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]
|
Entitlement Jack White sings:
Every time that I’m doing what I want to,
Somebody comes and tells me it’s wrong.
Whenever I’m doing
Just as I please
Somebody cuts me down to my knees.
The song seems to be an ode to those who just want to be left alone, and a critique of those who think they are owed something by others. The quote marks are on the lyrics sheet with my LP, and are important.
“Stop what you’re doing
And get back in line!”
I hear this from people all the time.
“If we can’t be happy
Then you can’t be too!”
I’m tired of being told what to do.
It is a good song.
|
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.
|
On the surface the song seems good – but the left (the “creative” people in the “entertainment industry”) have a way of twisting words.
Leave me alone turns into “subsidise me” and leave me alone turns into “trade with me and employ me – whether you want to or not”.
The left then appeal to J.S. Mill who at least seemed to say that business freedom was something different from civil freedom (freedom of speech and so on), that it rested on a different principle.
Actually business freedom and civil freedom are parts of the same thing – and rest on the same principle.
My freedom to “do my own thing” must include my right NOT to subsidise you, and to NOT trade with or employ you if I do not want to.
Although it may well be unfair to both the literal meaning of the words and (FAIK) the intent of the writer, Paul (March 4, 2018 at 10:30 pm) has a point about the left’s ability to twist words.
That emotion is felt by many, including us certainly but also including those to whom criticism or even questioning is “being told what to do.”
If anyone comes across a song about an ex-lefty who has grown sick of telling us what to do, or even just of punishing us for saying we disagree, do tell.
A guitarist’s guitarist. One of the best of our times. I’m a fan.
Youtube just had what is been termed “The Purge”, i.e. over three thousand account were uncerimoniously kicked off youtube. Then there as a “opps sorry”, and a reinstatemet of many of them, only to be kicked off again in the afternoon of Friday, the usual opportune time to do unsavory things given the typical light news cycle of the weekends.
I just watched an Alex Jones video about being railroaded off of youtube. (3 trumped up strikes, they’re gone after decades on youtube). 4 (out of over three thousand) students from Parkland have been weaponized to rehearse and repeatedly vomit the legacy media’s propaganda talking points, and if and when anyone is critical of their rhetoric, they’re accused of “bullying children victims” and receive strikes on youtube and other social media platforms.
The video I watched was on an alternative account just created on youtube. In it, he made a good point. Those that want to acquire power OVER others are “betas” who lack the ability to CREATE anything themselves.
It’s apparent to me that it’s not that they’re too dim witted to understand the win-win of voluntary cooperation to mutual benefit, it’s that they don’t care. They don’t measure winning as honorably and justly prospering alongside others. They consider winning as “getting one over” on their betters. They’re the pathetic, envious weasel characters we see in certain Dickens novels, but tend to not recognize in everyday life. But they’re there and they’re on the offensive to destroy alternative media. They’re there to destroy anyone who dares expose their lies and propaganda.
I’m not sure Mr. Thompson rises even to the level of as “beta.” You must be thinking of Dr. Floyd Ferris. Or the one who Mouches toward D.C. to be born. ;>)
.
Paul:
GoodGreat job.Niall: Likewise.
This is serious stuff.
Smart people get their news from a variety of sources but dumb people go to as Bill Burr says “www.imright.com”
Technology makes it easier than ever to go to “imright.com”
While (except on college campuses) people in America do more or less have the right to freedom of speech, media companies like Youtube and Twitter, etc are increasingly narrowing the range of acceptable views one can disseminate to wide audiences.
Want to say what you want? Go for it.
Want to say what you want to lots of people? Better agree with us progressives.
We’re not quite to that stage..or are we?
If we aren’t there yet, this is where we look to be heading.
Want to vote for politicians who will force youtube to be a free speech platform? good luck outvoting the millions of drones convinced by youtube, CNN, NYT, twitter, NBC, CBS, ABC, WaPo, HuffPo, Buzzfeed, MSNBC, all professors, all polite society, all cocktail parties, Ivy League, and all academia etc that you are an evil psycho for claiming that someone suggesting that the 5 children from the FL school shooting are being used by the Democrats and Progressives for gun control propaganda should not have his youtube channel banned.
Enjoy democracy!
Whether or not youtube or anyone else is censoring commenters Alex Jones, on his own or with others, can set up another platform to spread his ideas.
