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 The Internet threatens their power and perks. That’s far more important than problems that merely threaten the world’s wellbeing.
– Instapundit comments on a piece called As world burns, G8 leaders fiddle … with the Internet. Seriously?
Indeed. Ignore the messages. Silence the messenger.
Besides which, it’s asking a lot to expect the people who caused the problems, and whose first attempts to solve the problems multiplied the problems, to solve the problems.
|
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.
|
We are so totally, hopelessly, iredeemably screwed.
Depending on your world view, the people who caused the problems either did so deliberately or are so deluded that they truly believe their first attempts would work, and if they didn’t that they simply didn’t do enough. There may be a third or more options, but I can’t see what they are.
So, silencing the messenger is an entirely rational response in either situation.
Indeed, Wh00ps.
And I tend to go with your first option.
It tends to be the only thing that makes sense.
When politicians or interest groups call for more regulation, as Sarkozy did the other day, it seems to me that if the Fourth Estate was doing its job properly it would be jumping up and down demanding full disclosure, as in: “You have a conflict of interest here, M. Sarkozy, don’t you? In calling for more regulation you are calling for more power and regard to accrue to you, no?”
Too much to hope for, obviously, but worth pointing out given the propensity of regulation maniacs to claim that their demands are selfless and motivated by a divining of the General Good.
When politicians or interest groups call for more regulation, as Sarkozy did the other day, it seems to me that if the Fourth Estate was doing its job properly it would be jumping up and down demanding full disclosure, as in: “You have a conflict of interest here, M. Sarkozy, don’t you? In calling for more regulation you are calling for more power and regard to accrue to you, no?”
Too much to hope for, obviously, but worth pointing out given the propensity of regulation maniacs to claim that their demands are selfless and motivated by a divining of the General Good.
wh00ps: the third option is ‘all of the above’ – which, incidentally, is also the correct one.
I can still remember when the internet was supposed to be the great reply to lefist domination of the education system and broadcasting media in virtually all Western nations.
And, at first, it seemed to be just that – for example on the various early sites (basically disscussion boards on various matters) libertarian voices were at least as well represented as socialist ones.
Then came George Soros (and others) with the massive subsidy building up collectives on the internet – things like “Move On” and “The Daily Kos” and others that individual free market bloggers (and so on) could hardly counter.
Then it turned out that the politics of the big internet people (the people who created Microsoft, ran Google and so on) were much the same as the politics of the top managers of the “mainstream media”.
For example, the endless “tweaking” of Google to get people to the “correct” sites (“correct” politically). It is never total (nonleftist stuff will still turn up on searches) – but anyone who thinks that Google (in political matters) is an objective mathematically based system with no political bias……. well you might as well believe there is no man behind the curtain in relation the “Mighty Oz” (in 2008 – E. Schmit was the man behind the curtain at Google, his orders had results).
The bending over backwards of the founder of Facebook – to support Obama (not just with his money – but with Facebook events).
And on and on – including the “Arab Spring”, which (we now find) was planned over YEARS, directly by high up people in the American government (the same government that was pretending to be the friend of people like President Mubarak) and people at Google, Facebook, Twitter…..
“But these leftists have managed to put a load of Islamists in power – I bet they regret what they have done”.
Some do regret it – but many of them KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN (indeed they wanted it to happen). A large faction of the left has decided upon active cooperation with the Islamists (not is this new – Harry St John Philby thought up the idea of “Islamic Socialism” many decades ago).
My favourate example is not party political at all – it is the founder of Wikipedia. His love of “reputable sources” for his reference site.
What, in politics, does he consider the classic “reputable source”?
The New York Times of course – just as ABC, CBS and NBC regard it as the ultimate reputable source (so wonderful that their evening new broadcasts normally follow the lead of the New York Times of that day – i.e. they are news that is about a day old).
The New York Times has (for about a century) followed a policy of “educating the public” – it is not actually concerned with whether a story is true or false (it is not just out to “dig dirt” – in order to sell newspapers) it is concerned with the “educational effect” of its stories.
So its pages claimed there was no massive fammine in the Soviet Union, that the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War was not Communist dominated, that Castro was not a Communist, that ………
Even its obituraries are tissues of lies – not because it lies for fun (or to sell newspapers), the New York Times (and the rest of the msm – and the education system that produces them) lies for the “higher truth”.
This same education system (tragically) has produced the people who have so much influnece in the internet.
I must not “go over the top” – there are still corners of the internet (such as this one) where antileftist thought can be found.
Indeed more than “corners” – if someone is determined to find antileftist stuff (if they have already come to the point of understanding that there is something fundementally false in what they have been taught at school and university and seen in the media) then they will find everything they need on the internet to further educate themselves – and will find people who will help them develop their own critical judgement.
That is why the establishment is interested in regulating the internet – to kill off what is still good about it.