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]
|
Another bombing attack in Israel has left 19 people dead, many of them children. Scores have been maimed and blinded by the bolts and ballbearings that are always packed into the explosive mix just to press home the indiscriminately homicidal intent. This is unleashing of hell by instalments.
The Israeli government has promised a response and, as I type these words, tanks are once again rolling into the West Bank. But to what end, I wonder? To what purpose? What is this squadron of Merkavas going to achieve by trundling around Jenin or Tulkarm boldly seeking an enemy that has no intention of engaging on the battlefield? How long, this time, until those same tanks come lurching back to their base like snarling, frustrated guard dogs that have just watched an intruder clamber over the perimeter fence to escape them?
There is a ‘Groundhog Day’ feeling about all this. Bomb attack followed by rolling tanks, followed by withdrawal, followed by bomb attack and so on and…well, that seems to be the emerging pattern.
How strange that a military force so famous for its elan and innovation appears to be so leaden-footed, paralysed even, in the face of this new war? I cannot help but think that Israel’s current crop of leaders, veterans of ’67 and ’73, are still fighting the last war; as if they are waiting for the Palestinians to don uniforms and march on Jerusalem for a turkey-shoot.
Well, that ain’t going to happen because this is a whole new ball (bearing) game. Hamas wants Israel to bleed and she will continue to do so unless Sharon and his cabinet get it into their heads that Soviet-backed Syrian infantry divisions are yesterday’s news.
It may seem odd to find an answer to this question in a book published in 1889, but if one can ignore merely local labels of party, Trevelyan expressed well the way in which consensus can be overturned by the cumulative effect of many small efforts at persuasion.
“But the outward aspect of the situation was very far from answering to the reality. While the leaders of the popular party had been spending themselves in efforts that seemed each more abortive than the last, –dividing only to be enormously outvoted, and vindicating with calmness and moderation the first principles of constitutional government only to be stigmatised as the apostles of anarchy, [Here my analogy temporarily loses it as some of our more enthusiastic brothers leap to their feet and cry, “Way to go, baby! Down with government! Anarchy forever!”]–a mighty change was surely but impeceptibly effecting itself in the collective mind of their fellow countrymen.
“For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in the main.”
– Sir George Otto Trevelyan, Bart, The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay.
I came across this neat invention by a company calling itself Moller International which looks rather fun and a great way to beat those traffic snarlups which are getting worse and worse in London. It looks like something out of a Robert Heinlein science fiction novel from the Fifties. Terrific.
The widely reported attempt by the state to extravagantly expend the list of state bodies with access to e-mail and telephone intercepts has been withdrawn in the face of strong cross-party opposition from politicians with a modicum of respect for at least the fiction of civil liberties.
However it is very important that people not judge the government just by the laws it has passed but by the laws it has tried to pass. The Regulation of Investigative Powers Act (RIPA) is bad enough as it stands without the latest astonishing power grab by the state, yet it shows once again if anyone doubted it that no matter what the state says about its modest intentions when taking upon itself new powers, the belly of Leviathan is filled with an insatiable hunger for more.
Bob Ainsworth, the Home Office minister is using The Big Lie technique to claim this is not in fact about crushing civil liberties but ‘protecting’ us all, so do not kid yourself that the advocate of a Panopticon Britain will give up so easily. What we need protection against is the British state or we will soon have a system of pervasive surveillance and intrusion that rivals that of the INS and IRS in the United States. Tony Blair was not joking when he promised to bring us ‘joined up government’. The line being drawn between those dots being joined up runs through the centre of our lives.
 When the state watches you, dare to stare back
Harold Pinter is a well known British playwright, a scourge of the Tories and impassioned voice for the statist left. None of this matters one jot to me as the world is full of people declaiming incoherent left wing world views. He is also a signatory to the free Slobodan Milosevic petition, which makes him an apologist for Europe’s most prolific socialist mass murderer since Joseph Stalin. That most certainly does matter to me and to any rational non-idiotarian who views support for mass murderers as prima facie evidence of off-the-scale immorality.
So one would think that this would put Harold Pinter beyond the pale in polite society in Britain, right? I mean if telling a mildly racist joke ends your political career, then presumably showing solidarity with a man who ordered the systematic raping of Croat and Muslim women in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the slaughter of tens of thousands by government backed Serbian einstztruppen must mean there is hardly an open door in Britain for such a man.
Er, no. It means you get mentioned in the latest list of honours. This ‘non-political’ award by the British state is of course replete with political meaning. If you are a vocal left winger then standing up for a mass murderer is regarded as little more than an endearing eccentricity that in no way detracts from being ‘The Great Man of Letters’. This sort of thing is exactly what I do not dislike the British political class.
