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]
|
Christopher Caldwell has written an endearingly daft article that demonstrates why the libertarian vibe cannot fail in the long run to carry all before it.
Today, the Swimsuit Issue is as fat as Vogue and as dirty as Playboy: 300 pages of wall-to-wall near-nudity. Only the most determined adolescent could work his way through it single-handedly. And now that it’s outright pornography, of course, it’s become a respectable American institution.
Of course the issue here, from a libertarian perspective is… well… that there is no issue. The fact it is indeed a ‘respectable American institution’ only goes to show how far the libertarian meme has infiltrated into civil society. Conservatives and socialists alike can sneer that libertarians are an irrelevant fringe because we do not have self-described libertarian governments, yet the signs of our influence are on newsstands everywhere and at the same time less people by the year can be bothered to legitimise the democratic bean counts statists think are so important.
‘Dirty’ does not register on the libertarian aesthetic radar except when looking at pictures of wallowing hippos. Playboy is not ‘dirty’, it is just a somewhat tedious magazine which features pictures of enhanced young women, a curious artifact that once featured astonishing beauties like India Allen, Saskia Linssen and Teri Peterson, but is now just another wildebeeste amidst the herd on the news rack. Porn is one of those non-issues, along with feminism, gay rights and racism, that makes libertarians yawn. As issues these things just make no sense within a meta-context that sees the world in terms of choices and natural rights. There are no gay rights or women’s rights, just rights and the choices that spring from them.
People like sex. People pay for what they like. Add sex to your product and people will like it. Stand in the way of that particular economic/ideological steamroller at your peril. So when people like Chris Caldwell ruminate about the ‘dirty’ swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, he is writing his article on the front of the aforementioned steamroller whilst moving backwards with unseemly haste. It is rather like expecting a description of a woman as ‘immodest’ to have any cultural relevancy. That might work in Iran but in the Western World? Nah. Not even in Peoria and Milton Keynes any more. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it, but don’t expect all too many other people to give a damn. If you want to stick to reading Inside The Vatican then be my guest. To each their own.
Of course I have indeed purchased the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated and so should you if you like looking at beautiful women. If you have a problem with that then that is exactly what it is… your problem.
The danger of the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA)
By Paul G. Allen
Before anyone remarks about this being Off Topic for the various mailing lists I’ve sent this to, please think about the effects this could have to Linux. In addition, even though many of you may not be US citizens, the recent happenings with international laws against cybercrime, copy protection and the like could make this US law relevant to you as well, not to mention the impact to your company should you not be able to do business in the US because of such a law. Therefore, it really is on topic, and the time to think about and act on such things is before they are written in stone, not after.
In case you haven’t heard, the SSSCA is before the Senate Commerce Committee, with a hearing earlier today (for the story and several links, including a draft of the bill). The SSSCA, if passed, would basically require that all interactive digital devices, including your PC, have copy protection built in. This protection would not allow digital media from being viewed, copied, transferred, or downloaded if the device is not authorized to do so. The bill also makes it a crime to circumvent the protection, including manufacturing or trafficking in anything that does not include the protection or that would circumvent it.
Even if there is no SSSCA, the entertainment industry as well as the IT industry both agree: we must have copy protection of some kind. While I do not disagree that many movies, songs, and other media are distributed illegally without their owners consent, and that copyright owners need some sort of protection, this is not the way to fight the problem, and doing so can, and probably will, have drastic and far reaching consequences for not only the IT industry, but the entertainment industry and the consumer as well.
Many of us have become increasingly involved with, and dependent upon, Free Software (as in GNU GPL or similar), especially the Linux operating system. This type of software is distributed with the source code, allowing anyone to modify it as they choose and need. Linux has become popular to the point that many companies, especially those that provide some kind of service on or for the Internet, rely upon it heavily. Because of the free nature of Linux, and other Free Software, it is extremely difficult to place actual numbers on how many systems are out there employing such software. Some of you, like me, can approximate the number of such systems in your own company or realm of knowledge. So how does this relate to the SSSCA?
As any programmer worth his/her salt will attest, given the resources, anything that can be programmed into a computer can be programmed out, or worked around. In the case of copy protection such as the SSSCA would require, the resources needed for circumventing it is simply the source code for the operating system of the computer, and/or other source code for applications used on the computer (such as one of the many free video/audio layers available). Now given the wording of the SSSCA, along with the DMCA and other supporting laws, it stands to reason that such Free Software would suddenly become a target for legislation. Such legislation logically may require such software to be judged illegal. Such a decision may have serious consequences to the IT industry as well as the entertainment industry and the consumer as well. Little may the consumer or entertainment industry know, but much of the technology they rely upon today is provided at low cost by Free Software. Take that software away, and suddenly doing business costs a lot more, and eventually the consumer just will not be willing to pay for it.
