"The riots are the apotheosis of the welfare state and popular culture in their British form. A population thinks (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class) that it is entitled to a high standard of consumption, irrespective of its personal efforts; and therefore it regards the fact that it does not receive that high standard, by comparison with the rest of society, as a sign of injustice. It believes itself deprived (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class), even though each member of it has received an education costing $80,000, toward which neither he nor—quite likely—any member of his family has made much of a contribution; indeed, he may well have lived his entire life at others’ expense, such that every mouthful of food he has ever eaten, every shirt he has ever worn, every television he has ever watched, has been provided by others. Even if he were to recognize this, he would not be grateful, for dependency does not promote gratitude. On the contrary, he would simply feel that the subventions were not sufficient to allow him to live as he would have liked."
It's difficult to be more incisive than that, so I won't try, and the entire article linked above is worth the read.
After the 2008-2009 financial turmoil, I recall reading financial commentators who predicted that a crisis of the sort that happened, not a typical boom and bust recession, but one where a fundamental de-leveraging was occurring, a bank and debt crisis, was the type of crisis that would lead to violence, and war. Of course a vague prediction of that sort, probably can be made anytime with some accuracy. But when I read it, it felt ominous almost Orwellian.
Where will the next war begin or will the ones we have already grow, and become more widespread? Is the violence internal and specific to certain countries? What kind of violence? The advisors I read, pointed to violence related to the economy. Again, is there any other kind? Just about any kind of violence that does not have a sociopathic cause, is caused by economics, any war, any criminal violence, just about everything has an economic root.
The British violence has an economic root too, but its economics according to what Dalrymple suggested above, and what Stefan Molyneux has researched below.
Last weekend I had the privilege of learning about liberty in the country side of Southern Ontario. Just under 100 people, Canadians, Americans, even a few Europeans, all with a deep appreciation of liberty, gathered in the woods near Orono. It was the Eleventh Annual Liberty Summer Seminar (LSS) sponsored by the Institute for Liberal Studies.
This years edition of the LSS was in jeopardy at one point. Some local politicians were determined to close it down because of arcane bylaw regulations. Thanks to widespread support, legal help from the CCF, and a municipal election that ultimately turfed out most of the offending politicians, the 2011 LSS went ahead.
From a personal point of view it's always reassuring to be in the company of other libertarians, sure there are still arguments, but they seem much more productive and satisfying.
In many ways this seminar is like an annual renewal for those attending. Friendships are renewed, ideas are exchanged, passion and determination are refreshed, and the annual downpour has a cleansing effect. It did pour, but not for long.
My plan is, to post several times over the course of the next week or so, highlighting some of the speakers and stories that were observed during the 2011 LSS, and the first one will be about a debate - "Should libertarians become involved in politics?"
The Procession of the Trojan Horse in Troy by Domenico Tiepolo (1773)
A comment by an economist with apparent Austrian School leanings, has prompted this posting.That economist was frustrated because he says he can explain the current economic malaise/crisis in Austrian terms, but no one either believes or listens to what he is saying. He likens his plight to that of Cassandra, of Greek mythology.
Cassandra of course foresaw the destruction of Troy and the death of Agamemnon, commander of the Greek army, but no one believed her. In the current context it's a situation that many of us can sympathize with and it has been named the Cassandra Syndrome. The Urban Dictionary defines Cassandra Syndrome as: 1) The condition of speaking the truth and having no one believe you. 2) The condition of being able to predict the future, be it the outcome of a particular event, or the reactions of others to the same event, and having no one believe your prophecy until it transpires. 3) Being able to see or understand things long before others, often resulting in them coming to the same conclusions long after your own initial analysis.
This morning, CBC Radio News reported on the FOX sponsored Iowa Republican Party nominees debate. In that report, Michelle Bachmann was mentioned, Mitt Romney was mentioned, and so on, not a word about candidate Ron Paul of course. To be fair most of the other candidates were not mentioned, but Ron Paul exemplifies the meaning of Cassandra Syndrome exactly. He is the only candidate that calls for peace, liberty, and limiting the power of government. He needs to be heard, to be listened to, and to be supported. Watch and listen to his answers, a Cassandra if ever there was one.