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]
|
It is a small matter really, just a trivial case involving some grocers who sold some fruit using Imperial rather than metric measurements. Yet the implications are staggering for the entire structure of British life.
Don’t co-operate in your own repression
Warning: explaining free markets and freedom is too trite and too simple! Yep, that is right…or at least according to an “unbiased” teacher of mine.
Last week we had to write an essay fro class answering the question, “The 20th century showed us the problems of freedom, as seen in WWI, WWII, and Sept. 11. Please explain the future implications of this problem of freedom, specifically in the policy realm.” In explaining the question for us, the teacher clearly (and wrongly) explained how freedom caused WWI and WWII and Sept. 11. He also said that from this we can learn that freedom causes societal chaos…we need government or a level of control to prevent freedom from causing this chaos.
Any reader of Libertarian Samizdata knows how many lies this statement contains. Is this teacher actually going to tell me that Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Mussolini or FDR and the results of their administrations were a result of freedom when the logical answer clearly would dictate the exact opposite?
Anyway, I wrote a very lengthy essay debating his premise about freedom causing problems. And today, I got my essay back, and his one and only comment on my paper was: “While I do not mind the fact that your essay debates my premise, and indeed I am glad to see it does, your argument is too simple and results in simple rhetoric about free markets equaling freedom, C+”. My twenty-six page essay that raised twenty separate questions weighing the costs and benefits of free markets vs. collectivist states in a clearly detailed manner was too simple for his liking.
My friend, who, in one sentence accepted the premise and explained the question in one and a half pages, was told that his essay reached the appropriate level of depth and understanding. Now while I am the first to admit page numbers do not attest to a paper’s level of logic (Marx wrote a lot, but did that make him logical? Short answer: no!), my paper was well reasoned and well documented. In fact, I took it to three of my other professors and asked them to read it for logic only. The verdict reached by each was that I had great logical writing in this piece.
The remark about my paper being too simple is merely a cover for his real thought: you are wrong in your belief of free markets. Is it any wonder why we foster such lack of thought in today’s younger generation?
Within the next few hours we will get our 100,000th visitor (as I write this we have already had 142,643 page views)… we would be grateful if the person who makes it 100,000 takes a screenshot and sends it to us.
We are small fry compared to Instapundit but that is not shabby for having only been around for four months!
In the last 72 hours we have had e-mail from USA, UK, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, Senegal, Pakistan and Australia.
It’s important for us libertarians to celebrate the fun that free people have and the good that they do, and not just to bitch about politics.
Natalija Radic is handling pornography very capably, I’m sure we’d all agree. Dale Amon and I have done stuff about music. Science and technology have been celebrated here, by both David Carr and Perry de Havilland.
But sport is one of life’s great pleasures, both to do and to watch others doing. Yet sport has here mostly been complained about, by David again, picking on a sport he doesn’t like.
Last weekend’s sport was, for me, mostly good, but it started badly. I awoke on Saturday to learn from my Ceefax that England had just been slaughtered in a one-day cricket game by New Zealand. Was this an omen? At Twickenham later in the day, England were to play Ireland at rugby and experts were tipping England to win heavily. But Ireland killed Wales two weeks back, and the last time heavily-tipped England played Ireland, Ireland won. Might they sneak it again? No worries. England routed Ireland with a huge first half display (31-6) and went on to win 45-11 despite appearing to lose interest with half an hour still to go.
With this win England went top of the world rugby rankings, jumping ahead of … New Zealand! I can remember when England couldn’t lose at cricket to New Zealand in their worst nightmares, and couldn’t win at rugby against New Zealand in their wildest dreams. The New Zealand rugby team, remember, is no mere gaggle of sporty blokes who happen to like a bit of rough-and-tumble on a Saturday afternoon. This is the mighty All Blacks, the very definition of New Zealand nationhood and manhood. And now England are better than them. But worse at cricket. Strange times.
