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]
|
The always interesting Brendan O’Neill has written an article called Why I hate slackers. As is often the case, I see things rather differently:
As always the 1960s has a lot to answer for. The hippies of the anti-Vietnam War brigade were the original slacker generation. There were no doubt some positive elements in the opposition to the Vietnam War – there were some anti-imperialists in there, who were keen to kick interfering America in the teeth and to defend independence and democracy in Vietnam.
I am anti-imperialist because I do not think it is right to impose non-consensual force backed rule on other people at bayonet point. That is also why I am anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-socialist, anti-statist conservative, anti-democratic (at least in the sense Brendan uses the word) and above all, anti-political. All these things are based on intermediation-by-force.
Today, such slackerdom is writ large across society. Today’s privileged youth don’t seem to believe in anything very much. Among the young, membership of political parties is breathtakingly low
The very essence of modern democratic politics is that it is okay to collectively use the state to by-pass normal contractual relationships between individuals and redistribute wealth in certain ways, which is a euphemism for forcibly stealing private property. That so few people should join political parties is a sign of the incremental de-legitimisation of this entire process. Splendid!
very few teenagers and twentysomethings, in both America and Britain, are signing up for the military; even in the private sphere, young people are staying at the parental home for longer and are putting off getting married and having children until much later in life, if not altogether.
In reality, this is just a return to the historical norm: prior to World War II, except during major wars themselves, both Britain and the USA maintained small non-conscript professional militaries. The large peacetime militaries of the cold war era were aberrations. As for living at home, this is largely a function of caring statists ‘helping’ the housing market with rent controls that are a dis-incentivization to rent out properties in the first place, planning regulations that discourage new building, high levels of taxation etc.
As for not having children, exactly what is so bad about that? Women are not baby factories and actually want more from life than just to reproduce. Having children is a choice, not an obligation.
Some might see these as positive developments – as signs that young people are not prepared to go along with the mainstream and are refusing to do what the authorities expect of them. But when such opting out seems to be driven more by insecurity and uncertainty than by a determination to do things differently, how positive is that? So to slackers everywhere: get a life. And a job. And a home of your own. And some conviction. And…
The world is an insecure place and if people are acting accordingly, that suggests to me an outbreak of realism. The statist world view of the left and right within which Brendan seems to be operating is the meta-context of stasis, in which the certainty and predictability of the collective replaces the messy dynamism and uncertainty of an increasingly apolitical world in which people are more concerned for their own interests.
By looking at ‘slackerdom’, Brendan has actually touched on one of the societal manifestations of two important opposing forces at work: as the state imposes itself (i.e. intermediates politics) into private life in ever more pervasive ways, non-state based apolitical spontaneous network effects are pulling hard in the opposite direction by allowing people to manage information in ways previously only available to the top of the pyramid.
There are very good reasons more and more people are not dutifully tramping down the treadmill of life in the manner those whose views rely on planning want them to. Slackers have conviction, Brendan: they have the conviction that what they want as individuals actually matters regardless of what other people think they should do.
Jeff Jacoby has a superb article on Jewish World Review about a woman’s right to defend herself:
But what if some of those women did want to protect themselves with guns? If they walked into a police station and applied for a license to carry a firearm for their personal protection, would they get one?
“They would not,” says Mariellen Burns, the Boston police spokeswoman.
What if they lived in the North End and two of their friends had been raped and they were terrified that they might be next?
Tough luck, says Burns. “Living in a high crime area is just not enough of a reason to get an unrestricted license to carry.”
Now, it is not news that Boston and Brookline — and Massachusetts generally — are frequently out of step with most of America. But it ought to be news when public officials increase the risk to life and limb of the people they are sworn to serve. And make no mistake: Those who prevent law-abiding women from arming themselves with guns make it easier for rapists and other predators to attack them with impunity.
Read the whole article as it is terrific stuff. But the fact is, it is not news that “public officials increase the risk to life and limb of the people they are sworn to serve”, it is actually the norm – for it to be otherwise, now that would be (good) news.
The state will nearly always try to place whatever its functionaries perceived to be its own narrow institutional interests before those of its subjects. The very nature of modern governance is about management, which is usually interpreted to mean control, and keeping weapons out of the hands of private individuals is pretty much the perfect manifestation of the desire to have the ability to easily impose management decisions on people who might not see that decision as being in their interests.
Yet the reality is that what makes management decisions by the state different from management decisions by a company or individual is that the state backs its decisions with the threat of force and does not think twice about intermediating itself into a person’s life without consent. The fact that very real threats to your personal safety are trumped by the state’s desire to maintain exclusive control over the means of self defence pretty much proves that the state regards its ability to impose management decisions as manifestly more important than a person’s right to life and limb, let alone private property.
In reality, the principle threat to most people in high crime areas are not so much the muggers but the state which make you easy prey for them and requires you to live in fear for its own convenience.
The state is not your friend.
It may have caught the eye of readers in the UK the other day that the Inland Revenue has redesigned its logo. Samizdata.net brings you a special preview!
It seems that our regular samizdata.net e-mail (as found in the sidebar) is now operational again and can be used once more.
