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]
|
Sir Denis Thatcher dies Sir Denis Thatcher, husband of Baroness Thatcher has died peacefully this morning in a hospital in London. He was 88.
You know what they say, behind every great man, there is a great woman. Well, behind the great woman of the British politics in the 80s was this great man…
Update: Here is obituary published in the Guardian.
|
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.
|
Great man in what particular way? He once told the Swiss president at a dinner: “Keep Switzerland white.” He once referred to the “fuzzy wuzzies in Brixton” and complained that India was “high on the buggeration factor”. He was just an old gin-soaked reactionary.
Becky writes:
” He was just an old gin-soaked reactionary. ”
Given the choice between that and a sanctimony-soaked socialist, I know whose company I would prefer.
Becky: You couldn’t hold it in anymore, could you?
Aaand, Ladies and Gentlemen! I give you Becky, in her true colours….!
Thanks for the phrases. They are priceless.
Becky writes:
” He was just an old gin-soaked reactionary. ”
It’s the Regatta next week, and then the Henley Festival afterwards, so I should be hitting the Tescos in Henley, for some large supplies of Pimms.
But tonight, I shall soak myself in a reactionary manner, and raise a double G & T, with slimline tonic, in celebration for the life of this Great Man.
Rgds,
AndyD
Mons Olympus,
Mars
Well, I don’t think I’d label myself a socialist, and I don’t quite see what’s so sanctimony-soaked about my post. Is it sanctimonious to point out that someone has repeatedly expressed racist views?
Oooh, racism. I am scared now, Becky. You have uncovered our secret mission and racism is the name of the game, isn’t it?
Or is it just clever ploy on your part to get me write flippant replies to your comment on a serious post?
If the few phrases make a man racist, where does that leave the gaffe prone Duke of Edinburgh? Or is he in the same black book of yours as the late Sir Dennis? Oh dear.
Calm down, Becky or find a more credible straw man to throw stones at.
Becky writes:
“Well, I don’t think I’d label myself a socialist,…”
Que? That’s thrown me into reverse gear on the Martian motorway, between Valles Marineris and Mons Pavonis. How would you label yourself?
Rgds,
AndyD
Mons Olympus,
Mars
Becky writes:
“..and I don’t quite see what’s so sanctimony-soaked about my post. ”
Precisely.
Gabriel, I can’t say I waste a lot of time thinking about either Denis Thatcher or the Duke of Edinburgh. They’re both pretty old school when it comes to race. They can say what they damn well please as far as I’m concerned, but I’d hardly qualify either of them as great men. In what way exactly was Thatcher a great man?
Andy, I don’t particularly label myself as anything. Let’s just say that I believe, like you, that the state should provide a minimum of services. Only my definition of minimum would no doubt be different from yours.
G. Cooper, yes, well put, the sanctimonious never understand their own sanctimony, yadda yadda. Is it sanctimonious to point out that someone held racist views? As far as I’ve seen from this website, libertarians are strongly anti-racist.
But as for the “gin-soaked”, OK I plead guilty. Far be it from me, with my alcohol intake, to cast aspersions on someone for that reason.
Becky:
I can’t say I waste a lot of time thinking about either Denis Thatcher…
You certainly found enough time to make a rather unpleasant comment about someone who just died. You are entitled to your opinion but when you voice it, do not deny that the subject mattered to you.
In what way exactly was Thatcher a great man?
Didn’t you read the last sentence? He was a constant support to Baroness Thatcher and helped her to become one of the greatest politicians of the last century. If you deny his significant contribution to her career and well-being, you will deny merit to those women who provide the same support to their more visible husbands.
Just curious, does “pretty old school when it comes to race” mean racist in your opinion?
Oh, and I never expressed an opinion about the Duke of Edinburgh…just mentioned his (in)famous ability to put his foot in it.
Perry,
Becky is a bore and I for one could do without her presence here. Is there nothing you can do?
David Thompson: I understand your frustration with Becky but we do not ban people unless they are trolls and blogroaches. She is civilised and polite (apart from today’s insult on Dennis Thatcher) and is entitled to her opinions.
