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]
|
Where can I lay my hands on a copy of the Devil’s Dictionary? Is it a shortcoming on my part that I have never encountered this particular lexicon before? Maybe, maybe not but that would explain why its definition of the Common Law as ‘the whim of judges’ came as such a revelation to me.
Having had the benefit (or otherwise) of a legal education, I have always subscribed to the view that the Common Law was a body of law consisting primarily of judicial decisions based on custom and precendent. I know this cannot be too far wide of the mark because it bears an uncanny resemblance to the definition of the Common Law according to Websters.
You see, Antoine, there is nothing ‘whimsical’ about the process at all. In fact, it developed, from the ground up I might add, in order to preclude whimsy and provide certainty. Your charge that many judges are ‘social justice creeps’ is most certainly true but I would hazard that this is a problem which is generational rather than systemic. Those warming the benches in our Courts now were manning the student barricades in 1968 and they have simply completed their long march through the institutions with their imprimaturs largely intact. This is a problem, granted, but it is a universal problem because for sanctuary from judges we beg the mercy of politicians in parliament and dare I suggest that there might be the odd ‘social justice creep’ in there as well, or should that thought perish? Besides whilst you are free to look up any relevant Statute, what, may I ask, is stopping you from reading law reports for the precedents?
To blame Britain’s litigious culture on the Common Law is rather like blaming the poor performance of the NHS on tax cuts. Rather it is State Law or Statute (or Napoleonic Code) synthesised by politicians and handed down to us like the miserable serfs we are, that has stomped all over so many of the sound, long -established Common Law principles that used to protect us from frivolous or vexatious claims as well as nationalising lawyers and judges alike and rendering them mere amplifiers of state policy.
When a burglar sues a homeowner because he tripped over their carpet, we are rightly outraged but you should blame the Occupiers Liability Act. Similarly, when an entrepreneur is hauled in front of a tribunal and forced to pay a hefty fine for failing to provide adequate childcare facilities or a sufficiently happy work environment it is not the Common Law at work, rather it is the various Employment Acts. And would it be indelicate of me to point out that the phalanx of Anti-Discrimination Acts have given birth to not just a litigious culture but an entire (taxpayer-funded, I might add) grievance industry?
Nobody, to my knowledge, has made the absurd claim that the Common Law would ‘automatically sort everything out’. Nothing will ‘automatically sort everything out’. But I would venture that the Common Law was more organic, more reasonable and better fitted to serve a healthy and prosperous civil society than the instruments of social engineering that have largely replaced it. Was it fallible? Yes. Name me a system that isn’t.
Yesterday, I took myself along to a rather dreary and sullen conference hall in Central London to attend the Liberty Conference previously flagged up by Brian.
I admit that I was unsure about whether or not to bother going but it was curiosity more than anything else which tipped me in the direction of attendance. An event which was touted as a meeting of minds between socialist ‘rights’ campaigners and capitalist ‘liberty’ campaigners was, I thought, bound to set a few sparks flying and that would be a worthwhile way to spend an otherwise idle Saturday afternoon. Fellow libertarians like Tom Burroughes, Chris Tame and Marc Glendenning clearly felt the same.
Sadly, it was a sparkless day. Brian pointed out that Liberty is the re-branded National Council of Civil Liberties which was set up as a Bolshevik front and, I regret to have to say, that the Bolsheviks have left their imprimatur. There was no meeting of minds, no agreements, no breakthroughs, no ideas, no progress and no real debate to speak of. The atmosphere was stultified by stubborn unwillingness to address any issue other than the race and immigration in any depth whatsoever. Mostly though there was an abundance of waffle; waffle, waffle and then some more waffle. Valiant efforts on the part of Tom, Chris and I to raise other issues or inject other memes or even start a meaningful debate fell on stoney ground. We were strangers in a strange land, spectres at the feast and we all felt it.
There was, however, some cursory discussion about the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ and even some agreement that such terms were no longer adequate or even redundant. But ditching outmoded terminology does nothing whatsoever to bridge the yawning gap between those people who think that the world will become a freer, better place with more laissez-faire and those who think that freedom cannot be achieved without state enforced equality and state distributed entitlements. It was the difference between ‘free to’ and ‘free from’ but between those two little words lies a vast ocean. It wasn’t just a difference in approach. We were two sets of people who simply saw the world through a whole different set of lenses.
