- Let’s be honest. There’s a clear link with Islam (£) by David Aaronovitch, The Times
- Intellectual property is an innovation killer by Joshua Lachkovic , KernalMag
- Dumb Idea Hall of Fame by Aaron David Miller, Foreign Policy
- Nadine Dorries threatens Cameron's Party Leadership by Nadine Dorries, Daily Mail
- Boris set for party leadership? by Traci Watson, USAToday
- Anti-Israel students deface Star of David at student conference by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post
- Jihadist Videos on University Facebook by Rupert Sutton, Huffington Post UK
- Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose by Alex Massie, Spectator UK
- Green tax on conservatories by James Slack and Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail
- Saudi princess: What I'd change about my country by Staff writers, BBC
Ayn Rand would have backed David Cameron's stand against the EU's "second handers"
Former British Ambassador Charles Crawford applauds David Cameron's willingness to see Britain "isolated"
Most countries on Earth are not in the European Union. Almost all of them take part in many legally binding international processes, using their sovereign rights as independent states and whatever negotiating guile and muscle they can muster to promote and defend their interests.
But they are wary of joining any regional or other international bodies which might start to suck away at their sovereignty. In other words, the vast majority of states are not only “isolated”. They jealously guard their isolation – and proudly call it independence.
However, it turns out that for EU member states things are different. The very act of one state in objecting to the wishes of the other 26 member states is denounced as contemptible, even when (as in our case) the UK has made a greater contribution to the cost of the very table at which it finds itself denounced than all but a handful of the countries doing the denouncing.
Unable to get their hands on even more money from us by looting (the UK has a veto this time), the EU’s second-handers resort to mooching, bribing and cajoling. Frustrated too when David Cameron finally says “No”, they emit a banshee hoot and hope to unnerve certain media and political forces in the UK, thereby undermining the elected government’s position.
So far so obvious. What is (for me) the most disturbing aspect of this brazen display of second-handedness is the fact that in railing against the Prime Minister for creating this “isolation” the collectivist BBC/LibDems/Blairistas reveal that they put no value at all on our taking our own decisions as a country. Jobs and trade are being jeopardised by Tory selfishness! QED!
Even if their predictions look credible, this argument deliberately leaps over two vital points.
First, that it might be better in other non-material ways to sacrifice some wealth for the sake of retaining freedom of action. Is it better in itself to be Canada – or Illinois? To be a rich slave - or a poor freeman? Both statuses have advantages and disadvantages. But at least let’s talk about it calmly.
And second, that if (say) we do start to lose some market share in Europe (by mechanisms which are never explained) perhaps we will work harder and compensate by building market share elsewhere. The whole situation is presented in a trite, static, zero-sum sort of way, whereas in fact all sorts of dynamic effects are at work. Some effects may be positive, some negative. What is indeed negative in the short-term may turn out to be positive down the road. And vice versa.
But if one thing is 100 percent clear, it is that the balance of advantage from this new-found “isolation” is not easily calculable – and not obviously detrimental.
In short, by standing firm at that summit, David Cameron struck an all too rare blow against second-hander (and second-rate) thinking in general.
As the Eurozone grapples despairingly with its own internal battles between Looters and Moochers, this British decision is hugely significant. And hugely beneficial.
Charles Crawford was British Ambassador in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw. He is now a private consultant and writer: www.charlescrawford.biz. He tweets @charlescrawford
Print
An Ayn Rand endorsement is not a recommendation to most people, and for good reason. Her vision is of a miserable Nietzschean world where all that matters is strength. Not only do I not want to live in that world, I know it wouldn't work.
The central fact of our globalised world is our interdependence and interconnectedness. Modern capitalism does not thrive on heroic individuals, but on networks of organisations and leaders. We increasingly recognise that the successful capitalist is able to do what he does because he is supported by state and societal institutions (if you don't believe me, try building a house in sub-saharan africa).
The most successful modern capitalist nation - the USA - recognises this. It is a federation, a fact that has underpinned strong and stable governance for 200 years. Interdependence has made them great.
Like it or not, our future is bound up with that of Europe. It's our key trading partner and the only global power bloc we can credibly belong to. So the question is, do we want a say in its future or not?
Sorry Charles, I agree with the sentiment and your optimism, but I think it is preposterous to mention David Cameron and Ayn Rand in the same sentence.
Rand would have him cast as a James Taggart figure - born into money, sense of self-grandeur and entitlement and getting to the top because of who he knows. Much like all politicians.
Cameron's government are still carrying on courting the vested interests - Rand's moochers and looters. Barely a shred of large industry in this country operates in the Taggart Transcontinental or Rearden Steel manner. Most corporations spend a hundred times as much on lawyers and lobbyists than on innovation.
I do agree that the BBC have a lot to answer for. Though it's not surprising. They are the moochers and looters too.
Excellent piece. But then I'm a great fan of Charles' blogs in the DT. The Rand/Cameron analogy works very well - in this isolated context. But Trem is most likely right that set in a wider context, Rand would not have much time for the likes of Cameron.
I like the characterisation of "looters" and "moochers". many (?most) MPS seem to fit in both categories...
