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]
|
True then. True now. In Milton and Rose Friedman’s Free to Choose it says:
Of course, an egalitarian may protest that he is but a drop in the ocean, that he would be willing to redistribute the excess of his income over his concept of an equal income if everyone else were compelled to do the same. On one level this contention that compulsion would change matters is wrong – even if everyone else did the same, his specific contribution to the income of others would still be a drop in the ocean. His individual contribution would be just as large if he were the only contributor as if he were one of many. Indeed, it would be more valuable because he could target his contribution to go to the very worst off among those he regards as appropriate recipients.
I have a question for all the protestors planning to give up their time and money by going to Edinburgh for the G8 summit. Why is what you are doing better than just giving your spare money to the poor?
|
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.
|
Because not everyone looks at life as a purely individualistic thing.
They’re somewhat daft and misguided, but that’s basically why they do it.
EG
Why is what you are doing better than just giving your spare money to the poor?
Because they get to make a big show of how compassionate and caring they are without actually doing anything, with the added benefit that they get to feel really good about themselves.
Its all about leverage. Activists like those on their way to this protest believe that they can leverage the negligible expense of their protest into millions or billions of dollars worth of resources redirected the way they want.
The same thing is true of any lobbyist or interest/pressure group engaged in trying to get government to change a policy. Once you realize that, for a fairly small investment of a few hundred thousand dollars, you have a good chance of getting a rule made or changed that will be worth millions to you, why, its stupid not to make the investment.
There’s me thinking it was more a peer pressure sort of thing… a sort of ‘right of passage’, anything better than doing something really useful, – such as a days work, and donating he proceeds to charity, but then there would be nothing to brag about at the next bingeing session at the pub, no chance to play ‘the victim’ when set about by the police.
Because not everyone looks at life as a purely individualistic thing.
At that particular age, it is all about ‘individualism’, and ‘doing their own thing’. They protest for the sake of protesting, and in so doing, generate nothing but contempt for themselves, and whatever cause they are supposed to be supporting.
If the damage caused was part of a real uprising of the masses, there would be a valid reason for such behaviour, but these are just small- minded children playing a schoolyard version of the real thing, a bit like children playing ‘cowboys and indians’, or ‘cops and robbers’, or is the latest game ‘Tianamen Square’? as I said earlier, ‘a right of passage’.
I am sure that our ‘liberal’ academics, and ‘educators’ look on it as part of their pupil’s education.
Incorrect. It is very much about tribal identity. Note how rebellious teenagers don’t like to wear school uniform but when given the ability to wear what they want tend to dress alike. It is not conformity that they rebel against, it is conformity to a specific norm. You can do your own thing, provided it’s the same thing as everyone else in your peer group is doing.
Of course, these same people 25 years later are the ones who demand their children wear school uniform and complain when they want to rebel. Such is life.
EG
RCD,
There is a difference between protesters and pressure groups.
The former invest very little of their own money, but cause a disproportionate expense to the community by way of extra security and the damage caused.
The latter, do spend their own money, and while hopefully making a profit for their clique, they may actually benefit the community in general.
The mass protest is an expression of a ‘loser’ group who have no convincing argument, or fail to win the argument for their cause, and therefore have to resort to violence and vandalism in a pathetic attempt to force others to their point of view.
Strange how these protests are usually ‘left’ inspired, and never very spontaneous.
“The mass protest is an expression of a ‘loser’ group who have no convincing argument, or fail to win the argument for their cause, and therefore have to resort to violence and vandalism in a pathetic attempt to force others to their point of view.”
Apart from the violence and the vandalism (look at the stats for any mass protest – only tiny, tiny minorities get involved in either), you’re spot on. Congratulations.
RC Dean,
Good answer about leverage – I think that must be how they see it. However, quite apart from the usual libertarian arguments about the wrongness of compulsion, I think you will agree that they aren’t off the hook yet. They could do both: go to Edinburgh and give their spare money away. That’s all their money above what is required for subsistence, of course, because by their own account the Third World is poor because they are rich and money transfer is the way to correct that situation.
_There is a difference between protesters and pressure groups._
There’s another you forgot: protesters do so in public, for free, for all to see. Pressure groups (of the kind you seem, quite disturbingly, to love) exert their power in secret. I know which frighten me more.
They don’t want to help the poor individually, they want to take credit for abolishing poverty. In this manner they can simultaneously engage in exciting and entertaining activity and feel that they have been both charitable and selfless. If they were totally ineffective they would be pitiable. By encouraging others to share this worldview they have become contemptable.
