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]
|
In this age where ancient protections of Liberty are openly scoffed upon by the powers that be, it behooves us to proclaim loudly from the rooftops those rights they much prefer buried and forgotten. I wonder how many of you know it is a basic Right of an American Juror to judge not only on fact but on law as well? As this forum has a large libertarian readership, I wager it is far higher than in the general public – but still depressingly low.
Jury Nullification is an ancient right of law inherited from England. It is yet another of the many glorious innovations in the defense of liberty invented here and forsaken in the rush to fascism of the last hundred years. Jury trial, Double Jeopardy, Habeas Corpus and Innocence until Proven Guilty all seem destined to follow it into the Westminster tip.
These foundational protections are still fairly safe in America. It is also the case Jury Nullification is still valid law there. This is not a matter of strange interpretations. It is a dirty little secret which is not easily swept under the courthouse rug.
I’ve known a number of activists in the battle to pass Fully Informed Jury laws, so I’ve long been aware of the importance of this concept in American history. The ancestors of many black Americans owe their freedom to this not-so-arcane bit of legal history. Juries could not be found that would convict workers on the “Underground Railroad” which helped so many escape the degradation of being self portable property. In both English and American history, Jury Nullification has been a bulwark of Liberty. It does not matter who buys the legislature if the courts cannot find a Jury of Peers willing to go along – or be bullied into going along – with the scam.
This is why “The System” hates it so much. It lets you, the six-pack drinking slob on the street tell them the Law itself is unjust – and make it stick. It makes you, the citizen, the final arbiter of what is Just.
I bring this up tonight because I finally “got around to” reading a legal paper by Glenn Reynolds on the topic. It’s quite a good one and I think anyone interested in how the system used to work to protect liberty should read it.
Make sure everyone you know who might possibly be called for jury duty knows it as well, and knows if the Judge or Prosecutor threatens them… it is the Judge or Prosecutor who is breaking the law, not the Juror.
A commenter, who might otherwise buy a moral case for making war on communist regimes, has pointed out that the local citizens should do their ‘job’ and overthrow the nasty regimes. The argument seems to be that the locals should do it, if they are in favour of freedom and democracy, and thus demonstrate that they are worthy of our support. Such suggestion can only be made with certain assumptions. As a self-appointed champion of the individual facing a totalitarian state, I shall respond to them.
It has been said, and I believe it to be the case, that the people of a nation are only as free as they want to be. The Cubans have long had the power to overthrow Castro, but have simply chosen to live with him and the poverty he brings.
With respect, that is utter nonsense. The assumption here is that ‘the people’ are a collective entity with the ability to act unanimously. In reality, it is a large number of individuals against whom monopolised and institutionalised violence is used on a regular basis. After a couple of decades of propaganda and control of information by the state, the system needs only an occassional tweaking and a careful monitoring of the non-conformist elements of the castrated society.
Same with the Iraqis. As vile a creature as Saddam is, he would be out of power if the Iraqis were willing to make sacrifices for rebellion. Sure, the terror tactics used by Saddam (chopping up bodies and delivering them to homes in body bags, killing his own relatives, etc.) serve to scare the populace into submission. However, the power and the choice is there. What is needed is enough patriots to give their blood to plant the seed that will grow into tree of liberty.
No, the power is not there, the choice is not there. You can have as many Iraqis as possible, individually knowing that Saddam is a vile creature and yet not be able or ready to fight him. Unless there is an organised resistance, it is impossible for a ‘nation’ to ‘free itself’ from tyranny. The more brutal a regime is, the more difficult is to dislodge it. You need a critical mass of individuals each one of them willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. The more brutal a regime, the more it has to loose and the more determined and vicious those supporting it are.
The Iranians seem to be realizing this. There are actually true Iranian patriots willing to die for freedom. The roots of liberty are spreading within the hearts and souls of each individual Iranian. This is the best way to overthrow tyrants – from the ground up, not the top down.
Hmm, if the roots of liberty are spreading within the hearts and souls of each individual Iranian, then I’d better move to Iran because it is the only country where this is happening. Don’t you think that Iranian resistance has something to do with the Western life style and freedoms it offers, such as mixed-sex parties and alcohol and other goodies that the islamic kill-joys don’t want young Iranians to have. The professor, who may be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, is doing so in a situation that puts the government at the disadvantage. Why has the situation arisen in the first place? Because the Iranian regime doesn’t want to look illiberal to the western world. And so we have the external influence again, getting in the way of the neat image of ground-up liberty blossoming in the heart of each Iranian patriot…
You can point to Germany and Japan all you want, but the tradition of freedom was already prevalent in their cultures prior to hijacking by fascists.
