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]
|
When Tony Blair and New Labour got elected in 1997 the understandable dismay among Conservatives manifested itself as dire warnings that ‘New’ Labour was a glossy sham and it was just ‘Old’ Labour dressed up in electable clothes. Soon, they warned, the public would realise that they had let the wolf back in the door and the days of Trade Union militancy and a crippled economy would return to haunt us again. You just wait and see, they said.
Mere sour grapes, said all the pundits. And, thus far, the pundits appear to have been proved right
Thus far, but maybe not much further. And it isn’t just transport that looks like grinding to a halt. Post Office unions are ballotting their members on a nationwide strike and mail in North London is already in chaos thanks to a local dispute
Those of us who are old enough to have lived in Britain in the 1970’s under ‘Old’ Labour remember only too well what it looked like. It looked a bit like this
I agree with ‘Johnny Student’ that one reason for the elite to want to present the world as complex is to keep them in jobs as the only people able to understand it. Another reason for wanting the same thing is as an explanation for the failure of their preferred solutions. They look around after decades of welfare/gun control/affirmative action and still see poverty/gun crime/blacks at the bottom of the heap. It is much pleasanter to bemoan the complexity and “stubborness” of poverty/crime/racism than admit that their solutions were just plain wrong. It also gets you a bigger budget.
Obviously in many ways the world is complex. But rather as physics can reduce multifarious phenomena to simple equations, I think you can dig down to some fairly simple ethical principles. The complexity comes in seeing what applies where.
David Carr pointed out that Euro Leader and superstatist Romano Prodi insists that membership of the Eurozone is for ever and irreversible
The president of the European Commission Romano Prodi believes that membership in the Eurozone is a “definitive marriage” and thus he feels the need for a good economic policy across the Eurozone, to keep the marriage solid. “You cannot leave the Eurozone once you’re in”, Prodi said on Wednesday.
Which is, of course, exactly what Tito said about Yugoslavia.
Israel and the Middle East
Take a look at Victor Hanson in his article about why Arabs have misunderstood Israel. In a nutshell, his thesis is that if Israel did not exist, then as far as many Arabs are concerned, they would have to invent it.
If Israel did not exist, the Arab world, in its current fit of denial, would have to invent somehting like it to vent its frustrations. That is not to say there may not be legitimate concerns in the struggle over Palestine, but merely that for milliums of Muslims the fight over such small real estate stems from a deep psychological wound. It isn’t about lebensraum or some actual physical threat. Isreal is a constant reminder that it is a nation’s culture-not its geography or size or magnitude or its oil reserves-that determine its wealth or freedom.
In response to Will Willkinson on the The Fly Bottle taking our esteemed generalissimo Perry de Havilland to task for supporting the conjectural objective epistemology of Karl Popper, the Samizdata Team decided that we should wheel up the big guns for our response. Rafe Champion a noted Australian independent scholar of Popper replies to Will.
Will Wilkinson has invoked a number of weary and worn out arguments against Popper’s theory of inquiry and his theory of knowledge. First of all it is helpful to understand that Popper is concerned with understanding the way the world works, with learning by imaginative problem solving and making the best use of our critical faculties. It is also helpful to understand how Popper has emancipated us from some dead ends in philosophy, and not just the philosophy of science. Many of these dead ends arise from the theory that scientific knowledge is a form of belief, to wit, justified true belief. The source of justification in the empiricist tradition is supposed to be the evidence of our senses. In the Continental rationalist tradition the source of justification is the intuition of clear and distinct ideas. In each case the same fatal flaw arises: there is no way to decisively (certainly) justify the beliefs that are supposed to be true.
Popper has provided an alternative to the failed theories of justified true belief. The alternative is a theory of conjectural objective knowledge. This does not mean giving up on truth, or the search for it. Truth is a regulative standard for statements. A true statement corresponds to the facts. In our search for the truth we form critical preferences for the theory (or the social policy) which best solves its problems and stands up to all kinds of tests (the test of internal consistency, consistency with other well tested theories, and experimental or observational tests). Our preferences can change in a rational and controlled manner in the light of new evidence or new arguments. Our knowledge grows through our creative response to problems, including the problems that are created by effective criticism.
