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 Hillary Clinton believes government should make virtually every choice in your life. Education, healthcare, marriage, speech – all dictated out of Washington.
But something powerful is happening. We’ve seen it in both parties. We’ve seen it in the United Kingdom’s unprecedented Brexit vote to leave the European Union.
Voters are overwhelmingly rejecting big government. That’s a profound victory.
People are fed up with politicians who don’t listen to them, fed up with a corrupt system that benefits the elites, instead of working men and women.
– Ted Cruz
|
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.
|
spoken by a politician
And yet, it is so.
I wish he was right, but I’m not convinced. IMO it’s not a rejection of big government, only a rejection of the current gang that is running big government. The current “elite” is being rejected because they don’t appear to be very competent and they don’t appear to have the interests of their supporters and their nations as their primary motivation.
Voters are overwhelmingly rejecting big government.
Overwhelmingly is not a word that can be used, there are more than plenty of useful idiots around who can strive to b*gger things up. With 100 years of socialist history laid bare, with millions of corpses in its wake, and there are still incredible amounts of brain dead morons who will willingly vote for it again and again.
Socialism has truly joined the ranks of godhood, in the connected age, you simply cannot have anything but faith to believe it actually works.
I’m not convinced that people aren’t just looking for Their Own Big Government instead of Those Other Folks’ Big Government.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.
HA.
Voters are overwhelmingly rejecting arithmetic, not big government. Which is not to say that big government is enthusiastic about arithmetic either – merely that the current popular discontent is not rooted in classical liberal soil.
180 degrees wrong. Voters have realized the welfare state can’t survive large numbers of poor, uneducated immigrants, and they want it to survive.
We know Cruz doesn’t support Trump.My guess is that he really doesn’t support Johnson (or McAfee as far as Libertarians in the public arena goes..) Posturing for the next election-a sort of “I told you so back years ago…?”
We all agree that 52:48 is not an overwhelming rejection of anything. But all my life, until quite recently, a brexit vote would have failed – despite the fact that all my life, the EU has been unpopular in Britain.
When I was young people all complained that modern buildings were ugly – in the same tone as they complained about the weather; the idea that anything could be done about this was excluded from the very way it was moaned about. And then something changed.
Ted’s ‘overwhelmingly’ is politician-speak: exaggerating the trend both from innate desire that it be stronger and calculation that talking it up will make it stronger. He may be right about the trend.
Some of the 52% were not rejecting “government for us” but were rejecting one idea of big government – that government can do anything all at once. Eric (July 24, 2016 at 5:21 am) says
“Voters have realized the welfare state can’t survive large numbers of poor, uneducated immigrants, and they want it to survive.”
This is a huge advance; that voters are reducing the length of government promise lists they will believe. Promising every special interest group that you’d spend on it as well was how socialist majorities were constructed in the west. If every group can be made to understand that only one group will get the scarce dough, elections will become just that little bit saner.
(As for Ted, he may say ‘overwhelmingly’ where he means ‘finally starting to’ but I would still have preferred him to Trump. Hillary the Uninditable is dangerous to free government in a way that Trump the not-unindictable is not, but I’d prefer our US friends to have more to vote for, less simply to vote against.)
Much like us a year or so ago…
Yes I think Niall has it right. But Goncult also has it right: Cruz is setting himself up for what comes after the train wreck that is “Trump” rather than actually reflecting reality.
But I am not convinced Trump is less dangerous than the Hillabeeste. In my view there will be a sociopath in the White House, the voters just get to choose if it will be male or female.
Exactly so. Many voted not to keep that moon faced git David Cameron in Downing Street but to keep the dire Ed Miliband out of it.
How does Clinton want to choose who you marry?! Isn’t it Cruz that wants his big government sky fairy to dictate that?
It is a state’s rights argument. Clinton wants to Federalize, Cruz wants states to decide.
‘Who you may marry’ surely?
I hope Trump wins the presidential race.
Whom, of course, not who. 😉
Trump has one positive over Clinton, he is not a lawyer, but he has a economics degree.