I hate them.
Ahn Jung Hwan, take a bow. He misses a penalty in the early minutes of the game, and then he scores the golden goal that ends it in extra time. What a story. South Korea 2 Italy 1. France, Argentina, Portugal, and now Italy. Who’s next in the cull of the Great Soccer Nations? Brazil? We wish. (Brazil play England in the next round, early in the morning on Friday.)
As for doing something about poverty, Antoine, maybe regular folks are better off giving the World Cup their undivided attention, but I think that we libertarians ought to be able to do better than that. In pursuit of such positivity I will tonight be attending a lecture organised by the Institute of Economic Affairs to be given by the great Hernando de Soto. Expect a report here, and hope also for a picture, of one of the truly great men of our time.
I did my best on the radio the other day, that is to say I tried to do my best. I pointed out that the Trade Justice campaigners were only fighting symptoms, and ignoring the “underlying causes” of why this nation (South Korea being a fine example) does well economically, while others do badly. (For a country that has done badly look no further than North Korea, who played with distinction in the 1966 World Cup Finals in England but who have since faded away football-wise, and done a hell – and I do mean hell – of a lot worse than that economically.) However I wasn’t persuaded by what I said. These trade justice campaigners are at least fighting some symptoms, even if not all or exactly the ones I would have liked.
I remember how Amnesty International used to be accused of the same thing. They too used to fight individual cases with individual faces, while carefully ignoring the ideologically divisive matter of what makes nasty governments nasty in the first place, and well done them. Amnesty went into decline, at any rate in my eyes, not because it “fought symptoms” and ignored the “causes” of tyranny, but because its literature switched from featuring photos of unjustly imprisoned poets and tortured opposition politicians from far away places to having photos of already much celebrated celebrity supporters from the world of showbiz, and because it branched out into the perhaps correct but in my opinion utterly unrelated matter of campaigning against the death penalty. Also, since the end of the Cold War, the enemy went from being Tyranny to being Chaos, and writing begging letters to Chaos asking it to be nicer doesn’t work so well.
Oh well, live and learn.
Also, British TV today is full of the video of a firefighting airplane in Colorado crashing after its wings had exploded and fallen off, killing all three on board. So no more jokes from me about people starting fires.
Brendan O’Neill asks, “Why is blogging a right-wing thing?” and adds various unflattering remarks about us, our guns and our mid-life crises. As I said to him in a private e-mail, I would dearly love to rend his gobberwarts.* But there’s a problem. I agree with him. He says:
“I have always suspected that the right-wing blogging phenomenon is a result of the right’s increasing isolation from the mainstream – from mainstream politics, mainstream journalism and mainstream debates. Over the past 10 to 15 years, traditional right-wing views have become ever-more unpopular, as Third Way and consensus politics have take centre stage. The Reaganites and Thatcherites who were in the ascendant in the 1980s have found themselves out on a limb in an age where we’re all supposed to be caring, sharing, non-argumentative, environmentally-aware centre-lefties. ”
You can’t say truer than that. It’s like being a sheepdog on a sensitivity training course these days. Pah. But after this strong start the limitations of Mr O’Neill’s mindset soon become clear:
“And rather than build an effective and coherent opposition to the new political orthodoxies, some on the right seem happy to retreat into the ‘Blogosphere’, from where they can throw insults at their enemies without having to challenge them fundamentally.”
Huh? Just what sort of fundamental challenge do you think I was putting up before the blog? Cleaning the toilet in a right-wing way? Non-multicultural clearing up after breakfast? The point about blogging is that it costs next to nothing, anyone from housewives to executives can do it, and you don’t need to go through an editor. Mr O’Neill’s disdain for such low-intensity warfare comes through in his repeated use of the word “challenge”:
“…the very nature of the Blogosphere … means it is best suited to poking fun or poking holes in the mainstream media, rather than actually challenging it at a serious level.”
Er, yes. Such a relief. As I write this post now I know that it is well short of the serious and weighty response that I could be composing were I Gladstone reborn. How nice that I’m not, and it’s just a blog post that I can get done before nipping round the shop for some more milk. For all his romantic attachment to the spirit of 1798, Sir Brendan the Serious has all the attitudes of a nobleman demanding that these oiks put down the longbows and fight properly (with the very important caveat that first they have to buy the horse and the armour i.e. get a journalism degree and a proper job.)
