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 Yes, government’s increasing involvement in the economic and moral lives of citizens have made political stakes high. It’s true that 2016 features the two suckiest candidates probably ever. It’s also true that our collective vision of the American project has frayed, perhaps beyond repair. With the intense scrutiny of contemporary political coverage, more people are invested in the daily grind of elections, which intensifies the sting of losing. This anger compounds every cycle (although winning brings its own disappointment with its unfulfilled promises).
That’s not to say our constitutional republic isn’t slowly dying. It probably is. This condition isn’t contingent on an election’s outcome, but on widespread problems with our institutions, politics, and voters. Whatever you believe the future of governance should look like, one election is not going make or break it.
– David Harsanyi, writing “This is the least important election of our lifetimes”
|
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.
|
” It’s true that 2016 features the two suckiest candidates probably ever”
No, it is not true. Think about any election, any where. Are Trump and even Clinton worse. I cannot see it.
If you perceived problems with institutions etc, are not your elected politicians part of the problem and mending process.
For decades, the politicians have been appalling. The same this time, but oddly we are talking about it this way. In some ways these two politicians are doing us a favour, and helping set a tone, which might, if luck and effort count, last.
Normally I am a fan of Reason magazine (where I think this also appeared) but I find their writing on the election disappointing.
This particular statement is disingenuous. Hillary will push gun control through, once she has made her court appointments – probably using the ‘well regulated militia’ argument. She will not reform Obamacare – at least not in a sensible way. She is unlikely, on the basis of past behaviour, to pursue responsible foreign policy.
In many ways Trump is the safe, middle of the road, option.
It was clear that even in 1936 most Americans did not believe in limited government – Franklin Roosevelt would not have been reelected if they had. After all he had confiscated privately owned gold in peacetime, invalidated private contracts, shown opposition to the Constitution of the United States and so on. 1936 showed that many decades of government schools had done their work – people looked go government for aid in bad times and it no longer occurred to people that government might be the cause (not the cure) of bad times.
Even in 1932 (under Hoover) the top rate of income tax was 65%, the tax on imports was crushing (the highest tariff in American history), there was a massive government deficit with lots of unconstitutional government spending, and the government was threatening employers to make sure they kept up wage rates (kept real wages UP – in the face of a massive slump, think about that it leads, of course, to mass unemployment). A population that came to believe that Herbert Hoover was too free market will believe anything. Whatever Franklin Roosevelt ran on in 1932 – in 1933 it was obvious that he was even more of a statist than Hoover (yet his support grew).
However, social mores were still conservative – most people lived in families and went to Church and so on. The ideology of people might be bad – but their basic behaviour was good. Civil Society existed in the 1930s – the state was not yet “all in all”.
Fast forward to 2016 – the family is dead or dying (look at the out of wedlock birth rate) government is father, government is mother, government is God, most people are no longer regular church goers, and basic Civil Discourse (after all Franklin Roosevelt had the “manners of a gentleman” he appeared to be one – at least in public), has collapsed.
The animal noises and vile behaviour of both Clinton and Trump supporters are the cultural mainstream. That was obvious as early as the New Hampshire Primary – where both Democrats and Republicans voted for the worst person they could find (knowing that they were the worst person). “Bernie” Sanders is even worse than Clinton – and it was Mr Trump who won on the Republican side (as he did in most Primaries). The people are voting for people like themselves – people who make wild promises and act as if nothing at all needs to be given up by ordinary folk (“the rich” will pay – even billionaire Donald Trump attacks “the rich”).
“But Paul most people hate the government” – they hate it for not giving them ENOUGH, they want it to give them MORE. They are like spoilt little children (screaming and making animal noses) because their parents (government) have not given them all the sweets they want.
Yes, yes, yes there are millions of good people – but they are the minority. If they were not the minority would the entertainment industry be like it is? After all all these leftist Hollywood films and television shows and pop “music” are commercial – most people must want this stuff.
How will it end?
In bankruptcy – in fact if not in law. Economic bankruptcy as well as cultural bankruptcy.
There will be no gradual reform – not getting rid of certain government departments and agencies, just bust. Massive bust.
As Glenn Beck said some time ago “stop looking for the man on a white horse to turn up and turn the Republic around in the direction of Constitutional limited government – he has already turned up, and we SHOT HIM”.
I hate it that you are so right.
Paul, voter turnout at that time was extremely low (barely above 10% in 1936?), so it is hardly clear what most Americans believed or did not believe.
The problem here is that the threshold to reform of the system is too high, for good reason, the founders wanted their system to stick, so made it difficult to substantially change.
