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 “If you want to be a conservative in an England broken by revolution, you need to look beyond a rearguard defence of forms from which all substance was long since drained.. The conservative tradition may have been dominated since the 1970s by Edmund Burke. But it does also contain the radicals of the seventeenth century. And – yes – it also has a place even for Tom Paine. If you want to preserve this nation, you must be prepared for a radical jettisoning of what is no longer merely old, but also dead. The conservative challenge is to look beneath the plumage and save the dying bird.”
– Sean Gabb. He pulls no punches in condemning what he sees as the poor conduct of the British monarchy in signing off on a host of liberty-destroying legislation, including its apparent silence over the Lisbon Treaty. Strong stuff, and I urge folk to read the whole piece.
|
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.
|
As Sean has publiched it under the grouping “Free Life Commentary”, I think he and I as Officers will have no objection to its being resyndicated anywhere that Samizdatistas and commentariat want to send it.
It would be interesting and instructive to know where that particular Conservative Association was, I think. (I will of course say nothing if told.)
It is a nice bit of work, very provocative and interesting, and I may just want to spread it about a bit.
I don’t personally want to see a conservative coup, however peaceful or constitutional it may be, because (i) I am not a conservative; and (ii) I have a poor opinion of coups and their likely sequels; and (iii) I think that anybody with the power and wrecking balls that Sean would like to see… is extremely unlikely to stop using the Civil Contingencies Act or equivalent. I am seeing Hugo Chavez with a blue rosette on, and I am taking to drink to banish the vision.
The Great Repeal Act, and explicit line-a-job legislation to simply dissolve all the barnacle bodies growing on the state, are at least beautiful dreams which would work if we could get there from here. Beyond that line, I can see the nightmares thronging. ;-/
Mass immigration wasn’t enabled “the moment they entered office” and isn’t “impoverishing the working class”. That’s a disappointing bit of rant in an otherwise well-argued piece.
If it is on teh internets regardless of what site, people will “re-syndicate” it wherever they want 😛
Good, fine!
The point that Sean makes is that British libertarians will continue to torment whatever colour of British administration does not behave effectively as an Advertising Agency whose job is to service the “Liberty” account. If it did not do the job to one’s satisfaction, one would as a client fire it, and get somebody else.
It is probably too late to enter 3,000-word essays to the LA on the subject of “Can a libertarian also be a conservative?”, for this Saturday’s LA conference Dinner. But it would be interesting to see this general point discussed.
I disagree on the Monarchy bit. They were put in their box long ago and HM Queen Elizabeth Part 2 is doing a fine job at keeping quiet and getting on with her regal duties.
We just need to stop electing people to positions of authority who clearly enjoy shitting on us.
Unless we enjoy it too.
Democracy isn’t something that happens once every 4 or 5 years. They are there to represent us and must be reminded of that fact at every opportunity. When they begin to represent foreign powers, international quangos and major corporations instead of us we must put them in their place as was done with the monarchy.
Until the phrase “give me liberty or give me death” (setting aside the context!?) is less about history and more about a living, breathing point of reference things will continue apace. Fortunately, at least speaking for the US, in very short order the amount “left to lose” is going to shrink significantly and those brought to heel so far with “too much left to lose” will not be so. As far as I can see the tipping point between quiet (though angry)acquiescence and its opposite is fast approaching. And I don’t think The Masters appreciate just how fast it is coming, even amongst the rank and file Republican/”conservatives” because if they did they would be doing something about it instead of playing their tactical political games.
What has me depressed is the canvassing I have done of those acquaintances I have in the Armed Forces (or formerly in), that if things were to be rather prone to “incivility” which side they would likely come in on. The answer, mostly, is they “don’t think of such things” when the points addressed in Mr. Gabb’s essay – meaning that they will do as they are instructed without thought. I suppose in the case of how things used to be – having standing militaristic forces that were apolitical and fought to preserve inherent freedom – it was tolerable. Now we have a situation were those in power are so perverted AND they have the control of Forces who will do as directed without the mental baggage of considering who they are fighting for; the very argument against standing armies thrown out almost two centuries ago (as far as the US is concerned).
To some extent I agree with Gray Woodland’s assessment – but it is depressing to think that the options stand between the slide into an efficient, effective dystopia that continued peace and acquiescence is destined to bring or another type perhaps brought about by instabilities of radical civil or even uncivil upheavals. We are destined for one form dystopia if things do not change. There is a sliver of hope that instability might stop the this otherwise certain occurence. Something radical, preferably peaceful, needs to take place and very soon.
ITYM they will, on balance, side with a properly-elected government (even one composed of Marxist assclowns) over an insurgency.
Duh.
Were you hoping that they’d decide to have their own go at playing kingmaker?
