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]
|
Dave Cameron’s bold vision – more of the same… renamed According to the Telegraph…
The Conservative leader presented a bold vision of Britain in which communities – rather than government – worked together to solve shared problems. In calling for the role of the state to be scaled back, Mr Cameron sought to establish a philosophical divide with the Government after 13 years of public sector expansion under Labour.
According to Samizdata…
The Conservative leader presented a bold vision of Britain in which when communities work together, which happens in something we call ‘markets’, nice caring Dave will regulate them and give us MORE state, which the media will call LESS state… and magically it will cost less money… somehow… and yes any claims he is going to scale back the state in any meaningful way is pure and utter bollocks, but it suits the needs of both main parties to pretend otherwise because in fact there is no philosophical divide. Confused? Just shut up and vote and then go back to your reality TV.
Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
|
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.
|
Perry, your trouble is that you’re a realist! If you’d just put on some rose-coloured glasses, everything would look rosy! (For red-hating conservatives, they even have some blue roses these days, so blue-rose-coloured glasses for them!)
As an outsider, i hope that Britain has a hung parliament, with UKIP having a vital say in things, as well as LPUK.
We’re facing our own elections here in Aus., and neither candidate is fantastically good. I’ll be voting for the Liberty and Democracy Party, the libertarian group, but I think we’ll end up with Abbott or Rudd, both of whom like big government.
On a different note, the secessionist Hutt River Principality will be celebrating 40 years of tax-freedom on the 21st day of April, 2010. Why not visit them by internet? As an example of self-government, they’re doing well!
http://www.principality-hutt-river.com
BTW if you want to see something really ludicrous, look at Dan Hannan’s blog post on the manifesto. I really can’t understand why people like him so much.
Yes, your version sounds about right, unbelievable isn’t it.
Gabriel: got the link?
Here you go I’m not sure I quite agree with Perry, though. Cameron’s desire to force us all into state-funded pseudo-voluntary groups organised by Alinskyites on the government payroll would actually be deeply sinsister were it not manifestly childish and delusional. Do these people not realise that we’re bankrupt? (Although on the left side of the blogosphere all the talk is about arresting the Pope, so I guess all this localism guff seems in comparison quite sensible. I suppose this is what the fall of Rome looked like).
By that I mean, the Tory manifesto is not indistinguishable from, but actually rather to the left of Labour, perhaps in its own way the most radically Left Wing manifesto any major party has ran on it the history of this country and, again, if it wasn’t for the obvious fact that all his Camerons plans will prove to be a wet fart, would involve the liquidation of civilized life in the country and its replacement with Soviets.
Although on the left side of the blogosphere all the talk is about arresting the Pope, so I guess all this localism guff seems in comparison quite sensible. I suppose this is what the fall of Rome looked like
An interesting parenthetical that fits almost hand-in-glove with these comments from “wretchard” at the Belmont Club (the pajamasmedia site seems to be down at present).
Whatever you think of the Tories and Cameron they will almost certainly be cheaper as a government than Labour. And it is inconceivable that the Tories will be as authoritarian and intolerant as New Labour has been, with their ID cards etc.
If Labour stay in power we’ll probably get another 100,000 public employees hired to devise stategies to reduce government expenditure. And another 5 years of them we’ll have cameras and microphones in our houses to check we only use politically correct language and feed the kids their 5 a day.
So stop moaning and vote Tory. They are the best on offer.
Sure because endorsing a party which had made it abundantly clear they will not actually reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state will somehow improve things rather than just killing civil society ever so slightly slower than the other guys?
Idiot.
“would actually be deeply sinsister were it not manifestly childish and delusional”
Gabriel – such things are not mutually exclusive.
“Whatever you think of the Tories and Cameron they will almost certainly be cheaper as a government than Labour”
Yeah right! It’ll be like being 50 grand in the hole to Mafia rather than 60… Big deal.
Perhaps it’s time to dust this off.
It is not “just” the market that is being subverted – although yes it is being subverted
For example, when Mr Brown says he made a mistake by “not regulating the banks mor, both at a national and international level” the Conservative party leadership do NOT reply “there are thousands of pages of bank regulations – and Basel II world banking regulation already exists AND HAS DONE GREAT HARM” instead they say that Mr Brown has waited too long to admit his “mistake” (the exact opposite of what his real mistake was – a “mistake” that sees the state as the cure rather than the sickness).