Being a bore is a suffient punishment. 🙂
Gabriel –
I don’t think Baroness Thatcher will be reading these comments so I don’t feel especially constrained in saying what I think of her husband here. Surely you protest too much? If, let’s say, Cherie Blair dropped dead tomorrow, would you really feel constrained from saying anything negative about her?
“Pretty old school when it comes to race” means yes, I think he was a racist, but of a very different sort to those of the National Front. His was the probably less malign paternalist racism of empire, which is dying out with his generation.
And if supporting your spouse is enough to be deemed a great person, OK then, but that’s an extremely broad definition of the epithet. I hope all decent people support their spouses in their endeavours.
Whaaat? Saying keep switzerland white, & referring to fuzzywuzzies in brixton is racist crap. Full stop.
However, this doesn’t make him an evil man; my grandparents have dodgy ideas about race, & this doesn’t mean i don’t love them, but at the same time, regardless of whether he’s still alive, just died, or died 200 years ago, it’s worth pointing out. I always thought of him as bumbling & gaffe-prone, much like the duke of Edinburgh in fact!
& David… what, all up for censorship now are we? Becky’s hardly offensive; just holds different views from your own.
Ditto what Adriana wrote
A sad day indeed.
The Iron Lady did mention his support repeatedly in her memoirs, so he definitely was a valued companion for her in her somewhat controversial political life.
Oh and David – sorry to bore you. I advise you skip my posts in future. I thought libertarians liked to engage in robust argument. What I said about Denis Thatcher was pretty mild compared with some character assassinations of public figures I’ve seen here.
Surely you protest too much?
Against what Becky? I thought I was merely explaining. And I am rather bored in my offfice this morning and your misguided comments provide a welcome distraction. 🙂
And if supporting your spouse is enough to be deemed a great person, OK then, but that’s an extremely broad definition of the epithet.
Not quite. You must admit that being a husband of Baroness Thatcher was no mean feat. She was a great politician, and therefore some of that greatness certainly goes to her husband since he helped her along the way.
I was not applying the same adjective to every wife or husband as there are many other ways to describe what they provide for their spouses.
I disagree with most of Becky’s views casting doubt on libertarian (that word…) politics and on the benefits of the EU, but I also disagree entirely that Becky is a bore. She strikes me as intelligent, gutsy & astute. She might well have made a hasty comment about the late Sir Dennis, but it’s understandable given the extraordinary assertion about D.Thatcher’s “greatness”: he was a rather ordinary senior businessman who happened to be married to Lady Thatcher – a great PM by all means, who dragged this country out of the ghastly Socialist quagmire into which it had fallen by the late 1970s, but who was also to a large extent a triumph of style over substance. Just what was the proportion of GDP represented by the State at the beginning, then at the end, of her time in office..? In DT’s favour, at least he provided fodder for Dear Bill, and Anyone For Dennis; but great? Shurely shome mishtake.
Gabriel, glad to provide you with some welcome distruction (sp?)…
Please to hear it, Becky. You know what it’s like… slaving away for multi-national global capitalist exploitative and evil industrial militarist corporations. One has to get the mental stimulation where one can get it. 😉
But all in good spirit. We do welcome your views, despite appearances, but the frustrating bit is when you seems to constitently misinterpret ours…
Tony H: How do you define ‘greatness’? What does it take for someone to be ‘great’ according to you? He/she must be a public figure or a politician or a celebrity before ‘greatness’ is bestowed on them?
Do you know many men who would be willing to let and assist their wives to rocket past them both in terms of worldly success and historical significance? 30-40 years ago?
Liberty and equality for trolls and blog roaches. If they didn’t exist we would have to invent them.
Anyway what are all these statements against free expression? I always thought that if you don’t like what you see – scroll on down the page.
Mad dog barker: I thought there was only one statement against free expression….
May sir Denis Thatcher rest in peace. He supported the greatest peacetime Prime Minister of the previous century, and though he wasn’t a libertarian and had the crusty views on racial matters of his class, which Becky deservedly had a pop at, deserves praise for the quiet way he got on with supporting his famous spouse.
Let’s leave it at that.
Becky writes:
“Let’s just say that I believe, like you, that the state should provide a minimum of services. Only my definition of minimum would no doubt be different from yours…”
Well, a “minimum”, as you know, can be all things to all people. As a beer-swilling fat-boy, for instance, I found a minimum amount of gin was about one glass a year.
