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]
|
Here’s an observation which I think deserves wider currency, which I got – very appropriately considering the nature of the observation – from my mother.
Prams. Which way do they face?
In the olden days, prams faced inwards. Babies, when being walked by their mothers, or nannies or au-pairs or whoever, faced backwards, back to whoever was doing the walking. Prams were also quite bulky, and babies were shielded (cut off?) from the dramas of the outside world. Now, most prams are far smaller and skimpier, and they mostly face outwards, away from whoever is doing the walking.
Given what has been learned about the truly astonishing rate at which the growing brains of babies suck in information from all around them, is this not a quite important change of social custom? Does it somehow portend a world of looser and less intimate family relationships, and greater (and maybe also earlier) engagement between growing children and the outside world, beyond their little family households?
My mother disapproves of this change, because she considers the relationship between children and their mothers to be of crucial importance. (She was one of the Founding Mothers of the National Childbirth Trust.)
Me, I don’t know. I think there’s much to be said for getting to know about the world early on and feeling at ease with its excitements, opportunities and complexities, and not just getting acquainted with your mum. But I think my mum is definitely on to something. I completely agree with her that this is a fascinating little fact about the modern world.
Thoughts anyone? Does Natalie Solent have anything to say about this, what with her being a mum herself?
Incidentally, when checking out the link to the NCT, I noticed that they still use the same logo, based on an Eskimo wood carving that my mother brought back from a trip to Canada. It’s of a mother and child. It may even be Mary and Jesus, I can’t remember. And the child? It’s facing mother.
When Dr Johnson described patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel, he ignored the enormous possibilities of the word Reform.
-US Senator Roscoe Conkling
Antoine totally missed my point, and bounced the point that I did make back at me as if I thought the opposite of it. Those mixed married people weren’t looking for trouble? That’s exactly my point. But trouble – this-thing-is-bigger-than-both-of-us trouble – nevertheless engulfed them. It is the nature of that trouble, and what I think is the nature of that trouble, that now seems to elude Antoine. He thinks that I hold all individual Muslims individually responsible for all the Islam-v-the-Rest grief that’s happening now. How many times do I have to say that I believe the opposite of that? He jumps to all manner of really quite insulting conclusions about what I think ought to be done about all this stuff, when I have not even reached any conclusions, still less stated any, beyond that it would probably be better to talk about this stuff than not, and that the situation is indeed serious. (Although if someone wants to tell me that even to talk about this stuff only makes things automatically more serious, I’d be fascinated to hear from them.) Is Antoine perhaps falling into the trap, in the manner of John Simpson when he interviewed Pim Fortuyn, of thinking that because I “sound like” certain other nasty people, such as the British National Party, that I automatically believe in all their vile and aggressive policy proposals?
Antoine’s ideas about how welfare exacerbates all this may be right, and they may not. Personally, I don’t think that putting an end to the British welfare state would solve this problem. There are plenty of countries where there is no welfare state to speak of, yet the grief between Muslims and the Rest is as grievous as ever. And part of the problem is that Muslims run their own private sector welfare systems, in a way that Libertarians would thoroughly approve of – except that, in among running youth clubs and keeping young men out of trouble and off drugs, they also use their resulting influence to turn a few of the same young men into suicide bombers and terrorists.
I think, to generalise, that what we may have here is an argument about whether “society” exists in a serious and sometimes seriously life-wrecking form, or not. I say that it most emphatically does. And Antoine, the way I hear him, is arguing as if that is not just wrong, but so obviously wrong as not to be worth even considering. For me, the Islam-v-the-Rest THING is a classic example of an over-arching social fact that is capable of ruining individual lives. It is, for example, capable of taking a happily married couple whose behaviour towards each other and towards everyone else is impeccable, and making them take opposite sides in some huge fight they had no part whatsoever in starting. And if that isn’t society asserting itself, I don’t know what is. But maybe I misunderstand Antoine. If so, he now knows how it feels.
Perry, please umpire this. Stop us if you think it’s getting annoying.
As for the general point of Antoine joining in with this blogging business, despite its regrettable timing last night when he was blogging fit to bust and I was blogging fit to bust about how no-one else was blogging, I’m delighted, truly delighted. That posting about the impact of the Le Pen campaign on French crime was a fine example of something that only Antoine, in London libertarian circles, would know about and bother about. Does everybody realise that Antoine is fluent in both English and French? Yes he is.
What, London libertarians may be asking, about Christian Michel (who runs the excellent Liberalia website)? Well, yes, he’s bilingual in English and French and libertarian and dead clever. But he is a quite different sort of intellectual personality, with nothing like Antoine’s enthusiasm for intriguing titbits of news, indeed for journalism in general. Antoine could feed – and I suspect would greatly enjoy feeding – a steady stream of brilliant news items from Francophonia into the Anglo-blogosphere, and I really, really hope that he will. If the price I have to pay is to have frustrating rows with him in which I say (among other things) “A” – and he says “no that’s all wrong – the situation is A!!”, well, I can live with that.
Paul Marks takes a rather more jaundiced view of Dubya than David Carr
I agree that the enemies of President Bush tend to be rather evil. However, that does not mean that the Bush Administration is very good.
As far as I know they have not even tried to cut (let alone abolish) any Welfare State program or get rid of any major regulation – they seem to be just marking time before the Democrats take control of the White House again.
Still this better than the first Bush Administration (the Bush with the “Herbert” in his name). That Administration increased taxes and added lots of new regulations (such as the infamous Americans with a Disability Act).
Paul Marks
Paul Marks read David Carr‘s article and points out that one can regard the remarks being made by the leaders of the EU…rather differently!
