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 “The US government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone” […] In the Xinhua commentary, China scorned the United States for its “debt addiction” and “short sighted” political wrangling. “China, the largest creditor of the world’s sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China’s dollar assets,” it said. It urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure.
– Xinhua News Agency.
No kidding but hey, when a state run by a communist party tells the USA to spend less on… welfare, you start to get some idea just how strange the world has become and just how screwed the US actually is.
|
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.
|
You will noyice they did not suggest better controls over the masses (tea party types). In fact, the messages from each souce are roughly the same.
I don’t really think of China as communist anymore. They are being run more like a non-hereditary monarchy or something. I am not sure what to call it.
I think the term Regulatory Democracy fits the U.S. pretty well. At least better then Capitalist.
@steve, you might be laboring under the notion that there is a substantial difference between a communist regime and a non-hereditary oligarchy, there is not.
Well, they now allow substantial amounts of private property which is strictly prohibited under communism. I agree that in other ways they are similiar.
Well, they now allow substantial amounts of private property which is strictly prohibited under communism. I agree that in other ways they are similiar.
An authoritarian central government which allows private property as long as it furthers the ends of the state. Isn’t that sort of the textbook definition of fascism?
There isn’t much daylight between communism and fascism to start with. I think they’ve pretty much bridged the gap.
Pretty much.
Indeed.
And isn’t that pretty much where the US is heading, too? I’ve been saying for a long time that Obama isn’t so much a socialist as a fascist.
Laird –
We are probably not going to continue (though we were started) on the route to an Administrative State as a form of governance.
It seems likely that the necessary bureaucracies (actually the bureaus themselves) will begin to fragment due to their tendencies to expand beyond available sources for their costs.
Further, the willingness of the populace to comply with the polities of an Administrative State is declining; in many cases to the point of concerted conflict.
We are faced with the loss of previous civic instrumentalities that were displaced by bureaucracies, but there is increasing evidence of the rediscovery of commonalities of concerns that may generate new instrumentalities and a different form of civil society.
“We are faced with the loss of previous civic instrumentalities that were displaced by bureaucracies, but there is increasing evidence of the rediscovery of commonalities of concerns that may generate new instrumentalities and a different form of civil society.”
I’m not sure I agree with, or even follow, all of that. I don’t know if there has been a true “loss” of “civic instrumentalities” as much as an arrogation of power by bureaucracies which was previously not held by any “civic instrumentality”. And I don’t know what you mean by “new instrumentalities and a different form of civil society”; could you please elaborate? What “increasing evidence” do you see?
@Perry – Yes, I think maybe fascism is a more accurate name then communism or non-hereditary Monarchy.
Nothing really wrong with fascism if you take out the oft-associated militarism. Singapore is nearly the textbook example of a fascist state too – where capitalist features are present to serve the perpetuation of the nation-state.
You’ll be surprised how many people seem to like it too.
You must be joking.
Perry, I am convinced that most of the people far prefer security and trains running on time than all the chaotic hopelessly exhilerating risks of freedom. Without a new frontier for individualists to escape to, we will be bred out of existence.
Fascism usually has a racial element, as society is supposed to conform to genetic stereotypes. But all fascist regimes are militarised- the military is the ruling element. Society is run on strictly masculine lines- non of that democratic ‘discussion’ is needed! China seems to be a soft fascist state- they might cause internal pain if China tried to play the ‘race’ card!
So I think ‘Soft Fascist’ describes modern China.
Mike Lorrey:
As history shows, the exchange of freedom for security is nothing but a short-term fix.
Rather like bank bailouts.
Best regards
Fascism is a loaded word, but the fact is that some dictatorships or authoriatrian regimes actually work.
The rationale is simple: our ideal minarchist state needs to have some facilities or services provided by the government in working conditions. We need laws to protect individuals and their property. We need a justice system (courts) to administer the laws and police to enforce them.
Where such institutions are lacking, chaos reigns, idividual rights are trampled by brutes and the law of the jungle prevails. It is not a nice place to live in.
An authoritarian regime can maintain law and order in some manner, and be much better than a chaos state.
Individual rights, especially those that involve politics, are curtailed, but not necessarily in a very brutal or total manner. It might not be a perfect system, but then, no system is perfect, and it might be better than available or feasible alternatives.
All those mentioned asian regimes are good examples, China above all.
By the way – we live in some remarkable times – where China lectures the USA about sound money policy. And China is right!
Laird –
I am not sure I can do justice to your incisive questions, though I might over some vertas vino and an hour of chat. Of course you realize I am referring to the U S (tho’ there are U K comparisons). But, here is a sampling:
The bureaucracies I refer to are not all governmental, though practically all are politically impacted (regulations, taxes, etc). Example: the former role of fraternal benefit societies (“Aid Societies” inter allia). Mutual, then stock insurers have almost totally displaced them as entities, and “programs” have taken over the rest. You can look at the co-operative movement, particularly in the midwest, which became bureaucratic, then corporate, then subsidized (example California fruit marketing). The evolution and displacement of all kinds of civic (non-governmental) organizations which formed non-politically are a matter of our social history.
At one time, most of our hospital system was created and maintained by civic (including religious affiliated) groups, usually local – a few great ones still remain.
But, by and large they are mostly large bureaucracies, no longer instrumentalities, but now institutions with all that entails.
Sorry – I must break here and try to return asap.
(if you can stand this pedantry)
I would like to rehabilitate the term “National Socialist,” which I believe accurately describes China, Japan and Germany. I would say “take out the racial element,” but let’s be honest, it’s there in all three cases, if (obviously) not as virulent and central as it was in the Third Reich. I also agree with commenters above who speculate that this is covertly the most popular form of government. If you give most people what they say they want, it’s roughly National Socialism. What’s more, I think in a great many cases that’s also what they actually want. It’s the reason I’m getting interested in seasteading.
Laird –
Well, I did come back and the continuation was eaten by the homework dog. I may try again later tonight