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 I’m proud to live in a culture in which I can go for a beer, shag a bird in the alley behind Spaggers’ Nite Spot, then go home and look at gay hobbit porn. These are western values. These are things our own ruling class despise.
– Commenter Ian B, who has probably set a local record by having his remarks made into ‘Samizdata quote of the day’ on consecutive days. Give that man a cigar!
|
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.
|
Ian B has truly come from nowhere and instantly made himself a most useful mammal. I read his comments and find myself nodding my head and agreeing because he’s that sodding annoyingly right. It’s awful, it truly is.
I can has cheezburger now?
cheezburger onli for teh vere fluffeh kittins. It is neve fluffeh tiem on samizdata 🙁
“I read his comments and find myself nodding my head and agreeing because he’s that sodding annoyingly right”
Which posts exactly, because if you mean the quote of the day then I’m frankly shocked by the proportion of the population that enjoys hobbit pornography. How has this fetish remained so resolutely underground? Is this some bizarre puritan conspiracy?
Oh, and apologies Ian B, but I’d love for your right to watch homosexual hobbit pornography to be challenged, purely for the immature delight that I’d gain from hearing Jeremy Paxman say those words.
The mere sight of the words ‘gay hobbit porn’ caused such howls of mirth at Samizdata HQ that SQOTD was inevitable.
We are easily amused.
That’s nothing to be ashamed of. After a day of reading Popper or Postrel there are few better ways to relax.
Ian doesn’t sound like the kind of guy who’d be satisfied with a cigar.
I shall make him my new personal philosopher.
Perry-
You’ll no doubt be delighted to know that at the time of typing this, samizdata is #4 on Google for “gay hobbit porn”. Watch out for the traffic pulse 😉
It might be rather similar to when there was a little tutting about New Labour taking money from Richard Desmond, publisher of the Express and a number of magazines for gentlemen like Asian Housewives and Big Ones Monthly. So Paxman was grilling Blair about it, read out a list of such titles and then asked, “do you know what is in these magazines?”
And Tony said, “No”.
For the record. I am not particularly proud to live in a culture where you “can go for a beer, shag a bird in the alley behind Spaggers’ Nite Spot, then go home and look at gay hobbit porn”. I am proud to live in a culture where none of the above is prohibited, but I would still rather not live in a culture where such pursuits were accessible.
I believe that Ian was taking pride in the liberal value of tolerance, not in the liberal values of alcohol and fetishistic sex. As long as he isn’t proposing a fascistic pornocracy of ritual hobbit erotica I will respect his right to those pursuits and stick to the occasional glass of wine.
Well I believe I welcomed Ian B already on a previous thread.
So there to the rest of you!
Pshaw!
Like Nick
I’m nodding (and smiling!)
Reckon you might need to alter the ‘who are we panel’ on the right…
“We are also a varied group made up of social individualists,.. etc…. … from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe, who are prepared to tolerate gay hobbit porn.”
It’s not as snappy but might encourage new visitors.
It is, in fact, precisely our ruling class who have pushed and continue to push social libertinism of this sort as a substitute for real freedom.
Remember that vignette in 1984 commenting on the proles who think they are being rebellious buying porno mags that are in reality produced by the Party? Think about it. Hard. We are not a freer country than we were before the Sexual Revolution and nor are any of the countries that experienced the 60s cultural holocaust. We become less free every day in lockstep with the pornification of society.
But, then, this is like trying to argue that a pig is not a duck – if you can’t see it already, then you probably never will.
So Gabriel thinks that because people choose to do things he does not like, that means they are less free.
I wonder what Gabriel thinks ‘real freedom’ is? Just curious.
Then I have to disagree with you. Firstly I would ask how one would construct a system in which something is neither prohibited nor accessible. That smacks suspiciously of where we’re going already; taking the example of smoking, which will reach a stage where it’s not actually against the law but it will be practicably impossible to do it anywhere.
But the main point(s?) of that phrase was not merely to raise a smile. These cultural activities are unique to the western world. They represent freedom from coercion by the mob. Nobody should be obligated to drink alcohol, have sex or look at porn, but they are things that a free society does not prevent, and which in a free society will occur. They are simply life choices, equal in merit to choosing what foods to eat, or whether to read Dostoevsky, or watch ballet.
I’m not content with “tolerance”. It’s a sad word. It’s putting up with things; it contains an inherent disapproval. Who would proudly speak of “tolerating” black neighbours? That doesn’t sound very nice, does it?
That beering, shagging and weirdy porn exist in our culture are a testament to its achievements in throwing off a tribal mentality that seeks approval from (a)masters and oligarchies and (b) the peer group. The drunk, the sexually active person, the porn viewer, harms nobody. If we disapprove by declaring well yes, but they may harm somebody then we’ve accepted the statist argument. We inevitably bow to the need for wise leaders to socially engineer. We become the enemy of freedom.
The ruling class, the oligarchy, the statists, the bastards (choose a name here) despise the things I listed, and many more things besides. They seek to delineate what will be socially approved of. The liberal may grudgingly say “well, I’m in favour of freedom of speech so I tolerate porn but good people don’t look at it because it oppresses women and causes rape and stuff and I utterly discard that view. Gay hobbit porn exists in our society because our society is the one which dared to let people make their own choices, and that is what they choose to do. Indeed, Peter Jackson made an entire movie of it called The Return Of The King, that sent thousands of women into a typographic frenzy writing Sam slash Frodo tales. And good for them too. They are doing what our society, uniquely, is all about doing; doing what you want.
If we cannot stand up for those things, we will get nowhere. If the statist points his finger and says, “you want this FILTH corrupting our society?!” and the best you can do in reply is to mumble “well I don’t like it personally but y’know, can’t stop people and stuff” then you lose the argument at that precise nanosecond. Did the gay community get where they are by saying “well we wish people had less anal sex but you people should be kind enough to tolerate it”? Like hell they did.
When people have freedom, they mostly don’t spend it at the Opera and reading
DovstestDosteoTolstoy, they watch The X Factor and go to Spaggers and read the paper with the titties in it. That’s how people are. Ergo, that is the society that lovers of freedom (and lovers of Samwise Gamgee) are trying to achieve.In MHO.
There’s an extremly good argument that all pornography is inherently a statement of womens’ equality as well… which since I type too much I’ll skip, ‘cept to ask anyone reading this whether they think an Iran with a vibrant porn industry could possibly be the horrific misogynist mess it is. The central “message”, if message it has, of porn is not “women are the oppressed playthings of men”- it’s “women are not baby machines with a cookery attachment”.
Answering Gabriel- I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that the ruling class are “pushing libertinism”. Does Gordon Brown proudly stagger out of Number 10 with a beer in one hand and a bird in the other? No. They don’t like it much at all, in fact.