Others could set up rival platforms if they want.
He has no entitlement to an account on youtube. The idea of entitlement is one to be opposed.
People who are really worried about the way the range of published opinion is being narrowed should already be getting on with creating new platforms or outlets.
That would be entrepreneurial free enterprise. And libertarian.
It’s not a good song.
The lyrics are no better than OK, the melody likewise. The singer’s voice is both whiny and screechy and the guitar work is competent. The song is an amalagam of mediocre parts.
The best part of it is the work the fiddler does with her bow.
The O/P critique of the song seems to be based just on the simple words; that’s not enough to critique a song.
Youtube, Twitter, and other media platforms etc are becoming the de facto arbiters of what is considered to be acceptable opinions to have.
You are right: it would be entrepreneurial, and libertarian for Alex Jones to go find a new way to disseminate his views. Youtube, twitter are entirely 100% within their rights to ban whoever they want, whenever they want for any reason they want.
But you are missing the point.
Youtube has the right to ban whoever they want for any reason they want or for no reason at all. Alex Jones does not have the right to a youtube channel.
But in 100 years you can think anything you want on any subject but let me tell you something, if you want to voice that opinion in public you better make sure that there is a channel on youtube/twitter that has said something to the same effect otherwise you are talking outside the bounds of political correctness and you may lose friends, or your reputation, or your job because of it. Already this is the case and it’s happening to people like James Damore google engineer and that Mozilla CEO forget his name at an alarmingly increasing rate.
So you are missing the point. Anybody has the right to free speech and I agree that youtube, twitter have property rights to ban whomever they want whenever they want for any reason. But an unintended consequence of our brave new digital world appears to be that only a few media companies are implicitly becoming the arbiters of what acceptable opinions to have are.
De Jure law is cute and can even be enforced on occasion. De facto law is a much, much bigger deal. Ignore de facto law at your peril. Progressives, I assure you, are not ignoring de facto law – they are making those laws.
If you’re looking for libertarianism in music I would suggest you try Rush, a band much influenced in their early years by Ayn Rand. Obvious examples are “2112”, “Red Barchetta” and “Tom Sawyer” (that wonderful line “His mind is not for rent, by any god or government”). Though, in his middle years, Neil Peart veered more toward a social democrat streak in writing (some tolerance, inclusion and diversity evident), the libertarianism didn’t entirely disappear. I think Peart simply got tired of the accusations of crypto-fascism constantly levelled at him and his band mates by the right-on music press (NME anyone?).
Fortunately, their most recent (and possibly, though hopefully not, final) album, 2012’s “Clockwork Angels” – a tale of a steam punk dystopia ruled by The Watchmaker – keeps up the good work:
All is for the best
Believe in what we’re told
Blind men in the market
Buying what they’re sold
Believe in what we’re told
Until our final breath
While our loving Watchmaker
Loves us all to death
“BU2B” – Rush
GAB is not cited on CNN like Twitter is. This is part of what libertarians don’t understand. Twitter’s citations on CNN, NYT, WSJ, CBS, NBC, ABC, WaPo, MSNBC, etc etc etc are worth way way WAY more money than the money loss associated with banning Alex Jones and the like cost them.
GAB is cute. It’s not a de facto arbiter of polite, fashionable opinion and it never will be.
So yeah if what you are looking for is an echo chamber of original, witty, interesting insights from often interesting people then GAB is definitely your cup of tea. But if you want influence over the world – constant citations in Bloomberg, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc etc etc then you are in for a rude awakening.
And in 100 years an opinion that is voiced on GAB (or its then-equivalent) and is not voiced on twitter/youtube is a sure indication that it is NOT something you can say in public without risking loss of reputation/friends/job etc. Twitter/youtube is becoming a de facto arbiter of acceptable opinion. GAB will never be a twitter.
Shlomo Maistre just gave you your next quote of the day:
He’s pop star and needs to appeal to youngsters who are always being bossed about by parents and teachers.
But don’t forget, if the kids are united they’ll never be defeated.
De gustibus non disputandum est
If you think you know what bits of the internet will matter in 10 years, let alone 100, you are either delusional or a SciFi writer.
Ed Turnbull, thanks, I am, and will have a listen.
— yeah but James Strong’s taste is clearly wrong 😛
/mutters whiny voice…?
