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]
|
Words the Tea Party need to heed Liberty is not a pick and mix free-for-all in which you think government should ban the things you don’t like and encourage you things you do like: that’s how Libtards think. Libertarianism – and the Tea Party is nothing if its principles are not, at root, libertarian ones – is about recognising that having to put up with behaviour you don’t necessarily (approve) of is a far lesser evil than having the government messily and expensively intervene to regulate it.
– James Delingpole, with his obvious typo corrected.
|
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.
|
This is the limtus test. The potential problem is that as a general rule, conservatism cleaves to a similar social model to progressivism, which is that without some kind of fierce hegemonic ruleset, society will collapse into chaos. Libertarianism is based on a different social model, which is that in the absence of hegemonic rules social systems will naturally seek stability.
This is why I argue ad nauseam that to be a libertarian you have to be both an economic and social liberal; if you are only one of the two you will just end up with a Statism, even if it’s a low-tax statism (and I would argue that you will never get really low taxes because any ruleset based polity needs surprising amounts of money to fund its mutaween etc).
So I would argue that to be a libertarian you have to be a libertine. That doesn’t mean you must spend your life in a coke-fuelled hedonistic frenzy; a libertine can live if a life of monkish purity if that is their choice but it does mean you must give up on any attempt to legislate what others do.
I am intensely sceptical that the American Right can swallow that pill.
Actually there was no difference in POLICY between the Tea Party candidates who won and those who lost. The idea there were evil people out there who wanted to use the Federal government to impose their religous opinions is just an MSM smear campaign.
The difference came when the character attack smear campaigns started.
Everyone got attacked – but people did not react the same way.
Some people (such as Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell) tried to “rise above” the attacks (like little angels) and some people (such as Marco Rubio and Rand Paul) struck back – and struck back savagely.
Guess who won and who lost.
Politics is a rough undertaking – it is about ripping the other person’s guts out before he (and his friends) manages to rip your guts out.
If you are a nice person – then stay out of politics because YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE.
The ultimate example was Dino Rossi in Washington State.
Nothing “extreme” about Rossi – and on the very day he lost there were propositions voted (on tax and government spending matters) in which his positions were supported by the great majority of voters.
Yet he lost – why?
Simple – there was a massive smear campaign on television presenting Rossi (in reality a painfully honest man) as a crook and a fraudster.
But he did not really respond (and least not till it was too late), it was as if like Sharon Angle (a part asian women who has hispanic grandchildren – yet the smear campaign presented as a racist) he COULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT WAS BEING DONE TO HIM.
Yet this same man had a election stolen from him only a few years before (by blatent ballot rigging). He had learned nothing about the essentially dishonest and savage nature of political life.
At some point one has to say to such people – “I am your friend, I agree with you on every issue – but politics is just not for you”.
Of course this is only true if you are targeted by a smear campaign – but if you are running for a United States Senate seat (from the right) you must ASSUME that there will be a smear campaign – and that the free media will SUPPORT the smear campaign (not come to your aid as guardians of the truth).
The bottom line is simple on policy the people are “to the right” nearly every proposition vote (on tax and spending – at least outside of Mass) was won. And the Republicans won the majority of House seats.
But for key Senate races – smear campaigns were successful (as I thought they would be).
One, I repeat, must EXPECT the smear campaign – and counter attack at once.
In short the Delingpole quote utterly misses the point about what happened yesterday.
I agree with most of your post, IanB, except for the “libertine” part. As I understand that word, it means someone totally lacking in moral restraints. (Internal restraints, that is, not externally-imposed ones.) And, frankly, I don’t see how a civil society could exist if its members didn’t exhibit some moral restraints. The “non-initiation of force” rule is a fine start, but for people to live together in society requires more.
I would agree with Delingpole.
However, it is very difficult to get a broad enough consensus to win in “democratic” circumstances. As I expect Ron Paul would agree.
There has to be some compromise with structures and things one does not like, which can include people who think the police should have greater powers and be more respected. Which, latter, of course they should. If they should be there at all?
Maragaret Thatcher was a compromise, but she was a move in the right direction who (along with Reagan, Lech Wallesa, a conservative Pope, and a further cast of thousands) bought a few decades at a time when conditions seemed somewhat terminal.
As long as the trend is towards smaller government, though, indeed it is moving in the right direction.
If the conservative elements screw up, as Delingpole points out, Obama could get back in at the next Presidential election, and if he does, Goodbye Western Civilisation. Indeed.
It’s not entirely clear how much Thatcher was compromising, and on what issues particularly. But I’d present the Thatcher experiment as a classic example of how incomplete libertarianism leads ultimately to failure.
Delingpole makes an excellent point, let’s hope that it’s heard.