But as a slimmer fat-boy, on the Atkins diet where I’m not allowed beer (except for the odd “sabbatical” :), the minimum amount of gin, with low-carbohydrate tonic, is about one pint an hour (or maybe, a little bit less).
So, if I show you mine, will you show me yours?
Here’s a first stab at a woolly neo-Randian quasi-Popperite proto-Rothbardian “minimum”:
===
The tribe/group/state provides the army/navy/air force, the police, the courts, the prisons, the legislature, the judiciary,…errr…, that’s about it. Or in other words, the Rule of Law is maintained by the state, protected from either internal (criminal) or external (the German, French or EU military) interference.
The legislature and judiciary also act as law-finding bodies, rather than law-making ones, taking established objective rights, based upon the philosophical principle of the right of human actors to life, and adapting them as new innovations and traditions evolve within society. Everything that is not currently prohibited, is legal. All people are equal before the law.
Power is also devolved, as much as possible, to the lowest possible level, to promote regional cometition, where it’s easy to move between regions to avoid places where you think the law is bad, and all legislature and judicial positions are elected, though wherever possible, referenda are used to decide changes in law.
Indeed, if possible, “the legislature” would be every fully functioning adult, without the need for representative middle-men. These were necessary for an age, where a journey from Truro to London took 2 weeks, but not in the age of the Internet.
There is no demagoguery. Each individual has constitutional rights, enshrined in law, based upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of individualist happiness, and objective rights to life. Fifty-one per cent of people, cannot tyrranise the other forty-nine per cent on any subject. This constitution would limit government action, not enhance it.
Fiat money would be abolished, to be replaced by either the gold standard, or Hayek’s bonded metals standard, to stop government robbing the people through deliberate boom-and-bust inflationary cycles.
Involuntary taxes would be removed, wherever possible. For example, if you want a legally-binding contract, to be enforced by law, you must pay a tax on the contract, but this would not be compulsory (and your contract would rely on words being the bonds of men.)
Wherever the people decide a resource should be held in common, and administered by the government (in as few cases as possible, perhaps regulatory bodies such as driving test examiners), these will be paid for through charges, not through taxes.
If compulsory taxes were required, perhaps because of a powerful external threat (eg: The combined armies of Germany and France), this would be proportionate to income (eg: 5%) up to a maximum figure (eg: 10% of the average income).
People would be allowed to give their own money away to compassionate causes (eg: schools, hospitals, foreign aid) etc, but these interest groups would not be allowed to change the law, to make this compulsory, as socialists currently do to me by taking away my tax, to pay for Euro-supporting campaigns, whether I like it or not.
Full-bodied mentally-able competent adults would be left to their own devices, and be fully responsible, to get on with their own lives. However, anyone falling outside of this definition would receive help from the state, to either help them become full adults, or bring them as close to such a state, as is possible in the individual case.
For instance, orphaned children, uneducated children with feckless parents, infirm older people, mentally disabled people, physically disabled people, and others not being full-functioning adults, would be helped. It would be of primary importance to the legislature and the constituion to establish what a “fully-functioning” adult is, ie. someone who can contribute fully to society, without society needing to help them to do this.
Popperian piece-meal social policies, would help those society decided were not fully-functioning adults.
Sir Karl Popper would lose his “Sir” title, as everyone is to be equal before the law, without privilege or title. However, in this one special case, and as he’s no longer with us, he would be hailed as a God! 🙂
===
Well, that’s a stab, this fine Thursday afternoon. No doubt it will be much enhanced, once I’ve flogged through my Murray Rothbard. But what’s your “minimum”?
Rgds, AndyD
Becky:
“I thought libertarians liked to engage in robust argument”. [Becky]
I do. My problem is that your not providing it. Your just dull and you post a lot.
” What I said about Denis Thatcher was pretty mild compared with some character assassinations of public figures I’ve seen here. [Becky]
Not my beef with you. My beef is your trite posts.
A_t:
If I could legally or otherwise force this blog to shut Becky up _that_ would be censorship. If, on the other hand. I can persuade the owners of a private medium not to publish missives from a dull correspondent then that is not censorship. Beside, she has plenty of other outlets for her drivel.
