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 Most revolutions throughout history have been conducted by a small but determined group, maybe as much as 20% of the population (and probably less). The majority of the people are basically indifferent, just keeping their heads down until the shooting stops so they can go back to their lives under the rule of whoever prevailed. 20% could be more than enough for a successful revolution, but it’s not enough to win an election.
– Commenter ‘Laird’
|
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.
|
20% was enough for Bill Clinton (44M / 255M population. If 1 in 5 persons is a youth, ineligible to vote (0-17), then Bill Clinton got awful close to 20% of the voters’ support.
And most lower level elections get a lot less than the 50% of eligible voters that presidential elections get.
Here in Australia, we have compulsory attendance, but other countries, as shown in the previous comment, might be amenable to evolution from within the system! How many voters, as a percentage of those eligible, did vote in Britain at the last election?
So what?
Are you saying that we are doomed to always be overwhelmed by a minority of more efficient socialists?
What do you mean “so what?” What the hell makes you think he was talking about socialists?
If 20% of the population actually take up arms, then a lot more people are very unhappy – quite probably a majority.
Bear in mind that people are very reluctant to take up arms – it’s very dangerous, and can be disastrous if things go wrong. Insurrectionists can be killed or their homes and work destroyed – even if their side wins. The consequences of losing are much worse.
If a significant number of people would rather run those risks than endure the continued rule of the Old Regime – the Old Regime must be pretty bad.
Just in case anyone is getting ideas, I would remind you that no consolidated democracy has ever been overthrown in a revolution.
Open elections provide a less costly alternative, meaning that many who might have joined a violent cause under a dictator will be unwilling to under a democracy.
You will fail.
Just wait for the nation to devourer itself due to entitlements and beggar everyone and we will see how unassailable established democracies actually are. Acton was right on this
Indeed; and at such a time a revolution might work. But not before.
The state would either have to lose its democratic legitimacy via coup or a gradual takeover by the technocracy, or else collapse entirely, before I would rate a revolution at all feasible.
The later is already the case. I think the paradigm shift is closer than you think… years maybe, but not more than decade.
This is why we have democracy. America might have got Jefferson, but Russia got Stalin. The problem is not democracy per se – but the remit of the state. That is why we need a constitution that put explicit limits on what the state can do – even though this is almost doomed to fail, if America is anything to go by
One thing is obvious – anti statists tend to be (mostly) no good in committee rooms and other such.
The underhand strugge for control of universities (the setting of examinations, the appointment of staff) or the control of media outlet (a newspaper or a broacaster) is something the left tend to be better at than we are.
Hence the old point – if something (a charity whatever) is not explicitly anti leftist (with careful safeguards built into its very structure) the left will take it over.
That is why “unbiased” or “objective” will always tend to mean “propaganda outet of the left” in the end.
And they do not need 20% of the population to have this revolutionary control of the cultural institutions.
The only times that pro freedom forces have any chance to win is in open battle – either in an election or in real battle.
Once something has gone “behind closed doors” (into committee or whatever) then we have already lost.
That is why libertarians must get our message to the mass of ordinary people – to find that 20% (or more) who are really interested in being active in a mass movement.
And it must really be the people – not a hidden elite controlling people (that is the way of the left).
And that means that the mass of people (even 20% is many millions) will push for freedom in their own way – their own view of the world.
Saying “I want a mass movement – but it must not be religious” or “I wand a mass movement – but it must be in favour of gay marriage” will not work.
If we want even 20% of the population that means that they (not a small elite) are in charge.
They will support freedom (for the moral and economic arguments for it are overwhelming) but it will be their view of freedom, the society they want to build or restore (and societies are, in part, DELIBERATLY built and maintained – it is NOT all “the result of human action, but not of human design” ).
Of course there will be people of different views in a mass movement (even a mass movement of only 20% of the population), just as there are Ayn Rand supporting athiests at Tea Party events.
But in a real mass movement (as opposed to a fake mass movement – as with those controlled by the left) the nature of the movement is influenced by the beliefs of the great majority of people involved.
And, for example, that means a mass pro freedom movement in the United States is going to be dominated (however much a few libertarians may dislike this) by conservative religous people.
The sort of people who are going to turn up for the Glenn Beck event on 8/28.
Not prepared to work with them?
Not prepared to be LED BY THEM (for they have the numbers).
Then forget about a mass movement for liberty – even of 20% of the population.
And just settle for a socialist world.
I am prepared to work with them, Paul. (“Ayn Rand supporting atheists at Tea Party events.” Yup; that’s me.) Christian fundamentalists can be annoying, but they’re not the existential threat that socialists (or Muslims) are. Until that changes I’ll happily make common cause with them.
Paul Marks. Agreed.
It is further my optimistic and realistic perception (I was going to say “belief” but I don’t want to annoy Perry unnecessarily) that “the people” do enjoy and embrace reality/the truth when it is fully presented to them. A commenter at the LA Blog has noted that people embrace whatever gives them less cause for unease, which is also substantially true in my opinion, and the the mechanism used in brain-washing, mind manipulating as done on an every day basis in the msm.
However, there does come the time when compromise with reality comes unglued, as it must, and at that time people will embrace the truth. David Cameron had such a moment in the last election but was persuaded to forgo it.
So.
One does not need a revolution, and, yes, they don’t really work. How long did it take to subvert the French one? A couple of weeks? Or not even.
One just has to present truth, reality in its fullness (eg: there would be more than enough to go around if those involved in “the state” and their con men friends stopped draining upwards the vast wealth that they do. What? 70 per cent of GNP?) and people will gather around in sheer joy and happiness.
Perry is not allergic to “belief”, he just prefers to call his beliefs “critical preferences” 😛
French Revolution – there was one good day (in terms of policy) that springs to mind.
August 4th 1789 – the end of a lot of Feudal taxes and regulations (I blog about it – when I remember to do so). I can think of no other good policy days. And I can think of lots of bad ones.
By 1790 (with the issue of paper fiat money and the plunder of church property) it was clear that the French Revolution was not a basically good thing marked by unfortunate bloodshed. But basically a “bad thing”.
Edmund Burke is described as a prophet (both by his friends and his foes), but as the “Reflections…” came out in 1790 and is mostly (if one counts the pages and paragraphs) about things that have already happened (such as the fiat money and the confiscation of property) he is more of a reporter – just an honest one.
By the way if you have 20% of the population who are really committed (ready to talk to their family and friends – telephone radio call in shows, write on blogs and so on) then you will win any election – in the end.
The number of polticial activists is tiny – 20% of the population would utterly swamp them.
So most of the other 80% of the population (uninvolved and uninformed) would assume “clearly everyone thinks like this – it must be correct”.