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]
|
Hooray for the new Star Wars film, Attack of the Clones. I haven’t seen it yet, it comes out in London on 16th May, but as a fan of the most successful film series of all time I already know that it will be about the increasingly cruel and devious Senator Palpatine, President of the Galactic Senate, who creates a false enemy – the clones – as an excuse to seize more power for himself.
This is excellent news for libertarianism. Why? In an age when classic fairytales, of the read-to-you-at–bedtime sort have become nearly extinct, the Star Wars trilogy, quite deliberately, filled that vacant space in the minds of children (and adults, I might add) with incredible success. The Star Wars films have been the most sociologically successful stories of all time – the characters, the underlying plot and the universe it depicted have become universally recognisable stereotypes of our age.
An entire generation has grown up, especially in the United States, taking much of their basic morality from these films. That morality, despite being simple and unoriginal, has become part of that generation’s meta-context. The new films are likely to be just as popular and influential with today’s children. This is the good news because any child growing up on the new “Star Wars films will absorb the basic idea that the most dangerous enemy of them all is a slick politician, who promises to make the world better by taking more power for himself, whilst being publicly apologetic about the necessity to do so. Years from now, when little Jimmy comes to cast his first vote, in the back of his mind will be the memory from the most powerful fairytale of his childhood – you can’t trust politicians, especially the ones who want more power. No matter what they say. And whilst that may not be enough to create a libertarian wonderland just yet, it certainly goes straight for the meta-contextual jugular.
And if that’s not good enough to make you love the new Star Wars film, let’s face it, Attack of the Clones is just too good a title to bash Britain’s New Labour with to resist.
In his first posting yesterday (Saturday May 4) on UK Transport, Patrick Crozier posts a challenge to libertarians everywhere. Can you build railways without compulsory purchase orders (or what Americans call, I believe, “Eminent Domain” laws)? I’m sure this question has received many answers over the years, but I haven’t come across one I liked. I’d like to. Maybe the answer is that railways are inherently anti-libertarian. If so, a pity, I say. Maybe railways can be run by libertarians, once they exist, but not built by them. Ugh!
And a question to Patrick, with whom I discussed the matter by phone the other day. What is it with airport landing “rights”, awarded, it would seem, by politicians, to the airlines that are cleverest at lobbying? What’s the story there? Surely there should be a market for the right to land (and, presumably, take off). If there was, what would happen? Would prices surge? Would they fluctuate a lot? Is there anywhere which already has such a market?
Proving that what goes around, comes around, Scottish socialist MP George Galloway is reportedly seeking legal advice following a comment from charismatic American actor John Malkovitch to the effect that both he and Robert Fisk were “the two people he would most like to kill”
“The source of Malkovich’s anger appears to be Mr Galloway’s condemnation of Israel’s action against Palestinians and his criticism of the west’s policies on Iraq.
What I find most striking about this is the uncanny counter-echo of Oxford-based Irish poet Tom Paulin who recently denounced Israeli West Bank settlers as ‘Nazis’ and called for them to be shot. Is there any difference? Well, as a matter of fact, yes there is. Mr.Malkovitch is highly unlikely to turn his words into action; if he did he would be guilty of murder and neither I nor anybody else could possibly even begin to excuse or rationalise it. Contrast to Mr.Paulin’s threats which were quite explicity acted out a few days later when a Hamas Death Squad shot dead four Israeli settlers in their beds, including a five year-old girl. There’s the difference. Regardless of the utterances made by John Malkovitch, Mr.Galloway will be sleeping safely in his bed. The gravest threat he faces is one of running up a large legal bill.
Oh, and by the way, at least Mr.Malkovitch had the guts to say that he’d be prepared to do the job himself.
[My thanks to the Brothers Judd for the link to this story]
Nurses, teachers and other state workers in the UK are about to be ghettoised
As a result of their being unable to afford to buy property in London, HM Government has ‘solved’ the problem by announcing that they are going to be coralled into shanty-towns consisting of factory-made pre-fabricated ‘homes’ (tin sheds and plastic boxes to you and I) to be erected on public land which will be set aside for the purpose.
I particularly love this bit of ‘Newspeak’ from the Housing Minister Lord Falconer:
“It’s comfortable, beautiful housing. I would like to see thousands built a year.”
Rumour has it that the public sector ‘tribes’ will be encouraged to earn extra income from tourists by performing native ritual dances, selling beads and arrow heads etc while said tourists tut, roll their eyes, agree that it’s all so terribly sad and that the government should do something aout it.
Bugger it!
But life, and blogging, must go on.
