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]
|
I picked up the following little titbit from an email newsletter of We The People. For those of you who don’t remember, that is Bob Schultz’s tax protest organization.
It seems that Congressman Henry Hyde thinks the Constitution he swore to uphold and protect is just a bit, well… passe:
“Congressman Ron Paul reminded the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations that the Constitution required a congressional Declaration of War before the armed forces of the United States could be applied in hostilities overseas, not H.J.R 114, a congressional Resolution authorizing the President to decide if and when to apply that force.
However, Chairman Henry Hyde is quoted, for the record, “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore…”
The 50-member Committee then went on to vote against the substitute amendment offered by Rep. Paul, which read simply (after the resolving clause), “That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.”
The Committee then went on to approve H.J. Resolution 114, which was eventually approved by Congress.”
Ron Paul is the nearest thing to a libertarian we have in public office. Although he is registered Republican… he is a libertarian. Some of you may remember his 1988 Presidential campaign with Andre Marrou as his Vice Presidential running mate. I was a Russell Means delegate at the nominating convention in Seattle that year, but that’s how it is in politics. Once the streamers and confetti have been swept off the convention floor everyone gets behind “the horse what won”. I wrote the Space Policy statements for them and thus had the chance to work with Ron and his campaign team on a number of occasions.
Ron’s congressional statements were not grandstanding. They were principled statements of his belief in the Constitution and in Liberty. That is just the sort of man he is.
For those space activists among us: Ron Paul is also the only Presidential candidate to ever appear at an International Space Development Conference: the 7th ISDC, held in Denver in May 1988. Some of the local Colorado LP were working his Denver visit and one of them was also on the ISDC conference committee (I had chaired the year before in Pittsburgh). He knew me in both my LP hat and my L5 hat… so I acted as liaison and briefer before Ron’s talk. We even had a heckler from Martin-Marietta to keep it interesting: Bob Zubrin!
Perhaps this is my own personal jaundice and nothing else but I seem to have found myself in an ‘issue-trough’. I think this is what journalists call a ‘slow news day’. I can seem to find anything worthy of truly sinking my teeth into and grinding away. I do detect the onset of a series of ‘Great World-Shaking Events’ in the offing but they’re teetering back-and-forth on the precipice so tantalisingly that they’re starting to lull me into a hypnotic trance.
Well, something will come along pretty soon, I’ll bet. But, in the meantime, I shall use this hiatus in the global narrative to indulge in a bit of mischief-making.
It’s becoming quite clear that the EU is adopting an increasingly anti-American character. As illustrated in this post from Perry a while back, the EU elites are actively marketing their project as being the plausible rival to the American ‘hyperpower’, the antidote to US-style ‘cowboy’ diplomacy and vigourous (which they see as ‘virulent’) market ideology.
The grumbling and foot-dragging from various European governments over US plans for Saddam Hussein are a symptom of this background antipathy not the cause of it. It’s already causing a rift in relations and that rift is only going to get worse. Having given up trying to forge an identity for their superstate, the EU elite are having to rely increasingly on an anti-identity and that anti-identity is Anti-American.
So, what could the US government do about this? Work round it? Fight against it? Try to mollify it? Options which are all expensive, difficult and far from guaranteed to succeed.
No, I can think of a better solution: open up the US to immigration from Europe.
It’s a policy that would have nothing but nothing but benefits for the US:
- It would attract vast numbers of bright, young, well-educated Europeans grown weary of the burden of their increasingly fossilised economies. They would sprout wings and fly in the more entrepreneurial environment of the USA.
- European immigrants would be able to assimilate seamlessly in a heartbeat and, more importantly, they would want to.
- It’s a no-cost policy. Not a penny of US taxpayers money would have to be spent.
- It’s a politically winning policy. The American left could hardly object unless they want to stand on an anti-immigration platform; the isolationist right won’t mind because, let’s face it, the overwhelming majority of Europeans are white, and libertarians cannot possibly have any cause for complaint. Thus all potential political opposition within the US is neutralised.
- America gets progressively richer and more dynamic while Europe’s enarques are left lording it over a constituency consisting of pensioners, cretins and Al-Qaeda sleepers.
So, if the EUnuchs get too far up George Bush’s nose, may I suggest that a heady revenge can be obtained by a mere stroke of the Presidential pen by which he could consign the aforesaid EUnuchs to a slow, lingering, humiliating death. It really is a win-win-win-win policy. In fact, from an American point of view, I cannot think of a downside.
Oh yes, sorry, I can think of a downside; some Americans living in the vicinity of any Ports of Entry risk being trampled to death in the rush.
