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]
|
It seems the Kremlin is a hotbed of ironic humour Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky, who was granted asylum in the UK due to his treatment by the Russian state, had said he wants to engineer the overthrow of Vladimir Putin:
“We need to use force to change this regime. It isn’t possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure.”
To which a Kremlin spokesman said:
“In accordance with our legislation [his remarks are] being treated as a crime. It will cause some questions from the British authorities to Mr Berezovsky. We want to believe that official London will never grant asylum to someone who wants to use force to change the regime in Russia.”
Yet the Kremlin seems to think it can murder its political opponents in London and at home and that is just fine and dandy. Who says Russian politicians do not have a sense of humour, eh?
What is sauce for the goose…
|
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.
|
Perhaps they should just extradite him to face his crimes. Works for that bastion of democracy the US. that sauce spreads very well for governments. Not so much for people.
A violent regime change in Russia. Surely that has never happened before?
He talks too much.
Barking dogs don’t bite.
If you want to shoot, shoot, don’t talk.
Surely that has never happened before?
Certainly not for anyone who did his plotting in London, anyway.
If the Russian Government would like to extradite him then all they need to do is agree an extradition treaty.
Then we can properly question those random, individuals, clearly acting on their own, who may be implicated in murders that, apparently by coincidence, involve critics of the Putin Government.
Michael,
We could put him on a sealed Eurostar.
What’s so great about being a bastion of democracy?
What’s so great about being a bastion of democracy?
Yeah, the Jim Crow laws were passed democratically.
We are getting an ID Card democratically.
What is deeply sad is that the US is the closest we have to a bastion of freedom.
I’m not so convinced the US is — or has ever been — the bastion of freedom that its Founding Fathers intended and its current citizens would like to believe it is.
Certainly democracy is something the US likes to say it likes; there’s not that much evidence for that assertion. I think there are several countries that would come higher up the list of democratic credentials. Probably a fair few higher up the list of “freedom” credentials as well, but that’s a rather different issue.
Britain is far more democratic than the US and as a result, rather less free in many ways due to the fact governments can resort to populist authoritarianism rather more easily than in the USA. This is because UKGov does not have a genuine constitution to limit what it can do (Blair has destroyed the myth of the ‘unwritten constitution’). Democratic will, as expressed by the power of the democratically elected government to ‘do stuff’, is stronger in the UK, hense the UK is more democratic.
The US systems works by putting areas of life (at least nominally) beyond the remit of democratic politics in ways the UK’s system does not and to the extent the US Constitution still limits political power (and in many aspects of life, it no longer does), the US system still sort of works.
Of course in Russia, they do not really even have a fiction of limited political power. The laws is what Putin wants it to be. Or else.
I’m willing to give Berezovsky the benefit of the doubt, English is not his first language after all. In the interview he used the examples of Georgia and The Ukraine so I’m inclined to believe that he meant force of numbers (pressure, as he said) rather than force of arms.
The Kremlin must be very nervous indeed if they believe that Berezovsky can incite a revolution in the style of Georgia or The Ukraine. Nervous governments worry me even more than cocksure ones, especially nervous governments with nukes.
Chris, we are not getting an ID card democratically at all, we are getting an ID card by decree. If we had a referendum on the issue then we would be getting ID cards democratically (or not).
Mandrill, I disagree. You are getting an ID card via the representative democratic process. Elected governments frequently make decisions that are, if relevant opinion polls are to be believed, unpopular. This is not ruling by decree. The government of Great Britain has been democratically given a mandate to make decisions (unpopular or otherwise) for the term of parliament. It would be great if an infringement on the individual’s civil liberties like a compulsory ID card was forbidden by a constitution superior to any law passed by parliament. Unfortunately, the British version of democracy is relatively unrestrained and can be oppressive. It’s still democracy.
Mandrill and James Waterton point to the difference between direct and representative democracy.
If the British people were asked “do you support the I.D. card scheme” they might say “no” (they might say “yes” – but at least we would have a chance).
But under representative democracy they do not get a chance to decide – elections do not tend to be won on one issue, and only a minority of voters know where the parties stand on issues anyway.
The classic example is Germany in the early 1930’s – would even a third of Germans have replied “yes” to a question that said “do you support gassing the Jews”? I do not believe so. But then were not given the choice. They were just given political paties to choose between – contrary to what is sometimes said, they did not know that voting for the National Socialists meant voting for the Jews to be gassed.
In the Russian case the people were never asked “do you approve of political murders?”.
They just voted for Mr Putin – who likes murdering people.
Of course in Russia the television and radio stations (and almost all newspapers) say that Mr Putin is wonderful, good man whose only fault is his modesty (and so on).
