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 You are now signed up to this petition. Thank you.
For news about the Prime Minister’s work and agenda, and other features including films, interviews, a virtual tour and history of No.10, visit the main Downing Street homepage.
If you’d like to tell your friends about this petition, its permanent web address is: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/
– This is what you get as soon as you click on the second of the above links, fill in your details, and then confirm it all by clicking on the link in the email they immediately send you. I was impressed by the ease and speed of it all.
|
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.
|
Yes, it does work quickly and easily. I’ve done several of these there now, including previous “resign now” petitions like this one, and others on a variety of topics.
It seems to be the only part of the Number Ten operation that works — and even then there is no positive outcome, such as an actual resignation…
I’d go further than John; I’ve joined probably 20 of these, and I don’t recall one that had a positive outcome. For one or two the issue became a non-issue for other reasons before the end of the petition. But for most the government read the petition, then patiently explained that what was requested wasn’t practical/affordable (ha!)/desirable/allowed by Europe. It’s clear that this petition won’t be any more successful than the rest, but I’m keen to see how many signatures it gets – count me a +1.
RE Cameron and the Conservative Party – I think it was Sean Gabb who said if you wanted a future libertarian/conservative Government the most crucial thing to do was NOT vote for the Tories. My impression was that he felt they were the enemy/obstacle to libertarianism, as fatal in many ways as labour.
I thought Sean had decided to vote for the Tories: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4382969073222228843&q=source%3A000375889663147620208&hl=en
The only thing these petitions are good for is letting us think we’re actually having some sort of effect on those that govern us, when in reality they are read over and quietly binned. I’ve signed it anyway, but mark my words it will do no good.
The reason that the No 10 Downing Street petition website works at all, and can scale to cope with large numbers of people using it, has little to do with normal Government IT systems, and everything to do with the mySociety.org people, especially the genius of the late Chris Lightfoot.
See Chris’s explanation of how it works: Under the bonnet
The petition is worth signing in case it attracts enough people for the mainstream media to further question the incompetence of Gordon Brown and his cronies and apparatchiki, but he will obviously ignore it himself..
However, you might want to take a few simple precautions to to protect your Personal Data and Communications Traffic Data, which is being collected and Retained for “national security” or “prevention, detection and prosecution of crime” purposes, but which could easily fall into the hands of Labour party apparatchiks and their political dirty tricks co-conspirators, operating from within Downing Street.:
a) Hide your computer’s real IP address using something like Tor
b) Use a throwaway or pseudonymous email address to confirm the petition signing, ideally not one based in the UK, e.g. Hushmail
I’m with Andy. From a long-term libertarian/conservative perspective, surely it is better that Labour win the next election? That way they will be the ones to carry the can when the IMF’s called in and the pounds in the toilet.
If the Tories win, they will be the ones who are held accountable for the problems caused by this train wreck. Labour and the Lib Dems, aided by allies in the BBC, will say there are a million-and-one things an activist government should be doing about the economy, and we’ll see the reemergence of the “Tory cuts” mantra – although this time, it will be true. Come the 2015 election, the Tories will be booted out and replaced by a Labour administration led by Keith Vaz. In short, we’re fucked.
If Labour wins next year, there is at least a chance that by the time another election rolls round, most of the thinking populace will associate them and lefty policies in general with total social and economic failure. This would give alternate policies a much better chance of gaining popular support, and perhaps mark a turning point for the better in our nation’s history.
For this to happen, however, Brown needs to go as soon as possible. If Brown’s still leader come next year, they will surely loose. Then we’re all doomed.
The problem is, blame will never be properly assigned whatever happens. Any recession/depression will follow a U-shaped profile, the precise shape of which will be affected by government policy; but even a totally incompetent government will have trouble preventing an eventual recovery; despite Roosevelt’s best efforts, the US economy revived for instance.
So, the Enemy’s narrative will always be that the downswing was caused by capitalism/speculation/etc and that the upswing was the result of government action to “save” the economy. If a conservative administration presides over the trough and recovery, The Narrative will focus on the suffering during the trough, and how a lack of spending and intervention delayed and reduced the recovery. If a socialist administration presided, The Narrative will be how the suffering was lessened during the trough by government intervention, and how spending and intervention created the recovery. This will be The Narrative regardless of what happened; even if the depression lasts 10 years, it will still be held that it was reversed by socialism- though it may be held that “conservative forces” prevented the good socialist government spending as much as they should have done- a common meme regarding Roosevelt from the Left.
The Enemy’s cultural (and particularly educational) hegemony ensures that they write the history. Whatever happens can be used as proof of the need for socialist economic planning.
Perhaps your right Ian, but I think the left would find it much harder to establish that narrative if the primary party of the left is deemed a complete and utter failure by most of the British electorate – as Labour surely would be, given another term in office.
James,
The primary party of the left was completely discredited in the 1980’s and they still came back.
Besides, according to The Narrative, the Labour Party has “lurched to the right” and “embraced capitalism”.
Thaddeus,
Labour were indeed discredited and out of power for 18 years, and during those 18 years our side won significant victories – albeit not nearly as many as would have been ideal. Hopefully, if Labour is consigned to the opposition benches for another long spell, some more progress can be made.
LOL. Now that I would actually like to see.