I think a fairer assessment is that libertinism was a natural progression for our society, the twentieth century expression of it largely being triggered by wealth creation that allowed people more time to do things other than work like dogs to get the next meal on the table, and thus the lower social classes started doing what the rich had previously only had access to; libertine pursuits.
The confusion arises because the explosion of leftism rode in the backs of the young libertines, that generation after the War who were really the first generation with the money to have a good time. Their fundamental nature was libertine and libertarian; rejecting the restrictions of the past; the left saw how they could use this and channeled it into “tear down the old and replace it with socialism“.
But the committed left aren’t, themselves, libertine (even their apparent pandering to gays is really just a Gramscian policy of using the minority to break the hegemony). Read some feminist works and see how libertine they are. Note that censorship was upheld in Britain by a coalition of the extreme right (hey you, Whitehouse, ah ha charade you are) and left wing feminism. Note how our current socialist masters are doing their level best to stop people having a pint and nocturnal al fresco couplings (’tis now illegal to have sex while drunk; ’tis rape). They rode in on the crest of the “liberal” wave of the 60s and now they’re doing their best to cram it back in its box. They may use elements of it which are of use to them (e.g. gay rights). But they’re as anti-libertine as the most puritanical conservative.
One of the very few self-confessed libertarians I have ever met summarized his philosophy thus — I am free to do anything I wish, just as long as it does not interfere with anyone else’s freedom; and that turns out to be a very stringent limitation indeed.
Get drunk? Only if you do it in a private place, where others are not going to be offended by your vomit.
Slap & tickle in public places? See above, and make damn sure that contraception is effective.
Gay hobbit porn? Sounds OK, as long as you look at in a private space, and all the hobbits were above the age of consent. Now, what is the age of consent for a hobbit?
Alice-
So, er, you’re taking the view that to offend another person is to take away their freedom? Like, I can’t wear a “Bollocks To Blair” tee-shirt in case it upsets somebody?
That’s not libertarian, that’s modern statist authoritarian “liberalism”.
If I have no freedom to offend, then I have no freedom at all. Everything offends somebody.
Ian B:
Excellent observations! In fact, even when it comes to stuff such as gay rights, their approach has changed drastically in recent years. Three or four decades ago, the proponents of gay rights were campaigning from a libertarian standpoint, arguing that it’s none of the government’s business to meddle into whatever people consensually choose to do in their private lives. Nowadays, however, except for some increasingly rare honorable exceptions, they have become a firmly entrenched part of the statist left, fully sharing its core belief that the government should indeed regulate and micromanage people’s lives in the name of whatever lofty goals are dictated by their ideology, with nearly zero concern for personal freedom and individualism. Their sole disagreement with the religious puritans is not about whether people should be left alone, but only about the exact content of the agenda that should be shoved down people’s throats — and the practical overlap between their agendas is definitely much greater than either side would be glad to admit.
I am offended by statism. I don’t mind what they do behind closed doors, but do they really have to use the coercive power of the state in public like? What if the children see it and think it’s okay?
If I have no freedom to offend, then I have no freedom at all. Everything offends somebody. – Ian B
What a great line! Is Ian up for three straight SQD’s?
Some people really do need to lighten up. Personally, I am not much into beer (well, a little), shagging birds or hobbits, gay or otherwise. I am more a DOSTOYEVSKI (copy and paste, Ian) kind of person. But even I can see Ian’s point.
Ian, your comment about pornography and women is interesting. I am not sure that I agree 100%, but there is certainly something to it.
Ian,
May the fleas of a thousand camels nest in your ear, and may you one day finally have the opportunity to dance at your parents wedding.
Well done chum. I am green with envy.
SNARL, SPIT.
“So Gabriel thinks that because people choose to do things he does not like”
To be fair, that’s a non-sequitur, Perry. He was saying something like “Less free since that time” rather than “less free BECAUSE of…” Though I don’t agree with his argument about “pornification” –gad, what a word– I do think it’s true that we have lost more freedoms than we’ve gained in the referenced time period.
Sam, I did not see anything about net gain or loss of freedoms in Ian’s comment, just an appreciation of the freedoms we do have, especially in contrast to the lack of those freedoms in other societies. I also happen to think that we do need to count our blessings from time to time.
The ruling class … despise the things I listed, and many more things besides. They seek to delineate what will be socially approved of. The liberal may grudgingly say “well, I’m in favour of freedom of speech so I tolerate porn but good people don’t look at it because it oppresses women and causes rape and stuff and I utterly discard that view.
I don’t discard this view. In fact, I support it.
There are many actions people carry out that I despise, and will continue to despise. HOWEVER, that does not mean that I wish to control and/or stop them, other than by persuasion and education. I also will not tax them and use those taxes in this pursuit.
The problem is not despite, or disapproval, it is this foul view that disapproval justifies coertion. That is what I loath.
that is the society that lovers of freedom (and lovers of Samwise Gamgee) are trying to achieve
No I am not trying to achieve this society. In fact, I would argue that this society you describe is created as a result of the incompetence of the state based education system. In a society where people can aspire, a high proportion WILL aspire. It is only where aspiration has been beaten out of people that the lowest expectations dominate.
Hi, Alisa; I wasn’t addressing Ian’s post, just trying to point out what I think is a logical error in Perry’s comment, and even THAT wasn’t very far off base. Now realizing that I’m trying to make a rather unimportant and abstruse point which could very quickly go in circles, I think I’ll just drop the subject and say that although I’ve never enjoyed gay hobbit porn very much, I’ll defend to the death my right to flog the goblin in private.
They are simply life choices, equal in merit to choosing what foods to eat, or whether to read Dostoevsky, or watch ballet.
Actually Ian, on this point I would have to disagree with you, as it sounds much like the cultural relativism that the leftoids are spewing forth constantly. Your choice to binge drink, be a misogynist and indulge pornography may be legitimate choices in a free society, but in no way do they have the same merit as higher order cultural activities, which is what I think Alisa and to a lesser Gabriel is trying to say.
I support your freedom to choose, but assert my freedom to oppose your choices, so long as I don’t restrain you from choosing them.
Ian B,
I meant “accessible” in the “there is a market for it” sense. I do not approve of people watching gay hobit porn or shagging behind Spaggler’s, but I strongly approve of giving them the choice to do so. In Lee’s Perfect World, free people would not choose to do these things, that’s all I meant.
In regard to freedom of expression, and the old libertarian line, “I am free to do anything I wish, just as long as it does not interfere with anyone else’s freedom”, I think I am in agreement with Alice. This is something I wrote in my blog sometime back when considering freedom of speech, which I think strikes at the heart of the problem.
To expand on the above comment.