A Canadian Samizdata reader alerted Samizdata to a story in Canada’s National Post. The Post reports that costs for Canada’s gun registry have overrun by a factor of 500. No, that’s not an overrun of 500% (which would be bad enough) but a final cost of five hundred times the original estimate. Did I say final? I meant cost so far; it’s not final yet.
Well, at least Canadians are safe now. Only they’re not. He adds:
“Herewith is another example of why gun registration programs don’t work. Canada has a history different from the US with respect to firearms (which explains, in large part, why this became law in the first place). I think that violent, gun-related crime in Canada’s urban centers has probably increased since 1995 (but I don’t have any hard evidence to support this assertion). I can say that, in Toronto, there was a series of gang related shooting in October where every weekend (for a month) different gang members ended up dead in different parts of the city. Further to this, the gun control law has had no impact on the Hell’s Angels in Montreal.”
As chance would have it I had posted earlier today about how Simon Jenkins of the Times should not believe all that Michael Moore says about Canada being a paradise of trust. Moore is right about one thing. America does have an anomalously high murder rate. But all the strategies put in place by countries who boast that their lower murder rate is the result of gun control, and that they therefore need more of it, keep on failing. Expensively.
That would have been a good sign-off line, but I’ve one more thing to say. I was struck by the sentiments of Allan Rock, a Liberal Party bigshot who the opposition attacked for keeping mum about the spiralling costs of the gun registry. The report said:
Mr. Rock defended the registry, saying it has “saved lives” and reinforced “Canadian values” by distinguishing Canada from the United States on the issue of gun control.
Were his actual words as thin and shabby as this paraphrase implies? Does he really see mere difference to the United States as a merit in itself?
Paul Marks poses a question about a hypothetical character who seems strangely… familiar
What does one do about the growth of government leading to the collapse of society?
In the United States if one is a Democrat there is no problem – such a person does not tend to believe that the growth of government causes any damage so one can tax and spend with a happy heart (until the cannibals tear out that heart).
But what if one is a Republican? Not a Democrat by another name (like the absurd Mayor Bloomberg of New York City), but the sort of Republican who (whilst he may have no libertarian principles) dimly knows that an ever expanding government will cause harm to society (i.e. the web of social interactions between human beings).
Let us say that one is the sort of Republican who spent his years at Yale getting drunk (rather than being teacher’s pet like his father), because he had enough sense to understand that what he was being taught was nonsense.
Well (if one is not a man of fanatical principle) one spouts off enough of the nonsense to get a “C average” (the lowest respectable grade), makes some networking contacts (that will prove of use later in life) and then goes off into the world.
Then say one becomes President of the United States (so one can not say “someone else will keep things going”), and faces a situation where defence spending (the only form of government spending that history shows is easy to cut) is going to go UP rather than down.
The “entitlement programs” (the Welfare State) continues to expand and society is under threat – so what do you do?
Perhaps you start by trying to find ways to “contract out” government activities, but (perhaps because you suspect there are no magic solutions to fiscal problems) you also announce that civilian government employees are going to get a 3.1 (rather than 4.1) percent pay increase this year – and justify it on “national security” grounds.
There will have to be many such moves if the United States is to be saved – but it is good to know that the President has some understanding (dim or not so dim) of the problem.
Paul Marks
Paul Marks points out that it is the spending rather than the taxing which is the root of governments woe
People (not just us evil libertarians) often complain about taxation and there have been many attempts to reduce or at least limit it – these attempts have mostly been unsuccessful.
Few governments tax in order to create piles of money in their store houses – governments normally tax to spend. If we are to limit (let alone reduce) taxation it is government spending that we must fight. Limit one tax and the government will increase another – limit them all and government will borrow, ban borrowing and the fight come back to spending – i.e. (in the end) the fight is about government spending.
As far as I know there is only one State in the U.S. which shows (in its’ laws) a clear understanding of this and that State is Colorado. Colorado has many problems and I would not claim it is the most free market State (although it is one of the smaller government States), but I think that its spending based version of a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” has, over the few years of its’ history, proved to be useful thing.
In Colorado government spending can only be increased in line with an increase in population or an increase in prices (yes I know there are all sorts of problems with the idea of a price index – but I will not go into that here). This would seem to a be a very moderate limitation – but (as far as I know) there is not another State in the Union that has such a limitations. Over the last few years Colorado has reduced the burden of taxation (i.e total taxes as a percentage of income – not reduced one tax and increased another) and balanced the budget.
The key really is government spending. To convince people that if they want some special benefit from government another benefit will have to be abolished (not just the total spending of the government increased).
In the end the fight has to be about spending. Whatever waffle either side comes out with about the “institutions of a just society” what matters is where the money goes. If we allow people to convince others that government spending is a “good thing” then all the anti tax and anti borrowing campaigns in the world will not save us.
