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]
|
As I have had a couple lengthy e-mails asking me to explain my hostility to PoliticalCompass.org, I thought I would do so in a new post.
My big problem with PoliticalCompass.org is that it makes inherently statist and left/right valued assumptions to which there is no appropriate answer unless you share those assumptions, making the test fine if all the world fitted neatly into the left/right, socialist (US=liberal)/conservative continua… but the world just ain’t that simple.
Although they claim to provide a more sophisticated representation of political views than the crudity of left and right, they in fact strip away some of the true issues that differentiate statists and anti-statists. At best they differentiate one form of statist from another, separating social democrats from communists from conservatives. If you think you can usefully differentiate an agorist or anarcho-capitalist libertarian from a minarchist libertarian from a Kritarchist libertarian using the political compass tests, you are sadly mistaken.
I would argue that as the very meaning of their ‘libertarian’ axis is badly flawed, if they tell you your political coordinates are x,y, as they have no real understanding of what one of the four axes represents, the test and thus the coordinates on the ‘compass’ it generates, are highly suspect, to put it mildly.
There is no such thing as voluntary collectivism when applied to an entire society, which means ‘collectivist’ libertarianism does not accept several liberty and thus is not libertarian at all: if you live collectively on a kibbutz, one day you may decide it was all a big mistake and just say “screw this crap” as you walk out the door. If the other people in the kibbutz use force to stop you leaving, it is they who are the criminals… try doing that in a collectivist society (which in reality means a collectivist state) and you will find that the door to a non-collective existence is in fact a prison cell or a chimney. → Continue reading: More musings on the Political Compass
Robert Theron Brockman II observers how not to liberate a country from tyranny and chaos
It seems that the United States government has decided to disarm the Iraqi populace as part of its newly found desire to restore order.
This smells like the sort of thing that could lead to disaster, for all the usual reasons – only outlaws will have guns and whatnot. And if any population needs to be armed as a check on a potentially tyrannical government, it is the population of Iraq.
It almost seems like a clerical error – surely the guys who were the driving force behind the invasion over at Central Command aren’t gun control nuts, are they?
This seems like a good basis for a lively discussion here at Samizdata.
Robert Theron Brockman II
Yesterday I came across an interesting op-ed piece by Adam Nicolson of The Daily Telegraph in which he bemoans the decline of the art of conversation.
It has started happening to me all the time. I say something, probably going on too long, never happy to use one word where a hundred would do, but trying to persuade someone to see it all in a different way, to see it, let’s be honest, my way, and at the end of this long spiely speech that I give them, they say, “Yeah, whatever,” and turn off on to the thing that, as far as they’re concerned, really counts.
And then he really lays in to “whatever”:
“Whatever” wafts a contemptuous and disdainful hand in the direction of everything he has had to say. As a saying, and an attitude, it goes beyond the confrontational. A few years ago, more aggressively but at least more engagedly, someone who felt equally sceptical might have replied “So what?” in the same circumstances.
He tracks down the culprit – the origin of this degenerate phenomenon lies with modern marketing:
What is the source of this new, casual, bypassing contempt and impatience? At least one of its origins, I think, is the appallingly degenerate language of modern marketing. We are swimming in a soup of the near-meaningless. On a plane the other day, I was given a box full of unguents called “Origins In Flight Comfort Kit”. “For those who don’t know about Origins,” the leaflet began, “it’s all about caring for yourself in different ways. Choices. Alternatives. New Experiences. Finding unusual answers to every-day problems.” Among which were lip-grease, skin-cream, a water spray for your face and then “brush your teeth with Rembrandt Whitening Toothpaste for a healthy, brighter smile”.
The sentimentality and cynicism, inflated into a puffball of what hopes to pass for charm, that make up the modern language of salesmanship has made us all impatient with blather. It has created “whatever” as a reaction to the over-elaborated or overstated, because ingrained in us now is a recognition that the marketing surface is not to be trusted.
[…]
If the “whatever” phenomenon signals the approaching death of the marketing culture, it is likely to bring other things down in its train. “Whatever” loves only the minimal. It will have no time for the enriched or the inherently complex. “Whatever” thinks that everything should be reduced to essentials, which is a recipe for crudity and philistinism…Poetry, for one, can’t really survive in a whateverised world. To be or not to be, that is the question. Whatever. Is this a dagger I see before me? Whatever. The rest is silence. Whatever.