Chelsea, the club which plays the sport (football) which David Carr does like to watch, were meanwhile beating Depressing Northern Town Who Used To Be Far Better 3-1 in the sixth round of the FA Cup, and on Sunday my Tottenham Hotspur beat Post-Industrial Wasteland Rovers 4-0. Chelsea and Spurs were then drawn against each other in the quarter-finals. I’ll keep you posted about that, and perhaps David will too.
On a more serious note, I’m struck by the parallels between what David was objecting to about the Olympics and what Natalija’s opponents were saying about pornography. Both were opposing the thing in question because of what it looked like, and what it might lead to. Porn is sometimes faked up to look like something truly nasty – non-consenting sexual aggression – and hence might lead to that truly nasty thing for real. And sport often looks like Nazis being nasty, so what might that lead to?
But isn’t the point of sport that it takes a whole facet of the human psyche (especially the male human psyche) and sucks it into a morally neutral cul-de-sac with no real-world consequences? Those athletes marching through the stadium with their flags and anthems, or those fans baying in hideous, collectivist unison may be behaving a lot like Nazis, but they are not in fact Nazis. Sports fans like me talk about people getting “slaughtered”, “routed” or “murdered” (see above), but that’s only metaphorical. No actual countries are going to be invaded. No Jews are going to be gassed. Okay, sport plays with psychological fire, and sometimes it gets out of hand. In South America, footballers miss crucial World Cup penalties and get murdered by crazed fans. In Britain, unpleasant political collectivists spend their lives trying to turn the pseudo-mayhem of football into the real thing. But the real-world mayhem that results is nothing compared to the horrors of big-time political collectivism, in those miserable parts of the world where such stuff still matters.
In the fantasies of collectivist politicians, huge crowds shouting in huge stadiums only shout in their honour. Such persons must hear the roars in a British football stadium with something close to despair. They slog away at organising their silly political meetings and party rallies, and at most a few hundred political hacks and obsessives show up. Yet thousands turn out for a dreary, lower division football game. The biggest crowd in Europe in recent years was in Paris, but it wasn’t for any politician; it was when France won the World Cup.
I believe that in Iran not long ago, the government made a collective, collectivist fool of itself by trying and failing to stop an international football match. Too much collective adoration of something that wasn’t them or their boring and annoying opinions, you see. Sport only gets political if the politicians take against its essentially non-political nature, or try to use it by pretending that the crowds are really theirs. Wise politicians, even collectivist ones, leave well alone. At least, they say to themselves, the crowds aren’t shouting against us. (Might that be why some libertarians also dislike sport? Big crowds expressing hostility to the wrong things?)
Most sports fans know that sport is only sport. They go mad, scream at each other, smash into each other (if they’re playing), … and then meet up for a drink afterwards. It may look nasty for the duration, but it’s only a bit of fun, to be wallowed in when your team wins and shrugged off as only a game when they lose. We’re just blowing off steam. It’s not real. Well, it is real. In fact it’s great. It’s great fun. But only, in the end, that.
Which is exactly the libertarian defence of pornography. That too only has a tiny few nasty real-world consequences. Mostly that too is just fun.
With sport as with porn, we libertarians should draw our lines carefully. On the one hand, there is that which merely looks evil, might lead to evil, might evoke memories of evil, might lead people down the path towards evil, and which is perhaps therefore in some sense morally evil now. We can argue about the nuances of all that, but no one should be sent to prison if they lose such arguments. And then there’s that which is uncontroversially, aggressively, definitely evil, now, which should be prevented or failing that be punished, either by the law or by force of arms.
I refuse to end on that grim note. To end instead with some more consequence-free fun and to ram home just how much fun sport can be, let me tell you what my sporting highlight of the weekend ended up being. It happened not in a rugby game, or a football or cricket game, but in David’s accursed Winter Sports. The however-many-metres-it-was five blokes’ skating race. Four blokes were racing in a bunch for the medals. Bloke five, an Australian, was way behind. Then, just as they were all about to flash over the winning line, blokes one, two, three and four all collided with each other in a crazy, slip-sliding tangle. Bloke five, being far enough behind to skate around it all, but not too far behind, won. The silver and bronze medallists got their gongs by sliding over the line horizontally. David would surely have enjoyed that and maybe he did.
