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]
|
Alien vs. Predator… but which is which? I am really looking forward to seeing the new Alien vs. Predator movie, the tagline of which is…
Whoever wins… we lose But I also find it very appropriate to see those sentiments applied here as well regarding the other big fight epic due to be released a few weeks hence. No, I am really not looking forward to that one.
|
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.
|
There are non-trivial differences for libertarians, with respect to the roll of government in the lives of its citizens.
Bush’s plan in equalizing the market-warping tax breaks that corporations get for providing medical insurance, with tax free medical savings accounts, is wonderful. Another way to do it is remove the tax breaks for those companies; that would also push us back towards a two-party payment system.
But if you had a choice to start taxing something, or not and also not tax something else, the choice is clear.
This is opposed to a push for nationalized health care by Kerry. Perhaps some would like to comment on the successes of NHS to counter the claims that Bush would be better.
For welfare state retirement accounts, would you prefer a positive or negative rate of return? That is the choice between Bush & Kerry, respectively. Of course, I’m sure people here would prefer no system at all, but that’s not the first step.
In transitioning to a pay-your-future-self system, a choice to opt out would be more promising.
Also, I would rather choose tax cuts, and a budget broken, forcing (hopefully) spending cuts. The alternative is giving up hope, and raising taxes.
Finally, you have someone who things the UN isn’t worth dirt, and whiney allies are to be ignored, verses someone who, undoubtedly, would fellate Chirac to get him in Iraq, and empower the EU with this type of attention.
There is most certainly a choice, and there is a way to be “more of a winner” or “more of a loser”. I wouldn’t go so far to say “we lose”.
No Ivan, it is losing worse with Kerry vs losing not quite so bad with Bush… but like the man said, whoever wins, we still lose. There are no *good* candidates, so it comes down to picking lesser evils and that is always a lose-lose proposition.
The trouble with reasoning using Bush’s party platform is that what this administration says has almost zero correlation with what it does. You can basically forget about the claimed policies of both candidates. A better way to decide who to vote for is to judge their characters and motivations.
I didn’t say that was going to be an easier choice, btw…
I have bad news, Perry, the movie absolutely sucks.
– Josh
P.S. I seriously doubt that Bush is better than Kerry.
(rolls eyes)
See, the problem here is you apparently lack the abilty to relax your brain and Wait For The Cool Sh*t To happen. You could do it when you were 16, and some lose this vital ability as they age. You have my pity, because this is our generation’s Dracula Versus The Wolfman, and is therefore mandatory viewing.
It’s a very carefully made flick, and clearly made by people who dig the movies they’re drawing on. I recall early on when Lance Henriksen is sitting at his computer and picks up a pen and starts tapping it between his fingers — tackity tack tack — and I thought oh HO. You clever bastards. I was fairly well hooked from then on. I didn’t even know it had a PG-13 rating until I left; I thought the relative lack of swearing and gore was due to tasteful restraint, and I thought the movie benefitted. It’s certainly a lot more entertaining than either of the last two ALIEN flicks.
Spear fu. Tail fu. Flying Frizbee O’ Death fu. Harpoon fu. Giant Rubiks Cube fu. Some crew-cropped blond actress as the guard who says her gun is “like a condom; I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.” (That alone ought to make it a Samizdat must-see). Multiple slightly-offscreen chestburstings. No breasts. Three and a half stars. Jay Bob says check it out.
PS: This Al Gore Dem is voting for Dubya… by default.
Boo…hissss…that’s my comments on the movie..but the ads for it were cool for sure.
Jay is right on target. The movie was very watchable indeed. Unlike the election, which will suck for sure either way.
Perhaps the biggest political problem is that, whichever one loses, we don’t win. They’re always there, lurking in the background, ready to strike again at the slightest sign of weakness or fatigue.
My take about the political meaning of the movie is on my blog at http://www.livejournal.com/users/fare/66415.html
I think the case for voting for Bush (I already have absentee.) is bit better than stated here, but not by much. However, having another North-East liberal in the White House at such a crucial would be a disaster. Now if we could just get Bush to get rid of that loon Ashcroft, that would be a big improvement.