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]
|
Flicking through the Reason blog, Hit & Run, I came across the link to the recent appearance by Reason’s editor, Nick Gillespie, on the O’Reilly Factor. Gillespie argues that it is silly to pass a law stating that folk should sing the national anthem of the United States in English. I agree (it is not exactly a Top Government Priority), although I would have thought that immigrants, if their intentions are to make a long-term home in their adopted country, should value it enough to try and speak the local language. Language is a part of assimilation. If I went to live in France, I would expect to learn the language, even if I spoke in an atrocious accent. But passing laws to force language is silly.
That said, I do not think Gillespie helped his case by what I thought was a singularly boorish performance on the show. Not a great advert for libertarianism. Virginia Postrel would have never acted like that, and she is much better looking.
There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness or disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served.
– Jane Jacobs.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, is immune from state interference. Not even in the Land of the Free. Not even the past.
The original story here seems to be the tip of a bureaucratic iceberg. Last weeks further comment from the New York Times (which I can not find online, sorry):
[A]t the [US] National Archives, documents have been disappearing since 1999 because intelligence officials have wanted them to. And under the terms of two disturbing agreements – with the C.I.A. and the Air Force – the National Archives has been allowing officials to reclassify declassified documents, which means removing them from the public eye. So far 55,000 pages, some of them from the 1950’s [sic], have vanished. […]
What makes all this seem preposterous is that the agreements themselves prohibit the National Archives from revealing why the documents were removed. They are aparently secret enough that no-one can be told why they are secret – so secret, in fact, that the arrangement to reclassify them is also secret. According to the agreement with the C.I.A., employees are also prohibited from telling anyone that the C.I.A. was responsible for removing reclassified documents.
Next time you hear that saw about the price of freedom being eternal vigilance, remember eternity is outside time. You do not just have to keep watch on this moment.
There are few topics in the world that get people heated up more then immigration, and in both Australia and the United States, societies that have been built by mass immigration, the topic is in the news.
In the United States, the question is based more on what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants that have consistently been keen to seek opportunity in that great country, and have taken the dubious path of avoiding the proper legal channels to do so. In ordinary times this would not have been such an issue. However, since 2001 the United States has become naturally very sensitive about who enters its borders. I am actually surprised that it has taken this long to surface.
The United States immigration question is particularly interesting. You might think that a society that has built itself on mass immigration would be in favour of more immigration, but this is not the case, and generally never has been the case. In general immigration is tolerated, rather then actively embraced by the general populace, but when times get tough, the political mood can turn quite quickly on newcomers. This was as true in the recession of 1819 as it is today.
This is because the costs of immigration are felt and paid for by individuals, but the benefits of immigration are diffuse and spread right across society. It is a shame that many defenders of the right of the free movement of people refuse to admit that there are costs to immigration. The worker who finds his wages undercut or loses his job entirely, or the victim of violence or the householder who finds his property values eroded is naturally going to feel distressed and angry at what he or she sees as the ‘cause’ of his or her loss. People find themselves surrounded by people of different appearance, religion, and cultural conditions, and worry about how the newcomers will assimilate. → Continue reading: Three cheers for immigrants!
No, George W. Bush’s ego has not in fact got out of hand. The US Secretary of State was in fact welcoming the President of Equatorial Guinea, who was described on state radio in that country as “like God in Heaven, with power over men and things”.
Lucky him.
Not so lucky are the rest of the people in Equatorial Guinea, who get the short end of the stick when it comes to liberty and the like.
I can understand the need of the United States to maintain influence over a place like Equatorial Guinea, which has a great deal of oil reserves. He’s a sunofabitch but he’s our sunofabitch. Or something like that. Realpolitik will be with us for a long time to come. However, that doesn’t mean that such a slimebag should be given the five-star treatment in Washington. Or, indeed, anywhere outside his own wretched balliwak.
(Via Passport)
The decision reached today on US immigration policy (as a compromise on Bush’s guest worker scheme) sounds… confusing. Not to mention expensive. Three categories of illegal immigrant, each slighly more illegal than the last…. What does it mean to be a little bit legal? Is that logically similar to being a little bit pregnant?
I tend to agree with Coyote in Arizona, who is tired of defending his borders:
To answer my premise that “immigration should be legal for everyone” with the statement that “it is illegal” certainly seems to miss the point (it kind of reminds me of the king of swamp castle giving instructions to his guards in Monty Python and the Holy Grail) The marginally more sophisticated statement that “it is illegal and making it legal would only reward lawbreakers” would seem to preclude any future relaxation of any government regulation.
A lot of attention is being paid to the question of whether or not allowing immigrants in the US to seek legal status after arriving illegally constitutes an amnesty program. Seems to me of little import what one calls it. Of far more concern to me is the fact that institutionalizing a drawn-out state of official limbo as an added feature of an already drawn-out immigration process is just a bureaucratic nightmare waiting to happen.
Shall we play “name that unintended consequence”? In this case, my guess is that, just like social welfare programs, this program could create a separate class of pre-citizens working into a de facto state of indentured servitude, having bartered rights for opportunity.
Any government that creates a legally sanctioned secondary class of citizen, even if that status is temporary, is headed for trouble. By definition, you cannot make a market of ‘inalienable’ rights. And a scheme that trades citizenship for labor is nothing but a fancy breed of feudalism.
