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]
|
Well, if you’re going to have libertarian Kipling, you’d better get a good strong dose of MacDonough’s Song:
Whether the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth–
These are matters of high concern
Where the State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.
Whether the People be led by the Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by the vote–
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from the grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.
Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King–
Or Holy People’s Will–
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!
Saying–after–me–
Once there was The People–Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once there was The People–it shall never be again!
From Asia Times
From German literature Nobel laureate Guenter Grass to Swedish bestselling mystery novel author Henning Mankell, from conscience-stricken German social democrats to politically clueless French socialists, it’s all clear as daylight: The arrogant new imperialist Americans brought September 11 upon themselves; now they are arrogantly and callously bombing the hell out of one of the world’s poorest nations, ignorantly flailing about rogue-elephant style, crushing friend and foe, presumed-guilty and innocent alike. Here’s how Mankell, speaking for – ahh so many of his co-thinkers – put it: “My first thought was, oh what a horrible story. But the next thought was: I’m not surprised … I’ve seen it coming. The gap between rich and poor for many years has been growing ever larger. The poor have nothing to lose. The United States, I’m afraid, has acted arrogantly in many respects … We have to solve the problem of poverty. We have to tackle the AIDS problem. And we must strengthen the emancipation of women …”
There are variations to the theme: The Palestinians must be given their own state; globalism must be reined in; the root causes of terrorism must be addressed; indiscriminate bombing of a poverty-stricken country will only reinforce terrorist sentiments and support; terror as such is an abstraction – fighting it an impossible dilemma.
There are truths and truisms in the war critics’ and opponents’ complaints and laments. But for the better part of the less left-sophisticated populace of Western and Asian nations alike (us included), such sophistry holds little water. Mass murder was committed on September 11; 5,000 people died. There is simply no way that can or will be excused or “explained” away. To the political misfortune of leftists, greens, anti-globalists, what have you, overwhelming popular majorities want justice to be done and punishment exacted. And to their greater political misfortune, that popular sentiment will prove not merely a temporary reaction but is here to stay, it is making a profound impact on the fortunes of political leaders, and it will soon make large impacts at ballot boxes.
In the US, that’s an open and shut case. Question the manner in which President George W Bush expresses himself; but make no mistake about the support for his policies and leadership team and the confidence Americans have in the way conservatives from New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have conducted themselves and conducted policy over the past two months. The very notion that they are conservatives and hence might only represent the views of one portion of the political spectrum has disappeared. What they have said and done is seen as right and just and simply representing common sense. Most of those once to the left of them have joined them. The 50:50 Bush-Gore political divide of a year ago is no more.
Similarly in Europe, there has been a political seachange. Conservative French President Jacques Chirac who politically had his back against the wall earlier this year has made a dramatic comeback. Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin has barely been heard from. Conservative German social-democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder enjoys the highest approval ratings of his three-year tenure; leftist critics in his own party and the Greens have found no voice or cause to oppose him. The once unimaginable, that a leading Green Party politician, parliamentary defense expert Angelika Beer, now regards the deployment of ground forces in Afghanistan as necessary, now causes barely a political ripple. The center-right government of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, shaky at home and once seen as a potential political menace Europe-wide, is firmly entrenched in power.
In Asia, the issue of Islam, that nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia and, of course, Pakistan have large Muslim majorities, tends to blur political perspectives. But radical Islamism, while politically noisy, is in fact on the retreat and seen as a threat to be combatted, not appeased. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf made it a point to stop over in Turkey on his way to Europe and the US and the point will not be lost on his political friends and foes: Musharraf, educated in Turkey early in his life, has always regarded Turkish secularizer and modernizer Kemal Ataturk as the historical figure to emulate.
The global political landscape has changed vastly since September 11 and is continuing to change rapidly. It will now remain to be seen to what extent and how fast new political allegiances and strategic alliances will be able to transform openings and opportunities for construction and implementation of more rational political and economic policies into permanent realities. But for the first time since the end of the Cold War, that chance now realistically exists. The US, main target of the terrorists and their leftists sympathizers and “explainers”, will play a lead role in this transformation. However, the political constellations world-wide are now such that much of the US agenda has broad-based support rather than being seen as an imposition. Loose talk of a “new imperialism” is off the mark; it crucially ignores new realities and political forces.
______________________________________________________________
David comments:
I must confess that, after reading this, I had mixed emotions; I wavered between ecstatically happy and delirious with glee. Apart from the overwhelming satisfaction of the anti-everything mob getting it’s comeuppance there is the added delicious irony that the coup de grace has been delivered by one of their own – for what is Bin Laden except a student marxist with a ‘schmatter’ on his bonce? And to think of all the years we’ve spent arguing passionately the case for freedom and individuality…But who cares? We’ve won. Let the bells peal and pretty girls dance in the streets for we can declare Victory over Communism. Let’s get demobbed and beat our swords into nails which we can use to hammer into the coffins of the woodstockers, the flat-earthers and the 68 generation (who cares if they’re still breathing?)