TJ
The protest may be public. The organizations behind it, where their money comes from and what they get out of it – in other words, what is really going on – is very much hidden. The contents of the demonstration itself is a sideshow, but it is very much a potent leverage tool, as RCD points out. And the more fools want to play victims of this particular scam, the better for the organizers.
So far, many of these NGOs – although one has to wonder why they call themselves that, given how much they get from governments, the EU or the UN – have enjoyed being in the public’s blindspot. After all, to this day, people walk into Oxfam stores and buy their feel-good ‘fair-trade’ coffee without having a clue that Oxfam owns 25% of the company that buys and packages the stuff. Their conflicts of interests, their transparency and funding, their governance are anywhere from murky to awful yet no one complains about it. I wonder how long this fashion will last.
Jarndyce,
Please don’t jump to conclusions, as to just what I love, like or dislike.
Protesters do not do it ‘for free’, the host community pays the price, and without being asked, or even consulted.
Sylvain is correct when he says there is a murky undergrowth of financing agencies in these “protest” events. The Not In Our Name garbage was financed by a marriage from hell between Muslim fundmentalist organisations and Marxists – I think from China or N Korea.
Actually, charities are legally obliged to submit their accounts for public scrutiny. You or I can examine them any time. If you have any questions, I’d recommend submitting them to the Charities Commission. Plus, the full accounts of about 300 or so are available at http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/GDAlist.asp and the rest will be up on the web by the end of 2005. Not that I think for a minute you had any interest at all in details, just in an unsupported slur.
_I think from China or N Korea._
LOL! Are you serious?
_people walk into Oxfam stores and buy their feel-good ‘fair-trade’ coffee without having a clue that Oxfam owns 25% of the company that buys and packages the stuff._
And Asda owns George, and M+S owns St Michael, and Dixons owns Matsui…what’s your point?
This isn’t a police state. Let them protest, when and where they like, let them sell their coffee, who cares? It’s a basic expression of freedom, surely.
Why is what you are doing better than just giving your spare money to the poor?
Because these protests are not really about helping the poor at all.
Jarndyce writes:
“Actually, charities are legally obliged to submit their accounts for public scrutiny…”
What ever makes you think all NGOs are charities?
The reason is simple. They are not interested in raising the living standard of the poor. If they were they would be firmly in favor of capitalism which has done more to raise *everyone’s* standard of living than all of their ridiculous theories.
What they’re really intererested in doing is lowering the standard of living for us rich westerners.
They are nihilists out for destruction and all the verbiage is merely a way of hiding this simple fact (usually from themselves).
For details see 20th Century, History of.
Jarndyce – Yes.
Jarndyce, I certainly am not seeking to deny them their right to protest. I haven’t heard anyone else do that either.
Peaceful protest staying off other people’s property, that is.
“Why is what you are doing better than just giving your spare money to the poor?”
Because of the Babes! duh
‘”Why is what you are doing better than just giving your spare money to the poor?”
Because of the Babes! DUH
A significant reason why some people join in well publicised protests is the feeling of wanting to be a part of something which is part of popular culture, or a part of world affairs, maybe even a part of history – and in itself there’s nothing wrong with that. But obviously one should retain one’s critical faculties – in this case most of them simply take government intervention and redistribution of wealth as an acceptable given and have never really questioned it – indeed the extent to which they genuinely employ their critical faculties probably only extends to the question “How do I get to Edinburgh?”
As one who has been to a few of these protests, I’ll list my reasons in approximate order:
1. Fun. It’s actually quite fun. Sure, you realise it’s unlikely to have any effect on anything, but so what? You bump into interesting people, there’s a good vibe, so long as it doesn’t get violent it’s all a nice day/week out. I didn’t think for a moment that the countryside alliance marches would change a damn thing, any more than the no-id get-togethers or anything else, but it’s a reasonable way to spend your time.
2. Attack on the leaders. Given the increasing degree to which our rulers ignore, and are ignorant of, public feeling, it’s nice to tell them directly. I know they don’t listen, but that’s not the point. To actually get within shouting distance of a politician, and then give them an earful, is quite liberating.
3. Organising. Contrary to what you (may) think, these events are quite sophisticated in organisation, and if you can be bothered, you can get involved in that side of it. This is rewarding in the same way any kind of public volunteer work is rewarding, like organising the village fete or the summer scout camp.
