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]
|
What is sauce for the goose… … is also sauce for the gander, so the old saying goes.
The preposterous EU proposal to extend the ban the symbols of the German Worker’s National Socialist Party that is already law in France, Germany and elsewhere, has prompted a move to also ban communist and socialist symbols.
So now let us also ban Imperial Roman symbols (they were a slave owning political system), Christian symbols (Inquisitions, religious wars and sundry other nastiness), Confederate Flags… oh hell, let’s just ban all symbols except the ‘peace symbol’ and the EU symbol.
Via Rex Curry.
|
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.
|
If you changed “Hanoi” to “Brussels” you could get two birds with one stone 😉
That’s what constitutes an “EU proposal” these days?
Course it’s not just the EU this Spoonerista opposes.
Speaking of hateful symbols, how about the white flag?
Abject surrender always makes me angry… oh wait, then what would the French do?
Never mind.
You would have to ban the EU flag as well, as its roots are in Catholic Marian iconography.
They’re not going to ban communist and socialist symbols because communists play too important a part in the EU now. 17% of the commisioners who direct the EU are or have been members of the totalitarian communist parties that ran the communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe.
Meet your new rulers.
Article: From Commissar to Commissioner in one easy step
Does anyone actually think that bombing Hanoi now would be a good thing?
I know this is a little off topic, but I offer this comment because I think I should be in your target audience, or at least one of them. I am not yet an enthusiastic Libertarian, but I am open to being convinced (we do exist!).
I’m quite sympathetic to Libertarianism, but I have to say I am a bit put off by a vibe I sometimes get from Samizdata.net – although you don’t believe in initiating violence, you wouldn’t miss the opportunity to get stuck in because you actually like fighting.
I’m all for strong and forceful self defence. But I am attracted to Libertarian type institutions by the hope that they would minimise the need for violence. I do not believe that killing is something to be celebrated, or that war is inevitble given human nature.
In today’s world I fully understand why you have a gun on your homepage, and I support that. When it comes to the final calculation, if an individual is not prepared to defend themselves they cannot be free. But for me that is a necessary evil, which detracts from the enjoyment of life.
Here’s one more example that may help explain. In the Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus discussion, Libertarians seem to have contempt for the Europeans. If you were just complaining that Europe was not pulling its weight or fulfilling its moral duty I would understand. The European attitude does smack too much of pacifism (almost enough to make me support the invasion of Iraq…).
But it often seems to be argued that aversion to war is a character flaw. Well, given the choice I would prefer to spend my time making love than killing people. I am not sure how much I want to ally myself with people who make the opposite choice.
I hope I’m not hijacking the thread with this off topic musing (on topic I’m all for free speech for commies, Nazis and even people who want to bomb Hanoi), but I would be interested in any responses.
“But it often seems to be argued that aversion to war is a character flaw. Well, given the choice I would prefer to spend my time making love than killing people. I am not sure how much I want to ally myself with people who make the opposite choice.”
Well yes, I much prefer love-making to fighting but I would not care to imagine situations in which I would actually have to choose between them. Ughh. Fighting may be a necessary evil, but the ease with which we may talk about it stems from our appreciation of the values on behalf of which it becomes necessary even if that is in the form of hatred or contempt for those who would violate one’s own liberty, life or property.
Dear Anon,
[…]
A lot of the people on here are either right ring Americans with libertarian leanings or British people who act as if they are right wing Americans with libertarian leanings, not libertarians. Right wing Americans are still ticked off that they didn’t win in Vietnam, and to be a right wing American at the moment means to be a bit of a warmonger.
I don’t like the gun pictures and said so when they first changed to this gun riddled style. I think my complaint was something along the lines of fetishising weapons and putting off regular people.
You are complaining about a characteristic common in right wing Americans, not libertarians.
War for the most part, and particularly offensive war such as Iraq (and shortly Iran it seems) is the ultimate in statist exercises.
Given the unrelenting conflict that characterizes European history prior to the recent interregnum provided by the presence of US garrisons in several of the countries of the EU, a pacifist and non-militaristic Europe is a very positive step forward for peace in the world. It would be best if the nations of the EU, as well as Japan, remained anti-militaristic well into the future.