Andy Duncan:
You’ve gotta start blogging, man. This comment section is not big enough for ya. Give us a buzz, next time you feel a blog post is on the way. 🙂
Sorry Adriana,
Got a bit carried away there. It’s these Chromium Picolinate tablets Dr Atkins has got me on. Too much energy release going on 🙂
I’m also working on a very dull testing contract at the moment, with very long periods of time between test cycles. Trying to get Becky “The Teaze”, to actually state her position, is filling in the gaps.
You’ll be pleased to hear that, as we speak, another Internet window is currently displaying http://www.blogger.com! 🙂
ad.
Well,
4WIW, here’s the monkey:
http://andyduncan.blogspot.com
This feels very strange.
But I’ll try to post any monsters there first! 🙂
Despite her boring posts and predictable arguments, I would, until today, have agreed that Becky stayed this side of civil. But her comment today about a man who had just died, on a thread that was offering him praise, highlights a real lefty, vicious streak. She couldn’t wait to race in with her vapid mean-spirited little post. Right there in number one spot, front and centre. She’s basing her judgement of this man’s entire life on two or three throwaway remarks?
I know which one I’d rather have shared a drink and a laugh with.
Yours from the red planet,
Gabriel – I’ve never tried to define greatness: history can prove such attempts both foolish & futile. Example: yesterday I consulted McMillan’s Encyclopedia for a bit of background on the Mrs Keppel who was a mistress of Edward VII. Nothing – and nothing on her considerably more important forebear, the Keppel who sailed with Anson and became Admiral of the Grand Fleet – an arguably great man. But I noticed an entry for Kevin Keegan…
I suggest anyone who tries to impose “greatness” on the late Sir Dennis is engaging in crassness of the Kevin Keegan variety; those who are talking him up really should ask themselves whether performing the largely passive function of being spouse to an admittedly noteworthy PM confers anything remotely resembling greatness. Come to think of it, even K.Keegan might be remembered longer, by more people, than D.Thatcher…
Becky: bugger off you sanctimonius socialist slime.
How about the fact that Sir Denis sat back while his wife’s career took off. For his generation having the wife in that position was almost unheard of. Yeah he may of made a few gaffs but who hasn’t?
Sir Denis was a great man and our thoughts go out to Lady T. As she said many times in her writing, speeches and in person, she could not have gotten where did if it weren’t for his support. He always believed in her and what more could a spouse ask for?
I am sure the left will take great pride is sulling the man’s memory. But those who knew, ever met or even talked to him will know what a great man Sir Denis really was in the end.
And let us not forget, being the supportive and knowing spouse of one of Britain’s most exceptional prime ministers ever, before Margaret Thatcher stepped onto the political stage, Dennis Thatcher had already enjoyed success in his own right as chairman of an oil company. Another reason for the socialist slithy toves to loathe him. He made money for his shareholders. He made money for himself. He contributed to the wealth of nations. After which he devoted his life to being the support of the strongest and most visionary thinker in British political life of the time.
And yes, with Andrew Ian Castel-Dodge, my thoughts go to a woman who tonight is bereft of the love of her life.
Dodge, we love you but please refrain from personal insults. We try to keep the comments section free from personal attacks. It does not help any arguments and whips up unsavoury emotions.
Adriana Cronin writes:
“We try to keep the comments section free from personal attacks. It does not help any arguments and whips up unsavoury emotions.”
I think it was the fact that Becky’s original post was such a vituperative, personal attack (not to mention in the worst possible taste) that got people so wound up.
I don’t think Becky appreciates how much Margaret Thatcher is still revered by some (myself included).
And if Dennis came from a time before the PC language police sanitized the english language, and before people were persecuted for holding perfectly reasonable opinions, such as immigration is generally not a good thing, then I personally find this endearing. Had I known him I am sure I would have like the man.
My condolences to Baroness Thatcher.
Becky doesn’t seem to have any politics on her website Becky’s Blog
Could that be, Mike, because I don’t share my politics at my site (which you linked) or anywhere else on the web? (Found you through my referrals, and no, I’m not THAT Becky. Thanks for creating confusion and for leading others to believe that I might be the Becky who’s been posting here. Ahem.)