The rationale behind politically correct speech prohibitions, or the proliferation of hate crime ligislation, follows the logic of the externality problem closely. The externality problem has traditionally been a soft spot of liberty, and which statists have been all too eager to exploit. In fact, many defenders of liberty have conceded, that under extreme circumstances, intervention may be the appropriate course. The Anthropogenic Global Warming hysteria is the latest example, and much of the support for state intervention is derived from the perception of a huge externality problem, with potentially catastophic consequences.
I do not think it helps that such circumstances are referred to as “market failures”, as though liberty failed by not producing some perfect world. This is like saying that natural selection failed because it has never produced a perfect organism, a transparently silly idea to anyone who understands evolutionary theory. The common wisdom is that externalities should be addressed, by punishment or prohibition.
If the factory which pollutes a river is not forced to incur the full cost of its activities, and compensate the people who have been harmed, then is that fair? Is that consistent with a civil society? How should the victims respond? The issue of free speech arises similar questions, particularly when someone holds to an intolerant ideology, habitually and deeply offended by anything which mocks or disagrees with that ideology.
I think the answer is simple. The lover of liberty is one who is willing to incur the cost of this externality, and I for one will encourage everyone to do the same. However, I do sometimes feel as though libertarians skim over this problem, often dismissing it with a pithy phrase, when it seems like the source of a lot of bother.
And I would say that statements such as that can’t be supported on any grounds other than snobbery**. Who is to say what is a “higher order” cultural activity? Who is to define this objective scale of merit from lowbrow to highbrow? Many forms of music have transitioned from being derided to bein’ high falutin’ (jazz is an obvious choice here). Comics were once considered dangerous trash and a mighty moral panic nearly got them banned (“Seduction Of The Innocent”) but if you take my comics away I’ll biff you on the nose. Meanwhile, our art galleries are festooned with what I and many others see as little better than childish trivia, devoid of craft, representing nothing but the egos of their creators and fawning critics.
And what of “binge drinking” (this recently redefined term; it once meant three days missing from your life, now it means a few pints with the lads)? People have been getting shitfaced for fun since alcohol was discovered. It’s fun. And what of recreational sex? We seem to only complain when it’s the proles doing it. It’s normal human behaviour!
I’m sorry to rant, really, but this gets my back up. If some people feel better feeling superior on arbitrary grounds, then that’s up to them. But the illusion that these arbitrary grounds are in some way objective needs to be challenged. It’s not mindless “moral relativism” to say that having a beer and a bunk-up is normal. Really. Take away somebody’s life, their liberty, their property, injure them.Now you’ve committed an immoral act. We can all objectively agree that. Claiming that how other people amuse themselves is a moral issue is collectivist nonsense, and to claim there’s some “higher order” or “lower order” nature to any such activities just comes down to arbitrary judgementalism, which we can in general trace back to pietist beliefs of one sort or another. It invariably leads to the desire to forcibly “reform” society (i.e. impose the pietist’s view on everybody else for their own good) in the pursuit of some kind of utopia in which everybody only has one glass of wine (not every day, mind, don’t get carried away!) while reading Dusty Evsky and nobody’s vapours get too inflamed. God forbid.
Pleasure seeking is not some kind of a moral failure. It’s not a “lower” activity. It is merely how humans are, and as such how they will behave when you take away social imposition. Try to control alcohol, and it turns into a problem drinking problem. Clamp down on sex and alcohol and you end up with hordes of angry frustrated young men making bombs. There’s an entropic principle at work here; the more you impose order in one place the greater the entropy elsewhere. There’s a good reason it’s called “letting off steam”.
I reject entirely the assertion that any activity or entertainment carried out by or between consenting adults has moral superiority or inferiority. There are far too many people at the moment who are far too eager to look down their noses at those they see as inferior. It’s pure class-based tribalism. I think it needs to be challenged.
**I don’t see anything misogynist in either beer, recreational sex or porn, let alone when it’s gay hobbits.
I put the ** in entirely the wrong place, ’twas meant to be after the word “misogynist” in the quoted text, I think. Damn these little edit boxes.
I hope he won’t be offended (because I don’t really want to explore that angle), but Lee reminds me of a former acquaintance who had business dealings in central and eastern Europe. When the wall came down and the former Soviet satellites tasted a little freedom he expressed his “disappointment” that, instead of enjoying the wealth of formerly banned “high brow” literature that was now accessable to them, they seemed to prefer pornography and gossip rags.
That’s the thing about most people’s idea of freedom; it’s fine for people do what they want, as long as they want what “I” have decided is best for them.
“I am free to do anything I wish, just as long as it does not interfere with anyone else’s freedom”
But how do you know it does not interfere?
Freedom of expression is easy, after all expression is just hot air (in our society).
But all right-thinking people must all draw the line at a free shag behind Spagger’s Nite Club. Without regulation, how am I going to get MY fair share?
Didn’t think of that, did you, Lee?
ADE
Brendan: it was Alice, not me.
Sam: it seemed as if you were responding to Perry in support of Gabriel’s comment, and that is what I was referring to. I guess I should have addressed Gabriel rather than you. Anyway, enjoy your private goblin flogging:-)
Mark, I hope you are not missing the point that your friend has every right to feel disappointed at those people’s choices, just like someone else might be happy about them.
MarkE,
No, I think it is fine that people do what they want, and I will gladly fight for their right to do so. It does not follow that I must support every choice they make, or that I must refrain from trying to convince them to choose otherwise. There are even occasions where I will be motivated to voice disapproval, because I think they are making a mistake by their own standards.
To understand my position, consider my views on Islam, which I have expressed on Samizdata before. I do not approve of Islam, I would prefer a society where nobody was a Muslim, but only as long as they are nonMulsim by choice and not coercion. For example, I do not expect a Muslim to be happy that his daughter does not wear the hijab, but I do expect him to respect her choice. The loss of honour is a cost which must be incurred by those who value a free society.
The problem, perhaps, is that I do consider values to be objective, open to rational investigation and criticism. I do not think that they are arbitrary.
On the other hand, and at the same time: what Ian just said, with one caveat: I wouldn’t use the phrase “normal human behavior” to make the point. Just as Who is to say what is a “higher order” cultural activity?, it is also who is to say what’s normal human behavior?
Speaking of this culture thing, one of the things I like most about SI is that most people here seem to enjoy both high and low brow culture. To me personally this is the perfect combination, especially when it has a hefty dose of humor (both high and low brow) thrown in.
Still trying to warp my mind around the idea of gay hobbit porn, though…
Ian B,
Your 2:41am (shouldn’t you have been having a drunken snuggle with Samwise by then?) post was inspired.
There’s some right sodding prudes on this site… Get over it already. There is nothing wrong with pornography, beer, recreational sex or indeed gay hobbits. Gabriel lighten-up please! Your “sexual revolution” comments are just wrong. Every girl I’ve ever been serious with was on the pill… Does that make me or them bad people? I’ve also been known to have a few light ales and yes, I’ve seen piccies of the delightful ladies of the ‘net.