The complaint I have about the EU and Iraq is the blatant hypocrisy of governments who were clearly bought and sold trying to claim some moral superiority while at the same time relentlessly conniving to protect a murderous dictator from the consequences he so richly deserved.
Any European who says he is against all war is fine with me. Europe brought about the slaughter of enough millions in the last few hundred years to justify an aversion to any military conflict.
Oddly enough, however, much of the “anti-war” feeling only surfaces when the US is involved. It is hard to take such selective moral scruples seriously, especially when accompanied by the same banners displaying the hammer and sickle that used to parade down the streets of Europe whenever the US took a hard line position against the Soviets during WW3.
Pardon me if I find Europe’s delicate sensibilities somewhat less than convincing.
Actually I do indeed believe in initiating violence under some conditions. The simple ‘non-initiation of force’ principle does not actually have any basis in how our species acts: that said, there are some semantic issues here… I would argue that ‘initiating’ violence against a tyrant (say suddenly attacking North Korea) is not really ‘initiating’ violence at all, just responding to violence directed against other people. Likewise I am quite happy to initiate violence against someone mugging someone else, which is not ‘self-defence’ because I am not being attacked, but is nevertheless entirely appropriate.
Oh THAT is funny! Della does not like the views here so they are not ‘real’ Brits, just wannabe Americans. Sorry, but Atlanticism is hardly a fringe affinity in the UK darlin’.
The vibe you are getting here is mainly the kind you’d get from someone who wouldn’t hesistate to ‘get stuck in’ because they know what it’s like when those they love are being dragged to prison/interrogation/away (tick as appropriate) by some communist/statist/totalitarian (tick as appropriate) fuckers. It is a vibe that comes from people that know, sometimes from first hand experience, that nasty things happen and are not just the stuff history, books and films. They happen still, to millions of decent ordinary people who did not harm anyone just want to live their lives as they see fit…
Oh wait, that would be me…
Right wing Americans are still ticked off that they didn’t win in Vietnam…
Some have come to believe we did win in seeing Vietnam as but one battle of the Cold War.
If you consider it a victory then it is a funny sort of victory since Vietnam is still communist. I could posit that the one thing propping up the regime is a reaction against to American interference just as seems to happen in Cuba and North Korea. I could also posit that American interference also seems to have made the problem of jihadiism much worse than it would otherwise have been.
I’m not saying that these places should be allowed to go their merry way but there are effective, ineffective and counterproductive methods of dealing with these problems, and the latter seems to have been used too many times.
If you consider it a victory then it is a funny sort of victory since Vietnam is still communist. I could posit that the one thing propping up the regime is a reaction against to American interference just as seems to happen in Cuba and North Korea.
Still commie but loosening up. One good sign is that Americans who were ARVN and like, and who spent time in re-education camps, can now visit Vietnam without being unduly hasseled.
That the cock-up called the war in Vietnam forestalled the spread of communism is not off the historical table.
And our respective governments have been blowing mutual kisses for wanting increased trade. In time it may be “all about the oil.”
How can you say that when the war in Vietnam and the way it was fought led directly to the spread of communism into Laos and Cambodia? Communism always seemed to spread best when war was afoot starting with the Soviet Union itself, and you lot helped that right along in this case.
How can you say that when the war in Vietnam and the way it was fought led directly to the spread of communism into Laos and Cambodia?
I’d say that the spread preceded the hot war (American) in Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao were there if not as strong as the Viet Minh.
Well yes, I much prefer love-making to fighting but I would not care to imagine situations in which I would actually have to choose between them.
Mike, you’re not married, are you?
Della,
Repeat after me:
“Guns in private hands: good. Guns owned exclusively by government: bad.”
Feel free to refute the above with historical precedent.
I won’t go into the criminal / victim thing: we’ve been around that particular mulberry bush before.
“to be a right wing American at the moment means to be a bit of a warmonger.”
Yes, the 3000 murdered by Arab/Islamic terrorists on 911 was just a figment of our imaginations. Now wheres a country I can invade, I feel some mongering coming on.
There is an element of militarism that runs through National Review type conservatives.
