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]
|
Begging to be yanked out of context… The gods of Samizdata decree that linking to The Times of London is discouraged. But I am going to at least quote from it. Twice.
First, here is William Rees-Mogg on the EU Constitution, but stating a general rule:
So long as our Government takes us for fools, we have every reason to take them for liars.
Meanwhile, my former neighbour Mr George Thomas, on the letters page, demonstrates an application of the rule:
Tony Blair claims that “there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack”.
He is wrong. If the 20th century teaches us anything it is that the greatest threat to civil liberty comes from governments that have been allowed to exercise excessive power over their own people. The greatest civil liberty is to live securely protected from government intrusion. We have seen that, while terrorists can threaten the lives of hundreds and maybe thousands, governments can oppress and maltreat entire peoples and can do this for decades.
|
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.
|
Samizdata quote of the Century?
Mr George Thomas sounds like my kind of chap!
I had a letter on the topic in my local rag, not quite so eloquent I’m afraid.
How can one ever live “securely protected from government intrusion”? Governments, by definition, have a monopoly on the use of force. You’d need another government to protect you. I’m afraid we’re dependent on the government being afraid of the people and grossly incompetent, and only the second characteristic is always true.
A philosopher, commenting on the repressive laws passed in the USA and Britain during WW1 and WW2, said that after each war there was a little less democracy to defend. Looks seriously like there won’t be any democracy left to defend after the “war” on terror.
Mr Thomas seems to have grasped the fundamental lesson of the 20th century very clearly. Wouldn’t it be wonderful, assuming spiritualism was a valid belief, if the ghosts of all the millions killed by their own governments could appear and march around the legislative halls where some of these collectivists gather to do their worst.
Might give protest marches, or floats, a whole new meaning.
Personally, I feel like I have a better chance of defending myself against terrorists than the government. If allowed to, that is…
Bolie IV
Governments, by definition, have a monopoly on the use of force.
This, is of course, the fond wish of every government, and is what they want you to believe, but it is false.
First, of course, you have the right to use force in your own self-defense.
Second, you have the ability and the power to use force whenever and wherever you want (many of these would be both wrong and illegal, but they are contrary to the government “monopoly”).
Finally, of course, (and this is arguably a subset of “self-defense”) you have the right to use force to overthrow a tyrant.
“Anyone willing to trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”
Ben Franklin
You should all consider reading Rees-Mogg’s excellent co-authored book, “The soveriegn Individual” excellent reading, a scathingly dim view of the state, and a bright look at the future of individual liberty.
A right which is being continuously nibbled away.
Ability vs right?
Really? Do we still have that right? Wow! I’m quite pleased and surprised.