Paul Marks
The Libertarian case against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is going to the courts now and there is every expectation it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Read Perry Willis’ testimony if you want to know more of the details.
I hope Real Campaign Reform succeeds in their civil liberties battle for us, but if they should fail… our North American readers could organize some very creative Guerilla Campaigning. You may want to begin planning of your 2004 campaign law snoot cocking right now.
Your mission, should you chose to accept it Mr. Phelps, is to keep alive the idea of a free and open political process. Here are a few ideas:
- Start your own underground Free Libertarian Voters “cell” (the FLV as opposed to the dastardly LFV) with a few trustworthy friends. No one outside your group should even know you have “formed”. Above all, do not discuss this with anyone who is involved with an above ground “official” campaign group. Look in a mirror and practice not telling yourself about it.
- Using your own computers and printers, make up flyers and posters for Libertarian candidates. Do nothing traceable: Big Brother is watching. Go out in the dead of night and plaster them all over. Place stacks in information trays; hand some out to passersby at malls or other busy areas. And don’t forget! Black ski masks are a serious fashion faux pas this season!
- Come up with harmless and non damaging publicity pranks that will garner positive attention to your candidate or perhaps negative attention to the records of the Demopublican candidates. Do this especially in the last few days before the campaign.
- Try to do as much rhetorical damage to the FEC and its’ regulations as you possibly can. Make them look like fools: “Every joke is a tiny revolution”. Make them look like a bunch of anti-democracy demogogues. That they actually are should help you immensely in this task.
- Brainstorm with your cell. Be creative like the “Sons Of Liberty”. They invented guerilla theatre over a few pints in the Green Dragon, an idea so advanced we didn’t invent the name until 190 years later.
Read “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. It worked for the Left, it will work for you! This book is also very funny. I’d never have thought of a political use for baked beans.
- Don’t get caught. You really could be in it extremely deep. You could go to jail for supporting the candidate of your choice in a non-State approved fashion, time and place.
- If you are caught, read about the Chicago 7 for some really cool ideas on how to make a mockery of the campaign laws in the courtroom. Judge Hoffman is probably long retired by now, but there are other buffoons in robes and you might get lucky. If you’re going to spend a few years behind bars, you might as well land a good blow for Liberty on the way to the slammer.
Read defendant Abbie Hoffman’s “Steal This Book” or “Revolution for the Hell of It” to get into the proper frame of mind. Again. It worked for the Left, it’ll work for you!
- “Black world” campaigning must always be totally deniable by real campaign organizations. You can’t work in both. You can’t even communicate across the boundary. They cannot know who you are or what you are doing, not even a clue. For real. I’m not joking.
- Watch what the official campaign is doing and follow their lead. Campaign managers know more about what is going on than you do. Don’t go off on your own tangent. Remember the Hippocratic Oath: “The first rule is to do no harm”.
It will be good practice just in case more of our civil liberties have to be exercised underground. I guess one could say “If political campaigning is outlawed, only outlaws will have political campaigns.”
We aren’t called Samizdata for nothing you know!
This tape will self destruct in zzzzzztttttttttttttttt………..
The Canadian government official who branded U.S. President George W. Bush a “moron” has resigned, news services report.
Consider the recent actions and achievements of this ‘moron’:
- Propose a massive cutback in world tariffs.
- Republicans win back control of the Senate and boost control in House of Representatives.
- The tax cut.
- Force UN to get serious about Iraq.
- Stiff the Kyoto Treaty.
- Ditto the International Criminal Court.
- Kick out the Taliban from Afghanistan.
- Foster vastly improved relations with Russia.
- Make serious social security reform a key GOP agenda item.
- Fracture the Democrat hold on the ethnic vote.
And finally,
- Seriously annoy the EU junta.
Okay, okay, I hear you libertarians cry, what about the Patriot Act, the Farm Bill, the steel tariffs? All fair criticisms. But the oft-repeated claim from the chattering classes that Bush is a dope is plainly silly. They are making the same mistake they made about Ronald Reagan.
I saw an interview on ITV news tonight of a fellow in NYC who has seen all of the new proposed designs for replacing the World Trade Center.
He said unequivocably the selected design will restore the New York skyline, make it as it was. All designs are tall and some are even taller than the WTC buildings were. All are said to be stunning. The man could hardly stop from grinning as he spoke. You could see the glee in his eyes.
This sounds more like the America I grew up in.
The National Ammo Day BUYcott is today, November 19th. Remember all those people in other nations who have been disarmed by their governments when you stock up on a few boxes of your favorite 9mm and 308 Win.
