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]
|
It is best to act with confidence no matter how little right you have to it.
– Lillian Hellman
Antoine Clarke is a ferociously well-informed man, so perhaps he can nail down a quotation from Milton Friedman for me. Somewhere in his discussion of market failure, Friedman points out that when someone says, “but if there were no government intervention, this or that bad thing might happen,” it’s a perfectly valid defence to answer, “And with government intervention this horrendously bad thing definitely is happening.” You compare the real option with the other real option, not the real with the ideal.
In his post “If they must die: then let them do so quickly” Antoine makes the same error. He writes,
“Great. “Algeria” is better off for the next twenty years under Islamic fundamentalist rule … Several thousand individual women have had their throats cut in the past decade for not wearing ‘modest dress’. Several hundred children have been slaughtered by similar means. But that’s OK ‘cos in twenty years someone else’s kids might not be shot for demonstrating against the ban on “The Simpsons” or Pepsi adverts.”
No, it’s not OK. It will never be OK. My point and Brian’s was not that either Algeria or Iran are OK but that Iran is less bad than Algeria, and that the main reason for that is that the Iranian army let their fundamentalists keep their genuine election victory, dreadful though the fundamentalists were. The Iranian corpse-pile is lower by a factor of around ten, I believe. How much clearer can it get that the Iranian path is the better one to follow? Of course it would be a million times better yet if
“…consenting Islamic fundamentalists wished to purchase land and build a shining model of the good society for us all to learn from.”
But this was never on the table. It was on the table for the Iranian army, not known for its fundamentalism, to mount a coup at the time of the first Iranian election. It was on the table for the Algerian army not to. And I bloody well wish they hadn’t.
There’s another libertarian point to be made in this case. Don’t initiate agression. Antoine correctly observes that:
“Unlike Iran, the Algerian Islamists are quite open about scrapping elections.”
Now I am relying on memory here, but I seem to recall that the FIS gave the opposite impression at the time of their original election victory. Having their genuine election victory stolen from them gave them support, put fire in their bellies, made them more savage. War made them worse, so that now, yes, they have to be shot like dogs (and I am willing to defer to Antoine’s superior knowledge about the relative evil of the two sides.) Judging from the Iranian experience, it would have been better not to have had the war.
So would everything have been hunky-dory then? No. Quite possibly the FIS were always lying and always intended to scrap the holding of elections. It still would have been better, militarily, practically better, to have let the guilt fall on them. That was the real alternative.
There is an interesting article with links on Brothers Judd in which Orrin Judd muses on the question of the fading of Jewish identity, referring to articles by Richard Just in American Prospect and Gary Rosen’s review of the dismal Alan Dershowitz’s interesting book ‘The Vanishing Jew’. That this diminution of Jewish identity is in fact a problem seems to have been accepted as axiomatic by Orrin.
But maybe it is just that Jews in America (and Britain for that matter) have just grown up and evolved away from a narrow tribal collective mindset. They realise that their identity is not primarily I am a Jew, but rather I am David Cohen. In fact, perhaps the reason for this Jewish ‘problem’ is that due to hundreds of generations of being free from the limiting delusion of ‘blood and soil’ has made Jews uniquely suited to embrace individualistic notions of identity. Jews have a Jewish nation state in Israel now if they want it… and it is just another messy nation state like any other, better than some and worse than others. Few people are better placed psychologically than the world’s Jews at this point in time to see the world for what it really is: the ‘Promised Land’ is Jewish again and the world still sucks.
Perhaps the only thing that made the Jews a collective ‘tribe’ at all was being forced together by the hostility of host societies who despised them for not being part of their ‘Volk’. The Jewish ‘problem’ of a loss of identity in the larger cosmopolitan society is not a problem at all… it is a blessing! Just as ‘everyone can be Irish on St. Patrick’s Day’, there is nothing wrong with letting Jewish identity (and every other limiting ghetto-of-the-mind) become little more than a bit of cultural spice of only passing significance. As other people have stopped regarding Jews as a people apart, it is not surprising that Jews have started to do the same.
There is an excellent, detailed and revealing interview in the July edition of techie magazine Wired with supply-side economics writer and computer enthusiast George Gilder. I missed it when the magazine came out but caught it on the net this morning.
Gilder is one of my favourite writers on economics. He can actually make the often-dry subject matter really sing, in a way few others can. His first major book, Wealth and Poverty, published in the early 1980s, helped to provide the intellectual ammunition for Reagan and Thatcher’s supply-side tax cuts, the beneficial effects of which are – mostly – still with us. I recall an enjoyable evening, about 17 years ago (!) when Gilder came along to the now-defunct Alternative Bookshop in Convent Garden, central London, to talk about his following book, The Spirit of Enterprise. After that book was published he turned his attention almost full-time to writing about technology, especially the whole area surrounding computers and the Internet. He later became something of an investment guru, which initially made him a very wealthy man.