Sunfish,
It stands in support of NOT having a standing Army, just like any other infringement that doesn’t seem so bad so long as rational minded people are in power. It is the happenstance that IRRATIONAL people are in power that should guide public policy and the transfer of power (such as allowing a standing army). Believe it or not there was once vigorous debate over such things FOR THIS VERY REASON in the US. But I suspect such is now outside your comprehension at this point. I find most samizdatistas have a romantic attachment to jar-heads and things that go boom not really caring that 99.7% of it is in the hands of people they live in fear of every day.
The whole article was a treatise on just how corrupt “properly-elected governments” are now and just how oppressive they have become. And resistance against them is futile due to the standing armies ready to crush any tangible resistance with predator drones and the like, if it were to come to that.
BTW, please take your duh’s and place them in any solar radiation challenged orifice of your choice.
Despite having been a monarchist for all of my fifty nine years, I have gradually arrived at the same opinion of Queen Elizabeth. However, I retain graver doubts about alternatives. Would a Bedchamber Crisis not be sufficient to ensure her compliance with her duties (with Sean Grabb as principal “advisor”)?
‘Mass immigration wasn’t enabled “the moment they entered office” and isn’t “impoverishing the working class”. That’s a disappointing bit of rant in an otherwise well-argued piece.’
————————————————
Why do you say that, Manuel?
I take it for granted that you don’t mean to suggest that progress, benevolence, Austro-classical economics and a genuine respect for the individual rights of immigrants might be motives of the unvarying scum who constitute the Ruling Class.
[This is a question, incidentally.]
Well, I’ve just lost all respect for Sean Gabb. His advocating a coup reminded me of Lenin. His blatant disregard for law reminds me of Robespierre as, indeed, does his republicanism.
Sure, some of his analysis is OK, but his solution is barking mad.
To my mind, the solution is for Britain to have a written constitution that enshrines the people’s rights and to repeal any repugnant legislation by legal and political means. This would, incidentally, help to stop regal interference in political matters to which Sean Gabb objects.
It would also be relatively harmless; Sean Gabb’s method would result in bloodshed.
A coup has already taken place. And ‘blatant’ like the enviro-trash or suffragettes [not a fan] or Irish terrorists currently ensconced in government? Where is non-violence in Lenin and Robespierre?
Or do you mean ‘blatant’ like the fractious Americans, The Parliamentarians, or The Immortal Seven?
You are familiar, I assume, with the late Dr. Chris R. Tame’s critique of a written constitution? We are already getting a written constitution are we not?
Do you assume that passivity before their laws [not mine] will somehow overturn the laws of existence and ensure that currents trends remain bloodless?
Very thought provoking. However, I would be very hesitant to get rid of the monarchy. Perhaps I’m being sentimental, but England without a monarchy just wouldn’t feel like England to me. But for the most part I am very sympathetic to Dr Gabb.
One thing I particularly like is Dr Gabb’s mention of how unworthy of deference the likes of Mandelson and Kinnock are. It reminds me of something that the great Enoch Powell said: ‘Life peerage is a sort of insult, isn’t it? Look at the people that are given them.’
The world is run by people who call a repair service because their TV doesn’t work. Someone thing comes to put the plug into an outlet.
The pen is mightier than the sword; but, the monkey wrench and prank still have value.
In dictatorships, everything is a crime, even, if not especially, loyalty.
I don’t know why conservative associations keep inviting Gabb to speak to them. He really tears into them and they don’t like it at all. Not that that reflects badly on Gabb at all, but it’s still puzzling.
Pault writes: “To my mind, the solution is for Britain to have a written constitution that enshrines the people’s rights and to repeal any repugnant legislation by legal and political means.”
Uh-huh!
And, given the human, fascist, dictatorial slime that is in government, who is going to accord you a written constitution? David Cameron, even if I ask with a straight face?
I remember my father being uneasy, since I was a little girl, and saying that Britain needs a written constitution. Well, we didn’t get one and we are being shovelled into the new Soviet … and thence to the governance of One Worlders where there will be no nationality. No doubt courtesy of Common Purpose.
“Well, I’ve just lost all respect for Sean Gabb. His advocating a coup reminded me of Lenin.”
Did you actually read the essay? Gabb goes out of his way, in several places, to specify that he means a political coup, a non-violent one. What he is talking about is using using the tools crafted by the Statists (i.e., the disregard of previous procedural norms which no longer have meaning) to make rapid and profound changes to undo their evil works. It’s a realistic tactic; if somehow a libertarian/classic-liberal government should gain power a blitzkreig through the statute books and regulatory agencies would be the only way to ensure the restoration of ancient liberties. Go back and re-read your Machiavelli.
