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]
|
Steve runs quite possibly the strangest blog in the entire blogosphere, rejoicing in the name of Scrofula (morbid condition featuring swelling of the glands), tagline: News, Rumours, Stupidity and Muck.
He is particularly adroit at, um, interesting graphics (I particularly like his ‘Conan the Egalitarian’ and ‘David Blunkett as Robocop’). Many of his works are rather splendid animated gifs: watch Robert Fisk come to grief again and again! Make sure you visit his picture archive for maximum juicy goodness. Steve has a much better idea for a new EU flag than that silly barcode…
Uncle Joe loves EU
I imagine at least a few have noted my near absence from these pages over the last few weeks. This is the difference between those who earn their keep from their words and those who do so by other means. As I live by consultancy, I at times have very few hours left to myself. When there are other projects at hand, time allocation can get very dicey. One very big “free time” project is nearing completion and as it is part of a public event I thought I’d invite you all to come. I’m running a track on Novel Propulsion Systems at the National Space Society‘s 2002 International Space Development Conference in Denver in a few weeks.
Here’s what I’ve put together for my little corner of it:
NPS track, Sat May 25, 2002
—————————
Morning Session
====================================
0900-0925 Energy, Economics, and Space Transport: Evaluating
Alternative Space Launch Systems
Keith Lofstrom, www.launchloop.com
0930-1025 Nuclear Propulsion Systems Panel
Tony Rusi, Bigelow Aerospace
Dr. Steven D. Howe, Hbar Technologies, LLC
1030-1100 Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems
Richard Westfall, Galactic Mining Industries, Inc
Afternoon Session
====================================
1400-1425 The Ultimate Exploration: Approaches to Interstellar Flight
Dr. Geoffrey A. Landis, NASA Glenn Research Center
1430-1455 Magnetic Sail Flight Experiment
Dr. Robert Zubrin, Mars Society
1500-1525 The Launch Loop: People and Machines to Orbit and Beyond
Keith Lofstrom, www.launchloop.com
1530-1555 Cost Performance of the Hydrogen Rocket Launcher
Dr. John Hunter, Starbridge, Inc
Herb Chelner, President of Micron Instruments Inc.
1600-1625 Tether Launch Assist
Dr. Robert P Hoyt, President, CEO,
& Chief Scientist, Tethers Unlimited, Inc.
1630-1655 Breakthrough Propulsion Physics
Dr. Geoffrey A. Landis, NASA Glenn Research Center
(presenting for
Marc Millis, NASA Glenn Research Center)
====================================
See you there!
When bad men combine, the good must associate else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle
-Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
The European Union continues its march into self parody with the planned introduction of a giant barcode as the new flag of the would-be superstate.
Suddenly one of my favourite shows of the moment, Dark Angel, starts to take on a whole new symbolic meaning… for those of you who do not watch this excellent series, the heroine named Max (played by the lithe Jessica Alba) is a transgenic transhuman on the run from a clandestine US government genetic engineering operation called Project Manticore. Max is assisted by a streaming video samizdata called ‘Eyes Only’. Significantly, all the escaped transgenics like Max have an identifying barcode tattooed on the backs of their necks.
Are the grey suited faceless ones in Brussels sending us all a message?
Tolerate v.tr. 1 allow the existence or occurrence of without authoritative interference. 2 leave unmolested 3 endure or permit, esp. with forbearance
Accept v.tr. 3 regard favourably; treat as welcome 4 a believe, receive (an opinion, explanation etc.) as adequate or valid. b be prepared to subscribe to (a belief, philosophy etc.)
The assassination of Dutch cultural nationalist Pim Fortuyn has raised many questions about the nature of tolerance and liberty. Orrin Judd suggests that Fortuyn was not a libertarian as some have claimed and in this I agree. Fortuyn was indeed informed by some very libertarian principles but sought to apply them within a statist context that placed him at least somewhat within the stranger wing of a Euro-conservative fringe with more than a few touches of the ‘classical liberal’ about him.
