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]
|
Paul Marks is very ambivalent about what a previous Samizdata.net contributor called the Start Again Party, referring to a possible ‘libertarian’ breakaway faction within the British Conservative Party
I should be interested in this idea. I have been a member of the Conservative Party since 1980, and even when I went to join the party at the offices of the Kettering Association, I stated that I was a libertarian and have stated so often since then (oddly enough it is the older members of the association, some of whom have since died, who tended to know what a ‘libertarian’ actually was).
However, nothing I have heard so far attracts me. I would be interested in a party that wanted to cut taxes, government spending and regulations (I do not expect them to understand to monetary policy, the only people I have met in the Conservative party who understood monetary policy were very old indeed and are now almost all dead). People who call themselves ‘centre left’ and declare that the “debate is not about economics” do not interest me at all.
Aping the ‘New Left’ by trying to construct a politics based on an obsession with “race, gender and sexual orientation” (the Herbert Marcuse idea of building a new alliance to make up for the poor revolutionary showing of the old working class) is not sensible – although it may be profitable (there are lots of central and local government grants available for such activity).
When I pointed some of the above out to the Conservative group Connect (in reply to unsolicited e-mails) they did not reply. Had they replied I would have asked them the following question:
If you are people interested in ‘civil liberties’ particularly in the area of “race, sex and sexuality”, do you support the repeal of the various anti-discrimination laws, the closing down of the various government race and sex agencies, and ending the restrictions on free speech?
If people are interested in liberty in this area they should (logically) support freedom of speech and of association and non association. No one must be compelled to trade with or employ someone he does not wish to trade with or employ, and no person should be punished for expressing a negative opinion of a group of people.
If the reply to the above is “no we do not support the repeal of the anti discrimination laws, the closing down of the various government race and sex agencies… [and so on]” then please spare us all the rubbish about being in favour of ‘civil liberties’.
Paul Marks
Anyone following British news of late cannot helped but have notice that the main story gripping the folk of these islands at present is the deeply distressing disappearance of two little girls from their home village in rural Cambridgeshire.
After nearly two weeks, there is still no trace of them and nobody seems to have the first idea of where they are of what may have befallen them. I think it is fair to say that everyone is hoping and praying for the best but fearing the worst.
But some are just hoping and praying for pork:
“Senior detectives and politicians want to see the creation of a dedicated FBI-style task force to take responsibility for high-profile criminal investigations away from local police forces”.
Will the establishment of yet another state agency lead to the discovery of the whereabouts of these two children? Will it deliver them unharmed back to their respective homes? Will it stop this kind of thing happening again? The answer in all cases is ‘no’ but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that no trial or tragedy is missed as an opportunity by fans of big government to propose even bigger government as a solution.
If it transpires that some unspeakable ghoul has harmed these children, they have also harmed the civil society of which we are all a part. Those who seek to exploit this as an opportunity for a bit of bureaucratic empire-building are the ghoul’s fellow travellers.
As David Carr pointed out on these pages earlier, Britain’s state-subsidised British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is increasingly indistinguishable from a ward of the state. It is not a free standing commercial organisation which has to persuade folk to watch or listen to it out of their free will, but rather has a license fee which is essentially a tax on owning a television. Broadcasting peers around the world are therefore getting annoyed that the BBC seems bent on grabbing a share of their audiences despite it having the unfair advantage of a guaranteed income. An article in the Financial Times (sorry, link requires registration) indicated:
“In the past two years, that output has largely transformed the BBC from a largely domestic news service oriented around two analogue channels – BBC1 and BBC2 – to an international competitor among commercial satellite and cable broadcasters including CNN and Fox News of the U.S.”
One question which is begged by the FT article – if the BBC is posing such a threat and is not a fair commercial competitor, but one with coercive funding, how come domestic or international competition authorities like Mario Monti of the EU Commission are not kicking up a stink? Maybe they should do so. As a reporter for one of the oldest and greatest news services in the world (creep!), I feel I have a small stake in the matter!