Some Americans believe (some of them being my relatives) that until Viet Nam gets on its hands and knees and begs forgiveness for the war, the U.S. should forgo any relationship with Viet Nam. The poster is probably a reflection of that sort of feeling.
Anyway, given Viet Nam’s entry into the capitalist world economy, I’m not quite sure what practical effect bombing Hanoi would have.
D Anghelone,
I’d say that the spread preceded the hot war (American) in Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao were there if not as strong as the Viet Minh.
Let’s note that until the coup of 1970, the Khmer Rouge was a weak, unpopular organization. Warfare causes alll manner of unlikely consequences; making the Khmer Rouge seem like a viable choice to a significant element of the Khmer population was one of those unlikely consequences. Anyway, the post-Sihanouk government proved themselves not to be read for prime-time (indeed, their own ineptitude and corruption are as much a factor in their loss of power as anything).
D Anghelone,
If you read Shawcross’ Sidesshow, you’ll see that he goes into great detail describing corruption in the Cambodian government. Indeed, he details how members of the government were notorious for supplying the Khmer Rouge with arms, food, etc. (provided to the Cambodian government by the U.S. no less) as a means to buy “protection” from Khmer Rouge attacks.
veryretired,
Given the unrelenting conflict that characterizes European history prior to the recent interregnum…
This is a bit misleading, since warfare was hardly the solely confined to the European continent during this time period.
It would be best if the nations of the EU, as well as Japan, remained anti-militaristic well into the future.
There is a difference between militarism and having viable militaries.
“There is an element of militarism that runs through National Review type conservatives.”
For good reason. It works.
Della: “They’re not going to ban communist and socialist symbols because communists play too important a part in the EU now.”
Not so sure about that y’know. The EU political project (like the Blairite one) is marked by an obsession with making the right impression and utter indifference to naive concepts of truth and consistency. If banning communist symbols sends the message that “The EUSSR is not a totalitarian regime. Look, we’ve banned the symbols of _all_ totalitarian* regimes. *See regulation 2005/437 for definition.” — then communist symbols will be banned.
Can’t see where banning socialist symbols comes in, tho’. Is that a Samizdatista fantasy? The red rose in the fist is going nowhere.
Likewise can’t see the commission going for banning symbols of the totalitarian world-views of the World Religions, either. Tho’ it is not hard to imagine they’ll get round to assisting with controlling apostasy and evangelism (to preserve public order) and persecuting scientology and witchcraft EU-wide at some stage.
Re. the Hanoi thing, it is all much simpler than that… the idea is that it is never wrong to oppose a tyranny for no other reason than it is a tyranny.
Yeah but Iraq had nothing to do with that, Iran had nothing to do with that and Syria had nothing to do with that, so why invade Iraq and threaten to invade the other two? You guys havn’t even got Osama bin Laden yet, is that incompitent or what? You’ve also managed to kill a hell of a lot more than 3000 innocent people in your quest for vengence.
Della, there is no telling how many times you have been told this, but you insist on pretending it has never been said.
America did not go to war against one criminal gang. It went to war against a violent ideology, the criminal gangs that foment it, and its state sponsors, which most definitely include Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that AQ did not operate in a vacuum, but was an integral part of a network of Islamist terrorist organizations that received a great deal of support from these three nations, among others.
America did not start this war – the Islamists committed multiple attacks against Americans, and in America, before America really roused itself to respond.
Until you can come to grips with these facts, you will not be able to engage anyone who holds a different viewpoint.
If you read Shawcross’ Sidesshow, you’ll see that he goes into great detail describing corruption in the Cambodian government. Indeed, he details how members of the government were notorious for supplying the Khmer Rouge with arms, food, etc. (provided to the Cambodian government by the U.S. no less) as a means to buy “protection” from Khmer Rouge attacks.
I needn’t read that to know what was the corruption in Cambodia or in New York. It was all common knowledge. Please note that I haven’t argued for any side but have tried to state what was the case.
Banning any of the symbols won’t stop people who believe in them. Its a typical EU belief that if you are seen to do something people won’t worry about it. Does anyone actually believe the German neo-Nazi movement (that is on the upsurge) will go away if they ban anything vaguely associated with Hitler?
