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]
|
At long last, true progress can be seen breaking through the glass ceiling of yet another reactionary institution as Lloyds List, the world’s oldest shipping industry newspaper, announces that it intends to drop the demeaning practice of referring to ships as she and will, from now on, use the the more gender-neutral and inoffensive word ‘it’.
“Mr Bray, 38, who has been the editor for two years, said: “I decided that it was time to catch up with the rest of the world, and most other news organisations refer to ships as neuter.”
A very welcome, if overdue, recognition of the diversity and multi-navigational reality of modern shipping and another sign of the imminent demise of the white male hetero-sailist orthodoxy which has always sought to marginalise and persecute differently-ruddered ships and hold them back with the anchors of oppressive language.
Not all ships are TransAtlantic; some are TransGendered, cruising the lonely sea-lanes at night to find solace and company in a world which refuses to even acknowledge their existence!
The first faltering steps to their liberation have been taken as ships everywhere find the courage to shout: “I’m coming out of dry-dock. I’m Tran-Sport and I’m Prow(d)”
Q: What do you call a Frenchman wearing sandals?
A: Phillipe Pherlop
Do politicians really say what they think? Or is their language forever circumscribed by the weight of office, the delicacy of diplomacy and the sensitivities of a fickle public?
If that is true, then maybe ex-politicians find they are invested with a freedom of thought and action denied to them during their careers. Vide the loud and clear message from Baroness Thatcher in her latest book ‘Statecraft’.
“The preliminary step, I believe, should be for an incoming Conservative government to declare publicly that it seeks fundamental renegotiation of Britain’s terms of EU membership.”
We all know what she said and we all equally know what she means. ‘Fundamental renegotiation’ is a polite term for ‘withdrawal’. I say this not because I am in the business of second guessing Baroness Thatcher but because there is no way to ‘fundamentally renegotiate’ the rigid terms of EU membership without excusing yourself from the club. Can we exclude ourselves from the ‘Acquis Communitaire’? If so, we are out and that’s that.
She is not the first person in Britain to suggest full withdrawal from the EU but, to my memory, she is the most high profile. Despite possessing nothing now except an honourary title, Thatcher’s legacy and image loom large over the British psyche for both those who loved and those who hated her. This book will not herald any change in current government policy but it is still important because there is a certain power in simply saying the unsayable. It is like prising open a rusty, bolted door so that others can all begin heaving against it in unison. Up until now, debate in Britain has revolved around whether or not we should adopt the Euro. Now the debate can legitimately move on to our entire place in the EU. Thatcher has said it, so others can say it too.
It may not be the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end but the cracks are starting to show, as evidenced by all the urgent scurrying (deliberate use of metaphor) around by various media, government and political poobahs to condemn, deny, rebut and dismiss her remarks.
So get your crowbars out, boys and girls, we’ve got some cracks to work on.
I do not often post about specific bits of government legislation as it makes for awfully dry subject matter but I am unable to resist publishing this example of incandescent lunacy.
A year ago or so I wrote an extensive piece for the Libertarian Alliance about the nature, scope and effects of the UK Money Laundering laws (soon to be codified in the Proceeds of Crime Act).
One of the offences specified is that of ‘Tipping-Off’. If a banker/lawyer/ financial adviser suspects a client of money laundering then he is obliged to report the matter to a responsible officer within the firm who must then decide whether or not to make a report to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. All this must be done in secret because the client must not be told that he is under suspicion (in case he flees the jurisdiction). To spill the beans is to commit the offence of ‘Tipping-Off’ (maximum sentence 2 years in prison).
Well, as if destroying the principle of client confidentiality and trust is not bad enough we all now have to contend with Section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998 which requires all companies to disclose all internal memoranda to their clients upon demand, even those voicing suspicions of money laundering and, hence, tipping them off!!
One law now forces lawyers/bankers/accountants to break another law!! How long can it be before one is liable for prosecution just for turning up at work in the morning?
Do we have a Government or do we just have a Random Regulation Generating Machine up there?