I am watching Bilawal Bhutto giving a press conference on BBC News 24. Poor bugger. He’s 19, 8 weeks into undergraduate studies and… Well, poor, poor sod. I could at least have fun, get pissed and shag birds as an undergrad. I drank my beer from a glass or can, not from this poor sod’s poisoned chalice.
Alisa,
I think Ian B meant rather more than this but… Women in porn are almost invariably paid a lot more than men. Ron Jeremies* is an exception but then he’s a true woodsman. In any case what woman (or man) doesn’t (amongst the many hats they want to wear) also want to be sexually objectified. I mean only the most grotesque parody of feminism objects to being told “you’ve got a real cute ass”.
*My wife met him in Florida once. Nice guy.
Alisa,
Would straight hobbit porn be easier? Personally I’m more into dwarf erotica.
You could be right but if that is what he means then his remark is utterly pointless. We are also less free than back when the number of Wimpy Hamburger restaurants in the UK outnumbered McDonalds’s as well.
I stand by this statement. If you can’t see the link between the growth of big government, on the one hand, and the collapse of traditional moral values and the rise of a pastiche Epicurean post-culture of which Ian B’s crass relativism is a prime example, on the other, then you probably never will. But it’s staring you in the face.
Well Gabriel, it sure beats defending your admittedly indefensible position.
Sam_S… I take it back as it appears I was right the first time: Gabriel really does see causality here. The right to watch hobbits get buggered makes us less free apparently.
Yes, shagging some bird in alley is now a western value. Also now a western value is, for the woman, putting another mark on the child benefit form, and for the man, buggering off from his responsiblities safe in the knowledge that the state will coff up. Getting shitfaced all the time is now a western value, just as blowing your “disability benefit” on booze and demanding free treatment when you fall down some stairs are also western values. Pornography has perhaps become perhaps the greatest western value of them all as a symbol of a culture that values instant gratification over all else, inlcuding, indeed especially, freedom. Alternatively, freedom is simply redefined so it become co-terminous with instant gratification and any remaining qualms in the heads of the state’s soma filled lackeys evaporate forever.
Current moral norms are created and sustained by the welfare state, just as they themselves impel the welfare state to grow. Our world is an interesting ( that is, to analyse from the figurative outside, its culture is profoundly uninteresting) variant on the licentious society governed by tyrants that pops up throughout the canon of western political thought. ‘Libertarians’ by supporting the official ideology of kelpto-technocratic elites, which posits as its central maxim that we in the 21st century west are free because we are depraved, perfectly demonstrate what has been a cast iron rule ever since Rousseau: the more someone talks about freedom, the less likely they are to be a genuine friend of it.
That’s plainly not what I said. The growth of a culture where Hobbit porn watching becomes normalised is causally related, both ways round, to decreases in freedom. Almost precisely the same phenomenon occurrred before, during and after the fall of the Roman Republic.
Ian B:
You seem to be saying that your right to binge drink, casual sex and the enjoyment of pornography, all perfectly legitimate activities, trump my right to snicker at your baseness?
It is a bit of silly argument really, since I agree with your intitial argument, it is good to live in a free society in which people can pursue what makes them happy.
I just don’t agree that one person’s decisions are as valid as another’s, and that my right to criticise another’s actions are as important as the other person’s right to pursue their own choices.
Just because I defend your right to pursue activities, does not mean that I give your choices the same merit as other choices you could make.
The Catholic Church has every right to disapprove of homosexuality.
The Mormon Church can approve of bigamy.
The KKK can preach race purity.
Amnesty International can advocate gun control.
You can drink yourself to oblivion, slam some consentual booty in a back alley, and get your kicks watching Froddo buggerise Samwise Gamgee.
But I don’t have to agree with any of it.
Alisa: Sorry about that.
Gabriel,
I agree with you, more or less. I think that much of the depraved and irresponsible behaviour we see, has been implicilty promoted by the state. I do not doubt that legislatures have rarely had this as their goal, but it has come to pass as an unintended consequence. In short, depraved and irresponsible behaviour has been subsidised, and other have been forced to pick up the bill.
The young girl who sleeps around, though that may be here free choice, often ends up being portrayed as a victim of “society”, and someone “society” should compensate. The unfortunate consequence, both for the girl, her children, and everyone else, is that by shielding people from the consequences of their irresponsible behaviour, more of that behaviour will follow in the future, thus increasing the burden on all of those with more self-restraint.
In the absence of the welfare state, many of the careless, irresponsible, and depraved acts to which I object, would bring with them the full cost of their consequences. Of course, even then a minority might still persist, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it, even if I do support their ability to make the choice.
For example, supposing that I had a daughter, I would not want her to be a prostitute, even though I do not think the state has any place prohibiting prostitution. Therefore, I would like to avoid a culture where prostitution was a common occupation, or one that was met with social approval.
I have just finished War and Peace, and I’m very dissapointed.
There wasn’t one bit of gay Hobbit porn in it!
Lee, but what is so wrong with a girl “sleeping around”, as long as she protects herself from STD and unplanned pregnancy? And for that matter, what is so wrong with hobbit porn – unless the hobbits in question a minors? (?!) And getting drunk once in a while, as long as you don’t drive? Really, I would like it explained to me. I happen not to like doing these things, but so I happen not to like all kinds of stuff that you might like very much, so what? Personally, I think it is a lot about balance. If all you do all day is getting drunk and watching porn, it is morally wrong, because you are wasting away all the other wonderful possibilities naturegod has given you. But it is the same if all you do all day is reading philosophy while listening to classical music. It is kind of the same with prostitution: If a woman chooses this as a career for the rest of her life, while she has opportunities* to engage in more intellectually and emotionally meaningful occupation, then it is immoral, simply because it is a waste. *And by opportunities I also mean her own natural abilities, not just external circumstances.
Alisa,
If some girl really wants to sleep around, does not care for the wishes of her family, is willing to incur the cost of any irresponsibility, and is not making a choice which she will later regret, then so be it. I would have no intention of prohibiting her choices, nor would I waste my time trying to convince her to do otherwise. I do not think that such behaviour is condusive to a just and stable society, but I am keenly aware that prohibition of it is certainly not either.
I am, however, free to associate with those I please, free to disapprove, and free to prohibit such behaviour on my private property. I am also free to vote for legislation prohibiting such behaviour in public spaces, given the externalities such behaviour would impose.
I recently re-read the first volume of William Manchester’s biography of Winston Churchill. Used to be in the Victorian Age, only the upper-class and the East End could engage in such debauched debauchery, as is available to everyone nowadays. But, since British society has decided that the government is responsible for everyone’s heath, they now feel an obligation to keep their charges clean & sober.
