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]
|
Academia and the Second Amendment As our long time readers know, I spent much of the 1980’s as an academic research scientist at Carnegie-Mellon University. Because of this, I am a member of the academic pension fund organizations called TIAA and CREF. As with any such organization, they have annual elections, proxies and oft-times one or more ‘Participant Proposals’ up for vote. Academia being, well, academia… such proposals are most often of the form “divest of stock in companies doing business with X” or “any business that makes Y”, where X and Y belong to the set of Politically Correct causes.
So imagine my surprise when I found the following:
Resolved: No Funds shall be invested by CREF in any entity brought to its attention that publically advocates firearm control legislation or repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I voted for it, just for badness. I actually quite agree with the Board of Trustee’s statement that investments should be made on a purely financial basis.
The measure will not pass… but it is the thought that counts.
|
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.
|
The members of any organization which advocates the repealing of ANY of the Bill of Rights should be hanged, after flogging.
Disinvestment is too kind a punishment.
Kim du Toit : your recommendation is self-applicable (see amendment #1 😉
[sigh]
Julian, we’ve been over this cheap debating trick before, and many times withal.
We’re having it now, as a matter of fact, with regard to Islamist terrorism and their sponsors in the US.
The First Amendment refers to GOVERNMENT or THE STATE placing restrictions on freedom of speech.
When the people making the speech are using those very freedoms to end the practice, they lose the right.
Just as if a murderer commits murder (in 35 states), he loses his “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” — one of our basic freedoms. We kill the bastard — so much for his “right to life”.
So when some dickhead starts an organization, the aims of which are to overthrow the republic, he loses his First Amendment guarantee of freedom of association.
You can’t use your Constitutional rights to overthrow the Bill of Rights.
It sounds like an obvious observation, but clearly, it isn’t obvious enough.
When you’re advocating hanging and flogging, you’re behaving either as a government, or an outlaw, or you’re ignoring government and meting out anarchic justice. Context implied the first of those three interpretations. Hence, self applicability.
I disagree that murder => execution implies bad speech => gagging. The difference is force. A murderer uses it, and recieves it, a demagogue does not, and should not. The proper response to a rabble-rouser varies from disinterest through counterargument to ejecting him from your property.
Of course, if said demagogue ever attempts to put his preaching into practise, this does become force, and force can legitimately be used in response.
Julian,
Please look up “hyperbole” in the dictionary.
Apply said definition to my first comment.
On my blog, I also advocate hanging liberals, socialists and Democrats from telephone poles so that laughing children can swat their rotting corpses with sticks.
Apply the same definition thereto.
If any government entity started actually doing any of the aforesaid, I’d be one of the first to be applying preventative measures, one bullet at a time. Unless the prospective hangees were the Clintons… oh damn, there I go again.
Heh, I saw the jokeyness, and my first comment was comparably jokey. I got serious when you did.
Kim you seem to have some serious political points related to personal freedom, but you intersperse them with light hearted threats of violence. You shouldn’t do this as ‘the joke’ doesn’t always come across in this blog medium.
If you do it again I’ll come round and shoot you!
(I don’t really have a gun)
I would love to see more of this happening. I have seriously considered investing in a fund that only invests in things non-PC (ie: guns, drugs, booze, tobacco etc etc).
Already exists, has decent returns too.
At the risk of more from Mr Du Toit, can I use this comments box to ask for some advice/information about liberarianism in general. I’ve posted on this issue on my blog here:
http://ibanda.blogs.com/panchromatica/2004/06/libertarianism.html
and in subsequent posts ending here:
http://ibanda.blogs.com/panchromatica/2004/06/findings_on_lib.html
I obviously recognise my views and conclusions are not likely to be warmly welcomed here, but this is a genuine search for information, not a troll.
Andrew,
Try http://www.vicefund.com for all your non-ethical investing needs.
Regards
I’d tell you where to invest, but I’m too busy setting fire to hippie peace protesters.
Oh, wait… don’t do Philip Morris. They are, unquestionably, the most unpleasant people I’ve ever had the misfortune of dealing with.