I must confess that I don’t know much about software. I know that it is logical instruction stuff that enables me to do interesting things with my computer and that it is made up of bits, bytes, bobs, bangles, beads and a couple of egg-whites. I also know that it is fabricated by frightfully whizz-bang clever chaps who possess powers far beyond my ken.
I did not know, though, that they were the footsoldiers fighting to bring down Capitalism but, according to Mr. Soderberg, that is exactly what they are.
A word of warning before you open the linked article (if, indeed, that is what you are minded to do): it is a ponderously long and narcolepsy-inducing marxist tract of the kind that I seldom can be bothered to wade through any more but for the inclusion of this early caveat:
“The article address readers sympathetic to the Marxist project and it presumes a basic knowledge of Marxist terminology”
Clearly, it was not meant for the flinty-eyes of a Mammon-Worshipper such as me. It is a sort of shrunken-head-on-a-stick warning that all ye who venture beyond this point risk mortal peril. Well, how could I resist? That’s not a warning, it’s a challenge.
Disappointingly, though, there was no peril, mortal or otherwise and negligible challenge. The thrust of the whole piece is that there are a whole slew of software designers out there beavering away designing excellent software which they then give away for free, thus undermining the corporations who exploit their capitalist intellectual property rights to charge for their (allegedly) inferior products. According to Mr. Soderberg, this heralds the dawn of a new age when the principle of giving away one’s software products for free will be applied to all other products and thus bring about a gift-based society.
All very tedious and all very wrong. As usual when these flat-earthers pop their heads over the parapet, the article is not so much an analysis as an extensive extrapolation of wishful thinking and deeply erroneous assumptions. All Marxists tend to get throbbingly priapic at the thought of folks giving their labour and ideas away for free. For them, it is a validation of their absurd insistence that everyone must give away their labour and ideas for free whereas, truly, it is an example of the kind of voluntarism that lies at the heart of the libertarian view of capitalism.
In other words, if said designers (or collectives thereof) decide to labour for no return then that is tickety-boo by me. And if others decide to that they want a return for their labour that is also tickety-boo. They will only get that return if they produce software that pikers like me are prepared to pay for. In other words, they have to compete and whether they do so successfully is entirely a matter for them.
However the corporations that Mr.Soderberg so dislikes must be churning out some good software because if they were not, they would go bust and in quick time. But that point seems to have been lost on him. Not surprising when you see assertions like this:
“Quite to the contrary, the study supports a connection between general welfare systems and commitment to non-commercial projects”
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but there aren’t a whole lot of magnificent software programmes emerging from, say, Cuba are there?
Mistake compounds mistake as Mr. Soderberg unmasks his vision of a society changed into a gift-society by the act of giving away the software while wholly ignoring the products of capitalism that enable the volunteer designers to do what they do. Nobody is giving away computers for free, or desks or chairs or Kangol hats or pizza or Diet Coke. If Mr. Soderberg wants to excite himself over free information and ideas then let him look no further than this blog and its copious links: loads and loads of folks giving away their intellectual product for free. Does this mean we are all Marxists? Not in my reckoning.
Like all unreconstructed lefties, Mr. Soderberg believes that capitalism insists on the pursuit of profit. Capitalism neither insists nor requires any such thing. It merely requires the voluntary exchange of goods and services upon whatever terms contracting parties agree. People labouring for free is not marxism; people being forced to labour for free is marxism. It is a very easy distinction to grasp and you certainly don’t have to be a software designer to do so.
Tomorrow, the EU parliament will vote on a Directive that will ‘harmonise’ the sale of vitamin and mineral supplements right across the EU.
The effect in Britain will be to remove some 90% of currently commercially available vitamin and herbal remedies from the shelves of British shops.
“Many people believe these supplements are vital to them. This is heavy-handed legislation which I believe should be withdrawn but all we may be able to do is a damage limitation exercise.”
Britain has always been very relaxed about alternative health remedies and self-help as have countries like Ireland and Holland. But this is all to the great and deep displeasure of the German Pharmaceutical industry whose oily fingerprints are all over this bit of contemptible mischief and are now using their political marionettes in the EU Commission to legislate their competitors out of existance.