Bravo! I agree wholeheartedly. I agree so much that I have quoted the piece almost in its entirety. The language of marketing is ludicrous and preposterous at best, crude and insulting to its audience at worst. My impression is that many companies are now stuck with costly marketing techniques, simply of out fear that if they do not spend a fortune on glossy brochures, flash animated websites, extortionately priced logo designs and re-designs, expensive advertising etc, they will not be taken seriously. Marketing as we know it may still be around not because people actually believe that such marketing works but because everyone does it as a token sign of a Serious Business.
One thing I always hated about Big Companies was their increasingly disconnected and uniform marketing. When The Cluetrain Manifesto come along a few years ago, I breathed a sigh of relief. A breeze of fresh air, a tornado of common sense, it unveiled the Emperor’s naked and bloated body underneath the threadbare designer clothes.
I am not holding my breath waiting for the end of marketing but I do hope that more and more businesses will see it for what it is and stop throwing money at the advertising industry and insulting their customers and employees with its meaningless marketingspeak.
From the ever alert b3ta.com comes news of giant microbes. My favourite is the common cold.
Billions of people a year catch the cold. Now you can get one too — without getting sick! Learn all about the Common Cold with this cuddly companion.
GIANTmicrobes, in a fit of propriety, calls these things “health dolls”. No GIANTmicrobes, they’re sickness dolls.
What, you are probably asking, does this mean for the prospects of western civilisation, immediate and longer term? I do not know. They are cute, I think.
This, on the other hand, also via b3ta, has got to be bad news for France. → Continue reading: Further proof of how weird other people can be
He has the gall to (metaphorically) dig up J S Mill’s dead body, sit it next to him, do a ventriloquist’s act with the dead skull, and then to say, “look – Mill agrees with me.”
Hattersley claims that Mill would have joined him in wanting schools to be banned from teaching creationism. Here’s the offending article. Yes, I know that Mill sometimes departed from pure classical liberalism, but if there was one thing that he, writing in an age riven by religious controversy and when religious organisations provided the majority of British primary education, would have recognised as a test case for liberty it would be the right of religious people to propagate their beliefs to their children as they see fit. Yet Hattersley writes:
“We need to decide where individual freedom begins and ends. Fortunately, we have John Stuart Mill to guide us. He was a passionate opponent of what vulgarians call “the nanny state”. So he insisted that: “All the errors which [we are] likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain (their neighbours) for their own good.” But, while we must be free to harm ourselves, there can be no freedom to “injure the interests of one another, or rather certain interest which, either by express legal provision or tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights.” It is surely self-evident that to teach in schools that Eve was created from Adam’s rib injures children’s interests. They either go into the world believing manifest nonsense, or spend their adolescence under the impression that their teachers are cranks.”
I may not have my copy of On Liberty to hand, but thanks to the internet, I can nail that one. Back before I lost the book I put an entry in my blog about Mill’s very explicit view that propagating mistaken beliefs did NOT constitute an injury to another’s rights. A quick Google search called it up. When the secretary of the Alliance, an organization agitating for the prohibition of alcohol, said, “I claim, as a citizen a right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another,” Mill replied:
“So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatsoever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them: for the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes any one’s lips, it invades all the ‘social rights’ attributed to me by the Alliance.”
From memory that passage comes very soon after the passage Hattersley quotes. How on earth did Hattersley come to miss it? Don’t answer that! And how, too, did he come to claim Mill as an ideological ally given Mill’s view, expressed in the same book, that Hattersley’s beloved state education was a thoroughly bad thing:
“A general State education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mold in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government–whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the the existing generation–in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.”
(Quote found via Improved Clinch)
I haven’t touched here on Hattersley’s remarks on extending anti-discrimination legislation to cover sexuality even for religious schools who hold homosexuality to be a sin, nor on his views about halal slaughter. But I am pretty sure that on those topics, too, Hattersley vilely misrepresents the inferences it is possible to make from J S Mill’s writings when he (Hattersley) concludes his article thus:
No doubt the government will behave in that way as it examines “creationist” teaching, employment discrimination and ritual slaughter. Unfortunately, it will take as its text not On Liberty but the recent report of a focus group.
Michael Totten has stepped in that steaming pile on the information superhighway known as PoliticalCompass.org and thereby concluded he is ‘one of us’… well… sort of.
Now as Michael is a thoughtful sort of leftie, it would pain me not at all if he holds onto that thought and bounces it around for a while. Maybe he will conclude that rational libertarianism may indeed be a better intellectual home for him than either the statist left or statist right.