But again Alisa – who are you to decide what is waste and what isn’t? Perhaps some people value excess…
Mike, if it was not obvious enough, I have written the above from a purely personal point of view. I happen to think that someone who has the brains to be a rocket scientist or the talent to be a musician, and has the circumstantial means to pursue such a career, and instead chooses to be a prostitute, is, well, maybe immoral is too strong a word, but still. you are free to think otherwise, of course.
Lee, I was trying to ask a more fundamental question; why do you think doing these things is wrong?
What if she wants to eat pork against the wishes of her Muslim family?
Sexual intercourse started in 1963, after the Lady Chatterley trial and before the Beatles first LP
– Philip Larkin
If I hadn’t read this thread and seen it develop I would not believe that we’re seriously discussing the causal effects of watching fictious little fellas with hairy feet having gay sex. Quite what Professor T would think of it is beyond me.
Which reminds me… I used to go pretty much every Friday to a pub in Leeds which had earlier been patronized by the good Professor and his drinking buddies, The Vikings. They used to get pissed and quote Beowulf and Icelandic Edda and Saga to each other. Each to their own but from what I know of such literature it’s boozy, violent and involves a fair bit of shagging, hitting folk with axes and a huge amount of quaffing.
There is a delusion that every generation invents ab initio getting pissed and having recreational sex (which clearly nobody had done before). Not long ago I mentioned Donne’s 19th elegy which is pure porn from when another Elizabeth was on the throne.
We are not more licentious, lewd or drunken than our ancestors. Gabriel, we’ve always had the morals of alley cats, mainly.
And what’s the alternative? Saudi Arabia, Iran, Victorian hypocrisy which saw London support tens of thousands of prostitutes (some very young) but jailed Oscar Wilde for consensual sex?
Beer dates from the dawn of civilization, as does the world’s oldest profession.
It is amazing what gets Samizdatans excited…
On the issue of ‘Hate Speech’, if an Islamic fundamentalist attacks Christianity and calls for Christians to be killed, that is not hate speech it is incitement to violence and murder. It is of course damn hard to prove where hate stops and incitement starts, but we need to try nevertheless. If we don’t then we hand the power to repress any form of speech to the easily offended witterers.
Some lines caught in passing and worth repeating.
Lee Kelly –
This is a very important point and a problem not just confined to Muslim culture. I think this is going to be a big issue in all of Asia. ‘Honor’ must always be in the first person singular, not the first person plural. The only person who can dishonor one, is one’s self.
Ian B. –
There has been an extreme redefining of societal norms. And not just in the direction of proliferation of gay hobbit porn, but in the other direction as well. Ian’s point in this statement applies to almost everything that somebody wants to regulate. Through this redefining, the more-government advocates can continuously move the goal posts.
As for Gabriel’s remarks. If he is stating that these trends in society are symptomatic rather than causal, then he is probably right. I’ve often thought that various forms of pleasure seeking are substitutes for the pleasures of accomplishment and reward. Probably all of us can recall some incident of euphoria after some great accomplishment. But today we live in a society where all must have trophies. We face the helplessness of a government that insists on doing for us and prohibits us from doing for ourselves.
With pleasure as a reward for accomplishment disappearying, it should be no surprise that we are unwilling to abandon pleasure entirely. Pleasure without effort and accomplishment has always been sought. But the more that accomplishment is denigrated and that source of pleasure is removed, the more ‘free’ pleasure will be indulged.
There was nothing ‘plain’ about what you said. What you wrote was that your view was self-evident and if I don’t get it, I can’t get it. You were more than a little vague on explanations however.
Then you need to explain why a more tolerant society that is indifferent to people’s peccadilloes is causally related to a loss of freedom (and it might help to explain what this ‘real freedom’ is that hobbit buggering gets in the way of).
So if they had been a bit more intolerant of gay hobbit porn (or ‘gay satyr porn’ just to avoid anachronisms), the libertine slave economy imperialist Republic might have never fallen to the the presumably intolerant slave economy imperialist Empire?
I have a confession to make. I couldn’t understand what Gabriel was saying. I didn’t try terribly hard to. I think I guessed wrong. Just take my comment as a separate one and made on its own merits (or lack of them).
Given the alternatives to such freedom that we have seen so far, I suppose I would somewhat reluctantly have to agree – but I would much prefer it is fewer people chose to exercise such freedoms.
It’s both symptomatic and causal: a feedback loop or, if you will, a death spiral.
Really, it’s not terribly hard to understand for anyone not blinded by idelology. The wellspring of contemporary ‘civilization’ is a desire to remain a teenager forever, that magic age where you have all the desires of an adult, but none of the responsiblities or self-control. The easiest way of preserving such a condition is through the mechanism of the nanny state, and, as people become accustomed to such an existence, they demand ever more government intervention. Hence the feedback loop. And how many teenagers have respect for private property?
Ian B’s preposterous statements about the equivalence of listening to Mozart and masturbating over midgets, takes him beyond even our current malaise and makes claims about the human brain’s capacity to process information that are incommensurate with any worthwhile view of man as a free moral agent whatsoever.
btw
1)Whatever you think “pietist” means, it does not mean what you think it means.
2)Historically you are wrong. Again.
What is intrinsically better about listening to Mozart than say, Rock Me Amadeus or, for that matter, getting your rocks off? They are just preferences with very little broader significance.
Nick M:
Yes, some people should definitely take a look at, for example, Boccaccio’s Decameron or Middleton’s A Chaste Maid in Cheapside. It should at least make them question their delusive belief that the past few centuries have seen a one-directional change of social mores in the libertine direction.
What has actually been going on in every human society since prehistory is an endless series of slow periodic swings between libertine and puritan epochs. In Europe, the severity of the High Middle Ages gave way to the libertinism of the Renaissance, which then gave way to the extreme puritanism brought by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The second half of the 20th century was the peak of another highly libertine period, which was preceded by a period of puritanism whose peak was in the Victorian age. We are currently living in a time of backslash, which will probably slowly lead us into another rigid puritan society. (Although technological differences and the vastly increased powers of government might lead to a quite unprecedented state of affairs this time.)
It doesn’t seem to me that this pendulum can be stopped; I’m tempted to conclude that its motion is caused by forces of reaction that necessarily appear whenever it’s positioned too far in either direction. Or maybe I’m now engaging in armchair philosophy far above my level of competence.
“They are simply life choices, equal in merit to choosing what foods to eat, or whether to read Dostoevsky, or watch ballet.”
I was with him until he went all upstage and county.
“I have just finished War and Peace, and I’m very dissapointed.
There wasn’t one bit of gay Hobbit porn in it!”