Now aside from the consequences to Free Software, what about the consequences to those who do not use such software. Imagine that home movie you shot last weekend on vacation. Now you wish to send that home movie to a relative, friend, whoever, over the Internet, or place it on your web site for all to download. Well, with many of the protection technologies suggested, this would not be possible, or would be extremely difficult. Some of these technologies require digital watermarks to be placed in the media, for one example. CD burners, digital cameras, etc. can not make these watermarks. The copy protection works by checking for such a watermark, and if it does not exist, the system either will not allow the media to be played, or will not allow it to be transmitted over the Internet as the case may be. So much for sending your cousin your latest home movie, or allowing your whole family to see it from your web site. An additional problem is all current media, including CDs and DVDs, you may currently legally own would not work on proposed new CD and DVD players with copy protection hardware. You would not be able to copy CDs, tapes, or anything else that you legally own in order to exercise your right to fair use, so as to listen to that CD on the cassette deck in your car.
I could go on, but I think this is long enough and has given some food for thought. Besides, I have work to do. Election time is near, so think about what that person you are voting for represents. Think about actually writing a letter to a congressman or other legislator, to a magazine (I actually had one published once, so its not beyond the realms of possibility), newpaper, etc. Many people have the attitude that they can do nothing and make no difference. Well, I say to them they are right, because there are so many people with that attitude, that none of them do anything and they make no difference in doing so. The ones that make the difference, are the ones taking a stance, and the ones taking the stance are the ones that are causing these ridiculous laws to be passed. Guess who those people are?…
Welcome to The United Corporations of America.
[Paul has been circulating this article among the various Open Source mailing lists and we at Samizdata felt it so important we’ve gotten his more than willing permission to reprint it in its’ entirety. What is happening should be of concern to all Libertarians and open source folk as well as civil liberties advocates of all stripes. The media industry is up to nothing less than buying congress so they may seize control of a resource (the Internet) they could not otherwise conquer. If they wished to build their own infrastructure from scratch, using their own money, we would have no complaints. That is not even remotely a picture of what they are attempting.
We agree wholeheartedly with law school professor Glenn Reynolds position. The media industry is ripe for a RICO. This is far more real than the so called Enron “scandal”. Enron failed to buy support. The market took its course and they are gone. The media industry is apparently much better at the bribery game and have a number of congressmen (Hollings and Stevens in particular) actively on their payroll. – Ed]
The regular Samizdata e-mail addresses seem to be working again, so please resume using our usual reply mail (see side bar) and the other Samizdata addresses if you know them, rather than the emergency e-mail address previously posted. 
Apparently, somebody claiming to represent the Scottish National Liberation Army has admitted responsibility for sending packages of ‘caustic substances’ through the post to Tony Blair and several other MPs.
I wouldn’t go as far as to call this an attempt on the life of Our Glorious Leader (especially as he is in Australia at the moment) or, if it was, then it is a pathetically ham-fisted one.
No, if reports are accurate, then it is obviously some sort of pointed message. But what message?
Things are getting a bit racey over here.
Someone terribly raffish and clever (it was probably Oscar Wilde or Samuel Johnson) once said that a man should be judged not on the quality of his friends but on the quality of his enemies.
I cannot recall having heard any previous exposition on the Internet from the Vatican before, so this must be of some significance. For me, the following quote of Page 2 stands out:
“But the church also finds fault with the Internet’s embrace of libertarianism. “The ideology of radical libertarianism is both mistaken and harmful,” the Vatican said. “The error lies in exalting freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values…. In this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear.”
A few years ago, I had a discussion with another Libertarian the result of which was that we agreed that the Internet was the new Printing Press. I don’t imagine anybody is going to be burning at the stake but the parallel is looking more prescient every day.
[My thanks to Samizdata reader Boris Kuperschmidt for the link.]
I have only a fuzzy and rather amateurish understanding of Chaos Theory but I do believe that it attempts to explain the process whereby a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and, some time later, as a direct result, a hurricane lays waste to Poland. Or something. In other words, it is an exposition on how tiny, insignificant events can, through a cumulative series of knock-on effects, eventually become really big, major, world-changing events.