I was rooting for Trump, not because I like him but because I believe he will make some very important cracks in the edifice. I now believe hillary will do the same, unintentionally. In fact she already is, her very public unindictment laid bare the real state of affairs in politics in a very public and obvious manner.
I’m not optimistic that something better and more liberal will come out of the breaking of the status quo, but I am sure nothing better will come from it’s continuation.
All we can do is wait for the time and continue to make the right arguments.
Very good. But his expressed desire is for something pretty close to Mercantilism which has been derided as bollocks for more than a century.
What’s this bit about:
I’m not so sure this should be such a binary issue. I mean, it risks excluding all the non-binaries out there, surely?
Come to think of it, never mind LBGT minorities, it seems pretty prejudicial towards whole other swathes of the population as well – e.g., including (say) the unemployed and the retired.
Perry de Havilland (London), July 24, 2016 at 8:36 am: “But I am not convinced Trump is less dangerous than the Hillabeeste.”
Since you’ve agreed with most of my comment, it would be mean-spirited to complain that you don’t agree with all of it. I’ll present my reasoning FWIW. It has two aspects.
Firstly, the email server is far from Hillary’;s worst deed morally, but it is her most corrupting. Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays tp virtue. By committing a crime in law (not just morally) and letting all necessary evidence get into the public domain as fact, not just as suspicion, Hillary denies herself that hypocrisy. She can never appoint an even half-way honest FBI director – because any such director would arrest her. She can never appoint an even half-way honest judge – because such a judge would convict her. Like the truck in Nice, she must plough through the restraints that say the president is not above the law because she is already above the law – free only in virtue of that fact.
Secondly, the founders did a competent job on the US constitution. Trump is viewed with great caution by both wings of his party and is hated by the fourth estate. If you believe absoultely everything said about him, let alone that which remains after sanity discount for “democratic operatives with bylines”, it is not rational to expect him to overturn free government in the US; to say a man so ill-placed to burst constitutional bounds will do so wholesale would be to say the founders did a rather poor job. The spectacle of house republicans resisting “their” president more than they ever resisted Obama is surely one we can expect. (Ted, who resisted Obama more than most, might give “how to” advice. 🙂 ).
The siuation is different for Hillary, who has the Clinton machine, plus a party in which that machine’s hooks are well-embedded, plus a 4th estate mptivated to conceal, not blazon, any malfeasance. She succeeds 8 years of Obama. It’s a bigger ask to expect the founders’ design to withstand such strain; one may hope it will, but it is clearly a bigger ask.
It is unwise to elect a president who is already above the law. I don’t see how any rational assessment of Trump can compete with that.
Whether or not the barons of England in the first and second Barons’ Revolts actually believed in the ideas they used to achieve their desired ends, those ideas left enough of an impression to push England on a very different course to the rest of Europe. Hopefully Brexit will mean the same.
Government that can effect every aspect of ones life is one that treats the citizens as subjects, not as free, independent people. Hillary represents, in fact she is the very epitome of this representation, such an approach to our lives. It is a continuation, as well as an extension, of the policies implemented by Obama.
This only leads to the inevitable conclusion that government under those like Hillary will never be held accountable.
Under Obama, the growth of government intrusions into areas forbidden under the constitution has been almost unchecked, the results being an Executive branch which has accumulated powers well beyond what is good, or designed. Whoever obtains the presidency will have at their disposal powers well beyond the safety of constitutional limits, and our concerns should focus on how to rein in these powers.
It would be short sighted to think such powers would remain unused by any president. Since our supreme law is ignored or twisted according to convenience, any attempts at restoring the role of the constitution in such matters will probably require the usage of Article 5 by the various states, as it is rather certain that real reform can’t originate from the sewers of corruption in Washington. The people have to take this thing back into their hands, as the founders gave the means by which to do so.
Hillary represents the status quo, the continuation of the global superstate. Trump is the last bridge exit before the toll bridge into the chasm of disaster. Either way, the ride is going to be interesting.