Whereas in the United State all the television stations (bar Fox) say that George Bush is a beast and a monster (and so on) and almost all newspaper say the same.
So Russia and the United States are rather different examples of representative democracy.
As for democracy versus limited government in the United States.
Well, to make a change from my normal “the Republic died in the 1930’s” lament, I will look at now versus when I was born – 1965.
In 1965 a dime was ninty per cent silver (the new base metal coins were just being introduced) just as it had been in the old Republic. I am not one of those people who insist on “gold or nothing” – as long as money is not fiat (i.e. credit money ordered by government) I am happy. I could not care less if people choose gold, or silver (or any other commodity) – as long as it is not “index money” or some other government credit bubble trick (whatever nice things Hayek said about such things).
In 1965 Medicare and Medicaid were just comming in (with a combined budget of five billion Dollars – unlike the many hundred of billions of Dollars they cost now).
Indeed under President John F. Kennedy (who only died in 1963) the vast majority of Federal government spending was still on defence.
There was still a vast network of private railroads in 1965 (although it was being undermined by the government free roads and by government laws supporting unions and regulating prices).
And the first Federal “Civil Rights” law (of the modern sort) had only just come in (1964) telling people they must not “discriminate” (i.e. telling them who they must employ and do business with – something that is the same principle of complusion as the Jim Crow laws).
So it is possible to make a case that the United States was still a fairly limited government upt to close to the time I was born.
As for the United Kingdom – well that is a different story.
For those people who dislike long comments, the matter above is as follows.
Did F.D.R. kill the Republic, or was it L.B.J. with his “war on poverty”, “civil rights” and the rest of it?
Of course L.B.J. worked for F.D.R. back in the 1930’s – he made sure that only pro F.D.R. people got radio licences (which helped at election time) – although the young Johnson also made sure that the paid him kick backs for the licences.
Britain is far more democratic than the US
Arguably yes.
We are now getting on to three separate issues, issues which peop;e tend to lump together.
I have argued in the past that American politicians are more accountable to the demos than are British ones. If British politicians were as accountable as the Americans we would still have the death penalty.
So – Freedom, Democracy and Accountability; three different concepts, often sloppily lumped together by our press as one.
Perry, Ihave the greatest respect for you and your writing and for Johnathan. However, you’re talking through your backside on this thing and jumping on the UK pundits’ bandwagon without examining the other side of it.
Berezovsky is a toad who held the country to ransom in the 90s and looked after just himself. Now he’s trying to protect his butt. that’s all, And which country does not try to hit its traitors? Britain? Give me a break, Perry.
You made a comment over at Tin Drummer which I’ve just answered. A lady has just left who made the comment that she hopes they get him [Berezovsky]. I do too.
Sorry but that’s the general opinion over here, not what the vocal minority and demonstrators purport to be the case.
Come over here and see for yourself.
So you are saying the UKGov assassinates its critics overseas? The ‘other side’ of this is that a brutal kleptocratic government murders people in Britain and at home and as a result I quite like the idea of the same happening to Putin’s regime.
Moreover the Russian state showed it is no friend to UKGov when it refused to allow any serious condemnation of Iran in the UN when they seized 15 UK service people. If Putin’s enemies can say threatening things about a regime which is clearly no friend to the UK, that is just fine by me. Putin is owed no favours (quite the contrary in fact).
Perry, of course they do and the US too – what about Gary Webb, for a start?
As for Iran, there’s a lot of comment on this over here and it’s a case of signed commitments going way back but yes, there is a fair bot of ‘stick’ between the governments.
From the Russian side, the harbouring of known traitors to Russia is one issue but it’s also Blair’s and the EU constituents’ cavalier attitude in negotiationswhich got up the nose.
Chechnya is another example where Britain stuck its oar in to defend the indefensible – they were a murdering pack of bastards down there. There is incontrovertible evidence of the warlords’ atrocities, especially Basayev and these were the people Politkovskaya was hobnobbing with without realizing she was being used.
this is none of Britain’s business – this is a Russia v Al Qaeda matter but Britain bought into it by giving shelter to a terrorist cell in London, with whom Litvinenko was very much connected.
One must know both sides before making accusations. blame Blair for this.
By the way, Dave Petterson is a very perspicacious chap.
Gary Webb? Oh please, that is like quoting Von Daniken in an archaeology debate. Please explain why Europe and the USA were not filled with assassinated Irishmen critical of the British state between say, 1969 and 1998? You had to do a great deal worse that say threatening things to get an SIS hit team on your arse.
The ability of people in Britain to say what they like about what they like is not a British concern? An interesting notion.
Litvinenko was connected with Al Qaeda? And you know this how exactly? Sorry, this is all utterly and completely preposterous.
Litvinenko was murdered by the thug who runs Russia because he cannot tolerate any challenge to his power, it is that simple.