/goes off to listen to Jack White’s wonderfully unhinged version of Jolene…
>He has no entitlement to an account on youtube.
That used to be true. But since the gay cake case, it’s not. Hold leftists to their own rules. Either YouTube and Twitter, etc. don’t get political, or anti-gay bakers get to say they don’t want your business.
>Others could set up rival platforms if they want.
Easier said than done. The left now uses DDOS attacks against prominent right-wing websites. It’s hard and expensive to cope with those.
Also, the left will just push its free speech attack to the server owners, like they did with Gab.
See also:
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/frankturner/foursimplewords.html
The “not” is important.
Consider quoting my sentence in full next time you snippet it. What I said in full (and I stand by it):
And in 100 years an opinion that is voiced on GAB (or its then-equivalent) and is not voiced on twitter/youtube is a sure indication that it is NOT something you can say in public without risking loss of reputation/friends/job etc. Twitter/youtube is becoming a de facto arbiter of acceptable opinion. GAB will never be a twitter.
And everyone knows I’m delusional. Only an insane & delusional person thinks that the evidence indicates that the right wing is unable to permanently lower government spending & public debt in modern western democracies. I mean, look at all the evidence that CATO & Heritage Foundation have actually, you know, been effective in DC! Look at all they have achieved with the money thrown at them. Excellent track record of success, we have them to thank for our low government spending and debt. . I must be insane and delusional!! Ignore my warnings about de facto law enforced through twitter, youtube etc. I’m insane and delusional.
Nah, you don’t seem that insane.
Oh and this is rather bad news for your world view:
Democracy, which is about de jure law entirely, can’t be ignored without the boys in blue showing up (unless you are Hilary Clinton). De facto ‘law’ that a twitter mob represents is actually much easier to ignore. Not ‘easy’ but easier.
I imagine de facto ‘law’ is what someone who supports, say, monarchy, is all about. After all, the only reason anyone takes a monarch’s claim to power serious us not de jure law, but rather de facto notions about “the natural order of things”. If the other side controls that in a long term sense, well democracy, monarchy or any other kind of -chy hardly matters. Doesn’t bother me that much really (beyond annoyance at being confronted by it) because I take a longer view and don’t think the other side controls de facto ‘law’ nearly as securely as you seem to think they do. Brexit reinforced my view on that, and whilst I’m hardly a Trump fan, same could be said there.
Actually, the opposite is true.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/06/how-many-federal-laws-are-there-again-n2009184
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look-at-how-many-pages-are-in-the-federal-tax-code/article/2563032
Are you saying that democracy can’t be ignored without the police showing up or that de jure law can’t be ignored without the boys in blue showing up?
De jure law is ignored on a routine basis. I assure you that most cases of well connected people skirting penalties or jail-time for breaking civil law or criminal law do not get quite the same degree of media coverage as Hillary Clinton’s case received. Corruption is a big, big business in the USA. It’s organized lobbying, special interest groups. And it’s not always about who you know, though thats often what matters. There’s also an accurate saying that in America you get the justice you can afford.
Twitter mob is an indication of de facto law but its not the whole of de facto law by any stretch. Consider the corpses left by de facto law, which are growing in frequency and in severity as our brave new digital world takes hold:
1. The NRA, which just a few years ago was generally regarded as one of the top 3 or 4 most powerful political lobby groups in the United States and still probably top 10, lost multiple corporate affiliation deals for speaking out in favor of gun rights after a school shooting in FL. Gosh, what a shock the NRA spoke out against gun control. Seeing as this mass shooting occurred at a gun free school, this is like someone dies of cancer so you remove benefits to a cancer-research organization. Extraordinary power of de facto law (MSM incited, twitter mob) exercised with actual corporate decisions that not only affect real people and real money, but deteriorate the prestige and standing of a pre-eminent lobbying group in the USA. One step closer to them losing political fights on capital hill and us losing our liberty as a result of this de facto law making it less socially acceptable to speak in favor of gun rights.
2. People are fired from their jobs at increasing rates of frequency (see James Damore, Brendan Eich, etc) for saying the wrong thing where wrong thing is not Jews should be put in gas chambers but women maybe are not as interested in engineering jobs as men are. Gosh, the blasphemy!