But, lo soft and wait. Is this victory? Have we won? I mean, really. Look around you, comrades, for another better armed, better trained and better fed foe stalks the earth in search of tribunes to humble. I’m talking about the big NWO corporatist bugga-boo that lived and breathed fire long before Bin Laden popped his fat-lips over the parapet of history. The bugga-boo said that civil-liberties + tax havens = drugs. Now the bugga-boo says that civil-liberties + tax havens = terrorism and won’t there be oh so many crinkley mouths when this is proven, tragically, to be right?
Victory it may be but it is a victory of sorts; victory after a fashion. This is not Virginia in 1776, it is Poland in 1945
Alright, I dramatize. But on this rattling train of years those of us who have ‘Galt’s Gulch’ stamped as the destination on our tickets have always known that it lies at the very end of the line. Maybe. Next stop, Singapore?
For a libertarian angle on the Harry Potter phenomenon, check out Natalie’s blog and look for the article “Harry Potter and the Libertarian Subtext”. Most entertaining.
There was a time when fraternity pranks meant something. When a frat had to really do something creative or at least utterly stupid to get kicked off a campus. One of the best stories I know of was about the Theti Xi chapter at CMU. In a hell night circa 1959, the brothers went out and welded a trolley car to the tracks. One brother asked for change for a twenty, which was a large sum at the time. And yes, trolley drivers did carry change back in that politer and better behaved day and age. Meanwhile one or more other brothers placed the thermite “bomb” at the trolley’s wheel. The rest is history. The City of Pittsburgh had to send out a crane to lift the trolley off the track after the segment of track was cut in front and behind with a torch. Hey, these were CMU engineering students. They know how to do it the job right.
The frat of course got suspended from pledging for nearly four years and was nearly wiped out. Which is fair enough for a prank of that magnitude and expense. But it was funny and the stuff legends are made of. I’d not have believed it at all if one of the brothers had not shown me a scrap book with the original city newspaper clipping. I also saw the wheel and section of track, which were still floating around frat row in my day.
So what is my point? Well, Glenn Reynolds has just posted this link about a rather minor bit of frat fun at the University of Wisconson. At a student variety show, a student pretended to be a black basketball star known for his lines in a commercial. They thought it would be even funnier if he appeared in blackface makeup.
For this the school is considering expulsions. Now I am not one to just idly sit back and talk. I used google, the search engine what God gave us, and with a trivial amount of work arrived at the email address of the Vice Chancellor. I settled for him since there was no email address for the Chancellor. The point of this ramble is best summarized by the email which I have sent to him:
I think you should think long and hard about the real meaning of this and the liberties that will be infringed upon if the fraternity students are punished for basically… nothing at all.
University life is a time for doing silly things, being a complete idiot, even being a total ass. That is part of being a member of a free society.
Likewise others have the freedom to state that they think you have been foolish. However they do not have the right to force you to behave or speak otherwise. Those are the protections that the constitution gives all Americans. It does not say “Freedom of speech, so long as you say or do nothing contrary to the prevailing local opinion”.
Your students have the right to burn the flag, protest war, wear blackface makeup, streak across the campus commons, and do any of those things that students do. Other students have the right to disagree and to state their disagreement, whether it be to have a pro-war demonstration or to stand outside the frat house with signs. That is what a free society is all about.
What a free society is *not* about is heavy handed enforcement of behavior from above. I would sincerely hope that should that be the course the University takes against these kids, that they get a good civil liberties lawyer and sue the pants off you.
As Russell Means said at the 1987 Libertarian National Convention, “Freedom is For Everyone.”
(a right winger’s reaction to Perry’s “Giving libertarianism a left hook” article)
I must confess that this idea of a ‘left hook’ for libertarianism is one that I find simultaneously intruiging and implausible
Intellectually I know that Perry makes a very good case when he places traditional ‘left’ and ‘right’ ideas within meta-contexts that, to a large degree, are no long relevant or useful
Certainly arguments about civil liberties generally do, and have for some time, found a more sympathetic audience among Guardianistas than Daily Mailers but, speaking from personal experience, when I have tried to link these to economic liberty, I have run into a veritable Berlin Wall of denial and rejection
I appreciate however, that the term ‘left’ is not monolithic and embraces people with all manner of varying worldviews and epistomolgies and, whilst we may be able to reach some, many (if not most) will be horrified by our vision of a more prosperous, dynamic, healthier and innovative world because those things are poison to them. The essence of the marxist project is deeply anti-life and anti-human and it’s adherents first and last ambitions are destruction not creativity. A better world is the antithesis of their unstated aims
However, I am prepared to acknowledge that I am carrying more baggage then a Spanish hotel porter. My own roots lie in the Conservative Right and my fear and hatred of socialism is so instinctive and visceral that it’s rather akin to a form of arachnophobia. If I see a leftist scuttling across the carpet I cannot help but to run out of the room screaming “kill it, kill it. Hit it with a slipper and kill it”
Personally speaking it is going to take a great deal of patient aversion therapy in order to let one of them crawl over my arm
Still, I would be foolish to rule this out entirely purely because I have grown terminally weary of trying to reason my socks off with the inbred, pin-striped merchant bankers (in every sense of the term) who infest Conservative Central Office these days
or how to make the traditions of the left our own
Libertarians come in many hyphenated flavours, but very few genuine libertarians see themselves as being on the political left. So called ‘Socialist’ libertarians are not libertarians at all. They are as oxymoronic as meat eating vegetarians: any value set that would deny economic free association and true several property, denies personal liberty, and you are not a libertarian unless you advocate personal liberty as first amongst civil virtues.
