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 This outpouring of anti-democratic sentiment, this unquestioned faith in the wisdom of the elite over the will of the people, did not begin with the Brexit vote. Through the rise of evidence-based policy and quangos, experts have crept into more and more areas of policymaking. And the sentiment that the masses are a bit thick, brainwashed by the media and stirred up by demagogues, has long greeted every General Election result that doesn’t go the metropolitan elite’s way.
But the Brexit fallout has brought this long unspoken prejudice out of the bistros and into the streets. The idea that the people are effectively incapable of taking part in politics, that you need a PhD in European law to have an opinion on EU membership, is now being shouted from the rooftops and scrawled on placards. Left-wing Remain types, so long the sort who would pretend to speak on behalf of the little people, are now openly calling for elite rule.
– Tom Slater
|
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.
|
Indeed. A good example is this pile of effluent in the Guardian:
Why elections are bad for democracy
We all today write on the USA’s Independence Day: is this irrelevant?
I feel for Samizdata, but note ‘they’ failed to quote quite enough from Tom Slater’s article. I have also:
And there is more:
My personal view. Not only is democracy the worse form of government, apart from all the others: democracy is the most difficult form of government, over and above all the others.
Best regards
I had not seen this QotD when I was writing my post for Samizdata that appears above this one. Clearly I am not the only one appalled by how quickly some Remainers have dropped principles that two weeks ago they proclaimed as dearest to their hearts. I do note that there are many Remainers who repudiate these views, in fact probably a majority do, but I once would have thought that it would have been universal to repudiate them.
Indeed.
“Left-wing Remain types, so long the sort who would pretend to speak on behalf of the little people, are now openly calling for elite rule.”
Just an observation, they are often doing this while accusing anyone who has a different viewpoint a fascist. There has been some shark jumping here of epic proportions.
Having the really smart people in charge is the fundamental, bedrock principle of the left/socialists/marxists/communists/progressives/totalitarians. Their model of government is based on the principle that the smart people can figure out how society works, and then how it should work. They can then re-order it in a way that is more just, more efficient, fairer, and where everyone will automatically accept the new order, because it is based on scientific principles. Marx, who never had to organize anything in his life, who never had to actually implement any of the principles that he set down, thought that society could be organized better if the people in charge would just consider the things that he wrote and do something about them. He followed in the heels of other philosophers who had similar (limited) life experiences, and was followed by generations more of “academics” who could not organize a faculty tea, but who are certain that society would be better off if only there were a few smart people “to do all the hard shit”.
Unfortunately, none of this philosophy takes into account how complicated human beings can be, and how obstinate, difficult, and even violent they can become when “smart people” try to impose conditions that they do not like.
Which makes the words written in the Declaration of Independence so timely and appropriate this year, on both sides of the Atlantic.
My favorite bit in the Guardian piece Ben linked to is this:
An independent research bureau put together the random group of 66 citizens. . . The diversity this produced. . .
And this writer has the nerve to complain that the Brexiteers did not “think.”
‘Through the rise of evidence-based policy…’
That is how policy should be made: I think what you meant was ‘… policy-based evidence…’ which is basically to predetermine what the conclusion you want is, then working backwards to manufacture only evidence which supports it and exclude any which does not and of course badmouth any who challenge your ‘evidence’. It is the opposite of the scientific process, but is widely used these days and called ‘science’.
JohnB, exactly. That’s Rationalization vs Reasoning.
Reasoning is to consider A & B and finding C as a conclusion/consequence.
Rationalizing is prefering C and to go off looking for conditions such as A & B to fulfill it. The latter not only is unscientific, it’s unreasonable.
rxc,
The only reason people have a generally favorable view of Plato and an unfavorable view of Marx is because there was no Stalin or Lenin at the time that put shoved Plato’s Republic down anyone’s throats.
If one reads Plato’s Republic, one quickly finds that his distopia (thought utopia) would have been far more horrific than anything Stalin managed to produce. I think few “philosophers”, so called had a worse understanding of human nature than Plato. I’m also convinced that Plato’s earlier favorable ideas were merely stolen from his teacher, Socrates, as his later ideas were not only uninspired, but completely different and totalitarian in nature.
“Philosopher king” my ass. It’s amazing how many famous philosophers in history were really totalitarian at heart.
“Yes, the House of Commons retains parliamentary sovereignty, but this is derived from the will of the people – from popular sovereignty. Any real democrat knows that power does not originate from Westminster; it is democratic support that gives parliament the legitimacy to act and to govern. To suggest that parliament should use the power lent to it by the public to override the public’s will makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy itself.”
I agree with the reasoning here, but not so much the terms used.
“Any real democrat”; that’s like talking about any REAL Christian….which is in the end defined as one wishes. Remember that in 4th century Athens where demokratia was invented, out of 300,000 people, only 40,000 were part of the anointed elite which could vote in their ‘democracy’. There were more slaves than citizens. (150,000 vs 100,000).
QET wrote,
It’s far more satisfying to me that the Brexiteers were mainly older folk and the Remainers were young people 35 and below, and nearly 2/3 of this latter demographic didn’t bother to vote. That to me is poetic justice…reaping what one sows. The Remainers were as much defeated as it was the case that they merely laid down and gave up, and now they want to cry about their predicament.
Of course, I realize that the lion’s share of those whining were probably active in the voting process, but their bitching about the wrong things. Instead of blaming the Brexiteers, they should be blaming the Remainer segment of the population who were simply too lazy to vote.
Sorry, in the above, “weren’t as much defeated”.
There really should be an edit feature in Samizdata.