There are times when everything in your life comes together so sweetly you almost want to cry. On Friday this arrived by e-mail:
Dear Brian – My name is Miranda and I got your email address from the Internet and the Libertarian Alliance website.
I am most interested in the LA and got details about it from an English dominatrix who I met whilst travelling around Australia. She declined to give her real name as she was working in Australia without a work permit but was known as Madam Extreme. She told me she had been in association with your organisation about ten years ago and referred me to a number of your publications. Having read the views of LA particularly in regard to prostitution and drugs I can say that I am a capitalist anarchist and in line with your views.
I am English and also work as a dominatrix. I am still living and working in Australia, (also without a work permit) as I have a boyfriend here. He also agrees with LA views and we wondered if there was a similar organisation in Australia that you could recommend?
Well the main reason for writing is that I have been watching with interest the Unionisation of Sex Workers going on in the UK now. Sex workers there have formed a union called the International Union of Sex Workers which recently joined the GMB Union. Well I can tell you as a dominatrix working in Australia where sex work is legalised and licensed by the state and the projects for sex workers are funded by the state the situation is horrendous.
I work as a independent operator outside of the state system and not only because I do not have a work permit, but also because I do not want the way I work to be controlled by the state. Most of my Australian friends also operate outside the state system for the same reason.
The sex worker projects that are funded by the state allow only those views to be expressed that are in line with state ideology and are full of political correctness. There is a rule book about what can be expressed and what can not! As a female the sex worker projects are run by women only. Note that they are not run as self support groups by those in the industry, they are run by professionals licensed by the state and it is explicit in the employment contract of these state employees that they must not be sex workers themselves! Yet they run the projects! They are basically a bunch of what I call state feminist fascists who only want their idea’s to be allowed to be expressed and no-one else’s!
I refuse to use their services and employ a private doctor and buy my equipment from private suppliers. In other words I purchase on the free market which is also where I sell my services.
I also do not use the word “sex worker” to describe myself as (a) I do not sell sex and (b) I object to it because it is a politically correct term!
The sex worker projects here support the unionisation of sex workers which I also oppose because I believe that sexual services should operate on the free market not under state collective control. If a person operates as self employed there is not need for a union. I do not like unions any way, but those who promote them here say they are needed to protect the rights of sex workers who work in collective situations e.g. brothels, that are controlled by others e.g. owners/managers. And who are these owners/managers? Those individuals that are licensed by the state as being allowed to run brothels. The very situation brought about by the original legalisation of sex work now becomes the very basis for arguing that sex workers need to be unionised! Is this control upon control upon control or what? And guess who runs the unions? Yes the same state feminist fascist thought police that campaigned for the original legislation that first started to control the sex workers who prior to that had operated quietly and discreetly in the black/shadow economy. (Read for that the free unregulated untaxed libertarian market!)
Note that I am not talking about people forced into sex work and controlled by pimps. That is another issue and not allowed by LA politics anyway. But it seems to me that most of the sex workers that continue to operate in the now hidden shadow economy, like me, are natural born libertarians!
I know you can guess now that I am totally opposed to the legalisation of prostitution and the mess it has caused here and I am currently writing a paper about this and also my opposition to the unionisation of sex workers. I wanted to submit my paper to “Respect” the newspaper of the recently formed International Union of Sex Workers in the UK and guess what? It was censored. Why am I not surprised?
I was therefore wondering if the LA would be interested in taking a look at my paper with a view to publication …
I e-mailed Miranda back. Yes the Libertarian Alliance would love to consider any writing Miranda cares to send us. I remember the English dominatrix lady. She wrote a piece for us called The Morality of Prostitution. Please give my best regards to her if you see her again.
An internet search yielded two Australian libertarian societies, namely The Australian Libertarian Society and The Libertarian Society in Australia.
Also try these two Aussie-based blogs, Zemblog and The Catallaxy Files. It’s interesting the way that “legalising” something could actually make it worse. This has long bothered me with regard to drugs “legalisation”.
Oh, and could Miranda send us a photo of her no doubt great looking self? (I explained Samizdata’s policy on gorgeous women photos: we like gorgeous women photos.)
Miranda came back to me on Saturday:
Sorry I have to say no about the photo. I don’t want to be on the Internet in photograph form just yet. …
You win some, you lose some. But get this. She also said:
I’m on the Internet now listening to LBC and your good self is on there discussing drugs. Good debate! …
Crikey, you really do win some. Miranda the dominatrix, in Australia, listening to me! LBC Radio radio is not on the regular radio anymore here in London. It’s only, I had lamented to myself, on the internet. I only did the show down the phone from my kitchen rather than from a studio like they wanted, for fun and for practice. But before I was on I’d said here what and when I was on, and my huge worldwide fan base was able to tune in. So now it’s an official global fact. All drugs should be legalised, and I mean really legalised, not just “better regulated”.