…the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Having verbally horse-whipped me to within an inch of my wretched life, Scott Rubush has been magnanimous enough to pen not just an apology but a generous offer.
Whilst I remain stubbornly proud of my satirical side-swipes, I must confess that I often find myself sympathising with Scott’s lament. When one contemplates, even for a moment, the sheer ubiquitousness of the egregious sewage that passes for so much of what we call ‘modern culture’, it is very easy to form the view that, despite the wealth of technology at our disposal, we are nonetheless living in a cultural and intellectual stoney-desert.
But step back, and a wider panorama can be seen. As my fellow Samizdatista, Perry de Havilland has pointed out, the cultural and intellectual worth is out there, you just have to look for it. Is that any different to the way it has always been? I suspect not. I believe that gems have always been hard to find and the only reason they seem so much rarer now is because the staggering growth in material wealth and technological development has made the desert we live in so much bigger and more diffuse. The gems are still there, you just have to dig through more dirt in order to find them.
And I believe a lot of people feel the same despair that Scott feels at the conspicious absence of anything that even passes for serious thought in our mainstream media. But, believe it or not, I take this as a good sign not a bad one; it reflects the sclerotic nature of the established orders not the debasement of the human mind. That human mind is exercising itself here, in cyberspace. This is where the great debates are happening; this is where new ideas and radical thinking are being forged. If you want to know who will be the next Socrates or the next Aquinas then keep blogging, Scott, it may be you.
And whether you keep blogging or not, I will be both happy and honoured to share that ‘pint’ with you if you ever fetch up here in the ‘Big Smoke’ (provided the EU hasn’t forced us all into drinking litres by then).
…and a bit of hijacked satire, but more on that bit later. Scott Rubush replies to a pair of articles by David Carr and myself. In response to my view that technologically unsophisticated societies do not produce great thinkers Scott replied:
To which I would say, show me the modern Socrates, and the 21st century Aquinas. When I turn on the television, I don’t see sages like these; I see Oprah and Jerry Springer. When I turn on the radio, I don’t hear the Beethovens and Mozarts of our generation; instead I hear Britney and the Backstreet Boys. Ultimately I think that’s what we could expect from the democratized, progressive materialist society advocated by D’Souza. Is that really progress? Certainly D’Souza’s society would be capable of genius, but his value-neutral “dynamist” regime would do nothing to steer its citizens toward it. The result would be the social equivilent of Gresham’s law, where bad culture drives out good culture.
Ask and you shall receive, for the names of the modern Socrates and the modern Aquinas are Frederick Hayek and Karl Popper. I turn on the radio and I also hear Aaron Copland and Lisa Gerard. I watch the cable television and learn of astonishing breakthroughs in genetic sciences and hear it explained for people like myself who did not study that field. I read accessible, inexpensive paperback books like David Deutsch’s ‘Fabric of Reality’, purchased not from some sanctum of gnostic wisdom but available in a bookshop inside a train station. If all you see is Oprah and Jerry Springer then you need a new remote control, Scott (and quickly!). I also see a programme about anthropology and the Leaky family in Kenya, and with the push of a button I see a superb Japanese version of Macbeth and then a remarkable show about the fusion of Irish and Senegalese music. It is all there at the touch of a button and at prices the great majority of the population can afford.
Bad culture does not drive out good, it just looks for a different market niche. The low brow, scandalous, scurrilous and bawdy Hogarth prints of one era are the ‘biting social commentary’ of the next era. Back in the good old days, ‘good culture’ was not more pervasive than now as it was never available to more than the ruling classes… and ruling classes by their nature exist not to ‘steer its citizens towards’ good culture but rather towards a culture of deference to the rulers. Mozart is thought of now as ‘good culture’ but not because of anything intrinsic to the music, for it was once regarded as subversive. Rather it is because of who listens to it. One hundred years from now patrician critics might lament the fact people turn their backs on classics like Pink Floyd.
