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 In what bizarre universe is this guy ‘liberal’ while someone like me – who is strongly pro-gay marriage, pro-easy availability of pornography, against the stupid drug war, and stridently anti-authoritarian – is often described as ‘conservative’? If he’s a liberal, I’m a Prada handbag.
– Jackie Danicki
|
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 think I have worked this one out.
There was supposed to be a “link” on “this guy” was there not?
Wow I am starting to understand computer rituals.
However, I still think that it is cruel to keep the little people in these machines so that they can write on the screen.
To turn to the things you mention.
Well I am so reactionary that I am against hetrosexual marriage (let alone homosexual marriage) – if by marriage we mean government events (as under the 1836 Births Marriages and Deaths registration Act).
Marriage is supposed to be a religous vow (living in the same house and having sex is not a marriage – it is this extra thing, for those who value it) so I do not see, at least in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths, how there can be a homosexual marriage. As the three religions I know something about all define a marriage as something between a man and a women.
It is none of my business whether people bugger each other or not (any more than it is any of my business if they engage in hetrosexual activity) – but a marriage is supposed to be a relgious thing (not that I have ever been married myself or am ever likely to be). So a homosexual marriage would be stand in relation to a marriage in much the same way that a “Black Mass” stands in relation to Mass.
Not that I am against people allowed to hold black masses of course – as long as they do so on there own property (no breaking into churches) and there is no human sacrifice involved.
Still there are other religions – and it is quite possible that some of them have homosexual marriages.
Pornography.
Making it “more freely available” – I do not understand that as (in this country at least) it is freely available. At least for those who can pay for it (I take it you do not support a government subsidy).
I must confess that I tend to prefer towns where porn seems unpopular (at least to judge by the fact I did not see any) such as Ludlow (which I visited last week) to a town such as Bolton (where I lived till I came back to Kettering) which seemed to hold its “Lap Dancing” places (and so on) as the chief attractions of the town.
I suspect it is not a matter of a difference of the law as a difference in the customs of the people.
Male sexuality is a rather dark thing. And all men have to decide where we draw the line. I doubt that looking pictures of women with no clothes on does any great harm (although porn, like anything that becomes an obession, can bankrupt people – and I must confess that I find the whole thing raises some doubts in my mind).
However, paying to have sexual relations with a women is rather treating her as a means to an end rather than an end in herself (not that I believe in laws against this of course)
Others will mock that position of mine
Like a true old liberal (Gladstone) if there is one thing I am sure of it is that laws can not make people moral. I hope nobody will make any ignorant comments about Gladstone and prostitutes – a man who uses prostitutes does not take them to his (very public) place of business and home (Number 10) and do his best to help them (yes impure thoughts did occur – but to someone like Gladstone being a civilized man was about controlling such desires not letting them control you).
Everyone here would (I hope) draw the line at a least the nonaggression principle. For example, on the same day I visited Ludlow I visited Shrewsbury.
I admit I have only visited Shrewsbury once before (it was my first visit to Ludlow), but the place was not quite as I remembered it.
Some of the people were rude, and there was much drinking and vomiting of people and screeching of police cars (although the Association
Football World Cup may have something to with it – something most people seemed determined to ignore in Ludlow).
I was not wildly surprised to hear that two women were beaten to death in a brothel about the time of my visit to the town (no I did not do it).
Someone took the search for a sexual thrill too far.
Still (on the other hand) I heard a music recital going on as I passed Saint Chad’s in Shrewsbury, so there are alternative activities available to people (as there are in most places).
Music recital in St Chad’s?
Wild sex action down at the brothel?
A hard choice Paul.
Ah well my “Messiah” is rather rusty.
Is Anne Summers still open?
All part of Life’s rich gay (no, not that one, darling) pageant.
I’m still waiting for someone in this bizarre universe to explain what ‘same-sex union between a man and a women’ or ‘same-sex parents’ means.
Until then, I’m with Camille Pagilla and her reference to flim-flannery activism otherwise our bizarre universe my end up living like Jesse in Charles Beaumont’s “The Crooked Man.”
“Marriage is supposed to be a religous vow”
You really think that atheists can’t/shouldn’t get married? Really?
It isn’t a matter of shouldn’t/can’t, the question is why would an atheist state vows they don’t believe?
More like bizarro universe.
Well in my book it’s down to love and legality.
If you love the one your with, you make it legal.
Whatever sex you are attracted to.
It’s the whining living togethers I cant stand at the moment.
Where’s our rights!!!?
Well if you got a contract you’d have rights what’s the problem?
Oh we want to be free! no bits of paper for us!
Then bog off and squabble amongst yourselves then!
The Courts wont help you. And bloody well shouldn’t!
Sometimes you love someone and sometimes you just want to fuck. Just because there is an orgasmically triggered seratonin rush doesn’t mean you should conflate the two.
Quite.
Fluids, but not contracts may be exchanged.
From the same link.
Paul,
However, paying to have sexual relations with a women is rather treating her as a means to an end rather than an end in herself (not that I believe in laws against this of course)
And being paid for sex is?
“It isn’t a matter of shouldn’t/can’t, the question is why would an atheist state vows they don’t believe?”
They shouldn’t, which is why most atheists who want to get married would go the civil route which Paul Marks doesn’t think should exist.
So the question remains unanswered, atheists (let’s say one man and one woman for the time being) who wish to marry should do ….. what?
So the question remains unanswered, atheists (let’s say one man and one woman for the time being) who wish to marry should do ….. what?