The Popperian scientists is like a free market entrepreneur, seeking opportunities (unsolved problems) in the marketplace. The scientist forms a conjectural solution to the problem (invests or offers a product in the marketplace) and it is then subjected to critical appraisal, including experimental tests (the product is tested by the market). All this goes on in the flux of time and is subject to radical uncertainty due to the inherently open-ended nature of theoretical knowledge (and the dynamic marketplace).
All of this is simple common sense until David Stove and the proponents of justified true beliefs confuse the picture.
Will wrote:
“Popper argues that one can only disconfirm a theory–prove that it is false”.
In logic, that is the simple truth. A general or universal theory, stated in the form “All swans are white” is falsified by a single (true) report of a black swan.
“But then what do you say of a theory that has been subjected to huge numbers of potentially falsifying tests, but has passed with flying colors? Isn’t not being falsified by many tests a lot like being confirmed?”
That was the case with Newton’s theory which passed many tests and explained so many things that many people thought that the final truth had been found. But it was not so, even before Einstein offered a viable alternative there were known to be problems with Newton’s theory. If you want to limit confirmation to repeatable observations, like sunrises and falling apples, then that is scientifically trivial and uninteresting because science is concerned with general explanatory theories, (which apply to both apples and sunrises).
“Pace Popper, induction works just fine, and it works pretty much the way people intuitively think it does (i.e., The more horses you encounter, the surer your knowledge about horses in general.)”
Not really. To learn about horses you need to approach them in a receptive, inquisitive or problem-solving way. If you merely encounter them “in passing” you may learn nothing more than to get out of their way. Learning is an active process of sifting and evaluating ideas and evidence, that is why so many people can go through school and higher education and learn next to nothing (exept about things that they really find interesting, which may be horses and not their academic studies). When you understand where Popper is coming from, David Stove is just a bore, despite his wit and his verbal pyrotechnics. Stove and his fellow inductivists apparently think there is some way to attach a numerical probability to general theories, but it has not yet been done despite being an academic industry for about a hundred years. This renders their position absurd by their own standards.
Rafe Champion
Remember, children, joining the Eurozone is for life not just for Christmas
I, for one, would like to applaud Signor Prodi for his candour about the real nature of the Euro-project. Mind you, it would have been more useful had it come before 1st January 2002…oh, but I’m probably just quibbling. Let us all hope that the policy of Glasnost continues and that we shall be treated to yet more spine-tingling and amazing revelations from Europes First Citizen
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
– Lord Acton
I am certainly not an Objectivist, though it would be fair to say I have been influenced by Ayn Rand’s works. For me, the conjectural objective epistemology of Karl Popper makes more sense, but I am also of the view that Rand is not without her merits.
Thus when I saw Tech pundit Andrew Orlowski writing in an article in The Register that Ayn Rand was a crypto-fascist, that was not something I could leave unchallenged. I must confess I have never been a great fan of Andrew Orlowski, as he also writes for New Statesman, a publication that the excellent Will Quick of DailyPundit described exquisitely as “a haven of fluorescent idiocy”.
I e-mailed Orlowski as follows:
Sir,
I would have assumed that, given your well known statist beliefs, you would have known what the word ‘fascist’ actually means. It would seem not. But let me guess… you take the Chomsky line on language and my attempt to impose coherent meaning on a word is just evidence of my desire to oppress you. Yeah, that must be it.
Had you indicated Rand’s ideas were not entirely rational, then certainly you would have made a valid point. Her non-conjectural objective epistemology does have its weaknesses, but fascist? Ludicrous. Fascism is a form of nationalist collectivism, a socialist offshoot, and which part of Rand’s ideology have you identified as collectivist? Or have you identified some form of fascism I was previously unaware of that is not in fact collectivist? Some sort of ‘individualist fascism’? That would certainly be a fascinating concept: mass rallies of one at Nuremburg perhaps?