The bastards,it’s in the Russian editions
As libertine as I am :-), I actually share Gabriel’s point of view to a certain extent. I think that in a society in which the traditional, informal social bonds (primarily those of the family) have fallen apart, atomized individuals feel such loneliness and insecurity that they start seeing the state as the only possible source of security in their lives. Unlike Gabriel, who seems to believe that people want the state to help them avoid responsibility in order to stay perpetual teenagers, I actually think that people are turning to the welfare/nanny-state at least in part because of a genuine feeling of fear and insecurity. Furthermore, in a society in which the authority of the parents has eroded, people will necessarily call for the state to jump in and try to do the parenting instead. This is of course unlikely to have any good results (the phrase “it’s for the children” has already become a metaphor for the worst nanny-statist excesses), but again, people will call for such things out of a genuine feeling that something is going wrong or missing.
Now, the problem is that the security provided by informal social bonds, especially the family, comes at the price of a certain curtailment of personal freedom. If I want my family to stay supportive and welcoming, I have to satisfy some pretty high standards of behavior in their eyes. Of course, the authority of even a very stringent family is still far more gentle and benevolent compared to that of the state, and one can always choose to rebel against one’s family without becoming an outlaw. Not to even mention that unlike any traditional social structures, the modern state operates an increasingly pervasive surveillance system that makes it increasingly hard to escape its eye for even a single moment, whereas one can usually hide one’s indiscretions from mom and dad. Unfortunately, most people still tend to believe that the authority of the family is more oppressive than state authorty and cheerfully support further curtailment of the former in favor of increasing the latter. Regardless of what one might think about libertinage as such, I think it’s undeniable that destroying the traditional informal social structures that were limiting libertinage in the past will eventually lead most people to vote for the replacement of these structures by the jackboot of the welfare/surveillance/nanny-state and its with its one-size-fits-all approach to all areas of life. I believe this is at the core of the changes discussed in this thread.
Fine, if it makes you happy, the choice of whether to engage one’s brain and listen to a marvel of human achievement or to have a wank is neither here nor there. I don’t really see the point in arguing this, it’s axiomatic: either you value civilization or you don’t. But rest assured, from the perspective of those of us who do, your brand of Libertarianism is no less malignant than anything that comes from the Left. Further, in reality, as opposed to your erroneous theoretic analysis of the world, the propagation and acceptance of views such as yours makes for less free, less just and less sustainable societies.
Who has this belief, Mr. Strawman perchance? By the way, your characterisation of both the high middle ages and the Renaissance are completely wrong and your one of the Reformation period is scarcely better.
In retrospect, that was quite unjustifiably rude, not to mention grammatically appallling.
However, to represent a movement composed mostly of people obsessively reading Cicero and waxing lyrical on the virtues of, well, virtú, as libertine is bizarre. Further, if you ever have the misfortune to read the Florentine Platonism of Pico or Ficino, you will find it, apart from inpenetrable, to be tedioulsy moralising in the extreme. Of course, the Medicis et al. were the most awful cads, but then so were myriad medieval figures.
As for later, well Nick M has alread mentioned Donne and the adavanced English Protestant faction of Raleigh et al. was anything but puritan (though of course they would never argue for anything remotely like the opinions of most of Ian B, such views have almost no precedent before the late 20th century).
You are correct and I was oversimplifying, though I do think the teenager hypothesis applies to many. The sort of counterfeit individualism that envisions a life free from the constaints of religion, family, tradition and traditional morality has not left people feeling empowered, but adrift and begging for the warm embrace of the state.
The fact that this form of individualism – along with the type of relativism that is necessarily corrosive of all culture – has been relentlessly propagandised by many sections of the Left is not a co-incidence. They, at least, are not stupid.
Oh I’m all for morality, just not ‘traditional’ morality, because that often has very little to do with actual morality.
The value of ‘family’ is vastly over-rated as most of the truly fucked up people I’ve known were fucked up by their own families.
Religion? You must be joking.
Tradition? Yes, there is some value in that, but I also remember when being homosexual or marrying a black or having long hair was ‘immoral’. Hell, I remember getting threatened with deportation from Singapore in the late 1970’s because my hair was too long and being told that long hair “was a sign of immorality” (I kid you not). I remember when refusing to keep living with a person you were married to but had grown to despise was ‘immoral’.
But yes, I’m all for self-restraint… when self-restraint is appropriate.
Ian B – what percentage Glaswegian Scot do you happen to be ?
Laird – can such a supporter of gay hobbit porn even be eligible for “three straight SQD’s” ?
Gabriel – isn’t it true that the rest of us get to “listen to a marvel of human achievement” because the creator of the marvel liked to have a wank (and more) in ways that *you* seem to consider to be uncivilised ?
Gentlebeings all – has there actually been a human ‘civilisation’ or society or group of any size that hasn’t had some form of alcohol ? Even elephants, monkeys, and dolphins – they all can get drunk and choose to do so …
Gabriel:
Believe it or not, I wasn’t having you in mind at all when I wrote that. 🙂 In fact, I was replying to Nick M with an entirely generic point; I think it’s undeniable that many people do share the simplistic false belief that I attacked. It was only after finishing that post that I read what you wrote and addressed it.
Yes, but what were they doing when they weren’t reading Cicero? I’d rather not elaborate on things I occasionally did right after reading or even writing on a variety of high-brow intellectual subjects. 🙂
The Renaissance period was extremely turbulent politically and militarily, and also greatly diverse intellectually, so that it’s impossible to take any individuals as generally representative of it. Still, from what survives from the art of the period, there are good indications that the conventional morality was relaxed a great deal among the common folk and even among the priesthood (the Decameron is my main data point here, but a lot can be also gathered from the complaints of the religious reformers of the 14th-16th centuries). Also, from the visual arts of the period, it seems like the tolerance for public nudity was much greater than in the subsequent centuries.
No precedent? I just remembered the sadly departed Pavarotti singing, “la costanza, tiranna del core, detestiamo qual morbo crudele…” Now even if Verdi misinterpreted the spirit of the sixteenth century in this opera, such views obviously weren’t unprecendented at lest for him in the 1850s.
As for the Reformation, various streams of Protestantism were certainly a mixed bunch, but on average, there is no doubt whatsoever that most of them were hell-bent on pushing a far more puritan agenda than the norms that had been prevailing in the Renaissance period. The first totalitarian state in Europe was implemented personally by Calvin in Geneva, and its number one concern was eradicating all forms of fun among the citizenry. The name of the English Puritans didn’t get its modern metaphorical meaning for no reason either. And so on — one could easily write a whole book about this topic, so arguments short enough to fit into a blog comment are doomed to be sadly incomplete…
Hi, first time commenter.
So, the idea is that people have been distracted from a loss in _real_ liberty by a gain in trivial liberties ( i.e. porn )?
The prepackaged nature of what currently passes for rebellion makes one think.
