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 we wanted to be âtogetherâ in the ways Obama envisions, then no force would be necessary. If public schools were any good, people would not flock to private education the minute they could afford it (and sometimes even when they canât.) The same with other government-mandated activities or programs. People would voluntarily, en masse, âinvestâ and âcome togetherâ and do all the other things that Obama, and other progressive statists like him, believe we should do.
– Michael Hurd
It seems that in the final year or so of his dreadful presidency, Obama is becoming ever blunter in his public pronouncements, disparaging business and America’s individualism. It reminds me a bit of that scene in the Fountainhead where Elsworth Toohey, the arch-villain, confesses to his powerlust.
Remember: the world’s most powerful country voted for this shit – twice, and by handy margins.
|
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, âPorcupinesâ, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty FrĂ©dĂ©ric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
And to compound the folly they may well vote in Hilary Clinton who is likely to continue this trend towards treating citizens as vassals. The US is no longer inhabited by the people I once knew in my youth. Very sad.
Listen to and read what he says, watch what he does. Every bit of it is othering, compulsion, and pillage. Why do people refuse to believe?
Barry Sheridan – Franklin Roosevelt won in 1936 by 60% of the vote (when he had already used the Constitution for toilet paper).
And Johnson won by 60% of the vote in 1964 – when he had already proclaimed the collectivist “War On Poverty”.
I do not deny that the pro freedom Americans you knew existed (and exist) – but they may well have been the minority for very long time.
For example has Reagan actually tried to roll back the state (rather than waffling on about cutting “waste”) would have won in 1980 and 1984?
I doubt it – in fact I think the waffle was wise (from a political point of view) as specific pledges to actually get rid of government schemes would have led to defeat.
As for Mr Obama – he is a Frankfurt School heretic.
A Classical Marxist places little faith in the state BEFORE the Revolution
The future?
The present system does not make sense.
The financial system does not make sense – it is a Credit Bubble.
The fiscal system does not make sense – it is an out of control Welfare States.
And the chances of serious reform on either the monetary or fiscal side is just about zero.
That leaves just one alternative.
Collapse.
My problem is that I can never get into my head how much ruin a great nation can take.
I keep expecting the West to have already collapsed and myself to already be dead.
I am irritated to still be alive.
As the saying goes:
There are bloggers who are already calling for a Military Coup.
http://lesbates.blogspot.com/search?q=military+coup
I don’t know what the voter turnout was for FDR or LBJ, but for Obama it was just over 50%, of which just over 50% actually voted for him. So me, I’m quite pleased with the fact that almost 50% of eligible voters in the US refrained from voting for the Lesser Evil, not to mention for the Arch Villain himself.
Yes, to our eternal shame here in the U.S.. The War on Poverty was built on a plan to put the Democrat party in power and keep it there. LBJ stated “We’ll have those n!gger$ voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” By expanding the welfare state, and the bureaucracy to grow fat from administering it, the goal has been reached. Every effort to control the cost or shrink the size has been met with screams of outrage by the Ruling Class and the Media. Where that didn’t work, voter fraud filled in the necessary gaps. Obama won by a very narrow lead in the popular vote, but took the necessary Electoral votes to win. According to the most recent polls, he still has the highest popularity of any 2nd term president since FDR in the middle of a war.
And when it all collapses, it will still be Bush’s fault. The Narrative takes precedence over Reality.
I hate living in “Interesting Times”.
Paul, I imagine there are others who share that irritation!
Now, which presumably-sensible Classical Liberal whom I saw day before yesterday on UT, going on about how wonderful is Medicare and how we know it is necessary and a Good Thing.
I’m sure it was somebody too young to have been there at the time. It was NOT popular. People did NOT like the idea nor trust the intrusion of Government into their health care. It was NOT part of the general culture to believe that the Gov had any business being our shepherd — that was the Lord’s job. (Sorry, a bit O/T, but I couldn’t resist.)
And according to my reading, the same was true of Social Security. And I do know my Dad told us that the people had been told it would be a VOLUNTARY program and would remain so.
Dear lord, no need to proof-read that I can see. đ Sorry. Change “whom I saw” in the first sentence to “did I see.” The period is incorrect, but used deliberately.