Fascist economics involve national control (but not necessarily nominal ownership) of the means of production in the service of (ethnic) national objectives… can you point me at the remarks in Rand’s works where she advocates that?
Clearly you do not know what you are talking about and thus I am disinclined to believe anything else you write.
By your own words you are revealed, sir.
Perry de Havilland …-
In class today, the subject of the strength of man became a focus of discussion. Many in my class offered the theory that all people (can’t dare say man) are perfect and through societal reforms can become more perfect. I challenged this mind set as a bunch of baloney. Men, err people, are not angels! Men, argh people, are fundamentally egotistical and only improve their outcome and behavior, if not their interior character, so as to adhere to some incentive. (Thankfully a really hot girl in the class agreed with me, but that is another story…)
Eventually the teacher asked me (the hot chic too) if we had read too much Friedman or too much Ayn Rand. Once we said yes the teacher asked if we were Libertarians. I love listening to my profs on Libertarianism, here is why.
There are two main arguments they use against the fundamental principal of Libertarianism (as I define it, the ability of all people to act freely in the market to spontaneously create societal good [as luck would have it this is the same definition I discovered that this hot libertarian chic uses too]). First, Libertarianism is too simple for today’s complex world. Second, Libertarianism is now two centuries old; its glory days died with the Great Depression. Let me deal with these both in turn.
Libertarianism is too simple
Upon analyzing the way our society is, I have concluded that this complexity is a result of the elite wishing to keep it complex. The minute these elites say it is simple, they are no longer elite. It should come as no surprise that the tool of creating this complexity is the government.
So, to protect their elite-ness, they have made the world more complex, via laws and also via their discussion of “heady” issues. An example of these heady issues is their common cry that unless you understand that you can never really know anything, like natural rights as described by Locke, you can never really ever understand anything about the world, or, put differently, you cannot be elite until you understand this moral ambiguity. Well, I am in the top 8% of my class, apparently I know something – and I know enough to say %*** the &*** elites! Oh sorry, let me stop swearing.
The world is fundamentally simple, and operates better as such. If there are too many regulations, you just have trouble. Market forces are not allowed to work properly to solve social ills. Libertarianism does advocate this level of simplicity, and thus it works better than anything else.
It’s old and dead, bury it already
This argument cracks me up! Here is how it works: The 18th century saw the rise of Capitalism; the 19th century abused capitalism, and the 20th century saw why Capitalism does not work, and why we should ban it all together in the 21st century. Now I have a disagreement with their interpretation, as I think the 20th most clearly showed the strength of capitalism and the death of socialism. This is clearly defined in the Cold War; however, it can also be seen in the areas of society that innovated the most throughout the last century. Let me quickly examine as an example: education and technology. (To confess this example was originally offered in class by the loveliest Libertarian I have ever met, but I agree with it and am throwing in some of my own stuff.) Education saw little to no innovation in how it was taught; it saw innovation (if you can call it that) in the administrative process of education. There are more education regulations, but quality is dropping. Technology saw great innovation, not in the administration but in how it works. Computers are faster now than ever before. The quality has improved. I care a lot more about quality of the product over the administration of the development of the administration for the product. In other words, capitalism still works to this day and is not dead. (However, it is because of this professor that I have found at least one reason to support the Drug War.)
(P.S. – Although this may be a really interesting discussion, I must admit that I was struggling to prevent drooling while listening to the hot Libertarian chic, and therefore did not do the argument justice in class, hence my posting it here, after allowing time to regain some composure)
(P.P.S. – Point of clarification about my last post. It was not intended to defend sales taxes. They are wrong, evil, and nasty stuff for more reasons than what I mentioned.)
Samizdata reader Jim Muchow answers my question about why Tony Blair does not do anything forceful in Zimbabwe
In hopes of resolving your befuddlement as to why Tony Blair is only willing to fight for American interests, not British ones, I refer you to your post Our good friends, the Police further down the page.