Gilder has taken a hard knock from the meltdown in technology stocks over the past two years, but his boyish enthusiasm for what the future can hold is undimmed. The man is a tonic, even when reflecting on the rough times he has endured over the past two years.
Now that our own British government seems bent upon wholesale reversal of some hard-won supply-side reforms, his message needs to be broadcast again.
Paul Staines has pointed me at a great article in The Spectator by Bruce Anderson:
The Americans will not be deflected by the absence of support from continental Europe. A few months ago, William Hague asked George Bush how he would deal with European objections to ballistic missile defence. “I’ve got a secret plan,” Mr Bush replied. “What is it?” “I’ll go ahead anyway.” So he will on Iraq.
Anderson explains that Continental European hostility to Bush’s approach to, well, pretty much everything, is rooted in moral relativism and the taint of a Marxist meta-context
They also insist that we live in a world of moral relativities. European governments had a double quarrel with Mr Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech. They do not believe in the axis. Nor do they believe in the evil. They prefer to live in a world as depicted by Whistler, in which everything is a subtle symphony of endless grey. From this perspective, Saddam may be a bad man, but he is merely a darker shade of grey than Ariel Sharon.
The leaders of Europe preside over powerful modern economies and complex societies, all of which are rendered impotent by fundamental philosophical flaws in the very epistemology of their ruling classes.
I have always believed that the political classes have one project and one project only: maintaining power. All other considerations are dispensible; smoke and mirrors for the voters come election time.
The political class that we are lumbered with in Britain wish to tighten their grip somewhat by removing the obstacle of an 800 year-old Common Law right known as Double Jeopardy i.e. a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime.
This was not a defence mechanism fabricated on some altruistic frolic. It was seen as essential if a citizen was to maintain their liberty against an all-powerful state which had the resources to pursue them at will if so desired. It was a mechanism which maintained the rule of law not the rule of whim.
Home Secretary David Blunkett has announced plans to ‘modernise’ our legal system by abolishing this hard-won right. He wants to make it easier for the State to pursue serious criminals who are seen to ‘get away with it’. It sounds like a noble impulse but the truth is far darker. Of course, the government has been at pains to stress that it will only abolished in so far as it relates to very serious matters e.g. murder but I’m afraid that we’ve heard this one before. Once the principle is established it is only a matter of time before mission creep drives it forward to cover all and any offences (including, possibly, EU-mandated offences such as ‘xenophobia’ or the deliberately vague ‘computer-related crime’).
The ability to prosecute by instalments will manifest itself as a tool of control in politically-sensitive cases with any risk of the ‘wrong’ result. The State will simply be able to drag a defendant back into Court time after time until it gets the result it wants. Sooner or later, with its ability to write a blank cheque, the State will win and everybody will know it.
There are few more pointed weapons of political control than this. There mere threat of it is enough to silence or cow difficult or even unpopular people into quiessence. With the endless threat of constant prosecution hanging over their heads, normal life becomes all but impossible. Keep quiet and do as you are told or your life will simply become unbearable.
Like my now defunct hard-drive, our collective memories are no longer accessible. If they were, the polity would rise up in revolt at the merest hint of the government arrogating this kind of power unto itself, but by the time iron rule has replaced rule of law, nobody will be able to remember a time when it was any different.
At about the same time as Samizdata went through its metamorphosis, my old computer motherboard began its jarring death-rattle and, shortly thereafter, expired both graciously and soundlessly.
It was time to break open that stash I keep under the floorboards and upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. Now, thanks to the assistance of a quite remarkably useful Russian systems builder called Yuri, I am surfing the net on the equivalent of a twelve-cylinder roadbeast. I have every bit and byte and bob and meg and gig and ram and rom known to humanity. I am a souped-up, hyper-driven and power-processed blogger. I have Weapons of Mass Digitization and I intend to use them in a Holy Jihad against Idiocy.
Yes, thanks to Yuri and the new, improved Samizdata I am ready to roll like mountain thunder over the arid plains of mediocrity and mendacity.
And a little addition to my ‘Glorious Ironies File’: Yuri was once a soldier in the Red Army, stationed in East Germany and trained to kill Yankee Imperialists and bring down Capitalism. Now, he is running his own successful business in London and helping me to spread the seed of Capitalism all over the Net. Splendid!
In a previous Samizdata.net article by Brian Micklethwait, he quotes an article by fellow Samizdata contributor Natalie Solent written on her own blog:
Natalie says that it would have been better for the Algerian fundamentalists to have kept their election win and taken Algeria down the Iran trail, which eventually, if Iran itself is anything to go by, gets better. I think I agree.”