On the assumption that I am right (or, at least, not too hilariously wrong) then I think we are witnessing something in reverse by the UK governments sudden resurrection of the proposed ban on fox-hunting.
Now it is fair to say, that fox-hunting has been under the cosh for some time now. It has been priority No.1 for animal rights groups for years but, since Labour came to power in 1997, it has also been the target of the Labour left who see it as a decadent hobby for the cruel and arrogant rich; a totem of class privilege. This is a charge which is neither true nor fair but it has played well within the context of the Politics of Envy and, even if it were true, it deserves to be protected from state bullying.
But, faced with some determined opposition, the government has shied away for forcing through a ban of the sport in England and, until the last few days, the issue appeared, if not dead, then dormant.
All of a sudden, though, it is back on the agenda and with indecent haste, the government announcing a House of Commons Free Vote on March 18. Not through any sense of principle, mind. Tony Blair is known to be, at best, agnostic on the issue. No, it has everything to do with the War on Terror.
Blair has committed himself to supporting a US attack on Iraq but knows full well the unholy ruckus that support is likely to cause within his own party. This is a trade-off. Blair is telling the left that, if they keep quiet over the fate of Saddam, he will throw them some red meat in the form of the ban on fox-hunting they have always lusted for. In other words, give me Baghdad or the fox gets it.
It may not work. First, cynical ploys are the life-blood of the left and this may simply not be enough to buy their silence. Secondly, the principled opposition that rallied before is already rallying again and dark mutterings of civil disobediance fill the air.
But is this not an example of Chaos Theory only in reverse? Crazed terrorists kill thousands of people in America and, as a result, an old English tradition faces state-mandated oblivion.
Money can’t buy you friends, but it can buy you a better class of enemy
– Spike Milligan
Lists of wisdom culled from half a lifetime of banging around doing this and that are all the rage on the Internet just now, and why not? They can be a good laugh, and coming from libertarians they can even smuggle bits of the libertarian meta-context into the mainstream of polite society. So here are some of my bits of attempted wisdom of this sort, in no particular order:
(a) The importance of a country is inversely proportional to the splendour of its postage stamps.
(b) Nothing ever happens in rooms with matching chairs.
(c) Nothing guarantees the ruin of a large institution more certainly than the construction for it and by it of an architecturally magnificent custom-built headquarters. (I got this many years ago from a book by the famous Professor C. Northcote “work expands to fill the time available for its completion” Parkinson. But two questions: What was the Enron HQ like? And: How come Microsoft is still staggering onwards?)
(d) Speculative booms spike and begin their plunge downwards at the exact moment that the rule which all the suckers were following (“being a Lloyds name is a license to print money” (see (c) above), “you’ll never lose if you buy bricks and mortar”, “get your money into dotcoms, mate”, etc.) gets to me.
(e) Movies advertised with quotes in big letters from movie critics, rather than the names in big letters of movie stars, are best avoided.
(f) Any movie described by a movie critic as containing no ideas is packed with ideas, but of a kind that the movie critic disapproves of.
(g) “Courageux” is the French for stupid.
(h) Anything described as “the new rock and roll” is not now very big, and is about to get smaller.
(i) “Interesting” is English for stupid. (Well maybe not always, but it is when my mother says it.)
(j) Bad food is bad for you. Good food is good for you. To avoid doing bad to yourself when you eat bad food, eat an equal amount of good food, thus cancelling out the badness of the bad food. (This one is untrue. Sorry about that (see (m) below).)
(j) Whenever an “alternative” view is promised, it will be the same damn view as the last one, and the one before that, and the one before that …
(k) Whenever anyone says “there is no question of ” whatever it is, it means that there is and someone has just asked it.
(l) Actually following your dream is fine, but avoid using these words out loud. “Following your dream” is American for stupid.
(m) “Sorry” is the English for, well, pretty much anything an English person happens to be thinking. It seldom means that he’s sorry (see (j) above), although it does sometimes.
Splendid blogger Ben Sheriff from Layman’s Logic has produced a wonderful page called Slobogoogling for Profit and Pleasure that is a menu of juicy morsels for all self respecting anti-idiotarian bloggers to use as prey. Each of the signatories of the petition to free ethnic clenser and mass murderer Slobodan Milosevic is listed in easily Google-able form. By their own words they shall be revealed.