In truth Fortuyn defied easy categorisation but in some ways his views on immigration were just dealing with the inherent contradictions between distributive statism’s prerequisite of homogeneity (the need for a quantifiable unit called ‘citizen’) and the dis-incentivization for cultural assimilation and social integration inherent in welfare statism. Much of what he said has also been said by Ilana Mercer (who is a top flight pukka libertarian with whom I just happen to disagree regarding the implications of immigration in a free society) as well as many cultural conservatives.
Orrin Judd takes the view that the essence of Fortuyn was just about advocating sexual licence (a word loaded with political meanings I reject) whilst himself not tolerating religious based distaste in others for Fortuyn’s overt homosexuality. Yet having read some of what he said and trying to filter out the political populist crap that all democratic political figures encode their words with, it seems clear to me that what Fortuyn really opposed was the fact within the Muslim community in the Netherlands were elements who wanted to translate their lack of acceptance into intolerance.
Fortuyn was not insisting Muslims or for than matter Christians like Orrin Judd accept, which is to say agree with his sexual predilections, just that they tolerate them and for him this was non-negotiable (and I happen to think he was correct in that view). And therein lies the fatal flaw of all democratic state centred societies rather than classical liberal civil societies with the state just as ‘nightwatchman’… if political manipulation of the state gives the more cohesive sections of that society the ability to back their lack of acceptance with force (i.e. to make the laws of the state reflect their views), then a legitimate lack of acceptance becomes illegitimate intolerance. Fortuyn feared that in a democratic state, a cohesive alien Muslim cultural bloc lead by people for whom society and state were logically one and the same, would start to move the state away from being the guarantor of tolerance for people largely not accepted: of which homosexuals are a classical example being as they are both ubiquitous and always a minority.
Tolerance however is not a value neutral condition, far from it in fact. To tolerate something is to not accept it. One does not tolerate one’s friends, one accepts them. I tolerate people listening to heavy metal music even though I think most of it is drivel, for the simple reason it is none of my damn business what other people listen to. It only becomes my business if they are playing it loudly in the next house at four o’clock in the morning but then it is not a matter of ‘tolerance’ any more, it is a matter of unwillingly imposed real cost regardless of the type of music involved. I tolerate smokers because if they want to kill themselves and smell like ashtrays, that is their business not mine. I do not accept it as a good idea however. What is wrong is to use the violence of the state to prevent people doing what they want to themselves and others of a like mind and there is the problem with some conservative Christians and more or less all radical Muslims: they want to criminalise what they see as sin rather than criminalise the violation of the objective rights of others. Opposing that is not intolerance because tolerance does not mean tolerating intolerance, any more than it is tolerance to tolerate anything which actively seeks to violate your self-ownership. If you believe homosexuality (or eating pork or looking at pictures of naked women) is a sin, well fine, that is up to you, feel free to not engage in gay sex (or pork dinners or Playboy). If that then induces you to vote for people who will use the violence of the state (laws) to discriminate against homosexuals (or ban pork butchers and Playboy magazine), well that is not fine.
Just remember that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. In a democratic state, no one group ever monopolizes power for ever. If the people who, on the basis of religious non-acceptance, want to legally disadvantage (i.e. no longer tolerate) certain people because of their sexual peccadillos… and then use their transitory political clout to actualise that, well don’t be too surprised if one day the object of that discrimination tries to use the state to legally discriminate against the religions which are seen as the source of the intolerance towards them. In a democratic state, any large cohesive voting bloc with intolerant rather than just non-accepting views is a potential threat. The more truly democratic a system is, the greater such threats are.
Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign
– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
So Tony Millard was just joshing and I fell for it. Sheesh, coulda been worse. I could have believed that absurd post about Pim Fortuyn thinking he was in danger, or the even more risible one which claimed that a football corresponent for a respectable newspaper would employ the word “f+ck”.