I came away with the feeling that the whole day was not so much an attempt to reach out to libertarians for new ideas but more an attempt to gather us into the big tent and thereby neutralise us. In a way this is actually quite good news. It means that they not only are aware of us but are frightened of us. Good. If we can’t join ’em, beat ’em, that’s what I say.
And it is in that spirit that I actually decided that it would be a good idea to join them nonethless. It means I can go along to future meetings and make a thorough nuisance of myself by asking lots of discomforting questions. I shall try to plant the seeds from whence some different memes can germinate and whilst I doubt very much that I shall succeed I shall have enough fun in the process to make the relatively modest (and tax deductible) subscription fee worthwhile.
I must remember to arm myself with some cream, strawberries and maple syrup though.
I would like to apologise to any visiting Argentinians or Argentophiles for yesterday’s rather visceral outburst.
My temporary use of such inflammatory and pugnacious language, whilst regrettable, was purely the product of a temporary bout of fog-inducing euphoria following Englands Word Cup win. Let me assure you that I bear no ill-will towards the Argentinian people. Indeed, they have my every sympathy given the chaos into which their venal and corrupt political class has plunged them. I hope, pray, nay expect them to rise like a phoenix from the flames.
Contrast, however, the mode of celebrations in Croatia from whence Natalija reports on the sounds of gunfire filling the air following the unexpected victory over Italy today. How spontaneously joyous.
I long for the day that I, too, can rejoice in Englands victories by firing my carbine into the air. But, due to the UK’s ridiculous prohibition on the private ownership of firearms, such healthy and safe expressions of national enthusiasm are forbidden to me and I am forced to resort, instead, to malevolent jingoistic slurs.
I apologise for any offence caused but I must lay the ultimate blame squarely at the feet of HM Government. Thank you for your kind attention.
Yasser Arafat, Ariel Sharon, George Bush, Pervez Musharraf, Osama Bin Laden, Jean Marie Le Pen, Vladimir Putin, Crown Prince Abdullah, Gerhard Schroeder, Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Charles Krauthammer, Silvio Berlusconi, Colin Powell, Jacques Chirac, Romano Prodi, Javier Solana, Kofi Annan, Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro are you listening?
ENGLAND 1 BEEF-EATING SURRENDER MONKEYS 0
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war! –
And you, good yeoman
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding: which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start.
The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit; and upon this charge
Cry – God for Harry! England! and St.George!
And, no, this isn’t just my muscular, traditional British chauvinism. France gets a thorough ‘Fisking’ and from a Frenchman no less!
J.P. Zmirak cuts right through the bull to remind us that the the ‘glorious’ French Revolution was anything but:
“That little thought experiment should give you an idea of what the French Revolution was really like – a digestive eruption of all the basest instincts in the lowest elements of society, led by power-drunk ideologues of the radical Left.”
The writer also goes on to point out that French Revolution had nothing whatsoever in common with the American Revolution, despite the two events so often lumped in with each other, and was driven by a wholly different impulse:
“It was utterly unlike the American rebellion against the English colonial officials – which amounted to a regional secession, led by the responsible members of the upper middle class. And for that fact we should be forever grateful – as should other countries which emulated the American model of political reform, rather than the French.”
He also goes on to lay the blame for so much future barbarity squarely upon the shoulders of those French leftist jackasses:
“At the heart of this exquisite movie is the relationship between Grace and the Duc d’Orleans. The latter is a pampered, ambitious, not very bright cousin to the tragic King Louis XVI, a Duke who throws his weight and wealth behind the Revolutionaries, in the hope that they will place him on the throne. He spouts, and no doubt believes, the new rhetoric of hysterical, xenophobic revolutionary patriotism – which would soon spread to Germany and Italy, planting the seeds of both the Nazi and Fascist movements.”
The whole article is written with the kind of florid anger born of pain and profound regret. It rings out a warning of the depravity and destruction which results from letting the bad guys get their way.
Many apologies but it is late here in England and I am too tired to spend hours trawling through our archive with a view to digging out all the previous postings about the link between welfare and terrorism. However, I do distinctly recall that the general theme was that it is far easier to recruit young men for terror attacks and guerilla wars when they are poor and under-utilised recipients of state largesse.
