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]
|
Back when I was running an ISP here in Belfast, I was a regular reader and occasional poster on an email list about business in Eastern Europe. Steve Carlson, the list founder, moved with the times and the list expanded to general European internet business discussions; it spun off First Tuesday meetings all over Europe; then it became nowEurope, a more tightly edited Digest…
And now it’s a blog. They’ve got some good writers who have been involved with it from the beginning. I sort of dropped out as I moved on to other things. Well, truthfully, 90% of my writing goes to Samizdata now. So there!
The nowEurope blog looks interesting, but I hope they soon learn how important cross linking is: they currently are pretty stand-alone. So visit them and urge them to join the community.
It is certainly true that modern civilization has created environmental problems, but the key enviromental issue is addressed in this one question. Is our technology’s ability to solve environmental problems advancing faster than are the environmental problems themselves?
– Michael Jennings
In some cases, it is a heavy price.
The Swordsman, Iain Murray, one of the brightest stars in the blogging firmament, has just been summarily dismissed from his job:
“My employment was terminated this morning, with this blog stated as the reason.
It sounds like he has been treated very shabbily indeed. He has a wife and a small child so, if you can, please make your way over to his blog and leave something in the tip-jar. If you unable to do that, then at least let him know that you care.
This is the first occasion upon which I have picked out a comment for further comment, as it were, but this comment from Natalie Solent sharply claimed my attention:
“Just possibly the miracle may have been helped along by the power of the blogosphere. Er, specifically, by me.”
The ‘miracle’ that Natalie is referring to is the appearance of a vigourously pro-gun essay by Professor Joyce Malcolm on the website of the BBC and which I have blogged about euphorically here.
The part that Natalie might well have played in this moment of glory is set out in greater detail on Biased BBC:
“Dare we at Biased BBC hope that we had some role in its appearance? It is possible! The BBC’s clutch of articles published on the subject last October were, in their utter failure to even consider why anyone might oppose gun control (other than through an idolatrous reverence for every word of the US constitution), a disgrace to the BBC Charter. I fisked them with all the brio I could muster, and quite a few blogs linked to the fisking. I then sent the url to Prof. Malcolm, whose e-mail address I found at the bottom of an article about British media perceptions of gun crime published about the same time. She was kind enough to reply, so we may have helped bring to her attention a specific and recent example of a point she has long made, that the British media ignore the case against gun control. On the BBC side of the equation, we do know by various small indications that the Beeb’s watchful eyes do occasionally fall upon this site, so perhaps someone was stung by the realisation that one significant strand of opinion had been very ill served.”
Well, perhaps Professor Malcolm had already decided to write her essay and perhaps the BBC had decided, in any event, to make some concession to the other side of the argument. But I prefer to think that Natalie’s efforts did not go unrewarded. It gives me a delicious frisson of satisfaction to think that maybe one of us Lilliputians tied down the broadcasting Gulliver if only for a brief while.
It also illustrates the importance of communicating ideas and weaving the gossamer fine networks between sane, intelligent people who, whilst still acting individually, can eventually set off an avalanche. From the BBC to Natalie to Joyce Malcolm and back to the BBC. Thanks to the net, those degrees of separation get smaller all the time.
As the potential military conflict with Iraq draws near, all sorts of weird things come out of woodwork. For example, some of them are planning a D-Day for the ‘peace’ movement in Europe and United States on 15th February. Andrew Burgin, spokesman for Britain’s Stop the War Coalition expects record numbers on the day at the biggest anti-war demonstration London has ever seen, all marching under a “Don’t attack Iraq” banner.
“The message is a simple one: no war against Iraq for any reason, whether the United Nations supports an attack or not.”
I am aware that the public opinion in Europe is at best divided over an attack on Iraq and in most countries – Britain and France included – is against by a wide margin if an invasion is not supported by the United Nations. However illogical that position might be, I have grown used to fighting it and nowadays it leaves me cold, merely a reminder of human stupidity. But “no war, for any reason”?! Who are these people?
The aim of the Coalition should be very simple: to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against ‘terrorism’.