If it is true that government was NOT the cause of the present crises (via its increase of the money supply and its endless and crack brained regulations) indeed that yet more regulation will man salvation, then why vote Conservative? Why not vote for Mr Brown, or for “Vince” Cable, or the rest of the lifelong ideological statists? By conceding the arugment that the crises was caused by “not enough national and international regulation” the whole case for their being a Conservative party in the true sense (i.e. a party of national independence and less “Progressive” regulation) is destroyed.
Still Perry’s post was about voluntary action – which includes non “for profit” voluntary action.
This brings us to perhaps an even worse thing than the subversion of money and banking – it brings us to the nationalization of good works and community spirit.
Of course if the state finances “communities” they are not communities at all (a community is made up of people who voluntarily help each other out WITH THEIR OWN MONEY) – state financed “charity” is not charity at all, and state organized “community help” is nothing to do with a real “voluntary sector” – it makes such things fake (full of professional paid managers who got their jobs by replying to adverts in the Guardian newspaper).
In the United States this is part of a deep and evil plan mapped out by vile beings (such as the “Rev” Jim Wallis) who seek to subvert all voluntary cooperation and institutions (including the churches) and make them part of the collective.
But it Britain it is as much farce as tragedy.
David Cameron is NOT a Barack Obama or Jim Wallis style Marxist – he is just playing about.
“So people like the words citizenship and service and the idea of young people helping out is considered fluffy as well – I know, I will promise a National Citizenship Service and get myself a few votes”.
There is no dark plot with Cameron and his chums – no group of evil people (Obama, Wallis, Andy Sterne….) sitting together and saying “Comrades the death of the West draws near, final victory is within our grasp as long as we can…., instead it is just sillyness and farce.
“So stop moaning and vote Tory. They are the best on offer.”
Apart from Pete, we can probably all agree that “wet fart” Cameron (love your use of the English language, Gabriel!) is going to be as bad as old Gordie Brown.
But it is time to mellow out. It really does not matter. We are reaching the end of the string. As Churchill might have said, the ATMs are running out all across Europe; we may not see them refilled again in our lifetime.
Governments have regulated & taxed their industrial bases all the way to China. They have borrowed all the Chinese want to lend them. Increased tax & regulation will result in less revenues, not more. Increased borrowing is becoming progressively (pun!) more difficult. Zimbabwe beckons.
Cameron, Brown — doesn’t matter. Reality will prevail, over either of them. We really should be looking beyond the coming tragi-comedy. How do we go about rebuilding after events have turned the political class into road-kill?
‘Sure because endorsing a party which had made it abundantly clear they will not actually reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state will somehow improve things rather than just killing civil society ever so slightly slower than the other guys?
Idiot.’
Who says a Tory vote is an endorsement? I said they were the best on offer.
You say they’ll kill civil society ever so slightly slower than the only alternative. So, I’ll vote for the slower rate of decline thank you very much.
It’d be idiotic not to.
Well, actually, if you read their manifesto, you’ll find that they plan on doing it faster. More importantly, both Conservatives and Labour are united in their policy to repsond to our unprecedented debt crisis by, err, pissing around doing stupid shit until we default on our payments. Given that, as I’m sure you’ll agree, the deficit is the biggest problem facing Britain, then you must vote for the party that has the most credible policy to deal with it. Given that the only party which remotely fits this bill is UKIP, you simply must vote for them.
What you say may have been true 5 years ago (and then you could have had an interesting argument with Perry about whether it was better to decline slowly or to accelerate things in order to effect a change of course) but it is no longer so. Thanks to the debt crisis, there is no longer any meaningful difference between Labour and Tory whatsoever, not even in the rate of decay, not even at the 15th differential, not nothing.
How is voting for someone *not* an endorsement?
So then you are knowingly voting for the death of civil society. Nice. And as you cannot see the problem with that then you are part of the problem.
People like you, willing to vote for what you can see is manifestly wrong due to the ‘lesser evil’ theory, are the very reason the Tories are in practicle philosophical agreement with Labour: the votes of millions of people just like you are safe just as long as they are ever so slightly less ghastly than the other guys.