Far from being ‘value neutral’, a dynamist society must underpin itself with objective morality as the guide to the evolving new. Only this way can we know when ‘tried-and-true’ becomes untrue, and when to leave well enough alone, for just as the ‘tried-and-true’ evolves, so to does understanding. The greatest of many errors made by Marx was highlighted by Hayek when he pointed out that to remake society entirely by revolution implies that the revolutionary can know by the application of scientific reason what will always be the best, and therefore make it so at bayonet point. Yet society is not the product of reason, but of complex evolutionary processes. Once this is understood Marx’s ‘scientific socialism’ is revealed to be nothing of the sort but rather an exercise in self-delusion, a ‘fatal conceit’. This is also why when people refer to the remarkable events which came to a head in 1776, I have always depreciated the term ‘American Revolution’ which is so popular in the USA. I prefer the term ‘American War of Independence’ used more typically in the rest of the Anglosphere: What Jefferson et al did was free the thirteen colonies from the stasis imposed by the British Crown, not to radically remake society at bayonet point as would soon happen in France in 1789 and later in Russia in 1917, but rather to allow it to evolve in a manner consistent with the very best of the underlying civil society’s values. The Constitution of the United States did not overthrow society, it enshrined its values and attempted to protect it from the encroachment of the state and the worst aspects of democratic mob rule, even if not entirely successfully. But that is also why I am not a conservative… the authors of America’s Independence and others forsaw the problem intrinsic to any democratic system, that as Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) put it:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The situation has developed in which nation states forcibly appropriate over 50 per cent of a nations wealth and yet this is seen as legitimate due to a ‘democratic mandate’. Yet the reality is that not only is it immoral, it is unsupportable in the long run. As a libertarian I see that society must continue to evolve away from the all-consuming centralised state and towards a more spontaneous, truly capitalist and less rigid system. Just as the wealth gobbling nations of the world grow fatter by the year, the seeds of a freer future are also becoming more visible almost by the day. I suspect the difference between conservatives such as Scott and libertarians such as myself is that whilst we both abominate the statist impositions of the left, he sees a perpetual rear guard action of fighting the laws of the left with laws of the right as a viable option, whilst I see a very different future. I see the disintergration of the politicized legal edifice over which left and right fight as being a long term economic inevitability, not necessarily from catastrophic collapse (though most likely Japan and some of Europe will do just that) but from the gradual technologically driven creeping irrelevance that will see that what follows the current order is something both familiar and excitingly different. Unlike Scott, I see this as a good thing as I expect the good and enhancing aspects of culture to survive because such things are objectively good and efficacious.
Which brings me to Scott’s ire regarding David’s remarks. I suspect he took ‘And what did the Romans ever do for us?’ a tad too literally. David was using Scott’s earlier remarks to reference a well known bit of British humour in the form of an extended skit from Monty Python’s Life of Brian and thus was only indirectly addressing Scott.
And now for something completely different…
Fellow Samizdata contributor and cunning shyster to the cognoscenti David Carr has written recently and at length why he dislikes the Olympics and I agree with some of his remarks.
However I do not find the Olympics entirely without its attractions…
Catriona LeMay
If the Americans want to continue to be a Great Power then they must surely adopt European methods.
In order to be a feared and mighty force in the world the EU:
“…should become a great power that will not take up arms at any occasion in order to defend its own interests”
When will these arrogant, unilateralist Americans learn to grow up and stop using military power in order to defend their interests? Doh!
BraWarstm! Nice Will Vehrs over on Blog Watch 2 makes a request for a Valentine Day Party report and next thing I know I have caused an international incident. So do Megan and I get those cool light-sabre thingies?
Just call me Chaos Girl
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
– Thomas Jefferson
Any British Isles bloggers within range of London who are interested in getting together with the cream of the bloggerati on Saturday, 23rd February, should e-mail us at admin at samizdata.net” as soon as possible for information. We can probably handle a few more.
Blog this, you bounder! Bloggin’ ‘ell!
A veritable verisimilitude of Bloggers from Blighty Samuel Johnson
|
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.
|