On ‘Nam: I have never been convinced it was necessarily a good idea…well lets face it following the French anywhere is a bad idea. But once we were there politicians should have let the military get on with the job at hand. You don’t go to war to get a draw, you go to win.
Let’s see, religious terrorists from Egypt and Arabia attack America. The US responds by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter of which has a secular, if nasty, government. I’d say the GOP is doing a bang-up job of getting after that ideology.
This reminds me of something Fred Reed said:
People in Kansas aren’t stupid–not given the admittedly sorry baseline for humanity. They are intensely local, though, and use their minds for practical things. When it comes to foreign policy they are better on principle than detail. I keep reading that sixty-some percent of Republicans believe that Iraq did New York. (Given what Republicans generally think of New York, I’m not sure why they aren’t grateful.) They know that somebody did something bad to us, and they want to smack the bejesus out of someone for it. That’s principle. “Smack who” is a detail.
The principle of getting al-Qaeda is fine. The details of the War on Terror have been anything but.
– Josh
Shawn,
There is a difference between militarism and having a viable military. You’ll find that militarism as an ideology hasn’t been as successful as you suggest. Furthermore, militarism is about as anti-libertarian as one can get – from a philosophical perspective. Then again, as this isn’t a libertarian blog, seeing it advocated here isn’t particularly surprising.
R.C. Dean,
There can be no doubt whatsoever that AQ did not operate in a vacuum, but was an integral part of a network of Islamist terrorist organizations that received a great deal of support from these three nations, among others.
The evidence of actual operational co-operation between AQ and these nations is scant at best. That’s the reality.
D Anghelone,
Actually you did argue for a particular side. Review your statements.
Actually you did argue for a particular side. Review your statements.
If I wanted a tease I’d go to Britney Spears. I hope you have more to offer than she does.
Della:
“Yeah but Iraq had nothing to do with that, Iran had nothing to do with that and Syria had nothing to do with that”
Sept.11 was a terrorist attack motivated by Arab/Islamic fascism. Iraq, Iran and Syria all were or are sponsers of terrorism and countries which hold to some form of Arab/Islamic fascism. If you cant see the connection, then your indulging in deliberate tunnel vision which I simply dont take seriously.
“You guys havn’t even got Osama bin Laden yet, is that incompitent or what?”
Finding one man in the wilds of western Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan would tax any nations abilities. If you think its “incompetent, by all means fly there yourself and show us how an expert would do it.
Gary:
Militarism has in fact been a succesful strategy/ideology for the US. But thats a discussion for another thread as we are getting off topic.
Samizdata is a blog site devoted to individualism. It does not make any claim to be Libertarian, at least in the exclusive big L sense. As such both the contributors and the commentators hold a variety of beliefs and political views.
I’m not a Libertarian, and in fact I dont make any claim to having a purist ideology. I hold to a mixture of paleoconservatism on domestic, cultural and religious issues, libertarianism on economic issues, and neoconservatism on foriegn policy issues. Some people think that makes me confused, I say it makes me pragmatic.
Gary:
“The evidence of actual operational co-operation between AQ and these nations is scant at best. That’s the reality.”
No, it an irellevant point. The reality is that all three countries hold, or did in the case of Iraq, to some form of Arab and/or Islamic fascism, and all three have sponsered decades worth of terrorism. It does not matter one whit if they had any connection to Al-Qaeda at all. What matters is that they are sponsers of terrorism.
THATS the point that critics of the war ignore. Thats why putting pressure on Iran and Syria is right. Do you think these countries should be allowed to export terrorism at will? How does that hold with the Libertarian idea that people have the right to defend themselves against agressors?
If you have a garden full of weeds, you achieve nothing by only pulling up one of them. You gotta weed the whole garden. The Middle East is in desperate need of weeding.
You are all right… the antichist is coming from EU soon. I don’t said the name of the contry, because is a controversial thing to said that information. Roman empire destroy jesus church and creat “Roman-catholics.” No one practice the true religion, because Roman empire destroy it. And now they whant to destroy the new chistian religions. (All religion that beleve that Jesus is the Mesiah) Stop EU or they will get power and capture all the world just how Romans do.