Yes, I will point to Germany where there was the tradition of freedom as much as any other European country at the time. But the Germans did not overthrow fascism and the internal opposition to Hitler had been squashed ruthlessly well before the war. Japan on the other hand, had no tradition of freedom before fascism, hence the need for 7-year US ‘presence’ in the country. The Soviet Union did not collapse because of its citizens rising against their oppressors. The country had never had a tradition of freedom, they went straight from serfdom to er, communism… Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, on the other hand, had been democracies before communism. Dissident movements existed and none of the old-style communists resurfaced in post-Cold War governments like in Russia.
…suppose the US makes war with N. Korea and Iraq, and overthrows the communists and Saddam. Then what? Will that magically create freedom? Will the people recognize individual natural rights that lead to a spontaneous societal order? Will they realize the benefits that a respect for property rights brings?
Yes, overthrowing the communists and Saddam will create freedom. No magic, just logic. If you take away the root of oppression, you get freedom. The question is what the people will do with it. If you expect nothing less than recognition of individual natural rights and a spontaneous societal order, that seems rather harsh. I don’t think it’s fair on the poor oppressed population to hold them to a standard much higher than that reached by the assorted lefties polluting the Western societies. One thing you can be sure of, though, is that their will love property rights…
Or will the N. Koreans simply create another socialist government, like the former Soviet republics have chosen to join the socialist EU?
Are you saying that the socialism of the EU is comparable to the Stalinist totalitarianism of the North Koreans?! No one can accuse Samizdata.net to be pro-EU but such suggestion is preposterous. All statisms are not equal. Some are bad and some are even worse.
And will the Iraqis see the US not as the great liberator that saved them from oppression, but as the Great Satan, much like the ungrateful Kuwaitis see the US today?
I don’t see why it is such a tragedy that Kuwaitis are ungrateful. Perhaps they realised that the US ‘liberation’ was not out of love of Kuwait but because it was in the US national interest. Nothing wrong with either.
Can armies and government, the very wellspring of statism, achieve a top-down conception of liberty?
Why should they? I certainly don’t expect them to! Their role is to protect their citizens and remove tyranny if it threatens their liberty. They are to uphold the framework within which freedom can flourish. To remove tyranny from top down means just that, it does not mean an imposition of freedom. I advocate the use of the army and the state to do the former and reserve the latter for the individual.
You are born in a place and time not of your choosing. Growing up you learn about your surroundings, people and places. You are intelligent and start thinking about ideas, history, the world around you and your place in it.
Imagine all sources of information and knowledge are controlled by the state. The world you live in is the only alternative you know. You may have heard of other ones but you have no means of understanding them from the images and details that seep through. Most people around you form their views on the information that the state provides and controls. That means your parents, family, teachers, friends, colleagues… the entire society or what’s left of it. And, of course, there is an enemy out there, set on destroying the utopia the state is leading you to. Can’t trust the outside, they are devious and destructive. They are the enemy of freedom itself, as defined by the all-knowing and all-embracing state.
But as I said, you are intelligent and things don’t add up, your world doesn’t quite fit. This may happen to you as a teenager, when rebellion comes naturally but confidence to take it further often does not. You are not taken seriously and told to wait and see – life will teach you… Or it may come later in life, when the purpose of your everyday efforts suddenly escapes you and you feel the need to recapture it before it’s too late. Alas, you have a family, children, committments and a new set of insecurities collected over the years, that make you vulnerable and any deviation from the norm too risky.
If you are lucky, you have an aged relative or two who remember a different life, free and full of variety and perhaps can explain principles and rules other than those governing the claustrophobic world around you. You start thinking the unthinkable, you see the full horror of your existence and decide to fight the system. You go out in search of people like yourself in hope that you are not alone in your displacement.
Here the interesting part of the story ends. What comes next is dangerous, lonely, depressing, and often pointless.