However he will not find the answers to that question by taking the preposterous test offered by PoliticalCompass.org
As a rebuttal to all those bloggers who think that the BBC has a left-wing bias, I refer you to this hysterical nonsense:
Gun crime is growing in the UK “like a cancer”, police chiefs were warned on Tuesday.
The Association of Chief Police Officers’ annual conference was told by the organisation’s firearms spokesman: “It’s coming your way, believe me.”
How can they possibly expect any halfway sensible person to believe rubbish like this? Don’t they realise that our government has enacted the most draconian and prohibitive anti-gun laws in the developed world? No, scrub that, the entire cosmos. So this cannot possibly be happening. It is nothing but a tissue of bald-faced lies. In fact, it’s probably a fabrication by some bunch of swivel-eyed, right-wing, warmongering lunatics intent on trying to give the completely false impression that our noble and progressive anti-self-defence laws are not working.
Do not click on the link. Do not read the article. I do not want our readers minds to be poisoned by this filthy propoganda. Go away. Move onto the next posting. Find another blog. Now!
Anyone who regularly peruses the left-wing press in this country (and I congratulate them on their intestinal fortitude) would be left with the impression that Britain is rapidly turning into Galt’s Gulch, a rugged, darwinian, freewheeling gold-rush society where tax collectors have been beaten into plough-shares and the shrivelled remnants of the government have been consigned to a mildew-ridden basement room beneath Whitehall with a second-hand computer and a solitary, naked lightbulb.
You can hardly flick through the pages of any centre-left journal without being assailed by some chest-beating, polemical op-ed excoriating New Labour for abandoning socialist principles in favour of ‘market forces’ and ‘Thatcherism’. They bewail the alleged unstoppable growth of ‘free market mania’ and demand that the government return to the old agenda of wealth redistribution and public ownership immediately if not sooner.
Those of us living on Planet Earth don’t quite see it that way. Like the insensitive dolts we doubtless are, we have noticed the extra chunks of GDP that have been grabbed by the government every year since 1997. Nor has it escaped our attention that the ‘Careers Section’ of the Guardian has grown as thick as a telephone directory, replete with advertisements for government sinecures.
Well, boorish we may be but it appears that us Earthlings are right:
Chancellor Gordon Brown’s tax increases are threatening the competitiveness of the UK economy by increasing the burden on entrepreneurs, according to Forbes Global.
Although France maintains its position at the top of the misery index, Forbes detects “an important change in the Misery Index for the UK. For the first time, and surprisingly, it is rising by more than France’s Misery Index is decreasing.” The magazine blames increased social security taxes for this development, but says it will still take many years for the UK to “catch up” with France.
I cannot think of a more appropriate term than ‘Misery Index’ and, believe me, I have tried.
But back to the nitty-gritty. Why this disconnect between perception and reality? Well, it is because Blair and New Labour have pulled off a pretty audacious trick (and it’s a good trick, I’ll grant you) by constructing a convincing and polished patina of ‘Thatherite’ rhetoric full of phrases like ‘modernisation’ and ‘reform’ and ‘consumer choice’ which they have used to mask a stealthy but relentless old socialist agenda.
The inescapable truth (for Earthlings that is) is that, over the last six years, the wealth-creating private sector has been subjected to a ferocious blood-letting in order to feed the voracious appetites of the public sector triffids who, in turn, (and by complete coincidence, of course) vote en bloc for New Labour. Combine this with the gradual ‘Europeanisation’ of our regulatory and legal regime and the result is that a once thriving economy has been plunged into misery of near-Gallic proportions.
There isn’t a single state in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the only area where comparisons can usefully be made, that is taking less tax from its citizens in 2001 than it was in 1965.
I take no comfort from that fact that we are not alone. If everybody is on the same path of slow-suicide this only serves to convince the looters in Whitehall that they are doing the right thing after all.
Forbes asks: “Are we really living in an era of smaller government?”
No. Nor is that era close at hand. But we’re working on it, Mr.Forbes, we’re working on it.
Salam Pax posted a big update yesterday, with photographs taken during a trip from Baghdad to Basra via Najaf.
So, those of you who thought he was not ‘for real’… has this changed your mind? Whilst it is difficult to be sure, I have always suspected the ‘Baghdad Blogger’ was exactly what he said he was.
As a break from the usual tread-mill of Libertarian Principles, here is a story that best reflects the ‘quagmire’ Britain got itself into by having anything to do with the EU and the countries using its institutions to their advantage. Despite the ravenous inclusiveness of the European Union, the one thing there is no room left for is common sense.