Alas we seem to have lost some of the e-mails that were sent to us over the last week (i.e. since late last Friday) unless they were sent to our emergency address.
In Wednesday’s Daily Telegraph, Janet Daley wrote an article called The Tories have room for liberals of both persuasions.
Now I really have no quarrel with the thrust of her contention:
The cruellest and saddest irony of all is that the self-styled new model army, with its social liberalism ticket, need have no dispute with the old faith. Social liberalism and Thatcherite economic liberalism are consistent with one another.
Nothing is more likely to give people the confidence and the wherewithal to live their lives as they choose than personal prosperity and the freedom that it brings. Respect for personal liberty sits neatly alongside the promotion of economic self-determination. Together, they could make a coherent, radical and very modern party programme.
Well as our confreres in the United States so lyrically say: no shit, Sherlock.
What I find so saddening is that perhaps Daley has indeed set the level and tenor of this article to what is appropriate for the current state of sophistication and received wisdom of the typical Daily Telegraphy reader, i.e. acting as if ‘all the elements of truth and measure’ were to be found within the essentially bipolar world of parochial Westminster party politics. But frankly what Ms. Daley is saying is nothing more that what libertarians in Britain have been saying for a great many years. When she says:
Respect for personal liberty sits neatly alongside the promotion of economic self-determination.
This phrase practically defines the libertarian meme and yet you will search the article in vain for the word ‘libertarian’.
William Saletan continues to live up to my expectations, which I assure you is not a compliment, with a bizarre article in Slate that contends that if a law is passed in the USA to make the level at which capital losses can be written-off against income tax more generous, that would be, wait for it, “suburban socialism”.
Fascinating. So lowering someone’s tax burden is socialism. Let’s run by that again…the state gets less of a businessman’s money, which is to say, more of the ‘means of production’ currently in private hands remain in private hands… and that constitutes socialism?
Of course I do not expect someone like Saletan to have actually read and understood any serious books on political economy, but I would expect someone who opines on economic and political issues to have read some ‘Idiots Guide to Political & Economic Systems’ so that he has at least the vaguest inkling as to what the hell socialism actually means.
The plan in question is not the state socialistically redistributing wealth by taking it (via tax) from someone and giving it to someone else. No, they are just talking about reducing the amount of theft (i.e tax) the state appropriates for certain people who have run up losses: the loss making taxpayer is not getting other people’s money, he is simply being allowed to keep more of his own money by off-setting losses. Duh.
Just a reminder that our e-mail is still buggered up, and has been so since last Friday. Please use our emergency e-mail rather than the one in ther side bar to contact us.
Steve Sailer has written a very good article called How tolerant are the British? that takes a good look at Anglosphere attitudes without the rather self-congratulatory tones of many in the blogosphere.
In a rather different article a while back, I came to some similar conclusions and pointed out the agreeabe implications of the high incidence of miscegenation in Britain.
Rand Simberg of Transterrestrial Musings is in exceptional form! Read Administration split on European invasion, Washington, April 3, 1944 (Routers).
Fissures are starting to appear in the formerly united front within the Roosevelt administration on the upcoming decision of whether, where and how to invade Europe. Some influential voices within both the Democrat and Republican parties are starting to question the wisdom of toppling Adolf Hitler’s regime, and potentially destabilizing much of the region.
“It’s one thing to liberate France and northwestern Europe, and teach the Germans a lesson, but invading a sovereign country and overthrowing its democratically-elected ruler would require a great deal more justification,” said one well-connected former State Department official. “The President just hasn’t made the case to the American people.”
This is his best article since his much lauded Media casualties mount (which was for my money far and away the best blog article of 2001).
Run, do not walk, to Transterrestrial Musings.
August 20th 1940, and the fate of western civilisation hung in the balance. As the Battle of Britain was still being fought out between the Luftwaffe and RAF to determine if Nazi Germany would be the uncontested master of western Europe, Winston Churchill gave one of his most stirring of many memorable speeches in the House of Commons:
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few
Given the previous post on the subject of state surveillance, it is good to hear that The Register is reporting that PGP encryption is back in the hands of an independent company.
Although I have never been a huge fan of Statewatch, a civil liberties advocacy group whose membership contains a high proportion of socialists (which I have always thought analogous to a temperance society whose membership contains a high proportion of brewers), the latest Statewatch press release is well worth reading.
They clearly lay out how the European Union is about to take a giant leap towards the sort of total surveillance super-state that the Soviet Union could only dream of implementing. As Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments in the press release:
EU governments claimed that changes to the 1997 EC Directive on privacy in telecommunications to allow for data retention and access by the law enforcement agencies would not be binding on Members States – each national parliament would have to decide. Now we know that all along they were intending to make it binding, “compulsory”, across Europe.
The right to privacy in our communications – e-mails, phone-calls, faxes and mobile phones – was a hard-won right which has now been taken away. Under the guise of fighting “terrorism” everyone’s communications are to be placed under surveillance.
Gone too under the draft Framework Decision are basic rights of data protection, proper rules of procedure, scrutiny by supervisory bodies and judicial review
The Panopticon super-state ‘of the future’ is now very much upon us.
 When the state watches you, dare to stare back
|
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.
|
Recent Comments