If Blair (or the British government in general) can’t or won’t protect landowners at home, why would they want to protect British citizens in foreign countries?
Wonderful site, by the way. It is refreshing to read commentary by people who DON’T have their heads up their ass. And using the list of links to other similar sites, I see I stumbled onto their nest.
JM – I used to be disgusted, [but] now I try to be amused
He has a point there.
An article in The Scotsman brings hope to the visually impaired. Scientists from NASA have built a bionic eye that could restore sight to the blind. An artificial retina has been developed which uses implanted arrays of 100,000 tiny solar cells in an attempt to replace damaged rod and cone cells. Volunteers will be given the first bionic eyes next year.
Rumor has it that Charles (Chuckie) Schumer may be among these first recipients because his actions indicate he is getting progressively more blind. To provide the most familiar visual landscape possible, his set will superimpose a flashing red NRA logo over everything he sees.
Andrew Dodge is not well pleased by some people’s views of ‘Lord of the Rings’
I feel I must wade into the sordid debate about Tolkien and Lord of the Rings. I am afraid there are some prevailing factors which will mean that the great man will never get the kudos due to him by fellow writers and the critics. The man has absolute no writer “cred”. He was not an ardent left, a pederast, pedophile, drug addict, raging queer, womaniser, sado-masochist or suicide prone loon. The man was an Oxford don who liked nothing more than smoking his pipe with a glass of something while he and others (C.S. Lewis) read their latest work. The man enjoyed the company of his fellow writers, his own creations and books instead of little boys, hookers or criminals. How can this man have sold so many books? His critics can only muster one insult to the good man’s name: he wrote for children. His books contained no rape, mass murder, transvestites or drug addicts. His books were quite simply a story of a battle between good and evil in a fantasy world. (Of course he is loathed by the snooty writer/critic for spawning the fantasy genre as well. In fact this may be his greatest crime against the written word.)
Of course the poor man gets it from those who should be on his side for the same reason as above. The happy-clappy’s who should like him for his “Christian” themes (and some do), instead loath him for his fantasy books. His books contain magic therefore must be evil. Not only that but they blame Tolkien for the genre, they blame him for Dungeons & Dragons and all other Role Play Games, computer games other than chess, heavy metal music, Columbine (& all other acts of teenage violence) and all other activities enjoyed by the young (mostly males). I am not sure if they have managed to blame Tolkien for sex yet, but that is only a matter of time.
Ironically Harry Potter maybe saving Tolkien from the happy-clappy wrath. I did a quick search on Google and found several sites praising the Lord of the Rings for its Christian elements. These sites were attacking Harry Potter as actually evil and satanic, and letting Tolkien off. The articles posted were recent, since the Harry Potter movie was released and at the time of LOTR.
Below I have included the letter I wrote to the Telegraph in response to an act of butchery in their opinion page. The author managed to include the arguments against Tolkien from both the left and the right.
_____________________
Sir,
I was appalled at the overwhelmingly inaccurate portrayal of Tolkien aficionados in the article (9th Dec Telegraph Opinion page). The piece was written with all the intelligence and accuracy of a tabloid article. It was boorish and nasty, coming across as a knuckle-dragging rugby player’s description of anyone who is at all bookish. In addition to maligning those of us who read and admire Tolkien the article goes on to insult AD&D and other role play game players, computer game players and heavy metal/hard rock music fans. As part of these insults there is a not so subtle jab at the young male Tolkien fan’s sexual preferences then bemoaning the lack of promiscuity, illegal drug use and anti-social behaviour in their lives.
If the article had stuck to the valid point it was making about the author’s designs for his book, it would have been much more effective.
Surely of all the possible outlets, the Telegraph is that last place you would expect to find this kind of sensationalist stereotype-filled diatribe.
Andrew Ian Dodge
Westminster
|
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.
|