Regards,
What Ivan said! Does anyone else get the feeling there are actually two arguments going on here, both of which are missing the point of the other by a small fraction?
I sense that Gabriel has a partially-good point; that a society which shuffles off the individual responsibility for justice and “goodness” to a vast anonymous bureaucracy will tend to degrade in civility and morality (and possibly even in “good” taste, but I refuse to argue esthetics).
However, I think that’s a different argument to Ian’s, and the thread is getting really old. Can a state which has the power to regulate interspecies jiggery-pokery be restrained from interfering with ALL creative and fulfilling activities?
A wonderful old gentleman, L. F. “Buz” Ivanhoe, (unfortunately now deceased) spent years developing a theory that civilization was a direct outgrowth of the discovery of alcohol.
Before alcohol, back in the days of the hunter-gatherers, the men spent their time happily huntin’ & fishin’, while the women stayed around the camp and gathered nuts & berries & grass seeds for the winter. Some of those grass seeds stored in the right shape of vessel eventually got wet, fermented, and man tasted beer. Beer was good.
But to keep the beer coming, they needed more grass seed. They had (reluctantly) to give up huntin’ & fishin’ and do the hard work of farming. Then it was only a matter of time until someone suggested capturing the neighboring tribe and making them do the hard work instead. Slavery was born, and mankind entered the age of energy. The rest is history.
And history will continue, in its Darwinesque way. If we make poorer decisions than other societies, they will replace us over time. Let’s all drink to endless change!
Alice,
And brewing eventually led to the field of thermodynamics.
Who’d a thunk it?
” They had (reluctantly) to give up huntin’ & fishin'”
and so we come full circle- Hey Bub, get the beer, I got the boat and we ARE so going fishin’ tomorrow morn.
“gay hobbit sex”? Bosh, Slinky, shiney lesbian robo sex whilst listing to “kraftwerk”before going “huntin’& fishin'” (or watching “Metropilious” (sp) and listining-too much beer to spell-“K’W” and dinking beer works, also.
It’s obvious. X happened before Y. X therefore caused Y.
At about 5 AM MST, I nuked a bowl of oatmeal and added a handful of raspberries and cranberries. Over the subsequent twelve hours, Hillary Clinton won the NH primary.
Obviously, Barack Obama now is pissed off that I put the raspberries in my oatmeal, because that happened before he took second in NH.
Perry:
Does that depend on whether you’re watching a hobbit giving versus a hobbit receiving?
Unfortunately, I never seem to end up shagging anyone behind bars. The only folks interested are all gay hobbits, and as I’m six feet tall and straight, it doesn’t work all that well.
Ivan, you wrote:
Actually, I think these are two sides of the same coin: responsibility is scary. The rest of your comment is excellent – as are all of your comments, in fact.
As I understand, Gabriel is saying two things. One is that contemporary libertinism is the product of the loss of other freedoms. The other is that libertinism in itself is a danger to other freedoms. The former seems to be only partly true if one looks at history as Ivan has done, and the term ‘libertinism’ itself dates back to 1611, according to MWD. And then there is this contradiction: the modern nanny state may have used free shagging and booze as a candy to lure us into the trap, but as of late they have been just as busy trying to take away that same candy. Should we try and hold on to the candy at all costs because it is ours? Definitely, because if we give them that, they will come for more. Should we actually consume it once we won, and how much of it? It should be entirely up to us.
The latter is also only partly true: if all a person is interested in is shagging, drinking and watching reality TV, they may not be very likely to worry about the larger issues, and are likely to find themselves in a cage, if they even notice. But I cannot see how the mere fact that someone is engaged in these activities, among many other different ones, is a danger to liberty in the larger sense.
I don’t believe that libertinism is a product of the loss of other freedoms, as I stated in my other comments. I don’t think there’s any evidence of causality there. Neither do I find any reason to defend libertinism. The idea that having fun needs to be justified is bizarre. The idea that freedom in, say, sexuality, is inherently a social negative makes no sense at all. If that freedom must be stifled, doesn’t the same logic take us to question all other freedoms? If freedom is socially corrosive, I guess I’d better go off and join the left or the right, since that’s what they believe, and what use is libertarianism? Are we saying “freedom in these things I list here, and these things only”?
However I think also Gabriel’s POV is conflating two different things; liberty and responsibility. I believe, and I think it’s fairly standardly libertarian here, that freedom must go hand in hand with self-responsibility. Surely to argue against the state is inherently to argue for that? Anyone who followed the debate between myself and Joshua and others regarding abortion will have seen that I was arguing very much in favour of sexual responsibility- to the point there that I was saying that if I choose to have sex, I must recognise that there is a risk (even with contraception) of creating a baby, and that therefore to have sex is to implicitly accept responsibility for that. Likewise if I drink too much, or get addicted to hobbit porn, well that’s a problem I’m going to have to deal with.
So I think these are two seperate issues here. Gabriel is saying that to take these pleasures described is irresponsible. I’m saying that taking these pleasures also implies responsibility. But that responsibility is a matter for individuals, not the state, nor other people in society. I therefore seek a society in which people may do as they wish, and are responsible for the consequences.
So the fault here is the big state that effectively incentivises irresponsibility. The answer is to remove the state’s distortions on behaviour, not to try to stop human behaviours themselves.
And finally, Gabriel said–
How will we tell a “counterfeit” individualism from a genuine one? Will we compare the actions of the individual to a checklist, and if they’re not ticking enough boxes declare their sense of freedom ersatz? The argument that freedom isn’t free, that people can only function happily in a rigid framework, is a standard argument of authoritarians– was it Hegel for instance who presented the insane argument that the slave is freer than the master because the slave is more certain of his place in the grand scheme of things? That people need imposed rules in order to be free is a pretty standard leftist argument, and it always strikes me as that’s one reason why leftism is popular- it attracts people who are conformists by nature. It’s a collectivist justification. Freedom is a scary thing; just as it’s scarier to start your own business than to toddle each day to a nice safe job. But the rewards are greater and freedom is itself a reward.
People haven’t embraced the state because it said they could have a knee-trembler behind Spaggers. They’ve embraced it because it offered them money, services, free houses, free medical care, free, free, free. It’s not fear of not having rules that has driven them to socialism. It’s the apparently endless giveaway.
So I’d say this. A libertarian, libertine society wouldn’t have pointless rules about sex or beer dressed up as morality. It would have a real morality based on agreed principles- your rights to your life, liberty and property. It wouldn’t interfere with what you do with your genital organs in a consensual manner, nor what substance you imbibe, nor what you read or view. A libertarian morality is IMV based on the mutual respect of individuals. Murder, rape, violence, theft, fraud– these things are immoral. Duties towards family, children, friends, lovers, other human beings, these are things humans naturally do and which will thrive again if we can get some real freedom back. The idea that we have to go and ask the vicar for official divine permission before playing hide the sausage has no part to play in that.
