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]
|
Well Fancy That! Does this look like playing both sides?
So under a “defence pact” with Qatar, French troops will be in the Gulf after all. Just in time for the reconstruction contracts I trust. (Incidentally, “MAM” as the French Defence Minister is known, is regarded by French troops with similar contempt to that shown by British troops for Geoff “Buff” Hoon).
I’m getting about as much flak from reaction to my last posting as a B1 over Bagdad. I will reserve comment on the diplomatic bungling until the organised fighting stops.
Whether or not Salam Pax is genuine or not, the Samuel Huntingdon quote carried on his blog about sums up how a big chunk of the world’s population regards the Anglosphere.
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
The bombing of Bagdad is doing little to dispel this notion. I don’t approve or agree, but that doesn’t make it less of a problem.
|
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.
|
I don’t really have any doubt that Salam Pax is genuine.
According to a series of letters from an American in Kuwait posted on Kim du Toit’s web site, the French have been in Kuwait all along.
Did Huntington suppose that the West’s superiority in applying organized violence was an accident having nothing to do with its “ideas or values”? Technology, wealth, and organizational ability don’t just happen; they are fruits of political, economic, and scientific ideas put into practice. The West could not have superiority in applying organized violence unless it had superiority in these other fields as well.
Just because the French are in town, doesn’t mean they will be invited to the party.
You beat me to it, Patrick. Was going to point out the same thing.
Remind to include Samuel Huntington on my personal list of useful idiots.
In a very charitable interpretation of the view expressed in the quotation, the argument is that, yes, those ideas, values, and religions had an impact on the genesis of better “organized violence.” However the better (in a practical sense) “organized violence” does not prove that the ideas, values, etc. are better (in a moral sense).
i.e. the fact that capitalism created better guns doesn’t mean capitalism is better.
The obvious libertarian response is, we never claimed that military superiority was the reason western / classical liberal values are better. We have much better reasons.
Re: Huntington’s Comments
Salam Pax’s quote aside, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” is a book that, by and large, is pretty gracious regarding the values of the West in general, and the Anglosphere in particular. I really shouldn’t defend Huntington’s remarks, as he is a bright man and can do it himself. As I recall, the quote is reference to the fact that in 1900, something like 85% of humanity lived under a Western gov’t.
They didn’t exactly invite us there. Of course, I doubt the Spanish invited the Moors, either.
Re: Huntington’s Comments
Salam Pax’s quote aside, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” is a book that, by and large, is pretty gracious regarding the values of the West in general, and the Anglosphere in particular. I really shouldn’t defend Huntington’s remarks, as he is a bright man and can do it himself. As I recall, the quote is reference to the fact that in 1900, something like 85% of humanity lived under a Western gov’t.
They didn’t exactly invite us there. Of course, I doubt the Spanish invited the Moors, either.
rc, we’ll sub out to Kuwait, Kuwait will sub out to the froggies.
And the russkies are sending ships, waiting til it’s over.
Just an FYI: Someone pointed out to me that having that quote at the top of his blog has probably saved Salam’s keister on more than one occasion, diverting enough attention that he can say what he likes in the body of the blog. He is living under an authoritarian regime, remember, and is leaping throgh a huge amount of hoops (with help from overseas Net folks) just to stay “on the air” at all. (The banner that appears now, “support democracy in Iraq,” only appeared on the blog after Bush formally ended the UN wrangling and announced the start of the war proper.)
Just to add to Patrick & Byron’s comments, Western military power is a consequence of superior values, ideas, institutions, etc. See Victor Davis Hanson’s “Carnage and Culture” on this.
“Might makes right” is not just wrong, it’s backwards: Right makes might. There are all sorts of qualifications to be made about this, such as all else being equal, and there’s no guarantee that might will be used rightly, even if it is based upon righteousness. But the point remains.
crl,
You make a good point, and I have never questioned the quotation over on Salam’s blog despite being a regular reader. When I see it repeated by a bona fide Samizdatista, however, . . .
Well, now I’ve reread the end of Antoine’s post and it seems that the “I don’t approve or agree” may refer not to “The bombing of Bagdad,” as I took it, but to the “notion” expressed in the Huntingdon quotation. Sorry if I misinterpreted, Antoine.
I thought that Libertarians, of all people, would not fall for the Marxist trap of deconstruction. Salam Pax is a person who’s country is under attack. His intellectual courage lies not in his defiance of Saddam but in his transcendence of basic human loyalties celebrated in song and glory through all civilizations. Would you abjure Mr. Churchill because he couldn’t carry a tune?
Might does not make right, but it doesn’t matter if you’re dead.