Canberra-based libertarian blogger Tex has been asked to stand as a candidate for the Australian Senate, and has written his campaign speech. I think you willl agree with me that it is a model of Australian eloquence. On the other hand, no one can accuse Tex of taking a ‘populist’ approach.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Senator Tex’s “I have a dream” speechFebruary 1st, 2007 |
 14 comments to Senator Tex’s “I have a dream” speech |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Well, I’d vote for the larrikin!
While it’s not exactly populist, I suspect it may prove surprisingly popular. I suspect a great many more people would be libertarians if (a) they knew about it and (b) they felt that holding such views was “respectable”. Ever tried explaining libertarianism to the average soft-left type? At first they think you’re right of Hitler. Then, if the conversation isn’t dropped, they start to get it. They may not agree with you, but they appreciate you’re not a total lunatic or a raving right-wing nut-job. They dig the meta-context, man!
Ever tried explaining libertarianism to the average soft-left type?
I’ve tried explaining it to all types, and what I usually find is that both left and right immediately go into “dismissal mode”. What I mean by that is they latch onto certain aspects of of the libertarian philosophy that are very alien to them and argue with you about those, and totally ignore everything else you say, espescially the stuff that makes a lot of sense. It’s their way of sticking their fingers in their ears and going “la-la-la-la” so as not to hear very salient points.
The most irritating thing that I find is that when I am proposing libertarianism (or even more so, anarcho-libertarianism), the people I am talking to attack my proposal for not being perfect. When I ask them how they can demand that my system be perfect (which it cannot) while their system is so pervasively flawed, they just skate right over that and immediately resume demanding that my system be perfect. It is very, very frustrating. And when I state that no system is perfect, but I would prefer one with maximum individual liberty, and would accept greater risks along with that, a very common response is that they would prefer less risk and will give up liberty for it.
The fact that their way of having less risk is collective, and therefore forces people like me to go with their system regardless of whether I want to or not, while my proposal allows individuals to choose their own path, is lost on them.
It seems that for most people, the concept of “our system sucks but it’s the best there is” is so dogmatically believed that they react in a hostile fashion to the argument that maybe it’s not. Some I have talked to are absolutely incredulous, or even downright scared, that one could even imagine a society with no governement.
To them, governement is like God to a religious person: we can talk about how big it is, or what influence it should have, but never, ever frighten me with that talk about us not needing it at all.
Oh lord yes, I have tried Nick!
My oldest friend in the world has lived in La Honda outside San Francisco for over 30 years.
It is Moonbat central. There you will find all manner of detrius left over from the Merry Pranksters, diehard Deadheads, self sufficency nuts you name it they are still there doing it man.
But being Americans (apart from my friend) they are also somehow magically imbued with the capitalist spirit of get up and go do it for yourself. So they are much more open to Libertarian arguements and lateral thinking than the hardline Marxists I grew up debating with in the S Wales of my youth.
I think my friend is gradually getting the idea (I can be very persuasive).
I would bloody well vote for him, you can bet on that!
Alfred,
I don’t regard libertarianism (and I’m talking about a very broad church here) as being riskier.
One of the reasons I buy the libertarian thang is that I know everyone can screw-up. In the 50s IBM reckoned there was a national (US) market for about 6 computers. An EMI A&R man in the England of the 60s decided not to sign the Beatles because “there was no future in groups of young men playing guitars”. Well, I’ve got umpteen CDs of guitar based rock and (an undisclosed) number of computers in the house.
The fortunate thing is that a load of other companies didn’t come to the same conclusions. That plurality is the signal reason I’m listening to Springsteen while typing this on my Thalia. Having a number of (private) service providers is the life-blood of libertarianism because it means that if one really fucks up then another will take up the slack. The same absolutely can’t be said for a single statist solution. Note that UK political discourse is entirely about how to reform the NHS rather than about what would perhaps be a better alternative.
If the UK computer industry (for example) had been entirely state-controlled (Wedgie Benn’s white heat and all) there is a damn good chance that the entire personnal computer industry would never have happened over here and you’d be stuck talking to fellow Americans.
PS. They’ve just upped airline taxes again. I fly rarely, but I’m utterly spitting blood (and worse things, much worse) with rage. I’m still incandescent with rage that a relatively large portion of the money I spent on my honeymoon didn’t go to USAir (who flew me) but to the Brooooon’s war-chest. The thieving twat.
A E N,
True anarchy is about as stable as atomic potassium in water. And lasts about as long in its free form.
There will always arise a bullying thief. People will always band together for greater strength. Ergo, government phase I.
That is why I am what you would probably call a minarchist.
Midwesterner,
Anarchy is merely the lack of government; it does not necessarily mean lack of order. But you are a person who would be willing to discuss this, I would think; unlike most people.
And that’s my point–you point out that a bullying thief might arise, and then comes government. So we’re talking, and both of us are focusing on government arising being a problem. Most people I have talked with just cannot see past the holy concepts of Government, Democracy, and Social Responsibility (coerced, of course). So my anarcho-libertarian ideas are a sort of heresey to them, something that must be opposed because it just can’t be plausible. Sort of like there has to be a Heaven, because it just can’t be possible that when we die, we’re gone–totally gone–because that’s too scary.
I would have been a minarchist
But after I have been to the bar a couple of times
I cant pronounce it- so
I have been a mightychrist, and a Mittycrist
and a fantasist too.
Mostly
I’m just me.
I’m off to have some supper and then watch
an old friend on BBC 2 at nine oclock.
She is larger than life in every life fulfilling way!
“There will always arise a bullying thief. People will always band together for greater strength. ”
Well, its certainly possible.
“Ergo, government phase I”
Whoa! How did we get from a desire for collective security to the birth of a state? Is is unreasonable to believe that collective security could not be contracted out to private individuals or organisations?
Alfred,
Point taken. But with the following corrections. I said “will” not “may”. And the first part of our discussion would be my insistance that lack of government does necessarily mean the lack of order if there is more than one person present. (Elaboration on that to follow in my next comment.)
That would be with the word “collective”. You apparently realize that the word “cooperative” does not apply went it is necessary to invoke force. No matter to whom the use of force is granted, once it is granted, for better or worse, that is “government”.
Midwesterner, as honestly interesting as it would be to argue the anarchy issue with you (you should create a separate article sometime for it), I can’t right now due to time constraints.
However, you say No matter to whom the use of force is granted, once it is granted, for better or worse, that is “government”.
Who grants the use of force in an anarchistic situation? No one has that right or power. As long as there is no monopoly on force, private security cannot be equated with government.
Barry Goldwater had a shorter “speech”. When asked by a journalist “what have you ever done for the people of Arizonia” he replied “nothing: and I am very proud of that”.
Of course Senator Goldwater would also take jounalists (new ones) flying in the Grand Canyon area (I am told that he liked to hear them scream when they found out what sort off flight it was – but he always brought them back safely).
As for voting. The vote Barry Goldwater was most proud of was when he was the only person in the Senate (out of the 100 Senators) to vote against a bill regulating the internal affairs of unions.
Conservative Senators were in favour of the bill because it weakened the unions, and “liberals” (modern American usage) were in favour of it because they like regulations (especially ones that “further democracy”).
But to Goldwater how unions ran their elections for officers (or even if they had elections at all) was up to them.
“He was proud of losing, in fact being in a minority of one?”
Of course.
After all it is hardly sensible to place much hope in politics.
Alfred,
I put the relevent comments into my future topics file.
Someday down the road …
Thanks.