Great. “Algeria” is better off for the next twenty years under Islamic fundamentalist rule. Yet again Brian sees people as an amorphous mass. Several thousand individual women have had their throats cut in the past decade for not wearing ‘modest dress’. Several hundred children have been slaughtered by similar means. But that’s OK ‘cos in twenty years someone else’s kids might not be shot for demonstrating against the ban on “The Simpsons” or Pepsi adverts.
It’s one thing to take a libertarian isolationist view (it is a better one since the end of the Cold War, in my opinion). Liberal interventionism on the nineteenth century scale can be ineffective (Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban springs to mind) and is arguably a misuse of British taxpayers’ money. But on what possible grounds can a libertarian support the imposition of a theocratic dictatorship by a rigged ballot only a week after attacking Christian creationists for wanting to keep Darwin out of the classroom in some U.S. southern state?
As for Natalie, I wonder what future she thinks her Algerian contemporaries see for their families. I don’t suppose many of them blog under their real names either. I thought a libertarian position would be that if consenting Islamic fundamentalists wished to purchase land and build a shining model of the good society for us all to learn from; then so long as they didn’t use force to get people in, or to prevent them from leaving, that would be fine. Unlike Iran, the Algerian Islamists are quite open about scrapping elections, something even Adolf Hitler was vague about.
To the extent that the armed forces see their job as protecting the constitution or the population from external invasion or tyranny, I reckon they’ve got a point in opposing Theocratic despotism. This is also true in Turkey where a similar problem exists albeit in a less bloody form. I’m not saying “send in the Marines”. But every Algerian soldier who shoots a fundamentalist terrorist is making the world a better place in my books.
Natalie’s remarks about “two-sided” cruelty is another fine one. The Algerian equivalent of Guardian readers think the Islamists will let them live, just like their late and un-lamented predecessors in Iran did (atheists die too). The Guardian and the Independent have played a very dirty game indeed. The standard line they put out is to attribute every other massacre to the army first, then reluctantly admit that maybe, this time the fundamentalists did it. Imagine if every time the IRA planted a bomb, the American press claimed the British police did it? I can just hear the conspiracy theorists reply “They’re the ones that don’t go off, because the British army’s detonators don’t work”.
There are only two things to do about terrorist organisations, either destroy them by any means, or surrender (if they’ll let you). I don’t think the fundamentalists will let their opponents surrender.
As for those who think that a temporary dictatorship far away would be fine, I suggest this simple exercise, imagine that you are being told to submit to it for the rest of your lives, by someone sitting in New Zealand (who may even object to your escaping to his country).
One of the threats to economic freedom is the state sponsored cartel, in which groups of economic agents can collude to fix prices with the aid of the state, crushing opportunities for lower prices from newcomers to the market. A particularly dangerous cartel is in the offing – the global tax cartel. Such a cartel is the aim of the European Union, which in the name of tax “harmonisation” wishes to prevent countries, especially the United States, from setting taxes at rates lower than those in the EU. The EU, dominated in recent years by leftist governments hostile to the market, resents the way in which the Anglosphere nations have been able to outperform the EU in terms of growth and job creation. The latest manifestation of this desire is enshrined in what is called the “savings tax directive”.
One of the great things about global free markets has been the ability of financial capital to whizz around the planet, seeking out the best returns and the countries with the lowest tax rates. This financial freedom has forced many a government to give up tax-and-spend policies and follow a more market-friendly path. And that is precisely why the High Priests of Big Government at the EU wish for such a cartel. I am quietly optimistic, though, that American politicians will see this proposal for what it is, a desire to shaft American enterprise and hobble the global economy. (I may be wrong, of course) It comes at a time when there has been a lot of friction between America and Europe post September 11. Tthe threat of a tax cartel to throttle American enterprise will only deepen the rift.
With this in mind may I commend readers the freedomandprosperity.org website, which is a lobby group and publishing house giving a full list of articles spelling out the horrors of tax harmonisation. They also have email addresses so that people can contact Senators and Representatives about this crucial issue.
Saddam Hussein promised us the “mother of all battles” but in the event produced something like the daughter-in-law of an obscure cat fight. His soldiers quit, his air force flew to safety in Iran and in the end he only did a little of what he does best, the murder of innocents, mostly women and children, with a few Scuds lobbed into Israel.
-Wesley Pruden
(via Boris Kupershmidt on the LA-F)
British legislators have used their privileged position to vote themselves a 25 percent rise in their own pensions, in contrast to the vast majority of we mere mortals, who are suffering falling returns on our pension schemes as stock markets fall off a cliff.
Remember, these are the same guys and girls who like to wax indignant about the behaviour of chief executives at scandal-ridden firms like American energy firm Enron or telecom company WorldCom. But of course they are dirty businessmen, whereas public-spirited folk who devote their lives to politics earn every penny they receive, don’t they? 
Carter said to the Cuban people that the most important right is the freedom of assembly. The place where most Cubans assemble? Miami!
– Jay Leno, on ex-President Carter’s visit to Cuba
|
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.
|