The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that Italian Parma ham must be packed and sliced in Parma itself to be marketed with its name of origin. The Asda supermarket chain has lost its legal battle to carry on selling Italian Parma ham, because it is packed and sliced in Britain.
Asda’s Parma ham comes from Parma, but it is sliced and packaged near Chippenham in Wiltshire. Its delicatessen Parma ham also comes from Parma – but is sliced in its stores, in front of the customer. European judges have ruled that this is not enough under EU law to justify using the name.
Maintaining the quality and reputation of Parma ham justifies the rule that the product must be sliced and packaged in the region of production.
According to The Daily Telegraph Asda claimed the Italian law was not part of EU law and could not be applied in the UK, but ham from Parma was registered under a 1992 EU rule protecting the use of geographical names on some products. The battle went to London’s High Court, which passed the matter to the Luxembourg judges for a ruling on the EU’s Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) law.
The Parma ham producers’ association, which owns the trademark Prosciutto di Parma, has been seeking an injunction against Asda since 1997. Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma won the battle despite judge’s recommendation to overturn the relevant European regulation and the advice the European Court of Justice received by one of its own members to invalidate the European Union rule.
As Asda representative said last year:
No one doubts that Scotch beef remains Scottish if sliced in Southampton; Jersey potatoes are still Jerseys when boiled in Blackpool; and cheddar cheese is still cheddar if grated in Gretna.
In most cases the court follows such advice, for example, the European court’s advocate general delivered a similar opinion in a case brought against a company that grates the hard Italian cheese Grana Padana in France.
Not this time though. When you next eat your Parma, you can rejoice in the knowledge that it has been subjected to the traditionally tough quality control by its Italian producer. I suppose there is a first for everything…
Not everything in this will make sense to everyone. Who’s Biagi? Just someone they quite like but argue with a lot, if memory serves. Who, for that matter, is Tupy, the poster of the bit below? He’s one of their ex-activists, now making his presence felt in the USA.
So, the Liberty Club AGM is over and I have just been e-mailed the names of the new LC committee members. Some of them I know and some of them I don’t know. But what struck me about the new composition of the LC leadership is how “diverse” it is. Yuck – the “d” word again! Still, the new LC committee will transcend the boundaries of gender, race and sexual orientation. And the best part is that none of that had to be doctored! The LC does not have a specific committee position for women, gays or non-Europeans and yet it attracts all these people. Why? Because freedom is close to their heart and they are prepared to work for it. Eat that Biagi!
Liberty Club – you rock!
After a brief flirtation with Scotland, it would seem from that last bit that Tupy is becoming a full-blown American.
Seriously, what this shows is how tenacious intellectual traditions at universities can be. And isn’t it interesting how these university covens are staying in touch these days, via the internet?
Mind you, if the circa 2000 Liberty Club crowd do stay connected and have consequences, they won’t be the first St Andrews alumni to do this. St Andrews was the cradle, a quarter of a century ago and more, of this.
Cultural commentator – from a generally conservative vantage point – David Brooks has some interesting things to note about the popularity of men’s magazines like Maxim, and about what this says about our culture. In a nutshell, he suggests that this shows that the advance of feminism and even political correctness (however you want to define that) may not have produced the results some commentators may have wanted.
He also makes the point, which to my mind rang true, that ‘reactionary’ attitudes are often not the preserve of the upper classes, but often most deeply held elsewhere, such as among America’s rap music artists. Here’s a nice quote:
We have a dynamic urban culture that treats women like whores and that regards owning a Mercedes as the highest possible human aspiration, and the leading articulators of progressive opinion have nothing to say about it. They can’t seem to bring themselves to admit out loud that their most effective ideological enemies have turned out to be the same underprivileged people they wanted to rescue from oblivion.
This observation is hardly new. Yet even someone like yours truly, who likes to watch action movies, dreams of fast cars and feels no shame in enjoying pictures of lovely women, can feel a bit troubled about where things can be headed. I don’t know if the kind of things Brooks frets about are problems that have to be ‘fixed’ in some way.
There definitely has been something of a backlash in parts of our culture against the dictates of political correctness. It doesn’t surprise me all that much that the kind of mindless dreck published by the Maxim mags of this world is so popular. Maybe we are just observing the cultural equivalent of Newton’s law at work – every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It applies to space rockets and it applies to culture as well, maybe.
|
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.
|