Ivan,
Thanks for that response.
What I was thinking of was…
(a)High class Roman women would become prostitutes because they were just “up for it”.
(b)Nipple piercing dates at least from medieval Spain. Why? Because as every schoolboy knows, you ain’t seen a breast till you’ve seen the nipple and the fashion in court was for extremely low-cut tops.
(c)A couple of years ago somebody released a compilation of very early pornographic movies. It was much discussed because (i) it appeared that the minute moving pictures had been invented that erotic films were er… conceived and (ii) some reviewers seemed shocked that their great grandparents generation were as sexually liberated as themselves. This is my real big point and why I don’t believe in any theories of “moral decline”. I somehow suspect that all the filthy, evil practices of our great grandparents were done by their great gandparents too. Or in short, some bird getting DP’ed on film in 1900 probably didn’t feel that she was an innovator in the sexual realm. Sure, the filming of it was new but the act itself? Pull the other one! Modern Humans have existed on this planet for 50,000 years and to suggest that all our filthy, evil sexual peccadillos date from the legalization of hormonal contraception a mere 50 years ago is frankly bonkers.
I suspect that the fundamental problem is that we got as low as we can go thousands of years ago and yet we still feel the need to innovate even though we can’t. in the sexual sphere. It’s all been done and every perversion that is logically possible is on the net somewhere. If you want to invent something don’t even consider doing it in the field of debauchery. There’s loads of stuff left to invent – pharmaceuticals and new business models and supersonic business jets and all sorts but if you invent a new form of filthiness you’re only going to be dissapointed when you find out some other bugger was doing it 4000 years ago.
It’s the human condition and the continuance of that is predicated upon sex. And sex is frequently predicated upon beer.
I disagree with Gabirel’s viewpoint, but also ask Ian B to consider that merit is in the eye of the beholder. It is good that we live in a society in which individuals can pursue happiness of their own choosing, that is without question.
What I object to is the leftist cultural relativist idea that puts pursuing carnal desires on an equal merit with pursuing intellectual challenges. This is the attitude that absolves individuals of responsibility for their actions, not affirms it.
Is it OK to dedicate part or all of your life to the consumption of beer, sex and porn? Of course.
Is the same going to test the limits of what it is to be a human being? Highly unlikely.
Just because I think something is OK to do, does not mean that they’re aren’t better things to do with your limited existence.
My position isn’t so much to condemn boorish behaviour, but recognise that their are more uplifting and potentially rewarding pursuits.
The costs associated with individual liberalism (as opposed to economic liberalism) can largely be attributed to the welfare state. The welfare state absolves weak individuals of responsibility for themselves and their actions. Substance abuse and casual sex are distractions from the banality of life of the unemployed and become an end in themselves.
It is fine for a City trader to blow his mind with coke and hire hookers by the dozen, he’ll pay dearly if his behaviour subsequently affects his work or his family. It is less fine for the chronically unemployed benefit receiver to pursue potentially damaging recreational activities, because their is no one to stop him or for him to face any consequences and thus put brakes on his own behaviour. His indulgence of personal freedom has real costs for me and every other taxpayer.
The only realistic way to minimise the cost of liberty is to dismantle the welfare state and make people responsible for their actions. The nanny state cannot prevent people the welfare state have absolved of responsiblity from destroying themselves or affecting others detrimentally.
I guess my views are too heavily influenced by two things. One is Brave New World with the role of recreation in distraction from the state.
But another is back in the early ’80s, I worked with someone who emigrated from Poland. He said that in the Soviet system, you could believe absolutely nothing you were told except for the sports results. If the sports news said the army team defeated the Moscow team, then you knew that army was better than Moscow on that day. We talked about this some and he said it was because the sports was a distraction. I forget the details of his explanation but he asserted with certainty that if intra-national sports was ever discovered to be rigged, the Soviet system would collapse. I assumed this to be exaggeration, but I have also wondered if sports was in fact compromised during the last days of the Soviet empire.
That’s interesting, Mid. I think I might quote you to a friend of mine who used to cover sport for TASS – I am curious what’s his take on this.
I am too. Please RSVP if you get an answer. It all seemed a little too simple to me yet this guy was right about very many things. I’m thinking that it apparently didn’t apply to events against western nations’ teams. East Germany! And I don’t recall how his theory related to satellites, ie Poland versus Romania.
On the other hand if his theory did apply to the western games as well, maybe the obsession that developed with sports accomplishments and culminated in Olympic cheating was the harbinger of the end. Prior to then, the ‘cheating’ mostly amounted to sending professional athletes. They were hardly unique in that and eventually even the US took that route in some sports.
Sports events rigged in the Soviet Union!
Surely not!
Excuse me while I stick my head in this bucket of water.
I get wicked hiccups when I laugh to much and I find that cures them.
That was my initial gut response, RAB, but on second thought, you could never know with those people. Mid: I certainly will. He does not check his e-mail all that often, so it might take a while. Also, his life’s story is an unusual one – I’ll tell you when I get a chance.
At the moscow Olympics they used to open the really huge doors to the stadium only when the Russian Javelin chuckers were chuckin. Then close them again for everyone else.
Got that vital advantage of the force nine blast down from Siberia.
It’s Trwoo it’s Trwoo!
Alas that was a lie upon a lie over a rainbow…
as I’m six feet tall and straight, it doesn’t work all that well.
For heavens sake Man!
Get a stool!!!
Do we Brits have to continually teach you how to improvise? 😉
RAB ! I am *shocked*, I tell you ! So unhygeinic !
Only the uninitiated need risk “getting a stool” … the wise already know to use a bucket – which can either be stood upon, or it can be put over the head of the taller individual involved so that the vertically-challenged one can swing from it …
Ah Alistair. A Prevert after my own heart!
I don’t think that standing on a stool will make me shorter. Although, I’ve found that if I sit on a barstool, I usually drink, and somehow that leads me to be less concerned about these things.
Does the freedom to sit on a barstool and imbibe cause the loss of real freedom?
There is nothing more conformist than participating in pseudo-culture you defend. You are not rebellious, you are delusional. With that, I’m done; good luck toking on your soma.
Curious to know where you’ve found a porno of such an unusual kind? 🙂
No… It just makes it less painful.
And unless you want to smoke a hobbit…
Oh for heavens sake, you shy-sters
The new boy deserves a ton up!
Do I have to do it myself?
Gad I think I have! 😉
Hobbit Fan – I would expect you would find them in the “Short Subjects” …
RAB – I keep having to explain to the ex-Colonials over here that we Preverts are the ones who invent and improve upon the things that perverts like to do …
André is probably the best known of us, for what he likes to do with Cold Ducks and Baby Ducks …