The black market in labor, where individuals strike illegal deals over gardening, harvesting, sewing or childcare, may or may not be ethical, depending on your personal philosophy, but it is voluntary in a way that government-created and government-regulated secondary labor markets cannot be.
One of our commentariat who goes under the pseudonym of ‘cowtipper’ posted this information earlier today. It simply cried out for front page coverage. – Ed
Borders really cannot afford to be irrational. Having just finished financial analysis between Borders and Barnes and Noble’s for our fund, the bottom line is that Borders is in trouble and can not afford to insult its customers right now. 2006 is a critical year and the market has been asked to give management ‘one more chance’ on top of probably too many chances, hoping for some magic to occur in the fourth quarter of this year.
Borders would not handle a boycott well. Look at their most recent 10K – they are promising lousy performance through the year and praying (if we can use the word) that the market ignores their terrible financial state until quarter four, 2006, where a miracle will happen and outstanding sales will occur. Things do not look good and only irrational optimism and hope in management’s ability can sustain the market to the fourth quarter. This management team is truly lost – listen to their conference call and the real status of their mini-Borders “Waldenbooks” makeover that the call admitted has been a complete miscalculation. I’d trust a magic eight ball more than these misplaced executives.
If an organized boycott evolved in the next few weeks, Borders is probably 30-60 days from corporate reorg or collapse, a new CEO and appeasement of the boycotters. Given their money appears to come from red-state people and not leftist anti-establishment small bookstore types, their actions are further proof that management is completely lost.
Boycott these bookstores the next time you go looking for a book. They have just invited more intimidation against critics of violent islamists. Yes, I can understand the desire to protect staff, but this is a bad message to send out from a major firm. It says: we will give in if you act violent enough.
I have used Borders in the past, but will not do so again.
(hat tip: Glenn Reynolds).
The powers-that-be in the USA who are trying to pass various incumbency protection measures, have uncharacteristically decided that it is unwise for the Federal Election Commission to try and regulate private political speech on the internet.
Is this because they are good guys after all? Of course not, it is because they know it is completely unenforceable.
Congress is up to it again and it just gets worse and worse. This time they are, in a subtle way, outlawing parties other than the Republicrats. The quickest way for me to get this information out is to just give you the entire post from Jim Babka:
Please forward this to anyone you know who cares about competitive elections.
Campaign Update: DC Downsizers have sent 4,278 messages to Congress opposing this incumbent protection bill. More are needed. The link to click to send your message is provided below:
Dear friend,
If GM set the rules for Ford, Ford would soon be bankrupt. Sadly, Congressional incumbents can do to their competitors what GM cannot. If H.R. 4694 passes into law…
- You won’t be able to use your own money to support or oppose federal candidates
- Taxes will fund all federal campaigns, with winners getting more money in the next election, and losers less
- Third parties and independents will have to collect petition signatures equal to 20% of the votes cast in the last election to get full funding, but paid petitioners will be outlawed!
- It’s well-established that challengers must outspend incumbents to unseat them. This law would make it impossible for any challenger to outspend any incumbent
- Your tax money will be used to fund candidates you oppose
- Candidates unwilling to take government funds will be prohibited from spending any money at all
- It will be illegal for citizens groups to spend money discussing federal campaigns.
This bill would be the absolute end of free elections in America.
To send Congress a message opposing H.R. 4694
click here.
Jim Babka
This set of laws basically outlaws the Libertarian Party. We have for years joked it was easier to get on the ballot in Nicaragua under the Socialists than it was in the USA. Now it will be impossible. We have long used paid canvassers in States with the most onerous anti-democracy laws. On top of which, they set the bar for signatures impossibly high. We rely on individual donations because we are an individualist party. They wish to make that illegal. They will make the only allowable source of funding that which is sucked from the Statist teat. On moral grounds the Party refuses to take government funds for campaigns.
This should be a call to arms for any who love liberty. I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but everything I have heard indicates this law is the death knell for diversity of opinion in America. Although some measures seem tailored to kill the LP, they may also take out the Green Party and others as well.
The incumbents want a closed system. While they would probably prefer a one party state like the commies had, they are willing to settle for a two party party where they can get on with their graft and theft undisturbed.
Is there a difference between Republicans and Democrats in the long haul? In a world where they do not even have to worry about someone popping up and taking votes from them? I think not.
Closed systems are nice for those inside them for a time… but they ultimately lead to disaster and bloodshed.
David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute makes some good points about the FCC’s proposed fines against CBS. If a Danish newspaper can establish that freedom of expression does indeed mean the right to do things that will offend some people, should that notion not also apply in the ‘Land of the Free’?
The $3.6 million in ‘indecency’ fines proposed by the FCC against CBS are an ominous attack on the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Just as the government does not fine newspapers that publish cartoons that Muslims deem indecent, it should not fine broadcasters that air shows that viewers deem indecent. Viewers are free to change the channel or turn off their TV set if they do not like what they see. They can not be forced to patronize a station they find indecent.
Moreover, it is the parents – not the government – who should be responsible for determining what their children are allowed to watch on TV.
“The role of government is to provide good health care for our seniors. We made that commitment, interestingly enough, when Lyndon Baines Johnson was the President.”
President George W. Bush
15 March 2006
|
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.
|