3. Say the wrong thing as a conservative/libertarian student on campus and lose friends. This is well documented for obvious reasons but it’s a real phenomenon and is shutting people up, making it less likely to hear alternative views on college campuses. this is a big deal and is very widespread and growing.
4. Libertarian and conservative speakers are disinvited from speaking at college campuses because administrations aren’t able or don’t want to provide sufficient police security to host the speaker peacefully. This doesn’t just happen a couple times a year. This is CONSTANT. Here’s a fairly comprehensive running list:
https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/#home/?view_2_sort=field_6|desc
5. Chris Rock won’t even play at college campuses anymore because the de facto law is so strong that even a hilarious, mainstream black comedian does not want to risk ruining his career over a misinterpreted joke. Now, most comedians don’t have the money and established career that Chris Rock has so they don’t have the luxury of dodging de facto law.
6. The smear campaign against people who protested against the removal of Confederate statue in Virginia park, calling them Nazis or Nazi-sympathizers because, yes, the 20 Nazis in America showed up to the demonstration in VA too. That smear campaign worked. The statues are going to keep coming down, even Christopher Columbus in NYC will be removed in the next decade or two. And people are not speaking out for fear of being labelled as a Nazi-sympathizer or being said to have sympathy with slavery.
I could go on but that’s enough for now.
Monarchy, like all systems of government, relies a bit on both de jure law and de facto law. But in monarchy there is a lot less de jure law and a lot less de facto law than there is in democracy or “constitutional republics”. This is for many reasons.
1. One reason is that centralized government power secured by hereditary succession is inherently secure and stable so there is less of a need to justify government’s existence by constant passage of fresh laws.
2. Another reason is that in monarchy government is corrupt but it typically does not reach the organized level of corruption that usually takes hold eventually in democracies where massive businesses and even industries are built up just based on protection and favors from government. It ain’t called “regulatory capture” for nothing.
3. Another reason is that law is STRONG in a monarchy because in a monarchy the government tends to be much more stable and secure in its power, not needing to bribe people for votes every 2/4/6 years as in democracy. More strength per word of law written = less laws need to be written for the same power over society.
Oh, thanks for telling me why you think “anyone takes a monarch’s claim to power seriously”. Personally, I don’t think you are right but what do I know, I’m only a benighted supporter of monarchy, so you would know way better than me as to why anyone would take a monarch’s claim to power seriously.
Not 100% sure what you mean here. If you mean “if the other side (Left wing big government supporters I presume) controls that (de facto law I presume) in a long term sense, well democracy, monarchy of any other kind hardly matter”. Well, as I have shown you above, your understanding of the comparison of quantity of laws (whether de jure or de facto) produced by democracies/republics as compared to monarchies is not accurate. So, yes, it does matter whether we live in a democracy or a monarchy.
Go to that FIRE link above. How many of those disinvited speakers were from the left and how many from the right? College campuses are the incubators of the future culture, tenor, tone, mainstream, polite opinion of society.
How many people lose their friends for saying we should have a socialist economy? They get laid, they don’t lose their friends. How many people lose their reputation or jobs for saying police should be harmed for being police? How many people lose their jobs or reputation for saying that people who want Confederate statues that have been in place for generations to remain there are Nazis? The de facto law is not yet super strong in the leftwing direction (give it a couple decades) but there is basically ZERO de facto law in the right wing direction.
De facto law is already enacting its influence by causing people lose their jobs for speaking out, causing people to lose their friends for speaking out, and causing people lose their reputations for speaking out. And this trend will continue to intensify. Corporations are already cutting ties with organizations like the NRA that are deemed too controversial by the progenitors of leftwing de facto law. This trend will continue to intensify. The tone and tenor on college campuses and thus the range of acceptable opinions to have is being set not by right wing activists but universally (or at least 98% of the time) by left wing activists. Physical aggression in response to verbal micro aggressions, riots for right wing speakers causing cancellation, shutting down discussion, and shutting down dissent, narrowing range of acceptable views to have. This is our future.
My maître à penser wrote FAMOUSLY about the superfluity of insane quantities of laws endemic to weak democratic governments.
He also explicated one of the primary reasons why huge lists of laws tend to be produced in democracies and he wrote eloquently about this with respect to that most emblematic of republics/democracies, the French one. Or, I should say, the series of French republics!
http://maistre.uni.cx/considerations_on_france.html
Just FYI:
Shlomo Maistre
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 5, 2018 at 6:48 pm
And whoops, just realized I meant to say: “This is NOT* well documented for obvious reasons” in the 6:48 comment.
