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 We in the West proclaimed that what set us apart were free speech, free movement, free(ish) markets,rule of law and democratic elections; and while not the whole truth it’s still mostly true.
I say mostly in this context because rich, prosperous, flourishing Hong Hong had all those attributes except the last: democratic elections.
Yep, it turns out no elections were necessary in a society based on the sound principles of low taxes, low regulation, free movement, and rule of law – it made them rich extraordinarily quickly. Who’d want to vote that away? Well quite a few folk if elections around the world are any indication.
So what are we to make of the Hong Kong ‘democracy’ protests? On one hand I find myself saying, ‘go get ‘em tiger,’ in support of the protesters. On the other, I’m wondering if they should be careful what they wish for.
– the delightfully pseudonymous ‘Suzuki Samurai‘
|
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.
|
Go get ’em, tiger.
I had the distinct impression many of the HK protesters are not arguing for ‘liberty’ but rather the ‘freedom’ to vote themselves other people’s money.
The problem is that without responsible government, there is no security for these necessary conditions.
It is also not clear just how well these principles have been applied in Hong Kong since the handover.
“low taxes, low regulation, free movement, and rule of law…” The first three are visible, but is the latter still in force? In particular, to what extent has security of property and force of contract been vitiated by cronyism?
Almost everywhere else, we have seen local, regional, and national governments abuse sovereign power and pervert justice to benefit relatives, cronies, and political allies. And the less answerable a government is, the worse this problem is.
It would be astonishing if this was not a problem in Hong Kong, particularly as the people of Hong Kong are larger powerless to remedy it.
Did you just nudge, nudge, wink, wink, recommend a quote that suggested that democracy might just be unnecessary for freedom?
Would you do the same thing if Hong Kong was a little territory off the coast of Italy?
Say, Malta under Dom Mintoff?
I know several people who are very involved in the HK business world and they are of the view it is rock solid on contract laws and security of property.
Oh I have often come right out and said that. I am of the view that democracy and liberty are only passing acquaintances and often bitter enemies. I tend to agree with Guy Herbert (on most things actually).
Yes, the Hong Kong ‘occupy’ movement seems of a similar character to its western equivalent: spoilt students and misfits out demand their ‘right’ to other peoples money through vandalism, trespassing and generally making a nuisance of themselves.
nothing another Tiananmen wouldn’t sort out of course, though sadly that seems unlikely today.
Oh good grief, QuentinW, “another Tiananmen” would be an unmitigated catastrophe for Hong Kong! The whole thing that makes it work now, is that it is NOT like the rest of China. If there were to be a Hong Kong version of ‘Tiananmen’, then that would mean the end and it really would be just like the rest of the damn place.
Democracy and liberty have nothing in common. You can be liberal, or you can be a democrat; you can’t be both.
http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2014/10/non-violent-extremists-for-liberty-2/
China is of course building more wealth for more people than ever before in history – without Democracy.
Even little ole NZ developed quickest without “democracy”
The problem is that without responsible government, there is no security for these necessary conditions.
no, the problem is that without constitutional government there is no security for these necessary conditions. All governments of the “Welfare West” including of course the US under O.b.K are ungoverned, that is, unconstitutional.
But unlike HK there are more serious and perhaps in the long term more fatal flaws that you can shake a stick at because…
… exactly so. Which is why HK is vastly more admirable than the rest of China.
Rocco, them’s fighting words! Australia’s only libertarian party calls itself the Liberal Democratic Party. We have one LDP Senator. So you can be both.
I apologize if this has been linked before, but Jim has an appropriate cartoon depiction of democracy.
http://blog.jim.com/war/democracy/
Not that democrazy doesn’t have a lighter side. Western Australia’s main opera company had signed a sponsorship deal with a government health-promotion agency- so they’ve dropped the opera Carmen, because of all the unhealthy smoking!
Will it end? What will a politically-correct opera be like? Mercifully short, not too loud, with no nasty bits?