Daniel Antal, a Hungarian economist, wrote in regarding Brian Micklethwait‘s article “Give me a definition of racist”:
I had been busy trying to get an interview appointment with Pim Fortuyn, the recently assassinated controversial Dutch politician whom I formerly recommended as a new type of Liberal to listen to for Samizdata readers. I am also working on a paper which shall analyse his political manifesto, which has a shortened version available in English.
Well, should be clear, Fortuyn was a nationalist. Fortuyn had similar views on Islam as Rushdie or Naipaul, although he expressed them in populist political language. This was mistaken for racism by some journalists. You have cited the Simpson interview, which terminated on BBC when Fortuyn asked Simpson about his definition on racism. Later Fortuyn sent Simpson away for “showing disrespect to him” and did not allow the interview to be finished. However, today’s Independent have revealed the last sentence of the interview, clearly cut a couple of seconds on BBC before the end. It goes:
“Give me a definition of racism. You don’t know what a racist [is] because you have Negroes who are Muslims , you have yellow men who are Muslims, you have white men who are Muslims, so how can you connect the Muslim religion and culture with race? Then you are very stupid, Mr. Simpson.”
Of course regarding this example that Daniel Antal mentions, one can speculate why the interview was cropped where it was. To me it seems obvious that it suited certain people to have Pim Fortuyn dismissed as an incoherent fascist who is immune to rational discourse, rather than someone who asked inconvenient questions that the great and good in the media do not have answers for.
For another example of this, Sean Gabb‘s recent exchange on Radio 4 with Charles Moore, Editor of The Daily Telegraph was edited to the point of altering it beyond recognition. Much in the way Stalin would have former Bolsheviks airbrushed out of photographs when they did not continue to represent The Party Line, it seems that British national state media simply edits unwelcome dissent out before broadcasting. It would seem that when the true ‘loyal opposition’ actually dares to oppose, that cannot be allowed to sully the airwaves. They would rather give voice to Charles Moore, that way there is less risk of any real and intellectually rigorous dissent being heard.
At least Brian Micklethwait seems to have the contacts to actually get his voice live and unedited on talk radio shows to put his unalloyed, full fat, non-diet libertarian perspectives out on the statist clogged airwaves.
Libertarian Alliance press release: Telegraph says ‘f+ck off’ to criticisms of ‘Free Country’ campaign
Responding to criticisms of his media group’s “Free Country”campaign, a Telegraph journalist has told Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance to “f+ck off”.
The Libertarian Alliance, which is Britain’s most radical civil liberties and free market policy institute, has criticised The Daily Telegraph’s “Free Country” campaign on the following grounds:
· That it lacks focus
· That it consists of short, unconnected articles unlikely to shift pubic opinion
· That it lacks the passion and commitment of campaigns run by the leftist media
· That, despite talk of “building alliances”, no effort has been made to recruit allies for the campaign from outside the Conservative shadow cabinet and a few “well-connected mediocrities”
Dr. Gabb, a Libertarian Alliance Executive Committee member, made these criticisms in an article sent out on the Internet on Monday the 6th May 2002. He sent copies with a covering letter to various journalists working for the Telegraph group. His covering letter reads:
Dear Sir,
I send herewith an account of a debate between me and your Editor. Though the debate was cut to pieces before being broadcast, the account has been posted all over the Internet.
Yours ever, Sean Gabb, London, 6th may 2002
Posting at 8:15am, Patrick Barclay, who is football correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph, e-mailed as follows to Dr Gabb
Dear Mr Gabb, Would you please f+ck off? Yours very sincerely, Patrick Barclay
Commenting on the e-mail, Dr Gabb said:
“This is a surprising communication from a media group that claims to uphold certain standards of civility in journalism. I have no doubt, however, that it is the only response I shall get. I also believe it accurately reflects the general attitude of the Telegraph group to criticism from its readers”
Also commenting, Dr Chris R. Tame, Executive Director of the Libertarian Alliance, said:
“While we have no objection to even robust media treatment, this sort of foul-mouthed response to a very polite e-mail is unacceptable from a media group that is always willing to denounce others for impoliteness. The message was sent from an official Telegraph e-mail address (patrick.barclay@telegraph.co.uk), and must be taken as an official Telegraph response to our criticisms. We call on Mr Barclay’s manager for an explanation and apology.”