As per usual the justification is health and safety:
“Manufacturers will be able to make a case for supplements to be put on the list if they can prove their efficacy and safety, but many small companies do not have the resources for this kind of research trial.”
Even a child knows that nobody ever died from eating vitamins or herbal supplements.
There is widespread and angry opposition to this and not just from Britain but from all over Europe. Millions of e-mails and letters have been sent to the EU Parliament from angry and frustrated people. Sadly, it is likely to avail them nought . The vote will most likely be a rubber stamp by the Teflon Technocrats. The Parliament is just a fig-leaf to give Europeans an illusion of democratic accountability while the Commission agenda is waved through.
“In the UK, vitamin and mineral supplements are now a huge market worth £376 million in 2001. Direct sales are estimated to add £60-£70 million to this total.”
So yet another thriving British industry is executed by fiat and yet another chunk of our choice and independence is chipped away.
‘Harmony’; such a seductive word. We all want ‘harmony’ in our lives. We long for ‘harmony’. Who could possibly object to ‘harmony’?
There is an ever-so-slight ‘1962’ feeling in the air now that the Pentagon has issued (or ‘leaked’ depending on the news source) its Nuclear Hit-List which includes Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia and China. It must be just a little unsettling to know that somewhere in a mountain silo is a thermonuclear device with your name on it.
And I’ll bet that drawing up that list was a tough one (“No, no. Mr. President, please, there is just no strategic justification for adding France to the list!”).
But Washington has breached the taboo and I see no reason why I should not gleefully jump on the bandwagon. So I have drawn my own ‘Nuclear Hit-List’ and it reads as follows:
1. Brussels
2. Noam Chomsky
3. The Guardian
4. Brussels
5. The BBC
6. Jack Straw
7. Brussels
Oh and Brussels.
I wish to make it clear that I maintain an official ‘no-first strike’ policy
Following hot on the heels on people like Jorg Haider in Austria and Umberto Bossi in Italy, the newest kid on the Nationalist block appears to be Pim Fortuyn who is causing more than a stir in the normally sedate fabric of the Dutch political landscape.
The rise of Mr.Fortuyn and his anti-immigrant message is notable if only because of Holland’s legendary tradition of moderation and tolerance. Maybe this is curiously reflected by the fact that I cannot think of any other Nationalist candidate who is overtly homosexual. It’s probably a ‘Dutch thing’.
Mercifully, the article stops short of describing him as ‘charismatic’ but it pulls no punches otherwise:
“Nearly one half of 18-30 year-olds recently polled want to see zero Muslim immigration, and said they would be voting for Mr Fortuyn in May’s ballots.”
And it looks like those 18-30 year olds were good to their word because Mr.Fortuyn has just trounced his opposition in the municipal elections in his native Rotterdam and, for better or worse, he is now clearly a man to be reckoned with:
“However, the Dutch political establishment is at a loss when it comes to countering the Fortuyn phenomenon. They say he has no party manifesto – which is true, Fortuyn has promised to present one later this month – and accuse him of pandering to ultra rightwing sentiments with his controversial statements about asylum seekers and Muslims. Still, Mr Fortuyn appears to draw voters from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum”
Time will tell if the ‘Fortuyn Factor’ has legs. It could just be a flash in the proverbial pan; a protest vote that rear-ends the complacent political establishment into action.
But I have the feeling that the phenomenon is not merely transitory. These guys are popping up all over Europe and making a whole lot of people very uncomfortable. Of course, to suggest that immigrants are the source of Europe’s problems is simplistic drivel but it is equally simplistic to suggest that men like Fortuyn are merely exploiting resentment for their advantage. Europe has been governed for decades by a consensual Centrist/Social Democratic porridge that long ago ran out of ideas. It is the Randian ‘stagnant swamp’ which exudes nothing but choking miasma from its fetid pools.
Some people are praying for rain.