Great article but I need to comment on Sparky's lack of knowledge about Rand's philosophy.
She reject Nietzschean philosophy. She did not long for a world where only the strong survive. She valued the individual using what knowledge they had to act in their own self interest whilst respecting the rights of others. She REJECTED the dog eat dog way of thinking.
Now as to America - America has not prospered on the back of government agencies and "common good" thinking. Entrepreneurial individuals struck out and made bold decisions and prospered - many failed, but many succeeded.
Ultimately the thinking that we need organisations and leaders is tantamount to admitting a fear of taking responsibility for ones actions and a desire for safety, rather than freedom.
As such your statement that we are "tied" to Europe is nonsense. Complete balderdash. Europe as a political thing is just a bunch of bureaucrats and second-handers who themselves are afraid of freedom. Afraid of what people will do, afraid of what they'll have to do to survive. It's sick.
Freedom would lead to a peaceful society. A prosperous society. A society where people like you would have a voice, to say what you want, to argue what you want, but you wouldn't have the power to tell me how to live my life, or force me to give up huge sums of money, freedom and autonomy in order to satisfy your neurotic need to control others for whatever reason.
Great novels by Rand? Have you tried actually reading any of that tedious, turgid, badly written monomania?
Sparky regurgitates that decades old smear that Ayn Rand's philosophy is "Nietzschean" as if by repeating this laughable misrepresentation, he will somehow make it true. Any honest reader of Ayn Rand's works will know that Ayn Rand upheld a "benevolent universe premise" based on "rational self-interest", trading values for mutual benefit, where no one has the right to initiate force against anyone else. What she opposed was a sacrificial moral code that turns men into either profiteers of sacrifice or victims.
Excellent piece - especially in respect of the malign influence of the "Toady" program endlessly bleeting for more government initiatives and more power for the looters and moochers that have comprehensively trashed our scientific, engineering and manufacturing culture.
How interesting that hte only Prime Minister with a science degree rejected "society" in favour of indidual responsibility and action.
Perhaps it was her experience in dealing with the facts of nature rather than the spin of journalism or legal hystrionics?
Yes, Rand's concept of "Second-hander" applies. Also, she would call "Isolationism" an "anti-concept." One should see her definition of an "anti-concept" and read her article "the anti-conceptual mentality." The latter explains the mental processes of those who traffic in "anti-concepts." Fascinating.
what nonsense, your ideological spew could not begin to compare with the impartiality of the BBC's Today programme, which you obviously so despise.
jmm beat me to the punch; exactly right on.
I think that Ayn Rand would look at the world situation - collapsing welfare planet - and say: stop enabling it. I'm happy about Cameron's move, but it's going to take a lot more than that, and it really needs to start at the cultural level before political tweaks make any detectable improvements.
I'm enjoying the handful of shrill lefties like Sparky and PMK who are denouncing your analysis.
Sparky is a prime example of the leftist: "We can't live without the EU! We're too small and weak" school of thinking.
Sadly, I suspect, they are reflecting themselves rather than this nation. It is they that are small and weak - this nation is certainly not. As will become clear in due course.
"Like it or not, our future is bound up with that of Europe." Like it or not? That's no argument. Like it or not, you are speaking nonsense. There: one bare assertion against another!
Lots of deliberate misrepresentation of my argument going on here. I didn't say we were tied to Europe, I said our future was bound up with Europe's. That's true. If the the euro collapses, our economy will suffer greatly. Whether we are part of the eu institutions or not, we cannot escape that fact that their destiny and ours have always been linked. It's that point about interdependence.
I also didn't suggest that America has prospered because of common good thinking. I suggested that it is in small part the result of a group of states recognising their economic interdependence and coming together in a single nation with one currency.
Philip - I love your definition of a free society. "People like me" could say whatever we like provided we go along with your vision of libertarianism? Oh gee thanks. That isn't freedom for me, it's victory for you. And that's my problem with you and Rand. You want freedom for the strong and the weak are all moochers. We tried that in the 19th century and the result was poverty for the many and immense wealth for the few.
“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose, because it contains all the others, the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money".No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity, to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words "to make money" hold the essence of human morality.” ~Ayn Rand 'Atlas Shrugged'
""People like me" could say whatever we like provided we go along with your vision of libertarianism? Oh gee thanks. That isn't freedom for me, it's victory for you." So you're upset that you wouldn't be "free" to rob us? And stop trying to cry that your comment was misrepresented: it WAS, in itself, a misrepresentation, as has been explained.
@SParky - I think the fundamental point to grasp is that within a society run on libertarian principles, you and your socialist mates are quite entitled to live amongst yourselves, in a structure which we could call a commune for example, according to socialist and collectivist principles. What you wouldn't be allowed to do do would be to extort money or goods from non-volunteers outwith your commune.
In your socialist paradise, the libertarian has no option but to be robbed and restricted by any insane law or tax that you and your friends dream up, and which are often aimed specifically to hurt the most productive members of society.
That is why growth in the west has stalled. It's not rocket science.
Excellent piece. And interesting that the so called "consensus" against Britain is rapidly falling apart anyway..