You find an Underground, a Dissident Movement that may accept you and share with you the mindset and information you need to resist the state propaganda and its violence. You learn just how much of your life and personal details are monitored by the authorities and if you overstep the line, you abandon everything you have taken for granted. You live in pervasive fear and helplessness punctuated by an occassional underground meeting where you share a few political jokes and keep each other assured that it is not you who have gone insane but the society. For that is the main purpose of a dissident movement. Information, its dissemination and a chance to experience a collective spirit that helps you overcome the terrible sense of isolation.
Fear, clammy and unheroic, is your daily bread, not thoughts of liberty, of human rights and of making history. Oh yes, you dream of freedom but not in terms of lofty concepts of a freedom fighter. You want to learn, see and understand the world imagining how superior those who have the freedom to do so must be. They are free to read whatever they want and go wherever they want and so their knowledge and understanding must surpass yours.
And you wait, with the others, for something to help you change your world. You can’t do much, although you have already risked a lot. You wait for a spark, a collective project that would make your sacrifice meaningful. If the government is afraid to use brutal tactics (due to external pressure, no doubt), mass demonstrations and civil disobedience are a likely option. However, if the government is brutal beyond restraint, then your only salvation is help from the outside.
My question to all those who believe in liberty and the rights of the individual and all things beautiful: would you really fight for them? Would you be willing to put your life and perhaps the lives of your loved ones at risk and do so without any guarantee of success? Would you be ready to shed your blood in the name of liberty without knowing whether you are making history or just adding to the list of nameless victims of the tyranny? Would you be able to remain certain that you are right and that everybody else is wrong when the only world you know is the one where they are right? Because those are the choices you have before you, not one of clarity and moral certitude, supported by intellectual arguments and discourse. Every act of resistance, however insignificant on the large scale, is a small victory for sanity and human spirit. But more often than not, it is not enough to defeat the enemy.
The nature of tyranny in places like Iraq and North Korea is one of unrestrained brutality and although they may collapse economically one day, like the Soviet Union did, ultimately it is not just a matter of brave local people standing up for what is right: in such places to do that is tantamount to suicide… the state must be decapitated and realistically that will only happen via foreign military action of some sort (either military aid or outright invasion).
One could argue that it is not the responsibility of foreign taxpayers to free others from tyranny and perhaps this is true, but do not kid yourself that this is a ‘pro-liberty’ response. The US and British Armies cannot impose liberty in Iraq, only the Iraqi’s can do that, but foreign armies can destroy tyranny.
Free Iraq.
Jeffrey Tucker has written a superb article about conservative statist central planning, but one paragraph stands out for me:
Central planning has several universal features. It is coercive. It bypasses the needs of the consumers for the sake of politics. It relies on edicts which may or may not reflect reality. It does not take advantage of the price system, profit, or loss. It is impervious to change. It ignores local conditions. It does not permit flexibility according to circumstance. It robs those who know the most of the ability of make decisions and innovate. It creates incentives to obey the plan but diverts attention from the real goal, whatever it may be (and it may be the wrong goal). It ends up over utilizing material resources, underutilizing human ones, and not generating the intended results.
What could I possibly add to that?
There are all manner of idiots in the world. There are dangerous idiots, annoying idiots, (Lord help us) influential idiots and then there are some idiots who wallow in such specious gibberish that it requires a hard heart to look upon them as anything other than pitiful.
The Guardian (where else?) has a long record of providing a platform for pitiful idiots as illustrated by the column they insist on giving to George Monbiot:
“If we take into account such factors as pollution and the depletion of natural capital, we see that the quality of life peaked in the UK in 1974 and in the US in 1968, and has been falling ever since. We are going backwards.”
Perhaps it’s just you that is going backwards, George. Not sure about the rest of us. Mind you if you right, then perhaps the nutty 60’s has something to do with it.
“The reason should not be hard to grasp. Our economic system depends upon never-ending growth, yet we live in a world with finite resources. Our expectation of progress is, as a result, a delusion.”
Ah George, you haven’t been reading your Julian Simon like a good boy. You haven’t have you? Naughty.
“Speak this truth in public and you are dismissed as a crank, a prig, a lunatic.”
Which you clearly have been.
“The laws of thermodynamics impose inherent limits upon biological production.”
Er, care to explain that, George?
“Even the repayment of debt, the pre-requisite of capitalism, is mathematically possible only in the short-term. As Heinrich Haussmann has shown, a single pfennig invested at 5% compounded interest in the year AD 0 would, by 1990, have reaped a volume of gold 134bn times the weight of the planet. Capitalism seeks a value of production commensurate with the repayment of debt.”