Alisa and others: if a few more Mitt-voters had turned out to vote against Obama, they would have spared us all a world of hurt, starting with Obamacare (no, Mitt-care would almost certainly not have been passed: Think of how Obamacare actually made it onto the statute books); going right through foreign policy including but not limited to treatment of Israel, the dabbling about in various Middle-Eastern Islamic-war affairs, the dismantling of the U.S. military; to the appointments of known communists like Van Jones and Valerie Jarrett (his main advisor, they say) … Eric Holder and his Justice Department … Hilary Clinton and then John Kerry as Secretary of State … “You didn’t build that” as one of the key components of his worldview and of what should be done to shape up America (namely, to tear it down) …. and lots, lots more that in a million years it would never be part of Mittens’ character to say and to do.
And people think that it’s just great that not enough people voted turned out to vote for Mitt to deny the Sith the Presidency.
@ Julie near Chicago: “if a few more Mitt-voters had turned out to vote against Obama, they would have spared us all a world of hurt, starting with Obamacare”
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand…what has the GOP given us lately? I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they have been playing Failure Theater ever since they’ve been elected.
I’m sorry, but it’s 2015. Anyone who continues to believe that the Republican party is an ‘opposition’ party hasn’t been paying attention.
NOTE!!! I’m referring to actual, real-world results, NOT the words out of a politician’s mouth.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard–H.L. Mencken
Guy,
Referring to actual, real-world results, we haven’t seen a Republican who could a candle to the Sith, and that is very specifically the election (Obama vs. Romney) I’m talking about.
In fact the closest the Dems have come is probably FDR.
For the reasons I specifically specified [redundancy for emphasis] in my comment, I hold those who couldn’t tell the difference between Obama and Romney from several light-years away, or who think it an example of ideological purity to pretend they couldn’t, responsible for the results of their folly, and that was the point of my comment.
Because Obama TOLD us what he was going to do, in general terms and in some cases specifically, and his record, such as it was, bore that out.
Look, the problem is the woman’s vote. Take that away, and all of this nonsense goes away.
How long has any society survived once women achieve full, equal rights with men?
This is not a rhetorical question. Does anybody know?
The main problem is status quo bias. A bad decision is not so bad if it can be easily rectified. But bad decisions by government are almost never rectified.
It has several sources. People are naturally change averse. This can be a sensible position to take, but does not recognise the fact that there is a qualitative difference between a change that reduces the role for government and one that increases it. Deciding whether to pass laws by a coin toss (equal chance) is much more likely to produce poor government than passing no laws at all. It is an error to extrapolate from your own experience of decision making to decisions made by government.
Probably more importantly, government has now reached a size where slimming it would have serious personal consequences for many public sector employees. When Jefferson and Coolidge slashed the size of the state this simply did not create as many loosers as the same kind of action would today.
Julie, guy, et al., regarding the lesser of Evils, Mitt vs Hussein, and Republican inaction and ineptitude, I’m beginning to think that we are better off going “all in” with the Progressives.
I used to take this position as a rhetorical device, but better to collapse everything to start the re-build rather than die by a thousand cuts, although some (America 3.0) think the slow decline could be managed in such a way as to avoid the worst of a more abrupt collapse. Seems to be hoping for too much rationality from an electorate hell bent on “having their Democracy good and hard”.
But I have to admit, part of my growing interest in going all in on Progressivism is to live long enough to see the bastards suffer from their choices. Of course the Obamas, Clintons, and Ketchups (Kerrys) won’t be suffering, but I’ll settle for the idiots who voted for them. In my more despondent moments, I believe the idiots who voted for this stuff will never understand the source of their suffering; they will certainly never understand it by listening to their current sources of information (Hollywood, Stewart and Colbert, and the medja).
The really sad thing is I have great faith in the common sense of the “common man” and still believe that if our universities could be properly purged (get rid of the Marxists, leave the liberals (modern sense) and lefties alone as long as they are honest ones who welcome debate and base their proposals on facts and learning), things would come around. Give people THE facts (not your facts) and some open, honest debate and we’d be ok. Votes and opinions would certainly not be entirely to my liking, but that’s ok because by myself, I don’t know much and don’t have enough common sense to govern!