No retreat. No surrender.
I don’t smoke. I don’t like the whiff of a cigarette and frequently will come back from a certain pub, cursing the atmosphere in the boozer for making my clothing reek of ciggies. I think that so-called ‘passive smoking’, while it may not cause cancer or other health problems, is certainly unpleasant. I prefer to sit in the non-smoking bits of a restaurant if at all possible and ask people in my apartment not to smoke. So there it is.
And yet, and yet… I loathe the cultural jihad in the West that has been going on against smokers. The latest lunacy has been the decision by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to ban smoking in all public places. All of them. So even if the owner of a private restaurant or bar (which are of course private property) says it is okay to smoke, and the customers are okay with that, the ban must be imposed nonetheless. Never mind that no one is forced to go into a bar or restaurant if they dislike the atmosphere. This is a clear violation of property rights. Of course with true public spaces which have been funded out of tax, the situation is a bit different and with subways, safety issues to do with fire can be used to justify a ban, or partial one.
But Bloomberg, owner of a some sort of news company  , is showing a total lack of proportion. Since September 11, 2001, New Yorkers have occasionally had many reasons to steady their nerves and enjoy the indulgences of this fleeting life. For some, it may be the taste of a delicious bagel, or a sip of a beer. But for many citizens of that great city, it has been about lighting up a cigarette.
Kevin Connors thinks the Democratic Party is in even worse shape than many think
In his National Post article, Matt Welch has the audacity to assert that California Governor Gray Davis, perhaps the most loathsome major office holder in America today, is a front-runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2004. He has a snowball’s chance in hell, but the fact that an idea so preposterous would even have currency is telling of the sorry shape of the party.
At least a plurality of pundits agree that the nomination is Al Gore’s for the taking, if he wants it. because “that’s the way things are done.” But he’d have to totally reinvent himself to be more than a joke in the general election. The same can be said of Tom Daschle, Joe Biden and Dick Gephardt; they represent a Democratic party that the electorate has roundly rejected in this year’s election.
Of those currently in the spotlight, only John Kerry would seem to have the least chance in November of 2004. But, I believe, he still falls far short of the mark. Joe Leiberman, while he has looked good vis-a-vis the War on Terror, is still quite tainted from selling out his moderate principles to share the ticket with Gore in 2000. And, sadly, there’s always his religion to consider.
What the Democrats need at this point is a knight in shining armour. An otherwise unconsidered figure to come riding in out of the shadows and save the day. I assert that The man to fill the bill here is Sam Nunn. At 64 and retired from the Senate since 1996, the Georgia professor and attorney is still quite active in politics and business. His moderate credentials are solid, he is highly respected on matters of education, defense, and foreign relations and is very well liked both in and out of Washington (but apparently not North Korea). Sam Nunn is the last best hope for the Jackass Party.
Kevin Connors
I have been decrying the rapid emergence of a British panoptic total surveillance state but do not think this is a purely British problem. A NYTimes article reports Pentagon plans a computer system that would peek at personal data of Americans
(Free registration required to link). Peek is of course a euphemism for ‘spy on’.
Historically, military and intelligence agencies have not been permitted to spy on Americans without extraordinary legal authorization. But Admiral Poindexter, the former national security adviser in the Reagan administration, has argued that the government needs broad new powers to process, store and mine billions of minute details of electronic life in the United States.
Admiral Poindexter, who has described the plan in public documents and speeches but declined to be interviewed, has said that the government needs to “break down the stovepipes” that separate commercial and government databases, allowing teams of intelligence agency analysts to hunt for hidden patterns of activity with powerful computers.
“We must become much more efficient and more clever in the ways we find new sources of data, mine information from the new and old, generate information, make it available for analysis, convert it to knowledge, and create actionable options,” he said in a speech in California earlier this year.
Naturally anyone who values civil liberties and is not blindly trusting of the state is far from enthusiastic about this.
“A lot of my colleagues are uncomfortable about this and worry about the potential uses that this technology might be put, if not by this administration then by a future one,” said Barbara Simon, a computer scientist who is past president of the Association of Computing Machinery. “Once you’ve got it in place you can’t control it.”
[…]
If deployed, civil libertarians argue, the computer system would rapidly bring a surveillance state. They assert that potential terrorists would soon learn how to avoid detection in any case.
Yet of course that is not what the official line. Predictably…
“What we are doing is developing technologies and a prototype system to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists, and decipher their plans, and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully pre-empt and defeat terrorist acts,” said Jan Walker, the spokeswoman for the defense research agency.
And how will they “detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists”? By spying on the communications of tens of millions of Americans daily without so much as a search warrent of course. This is far from just a British problem.
|
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.
|
