debate vastly better than they can.

Still it is all pointless now.

Neither Rick Santorum or (even) Rick Perry will get out of the race and endorse Gingrich - which means that Mitt Romney will win on Saturday.

And that means it is over.

The candidate with the least good economic plan (although light years better than Obama) and the person who, when asked if he would support the new Obama law that allows imprisonment (without time limit) of citizens suspected of supporting enemies of the United States - said "yes" (and meant it).

People are to "trust in the good character" of the President not to "abuse this power" - well that is fine, let us see the end of what is left of the rule of law at once. As long as the President is of "good character".

Oh well at least Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase will be pleased.

I hear they have switched some of their support from Barack to Mitt - what a good sign of high moral character. Almost as good as being against abortion (as the most senior Elder of the Morman Church in Massachusetts), then being "pro choice" when in politics in Massachusetts, then being against abortion again (when running for the Republican nomination for President). Oh well my "do not say nasty things about Mitt" New Year's Resolution did not last long - but he is going to be nominee after Saturday, so it is a last negative statement before I (and everyone else interested in defending the West) have to rally behind this man's banner.

One must draw a sharp distinction between the person of the King (as a human being) and "the Crown". In the clash against the Marxists, Mitt Romney will be "King" after Saturday (the Coronation is not till the Convention, but a King is King before his coronation) - so his personal imperfections will have to be overlooked, the oaths that I (and so many others) have taken to defend the West against the totalitarians, will bind us to him in the contest (regardless of what terrible end this riding leads to). The choice of not following the banner will still exist - but not as an honourable choice. The statement "the King will lead us to our deaths" may be true - but it is also irrelevant. After all the enemy will still be in the field, seeking to flee (on the grounds that the commander of our own army is useless) is just a "cop out". When the banner is formally raised one follows the banner - even if it leads into a narrow valley, with the enemy in front and on both flanks. One can advice against it - one can even call the King an idiot to his face. But fleeing is not really an option - neither in honour (leaving everyone else to die), or in practicality (for the enemy will follow after they have done their business - in reality there is no real place to hide). And defeat is not predetermined - if one attacks fast enough (and fortune turns in one's favour), one may be able to cut one's way through, before the enemy has time to react.

To turn to lighter matters.... or, at least, the same matters expressed in a lighter tone.

Max Keiser (and the rest of the dodgy people) will be overjoyed - they are already using their "two Dollar whore" lines (and so on) against Romney. The attacks on Bain Capital may be unfair - but "loading companies with debt so that they fail after you walk away with millions" was a line used against Romney by the Wall Street Journal questioner, the left will use it also (and much more). They will love it when he is the nominee.

Which he will be.

"And, make no mistake, Marxists did lose a big argument, one we now know as 'the 20th century'."

- Will Wilkinson

"Certainly there is a need for free-market economics to be rescued from those who distort and discredit it, but that is the argument that must be made: that this system has delivered mass prosperity (and the self-determination that comes with it) on a scale unprecedented in human history, and that it deserves to be saved from the spoilers."

Janet Daley, writing with justified scorn about those people who have been bashing Mitt Romney for his career in venture capital at Bain. To be honest, his background in this area is one of the few things going for him. It would be quite refreshing to have a president of the United States who can actually read a balance sheet.

For those who have not come across the "creative destruction" line before and how it applies to sometimes wrenching change in business, check out the great Joseph Schumpeter.

As a caveat, I should add that some - but no means most - private equity buyouts of firms have been made possible by cheap credit, and therefore might not have occurred in the way they did had interest rates not been how they were in the past decade or so. On a related point, here is what I wrote in defence of private equity at Samizdata several years ago. Excerpt:

"In the main, what these firms do is target cash-rich firms that are run by often lazy executives who have presided over crappy business decisions. Take the meltdown of Marconi a few years ago, one of Britain's most famous companies. That was a listed company. The destruction of value and jobs in that company remains, in my mind, one of the most disgraceful episodes in British corporate history and who knows, it might have been saved from making big errors had a private equity fund been in charge, rather than deluded executives. Private equity firms helped stymie Deutsche Börse's foolish bid for the London Stock Exchange 2 years ago, and have turned around businesses. They typically buy and hold a firm for 5 years or more, take a hands-on approach to running firms before spinning them off to another buyer or floating them in an IPO. So Will Hutton should spare us sentimental guff about how limited liability firms floated on the stock exchange represent the perfect model of doing business or something that Adam Smith or Voltaire would exalt. They are merely one of the many ways in which economic activity manifests itself. As interest rates rise and the economic cycle turns, some of the excesses of leveraged buyouts will fade and private equity transactions will decline."

