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 Why is it that the BBC, in its reporting of David Cameron’s visit to China, keeps banging on about the supposed dilemma faced by the Prime Minister over whether to raise human rights abuse, and in particular the plight of Liu Xiaobo, a prominent Chinese dissident unable to collect his Nobel peace prize because he’s serving an 11 year sentence in a Chinese jail?
There’s no dilemma here at all – except in the vague terms already referred to by Mr Cameron, this is not an issue which needs to be explored at all on a visit which is meant to be wholly about trade. Only the BBC, would, in oblivious disregard for the national interest, keep on trying to make something out of it.
– Jeremy Warner
I seem to recall some ‘sensible’ commentator of the day made similar remarks about those who deprecated comparable government to government relations with Nazi Germany in the 1930’s over that whole tiresome ‘human rights’ thingie 
|
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.
|
It was probably only because of those depreciators that Hitler lost his temper. There he was, trying to get the trains to run on time, and get the people working by building those stimulus-package concentration camps, and British nitpickers could only see the negative! If Churchill had only had a few nice words to say, who knows what would have happened?
Perhaps British trains would be running on time!
Do I recall correctly that the EU tries to tie human rights to trade? A few years ago there was talk of a deal between the EU and Aus, and human rights were supposed to be a big part of any agreement.
Could this be simple EU bias by the BBC? (When will it change its’ initials to EUBC?)
Shouldn’t that be deprecate?
Damn spell checkers 😀
Yes, far too many people depreciate the old ways of diplomacy as performed by our extinguished four bears.
[Anyone else who grew up on the Slip Mahoney characture, please raise their hand]
Oh, Perry you bad boy, there you go again, bringing historical perspective into current political discourse.
Jesus Christ on a crutch. Don’t these wankers read ANY history?
Well, I suppose that for people who either rewrite or just ignore history, that’s a silly question.
But I think I just heard the distant murmur of a few million Jews turning over in their graves…
Some regimes come in for harsh treatment. Others come in for “understanding”.
It is interesting to see which get which.
I notice at the moment there is serious media coverage of Thailand elections and the horrors of Polisario peace camps being burnt down in Morocco.
And while it is noted some people are dying in Iran and Zimbabwe for political reasons, the emotional aspect is different. Even indifferent.
I guess it just depends which sector of the ideology you occupy relative to the current agenda of the powerful.
Kim, why is the image of Jesus on crutches significant?
China’s government certainly is still authoritarian and the country has its problems, but if I was Chinese and looked at modern Britain, I doubt I would see a country worth emulating. Our supposedly great ‘democracy’ seems powerless to prevent us from committing national suicide, and Britain’s human rights religion/industry and their pious political correctness ought to make one suspicious of the ‘rights’ mania.
There’s one infamous photo from 1938 (see below) that shows what happens when one gives propaganda support to a totalitarian régime. At the time there was little if any protest.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_01/naziMOS0902_468x196.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513358/Shameful-picture-England-squad-giving-Nazi-salute-haunts-British-sport-Why-70-years-later-suck-dictators.html&usg=__-vQK2hZ4Jmvsv5XeL2RjHPUwiqU=&h=196&w=468&sz=34&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=3UlFuBs55UlngM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=183&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dengland%2Bfootball%2B1938%2Bhitler%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D899%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=585&vpy=103&dur=10779&hovh=145&hovw=347&tx=225&ty=90&ei=yFPdTPqyOcG6hAfOge3hDA&oei=yFPdTPqyOcG6hAfOge3hDA&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0
Godwins law?
Warner doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
“China has always put ideas of the collective good above those of individual liberty…”
Not only does his subject presume the truth of his predicate, but that “always” is simply not true. The early Confucian scholars during the Eastern-Zhou period read like classical liberals; they wrote peons to spontaneous order and argued for low taxes, few trade restrictions, no pursuance of aggressive war and so forth.
“Attempts to impose Western models and ideals on the Chinese political class are therefore not just futile, they are are culturally insulting.”
The Chinese “political class” deserve a lot more than mere insults for what they have done and are doing. This is equally true for the British political class.
“…but some might think, looking at the country’s relative lack of crime, that the Chinese system has much to commend it.”
Warner wrote that after acknowledging the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo. If you do not impose “western” notions by which to judge crime – life, liberty and property – onto China, then yes I suppose there would be a relative lack of crime.
“This gives the system a strange kind of democratic accountability. As long as the CP keeps delivering…”
I’m sorry, Warner is an imbecile. The point he is trying to make is simple enough – that the CCP is simply trying to keep things going to save their own backsides – but he is not competent to make that point.
“For the moment, there is little if any appetite in China for Tiananmen Square type protest. The Chinese are too busy trying to get rich to worry about human rights.”
Ignorant fool. There is plenty of appetite among those who’ve been robbed, defrauded, blacklisted, had their land expropriated, imprisoned and exiled – but Warner won’t get to hear much about them because while they were being impoverished, blacklisted, imprisoned, expropriated and exiled, Warner merely assumed that they were all too busy getting rich.
“But there is absolutely no point in lecturing the Chinese on human rights.”
What an utterly disgusting remark made from deliberate ignorance.
I find myself on the side of the BBC against the Daily Telegraph man.
Accept that there is no “dilemma” – a Prime Minister (as everyone used to know) is not some sort of salesman out to drum up export contracts for favoured commercial interests – if he makes a visit to a country the visit should be about POLITICAL concerns (such as the detention of someone who has committed no crime) not about trying to get more orders for managers who read the Daily Telegraph.
This is in no way Conservative and the Daily Telegraph should be ashamed to employ such people – people who have no honour.
“…a Prime Minister (as everyone used to know) is not some sort of salesman out to drum up export contracts…”
Exactly – he’s got no rightful business having a “trade meeting” in his capacity as PM. It ticks me off no end that pricks like Warner (presumably) get paid for writing grand-affairs-of-the-powerful crap like that, while far better people struggle long hours every day to save for pathetic little things like paying off a mortgage, trying to keep a little business together or saving for a new car.