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 – How Big Government makes us more politically angry “…there is surely no doubt that politics has a bitter tone, a harsher edge, a public unpleasantness that occasionally spills over into crisis or just onto the streets. Why is this so? It’s nothing to do with social media. It’s nothing to do with “populism”. It’s none of the fashionable solutions. It’s simple. Politics is more polarised than ever before because more is at stake in politics than ever before. When is a lot is at stake, people argue more loudly. They are less willing to accept defeat. They want their views pressed hard.”
– David Frost, Daily Telegraph (£)
His article is entitled “Blame the Big State For Our Polarisation Crisis.”
|
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.
|
Yes – David Frost is correct.
Thank you, Johnathan Pearce, for posting this.
“They are less willing to accept defeat”
I would say it’s because the platitudes of the political class are becoming ever more visibly out of kilter with the actual reality on the ground.
People see that the reality on the ground is fast trending away from where they want it to go. Defeat now looks like it’s not “the other lot having a chance” and more “a total unravelling of 150 years of the social contract”.
That’s not a defeat you can accept. But it starts with the disconnect from reality.
Dear Mr Pearce
All governments are evil, but some governments are more evil than others.
As government grows, it devolves into a squabble over how it will squander the product of its livestock.
DP
The more of anything you have, the more there is that somebody will disagree with. And when it gets big enough everyone will find something to disagreee with.
What is the solution to big government though? The people who get to decide whether the state grows or shrinks are the same people who would be out of a job if it did shrink. The turkeys aren’t going to vote for Christmas, ever, so here we are. The state just growing inexorably like a tumor.
– Lee Kuan Yew, basically smarter than effectively every major western leader in the past 50 years.
Lee Kuan Yew, basically smarter than effectively every major western leader in the past 50 years
.
And he made Singapore a remarkably strong multi-racial/religious state, by ensuring no single group (ethnic Chinese, Malay, Tamil, European) dominated. All under a remarkably meritocratic regime as well.
I think that was the gist of one of my earliest comments here, over 20 years ago.
Johnathan Pearce – the government of Singapore has its faults, but at least it did not go down the “anti discrimination” (i.e. de facto quotas – as employers have to adopt de facto quotas to “prove they are not discriminating” in nations such as Britain and the United States) road – jobs are on merit in Singapore.
Sam Duncan – I think we have all made the point that the larger government becomes, in both government spending and regulations, the more desperately various groups struggle to control it.
You indeed have made this point – and very well Sir.
In the past, when the government did not dominate society, it did not matter that-much what language the ruler or rulers spoke, or what colour their skin was.
And a ruler (or rulers) need not persecute if they choose not to – even if other rulers are persecuting.
For example in the late 16th century when Europe was filled with Catholics persecuting Protestants and Protestants were persecuting Catholics – the Emperor Maximilian the Second (in Vienna) decided to persecute NEITHER.
Henry IV of France also decided to persecute NEITHER – although this did not prevent his murder by a monk who thought he should be persecuting people.
King Louis XIII of France (not to be confused with the “Sun King” Louis XIV) also did not tend to persecute people – although his Chief Minister (Richelieu) attacked the strong holds of Protestants, and undermined the power of the nobility, whether Protestant or Catholic.
Ministers and Kings who seek to concentrate armed power in their own hands, undermine the polity (nation) they seek to dominate.
For a weak King (or whatever) will come – and then there is no one to keep order when bad times come, and the country falls into chaos.
Aristotle pointed out (in “The Politics”) that different forms of government often look physically different.
In an absolute Monarchy (a Tyranny – as opposed to a Monarchy limited by the fundamental laws) AND in an Oligarchy there is a single physical place of authority – which everyone looks to.
But in an Aristocracy (fundamentally different from an Oligarchy) there are many strongholds – as the great families have their own places of defense.
Under a single Tyrant or an Oligarchy (rule by a rigid united group) – there is one single source of authority which if-if-cracks the whole nation then falls apart.
But under Aristocracy – there are many places of defense (with traditional leaders), which can lead resistance even if the capital falls.
The polarization was obvious, because politics has just become an end in itself, when the highly successful UTK march was in progress, all the leftists could think about was the possibility of losing political power, not considering the concerns of those demonstrating.
Runcie Balspune – as you know the establishment (the left – for the left are the establishment and have been for a long time) viciously smeared the march.
They ignored the black people on the march – and the black speakers, and they ignored the women on the march – and the women speakers.
According to the media (and so on) the march was made up of white-male “Fascists” whose knuckles were dragging on the ground.