Phyllis Dixey - 1914 to 1964 - Striptease Artiste - lived here in flat number 15.

- The wording proposed last November for a new British Heritage blue plaque, but it proved controversial. I only just came across this story. Since then, I don't know what has happened. Is this plaque actually going to materialise? What it says at the bottom of this recent news item, about another proposed blue plaque in honour of movie actress Margaret Lockwood, suggests not. If not, shame.

Anyone looking for evidence that the current Conservative/Liberal Democrat government in the UK has the same tidy, but severely limited intelligence of its predecessor need do no more than read this story suggesting that thousands of jury trials held in the country could be axed to save what appears to be a relatively paltry sum, when measured against the dangers and cost to individuals of being wrongfully convicted.

I can understand why jury trials can be an easy target. In my distant past I had a spell covering court cases in the UK and watched several juries at work. It struck me - especially in the more complex fraud cases - that there are clear problems. And maybe - although no politician will dream of saying so - that the British are not as law abiding as they presumably were 50 years ago and therefore the average jury panel reflects this fact. But historians would point out that juries in, say, early 19th Century England could be an awkward bunch. But therein lies the strengths of trial by jury - it is one of the few elements in which ordinary members of the public can be brought into the affairs of civil society by sitting in judgement on the alleged guilt or innocence of their fellows. Juries remind the powerful and the legally sophisticated about the proper order of things.

As I remarked the other day about the dangerously misconceived move by the previous Labour government to scrap the double-jeopardy rule, the ongoing attempts by administrations of all political hues to gut the English Common Law, and the checks and balances of the system, remain one of the most foolish trends in our public life. And that such an idea is being contemplated makes a mockery of the idea that having the Lib Dems in the government coalition will increase, in any way, the supposed liberality of this administration.

He wastes no time in twisting the knife of truth in this thrillingly irreverent talk. No, he probably will not ever be invited back.

O'Leary's conference bio should have foreshadowed to organizers that they would not be getting the traditional, polite, boring PowerPoint presentation.

Nag, nag, nag:

If you click on that, you will see that this snap was snapped in a hardware store. A randomly selected one, as it happens, near to where I live.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, health and safety is, among other things, a business, and therefore an interest. If it diminished, money would be lost, money which knows it would be lost and which would therefore speak up against it being stopped.

But of course the big complaints, if they now tried to moderate this crap, would come from all the big businesses which have now got used to all this excessive nagging and know how to handle it, unlike smaller potential competitors who, poor innocents, know only about making good products.

Hey, "tyranny" was his word, not mine. Sid Ryan writes in the Guardian:

There have been some serious incidents at the camp in the last few months including: thefts, tents being slashed and minor assaults. These problems are not of Occupy's making, but they're happening on its watch. When anyone is challenged about people's behaviour they're quick to cry "persecution" and appeal to the founding principles of inclusion. If Occupy can't solve the problem of behaviour on-site, a hostile media and the police will end the movement before it gets going.

Even people who aren't aggressive or violent can derail the movement. The very nature of the general assembly (GA), whereby everyone can wield a veto, makes it inevitable. A block should be used only if the blocker feels so strongly that they would rather leave the movement than see it carried through, but it is rarely used as such and rarely with a full understanding of the issues at stake. Occupy proudly states that the GA is "real democracy", in fact it is a tyranny that makes it possible to drown out a hundred rational voices with a single irrational one.

Schadenfreude aside, Mr Ryan's article provides an interesting case study of an attempt at non-coercive organisation, a subject that interests many libertarians. Perhaps what stops it working for them is Original Sin. I refer to the sinful desire, shared by both the reformist and the revolutionary wings of Occupy, to coerce others.

