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 In an odd sort of way, contemporary soft leftists are both obsessed with politics and unpolitical at the same time. That is, their political involvement seems as much about showing what kinds of people they are (caring, concerned etc) as making a difference. The plausibility of a political strategy is less important than being involved.
– Andrew Norton, Research Fellow at the excellent Centre for Independent Studies, editor of Policy magazine and resident at Catallaxy
|
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.
|
the plausibility of a political strategy is less important than being involved
So it goes for all the Liberal Democrats, if you ask me.
It is just one great ego-trip for them all, and this includes the Kembers and Begley’s of this world who rush off to be loved by strangers while their neighbours suffer under the regime they vote in.
This has long been the case and is why it is so hard to argue with them… their ‘altruism’ is actually just a way of making themselves feel good emotionally and so challanges to them on any rational basis that they are really doing harm are reponded to emotionally (even if gilded in language that suggests otherwise).
@Perry
I vote for that too.
Caring too much (for one side of those affected) gets in the way of good judgement.
Sad. But it’s a hard world.
Best regards
I saw this summed up somewhere as “Conservatives want to do well, liberals want to do good”.
… and socialists want misery for all!
TimC – yes Lib Dems are Prime Offenders. Incidentally, Kember did indeed race off to be admired for trying to stop a war his own country was prosecuting at tremendous risk to his own country’s military – but tragically, Ken Bigley was made of sterner, capitalistic stuff. He went to Iran to try to get on a pipeline deal. He brother had business contacts there.
Perry – “their ‘altruism’ is actually just a way of making themselves feel good emotionally”. It is also a way of parading their “sensitivity” and elevated souls before the world, to be admired.
Oh no! Caught in the spam trap again!
They’re going down New Leftish-way: since brain didn’t bring them the revolution, they give up brains for “direct action”.
I love the music dearly, but I have stopped going to the WOMAD festival, because there seem to be an inordinate amount of these dripping wet folk in attendance.
Three days in their company is more than I can stand.
Comment restored, Verity. I think it has something to do with the word “race”.
It is the word r@ce, I’m sure. My comment above was held for moderating, which I subsequently restored.
If you live in a glass-house, don’t throw stones….
There are plenty of libertarians commenting on blogs who do the same thing – they want to show what good, stern freedom-loving people they are and will respond emotionally to rational criticism. This is not to say that libertarians are wrong, but that they are susceptible to the same bollocks as most other people.
Thanks, James. I couldn’t think what I’d written that was judged worse than anything I’d written before! Many thanks!
” their ‘altruism’ is actually just a way of making themselves feel good emotionally…”
While your ‘individualism’ is actually just a way of making you feel good emotionally…
You might be right, but bringing pseudo-psychoanalysys into an argument gets you nowhere.
Pejman Yousefzadeh (courtesy of Pajamas Media) has something to say about powerful governments and the excess of caring.
But when I think of the assault on the very concept of adulthood government love creates, I wonder if I should call it the horror of caring.
Guv luv: A kind of perversion.
Wrong, my individualism is because I want to DO what I want within the constraints of my moral theories, not because of how it make me feel. Big difference.
Absolutely! But this quote was talking about leftists.
I read a similar analysis of the whole protest thing a while ago. The point was that the current attraction of demonstrating is not that it actually solves anything or sways public opinion to the protesters’ cause, but simply that it has a therapeutic effect on the protester, making him or her feel part of something important, and reinforcing their own beliefs and committments.
Funny how it’s newsworthy that some thousands of people showed up someplace to chant slogans and complain about X, Y, and Z, but so humdrum that the same day millions of people went about their business, working or playing, praying or partying.
So, whose opinion has more value and validity?
I’ve often wondered if activist and fanatic aren’t pretty much the same thing, and should be viewed with the same skeptical eye.