Secondly, it expects and requires the participants in the system to be of “good character”, whereas this is patently no longer the case. In the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Executive, those in attendance are there to serve themselves first, their political contributors second, their party third and their constituents a very feeble fourth.
Demands for reform will only come from the “feeble fourth” and would amount to turkeys voting for Christmas, it will simply never happen.
A second American Revolution is required, to oust the parasites in Washington DC from power and restore democracy, but as with all revolutions, the costs are high and the outcome uncertain.
Clinton won’t “push through” gun laws, Congress will have to do that.
She will, though, appoint an anti gun Supreme Court Justice. In Heller there was a 4 Justice minority that held that the Second Amendment only means that the Federal Government can’t disarm State controlled militias.
You can’t definitely expect Heller to be overruled the next time a second amendment case comes up- they might make some bogus nod to stare decisis. But you CAN expect that no anti gun legislation, ever, will be found Federally unconstitutional again. It will be rational basis scrutiny, and no regulation will be held unreasonable. And once there are enough votes for it, any Federal anti gun law will stick.
The ratchet was just turned to “tighten”. (Assuming she wins.)
And the chart here proves me wrong… Although my point still stands, I think – albeit far less strongly.
I did not know that Alisa – indeed I was utterly ignorant of it. I apologise for my error.
John Galt – yes it was an unfortunate choice of words.
Staghounds – “Executive Orders” can do almost anything, if Congress will not risk a “government shutdown” to oppose them.
A ruthless President and a weak Congress – not good.
I remain of the opinion that economic bankruptcy (in fact if not in law) will deal with this situation – the “Progressive” movement.
Sadly it will be all quite dreadful – but at least it will be the end.
Paul, see the other link I posted – it shows a very different turnout (much more similar to the current numbers). I have no idea which set of data is the correct one.
“How will it end?
In bankruptcy – in fact if not in law. Economic bankruptcy as well as cultural bankruptcy.”
We know exactly how it will end. Like Venezuela. It will take time, it will be gradual, but the end state is clear.
Unfortunately I think you are right. There have been times when the state was rolled back peacefully(e.g. Jefferson’s presidency) but at that time the government pay roll was very very small compared to what it is today. Most people, especially the left, hate being wrong more than they hate being poor, so Venezuela may well be the destination.
Alisa – the figure I have found says 61% of the registered voters turned out in 1936.
Of course blacks were, de facto, mostly allowed to register to vote in the South – that fight was lost in the 1870s. And Poll Taxes, in some States, deterred some poor whites from voting also.
Yes Jacob and Peter T.
The Ted Cruz argument (the private one – not the public one) was that Protestant America was different – that there was a vast number of people who rejected the Social Justice ideology, even if some of them worked for the state or took some state benefits. That there could be some reform to make government smaller – after all (for example) some of the farmers in Iowa voted against their subsidies – i.e. voted for Cruz in the caucus events in Iowa knowing that he was against the subsidies.
Pity this Godly army turned out to be a rather smaller than he hoped. He was not expecting much in New Hampshire – but had high hopes for the South.
Mr Trump understood the true Southern mentality much better – they talk about liberty, but they do not mean it (I do not believe they ever did – slavery, Jim Crow). Trump’s Populism (wild promises) and Nationalism (everything is the fault of other people – especially other people from a different ethnic group) played well in the South.
Liberty seems to be believed in more in the West – where people are less noisy about it.
Yes Paul, that sounds much closer to truth.
Harsanyi’s article sounds an awful lot like a guy telling us how not-bothered he is that his fiance called off the wedding and left town.
It’s a soothing balm he’s applying to his own ego as he realizes that Crooked Hillary is indeed going to win.
“Doesn’t matter. No big deal. She can’t do anything. Deadlock.”
I feel for the guy, but I think his minimization of the harm she’s going to do is dishonest. But soothing.
There is room for debate about the rest of the quote, but this is just plain wrong:
On the Dem side, Hillary seems to be more of a psychopath than Obama and Carter, but i see no reason to think that this personal flaw would make her worse as a President.
On the other side: if Trump had been the candidate in 2008 or 2012, i’d have been horrified; but now, comparing his campaign to those of McCain and Romney, i think that McCain and Romney were worse candidates.
I’ve changed my mind about Trump. The reality is that a small government candidate can wax eloquently about his policies, and by any objective standard demolish his liberal opponent in debates. But he will still lose. The only way to fight this election was to fight hard and fight dirty, and using hot button issues rather than properly developed arguments. When conservatives play nice liberals just say ‘thank you very much’ and don’t attempt reciprocity. If Trump loses you can be sure that (especially) Cruz or Rubio would have lost even more badly, even against the worst and most unlikable candidate the Democratic party has ever fielded.