Ian B wrote:
‘I am intensely sceptical that the American Right can swallow that pill.’
and while I agree with that sentiment, I don’t (necessarily) agree that it’s directed at the right people.
The Tea Party is generally socially libertarian – they (mostly) simply don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect others or cost the taxpayers money. So, for example, they’re not anti-abortion – they’re anti-taxpayer-funded abortion. They’re not anti-gay-marriage – but they’re against any sort of taxpayer-funded special rights for anyone.
(Sure, there’s been some loons in some parts of the Tea party movement that have tried to take it over in the name of No Gay Marriage and Prayer in Schools and a Christian Nation and so forth, but they’ve mostly withered on the vine because most of the TP’ers just don’t adhere to that nonsense.)
In fact, on many social issues, the TP is actually well to the left of the Democrats – certainly of President Obama – if such a simple roadmap really applies anymore.
The people who need to be persuaded to swallow the libertarian pill are actually all over the political map. They are better-defined as ‘those whose oxen would be gored by a libertarian approach’.
End the “war on drugs”? The national police officers unions and the millions who make a living in the criminal justice system might have an opinion about that. I’ve read somewhere that simply legalizing marijuana might well put 30% of those working in the CJS on the street.
Roll away Obamacare? You’ll have to face up to a whole stormfront of opposition, ranging from the SEIU to WalMart.
Legalize gay marriage and end DADT? Ask the President why he remains implacably opposed to doing either.
What the TPers have been able to do, quite successfully so far, is effectively separate the personal from the political. Many of them, no doubt, are personally opposed to abortion, drug use, gay marriage, And So Forth – but they are the ones who actually grasp that you can’t have liberty on the cafeteria plan. The people who need persuading are all over the political spectrum, and often surprisingly far to the Left.
llater,
llamas
Puritanism has always been one pole of American politics, giving rise to statist liberalism and statist conservatism alike. In both cases, an Elect uses government to force ‘right living’ on an incompetent public.
But the other pole has been the idea that most people, most of the time, are perfectly capable of ordering their lives without government supervision. Not all people all of the time, but enough that the attitude makes a pretty good substitute for libertarianism if you don’t mind a little fraying around the edges. I believe you’ll find that much of the American Right comes from this tradition rather than the Puritan one.
Ian, Mrs T was a compromised move in the correct direction.
Her time as Prime Minister saw Britain’s economic disaster reversed. She did some good things, like rescue the country from imploding.
But she was a compromise for all the reasons you could state far more coherently than I.
She did not reduce the state for one.
Her ministers made sure that Rhodesia was turned into a basket case, for another.
One State to watch carefully – for the elite have got their dream.
For years the Economist magazine (yes my old friends again) have been saying that California is in trouble because the State Legislature can not pass a budget by a simple majority (i.e. the evil Republican minority can block massive tax increases).
Now a Constitutional Amendment has been passed to allow just what the Economist has wanted for so long – passing a budget by a simple majority.
The Democrats control the State Legislature – and they now have an open Democrat (rather than a RINO) as State Governor (welcome back Governor Moonbeam).
So there is no excuse for a Federal bailout of California now.
Of for a Federal bailout of Illinois (the “Green Governor” Pat Quinn has just been re-elected) or New York (Andrew Cumo, the man who took banks to court FORCING them to lend out money to people they knew would not pay it back, has just been elected the “Civil Rights Governor).
These places are going to go down the toilet.
This is what is important – tax and spend (and the vast funny money fraud that is the Federal Reserve – also supported by the subhuman scum who write for the Economist and the Financial Times).
“But what about social issues Paul”.
What about them?
Do you know how many of the evil red eyed Tea Party candidates believed that the Federal government had the constitutional power to ban abortion?
NONE OF THEM.
Do you know how many of the candidates (again the ones who lost as well as the ones who won) believed the Federal government had the constitutional power to impose ANY of their religious beliefs.
NONE OF THEM.
When I say “media smear campaign” that is exactly what I mean.
But people understand the “Chicago Way” (LOOK IT UP) now and will fight back in future – just as Rand Paul did.
And the MSM are going down – their smear campaigns this time will prove to be the sting of a dying wasp.
As for the unions (and they spent a billion Dollars – not 200 million Dollars)……
Just wait – and you will not have to wait long. Pension and benefit funds – union bosses looting of.
Even the academics (with their “Noble Lies”) are not as secure as they think they are (for, of course, the media are produced by academia – as our the teachers, via teacher training).
“It is not because of your collectivist political opinions – but Texas is very short of money, we can not demand that the taxpayers (who are so badly hurting in these hard times) continue to finance your colleges as lavishly as in the past……”
Those lines will soon be heard in many other States soon.