Thus from this fairly self-evident proposition, most libertarians see themselves as either being on the ‘right’ or at least they do not see themselves as being on the ‘left’. However just what does left and right really mean in this post-cold war era? I would contend that within the context of libertarianism, left and right are actually meaningless ideologically speaking. Conservatives and socialists ascribe various meanings to these terms based on their respective statist perspectives. However as we do not share those views, we can safely look beyond their definitions and see rather different essential differences and similarities for ourselves. Whilst conservatives and socialists see what differentiates them, as libertarians our perspectives allow us to see the shared statist axioms that in fact make them so similar in modern western societies. This sort of observation is hardly ground breaking. In the 1940’s Hayek pointed out in ‘The Road to Serfdom’ the truism (to us) that far from being the antithesis of the left, the Nazis were just another form of socialism. Similarly early 21st Century libertarians can see that there is actually little to choose between Tory ‘Conservatism’ and Blairite Labour ‘Socialism’ circa 2001 in real terms of policy and underpinning assumptions as to the role of the state.
What libertarians need to understand is that there are indeed important differences between the ‘left’ and ‘right’, but they are meta-contextual rather than ideological now that we no longer live in a simpler bipolar world. That is to say, the left and right come from very different traditions that strongly colour their respective views of how the world really works and thus how they interpret any ideological issue presented to them.
Bearing this in mind, libertarians need to realise that by mentally allying themselves to the ‘right’, they are actually not making a useful ideological distinction at all. In fact, by doing so, they run the risk of clothing themselves in cultural meta-contextual baggage that is often profoundly unhelpful. What is needed is a more dispassionate analysis as to what other people understand by ‘left’ and ‘right’ and a more pragmatic, or dare I say, even cynical use of that meta-contextual baggage for our own purposes.
For example, a key ‘vibe’ of the ‘left’ tradition is the view of the world as a struggle from the bottom against forces of hierarchy. Thus an anti-business proposition that portrays the corporate boardroom as an essentially hostile power centre to the ‘common man’ employee is an ‘easy sell’ when presented to someone who views the world from within that meta-context.
However, a meta-context is just a tradition of thought, not a philosophy per se. Let us take the fact that as the airline industries across the world are said to be in dire troubles, various interventionist governments are pouring tax monies into flag carriers to prop them up. This is not really the sort of issue to greatly exercise people on the traditional ‘left’, who view economic intervention as perfectly normal or the ‘right’, who view ‘helping’ companies as perfectly normal, provided they are big companies. However, this issue can indeed be made to resonate with the ‘left’ by framing it precisely in the terms that fit their traditions of thought:
“Yet again the boardroom is using its corrupting influence with politicians to screw the common man and take our tax money to reward poor management by the board and bale out some fat cat shareholders. It is hard to say who is worse, the incompetent directors who did not plan for unforeseen problems, the greedy shareholders or the money-for-the-boys politicians doling out our tax money.”
What have we just done? We have just made a seemingly “anti-business” argument designed to fit within the meta-contextual world view of the left. We have also just made an argument in favour of laissez-faire.
Many on the ‘left’ are actually natural allies of the libertarian view on civil liberties, yet they cannot extend the same logic to economic liberties. Part of the problem is the fact that libertarians, largely speaking from the meta-context of the ‘right’, frame economic issues in such a manner as to predispose opposition from the ‘left’. If we are to rescue the ‘left’ from collectivism, we must learn to speak the language of the left and tap into deep traditions of resistance and non-deferential social values that could serve us well. It is not just a case of picking the issues to attract people from the left but how we present them.
Hostility to business regulation is almost invariably presented as a ‘right’ issue and framed in the language and meta-contextual frames of reference of the ‘right’. Yet why not pitch this very issue to the left in terms that resonate for them as well?
“See how entrenched businesses work with their political stooges in government to keep under capitalised common people from competing with them? They raise regulatory barriers to keep the working class would-be entrepreneurs out by raising the cost of establishing a new business, thereby keeping the market safe for the forces of oligopoly and faceless chain stores.”
Rather than the usual ‘right’ arguments involving imposed costs to the established business being regulated, we take an equally true consequence of regulatory imposition and serve it up with a left spin. Whilst the use of language may be cynical, no ideological compromise is required and there is nothing dishonest about the argument being made. Once we realise that ‘left’ and ‘right’ are just traditional meta-contextual frames of reference and do not have any real objective political content in and of themselves, we can effectively inject our libertarian memes into both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ world views. By doing this, we broaden our ability to communicate with people who might otherwise see us as being ‘one of them’ rather than ‘one of us’. When in the ring and fighting the good fight, do not deny yourself a good left hook.
[This article is also available in slightly expanded form as Libertarian Alliance Tactical Note pamphlet no.29 in pdf format. Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar]
|
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.
|