Added later: Guardian commenter Forlornehope mentions the Seige of Münster. One hopes events will not come to such a pass that St Paul's ends up being adorned in the manner of St Lambert's Church:

Vigorous preparations were made, not only to hold what had been gained, but to proceed from Münster toward the conquest of the world. The city was being besieged by Franz von Waldeck, its expelled bishop. In April 1534 on Easter Sunday, Matthys, who had prophesied God's judgment to come on the wicked on that day, made a sally with only thirty followers, believing that he was a second Gideon, and was cut off with his entire band. He was killed, his head severed and placed on a pole for all in the city to see, and his genitals nailed to the city gate. Bockelson, better known in history as John of Leiden, was subsequently installed as "king".

Claiming to be the successor of David, he claimed royal honours and absolute power in the new "Zion". He justified his actions by the authority of visions from heaven, as others have done in similar circumstances. He legalized polygamy, and himself took sixteen wives. (John is said to have beheaded one wife himself in the marketplace; this act might have been falsely attributed to him after his death.) Community of goods was also established. After obstinate resistance, the city was taken by the besiegers on June 24, 1535, and in January 1536 Bockelson and some of his more prominent followers, after being tortured, were executed in the marketplace. Their dead bodies were exhibited in cages, which hung from the steeple of St. Lambert's Church; the cages still hang there, though the bones were removed later.

Austrian economic theory describes how purposive action by fallible human beings unintentionally generates a grand, complex, and orderly market process. An additional ethical step is required to pronounce the market process good. Economic theory per se cannot recommend but only explain markets. This is what Ludwig von Mises meant when he insisted that Austrian economics is value-free. Anyone of any persuasion ought to be able to acknowledge that economic logic indicates that imposing a price ceiling on milk will, other things equal, create a shortage of milk. But that in itself is not an argument against the policy. Mises assumed the policymaker would have thought that result bad, but the economist qua economist cannot declare it such. As Israel Kirzner likes to say, the economist’s job in the policy realm is merely to point out that you cannot catch a northbound train from the southbound platform.

- Sheldon Richman writes about How Liberals Distort Austrian Economics

Exposed: Taxman's 'illegal' war against Britain's small businesses. That is the title of a most interesting report in the Independent. Not so much a war, I would have said, as a shakedown.

The Government is unlawfully using late-payment penalty fines against tens of thousands of small firms who do not file their tax returns on time as a "cash-generating scheme" for the Exchequer.

In a damning judgement, the Tax Tribunal has ruled that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is operating a policy of "deliberately" waiting months before alerting businesses that have not filed their tax returns so that late- payment fines stack up.

...

"It is no function of the state to use the penalty system as a cash-generating scheme," said the judge, Geraint Jones, QC. "We have no doubt that any right-thinking member of society would consider that to be unfair and falling very far below the standard of fair dealing expected of an organ of the state."

While applauding his judgement in this case, I question his expectations of standards of fair dealing by an organ of the state. It's not as if they didn't try much the same with speed cameras.

I gather HMRC are to appeal*. Confusion to their knavish schemes.

(Via Englishman's Castle)

*This sentence originally read "I gather HMRC are appealing." Edited for accuracy.

Jeremy Warner, a columnist at the Daily Telegraph, has a short, thumb-sucker about what happens if Scotland becomes independent, as many Scots (and many English voters and taxpayers) want. Given that the Euro is a partial disaster, no sane Scottish politician would want to campaign to join it, at least not yet. The idea of Scotland staying in the sterling zone is also bit, well, problematic if Scotland breaks free of any fiscal union with the English, or if the English decide to give the Scots the elbow. Could Scotland go back to an old, Scottish currency of its own and would that be viable?

Of course, the land of Adam Smith and David Hume could adopt a gold-backed currency and set a magnificent new trend, but given the socialistic nature of most Scottish politicians seeking independence, that does not seem very likely, but you never know. I always felt that if the SNP wanted to really pull a trick, they should seek to turn Scotland into a sort of northern Switzerland.

Here is an old essay by Lawrence White about Scottish banking.

The ultimate pre-flight procedure, courtesy of Southwest Airlines.

Some commenters on this blog got more than a little sniffy when I had a few critical things to see about Ron Paul the other day. I stand by my remarks, which actually were hardly the sort of fire-eating stuff that some people come up with, but I'll happily repeat my respect for his genuine good points, as I see them.