Julie, although it doesn’t matter where I live, I voted for not-Obama, twice, so I did make that effort.
Getting any friends, neighbors, and family to do the same for the reasons you indicate would not make any difference at all. There are simply too many people who wouldn’t ever vote Republican. They might decide not to vote at all, but they would never pull the lever for a Republican. Identity politics, in lieu (sometimes, in spite) of understanding issues is too strong for too many.
PS Sith?
PPS way to spice up the discussion, joel đ
Not really Laird.
I am easily dealt with – so there is no need for anyone to kill me.
If I get too close to uncovering local corruption (of both major parties) – it is easy to defeat someone like me in a local election. Just tell the voters that I am a “hatchet man” in relation to local government spending – which is perfectly true, I am.
Even the “greedy Jew” bit was basically true (even though I am Anglican), as I am part Jewish.
And my comments?
If I hit home – then just delete the comment, as the Economist magazine does.
Or ban me entirely – as the person-in-Kent did from his “Libertarian Alliance” blog.
I did not swear at him – I just won too many arguments.
There is no need to kill someone when you can deal him (or her) so easily.
Remember what I am – I am a defender of the “capitalists”.
People who actually own an important proportion of major enterprises.
People like the “boo hiss” brothers Koch, or Jon Hunstman (senior), or Rupert Murdoch, or the late Sam Walton, or Mr Knight (the Founder of Nike).
I do not pretend these people are perfect, far from it, but I am a defender of the basic concept of large scale business enterprises and the owning individuals and families being in charge of them.
Even in libertarian circles it is only acceptable to oppose Big Government if one pretends that getting rid of Big Government would get rid of (boo hiss) big business.
As if getting rid of business taxes that small enterprises do not even pay, or getting rid of regulations that do not apply to small enterprises, would (somehow) destroy “big business”.
That a pro free market policy would return the world to “family farms” (peasant plots), “Mon and Pop stores” (no Target or anything like that) and little workshops – rather than large factories and so on.
Someone like me is unacceptable – a defender of the “greedy capitalists”, even if the “greedy capitalists” do not have long noses and worship on Saturday rather than Sunday.
There is no need to kill me – because I am so outside the acceptable political discourse.
Everyone must express their hatred of “big business capitalists” – or be culturally irrelevant.
Paul, you’re entirely too serious. I was just having a little fun with the last sentence in your previous post. Lighten up, man!
I agree with you about big business. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it, as long as it doesn’t depend upon government largesse (“crony capitalism”) or seek to use the power of government to enhance its position or to stifle competition. Unfortunately, too many large businesses do precisely that. The answer, of course, is less government, since a government with little control over economic enterprises offers nothing to “capture”. However, ever-increasing power is the goal of most politicians and bureaucrats, and it offers irresistible allure to rent-seeking businessmen. As P.J. O’Rourke said, “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
Greg and jdm, it is certainly an uphill battle, but the principle remains that if you give up, your chances of losing are 100%; whereas if you don’t, it may be possible to raise your chances north of 0, however slightly.
My scorn in this particular discussion, however, is really directed at people who decide not to vote on some sort of grounds of either (a) ideological purity or (b) “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them,” which when applied to the pair Obama-Romney is just stupid.
It’s not that I don’t sympathize with your feeling. But “OK–we’ll do it your way, and you see how YOU like it!” assumes that in the event, the proggies and communists will finally give in to the clear evidence of reality. Yes, actually some of them will. And so — what? It will be too little, much to late.
It is very important not to fall to the barbarians in the first place.
PS. jdm: Obama as spawn of the Sith, yes, because for sure It is an anti-human alien species with a penchant for slithering into a human-like persona. It just does a really good job in projecting humans’ bad traits!
Joel, since no-one has previously had a civilisation that gave equal rights, there is no comparison. In fact, since lots of them have collapsed, equal rights for women may allow ours to do better, and survive! The battle for equality is rooted in our history, and drives rebellions. Not enforced equality, but equality before the law, and rule by laws.
Well… it is no surprise that USA is the biggest exporter of Marxism today.