When I looked at the list of supporters of the Stop the War Coalition, I found many of our old ‘friends’ from CND, assorted Marxist trade unions, and other institutions where ‘idiotarians’ like to congregate. Just a few rich pickings:
George Galloway MP, Harold Pinter (playwright), Lindsey German (Editor, Socialist Review), Paul Foot (journalist), George Monbiot (journalist), Tariq Ali (broadcaster), Liz Davies (Socialist Alliance), Dave Nellist (Socialist Party), John Rees (Editor, International Socialism), Will Self (writer), Germaine Greer (writer)…
These are just a few whose names have either been pilloried on this blog or the names of institution they belong to speak for themselves. What really gets me going is that these people confidently claim and occupy the moral highground in protesting against war with Iraq (notice how even the phrase ‘war on Iraq’ suggests aggression from our side; as far as I am concerned Iraq is at war with us and has been for some time, thanks to its megalomaniac leader).
They will satisfy their flaccid social consciences by making themselves ‘feel good’ about having the courage to stand up for things that everyone else is against like peace and justice and brotherhood… [hums the tune to Tom Lehrer’s song: We are the Folk Song Army, Everyone of us cares, We all hate poverty, war and injustice, Unlike the rest of you squares…] It’s an old communist, leftist, tranzi…etc technique. Grab them by their emotions and you are sure to be followed by those without reason.
What would these people say about fighting Hitler and the Nazi Germany or indeed about any aggressor attacking its neighbours and posing threat to the world? How do they square history with their idiotic demand to oppose war against Iraq for any reason? I fear that security and defence are meaningless concepts to such ideologues, what matters is that they get to call demonstrations against the US and be anti-American with a ‘noble’ message to boot. What joy!
On the other end of the table, we have the likes of Major Peter Ratcliffe, who won the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his role in the Scud base attack leading the crack Alpha One Zero squad behind enemy lines. He believes Britain should support any American military action in Iraq and describes anti-war critics in Tony Blair’s government as traitors:
“Tony Blair vowed to support America in the war on terrorism. He said: ‘Whatever it takes’. I see no reason why he should go back on that. Those who now say otherwise – old Labour lefties like Clare Short and Tam Dalyell, the pacifists, those now turning on Blair – they’re traitors.
Few doubted at the time of the Gulf War that Saddam’s true goal was to become a ruler of the Muslim world in the Middle East. There is no reason to believe that goal has changed. He is a megalomaniac. Saddam wants to dominate the Middle East, he wants to terrorise the world. His own people revile him.
Hussein has always vowed to avenge himself on America. His people suffer more, not less, because Saddam Hussein is allowed to remain in power. And they will continue to do so until he is removed. And no amount of hand-wringing, no amount of international aid, no amount of windy wobbling will change that fact.
Nobody likes war. Nobody enters a war recklessly, without deadly serious consideration of all the facts. Everyone would prefer to stay at home and hope for a political solution. But the fact is that there isn’t one.
Soldier’s words, honest and direct. They also carry far more weight as they are uttered by someone who fought to protect us and the society we live in.
The famous cartoon mouse is far too busy making money for the Disney company to waste his time on a BSc in “Golf-Course Management” or “Decision-Making”. However, higher education minister Margaret Hodge has finally noticed the proliferation of ridiculously silly publically-funded university courses, identified them as “Mickey Mouse Degrees” and promised to solve the problem!
Even the Guardian can’t resist making fun:
“There are the apparent oxymorons – turfgrass science, amenity horticulture, surf and beach management and the BSc from Luton University in decision-making, which begs the cheap but irresistible observation, how did those on the course manage to make the decision to take it in the first place?”
But has New Labour got some right ideas for once? Have they finally decided that market forces and the education system should meet?
“…students themselves will ensure that what is offered by universities not just meets their aspirations but also meets labour market needs,” [Margaret Hodge] told a seminar in London organised by the Institute for Public Policy Research”
Well, no. Because actually, it shouldn’t actually be any of their business what universities do, because they shouldn’t be funding them in the first place, whereupon students would be obliged to be much more careful in their choice of how to spend their first three years after school than they are now. Perhaps some might even not go to university at all! But that would be a terrible blow to the government’s Ten-Year-Plan to keep as many young able-bodied people as possible well away from the workplace:
“The Government remained committed to its target of higher education for 50 per cent of under-30s by 2010.”