When I was a schoolboy some rather smug wag made me look utterly foolish by asking me which I thought would weigh more: a ton of steel or a ton of feathers? “Oh the steel, obviously” I said. Think about it.
Fast forward 25 years and the subject of steel is ruffling feathers in Britain and there must be something about this juxtaposition that makes an awful lot of people appear utterly foolish, most notably those that are spluttering with indignation about this ‘slap in the face’, ‘kick in the shins’, ‘punch up the trousers’ delivered to Britain by the US government’s decision to raise tarrifs. So much for the ‘Special Relationship’, eh.
So much for superficial analysis. Take a pill, John and Jane Bull, for this English patriot is far from ruffled.
This is not to say that British steel production is not significant. It is. In fact, in 1995 it was Britain was the third largest producer in the world. What is insignificant is British exports to the US which account for less than 4% of our total exports. The vast majority of British sales go to the domestic market or Europe.
The really big players in the US market are producers in countries like China and South Korea who, faced with the tarrifs, will turn to Britain and Europe to sell their far more attractively priced steel. That means that prices will drop for the British consumer and British steel producers will have to get leaner, meaner and more innovative in order to remain competitive.
In other words, it is good news for the British economy for precisely the same reason that it is bad news for the US one and, whilst it would be a stretch to suggest that this was Mr.Bush’s intention, it is his fellow Americans that he has ‘slapped in the face’ not us Brits.
Happy now?
Christmas 1914. On the Western front, British and German soldiers face each other off across the barbed wire and the frozen, blood-caked mud and stiff, decomposing bodies of dead comrades. This was warfare as Europe had not witnessed it before: grim, static, total, hellish.
For reasons nobody has ever adequately explained, on this Christmas Day, 1914, a truce was felt necessary and soldiers from each side rose from their positions and enemy met enemy between the trenches in No-Man’s Land and played a game of football.
For a few euphoric hours, soldiers became laughing, playing, carousing men and war was forgotten. But peace had not broken out and fences had not been mended. The game over, the officers led their troops back to their respective lines and the carnage went on and on and on.
There was a faint echo of this legend last night at the ‘Big Brother Awards’ hosted by Privacy International and to which I had been invited by fellow blogger Tom Burroughes. I did not know quite what to expect, but I am customarily on hand to lend such support as I can muster in the battle against Big Brother.
However, as I entered the debating chamber in the London School of Economics, my internal geiger-counter screamed off the scale. It was being bombarded with reds. My hackles never let me down and, boy, were they up. The place was wall-to-wall dreadlocks, canvas knapsacks and sandals complimented by a troop of students in ‘Boycott Esso Oil’ T-shirts and George Bush rubber face-masks.
I was being choked by Chomsky, I could feel the Fisk and smell the Sontag. If I stayed one minute longer I would be pickled in Pilger. I broke out in a feverish sweat and panic set in but, before I could leave a Tom-and-Jerry style hole in the LSE wall, I spotted Tom and, then, to my further bug-eyed surprise, fellow arch-capitalist Tim Evans. And not only was he attending but he was actually reading the nominations!! Just what on earth was going on here?
Further staggering revelations followed when I found out that yet another Libertarian, Malcolm Hutty was there and, in fact, it was his company, Internet Vision, which was co-sponsoring the event together with, wait for it, GreenNet.org!! This was Matter vs. Anti-Matter. Why hadn’t the Universe evaporated in a great, cosmic bang?
Before I could splutter further, the ceremony began and we all settled, a little uneasily, into our seats. We could sense their force and they could sense ours. Somehow, though, the Universe remained stable and the evening was conducted amidst an atmosphere that was appreciative and cordial though far from joyous.
My worst fears were allayed when it became clear that the agenda was being steadfastly adhered to. Privacy was the issue and the sole issue and just about every ‘golden boot’ for its grievous infringement went to HM Government and its agencies. Even I could not suppress a loud whoop when a special ‘boot’ went to the Department of Education and Skills for its ghoulish plans to draw up a clandestine national database for every schoolchild in the country.