If full moons make people go bonkers or turn into wolves, maybe the lack of a full moon makes people po-faced and excessively serious.
Jason Soon*, who like the fragrant Natalie Solent is a high quality blogger who is on the side of the angels, also does not seem to have figured out that Tony Millard was actually joking. The fact Tony’s article appeared on Libertarian Samizdata was a significant clue that the wine tasting apparatus might be lodged in the cheek.
*[Ed. Jason’s archive links do not seem to be working at the moment (a frequent problem with blogger alas), so in the meantime just go to Jason Soon and scroll down to the article Un-libertarian samizdata to see why we are spanking him]
Now to the serious part of my blog post:
Tony Blair and David Blunkett have promised to scrap all British restrictions on firearms ownership, affirm the state’s commitment to individual civil liberties, repeal the Town and Country Planning and Land Act and replace the statue of proto-fascist Oliver Cromwell in front of Parliament with a statue of Margaret Thatcher wielding a sword and standing astride the prostrate body of the fallen Arthur Scargill…
😀
As someone who knows Tony Millard outside the blogosphere I can vouch for the fact that, yes, he was kidding in the two posts you find less agreeable (the reference to Chianti should have been a dead give-away) . As with any good joke though, there was an underlying serious point to both of them, although I believe it had little to do with the proposed increase in petrol prices or depopulation of Britain.
His was a Pythonesque (Monty) take on the type of discourse committed in the name of libertarianism and various other ‘-isms’. That is a quasi-economic analysis, perhaps based on reasonable assumptions somewhere along the line but with a destination firmly in the barking moonbat land.
None of the above disputes, let alone refutes, your points about such increases being anything but a form of taxation, which we know is evil , and I agree that no-one in their right free-market mind would consider this as a solution to any economic problem.
So let’s carry on fighting for Liberty in our varied ways. Tony Millard’s may be on the funny side, but the serious point is there. You just have to dig deeper for it. How British!
…to disagree with two of his first three posts, but I can’t help that. Here on Libertarian Samizdata I samizdate in a Libertarian way, and that involves criticizing what I see as ideas opposed to Liberty. You were kidding about the proposed sixfold increase in petrol prices, right? That’s called a tax. Taxes take people’s money by force and spend it on projects that meet with the approval of the taxers. Wrong in itself, and anyway the taxing powers always dribble the money away or spend it on rubbish, as is likely to happen to anyone who gets a pile of money they didn’t work for. Switching around different taxes as you propose would not affect that in the slightest.
I don’t know if there is anything artificially low about the price of red diesel. If it’s low because of subsidy, sure, junk the subsidy. But I suspect what you mean is that it is at is natural price and only looks odd compared to the absurdly hiked price of non-farm diesel. The natural price of a commodity is a package of information telling us all sorts of useful facts about its availability and usefulness. Censoring that information is like censoring speech. For a little while it seems to work, but under the surface all sorts of resentments will build up at pressure points, and now the censors themselves cannot judge where the pressures are. Your proposal, which I hope was facetious, would have effects quite different from your list. I don’t claim to know in any detail what they would be (although the idea that it would augment the status of the musclebound is absurd: when ten men come in to do badly the work of the cool machine you used to have, you aren’t going to love those men), but I don’t have to know. I just have to look at how rich and successful India became from its determined attempted to protect hand-loom weaving. Not.
As for Britain versus New Zealand, the problem for us is not that we have a large population but that we have an ageing population. Eventually the ratio of bedpans to nurses is going to get out of hand. Immigration is one possible solution, although it strikes me that it does not so much solve the problem as put it off for thirty years. As an alternative I’ll bang on once more about one of my favourite themes, namely what a good thing all round it would be if welfare would stop killing all the humble jobs. In this case, servants.
The Pim Fortuyn quote hit the button, though.
|
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.
|