We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Over on Live from the WTC, blogger Megan McArdle writes in favour of the abolition of taxation on corporate income. It is a good albeit lengthy article that is well worth reading.
And Megan, the truth is “When the revolution comes, she’ll be the first one with her back against soft silk sheets.” Forget the empty threats of the left, the future belongs to the radical evolutionaries.
Perry mocks the Black Kittens. David laughs at the soppy little FARC-ers. Can I just remind you boys that, if you must be some sort of revolutionary socialist, it is at least less bad to be a halfway peaceful one. Let’s not make it harder for them to move in the right direction.
Along the same lines, may I also offer my heartfelt congratulations to any ex-Taliban among our readers who cried “uncle”, hid, shaved or ran away during the recent readjustment in Afghanistan. Well done. Right decision. You think I’m joking at your expense, but I’m not. Welcome back to the real world.
This test, being prepared all sorts of people, will be to see if the Bush administration is actually as sophisticated as I think they might be.
Somalia is being suggested as the next course on the menu after Afghanistan by all manner of odd bed fellows, from the Ethiopian government who would like to see their neighbour destabilized for their own ends, to oil companies looking to redeem worthless Siad Barré era concessions, to certain conservative US revanchists looking to avenge the bloody 1993 repulse of US Rangers by Somali militiamen.
My guess is that if there is any US military action at all, it will be highly targeted, rather than just blundering in and picking a fight with a Somali clan over an absurd UN derived desire to reorder Somali polity more to Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s liking, as happened last time.
Europe is getting old
It’s all about cause and effect and as yea sow so shall yea reap. Europe’s post-war social model has always been a euphamism for high taxes, a bloated public sector and rigid, protectionist policies. The long-term effect is that children have been, quite literally, priced out of the average family budget
As a result, Europe’s elites are sitting on a volcano. The present levels of welfare and pensions are simply unsustainable and whilst there is much hot air about reforming the fact is that Europe’s politicians dare not break the promises they have made to their people. Change now will just be too painful. Yet, the only way to sustain the current systems would be by the influx of vast numbers of young immigrants. With national socialists already on the march throughout much of Europe, that’s going to be like throwing a match into a tinderbox
Yet there is not single purblind European politician who will not fall over themselves to declare their unswerving support for the social model. It is almost the equivalent of the US Pledge of Allegiance which is ironic given their hostility to the US and it’s dynamic, less-fettered capitalism that threatens to pull the plug on their collective life-support machine
More bellicosity from Silvio Berslusconi
I’m not at all happy about this ‘common foreign and defence policy’ guff but, hopefully, it’s a case of one step at a time. Besides who on earth would entrust their foreign and defence policy to the French??!!
Europe is swinging to the Right according to this article in the EU Observer.
In 1997 only three of the fifteen EU countries had Conservative governments. Now the figure is seven and the Portuguese are expected to elect a Conservative government this year.
However, expect no material changes. European ‘Conservatives’ (Christian Democrats) are not informed by classical liberal values and therefore tend to be, at best, centrist and, at worst, indistinguishable from the Social Democrats they replace.
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.
– John Lehman, former US Secretary of the Navy
Over on Matthew Edgar’s blog, he outlines several scenarios for how Bush nearly choked on a pretzel. I rather liked: “The dogs attacked Bush to tell him that he [Bush] better not try to take them out like Clinton took out Buddy.”… but the truth does not require such pretzel logic, Matthew. Apply Occam’s razor and the real reason is apparent:
Bush suddenly realised that the pretzel was in the shape of a peace sign and started choking.
Dr. Frank on the Blogs of War has blogged an article called Group Think which raises all sorts of interesting issues to those of a libertarian persuasion. He also touches upon one of my earlier bloggings.
I have no stake in the “whither libertarianism” question that appears as the background to many such arguments, and I’m probably missing some of the subtleties of it; but just because the idea of attacking Iraq is a hobbyhorse of “National Greatness” conservatism doesn’t automatically mean it’s a bad idea. Saddam Hussein is dangerous. He’ll have to be dealt with in some way sooner or later, whether or not doing so would be in line with the official principles of libertarianism (whatever they turn out to be.)
Libertarianism is not a political party, it is a social but non-statist meta-context within which political though occurs: a ‘vibe’ if you like. There are no ‘official’ principals and by its very nature there are only a loose series of underpinnings as the ends of libertarianism is simply liberty, rather than, say, tractor production or discouraging one-parent families. In my view at least, all forms of genuine libertarianism revolve around this:
You are not a libertarian unless you accept as axiomatic that, at its core, society must allow individuals to make their own choices in the pursuit of self-defined ends.
I have always thought all the other sundry libertarian principles often quoted, such as ‘Propertarianism’ and the ‘non-initiation of force’ principles all flow from that. Other libertarians see it the other way around.
Can the “aggressive defender” sub-species in de Havilland’s aviary legitimately launch pre-emptive strikes without turning into an Imperialist “predator?”