Seven years ago I left the Conservative Party and have opposed it’s claim to be a vehicle for libertarian reform. I have contested two local elections as an Independent Libertarian candidate, and would do so again.
Now it seems that “libertarian” Conservative candidates and members of parliament believe that they may have to leave and set up their own party. I agree.
If the libertarians in the Conservative Party really take inspiration from John Galt, they should look at the closing passage of my alternative budget, published in 1995:
“There are many who will hope that the day never comes when a Libertarian Party is founded, to compete in the present electoral system. Whether or not we descend into the pit of party politics, I can see no reason for refusing to challenge those libertarians who remain in the Conservative Party. They are despised and feared by their supposed allies, and only suffered for their money and election time support.
Those libertarians who campaign for the Conservatives, without believing half of the bland collectivist verbiage they are told to support should ask themselves how far they are prepared to go, in the words of Francisco d’Anconia in “Atlas Shrugged”:
“[…] if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world on his shoulders – what would you tell him to do?”
“I… don’t know. What… could he do? What would you tell him?”
“To shrug.”
Paul Staines is skeptical but interested regarding stories of a break away faction in the Tory party
Two stories in yesterday’s Telegraph caught my eye and made me smile, the first hinting that disgruntled young Conservatives (young means they are all over 30, but below pensionable age) are organising to split the party.
The second, more interesting article, seemed to me to
I imagine that the life of a satirical magazine like Britain’s Private Eye or the hilarious Brains Trust website must be getting progressively harder when you come across the increasingly insane forms of real-life eccentricity sweeping much of the planet.
The latest example is this news story about the fact that Britain’s police forces, are, apparently, “too Christian” for the liking of many would-be recruits, and moves are afoot to change small details in police badges to accomodate this.
Now I am an atheist with no particular axe to grind on this, but I cannot help feeling that the growing willingness of old British institutions to lose any trappings of anything remotely “western”, “Christian” or, heaven forbid, “British”, is not something to be welcomed. It is a sign that our civilisation is losing its nerve. Little things like this all add up to something bigger.
Paul Marks puts a very uncomfortable question to English supporters of the British Union.
There has long been a debate, in libertarian circles, about whether there is a special commitment among the people of England (or the cultural institutions of England) to liberty – or whether England is much the same as other Western nations.
My own position is that (whatever may have been true in the past) England today is indeed much the same as other Western nations. The English tend to say that they believe in freedom – but when faced with one of the ‘hard questions’: Are you in favour of the abolition of the National Health Service? Are you in favour of the legalization of cocaine? Do you support adults being allowed to buy automatic rifles? and so on, support for liberty tends to collapse – it is much the same in other Western nations.
In formal politics England is also much the same as other Western nations. One of the two major political parties is in theory in favour of a smaller less interventionist government – the Conservative party. Yet when it is actually in government, the Conservative party is not very good at reducing the size and scope of government – but (again) that is much the same as the Republicans in the United States, the Liberals in Australia, the R.P.R. in France, the Christian Democrats in Germany (and so on).
But have a look at Scotland and Wales. The most important party is Labour (a party, whatever some people may like to think, that is overtly in favour of ever more government spending and regulations). The Labour party is far more important in Scotland and Wales than it is in England and far more important than its sister parties are in other Western nations, but that is not the most important point. The second party of Scotland and Wales is NOT the Conservative party.
The Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the Liberal Democrats are all openly statist parties – and they are more important than the Conservative party in Scotland and Wales.
The Liberal Democrats in Scotland and Wales support the ruling Labour party (so perhaps can be discounted), but the major opposition are the statist nationalist parties.
In short Scotland and Wales have openly statist governments working for ever more government spending and regulations – and openly statist oppositions, working for ever more government spending and regulations.
This is not normal in the Western world. Is it in the interests of England to be bound to Scotland and Wales?
Paul Marks
Although the BBC was unable to prove that government officials had hacked its system, the staff were “morally certain” it had happened. Leaving aside the meaning of “morally certain”, this is a serious matter. The way this breach of the BBC’s already dubious independence was perpetrated was that one correspondent noticed that when he wrote a script on the newsroom computer for the next news bulletin “he would be rung up by Downing Street before it was broadcast and lobbied on a point or two”. This didn’t happen just once or twice and John Simpson, the BBC’s world affairs editor, claims in his new book that the tactics were part of widespread attempts by the government to pressure the BBC and other broadcasters into more favourable coverage of its politics.