At the risk of sliding somewhat off-topic, but in response to the mini-debate between Brad and Sunfish, in the US a new organization called the Oath Keepers has been making something of a splash. Their purpose is to seek the commitment of military personnel and police that they will honor their oath to the US Constitution and refuse to obey any order in violation of it. This is not an incitement to a coup, or to any violent action, quite the reverse: it’s promising to lay down arms rather than using them to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens. (There is a list of 10 specific types of orders which will not be obeyed, which includes disarming American citizens, conducting warrantless searches, imposing martial law without the consent of the state’s government, etc.) Naturally this has the statists in a tizzy. It would be interesting to see if something like this could gain any traction in the UK.
The “plumage” and the “dying bird” – Thomas Paine’s defence of the French Revolution (hardly a conservative event).
As Connor Cruse O’Brien pointed out (in his biography of Edmund Burke) Paine’s use of language is clever – but also evil.
What Paine is doing is turning the victims of the Revolution (flesh and blood individuals – and of all stations in life, by the way) into feathers (“plumage” that we do not need to worry about) whilst just ASSUMING that the “dying bird” (not an individual – the French nation) will be better off because of the Revolution (an assumption for which Paine offers no evidence).
Contrary to Dr Gabb (and to better people such as Glenn Beck) Thomas Paine has nothing to say worth hearing by conservatives and libertarians. Even in the “Rights of Man” Paine is a master fo the false “argument” (“hereditary legislators are as absurd as hereditary mathmaticians” – and elected mathmaticians are less absurd?) the false claim (for example the statement that checks and balances is based on the claim that the King is both “wiser” than Parliament and that Parliament is “wiser” than him – in reality the idea of checks and balances has nothing to do with any claim that anyone is “wiser” than anyone else) and so on.
And in Rights of Man (part II) we already get promises of various state benefits (from education to pensions for the old) backed up with the (false) claim that it can be all be financed by getting rid of the monarchy and hangers on.
By “Agrarian Justice” (only a few years later) Thomas Paine has come out as a semi collectivist (100% taxes on people who own more than certain amount of land – and so on), Kevin Carson would be proud of the man (although Paine never goes as far as Carson does).
However, I agree with Glenn Beck’s conclusions, although I do not agree with his positive view of Thomas Paine. So I should be fair and look at Dr Sean Gabb’s conclusions.
I actually agree that the Queen has never done anything (as far as I know) to defend British liberties. So I must AGREE with Sean Gabb there.
However, I do not see how that is a reason to get rid of the monarchy (although the Windsor family would be better off if the monarchy was abolished,as the Crown estates would become their personal property once again and the income from these estates is far greater than the Civil List – so Dr Gabb might find he has some allies, close to the Queen herself, in his republicanism), after all what have the elected Presidents or the various European nations ever done to defend the liberties of the populations of their countries?
I can think of only one who has done anything at all – the President of the Czech Republic.
There is no evidence whatever that a President Blair, or Brown or Cameron (or Clegg) would be any better than the Queen.
“But we would elect a good person”.
Who?
President Gabb?
President Carson?
Either of these two would be a lot worse than the Queen – who, at least, does not actively work for collectivism.
If a majority of the House of Commons voted to get out of the European Union the Queen would not stand in their way – the Queen is not a “problem” than needs to be “solved”.
“But what about the 17th century Parliamentarians”.
Good point (with some of them) – but one should be careful what one wishes for.
After all Hampden and the rest would indeed have opposed Britain (or England) being made into a province of a European empire. However, Hampden and co might (on hearing their opinions on landed estates or other large scale private property) also have supported hanging Dr Gabb and Kevin Carson by the neck till they were dead.
Although, of course, I would totally oppose such a response to Dr Gabb and Kevin Carson exercising their right of free speech.
Free will (the basis of libertarianism) is vain if people are punished for their choice to express their opinions – even opinions that seek to justify the theft of private property.
Dr. Gabb’s proposal should not viewed as ‘extremist’ nor lacking any historical precedent:
‘In a paper read to the Statistical Society in May, 1873, Mr Janson, vice-president of the Law Society, stated that from the Statute of Merton (20 Henry III) to the end of 1872, there had been passed 18,110 public Acts; of which he estimated that four-fifths had been wholly or partially repealed. He also stated that the number of public Acts repealed wholly or in part, or amended, during the three years 1870-71-72 had been 3,532, of which 2,759 had been totally repealed.’
[The Man versus the State, Herbert Spencer 1884.]
Agreed – and all the Acts of Paliament concerning the EEC, EC, EU, passed since 1972 should be repealed – perhaps by a one page Act of Paliament simply stating the above.
On that I agree with Dr Gabb totally.