For sure. The big difference would be going in to destroy a threat and then going home or going in and making all of Arabia and Iraq into an American satrapy, as some seem to be suggesting.
There are those who maintain that any military action on behalf of US/British/Western security is automatically suspect; this, as de Havilland points out, is often elaborated into a belief that “anyone the American and/or British states opposes must therefore be one of the good guys.” That’s the shared target of “anti-idiotarians” where this issue is concerned, isn’t it?
Yes indeed. It seems to me that September 11th was a watershed in that it resulted in an event so stark in its moral simplicity and lacking in the ambiguity that shades Iraq, Israel, Kosovo etc. that the true nature of many was revealed in the shadowless light of the burning twin towers. Much to my astonishment some on the left, like Christopher Hitchens, turned out to be critically rational whilst many who I had thought far better of, were revealed to be crypto-subjectivists so emotionally attached to their unalterable world views as to be incapable of rational moral judgement.
And by the way, I wonder why all my recent articles seem to feature birds in some form or other? Is someone e-mailing me subliminal messages?
Sean McCray has an interesting de-construction of the New Black Panther Party over on Next Right. Judging by Sean’s analysis, the Panther is just a soggy little crypto-Marxist pussy cat.
Glenn Reynolds has some well aimed remarks about Tim Cavanaugh’s rather meandering article about bloggers. Whilst I concur with Glenn’s remarks, he lets Cavanaugh off far too easy. Cavanaugh states:
For all the bitching they log about the mainstream media, none of the bloggers are actually cruising the streets of Peshawar or Aden or Mogadishu. Thus, they’re wholly dependent upon that very same mainstream media. You can cut on Salon all you like, Mr. Blogger, but they have a man in Afghanistan. Do you?
He does not seem to grasp that we are about punditry not field reporting. The fact is, there are bloggers all over the world pointing out obscure stuff and commenting on it… hell Samizdata alone has contributors in Britain, Ireland, USA, Croatia and Australia. Without Tim Blair and Jason Soon, how many of us would pick up on the Australian stories they bring to our attention? Salon may have a reporter in Afghanistan, but of all the commentary about Muslims that I have seen in Salon, is it really more insightful or informed than that found on Adil Farooq’s blog Muslimpundit? No, it is not.
Instapundit has so many eye balls each day that it is clear from Glenn’s posts he gets a huge amount of useful pointers and comments from readers, which provides news and perspectives in and of itself. Cavanaugh seems to have missed that altogether. There is a degree of responsiveness and dynamism that more established, less immediate media channels cannot match. We blogs are not trying to replace the established media, but rather we have popped up to fill an empty but useful ecological niche, rather like the birds hitching a ride on the back of a hippopotamus and in return nibbling at unwanted parasites in the hippo’s unscratchable nooks and crannies. If we are the birds, and BigMediatm is the hippo, guess what that makes Tim Cavanaugh…
And as for Cavanaugh sneering at the fact we all refer to each other, there are two points:
- Firstly, we can afford to be civil to each other because we are not all competing for a limited pool of jobs (no wonder he hates us)… we see each other as a resource rather than rivals, even more so when we disagree.
- Secondly, it is that ‘hive mind’ thing Glenn once mentioned. Someone picks up on a story and the ‘hive’ swarms together, dissecting it and commenting, with a slew of follow up posts as the hive’s different ‘takes’ collide…such as the various ‘interblog’ gun wars or Enron debates (for that is what they are, debates).
Established media pundits feed off their network reporters… bloggers feed off each other in much the same way, following their hyperlinks to their sources. And as our sources are far more varied (Peter Jennings is not prone to dissect all too many odd Pravda or Zambia Post or bonkers Feral Tribune articles he found by listening to someone else’s broadcast), so too are the opinions and directions we go in.
And of course the editorless ‘screw the received wisdom’ blogger ethos was never going to make us friends in Cavanaugh’s circles.
Glenn is of course right that bottom feeders like Cavanaugh just do not like the competition… and the fact many of us write better than he does and about more varied things. But most of all he dislikes us because we do not fit into any of his limited pigeon holes neatly. He reads us but his silly article shows he sure as hell does not understand us.
The shooting of the postal worker mentioned by Perry in an earlier article occurred only a few blocks from where I live. Of course all I knew of it was some sirens (common) and the sound of Brit choppers hovering in the area (likewise).
The postal workers threatened to stop all mail delivery if the neighborhoods in question did not guarantee safety of all postal workers, regardless of religion. I have heard the public outrage from across the entire spectrum shocked the paras to the point that they are talking disbandment, although I have not read confirmation of such. It’s probably in the local papers if so. People may be getting shot just up the street, but I still have to get projects out the door (cablemodem?) or I don’t eat. It’s funny how you can know what’s going on all over the world and hardly notice the world news happening around the corner.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|