Shame about the photo though.
One of my favorite movies is The Hunt for Red October. Lovely. You sit back and watch Cold Warriors get not just very cold, but very wet, very scared, and in a few cases very dead. In among it all an American Admiral played by Fred Dalton Thompson says, in a way that for some reason I find hard to forget (I guess that’s movie acting for you):
“This thing is going to get out of control.”
I know just how that Admiral felt. Charlie Banks of Nyack, NY USA, emails thus:
It’s an even more complicated situation than that (this is the kind of thing I learned early on back in my bartender days).
The Scots aren’t the only folks that make “whisky”… Canadian whisky is spelled the same way. Pick up a bottle of Canadian Club or Seagram’s VO and you’ll see that little “y” all by its lonesome on the end.
We Yanks, on the other hand, are of a mind with the sons of Erin in our “whiskey” habits. Woe betide the poor mixologist who would dare mix a julep or old-fashioned without something ending in an “ey.”
Congratulations. You’re now familiar with all four nationally-categorized varieties of whisk(e)y.
No Charlie. You think we all now have closure, but you don’t understand these things. Further e-mails can be expected from feuding Pacific Islands, different states in the purportedly “United” States, dissenting fragments of Northern Ireland, places in Africa we’ve none of us heard of until we learn that they have their own way of spelling “wiskee”. And can we assume that this alcoholic debate will be confined to the Anglosphere? What’s the betting the Czechs and Slovaks are already disagreeing about this? As Trevor Howard (playing Air Vice Marshal Park in another movie favourite of mine, The Battle of Britain) says, with equally mysterious memorability:
“They won’t stop now.”
I should have just e-mailed Liberty Log. I should have let David Farrer fight his own spelling battles. “This thing” has already sparked one international incident. Expect more.
There is no particular point to this post except as a sort of primer.
In a few minutes, I shall be commencing my journey to Cardiff to watch my team, Chelsea play in the FA Cup Final.
It is significant in that the result may be reflected in the ferocity or otherwise of my next few postings.
…convey my deepest and most heartfelt apologies to all Slovs.
To understand one woman is not necessarily to understand any other woman
– John Stuart Mill
Editor’s note
I agree with Brian Micklethwait’s insistence on getting the nuances of spelling and nationality correct. So I am sure he would want me to point out that there is no such thing as a Slovakian – the adjective is Slovak. 
As a citizen-journalist who lives five time zones west of GMT, I am often the last Samizdatan to get a crack at the day’s news. I read Fukuyama’s lame remarks in the WSJ this morning, but by the time I got home to write about it, everyone from Virginia Postrel to the sage of Knoxville to our own Perry de Havilland had already taken the time to thoroughly refute Prof. Fukuyama’s anti-libertarian screed.
But I am going to join the scrum anyway. Fukuyama criticizes the Cato Institute, accusing them of “propound[ing] isolationism in the ’90s, on the ground that global leadership was too expensive.” He points to a Cato analysis from 1991 that rejected the Gulf War on a cost-benefit basis and extrapolates from this one (1) data point that Cato is anti-war. Check out this excerpt from the Cato Handbook for the 105th Congress, which was written well in advance of 9/11. The authors criticize the lackluster response to previous state-sponsored terrorist attacks against the US (Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, etc.) and argue that state sponsored terrorism against the US should be treated as a matter of war and not as a criminal justice / extradition matter.
While Harry Browne and some other libertarians have elevated their antiwar rhetoric since 9/11, the Cato Institute has done no such thing. Consider these words from longtime Cato analyst (now their VP) Ted Galen Carpenter, posted to the site on 9/11:
The first order of business must be to determine who is responsible for these terrible acts and to order appropriate retaliation. Terrorist assaults of this magnitude should be treated as an act of war against the United States, not merely as a criminal justice matter. The President should immediately seek the full authorization of Congress to use whatever military force is necessary against the guilty parties. If the perpetrator is a government, the objective of the United States should be nothing less than the removal of that government. If the perpetrator is a terrorist organization without government sponsorship, the objective of the United States should be to track down and eliminate the members of that organization.
Fukuyama would have us believe that Cato thinks we ought to hold hands in a big circle and sing “Come on people now, smile on your brother” by Jessie Collin Young and the Youngbloods. Pacifism and isolationism are not the mainstream libertarian opinion by any stretch of the imagination, but it makes a convenient straw-man for Fukuyama to direct his puffery.
|
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.
|