I’m with Niall on this (both comments, but notably the one at 12:15 PM). Hillary is Nixon redux. Nixon thought he was above the law, but events (and a remarkably ethical Republican Congress) proved otherwise. But he paved the way, and now Hillary is above the law, while not yet even being president. She apparently possesses some sort of “royal immunity” based solely on her name. Should she succeed to in her quest to attain that office, the precedent will be permanently engraved into our governance. And that will spell the end of the Republic as we know it. She is a combination of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, and could very well lead the nation down a similar path. Unpalatable as he may be, Trump could do no such thing.
Perry may not be convinced that Trump “is less dangerous than the Hillabeeste”, but I disagree. In any event, he cannot be more dangerous, so why not choose the option which at least has the possibility of a superior outcome?
Speaking of Trump, it was distressing to learn the he has a degree in economics, and from Wharton no less (although it was merely an undergraduate degree, not an MBA). Clearly he must not have been paying attention, as he is today loudly espousing those tired old mercantilist policies which have been thoroughly discredited for over 200 years. But in any event, as President his ability to implement any such policies would be severely constrained. And given the likelihood that he would indeed make some significant “cracks in the edifice” (as Wh00ps put it), as I see it that’s a risk worth taking.
If that direction turns the UK into an economic Hong Kong or Singapore off the coast of Europe, then Brexit will indeed have been a ‘Runnymede moment’.
Lair,
I’ve said it before, but I’ll gladly say it again – I work for a financial firm in NYC that hires with a definite and clear preference for Wharton grads – some of them MBAs, and I have to say, the caliber of the output is highly variable, with a distressingly low mean.
I deeply hope so.
Look at Trunp’s energy and climate policies:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/20/trump-making-americas-energy-policy-cheaper-faster-better/
Contrast that to Hillary’s boiler-plate idiocy:
“We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century. We will take bold steps to slash carbon pollution and protect clean air at home, lead the fight against climate change around the world, ensure no Americans are left out or left behind as we accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy….”
For that alone you’d have to vote Trump. And for Supreme Court nominees.
No, I don’t think Hillary is dangerous, and with Bill watching over her shoulder, she sure won’t be any worse than Obama…(it’s not easy to be worse than Obama…). Unlike Hillary, Bill is no idiot.
But, we had enough of both Clintons, the mere thought of having to endure their faces filling the TV screens every day for another 4 years makes me puke.
Hols your nose and vote Trump!
Hold your nose and vote Trump!
You and me both.
Scapegrace said,
Ah yes, the republican fairy story that state government isn’t “big”, and to simply change the status of fed rights to state rights is to be for “smaller government”. Sorry repubs, but to empower small’ER’ government to become bigger government is not to “be for smaller government”.
That’s a establshment Republican’s 3-card monte game.
The irony of all ironies is that Obama wanted “states to decide” too. At least this is what he said publically. But then again, he, Nurse Ratched and Joe Biden were all against gay marriage until the “political wind blowing in he other direction” fairy wispered in their ears and they all had a political epiphany on the very same exact day when running for a second term.
Gee, what are the odds?
John Galt (the first) said about Trump’s ‘economics degree’,
“Very good. But his expressed desire is for something pretty close to Mercantilism which has been derided as bollocks for more than a century.”
‘Pretty much since May 1 1776, the publication date of A. Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations (and the creation date of the Bavarian Illuminati…but I digress).
I couldn’t have said it better myself. The idea that protectionism will bring more jobs and more quality jobs to an entire nation is to be economically illiterate. Will it, at least temporarily, bring more SPECIFIC jobs in certain industries? Yes, of course. Which is why (in my opinion) Trump is secretly courting unions (who love protectionism like no other).
And of course free trade is the opposite of politics infused trade, and free trade means more trade and more wealth creation. So ask yourself what will be the effects of injecting even MORE politics into trade. It will mean less deals and less wealth creation.
(And it will totally screw Consumer Surplus, so expect the price of everything to skyrocket if Trump is elected and actually does what he says he wants to do).