I’d love to give this a Fisking but I must confess that I have no idea what the f*cking hell he is actually talking about. It sounds like the kind of marxoid tripe they teach at universities and which is so deliberately opaque that it must be very clever and authoratative and therefore beyond question.
“Now, despite the endless denials, it is clear that the wall towards which we are accelerating is not very far away. Within five or 10 years, the global consumption of oil is likely to outstrip supply. Every year, up to 75bn tonnes of topsoil are washed into the sea as a result of unsustainable farming, which equates to the loss of around 9m hectares of productive land.”
Time for a ‘Made-up-Statistics’ warning!
“Every national newspaper in Britain lamented the “disappointing” volume of sales before Christmas. Sky News devoted much of its Christmas Eve coverage to live reports from Brent Cross, relaying the terrifying intelligence that we were facing “the worst Christmas for shopping since 2000”.
Suppose that has nothing whatsoever to do with Gordon Brown’s tax increases which have deprived us of so much of our disposable income? No, course not. Silly me for even asking.
“The economist Bernard Lietaer has shown how a system based upon negative rates of interest would ensure that we accord greater economic value to future resources than to present ones. By shifting taxation from employment to environmental destruction, governments could tax over-consumption out of existence. But everyone who holds power today knows that her political survival depends upon stealing from the future to give to the present.”
‘Bernard Lietaer’? Never heard of him but I’ll wager that he’s the kind of smelly, dysfunctional political activist who haunts Labour Party fringe meetings with a shopping bag full of newspaper clipping and scribbled essays in the hope that he’ll get an opportunity to corner some hapless victim and bore them into the grave.
“Everything we thought was good – giving more exciting presents to our children, flying to a friend’s wedding, even buying newspapers – turns out also to be bad.”
Buying the Guardian is definitely bad. Otherwise that one sentence contains everything you need to know about Mr.Monbiot. He is a jealous, begrudging loser who has spun an ideological mask of deceit around himself in order to provide a fig-leaf for his po-faced, anti-human, defeatist miserabilism.
Pitiful. Just pitiful.
“America is fighting the War on Terrorism for one reason: to Secure the American Homeland, whatever it takes. If that takes Empire, fine.”
Trent Telenko
I hope that the US destroys the North Korean Communist regime by the time I’ve posted this text. If there is a legitimate nuclear target anywhere on Earth right now, the North Korean plutonium refinery has to be it.
I also would give a cheer if Saddam Hussein were to end up dead in a traffic accident, or choke on caviar, or find breathing under a pillow difficult, or take a cruise missile up his fundament.
And I am crtainly not one of those people who hopes that lots of American troops die in Iraq over the next few months.
I fear that the British military capability is over-stretched and less effective than its champions would like us to believe. For this reason I am wary of jingoistic talk in London. I would prefer to hear about orders for a decent rifle, a decent tank, a fighter that’s actually operational and reassurance that the anti-chemical warfare suits work.
I also question the double talk about nukes in Iraq when the good reasons for toppling/killing Saddam are…
- he’s a national socialist tyrant
- he’s allegedly one of Al-Qaeda’s main financial and logistical backers.
I’m told there is evidence to back up this claim, so why the red herrings?
BUT, the comment which opens this posting worries me. First it is obvious that if President Bush were seriously taking this line (I don’t think he is, but Mr Telenko may know better), then Europe had better do a deal with the fundamentalists, because America is clearly prepared to sacrifice allies as part of “whatever it takes”, it has the ring of the Yalta betrayal about it. The history of Japan from 1902 to 1945 and its deteriorating relations with the British and Americans is a nasty precedent.
Second “if that takes empire, fine” is precisely the scenario in which libertarians should not (and many will not) support the US. Waco was not a crime because Americans were killed, September 11th would have been a crime if the only victims had been Latino office cleaners. “Homeland” is a very nasty term to the four thousand seven hundred million people who don’t have a US passport or a Green Card. If the War on Terrorism is about protecting the US at the expense of the rest of the world, we’ve got a new Iron Curtain coming down, this time in front of the Statue of Liberty.
I really didn’t expect my warnings about the long-term temptation of absolute power to be vindicated so quickly.
