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]
|
An almost-hidden jewel in London’s collection of museums is the Gilbert collection of jewels, furniture and historic art in Somerset House, on the banks of the Thames near the Temple tube station. At the moment, there is a retrospective exhibition of the work of the great Tiffany jewellery business, going back to that firm’s origins in the middle of the 19th Century. In some ways, the rise of the house of Tiffany mirrors America’s own rise as a mighty economy, since the industrial progress of that country created vast fortunes, and naturally, people wanted to show this wealth off. And boy, did they do so. I strongly recommend this collection for anyone who wants to see the jewellers’ art at its greatest.
My only word of caution: if you are thinking of taking someone there for the start of a sophisticated date, be warned. The jewels there may give your other half Big Ideas. Very Expensive Ones. Gulp.
India Knight has written an article in the Sunday Times about the realities of life for Muslims and decrying ‘Islamophobic’ views like Jack Straw’s dislike of the Islamic veil. Many of the points she makes are fair ones but I think the underlying premise of her article is completely mistaken.
I am particularly irked by ancient old ‘feminists’ wheeling out themselves and their 30-years-out-of-date opinions to reiterate the old chestnut that Islam, by its nature, oppresses women (unlike the Bible, eh,?) and that the veil compounds the blanket oppression […] That perhaps there exist large sections of our democratic society, veiled or otherwise, who have every right to their modesty, just as their detractors have every right to wear push-up bras?
Fine, but Muslim women wearing veils is hardly something new: they have been a common spectacle on British streets for a good twenty years, so something has changed. The reason why people who were previously tolerant of the more outwardly outlandish Islamic ways was that there was no sense that Muslims were trying to impose their sensibilities on others outside their narrow community of religious believers.
I am not saying there are widespread calls amongst Muslims in Britain to force all women to wear veils, but if Jon Snow (who is certainly no Islamophobic reactionary) is to be believed, there is indeed widespread Muslim intolerance for any exercise of free speech which they find offensive… and by intolerance I do not mean dislike or disrespect (respect is never a right) but rather support for the use of force (legal or extra-legal) to prevent people ‘insulting’ Islam.
Tolerance is a right, but it is one entirely contingent upon it being reciprocated, because tolerating intolerance makes no sense whatsoever. Simply put, because so many Muslims refuse to tolerate non-Muslim criticism of their ways, that inevitably means that fewer and fewer secular (or Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Confucian, Buddhist) people in the UK are willing to tolerate adherents of a set of beliefs in which intolerance of others appears to be endemic.
As I have said before, I have little time for any religion but if people want to live in ghettos with their co-fantasists so that their weird values are the local community norms, I regard that as a problem, but a manageable and tolerable one. It is when they want to extend their influence over others by force that I stop tolerating them. So even if what India Knight says about the realities of life for most Islamic women is true… so what? The nature of life for people who choose to be Muslims is not the root of antipathy to Islam by non-Muslims. Islam is not a race, it is a set of beliefs and therefore it is a choice. As it is something people choose to believe in, it is therefore something upon which they can and should be rightly judged by others. When someone wears the outward trappings of a set of beliefs (such as a hijab, a KKK outfit, a crucifix, a Hammer and Sickle, a Nazi armband, an Ayn Rand tee-shirt), it seems strange they should not expect to be judged on the basis of what those beliefs mean to others.
I dislike the Islamic veil for much the same reason I dislike people who wear pictures of a Hammer and Sickle upon their shirts, not because of what they are (they are just bits of coloured cloth after all) but because they represent a set of beliefs which are incompatible with post-Enlightenment civilization itself and also indicate the wearer will probably not be willing to tolerate me expressing what I think of them if they are true to their beliefs, regardless of how politely I phrase my remarks. That is what I find intolerable.
One of the key rights that makes civil society possible is the right to free association: the right to deal with people who want to deal with and the right to dis-associate yourselves from those who (for whatever reason) you disapprove of without threat of force being used against you.
As a result it should be no surprise that in the ongoing struggle to replace the interactions of civil society with entirely political mediated interactions, that the right to free association is under attack yet again. The right to decide who you must to do business with is being fought for by Catholic and Muslim institutions who do not want to be forced by law to deal with people who are homosexuals (i.e. people acting sinfully according to their beliefs).
Yet no one is even discussing the fact that individuals, such as shop owners or landlords for example, might also want the right to free association Why is this right being discussed only in terms of ‘group rights’? The right of Catholic or Muslim institutions not to have people forced on them by law? What about the rights on everyone else to make their own minds up who they will or will not associate with and do business with?
I do not think that George Walden, former Conservative MP and minister, cares much for David Cameron, according to this article that came out a few weeks ago. Excerpt:
The politics of sentiment increasingly dominate public discussion, and sentimentality tinged with cynicism was what Diana was about. The same is true of Cameron’s social politics. The cant of the new elites emerges with numbing shamelessness in his public declarations. Recently the one-time PR man for ruthlessly profitable trash TV made a heartfelt speech in which he said that money wasn’t everything, and that the quality of our culture mattered. In his more mawkish mode it is possible to discern in the Tory leader’s political pitch a faint echo of Diana’s Christ-like affectations. With her, it was a scrupulously choreographed contact with people sick with Aids. With Cameron, it is an ostentatious tolerance of the lower orders: suffer the hoodies and the hoodlums to come unto me.
Brrr… Walden might as well have called Cameron a patronising wanker. He must be glad the practice of duelling has been abolished.