Jacob wrote,
“Look at Trunp’s energy and climate policies:”
I like how is “climate policy” is ‘F those scalawags’.
He also wants to revoke the caligula-like powers of the EPA and reduct it to what it was meant to be, an agency that offers proposals and suggestions.
Ah yes, the republican fairy story that state government isn’t “big”, and to simply change the status of fed rights to state rights is to be for “smaller government”
Up to a point, Lord Copper. In the absence of a Constitution which restricts federal powers to knocking down illiberal State laws, and reliable constitutional guardians enforcing that restricted role, States rights (combined with free migration between the States) IS a practical way of achieving smaller government. Since folk can move to States with smaller government if they prefer them. Whereas a federal government with extensive powers can prevent voting with your feet.
“Sorry repubs, but to empower small’ER’ government to become bigger government is not to “be for smaller government”.”
What M. Moore said.
If I chose to live in a state that wants to “fight global warming”, I can. If I choose to live in a state in which the population leans toward “that’s nonsense on stilts”, again, I can.
I can choose to live in a state that values our Constitutional provisions, or I can choose to live in a state in which the population has decided that some provisions are wrong.
That’s the essence of bringing “small government” back to the USA. If you replace one monolith with fifty varying regional governments that reflect individual populations’ desires, how have you NOT served the concept of smaller government?
I suggest that some simply don’t approve of what certain of those regional populations would chose for themselves.
More thoughts on the lovely Clinton crowd:
DNC emails reveal a Clinton campaign that’s shady and dishonest, not to mention corrupt. Its secret dealings with Hillary’s opponents—whether Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump—have been distasteful and possibly illegal. To say this is an unflattering portrayal of Team Clinton is like saying the Titanic had issues with ice.
Given Trump’s man-crush on Vlad P., and the bankrolling of the Trump real estate empire by Russians, one wonders if the US elections will be known as the Putin Poll.
He may have some flaky views on foreign policy, but at least Gary Johnson isn’t as egregiously dodgy as HC or Trumpaloompa.
Ted Cruz is probably the last person I’d want to be the messenger for limited government.
Well who else is there? Rand “Lets lock up Snowden” Paul did not run, so who do you have in mind that actually has an audience? Seems to me for all his many and varied flaws, Cruz was preferable to Trump in every way that matters (and I think that in spite of being an atheist).
Perry de Havilland (London), July 25, 2016 at 8:12 pm, quotes Buter Reynolds saying, “Ted Cruz is probably the last person I’d want to be the messenger for limited government.” and replies by asking “Well who else is there?”
Perry asks a very sensible question. I could make a stronger case than that for Ted, but at this point, do I need to? Trump didn’t head my list for ‘means to avoid Clinton’. (At this late date, it’s waste of time discussing whether he footed it, or had contenders for ‘last choice’ amongst the other republican hopefuls.) One may recommend voting for Trump to avoid Clinton, while simultaneously being glad that the senate contains someone who was less supine than many in the face of Obama, and seems willing to resist Trump if Trump kicks over the traces. After 8 years of Obama, there aren’t that many in Senate or House, of republicans (and, far more,of democrats) who can avoid hypocrisy if they find themselves saying to Trump, that “presidents have many powers but cannot do that”.
I have time for Clarence Thomas on the supreme court – and I expect Trumps picks to be better than Clinton’s (a very low bar, I know; the shortlist he offered is better). In senate and house, not all the tea party intake did a Rubio. But you guys across the pond do not seem spoilt for choice. If Ted is the last messenger someone would choose, which of them is the first?
“Spoken by a politician” – a politician who has opposed statism in the United States Senate and been called “Lucifer” for doing so (by the leaders of his on party – who always want to “make a deal” by sacrificing the liberty and property of ordinary people).
And the speech?
It was about freedom and Constitutional principles – from one of the leading students of Constitutional liberty of his generation (even the enemies of Ted Cruz admit that).
The only attacks in the speech were upon Hillary Clinton and the Progressive movement – and Mr Trump was congratulated on his victory.
And the speech was submitted two days in advance – in case the Trump people had a problem with the speech, they did not.