HK is another confirmation that democracy is not the magic bullet for prosperity and peaceful society, in fact the reverse.
This is where Bush/Blair and the current claque so misunderstand the Human condition and hierarchy of needs. It is people with material wealth and/or the reasonable expectation to accumulate it who are most likely to be peaceful because they have something to lose by conflict.
People with nothing, no-hopers have nothing to lose. See Jihadists.
HongKong was best served under the laissez-faire stewardship of Sir John Cowperthwaite. He didn’t believe in collecting statistics or data as it only encouraged governments to tinker and interfere.
To expand on the Guy Herbert quote (which came up while i was in the middle of moving)…
Democracy ought to be ONE (not the only) way to keep government and the ruling class i check: Popperian democracy. (Though Gaetano Mosca anticipated Popper on this.)
It still retains this function to some extent, but mostly it has become a tool for the legitimization of government (as Mosca predicted/observed in the late xix century).
WRT China in particular, the history of transitions from one regime to another (“interesting times”) is remarkably bloody. I don’t know if ordinary people, with no stake in the current regime, are worried, but i would not be surprised if they are.
I don’t think one should put the democracy cart before the liberty horse.
Almost all of these comments are spot on, especially:
“I had the distinct impression many of the HK protesters are not arguing for ‘liberty’ but rather the ‘freedom’ to vote themselves other people’s money.”
As someone who has lived in Hong Kong during various points in my life, am there usually at least once a year for a few weeks and will be moving back next year, I can say that most people in Hong Kong (especially those outside of the business districts) value liberty MUCH more than centralized democracy. My brother in law is the mayor of his village – an elected position; I once asked him about whether he thought it was important to vote for the Chief Executive, his answer was basically: you got to vote, now you have Obama, are you more free lately? He marvels over the high taxes that I pay on any penny of income no matter where it is earned or where I live, can’t believe the intrusive paper work I have to file every year because I have a bank account in Hong Kong (the assumption is I’m a tax criminal until I prove otherwise). He says if the government in Hong Kong tried to implement those kind of shenanigans, there would be real protests in the streets that would show up in every town and village (not just Central)
Well the EUkraine is now hell bent on economic suicide by tax hara-kiri, as well as military suicide. So whatever they have been doing, it doesn’t look good.
Perry de Havilland (London) @ October 8, 2014 at 10:46 pm:
I know several people who are very involved in the HK business world and they are of the view it is rock solid on contract laws and security of property.
That’s very good – but what sustains it? What ensures that the next generation of officials will not engage in self-dealing with tycoons? “Rule of law” is a form of cultural capital; it is necessary, but not sufficient.
It has been said that democracy is the majority voting themselves other peoples’ wealth – because they can. All too often, autocracy and oligarchy are the ruling class awarding themselves other peoples’ wealth – because they can.
The problem is that China is back sliding on the deal struck in 1997. Not only n candidates for election but recently saying that the courts should not over rule the party. China’s dependence on Hong Kong is declining at some point it will crush it when it thinks the costs to do so are low enough.
I want to sign on to Rich R.’s observation. And nemesis is on the right track too. Sure, who needs democracy (or any version of the subjects’ or citizens’–depending on the theory of just who is sovereign–choosing their own government by some means or other) when you have a nice benign governor who doesn’t think it’s his job to run people’s lives for them while lessening their load by lightening their wallets?
But just who is going to guarantee that the Governor’s successor is going to be equally intelligent, let alone equally benign? They just might end up with Vlad the Impaler instead of Cowperthwaite II.
Go ahead, gang, get yourselves each a piece of paper and a nice sharp pencil, and see if you can’t come up with a list of 10 really, really disastrously wretched rulers NOT elected in any way shape or form by the people they “govern” — or enslave, rob, rape, torture, and murder. You should be able to do that given enough time.
Well if I had to have a ruler unelected, the Prince of Liechtenstein would top my list, perhaps followed by the Seigneur of Sark.