What possible motivation do they have to actually move to a meaningfully less statist position (as opposed to empty rhetoric claiming to do that whilst promising ever more skoolzanhospitalz) given that people like you will still vote for them regardless?
Cameron is doing exactly what Blair did in 97. He’s promising more of the same to start with. He’d be stupid to intimidate the electorate with harsh truths and Thatcherite solutions. People don’t like too much change too quickly, especially when that change will eventually mean less help from the state and more standing on your own two feet.
As with Blair and Brown, we’ll only see what he’s capable of when he’s in office. Only then will he show his true colours, just like Blair and Brown did.
So I’m voting Tory out of hope that he will eventually be more traditionally Tory if he does gain power. And what have I got to lose? Only in the very,very remote possibility that the Tories are more sleazy, economically hopeless, authoritarian, oppressive and crazily politically correct than Labour will voting Tory prove to be a bad decision.
I’ve become incredibly fed up with UK politics.
Perhaps if I ignore the government they will get the message and go away?
What have you got to lose? Well lets see… you made the Tory party the way it is by showing time and time again that no matter how much more statist they get, you will vote for them regardless as long as they do so infinitesimally less than Labour.
You and those like you did it. The reason we do not have a real opposition in the UK is because you… all of you who vote on the vain hope people like Cameron do not actually mean it when they promise more for the NHS, more for special interests, more for skollznhospitals, a “greener” and therefore more regulated economy… oh and by the way you credulous schmucks who are actual conservatives, we will make the state smaller too…
Yes, you guys, the ‘lesser evil’ voters, the ones voting to put off the hard decisions into the future, you have made it so we are fucked if we vote Labour and we are fucked if we vote Tory…
Well guess what, go ahead and vote for the bastard, you will get exactly what you vote for and not what you baselessly hope for. No more putting off the day it all comes home to roost because you guys have made the options on offer meaningless. The future is here and you own it.
Well no, that is unfair. There is no realistic alternative, LabCon have got the market sewn up. So in other words there is no realistic alternative party to vote for. Why not? Because in order to topple the LabCon duopoly a political party will need to offer a new form of political government (that will work) and not just offer radical policies that separate them from the mainstream parties.
Nope, this situation has arisen due to an internal dynamic of the multi-party system that leads us to a politocracy.
Well there should be much less Marxism by the back door with the Tories in power but that remains to be seen, but I expect it to be the case. Nevertheless I shan’t be voting because as far as I am concerned political parties belong back in the 19th century whence they came.
I disagree completely Ytheleus. The issue is people not voting for the alternatives because of the prevalence of the ‘lesser evil’ theory. All it would take was for UKIP or the damn Monster Raving Loony Party for that matter to take enough people to lose the election for Cameron and the Tory Party would change… fast… or we would have another long overdue shift like the one where the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as the other main party.
As an American, I find our entrenched two-party system extremely frustrating; the “wasted vote” and “lesser of evils” arguments are always thrown at me when I suggest voting Libertarian. As a result, I have always been envious of Britian’s parliamentary system, since I believed that it provided a meaningful opportunity for smaller parties to participate in the political process. Am I wrong about that?
I have always been envious of Britian’s parliamentary system
The problem is deciding at what (amounts to a) vote count is necessary to get an MP ensconced and the next and the next…
I don’t know if it’s still true, but I seem to recall that the UK has a relatively high level and Israel has a very low level. Someone could certainly – does probably too – argue that the UK is a fascist-state-or-something because the levels are too high. Good Government types dislike the Israeli approach because nothing “gets done” (ahh, for the good ol’ days of gridlock).
I don’t know enough about the actual machinations undertaken or necessary to drag a party from one set of viewpoints to another, but my impression is that the American system with its caucuses is fairly responsive, because every other year is a system restart. The parliamentary system seems much more entrenched, but I really am out on thin ice here.
Well no you are right in a sense. UKIP and the BNP have been participating in the political process though they will never get in power. But the main political parties have converged in the centre. This process happened in the USA before here of course. Not that having parties at opposing ends of the political spectrum is any better, just different.