And the response?
Rabid hatred – deliberately pushed by the Trump thugs. With Mr Donald J. Trump personally present.
Screams of abuse and threats – directed at Mrs Heidi Cruz.
But what is one to expect from scum like Mr Trump (his inherited wealth does not make him any less scum – it is not about money).
This is the man, Donald J. Trump, who spread the story that the father of Ted Cruz was behind the murder of President Kennedy.
It is also the person who claims that the root of American problems is “unfair trade deals” – total nonsense and incredibly dangerous nonsense.
Yet I despair of making Trump fans see the truth.
One (an old friend) telephoned me last night.
I considered arguing with him – but I decided it was pointless.
If Mr Trump wins he will utterly discredit conservatism – and pave the way to a socialist (openly and fully socialist) victory in 2020.
And given the utter rabble who screamed abuse and threats at Mr (and Mrs) Cruz when this speech was delivered to them…
I-am-not-sure-I-care.
If the people who booed this speech, who booed Constitutional Liberty, are the alternative to the Comrades.
Well they deserve each other.
The “Brown” Collectivists can fight the “Red” Collectivists and vice versa – I hope they exterminate each other.
People who intend to vote meaningfully against Shrill are not uniformly convinced that Trump is a conservative; it strikes me that it’s more as if they hope they can turn him into one, if they call him that often enough.
Of course the Jackasses are Against Conservativism no matter what dress it’s wearing today. However, they know dam well Hair is no conservative. And no matter if the Great Grand Panjandrum of all Jackasses were elected: Were he a Republican, they’d call him a conservative, everything would be All His Fault, yea unto the time young Moses was found among the bulrushes.
Andrew Klavan has an interesting article up on pjmedia: “How to Begin Rebuilding Conservatism [sic!].” Four main points, with a bit about what and what not to do. He hit at least two of my favorites.
https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2016/07/24/first-thoughts-on-rebuilding-conservatism/?singlepage=true
Julie near Chicago (July 27, 2016 at 9:16 pm): “People who intend to vote meaningfully against Shrill are not uniformly convinced that Trump is a conservative; it strikes me that it’s more as if they hope they can turn him into one, if they call him that often enough.”
My impression, from across the pond, is that some are in no sense sure of the success of that, but think that with sane supreme court picks and control of the houses retained in the same voting as elects ‘Republican’ Trump, they’ll be able to find their country again in four years – or eight if he’s not so bad. These are great and perhaps long-lasting goods relative to four years of Hillary – or eight if she corrupts the system enough in her first four; meanwhile, they’re willing to be pleasantly surprised and prepared not to be.
I was not wild about Andrew’s point 4, nor wildly enthused by the article as a whole. When SJW strategy is to criminalise speaking your mind outside the circle of the like-minded, urging general restraint on the like-minded is (I think) unpersuasive and (I;m sure) not always right. If Trump is there because large numbers were fed-up with such restraint, then he’ll not be removed by reiterating the request. Andrew understands that his side will not win by becoming “watered-down liberals” but maybe he needs to think more about why it appeared as such to so many primary voters.
Julie, I’ll second Niall’s lukewarm reaction to the article you linked. Klavan’s point 4 is simply off-target; I don’t disagree that “screaming at people and calling them evil” isn’t going to win many converts, but it is primarily the left which uses that tactic. Why is he directing that complaint against conservatives? And I don’t think Klavan even understands his own point 1. He asserts that “there is no substitute for victory” and derides those who advocate becoming “watered-down liberals” (I agree with both statements), but offers nothing in its place other than a bland call to “rethink” that tactic. Well, guess what? Donald Trump just did that. He offers a muscular argument for the policies he proposes (many of which I disagree with), refuses to back down when challenged by the left, forces the debate to be framed in his terms. He has successfully challenged some of the basic tenets of the professional political class, and may have fundamentally changed the way campaigns are run in the future (we’ll have to wait to see if he is a unique outlier or has truly shifted the paradigm). If that’s not “rethinking” I don’t know what is.