I have myself written that I do not think the Hague is the correct place for the Vile One to be tried (in fact I favoured his summary execution in Republic Square in Belgrade), but the people who signed this document actually think Slobo is the good guy… they are the modern Mitfords, no different from the apologists for Hitler and Stalin from the 1920’s to the 1960’s.
Ben is a splendid blogger and I am reliably informed that he is still agreeable company even when exceedingly drunk, which surely makes him an indispensable asset to the blogosphere! 
Ben roars at Slobo at the Brit Blogger Bash
 Our usual e-mail address is temporarily down, so in the meantime we can be contacted at samizdata-at-cloister.dircon.co.uk
Beauty of Grey criticizes a couple of our recent offerings:
This sort of shrill extremism is a big reason why most people view libertarians as a third party wacko fringe group, just on this side of the Larouchies on the respectability scale. The sneering condescension Perry displays probably won’t help their poll numbers any, either.
Firstly it was Brian Micklethwait, not me, who wrote the first piece ‘Beauty of Grey’ mentions. Also the fact is that the majority of libertarians in the USA who deign to vote actually vote Republican, not Libertarian. Ever heard of Ron Paul? That should be obvious and as a ‘small l’ libertarian that is of no concern to me.
I would have thought the jocular tone would have made it apparent that Brian was not seriously supporting the idea of people being mugged. He is just saying that if people advocate and legitimise political actions that result in a more violent society, he is not going to be too concerned if they reap the harvest they have sown and I certainly agree. That ‘Beauty of Grey’ should decry our lack of moral relativism and therefore our sentiment that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions in the ballot booth, is certainly rather revealing. But that is not the same as Brian actually advocating mugging. Victim disarmament supporters “deserve” being mugged because they are responsible for people being helpless when confronted by an emboldened mugger, not because Brian is going to organize bands of libertarian muggers to roam the streets looking for ‘liberals’. To read his remarks any other way strikes me as bizarre.
Secondly, ‘Beauty of Grey’ clearly has no idea what modern self-described socialist parties who are in power in various western European countries actually advocate and do. He can delude himself that the pervasive incrementalist approach to regulating economic activity that pretty much defines the Democratic Party (and elements of the Republican Party) in the USA is materially different to that of the French or British or German or Swedish government’s ‘democratic socialist’ model but it is not. The only difference is that there is more effective political opposition to it in the USA.
Modern ‘democratic socialism’ is a strange hybrid between paleo-socialist aims of outright national ownership of the means of production and the national socialist approach of allowing nominal ownership of the means of production but regulating the ways in which they can be used to require the support of National Objectives: control by overt ownership vs. control by regulation… but the end result is still control by the state, it is only how you get there that varies. How does this differ from the ‘liberalism’ of the Gore/Kennedy/Schumer way? These are people who constantly advocate ‘National’ solutions driven by regulations rather than free markets. The only difference is the language they use to describe what they want.
That Gore’s plank does not explicitly lay out the pervasive role of the state, and that ‘Beauty of Grey’ therefore thinks that there is a huge difference between the ‘liberal’ and the modern democratic socialist, says more about ‘Beauty of Grey’s’ credulity than the political process he describes. Vast areas of economic (and private) life are subject to regulation and thus the owners of the means of production find their control ever more circumscribed by the state as it tells you who you may or may not trade with, who you may hire or fire, how you educate and interact with your children, how (and if) you protect yourself from harm, the manner in which you may marry, how you must clear the snow from property you do not even own in front of your house, how you install plumbing and electrical wiring in your own home etc. etc. Yet we are to believe that the sanctity of private property is alive and well and living in ‘liberal’ constituencies in the USA.
Or maybe I just missed the plank in Gore’s platform that called for a state seizure of the means of production and an abolition of private property? They do try to sneak things by you in the fine print, those scoundrels.
I could not have put it better myself. Beauty of Grey’s remarks demonstrate exactly how effective the incrementalist approach is. Al Gore wants exactly what Gerhard Schroder, Tony Blair and Lional Jospin want. And what do Gerhard Schroder, Tony Blair and Lional Jospin all call themselves? Socialists.
If Beauty of Grey is going to talk about ‘the fine print’ it would behoove him to read it first. Perhaps he should start by getting the author right on things he criticizes.
SFOR seem rather good at raiding Croatian banks and overturning democratic election results it dislikes but it seems the NATO troops in Bosnia i Herzegovina are rather less good at capturing war criminals.
If there were any French forces involved, no doubt Karadzic was tipped off. What a disappointing waste of time.
|
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.
|
