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 The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organization of production is a function of national concern, the organizer of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production. State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.
– Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: ‘Ardita’ Publishers. (pp. 135-136)
Ed: With thanks to DC Downsizers…
|
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.
|
Which, of course, justifies any level of state regulation or ownership.
Fascist Italy already having the largest state sector of any nation in Europe (bar Soviet Russia).
The “leader” defined Fascism (way back in the early 20’s) as everthing for the state and nothing outside the state – he is more polite in this quotation (but it gives him the same room to do what he wants).
“But we have the General Welfare excuse”.
The “common defence and general welfare” are the PURPOSE of the powers given to the Congress by Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States – there is, contrary to the rulings of corrupt judges, no “general welfare power” in its self (otherwise such things as the Tenth Amendment would have no meaning).
This is why, for example, both an army and a navy are listed in Section Eight – the words “common defence” is a purpose (one can not just do anything and then say it was for the “common defence” so it is O.K.).
“But what about the Air Force”.
There was no seperate Air Force as late as World War II – it was the United States ARMY Air Force.
If the Founders had wanted a indepenent Air Force they would have put that in Section Eight (after all balloons existed at the time).
“But we want a fully independent Air Force” – O.K. no problem at all, just pass a Constitutional Amendment. After all there have been 27 Amendments – and some for a lot less than this.
Ditto if you want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, a Federal “war on drugs” (as opposed to the constitutional view that an amendment must be passed if you want a Federal ban on booze or whatever), and so and so on. Do not claim that the “general welfare” allows you to spend money and pass regulations concerning anything you like – otherwise you are on the same ground as the man who claimed he got the trains to run on time.
I’d love a TV interviewer to quote all that to Brown without telling him the author.
Then listening as Brown agreed.
I think it important to note that Mussolini used the word “corporate” in an entirely different meaning than commonly used today. (Link)
It is, however, very spooky how closely the post-60’s Left has evolved towards the Fascist model. In economics, they now endorse private ownership but just like Fascist, they believe the state has unlimited moral authority to dictate all business decisions if it deems that best. They no longer envision a classless society but, just like socialist, they see massive state intervention in all areas of life as critical to creating a just society. Pre-60’s Leftist virtually ignored race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation as critical social factors but now, just like Fascist, they see innate characteristics as absolutely central to understanding society and politics.
I think modern Leftist have simple followed the same evolution that drove Mussolini and other socialist away from traditional socialism and towards Fascism. The modern Left has simply gone much more slowly. Mussolini et al created Fascism because it actually works a bit in the real world. They had to abandon their Marxist fantasies when reality slapped them in the face. They then created the next best system that could function marginally in the real world while still leaving an elite class of articulate intellectuals in charge.
pietr,
That would be such a great piece of journalism that I doubt it will happen with the lot we have on UK terrestrial TV these days.
No interviewer would do that because then them, and possibly their company/channel would find themselves excluded from future press briefings, etcetera – which would basically mean they’d lose all their sources, given that ‘investigative journalism’ is basically a thing of the past and that most newspapers simply wait for like-minded insiders to dish out leaks.
Bless you, Dale, for putting up a proper — Beck Approved — citation for that.
If you caught me on my worst day, you might find me advocating summary brain-mashing with a sledge-hammer for people who’ll just post something like that with a name on it, as if that’s proper work, and the goddamned net is full of them.
Good for you.
I wonder, then, what Washington DC’s excuse is. This sounds like *both* our major political ideologies at work…
“most newspapers simply wait for like-minded insiders to dish out leaks”
But wow, wouldn’t that newspaper be the place to send them…
Leakers would know that they wouldn’t be in any danger of being sold down the river so that the paper could ensure continued “access” to briefings. In any case, the briefings are hardly a source of differentiation to its competitors.
It might just work…
Good comments by many people – but it was the comment by Lascaille that caught my eye.
You are quite right, a lot of “journalism” in Britain is basically “presenting the press release and repeating the comments the sources have made”.
Christopher Booker (of the Sunday Telegraph) often points out that journalists do not tend to do much investigating any more – they do not even do basic fact checking (not just on European Union matters, on all sorts of things). They just repeat what various people and organizations say and then make comments on it.
And, yes, this includes a lot of people on the newspaper that Mr Booker himself works for. I doubt whether pointing out this unpleasant truth makes Mr Booker very popular with journalists (print or broadcasting), but, having the man a few times, I believe that he could not care less what people think of him.
Once again people get the government they deserve. Fascism (or any form of socialism) just doesn’t fall from the sky. All of Mussolini’s eloquence about State efficiency and control has to juxtopose against something else – the “what if” some other method were used (or no method at all). And that’s where the fearmongering comes in AND the basic irrationality imbedded in the masses that allow themselves to be taken in so easily.
Socialism in any form exists as the product of a dialectic between the leaders and the led, between those with ill defined fears and those who extract power and control by professing to able to do something about them. Until some headway is made to change the basic individual mindset of the masses at large, to teach them how to analyze reality and accept that life is risk and we all have imperfect information of the future, the bedrock for socialism will always be there.
Once people believe that they can detach themselves from reality and turn over control and thinking to someone else, society deteriorates. But who do we blame, the proverbial chicken and the egg, do we blame those who sell the snake oil or those who buy it? How much of the blame should reside with those who wish to be a part of a group dynamic wherein they don’t have to think and reason versus group dynamics wherein they are still required to think(private associations within the market – which are just as capable, if not more so, to make some hedge against risk and be efficient). To fall back on some basic Rand, there seems to be a distinctly large group of people who don’t want A to be A. Should we be surprised if a group of grandiose schizophrenics (or mere opportunists) tell them it doesn’t have to be?
My above comment should read “having met the man a few times”.
“having the man a few times” has unfortunate associations.