Agreed. That was why I was delighted Obama won in the USA too as a McCain victory would have removed any chance of a viable opposition emerging.
I take it then, Perry, that Paul Marls is not speaking to you?
Not at all Laird.
There is a fundemenatal difference between those who say “I will not vote for McCain” and those who “will vote for Obama”.
I am someone who (rightly or wrongly) clings to the “dying of the light”.
No matter how degenerate civililization has become I support it and its (totally confused and contradictory) defenders.
Others hold that “this mess must come to end – let it collapse and let us rebuild after the collapse”. Although they (of course) hope it will be a peacefull collapse of the government finances – not a total breakdown of civil society (with mass starvation and so on).
But all that is a vast distance from Obama “The Renewal of America” (the front cover of the Economist magazine – with a photograph of The One upon it.
Indeed Perry’s position is the exact opposite of those “conservatives” and “libertarians” who supported Barack Obama.
As a libertarian I hold that anyone should be allowed express any opinion they wish, but I can not deny that when I came upon the cover of the “Economist” I mention above my first thoughts (which I admit were unjust) were “Brian’s kinsman should be burned alive for this – I would do it myself”.
I repeat that I my true position is that the editor of the “Economist” should NOT be burned alive – or punished in any other way. It was an emotional reaction of extreme hatred, not a reasoned legal position.
By the way – the person who has for many years argued that the Conservative party must be destroyed if either liberty or conservatism (which, he claims, is needed for the maintainence of liberty) is Peter Hitchins.
Dr Gabb has had different opinions at different times – based on his judgement of the evidence as it changes over time.
Peter Hitchins (as far as I know) has stuck to his Conservative-party-must-be-destroyed position for some years.
OK, Paul, now I’m confused.
“As for “libertarians” or “conservatives” who not only did not do any research after (or before) the January Caucus – but who actually voted for Barack Obama in November 2008. I have nothing to say about, or to, such people.” – Paul (4/24/09, 8:35 PM)
“That was why I was delighted Obama won in the USA.” – Perry (4/26/09, 11:10 AM)
“There is a fundemenatal (sic) difference between those who say ‘I will not vote for McCain’ and those who ‘will vote for Obama’.” – Paul (4/27/09, 1:11 PM)
Assuming (which I believe to be the case) Perry is ineligible to vote in US elections, his statement seems to be an endorsement of Obama’s election and thus essentially an assertion that he would have voted for Obama had he been able to. I don’t see how that squares with your two posts. Is there some subtlety I’m missing?
The only reason I’m pushing this is that I thought I was in agreement with your position that Obama’s election was A Bad Thing (even though a McCain win would also have been bad, just less so), and I’ve never accepted Perry’s position that the utter collapse of the US government is either necessary or desirable.
I doubt that the utter collapse of government is a likely result of leftist governance here or in America. The collapse of independent civil society, the enervation of the private economy and the growth of tranzi political authority are all almost certain consequences of the left winning elections – but not the lessening or collapse of government.
Another five years of Labour is a small price to pay if it destroys popular support for socialism.
Obviously I can not speak for Perry or Paul. I was one of those who endorsed McCain/Palin. I had little if any hope for McCain beyond a belief that he would engage in slightly more sustainable statism. I consider that a bug, not a feature. My reason for endorsing that ticket was two fold. One, I consider the failure of the Senate to be perhaps the single most extreme enabler of unchecked statism. That was their job and the 17th (I think you agree with me on this particular) defeated that check. Palin could have exercised Constitutional power that has never been exercised. The Constitution unequivocally places the VP of the US as the highest authority in the Senate. To have a libertarian in the position and with the inclination to use that power would have been a game changer. Look at everything that has come out of the Senate so far this term and imagine if what Palin would have done. What could they do? Impeach her? She would greet that with glee and the fun would begin.
The other reason I endorsed McCain/Palin is that I decided some time ago that if a ticket offered a genuine improvement, not merely a slower descent, that I would support it. With Palin in the Senate presidency and not removable by anyone or thing except impeachment, I don’t think McCain could have done much harm domestically. I weighed the balance and decided that M/P would be a genuine if incremental improvement and therefore my conscience demanded that I support them.
That said, it’s all history and at this point I am hoping for the quickest crash possible. I don’t want people to become acclimated to government enforced poverty and depression and trying to prolong the inevitable is silly. No Republican could destroy the redistribution state. Obama can and will. The only question is will we let them replace it with a command economy with all property owned by the state in the name of ‘the people’? I think they’ve overplayed their hand but only time will tell.
It doesn’t much matter at this point. It is inevitable. The Fed note cannot survive. Therefore redistribution government that relies on it cannot survive. There are only two options possible now. We can either enter a total command economy. I assure you that the aspirants to command care little for societal outcome based arguments, their goal is probably a one world currency and government, ergo destroy the US first. Or we in the US can wind the clock back to an originalist Constitutionally restrained structure of government. That movement is already well under way.
Or we in the US can wind the clock back to an originalist Constitutionally restrained structure of government. That movement is already well under way.
I certainly hope you’re right about that. As you say, only time will tell.
I like your thoughts about Palin in the Senate, Mid. That would have been great fun! But with McCain at the top I thought the ticket was inverted and couldn’t support it. (I held my nose and voted for Barr. So sue me.)