Whereupon he provides data about the growth of de jure law under a more or less democratic form of government, which was what I said democracy was about. Yup, quite so.
Yes, you can get fired due to social pressure. That is not actually law of any kind. The rest is gibberish that actually shows nothing.
Indeed they don’t (thank God!). For every victory they win over us, they win another over themselves – plus, we do win battles sometimes. “They are continually being shocked by things that were never as unlikely as they imagined.” (Dominic Cummings). They think they can both predict and determine the future – which is why they are so often surprised by it. We need to fight. We need not despair. (Actually, we need not to despair.)
🙂
Hector Drummond has a point.
The left can not be allowed to have it both ways – if they can insist on a business employing or trading with people they do not want to trade with or employ (say a factory owner does not want black employees – because he happens to not like their colour), then Google (YouTube and so on) can not censor political speech.
If the left want private property rights (i.e. they accept that a business is private property – NOT a “public place”) then they must be held to that – consistently.
“No private property rights – apart from for rich left coast Social Justice Warriors” is not acceptable. For example the policy of Google of discriminating in favour of woman and “people of colour” is in direct violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – the fact that the victims are straight, white men is not relevant (the “Civil Rights” Act of 1964 has been broken by Google).
And remember Mr J.S. Mill (the source of a lot of the confusions – as he replaced the non aggression principle of the private property Common Law, with his vague “harm principle”) was especially concerned about FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
I rather doubt that Mr Mill would have been impressed by the argument “well the handful of companies that control most of the internet are technically private (although they get massive privileges from the state) so they can censor people as much as they like”.
And remember the lie that Google and co are just after the nasty Nazis….. As Sargon (Carl Benjamin) recently pointed out, the actual Nazis are rarely hit on YouTube. It is actually centre right people (such as Mr Benjamin himself) who are hit.
The left, Google, Microsoft and so on, actually secretly like the Nazis – because they want to pretend that the choice in politics is between the left (such as the Hollywood Frankfurt School Marxists on display at the Oscars last night) and the Nazis. The Left Coast internet corporations actually mostly target, for censorship, the Centre Right.
The objective of the left (the education system, the “mainstream” media, and so on) is to prevent most VOTERS seeing moderate opposition to the leftist (Frankfurt School of Marxism, plus Post Modernism – both of which are dominated by the LIE that capitalism is “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic” and so on, and that this is why capitalism must be destroyed) establishment forces.
Why are some of the most important companies on the planet, and some of the richest individuals, committed to the extermination of capitalism?
That is a complex question – but the fact remains that they are committed to the extermination of capitalism. Even in comedy shows such as “The Orville” (the take-off of Star Trek) “capitalism” is assumed to be a primitive economic system that only silly planets have. In Star Trek and most other entertainment shows, as well as serious news and current affaires programmes, capitalism is always presented as evil – as exploitation and oppression.
Some of the most important companies on Earth, and some of the richest individuals, take it as a matter of course that capitalism must-be-destroyed.
The paradox is that they still believe themselves committed to “freedom” and “creativity” – because they have been taught (since J.S. Mill and co in the 19th century) that freedom (liberty) is somehow a “different principle” from the grubby and sordid stuff of business and the market place.
Some rich individuals who employ thousands of people believe that rich individuals employing thousands of people is EVIL – their minds are so that distorted that (if they thought about it consistently) they would execute themselves.
Such is the power of the “meta context”.
James Strong, Alex Jones is not only a survivor, he’s a survivalist. He has many outlets and platforms, from several well established web “news” outlets to even shortwave broadcasts in very remote locations overseas. His concerns should be our concerns, that youtube is being biased and unfair (taking political sides). This leaves them vulnerable to being sued under section 230 of the Communications Act. (That is, if they actively participate in propagating opinion and “banning” other opinion, they won’t be protected under the act as they would as a mere objective publishing platform, not responsible for the content). Alex Jones will be fine, but other “citizen journalists” will not, and we are all the worse for it. The Statists/Globalists would prefer it be as it was in the days of Roger Mudd and Walter Cronkite. They say it…we accept it as fact.