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]
«  
  »

Samizdata quote of the day

· Slogans & Quotations

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.

– David Hume, one of the giants of the Scottish Enlightenment. I wonder what he would have made of our own times?

April 19th, 2006 |

12 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • permanent expat
    April 20, 2006 at 2:10 am

    Why the hurry, then?

  • Verity
    April 20, 2006 at 2:56 am

    permanent expat – V good!

  • Jacob
    April 20, 2006 at 9:07 am

    It didn’t take long for a total loss of liberty to happen in bolshevic Russia or in nazi Germany.

  • Nick M
    April 20, 2006 at 10:01 am

    Nazi Germany and the Sovs are not good examples for the glorious New Labour Reich. Both were built out of utter chaos in countries which hadn’t previously had traditions of freedom.

    Freedoms are not generally lost all at once. They are lost by a process of attrition. But there are tipping points. There are “repression enablers” – things which allow a government to accelerate it’s statist aims. The ID card is a thunderously good example. It’s popular with NewLab not just because it enables them to use it to quash freedoms now, but because it offers the potential to introduce controls in the future about which them perhaps they haven’t even dreamed oy, yet.

    Example. All UK internet activity is logged and to get a computer to connect to the net you need to slot your ID card into it. Not even cybercafes are anonymous. You make a comment on a blog which betrays “latent islamophobia”. They’re round you house the next day .
    and you are carted off for “re-education”. The Nazis did it with Brownshirts, NewLabour will do it with Outreach workers.

    Given the government’s lamentable track record with large IT projects there is a very good chance that it wasn’t even you. You’ll then have to defend yourself without access to the records (classified as pertaining to national security, of course).

    I feel a short story about it coming on…

    Curses! Franz Kafka got there first!

  • guy herbert
    April 20, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    All UK internet activity is logged and to get a computer to connect to the net you need to slot your ID card into it.

    That does appear to be one governmentalist fantasy. In practice it creates enormous scope for spoofing, but that doesn’t mean the innocent (in the sense of naive) have nothing to fear.

  • Julian Taylor
    April 20, 2006 at 1:47 pm

    Actually from another perspective it creates an enormous potential for criminals to hack data off one’s ID card. If you know that someone is in the UK then you will be aware that they must have their ID card inserted into a reader in order to access the web.

  • Nick M
    April 20, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    Yup, in the future we’ll all be Josef K. It is an irony that the introduction of ID cards may well result in us losing our identities.

    On a slightly different tack…

    I suspect part of the reason for ID cards is that the government hates the fact that for so many things, renting a video, joining a library, opening a bank account etc. third party ID can be used. It irks their statist tendancies to think that we can prove our identity to each other adequately without it being officially state sanctioned. Because, of course, Mother knows best.

  • Nigel Sedgwick
    April 21, 2006 at 12:15 am

    There is a serious problem with the slippery slope argument (also known as function creep and the thin edge of the wedge), or at least I firmly believe there is.

    It is that you can label just about anything as the start of the slippery slope. [And in the past, I have observed (that is said not seen) that all government is this sort of falacious slippery slope.]

    The protection against the inappropriate application of the slippery slope argument is to require additional evidence: that sliding down the slope is a material danger and, more importantly in most cases, a reasonably likely eventuality without further review or check. [Thus the slippery slope argument can be valid, though very often (even usually) it is not. In fact, I see it as a close second to the argumentum ad hominem, as a sign of desperation (having no better case). In good company (such as here) I feel it also shows disrespect for the listener/reader (that they have no better brain). Please feel free to dispute my ranking: of falacious arguments and of brains here assembled.]

    More importantly, would anyone pushing any of the more dubious of the above arguments like to contribute such evidence in support of their case(s)?

    Best regards

  • veryretired
    April 21, 2006 at 12:34 am

    If you are seriously asking that question, then the answer would not be what you seem to expect.

    Hume would be appalled at the sexual license, the rampant pornography (in his terms) on every TV, movie, book, magazine, and esp. on the internet, the mixing of the races, the extended childhood of the young, and the overall crudity of society.

    It is difficult to believe he would approve of giving such widespread autonomy to women as western culture does, and the rate of illegitimate births and abortions would cause him to tremble in fear of God’s wrath.

    He would be absolutely fascinated by the many instances of scientific progress, medical advancement, and technological development. Flight, space travel, the information learned about the oceans, other planets, communications, indeed, so much of what we take for granted as just a part of life, would seem totally amazing.

    A modern supermarket, or hospital, would reduce him to tears of joy and wonder that such bounty and lifesaving knowledge could actually exist.

    A history of the mayhem and slaughter that humans have inflicted on each other since he lived, especially that which occurred in the Europe he probably considered at a higher cultural level than other parts of the earth, would cause his heart to break with anguish, as it should any thoughtful person.

    And, finally, he would be stunned to learn that so many people, living in what to him would be almost a paradise of decent food, medical care, knowledge available to all, warm homes, safe travel, and lives extended en masse into the 70’s and more, would find so much to complain about when they lived in a culture which extended to them personal securities and freedoms unheard of during his lifetime.

    We live the dreams of emperors and pharoahs, free from most of the deadly shadows that have haunted humanity for millenia uncounted, and we never stop moaning at how terrible our world is, and how repressive our lives have become.

    Hume would think we were all nuts, and he might be right.

  • Nigel Sedgwick
    April 21, 2006 at 12:48 am

    @veryretired.

    That’s a nice piece. But it’s not special to David Hume (and, of course, you never said it was).

    The point is surely that, no matter how well informed we think we are, we always judge our high and low points according to our expectations in the society we see ourselves in.

    You could make similar comments concerning differences between us and the many societies currently existing that are well outside the wealth of the “western” world, or whatever.

    That does not stop me liking your point.

    Best regards

  • veryretired
    April 21, 2006 at 2:59 am

    Yes, of course, Nigel, it was a very generic take on the whole thing. I must say, though, that yours was one of the nicest backhand compliments I’ve ever gotten.

    Besides, conversing with someone named Nigel makes me feel so…cosmopolitan. Much better than Bill or Harry. Thanks.

«  
  »