“…it’s safe to say that The Guardian – now the most mainstream, pro-government paper in Britain – won’t be quaking in its boots.”
No, but it’s turning red and shuffling about. Did I ever tell you the story of Matthew Engel’s column that was laughed right out of the Guardian archives?
“…it means that many on the right will end up simply talking to themselves, rather than building a real opposition to the Blairs, Clintons and Schroeders of this world. That is one of the reasons I have a lot of time for Iain Murray. Iain and I disagree on many things, but his Conservative Revival weblog was a good stab are thinking about actual alternatives to New Labour and how such alternatives could be reconstituted as an opposition.”
He means proper politics again. Join a party. Become activists or local councillors or journalists. Get a proper job. (Not that I have the slightest objection to Iain Murray (May his sword arm be ever strong!) or anyone else doing these things. But it all boils down to play nicely! To which I say, “Shan’t!”
“In short, I think blogging is a right-wing thing as a result of the right’s increasing isolation – and as a result of right-wingers’ fancy for short, sharp, pithy attacks on an enemy that, in fact, they don’t feel like they can take on.”
Classic guerilla tactics. And a classic guerilla error is to be tempted before you are ready into full scale battles that you are certain to lose.
Whoah, brakes on. Perhaps I’m in danger of letting my military metaphor push me into conclusions I don’t really believe. Although I do think the right wing three quarters of the blogosphere does indeed do much of its work by pinpricks, it may have its greatest effects through conventional means. As Brian Micklethwait says, ‘Blogging is going to impact seriously on all this, by identifying non-left and libertarian journalistic talent, giving it a start, training it, and then feeding it into the mainstream media.’ So come on Brendan, gis a job.
*As Terry Pratchett fans will know, not as much fun as it sounds.
(Given that Brendan O’Neill threw down two gauntlets in my direction, by sending me duplicate e-mails, one addressed to me alone and one as a member of this mighty Libetarian organ, I feel that I am entitled to scurry out of his way and squeak from the sidelines in duplicate as well. So an almost identical post to this one also appears in my blog.)
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
– Benjamin Franklin
Or: We must preserve our freedoms or the bad guys win.
– P.J. Connolly, InfoWorld Magazine
Brian remarks that no one posts him advice about what to say about Third World poverty, but that he was relatively flooded with info about the US soccer team. This is a good sign. Worrying about the US soccer team is a relatively harmless past-time. (Revelling in their defeat of Mexico might be dangerous in some places however). The libertarian answer to what radio listeners should do about the Third World is basically “do nothing”. The three main obstacles to enrichment of people in the Third World fifteen years ago were:
1) the skirmishing of the Cold War (which I think was justified by anti-Soviet forces)
2) the absence of the rule of law
3) trade barriers and a belief that socialism was better than capitalism for developing economies
The first is redundant.
The second can only come about by internal pressures or by the imposition of direct colonial rule from the only country whose constitution I would trust: Switzerland. Realistically this means, the Africans are going to have to sort it out for themselves.
The third is very simple. We oppose Bush’s trade tarriffs. We want the European Union Common Agricultural Policy abolished immediately. We should also try to stop the IMF and the World Bank from financing welfare state programmes in countries that can’t afford them (and never will afford them, if they try to leap from pre-industrial to welfare-underclass in one go).
BRING ON BRAZIL!!!!!!!!!
I agree that Logan (see previous article) is almost certainly not a totalitarian. However I stand by my contention that there is indeed no such thing as ‘public health’ except for communicable diseases not because I disagree with his self evident statement that ‘The field of public health is primarily concerned with prevention of disease’ but that ‘health’ is not in fact legitimately ‘public’ except in the case of communicable disease (and possibly some mental illnesses as well) as it goes to who owns a person’s body.
Most other health related matters are essentially only legitimately private rather than public matters. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone spending non-appropriated monies (such as a philanthropic fund) to preach high and low the virtues of folate in bread/low fat diets/wearing seat belts/not smoking/not taking crack cocaine/wearing sensible shoes/eat more fish/eat less fish/avoid mad cow beef or whatever the health scare de jour is… provided the people being preached to ‘for their own good’ are free to respond with a loud yawn and a rude gesture if they are so inclined. Yes, it is legitimate to ‘educate, persuade, and cajole individuals to take folate’… and to induce (not mandate) companies to produce folate bread… but it is not legitimate to mandate it and it was that I was objecting to.