4. Excitement. I tend to stay away from things like G8 that attract a more militant crowd, but doing that is fun. It’s fun to try to outwit the police or the security setup. It’s a game, basically. I know someone who managed to blag their way into an arms fair – that’s a buzz. Sure, it doesn’t change anything when you unfurl your banner infront of the BAE missile display stand, but it’s a laugh all right when you see the look on their faces. Well, I guess it changes there security procedures for next year actually 🙂
I don’t really have much faith in direct action changing much. Some of the anti fur and anti vivisection actiion has been effective (unfortunately, in my opinion), but in general these protests are mainly about helping those who take part rather than hindering those who are the target. But that’s a worthwhile thing to do.
Certainly, I consider going on a protest march to be more worthwhile that donating a days wages to some charity.
Please, please don’t object to Live8. There is just one thing I desperately want to see in my life, and that is the coverage of the French, Germans, Belgians and other
illegal immigrantsLive8 protestors being dragged ashore, coughing up seawater after trying to cross the world’s busiest seachannel in rubber dinghies, following St Bob of Redburn Street’s decree.There’s another you forgot: protesters do so in public, for free, for all to see. Pressure groups (of the kind you seem, quite disturbingly, to love) exert their power in secret. I know which frighten me more.
And pressure groups are generally more cost effective. Which is why I’m not out organising marches. I hope I’m frightening somebody.
Dear J,
Is your attendance at the protest march more worthwhile than a day of paid employment?
I put out the bottles for recycling whilst living an affluent lifestyle. It is pretty shallow really, but we all do it.
These protesters are doing something similar, and just perhaps a few of the poor do benefit?
Having visited India a year ago and seen “the poor” for the first time at first hand I have to say my heart went out to them, and I wanted to share something of myself with them. In London I see these addicts and drunks on the streets and I want to walk on the other side of the road.
It makes me think it is easier to be mother Teresa than one of those souls who work with the crackheads in cardboard city on Southbank.
I think live 8 (is that what it’s called) might bring a few people closer to resolving the dilemma of an unequal world, nine tenths of them are on a binge. I am very confused about Geldof, whether I trust him or not?
I put out the bottles for recycling whilst living an affluent lifestyle. It is pretty shallow really, but we all do it.
These protesters are doing something similar, and just perhaps a few of the poor do benefit?
Having visited India a year ago and seen “the poor” for the first time at first hand I have to say my heart went out to them, and I wanted to share something of myself with them. In London I see these addicts and drunks on the streets and I want to walk on the other side of the road.
It makes me think it is easier to be mother Teresa than one of those souls who work with the crackheads in cardboard city on Southbank.
I think live 8 (is that what it’s called) might bring a few people closer to resolving the dilemma of an unequal world, nine tenths of them are on a binge. I am very confused about Geldof, whether I trust him or not?
Watch out for those hippies. The smell of patchouli and the grease off unwashed hair (or worse yet organic shampoo-washed hair) is damnably hard to get off your good leather gloves, or your riot baton. A solid blast of pepper spray applied to the object of your affection may in fact reduce the stench, and even render some of the residual edible, in a way-too-hot-for-me bad chili sort of way. Fortunately, the streets, and the stainless steel interior of police paddy wagons wash up quite nicely and barely hold the smell at all.
Hippy protestors: making a strong case for police brutality since 1968.
I just looked at the accounting informaton of charities at
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/GDAlist.asp
and I find little to no information at all.
Is it my browser? Is it my utter lack of skill? Is it my innocence in expecting charities that keep pestering me for money to actually reveal how they spent it in greater detail than:
income £something
expenditure £othernumber
Carried over £smallamount
And regarding the G8 protesting thing: If i organise (ha!) a protest in my own house, or even street, is there any chance that some cops might get assigned to the area?
Hmm. How about a fake “Burglars and car thieves against World Poverty” movement to get some police allocated to look for burglars and car thieves?
Or will they just do me for ‘wasting police time’?
1. Most protests are exercises in groupthink, however so are most large gatherings of people. From libertarian to socialist workers party conferences.
2. Days work at minimum wage is around 35quid. Minus living costs, rent, food, cleaning yourself, transport etc, probably leaves you with around 10-15quid, and thats being generous. 10quid is probably what you’d spend on a visit to an art gallery (if you are that way inclined) or renting a couple of DVDs and sitting back with a few beers.
3. The people on protests are often confused about the difference between ‘capitalism’ as an economic system and corporations and their complicity with the state. Their support for “anti-capitalism” doesn’t distinguish between multinational corporations and some guy who owns a small limited company employing a couple of guys. Shock horror, a lot of big corporations complicit with national governments do fuck people and places up, your man running a paper shop probably doesn’t.