Now I am only too aware of the profound mischief and hazard produced by state serfdom but if this report in the US News about American Jihadis is anything to go by, then perhaps the phenomenon needs further examination (or, at least, revisiting):
“Fifteen thousand feet high in Kashmir and armed with a Kalashnikov–that was not how friends thought Jibreel al-Amreekee would end up. All of 19, the restless kid from Atlanta had grown up in a wealthy family attending Ebenezer Baptist Church, the home pulpit of Martin Luther King Jr. A soft-spoken youth with long dreadlocks, al-Amreekee had a passion for sky diving and reading books on the world’s religions.”
Clearly this young man (along with several others described in the article) was not the product of a broken home, a deprived slum or welfare benefits. It follows, then, that the welfare-terrorism link is rather too glib. Rich kids go crazy as well.
[Link courtesy of Pejman Pundit ]
I’m a little unnerved to hear about your unhappiness, Brian. I tend to rely on your general bouyancy to keep me from going under.
I note what you say regarding ‘er Maj but I can’t say that I find it very persuasive. She is performing the useful function of being stubbornly in the way of those seeking more power and glory (and we all know who they are, don’t we). Besides, your claim that she acts as camouflage for the nefarious doings of the nefarious is somewhat contradicted by your (correct) assertion that an Anti-Blairite resentment is beginning to fulminate. People do catch on sooner or later, albeit for different reasons.
I think the British have a rather predictable and long-standing attitude towards the governments they elect. It starts off as:
Stage 1: A great bow wave of expectation and enthusiasm followed by
Stage 2: anti-climax and disappointment which tends to become
Stage 3: feelings of unease and surly resentment which eventually translate into
Stage 4: let’s hang the bastards!!
We’ve been hovering around Stage 2 since just before the last General Election but I detect that we have, in the last few weeks, seamlessly slipped into Stage 3.
I also agree that the Tories are doing exactly the right thing by doing absolutely nothing. They cannot win, Blair can only lose, so let him. Of course, whether the Tories are acting in this strategically brilliant manner due to 1) genuine vacuity and impotence or 2) masterful political nous, is an entirely different discussion.
Many of you will never have heard of Will Hutton and for those that haven’t, this little introduction is necessary.
Mr.Hutton is pure Enemy Class. Ostensibly a journalist he has also headed up or contributed to various lefty think-tanks. He was quite influential in the formation of the New Labour project and, like all such people, he is a fanatical Federast who has adopted an ‘Animal Farm’ mindset of ‘America bad, Europe good’. Every now and then he pops up on British TV to excoriate people who are reluctant to pay higher taxes. He sneers so much that one could be forgiven for thinking that his top lip has been surgically attached to the bottom of his nose.
He is ripe for a ‘fisking’ by a higher organism such as James C. Bennett
“As a result of these moves, and the increasing prosperity of Britain in general, the island now enjoys booming do-it-yourself stores (so reminiscent of American ones, no doubt to Hutton’s disgust) and popular television programs such as “Changing Rooms” (whose American knockoff, “Trading Spaces,” is also popular on the other side of the Atlantic.)
The most interesting thing about “Changing Rooms” is the 500-pound limit on expenditure for the domestic makeover. This is not some Martha Stewart upper-middle-class consumption extravaganza. Rather, it is the application of ingenuity to ordinary people’s spaces, and conveys the message of what can be done by individual homeowners to bring delight to their own property.
Undoubtedly Hutton would rather they spend their time petitioning the local council to repair the window, as they used to. This would end their socio-politico isolation and selfish indulgence, so un-European. In Hutton’s mind, it seems, private housing is only one step from private car ownership, private gun ownership, and Columbine massacres”.
It is worth your while reading the whole thing. Not only does it skewer Hutton but it does so much else to clarify the difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’.
I wonder why it is that my dear friend Brian Micklethwait describes me as pessimist? Not only does he describe me as a pessimist but he also considers it to be a defining characteristic by the inclusion of the word ‘usual’.
It mystifies me somewhat because I do not consider myself to be a pessimist. I did not say that there will be nuclear war in South Asia, I merely assert that there might be. Does that make me a pessimist? Maybe it does. In which case, how do I become an optimist? By asserting that there cannot possibly be a nuclear war in South Asia? It strikes me that optimism along those lines is the same as daring the whole world not to disappoint you. Perhaps that is what I should do.
Still, I note that Brian describes himself as ‘(cautiously) optimistic’, a term which begs the question: why the ‘caution’?
Pomp and Circumstance
Heard from a British TV presenter today when reporting on Golden Jubilee Celebrations:
“The crowd greeted the Royal entourage ecstatically. The young Princes went on a walkabout and were treated like popstars“
|
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.
|