Yes Perry, but WHY don’t they then? It’s no good taking your anger out on Tory voters for being wimps. It would require mass collective action on behalf of a few million people to achieve that and it doesn’t work like that. You also need to bear in mind that parties converge on the centre TO WIN MORE VOTES. Why did the ipod replace the Discman and Walkman (which had a monoploy)? Because it was revolutionary (based on completely new technology). UKIP or the X Party aren’t revolutionary, they are just another political party who wants to hold the seat of government and appoint their own men. LabCon are a duopoly in the market and it will stay that way until something very radical (and good) comes along, and they will not move from centre either, except in policies via the back door
On the contrary. That is exactly what needs to be done.
People need to start saying the things the media does not want to say and Tory voters do not want to hear. The process starts with a change in the culture and pointing out that Emperor Cameron has no clothes and the people who claim otherwise are deluded dupes is my small part in that process.
ytheleus: “they [Lab-Con]will not move from centre either”
Amazing what gets called the “centre” these days.
A lady from China recently told me that her mother (back in China) is spending her life savings on the cancer-treatment drugs she (the mother) needs. In Communist China, the health care system is apparently well to the right of Britain’s fascist/socialist “centrist” National Health Service.
Perry, the people to blame are the Ukippers! They are the ones who are not putting a candidate in every electorate! What’s up with that!?
And who ‘won’ the TV debate? I know we’re all losers, but if Cameron did not fail, then a hung parliament is possible. (I’ll buy the rope!)
Perry, I take your point to a certain extent, but I’m not charismatic, motivated or clever enough to start my own political party in time for the poll in a few weeks time.
So, I’ll vote Tory this time and hope that either the Tory party gets its act together in government or that some bright spark starts another party which is a suitable alternative.
I’m all for crossing bridges when I need to. And the bridge I need to cross on May 6th is getting rid of Labour.
And sadly you will be replacing like-with-like, so I hope you will see why I cannot see the point… but I can most certainly see the harm long term of voting YES to a philosophical monoculture that means we might as well be in a one party state.
Demand the next government give us our ability to effectively defend ourselves. All vote for handguns.
http://debate2010.telegraph.co.uk/ideaView?id=087A000000004CfIAI
Spread the poll to like minds.
I just hate the idea that Cameron is going to think I endorse him, that he somehow has a mandate.
No, I want Brown out. Period.
If we do not have a none of the above, then just allow me to vote against someone.
Pete you are mistaken.
We do not have to wait for Mr Cameron to become Prime Minister (which looks unlikely now anyway) to find out what he is like.
Remember his first policy action?
Breaking the pledge to recover power over fishing grounds – a policy of the Conservative party for some years.
Too small an example?
What about his word of honour the “Iron Pledge” to allow the British people to vote on the E.U. Consitution (the so called “Treaty of Lisbon”) – HE BROKE HIS WORD Pete.
“But when he is in power” – being in office is not less difficult than being in opposition Pete. The pressures get WORSE not better.
If a man proves himself to be lying piece of shit in opposition do not expect him to stop being one as Prime Minister.
But it is more than the above.
For all Mr Cameron’s statism (such as the insane idea for a “National Citzenship Service” for young people – as if REAL community groups for young people, such as the Scouts who are now HALF A MILLION STRONG, did not exist) the “mainstream” media (and academia) would still present his government as a “free market” one.
So the failure of Cameron, Osbourne, Gove and the rest (and, by God, they would fail – utterly fail), would be presented as a “failure of the unregulated free market and savage cuts in government spending”.
So people who really do what to follow a policy of deregulation and reducing government spending (really reducing it – not a tiny cut in the INCREASE in government spending, and that will turn out to be phony with the costs of the National Citzenship Service and so on get factored in), will be discredited in advance.
A Lib/Lab government (a government of Clegg, Cable, Darling and so on) would fail just as much as a Cameron government would fail. But even the msm would not be able to pretend it was a “failure of the free market right”.
As for voting:
Mr Cameron name will not appear on the ballot paper I will be facing – I will vote for the best candidate whose name will appear on the ballot paper I will face (where I live that happens to be the Conservative candidate – but in other places it is NOT).
I advise you to vote for the best (or least bad) candidate on the ballot paper you will face.
How can you do any less than that Pete?
How can you “vote Conservative” REGARDLESS of the candidate?
For example, is the candidate for British independence from the E.U. or against it?
If the candidate supports the E.U. then what is the point of voting for them?
After all the E.U. makes most policy already – and under the “Treaty of Lisbon” (with its self amending feature) will make just about all policy within a few years.