4. Media coverage. Protests get media coverage, and hopefully encourage people to investigate the issues (well, we can hope). Private letter writing to corporations/governments doesn’t. A few years ago now I wrote a letter to my MP (my first ever) to complain and voice my concern over the introduction of the RIP Act. What happened? Well, feel free to make up what kind of response I got, ‘cos it didn’t make a blind bit of difference. Protests _do_ sometimes work (albeit infrequently) and they definately get more media coverage than letter writing campaigns.
5. For the poor unfortunate people who are inconvienced, fuck off. “Oh no, by your public display of dissatisfaction with the current government you have prevented me from getting to work on time”. Whatever.
6. Neither corporations nor the “G8” are angels, you seriously believe that the World Bank and the IMF are cuddly organisations… So why not shout about it? Sure there are a lot of Soviet/Communist fetishists that go to protests islamic fundamentalists, but its a great chance to argue. Its great having people who actually think about issues around instead of just people who are around for fun. Its a shame we can’t get so many people to anti ID card protests. Surprisingly, most people on the protests don’t particularly like the way the government is acting. Maybe if you came along and informed people about the issues we might get more. After all, everyone likes a protest. 😉
7. Whilst we are all complicit in the current situation, those who who trumpet corporate and capitalist success without recognising and acknowledging failures are equally as morally repugnant as those two trumpetted the success of the communist bloc without acknowledging the huge human rights abuse and genocide that went on.
8. Try talking to some intelligent “anti-globalisation”/”global justice” activists or protestors and I bet you’ll be surprised. Yes they do exist, although you’ve probably not met one. I think its great that the anti-globalisation/global justice idea is so popular, just a shame that most of the people concerned analyse the problem well but their solutions are flawed and often outrageous.
To read these vitriolic, “outraged from Tunbridge” like comments, anyone would think the Live8 crowd were demanding the legalisation of kiddie porn. A lot of well meaning people will be marching for the cause of helping, in some marginal way, to raise awareness of the millions dying from starvation and AIDS in Africa.
Are they misguided in thinking this well actually help? Probably. Have they succumbed to peer pressure? Probably. Are they going to enjoy the day? Probably. Are there more effective solutions? Yes. Are they feeling smug in their opulent display of compassion? Yes.
But, and this is the crucial point, they have raised awareness of these critical issues.
Most interestingly, in exactly the opposite way they intended.
i) an astonishing 83% of people in Britain think increasing aid and debt relief is a total waste of money.
ii) new studies have been commissioned showing that aid, far from helping, is actually deepening the problem.
iii) there has been a marked increase in the number of people both inside and outside Europe calling for reform of the horrendous CAP.
And who knows, if 83% of Brits have concluded that aid is useless, then its only a small step to realising that aid and welfare are the same word..
There’s actually a reasonably developed literature on this question, of which the best known example may well be G.A.Cohen’s “If You’re an Egalitarian How Come You’re So Rich?”. See also Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality” and Liam Murphy’s “The Demands of Benficence” and his book Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory.
When I’ve finished marking exams, maybe I’ll do a Crooked Timber post on this.
“Why is what you are doing better than just giving your spare money to the poor?”
Because I would like to give your money to the poor as well. In fact, I think a situation where Samizdatistas were required to pay much more than the rest of us would be the most fun.
Semi-joking aside, the reason I would give is that I know a sizeable chunk of British people want to see the Government give more aid (twice as many think aid is too low as think it is too high, according to a YouGov poll for Channel 4 a few months ago), and I know there’s a lot of support for MakePovertyHistory’s general agenda, and I want people – particularly politicians – to understand that. And hundreds of thousands of people saying so in the one place is a pretty effective form of communication.
Also, I can and do give money to the poor by myself, but some problems are best solved by planned large-scale spending of the kind I can’t really fund by myself but which aid and debt can finance.
But on another level, I’m sure there’s something to the reasons given by Freefire, J and DLW.
Pommygranate:
I don’t think that Telegraph poll had 83% thinking it was a total waste. More “mostly wasted”.
Chris Bertram:
I shall look forward to it. Not that I can easily compete with a book called “Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory” but I am thinking of doing a follow up post to this one with more of my own mighty thoughts.
J, Jim, and others:
I think of government to government aid as like giving morphine to an injured person. There are times when it is a lifesaver. But it is addictive and has a tendency to put off actually curing the patient.
Nat – Nice analogy, and all too often I fear the aid is given specifically because it is addictive.
Here is an interesting article on Friedman from SF Gate. Actually, it’s a blog post about the article, but check it out!