The honesty of Mr Prodi and Mr Chris Patten should be welcomed.
It saves a lot of time if, instead of going through a big debate on whether the E.U. is aiming at setting up a superstate and crushing as much liberty as it can, leaders of this organization stand up and boast of their ambitions.
If the only the Chancellor in the latest Star Wars film and been so honest. Picture the scene – he stands before the Senate and says “I am a Lord of the Dark Side of the Force – I am behind both sides in this new war. I plan to use the war to place the whole galaxy under my heel and grind it into the dirt”.
Real life is often odder than fantasy.
Paul Marks
According to the BBC website, 11,990 people have voted on whether Roy Keane, the captain of the Republic of Ireland team at the soccer world cup in Japan (who can’t play England unless both sides win or lose in the semi-finals) should have been dropped by his manager or not.
Last week about 3,000 voted on whether Britain is ready to join the euro and 55 per cent said yes. If England are knocked out playing badly, by a EU country, I predict a swing to the euro. If England win, then Mr Blair can bamboozle us in during the celebrations (he’ll have about three years if the last time is anything to go by). Go the Eurosceptic should hope for dignified defeat at the hands of Brazil in the semi-final.
I don’t like “Yes you did” “No I didn’t” conversations in newsgroups so I’m wary of doing so here. Brian refers to the horrors faced by mixed-married couples in Yugoslavia. I think we’ll find that these are precisely the people who didn’t start looking for an ethnic or religious war with their neighbours. Oscar Wilde would no doubt have suggested that matrimonial strife was amply sufficient. Alexander the Great tried to solve racial problems by ordering his officers to marry Persians. Napoleon suggested that if the French all married blacks then the issue would be ended once and for all. Both were poisoned for their pains. Next time someone compares these tyrants to Hitler I’ll dig out the reference.
As for my awkward posts: suck eggs Brian! and let’s look forward to Zinedine Zidane (a Moslem who’s idea of terror is firing footballs into a goal full of terrified innocent defenders) versus Nicky Butt in the second round, assuming Cameroon don’t cripple half the England team in the ‘friendly’.
Anglosphere writer Jim Bennett weighs in with another fine salvo against EU Commissioner Chris (oh no, not him again!) Patten. Rather than repeat my earlier comments last week about the wretched Commissioner, just take a look at what Mr Bennett has to say. What impresses me so much about Bennett’s writing is that he manages to maintain a civil, pleasant tone even when trashing ideas he regards as dumb.
Oh, and changing the subject, another excellent article, if one has the time, is Andrew Sullivan‘s Sunday Times column on the vast wealth of what he calls the Western world’s “overclass”. Sullivan makes the point – obvious to we libertarians if not to collectivists – that the tremendous wealth of Bill Gates and the like is not made at the expense of we humbler mortals, but is part of an ever-increasing pie. However, Sullivan frets that the growth of such an overclass” is a problem, since society can become fragmented if the very rich are seen as detached from the mores and concerns of the middle class. A sort of mirror-problem of the “underclass”. I am not entirely sure he is right, but agree this is worth thinking about. It is also instructive to look at what Sullivan says about the proportion of tax paid by rich Americans. Completely undermines the idea that supply-side tax cuts are unfair. If anything, the rich were entitled to a bigger cut than that which Bush gave them last year.
However, Sullivan backs away from the obvious conclusion – the moral tax rate is Nil!
Nice profile of UK scientist Dr Terence Kealey in the latest online edition of U.S. technology and venture capital magazine Red Herring, which draws out Kealey’s claim that it is wrong to suppose science will die without generous funding from the taxpayer. The man knows what he is talking about, having worked as a research scientist at a number of British institutions.
The profile is refreshingly fair-minded. In fact, this edition of Red Herring is excellent, with lots of good stuff on biotech, nanotechnology, telecoms and much besides. It is generally pro-free enterprise without being tiresomely ideological and is often a good way to pitch capitalism to the neutral observer. I once met its main editor and founder, Anthony Perkins, in his Californian home about five years ago and am impressed to see how his publication has surged over the years. More power to Red Herring’s elbow.
Harold Wilson said Labour was a crusade or it was nothing. I try not to think about his assertion. The logical implications are too painful.
-Roy Hattersley, 1997
Romano Prodi wants tax harmonisation in the EU and a single foreign policy. Does it mean we will all have to surrender simultaneously?
Meanwhile Chris Petain calls for all Europeans to discard their national identities and learn to love the EU and the Blair government is busying itself with it’s plans to ‘regionalise’ England (both matters liberally linked to in the ‘sphere).
All of a sudden, the EU looks like a project in a big hurry; sort of like campers desperately trying to get their tent erected in double-quick time ‘neath brooding storm clouds.
Perhaps, with one big puff, we can blow their house down.
The world is a complex and confusing place oftentimes. It can be so hard to know for sure whether or not one is doing the right thing. There are, though, some yardsticks and one of them is the ‘European street’ which has risen up in protest at a visit to Germany by George Bush.
I’m not entirely sure what track Mr.Bush is on, but when he induces rent-a-mob to take to the streets with slogans like ‘Nature Before Profits’ we can all be pretty sure that he’s on the right one.
Personally, I’d like to see him rub some salt into the wounds while he’s about it. Perhaps he could play up the ‘cowboy’ image? (Is this Germany? Where are all them folks wearing them leather pants?). Better still he could echo Reagan in the 80’s but instead of calling for the end of the Berlin Wall, he could call for the end of the Welfare State. Then he could fly back to the US, chuckling to himself, while watching Berlin explode in his rear-view mirror.
|
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.
|