Putin was a member of the KGB and thus a psychopath more or less by definition, and he needs to be treated accordingly and certainly not pandered to. Modern Russia is a containable threat but it needs to be smacked down so that it does not allow its absurd delusions of grandeur to lead it to believe it can control what people say about the ruling regime in the west.
jameshigham :
First on the land of the Chechens.
The first President was an exSoviet Air Force General who was married to an Estonian – the constitution was based on that of Estonia.
He was democratically elected – but that did not stop the ruling circles in Moscow killing him.
They have killed off every moderate independence man they could find (as well as killing vast numbers of women and children).
So the Chechens have been left with a choice between Islamic nutters (the people used to be Sufi or agnostic – but this is not an option any more) or the puppets of the Kremlin (by the way, some of the puppets are Islamic nutters as well).
“But the Chechens are Muslims….”
Are the Georgians Muslims? That would come as news to them (as they have been fighting Muslims for almost 14 centuries).
Are the Ukrainians Muslims?
And so on and so on.
People being Christians does not stop the Kremlin trying to undermine their independence – by murder if need be (the Kremlin learnt that ordinary poisons do not always work when the man who is now President of the Ukraine was saved, just, from their effort to kill him).
Only a few years ago there was trial by jury in Russia – real trial by jury (not a system where the outcome of the trial is decided in advance).
There were also newspapers (and in every city – not just one in Moscow to show to people from other lands – a newspaper that has had many of its journalists murdered) and television and radio stations that were against the government.
Nor did the government go around murdering journalists (even at home – let alone overseas).
As for the businessmen who are attacked for buying natural resources too cheaply. As the Yeltsin government did not want to sell all these things to foreigners no higher prices could be expected.
Where were Russians going to get billions of Pounds from?
As it was the people who bought the assets were denouced for having as much money as they did – everyone knows that when Putin and co denounce “Plutocrats” they mean JEWS.
And if it is just rich people that Putin hates (apart from the ones who kiss his boots of course) – then why were the journalists killed, and why was the chess master arrested this morning (oh, I forgot, he is not a “real Russian” – his family have been in Russia for centuries, but he is a …….).
Of course Yeltsin made blunders. Tax rates were much too high (following the advice of Westerners), there was also a massive credit-money bubble (that was also partly following Western advice – but also allowing other nations in the C.I.S., such as Belarus, to link their own credit money expansion into Russia). But Yeltsin’s biggest mistake was to allow Putin so much power, power that Putin eventually used to gain control of the state – which he has now used to crush civil liberties and recreate a police state.
To say that Russia under Putin is no worse than other lands or no worse that Russia has ever been reminds me of the Russian saying “first they smash your face in, and they they say you were always ugly”.
Jameshigham on the subject of UK State sponsored assassination “of course they do”
Yeah right – sure…and they so cunningly avoid giving the game away by never assassinating anyone who might be a likely choice of the average person on the Clapham omnibus.
Paranoia gallops anew on Samizdata. Apparently, Putin is an absolute cretin who gets rid of his opponents by having them get poisoned with substances only his agents could have access to. After all, he’s only an ex-KGB man, what does he know about covert subterfuge?
To my mind, it’s far more likely that some bitter oligarch/wannabe-oligarch has decided to embarrass Putin by staging an assassination with all possible clues pointing to Moscow. Or if not an oligarch, then one of the upstart republics in Russia’s near abroad.
I appreciate that Samizdatistas have a psychological need to rubbish the Kremlin, but I must warn you, for your own sake, against doing that. If the case for liberty becomes intertwinned in the public mind with a belligerently anti-Russia policy you can’t expect it to get far. Support even for the current interventionist policy in the Arab world is negligible and waning (a recent poll in the DT had c. 80% against further commitments in Iraq). How much harder will it be to whip up war-readiness for a stand against a Russian government which has done nothing to a single British citizen?
Seriously chaps, you have nothing to gain from peddling the ‘least undercover undercover operation ever’ theory. I don’t like to see intelligent people wasting their time on repeating neocon cliches.
Serendipity seems a bit hard of thinking. Putin is having his cake and eating it. He denies killing anyone (obviously) but then does it in such a way that it could not possibly be anyone else as that sends an unmistakable message to his critics overseas: shut up or else.
It is not a conspiracy, because that implies hiding something and this is as plain as sand. I suspect the only people who believe that Putin did not order this assassination have an agenda (it is interesting how popular he is on various non-Russian neo-fascist sites).
And I am not anti-Russian, I am anti-Putin, which actually makes me pro-Russian. Anyone who supports Putin is anti-Russian in my view (or at least very unwise if they voted for him). But of course collectivists always have difficulty understanding that a government is not a place or a people, it is just a government.