Iain Dale, usually the most civil of commentators, is not impressed much by Walden, however:
Former Tory MP George Walden was one of Britain’s worst ever High Education Ministers. Since leaving Parliament he has earned a living writing pseudo-intellectual drivel about politics and culture. It’s usually unreadable. I attended a discussion evening with him and his wife a couple of years ago, organised by Living Marxism. He was insufferable and spent the whole evening putting down his wife. In the Independent on Sunday diary there is a piece on his book The New Elites in which he slags off David Cameron for “being a posh man pretending to be common”. Utter rubbish. But even if it were true, it’s better than a pub bore pretending to be an intellectual.
Aren’t Conservatives lovely?
There is an excellent bit of reportage in The Guardian by James Meek, covering the experiences of British troops in Southern Afghanistan that gives a good troop’s eye view of things.
This next week I am off again on a month of continuous travel and will be awaiting my sainthood for putting up with all the ineffective security checks on multiple long flights.
But now, on to the good stuff.
Next week is the second annual X-Prize event out in Las Cruces and I will be at the airport on Sunday a week. As I will be attending a National Space Society board/management meeting for several days before, I understand we will also be co-hosting a party with the X-Prize people
I fully expect to run into many old friends in the commercial space business in the place one would most expect to run into rocket scientists: the bar! Last year I got my clock cleaned at air hockey (while a Japanese film crew wandered about filming and interviewing people) and it is time for a rematch.
Sir: We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority.
– Karl Marx letter to Abe Lincoln, November 1864
Great article by Brendan O’Neill on the attempts – vain, I hope – to silence folk who dare contest the Truth of Global Warming.
Right, it is Friday evening, I have a life, so have a good weekend and try not to think about English football.
Economist Bryan Caplan has posed the question: which law would you like to break? I guess, that being a libertarian kind of guy, he favours giving the finger to those laws that do not protect life and property but instead regulate our behaviour for our own good.
So, it being the start of the weekend, I shamelessly steal Bryan’s idea and pose this question to the Samizdata hordes: which law would you like to break? And also, why?
One of the things that struck me, reading the comments on the recent thread about the casualty toll in Iraq, the North Korean bomb test, and the ongoing debate about what to do about Islamist terror, is what are countries doing to defend against missile attacks, including nuclear ones? When George Bush was first elected in 2000 (whatever Michael Moore might claim), he made a great deal of play about missile defence and the ABM Treaty. Now I may have missed something, but anti-missile defence, as a topic, seems to have gone a bit quiet. But surely, if North Korea has the bomb, with Iran not far behind, then anti-missile defence ought to be one of the top priorities for defence planners.
Even if you are a paleo-libertarian who thinks defence policy rules out any form of pre-emption, you presumably – unless you are a pacifist – embrace technologies to ward off attacks. So it seems to me to be a bit strange that we have not had more discussion about what countries should be doing in this area, and the pros and cons of the technologies involved. (There may have course have been a lot of discussion, but it has been out of the media spotlight, for various reasons).
Some old thoughts of mine about the merits and perils of pre-emption. Here is a book about what a defence policy that is really about self-defence might look like, via the Independent Institute.
Terrorism has always been cheap and easy, to be sure. The reason we do not have more has more to do with the tiny numbers of people it appeals to, and the sort of people it appeals to not generally being much good at practical organisation, than the competence of security forces. But modern governments and modern media appear to make terrorising the general population costless, workless and safe. Just hold a few meetings, send a few emails, and confess to plotting some extravagant crimes, and you are guaranteed to occupy the media for days.
Dhiren Barot, of north London, planned to use a radioactive “dirty bomb” in one of a series of attacks in the UK, Woolwich Crown Court heard.
Leave aside that ‘dirty bombs’ are not significantly more dangerous than ordinary bombs, but rely on superstitions about radioactive contamination – read further down the story:
The Crown could not dispute claims from the defence that no funding had been received for the projects, nor any vehicles or bomb-making materials acquired, [prosecuting counsel] said.
Barot had also faced 12 other charges: one of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, seven of making a record of information for terrorist purposes and four of possessing a record of information for terrorist purposes.
The judge ordered all these charges to lie on file following his guilty plea to conspiracy to murder.
Perry’s posting on the Libertarian Alliance conference reminds me to tell you about two events, one indoors and one outdoors, that may appeal to those of a libertarian temperament or tendency.
First up: less an event, more of an individualist free-speech happening. Monthly mass lone demonstrations. You can not just go along though; you have to fill in a form first. Mark Thomas explains. [Overseas readers: do follow the link, you may be astonished to discover how speech is regulated in New Britain.]
The next occasion is next Wednesday.
Second: a plug for The Battle of Ideas run by the Institute of Ideas in Kensington on the weekend of the 28th/29th October, under the slogan “Free speech is allowed”. I shall be taking part in what they are calling a Salon Debate [‘salon’ = ‘small’?] on The Surveillance Society, but there are many other attacks on state control and the tyranny of received wisdom to be enjoyed.
After we conceived the festival, Prime Minister Tony Blair was calling for a ‘battle of ideas’ in response to the London bombings on 7/7. He knows a good slogan when he sees it, but unfortunately, many of the government’s policy proposals since then seem more about closing down debate than opening it up. Laws curtailing free expression, and a general climate of inoffensive conformism, are anathema to the IoI’s aim of creating a space in which issues can be openly argued over. The recent cartoons controversy shows what a live issue free speech is: free speech is not an abstract principle but is crucial for tackling the problems society faces. It is free speech that enables different interpretations of the world to be debated on their merits.
|
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.
|