Please excuse my amusement at seeing a bunch of (presumably) libertarians debate the merits of state sanction of personal relationships.
Speaking as an athiest who thinks that the government that governs least, governs best, If I decide I want to spend the rest of my life with someone and possibly procreate, I don’t intend to ask the government’s permission, or the church’s blessing.
There will, of course, be a rather large party announcing the commitment, but government officials and ministers are unlikely to be involved.
Judging by lifelong observation, atheists think they should suspend their disbelief for a day and have a nice Church wedding, as the registry office version is just too aesthetically displeasing and granny would be upset.
It’s no skin off my nose, and the vicars can of course use the money.
If they are mistaken in their lack of religious beliefs, then I doubt their false wedding vows are going to be the worst of their problems when they find themselves before the Throne.
My first wife was an a la carte catholic (believed the bits she liked); We got married in church and got a secular divorce after seven years. My present relationship is still going strong after 11 years despite not being registered with the government. We both feel better for keeping private matters private (especially from civil servants) and it suits us. I see no problem with those who prefer Bliar’s permission in writing choosing to register their relationships, but I’d rather not.
Moving on and out; if we criticise atheists marrying in pretty churches as hypocrites, what about the biggest Christian feast of the year; when the whole population buy Christmas presents with no thought of the religeous background (and no, I don’t accept that it’s really a pagan midwinter festival, because they wish me “merry Christmas” not “happy solstice”)
Marriage is a contract between two people. I married in a beautiful 1000 year old church in front of all my family and friends. The C of E service, the traditional one, was absolutely entrancing. The fact that God does not exist was quite irrelevent to me. I made promises to my wife in the presence of the people who mattered to me, in an exquisite environment, using beautiful language. I did not do this because I needed the sanction of a government, or anybody else. I did it, after three years of co-habitation, because it made my wife, my family, and me, very happy. My wife and I took the promises to each other seriously in 1984 which is probably why, despite our atheism, we are still very happy.
I am not saying this to boast because I was fortunate enough to find the right person first time but simply to explain that saying marriage is a religious thing is tosh. The reality of the here and now is that marriage is a commitment between two people – of whatever mix of genders – and how they choose to celebrate that commitment is up to them. In private or in a public place, whether ratified by the state or not. Its all irrelevent. If two people (or possibly more) make a commitment to each other, in my mind, its a marriage.
In the past retired brigadiers used to write letters to the Times complaining about how a previously decent, nice and positive word like “gay” had come to acquire a quite distinct and (to them) abhorrent meaning.
Now that I live in the US I start to feel the same way about how the word “liberal” has come to mean something abhorrent to me.
On the way home tonight I saw a bumper sticker which said “Annoy a liberal. Work, Succeed, Be Happy.” I really am struggling to understand the point the owner of said bumper was trying to make. Can anybody enlighten me?
Should be apparent from the context.
A lot of the people who are referred to as ‘liberals’ over here seem to want people to be unhappy, unsuccessful, and not work- the primary evidence being how they favor government programs that reward not working, not being successful, and the grievance lobby.
These days, “liberal” seems to mean someone who believes the government shouldn’t regulate something that the speaker thinks it should. Hence the American Christian fundies calling you liberal for believing that the government shouldn’t outlaw gay people, or why a publication like the New Internationalist calls free-market economies neo-liberal.
The term has become as meaningless as “left” and “right.”
Nick (Not the usual one), but that is the original meaning of liberal so the American Christian fundies and New Internationalist are entirely correct!
More complicated than that Perry.
Sure in Latin libertas means liberty (or so my semisenile brain seem to remember) and in French libre means liberty (ditto) – hence in French a liberal is someone who believes in liberty.
But in English it has never been so simple.
“Liberal” can also mean generious and broad.
For example a “liberal” interpretation of the Constitution meant statism as far back as the 1830’s (have a look at the liberal Whigs in the United States).
And in Britain there were also liberal statists from the start (even the sainted J.S. Mill was very different from what most libertarians think he was). Anti statism liberals existed, but there was a never a time when “he is a Liberal, he is favour of less government” could ever be relied on British politics.
Even in Manchester (the heatland of so called “Mancherter Free Trade Liberalism”) the setting up of the (Liberal controlled) city council meant a big expansion of government spending and the creation of such things as city government owned gas and water companies (the government gas company was the first in Britain). Of course Conservatives were often statists as well, but each time one has to check a case at a time – in Manchester in the struggle against the old system of government the Tory forces warned that reform would mean higher taxes and lack of repect for property rights (and they were right).
As for Guy’s point – as he knows selling the sexual use of one’s body is called prostitution.
I do not believe in laws against prostitution – but I do not believe that it is a healthy occupation (in more ways than one).
Still I am so reactionary that I would advice women (and men) not to sell themselves for sexual pictures (although I do not believe in laws against that either).
As I was a security guard for years I have seen quite a few pictures on sites, and no seeing porn has not turned me into a rapist or a murderer.
However, I doubt it has done anything good either.
Of course Guy is also making the point that a prostitute is also using the clients.
Indeed many prostitutes hate their clients. Selling sexual use is not really the same thing as selling a pound of apples.
Contrary to popular opinion most men do value affection (indeed love). The physical act of sex may be more important for a man than for a women – but on its own it is not enough (hence the practice of prostitutes of pretending affection for their clients).
Prostitution should certainly be legal (the state has no business getting involved in such matters) but it is destructive on both sides.