David French, over at National Review, has an interesting item reflecting on why, of all GOP candidates, and of Obama himself, Ron Paul gets more respect in financial terms from the serving military. Here is the final paragraph:

"I know there are many other reasons why troops support Ron Paul (quite a few embrace libertarian economic principles), but this post is an attempt to explain his support within a national-security framework — how some of the most hardened warriors I know enthusiastically embrace a man whom others say is soft on national security. They don’t see him as soft. They see him as realistic. I disagree (strongly), but it’s an argument that won’t be defeated by ridicule, and it’s an argument grounded in a cultural reality that few Americans have experienced."

Incoming from Detlev Schlichter:

Just a heads-up in case you are interested, I will be one of four guests on Andrew Marr's show Start the Week on BBC Radio Four on Monday, 16th January. The program starts at 9 am but there are various 'listen again' facilities, and it will also be published as a podcast. The topic is the financial crisis, and the other guests are The Economist's Philip Coggan (author recently of Paper Promises), Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Bankers' Association, and the Labour life peer Maurice Glasman.

I am interested.

One of the more dispiriting processes I regularly notice in confrontations between Good and Evil is when Evil concedes that it has done something evil, and Good promptly turns round, in the spirit of fair play, and concedes something else evil. It's like Good is a football team, and when it goes one-nil up, it feels that the fair thing to do is to give the other fellows a goal. To make a game of it. Or something.

So, for instance, if Evil concedes that, I don't know, "socialism hasn't turned out very well in practice", Good, in a burst of bonhomie and generosity and brotherhood-of-manliness, concedes that socialism was a nice idea "in theory".

No it wasn't. An idea that turns out badly in practice is a bad idea. Especially if the badness was a predictable and predicted consequence of that bad idea.

Often, in circumstances like these, Evil even asks for an equalising goal.

Evil offers a pairing of ideas - good twinned with evil, like socks emerging from the laundrette - as a package: "I'll concede that socialism has turned out badly in practice if you concede that socialism is a nice theory."

The proper way to behave, if you are Good, and go one-nil up in an argument, is to press for a two-nil lead.

The proper response to going one-nil up in the above argument about the practice and theory of socialism is to say: "Socialism has indeed turned out badly in practice. Now, about this evil notion of yours that socialism is a nice theory. Let's talk about that. And let's you admit that you are wrong about that also. We told you you were wrong from the start, and we were right that you were wrong. We predicted that socialism would turn out badly in practice, on account of it being a bad theory. You pressed on. You were wrong. In theory as well as in practice."

Like I say, press for two-nil.

So, all hail to Mark Meckler. (And further hail to Instapundit for linking to the story, today, and earlier.)

Meckler, arriving in New York and learning that he must not carry a gun, handed his gun over to the New York goons. (That much, he was willing to concede.) The goons promptly arrested him, for carrying the gun up to the point where he stopped carrying it, or something.

Faced with a determined Meckler, and a huge outcry of rage and contempt from the forces of Good, the New York goons have dropped their evil charges. One-nil to Meckler. But Meckler is now being subjected to another evil injustice. The goons still have his gun, and are refusing to return it.

Instead of thanking the goons for being so nice about not arresting him any more, Meckler now wants his gun back. Quite right. New York goons, give the man his gun back! (This is now an international campaign. I am international and I now say this.)

Saying "now give me back my gun" is not only the good thing for Good Mr Meckler to do; it is also excellent tactics. He is now one-nil up. He faces the chance to score another goal, and go two-nil up against the forces of Evil. He is now pressing to do just that.

Quite right. When you have argumentative momentum, against a team that is saying (or in this case also doing) not just one bad thing but many bad things, use it. Thereby keep it, and build it.

When the New York goons do hand back Meckler's gun, if they ever do (and actually, even if they don't), the proper next response, from all of us who have now rallied around Meckler, is: "Now, about all these other gun-carrying people, against whom you have not dropped the charges, and whose guns you have not returned …" Three-nil. Four-nil. Five-nil …

If the New York goons don't hand back Meckler's gun, perhaps because they sense that if they do, Meckler's team will then get more momentum, then the New York goons will be digging their heels in in an argument that they will hate but which the Meckler team will relish.