Apparently, another BBC broadcaster said the corporation knew the identity of the hacker but lacked the evidence to make a complaint. This is the bit I can’t understand, as someone has to be at the other end of the phone persuading the reporters to temper bulletins that had not yet been transmitted. My first reaction would be: “how the hell did you know what I just wrote on the newsroom computer?!” It seems a measure of how unquestioning of the government the BBC must be, if no one has challenged their big brother tactics. Or is it just ‘cos its family.
Oh, and the government officials say:
This story is utterly ridiculous, complete drivel.
But then, they would say that, wouldn’t they?
When the state watches you,
dare to stare back
The awful disappearance of two young girls in Britain who were possibly lured to a meeting via the Internet and then kidnapped by some vile monster has renewed calls for a clamp down on the Internet. The sort of things being talked about to contain the perceived threat from on-line ‘paedophiles’ (by which people really mean pederasts) is fairly mild stuff but that is always how it starts out. I just hope that this is not used as yet another excuse for the Panopticon state to stick its proboscis ever deeper into our private on-line lives.
Jonathan Hanson has spotted some interesting parallels between Tinseltown and Downing Street
In ruminating over the current government in England, an analogy occurred to me that I hoped you might find worthy of publishing and/or commenting on.
It hit me that there are rather creepy similarities between the Blair left liberal machine and Hollywood’s current marketing strategy.
Hollywood is no longer interested in quality, only in what sells. The producers and directors strive to appeal to the lowest common denominator of moviegoer (constituent?), in a bald-faced effort to bring in the most money (votes). The content of the message is unimportant, as to whether or not it has a moral, a germ of spiritual inspiration, or the slightest connection to reality. Hollywood is happy to exploit minorities, the poor, violence in society, and numerous other causes, not in the name of justice, but in the name of profit. The result is millions of moviegoers sitting slack-jawed while being spoon-fed pablum.
Am I missing anything?
Jonathan Hanson, Tucson, Arizona
[Editor: No Jonathan, you are not missing a damn thing]
After the world cup, Wimbledon, the ‘presidential miscarriage‘ by Cherie Blair, the Prime Minister’s wife.
What is the protocol for such occasions I wonder? Street parties or condolence cards would probably seem vindictive or tacky. Perhaps we should ask if the ‘presidential’ family medical records can be accessed by the Westminster Council’s social services department under one of the pretexts offered under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act.
Then it would be fairly straightforward to ensure that we could be treated to photostats of ultra-sound scans and blood test results in foreign newspapers if not British ones.
As I’ve just eaten, I’d rather not pursue this line of thought any further.
[Editor: Given that some responses have rather missed the point Antoine was making, let me point out that Tony Blair wanted to give mere local authorities the power under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act the ability to access the private medical records of pretty much anyone. As a result, some lowly council functionary might have got hold of hapless Cherie Blair’s medical records involving her miscarriage and given how insecure local authorities are, they could have ended up in the press. Of course Tony Blair would not want that, but then why should anyone be subject to the state prying into such private matters? That is the point Antoine was making, not some vindictive jab at Cherie Blair]
‘Animal rights’ campaigners of the RSPCA were themselves the target of protests by rural activists who are having their entire way of life criminalised.
But the fact is, the establishment will not take any notice of well mannered protests by people from the leafy shires. Of course there is indeed an established template for a minority-within-a-minority group in the British Isles to successfully defeat a majoritarian tyranny, provided you are willing to fight your corner for many years.
Sadly that template is Sinn Fein, the ‘political wing’ of the Provisional IRA: if the deck is stacked against you, play the game by different rules, a fact that has not been lost on some of the members of the Countryside Alliance’s splinter factions… and those ‘splinters’ are rather larger than many care to admit.
|
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.
|
Recent Comments