The trick to beating student unions is to force them to follow their arguments to conclusion. Student politicians tend to be the sort of student who enjoys controlling other people’s lives. They hear fond stories of student protests in the 1960s, but are disillusioned by the lack of interest in student politics among today’s undergraduates. Boycotts particularly appeal to this mindset.
Let’s say a student politician proposes that the union ceases trading with any business with involvement in Burma. The result of such a ban would be minimal. But why should only Burma be included? The boycott is because the country has a poor human rights record. Surely, therefore, the union should cease dealings any country that abuses human rights? It is much better to student politicians the idea that lots of products ought to be banned. That way, there are two possible outcomes. The boycott will be stopped by the Tory wets (who would put up with a boycott of Guinness but couldn’t cope if Gordon’s disappeared too). Alternatively, half the drinks in the union bar disappear overnight, in which case people stop going to the union, and its power therefore decreases. It’s a win-win situation.
The problem is that this strategy is far too risky when it comes to national politics. If you tell the government to be more consistent, it might actually do what you say, and mess up the entire country. It’s much better for governments to mess up the economy inconsistently than do it properly.
Reading David Carr’s criticism of the Galileo system reminds me of the Lord of the Rings.
Specifically the question is whether it is better for there to be one superpower, or several powers. David seems to take the view that the EU is evil, but the US is good… or at least less evil). As a centralised state emerges on the European continent, this may appear to some British Libertarians like nothing less than the re-emergence of the Dark Lord in Mordor.
Tolkien would possibly see as more complicated: the US acting perhaps like the doomed kingdom of Numenor. The US military hegemony as analogous to Galadriel taking the One Ring:
[Sam Speaks]
“But if you’ll pardon my speaking out, I think my master was right. I wish you’d take his Ring. You’d put things to rights. You’d stop them digging up the gaffer and turning him adrift. You’d make some folks pay for their dirty work.”
[Galadriel replies]
“I would” she said. “That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas! We will not speak more of it. Let us go!”
The Fellowship of the Ring, Chapter Seven, The Mirror of Galadriel
How many American readers of Samizdata would agree that the British Empire was a force for world freedom? Not many judging by the numbers who think it was wrong for the US to intervene in both World Wars. The problem is that the British Empire was at times a force for free trade and at other times a mercantilist extortion racket.
The US empire to come is unlikely to be as restrained as the British Empire, because of the socialist ethos of state imposed education, and crusades such as ridding the Third World of cheap (child) labour, the War on Drugs, the War on Tax Evasion, trying to impose a worldwide age of sexual consent, banning alcohol before 21, but making it almost compulsory thereafter, the imposition of American patent law worldwide, and of course, global weapons control.
In other words, although US global supremacy starts better than the Soviet dream of a worldwide Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it could end up the same:
“That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas!”
Which is why I hope the Galileo system works, and that other countries develop stealth bombers… and that nuclear weapons proliferate.
The truth is out there. It has been for some time. Ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the brute thuggery endured by the Eastern Europeans and the poverty and despoilation to which they subjected, are common knowledge. Likewise the pitiful carnage of Cambodia’s ‘Killing Fields’. The blood-chilling stories of cannibalism in North Korea are corroborated by too many sources to be regarded as mere speculation.
Of course, we crusading capitalists knew all along and made no secret of it, while our left-wing compatriots waspishly accused us of being, well, ‘capitalists’. It was the very worst insult they could muster and carried with the implication that we were liars and wreckers. For so long as they could avoid being confronted with the terrible truth, they could dance ecstatically in the Elysian Fields of La-La Land.
But no longer do they have any excuses. They may still swoon for the nostalgia of heady, revolutionary days gone by but no longer can they plausibly deny the life-sapping horror that the philosophy of Karl Marx has wrought upon mankind.
Nonetheless, and to my abject disbelief, students pound the streets of Seattle and Genoa waving ‘Hammer & Sickle’ flags while, emblazoned on their T-shirts, are the images of Mao, Lenin and Che Guevarra. Just what is going on inside their addled brains? It is as if they are suffering from some grievous malady that has struck them completely blind to the glaring lessons of very recent and eminantly accessible history.