Also good. Shame about the stolen gun, but also good.

If we immerse ourselves wholly in day-to-day affairs, we cease making fundamental distinctions, or asking the really basic questions. Soon, basic issues are forgotten, and aimless drift is substituted for firm adherence to principle. Often we need to gain perspective, to stand aside from our everyday affairs in order to understand them more fully. This is particularly true in our economy, where interrelations are so intricate that we must isolate a few important factors, analyze them, and then trace their operations in the complex world.

- from the Introduction of What Has Government Done To Our Money? by Murray Rothbard. To read the whole thing, go here.

Whilst I am working a private contractor cyber-defence job for a large financial conference, it seems apropos to summarise some recent intel from Janes.

The DOD is selling two THAAD missile interceptor batteries to the United Arab Emirates, This is the first international sale. I wonder who they are defending against..

US chooses Super Tucano for Afghan Air Force
Sierra Nevada and Embraer have been selected to deliver A-29 Super Tucano's the Afghan Air Force (AAF) and 15 more for the USAF. This is also interesting because Sierra Nevada is developing the DreamChaser orbital space plane.

The Saudi's are buying 84 new F-15SA Eagle's with Raytheon's APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, a digital electronic warfare system (DEWS) and a Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS). I wonder who they are defending against...

General Atomics has the contract for Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) configurations for the UK's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier programme. Mass Drivers as we call them in the space business, are a key technology for lunar industry.

The US Missile Defense Agency has selected Boeing to oversee the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system in a multibillion dollar sustainment effort. This system will defend the US against a rogue state attacks. At the same time a bunch of orders were placed at the end of 2011 as noted here and above. Raytheon's SM-3 was also in the mix. On the downside, the Boeing 747-400F carrying the YAL-1 Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) is being mothballed as the development has been terminated.

The Indian Navy has gone nuclear with the Akula-class (Project 971) nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) now in its hands on a 10 year lease from the Russians. The 9,246 tonne (dived) INS Chakra (ex- Nerpa ) recently finished sea trials three years behind schedule.

If you are depressed about the economic state of the world, one way to cheer yourself up is to google things like "fracking" or "natural gas". Another is to try "3D printing". That was how I found my way to this piece, about a company which has started selling 3D printers to … people. From what I can make out, each printer now costs something like two thousand dollars, more or less, depending on whether you want it ready to roll or are willing to assemble it yourself.

I can think of three things, right away, that are bound to be true about such "printers". They will get cleverer. They will get cheaper. They will get smaller.

Currently, these gizmos seem to resemble those very early personal computers, circa 1975 (as I remember it). There are no very obvious things you can do with them, but despite that, they just reek of the future. Learn about them, and the next four decades of world technological history will be yours to surf at will, in ways that are impossible to know the details of but which are bound to be huge.

In due course, 3D printers may become no rarer than the 2D printers like the one I have on my desk are now. The first laser printer I blagged may way to using cost (someone else) around two thousand quid. My current one cost (me) about eighty quid, and is much better, not least because it is so much smaller. Presumably similar progress will occur with 3D printers.

I wonder what such machines will do to the world?

I listen a lot to Radio 3, the classical music channel, especially first thing in the morning. This inevitably involves listening to BBC news bulletins, which can be quite an ordeal. This morning, as my brain surfaced into consciousness, I heard a strange item, about how the government intends to switch the subsidies it gives to the British movie industry towards more popular movies, presumably away from whatever unpopular movies government subsidies had hitherto been encouraging.

Two questions immediately present themselves.

First, how does the government expect to be able to foretell which films will be popular, before they are made? Many very highly paid, very clever people routinely fail in this task, despite such people entirely concentrating (in extreme contrast to people run governments) on trying to be right about such things. What makes our government suppose that it can do any better than such persons?

And second, are not "popular" movies the exact sort of movies as would be encouraged in a totally free market? So what is the point of such subsidies? Would it not be more sensible simply to get rid of them altogether?

This seems to be the story that my half-awake mind latched onto this morning. For once, I agree with Ken Loach, who appears briefly in the video report. This is indeed typical Tory crassness. Many "mainstream" movies, or at any rate movies intended to be maintream, fail. But, and here I presumably do not agree with Ken Loach, all other government movie subsidies are also crass.