Undoubtedly the strangest moment in the evening came when the committee announced that it had been unanimous in wishing to bestow its ‘Freedom Fighter’ award on The Daily Telegraph for its ‘Free Country’ campaign. It was like watching Mullah Omar step up to accept a gong from the B’nai Brith. A crackle of electricity went round the room but, despite some isolated heckles, the recipients were warmly applauded.
When the ceremony was over they all drifted away a little dazed and light-headed. They felt like an audience who had just seen a dazzling magic show and they know that the magic isn’t real but just how did he make that tiger disappear? The Bush-baiters, now unmasked, trooped out again a little sheepishly. It was not the anti-globo ruckus that they (or I) had been expecting.
You know for sure you are living in interesting times when the kind of people whose most prized possession is a bust of Lenin gather together with the followers of Adam Smith and all agree that privacy is important and the state is the biggest threat to it. Interesting and also significant because if my otherwise trenchant ideological foes think that privacy is important then it is to be hoped that they have asked themselves why privacy is important. And if they have, could they possibly come to any conclusion other than the ownership of self and the sovereignty of the individual? It takes questions like that to configure the circuit-boards of the mind into just the right order necessary to illuminate a line of flashing bulbs that light the way to freedom.
If that happens than last night’s ceremony was a mini-milestone in the evolution of political ideas.
On the other hand, it may just have been a Christmas truce between the trenches in No-Man’s Land.
Since I have always fancied myself as a bit rugged and rather dashing, I was unable to resist taking this much-touted test so as to ascertain exactly what type of sleek and hi-tech manifestation of military armaments engineering best reflected my personality
To be informed that the firearm I most resemble is a Fisher-Price ‘Mr.Wallop’ Potato Gun is not just disappointing it is also deeply degrading
I shall not be taking that so-called ‘test’ again!
Charles Dodgson takes aim and fires at Libertarians and our ideas which he clearly regards as ill-conceived and even harmful.
Mr.Dodgson uses an article from the Boston Phoenix exposing the slave trade in Pakistan.
“The bidding starts quickly. About 15 minutes into the bidding, one of the buyers asks for an inspection. The elderly woman removes the girls tunic, fingers the childs breasts, and then shines a flashlight into her open mouth to show that she has a good set of teeth. Bidding resumes with a certain intensity; some of the men can be seen rubbing themselves.”
The article paints a truly pitiful vista and I share Mr.Dodgson’s revulsion. What I do not share, though, is his rather strange conclusion that this is the kind of thing that Libertarians approve of:
“Libertarians argue for a society in which people solve their problems by making whatever commercial bargains they can, and the government takes an enforcement role, if that. The more radical among them suggest that society would be best off without any government at all, with nothing but private trade to regulate their interactions.”
Not quite right, of course, but it is an indication of where Mr.Dodgson is going wrong and he is definitely going wrong even according the article he has used as his source which, further down, advises us:
“Precious few Americans know anything about the history of Pakistan, much less that ul-Haq’s reforms consolidated conservative Islam’s stranglehold on the national imagination. Fewer still know that, in the process of imposing Islamic law on the land, he created a culture of servitude for the poor.”
Ah, that explains it then. Would all those Libertarians who are going around advocating the imposition of Conservative Islamic Law please stop doing it because you are distinctly off-message and giving people like Mr.Dodgson the wrong impression. Thank you.
Any genuine Libertarians could tell Mr.Dodgson that our ideas are based on the sovereign rights of individual human beings. A concept which, in both theory and practice, may lead to all manner of interesting and even exotic consequences, all of which are the very antithesis of slavery.
It is often said that a little learning is a dangerous thing. I don’t know about that and I don’t think that Mr.Dodgson is a man of little learning. The rest of his posting is devoted to taking our Johnny Student to task for his interpretations of the US Civil War in a lengthy rebuttal which appears to be both well-researched and informative.
No, I prefer to think that its a little misconception that is a dangerous thing and, of course, a big misconception is a really dangerous thing. Yes, I ‘m happier with that.
|
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.
|