To mass medicate, such as putting folic acid in bread or fluoride in water in such a way that people cannot realistically avoid changes to their body chemistry, is to suggest that the state and its experts actually have some over-riding ownership of everyone’s physical body and they may adjust its chemistry as the likes of Professor N.J. Wald and Professor A.V. Hoffbrand see fit. Now it that is not a totalitarian value then I don’t know what is. The issue here is not health but who owns your body!
Logan Spector from the Department of Epidemiology at Emory University takes issue with a previous Samizdata article
I am a libertarian and an epidemiologist, and with these perspectives I must take issue with the statement made by Perry de Havilland that, “Except for communicable diseases, there is no such thing as ‘public health’.” The field of public health is primarily concerned with prevention of disease, so your statement is nonsensical. Of course we can prevent chronic ailments like heart disease or diabetes (though they possibly have infectious etiologies, as is increasingly being suspected for an array of conditions). The question is how- through force or persuasion??
Now, my colleagues in the field are by and large statists who look first to government mandates to improve the public’s health. In fact one of my professors, Godfrey Oakley, is a prominent folic acid researcher and was instrumental in making folate supplementation mandatory. It would give you a pounding headache to hear the list of things he think should be taken care of by government fiat. But just because practitioners of public health have so far relied on coercion for good ends does not mean that non-coercive means are not available or should not be tried.
The first method for improving health, as you imply by your personal use of folic acid, is education. If undertaken by private groups health education is entirely consistent with libertarian principles, no matter how bitterly some segments of libertarianism dislike being told what to do (see www.lewrockwell.com for this perspective). It is, however insufficient to rely solely on individuals’ initiative in improving their health. Folic acid is needed during a critical period very early in pregnancy, before a woman knows she is pregnant. If folate is lacking, neural tube defects (such as spina bifida) can result. Would that every woman with the chance of conceiving were taking folate, but such is not that case.
Well, if it is legitimate to educate, persuade, and cajole individuals to take folate, why would not the same apply to companies as well? U.S. bakeries put up almost no fight to the mandate that they supplement their bread with folate, mainly because the benefit was clear and the cost minimal. Had public health organizations gone directly to bakeries, rather than to the government, they would have had little problem convincing them to supplement. The companies would benefit by touting their altruism (thus negating their altruism but you get the idea), and the public would benefit from improved health. Note that if anyone objected to having folate in their bread, companies would be free to market folate-free bread.
I hope you don’t think that taking this position makes me a totalitarian.
Logan Spector
The latest figures for the French parliamentary elections give the Socialists and their allies 155 seats out of 577 (the same proportion as the British Conservatives in 1997: a massacre). Martine Aubry, the creator of the 35 hour week is out, so is the Communist party leader Robert Hue, and one of the leading Greens (Dominique Voynet).
To put the Aubry defeat in context, only Chirac himself, or one of the four blood contamination killers (Laurent Fabius) would be higher up my list of French politicos to revel in their misery.
Meanwhile Alain Madelin the “libéral-libertaire” slipped in by 725 votes (50.6% to 49.4%). One right wing candidate in Paris got 100% of the vote (his run-off opponent, a supporter of Chirac, pulled out and endorsed him). The score in Paris (which has a Socialist mayor) was right/centre-right 9 seats, Socialists 10, Greens 2.
The national abstention rate also hit a record with over 38%, a big jump from 32% in 1993 (the previous record for this sort of election). We haven’t quite been here before. The three tiers of central government (presidency, senate, house of representatives) are all in president Chirac’s hands. He also controls the constitutional court (as much as any president can) and the state media commission (yes I know it should be scrapped). The question is, what will that Byers-brain Chirac do with it.
Unlike a US president he could theoretically fire nukes, declare war, arrange ‘car accidents’ for terrorist sympathisers, appoint his wife the minister for shopping and retail therapy, and screw interns – all by himself – without exceeding his powers. Remember though that the last time (in the mid-1990s) he had the opportunity to purge the state media of leftist political appointees he threatened them with a pay rise. His first spell as prime minister also broke all records for budget deficit, inflation, trade deficit, social security deficit, unemployment growth and the introduction of capital gains tax. His government also gave asylum to Ayatollah Khomeni (probably not personally his fault). These ‘achievements’ were barely matched in the early 1980s by a socialist government which included four Stalinist Communist Party ministers.
Chirac’s latest political philosophy appears to be inspired by Charles Murray’s views of state welfare, the welfare underclass, prison, and a massive tax cut. Unfortunately, how this will translate next week, let alone next month, is open to speculation.
As a victory over Socialism, this is a great night. Whether the ratchet effect will actually be reversed… Not for the first time, I hope Alain Madelin knows what he’s doing.
|
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.
|