If you have been as astounded by all this as I have, then this (somewhat lengthy) article in the Economist may be of interest:
“Books on Marx aimed at undergraduates and non-specialists continue to sell steadily in Western Europe and the United States. And new ones keep coming. For instance, Verso has just published, to warm reviews, “Marx’s Revenge” by Meghnad Desai, a professor of economics at the London School of Economics. Mr Desai argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for. In August, Oxford University Press published “Why Read Marx Today?” by Jonathan Wolff. It too is an engaging read. The author, a professor at University College London, is a particularly skilful elucidator of political philosophy. In his book, he argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for.”
→ Continue reading: Why old commies never die
In so far as this slogan declares a beautiful and simple truth, it does not prompt me to go and read James Lileks. But that’s because I already do read James Lileks. Avidly and regularly (doesn’t everyone?).
All the more reason, then, for a particular phrase or position in his column to stand out for me and ignite a bonfire of ideas in my head. This time, the great man says:
“…make a crack about “Women’s Studies” departments, as I did in yesterday’s screed, and people think you’re opposed to women’s studies. I’m not.”
It is taken from the screed that inspired the above-mentioned slogan and it is a view from which I beg to differ. I am opposed to ‘Women’s Studies’. I am opposed to all ‘studies’ be they women’s, social, peace, gay, ethnic, media, vegan, enviro-mental or any other ‘studies’ one may care to mention.
‘Studies’ are not about studying. They are nothing whatsoever to do with pushing forth the frontiers of knowledge. It is not about learning, it is about anti-learning. ‘Studies’ are the colonies of the marxist academic imperium established to train future operatives in the principles and means of deconstruction and social engineering. They are the proving grounds of the middle-class kleptocrats that spend their lives absorbing wealth while serving in NGOs, committees and state bureaucracies, manipulating and publishing statistics and information in order to advance their naked political agendas.
‘Studies’ are a cancer, a rot. Cut open any ‘studies’ department of any university and a million saprophytic creepy-crawlies will pour out, scurrying frantically away from the light. ‘Studies’ are a leukemia attacking the healthy cells of a civil society. Cauterise them, remove them, incinerate them and let the body grow strong and healthy again.
Such is the quality of the balkanisation nostrum that it can, simultaneously, be a cornerstone of establishment thinking and also packaged up as new, different and ‘radical’. As evidence, please see the case of ‘Ms.Dynamite’, a 21 year-old British recording artist who has proclaimed that her future lies in the political realm:
“There is not anyone in the Cabinet who can relate to me or that I can relate to.”
Welcome to the club, Ms.Dynamite.
“The connotations that come with the word politics are basically middle-class, rich white men who don’t give a damn about what we think. That’s not me speaking as a black person but as a young person.”
It’s the Rocky Hip-Hop Picture Show. Ms.Dynamite is doing the ‘Time-Warp’ and we’re back in the 1960’s.
“I feel that Britain is still an extremely racist country.”
Sounds like she’s been tuning in to that middle-class, rich white man Jack Straw. That’s precisely what he’s been telling us for years.
“It’s important to learn about everybody’s history. I think the only way to overcome racism and discrimination is to learn where we’ve all come from.”
Ah yes, that must explain what the British National Party are trying to do.
Still, all things being equal I expect that Ms.Dynamite will embark upon a successful career in politics sooner or later. She will slide effortlessly into the NuLabour machine.
Last Wednesday evening, I had the pleasure of being wined and dined at the Chez de Havilland in the company of the man himself, Brian Micklethwait and a delegation of student bloggers responsible for the St.Andrews Liberty Log.
Spending an evening with these fine, upstanding examples of student life rather put my own persistant grumbles into perspective. Judging from what they have to say about their fellow students at that fine old institution, it has become a Seat of Unlearning. Our dinner companions, it would appear, constitute an oasis of sanity amid a vast, barren desert of addled brains.
One example that sticks in my mind, is a story related by one of the students, Alex Singleton. I believe I recall the details with reasonable accuracy but I’m sure I will hear smartly from Alex if this proves not to be the case.
It seems that St.Andrews University Student Union has its very own ‘Equal Opportunities’ Commission. Or, at least, it used to have one because our Alex managed to get himself elected to head it and then promptly proceeded to trash the entire operation and render it unusable. Chalk one up for the good guys. However, in the midst of performing this great service for mankind, Alex was approached by a diminutive fellow student who wanted Alex to take up her claim that she was a victim of discrimination because of her lack of height.
→ Continue reading: Apart-height
|
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.
|