Actually, all the government is doing about their embarrassing joke-degree problem is trying to ban more things. This isn’t going to help. Anyone can ban things if they use enough coercion: but the real answer is to make those libertarian economic reforms and then just watch the students abandon ship as the daft degrees suffer a slow and painful death… Madonna studies, feminist ice-skating theory, cross-dressing, nail varnish and citizenship, and all their loyal leftie practitioners disappearing down the post-communist rabbit-hole once and for all.
But don’t hold your breath just yet. Not until you have a proper PhD in Underwater Oxygen Management first, at least.
A change is as good as a rest, they say, and since I have made something of a custom of reporting and commenting upon all the gloomy news emanating from and occuring in this country, I can enjoy a brief rest and kindle a flickering light amidst the miasma of despair.
It gives me no small amount of pride to note that the British still possess a spark of creativity sufficient to produce interesting developments like this:
“An innovative radio that lets you listen to internet stations anywhere in the home has been showcased at the world’s largest consumer technology event in Las Vegas.
The GlobalTuner InTune200 is a small portable radio that connects to a computer wirelessly, providing access to any music on the PC or to thousands of internet radio stations.
PDT, the Manchester-based company that developed the portable player, says it could be just the thing to persuade more people to sign up for high-speed internet services.”
I love technological advances for their own sake but this one strikes me as having some potentially important consequences. We all know how libertarian and conservative views, having been squeezed out of the mainstream media, have flowered on the internet, to the extent that some even argue that they dominate the medium. Well, I can neither prove nor entirely dismiss that assertion but I am willing to stand by the claim that the ‘anti-idiotarian’ internet-bloc is both vast and growing.
With that in mind, the next logical development, as best I can see, is for a number of these voices to move up to internet radio. Indeed, I note with delight that some already have. How auspicious that, just as a tactical move from typing to talking may be afoot, along comes a consumer durable product that will enable internet radio to explode the way analogue broadcast radio did a century ago.
I wonder what music we shall play on Radio Samizdata?
I read an article a few weeks back, in the Guardian I believe, which consisted of a lament about the lack of originality or creativity in British TV comedy production these days. I cannot remember exactly who or what the writer felt was to blame for this state of affairs (America, probably) but I have my own theory. I believe that no comedy writer in Britain could possibly produce anything as farcical as real-life:
“Former Scotland footballer Duncan Ferguson is being investigated by police over allegations he assaulted a man burgling his home on Merseyside.”
It wouldn’t surprise me if every burglar, mugger and bag-snatch in this country is going to routinely claim to have been assaulted, confident in the knowledge that their claims will be taken seriously. Burglars are rapidly becoming a ‘victim’ class.
“However, the criminal has accused the 6ft 4in former Rangers player of assaulting him during the confrontation.
Merseyside Police are investigating the allegation and officers will speak to Ferguson in the near future.”
Even assuming the allegation proves to be true, I doubt that Mr.Ferguson will actually be prosecuted. At least, I sincerely hope not. But, what are the odds on the burglar making a claim for damages for alleged breach of his Heeeeeeewwwmin Rights?
Another Brian, the Rev. Brian Chapin, calls this collection of 174 newspaper front pages from 26 countries around the world “the coolest thing I’ve ever seen on the internet”. That may be an exaggeration, but it is a nice thing to be able to see.
You can’t actually read the text on these front pages, although of course you can read the headlines. The images aren’t detailed enough for that. But you can go from each front page to the website of each newspaper featured.
I’m not sure if the front pages that appear are updated each day. I’m guessing yes. Perhaps a commenter can clarify.
STOP PRESS: I went back, when checking that the link worked, and yes it is today’s front pages. The clue was in the title of the webpage, which, I now note, is: “Today’s Front Pages.” We Samizdatistas don’t miss a thing, do we? (Don’t answer that.)
For the first time in a long while I am prepared, temporarily at least, to suspend my animus towards the BBC. When they are prepared to publish an article called ‘Why Britain needs more guns’ by the outstanding Joyce Lee Malcolm then they have earned a respite from my relentless hostility. Nay, they may even by the worthy recipients of a nod of appreciation.
“The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.
First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.”
Amen to that. Testify, Sister Joyce!!
And, yes, it is on the BBC website. No word of a lie. Go and check the link yourself if you don’t believe me. Yes, you could have knocked me down with a feather as well.
Since they have invited comments from their readers this will give ample opportunity for the British ones to rant, scream, pull out their hair, void their bowels and otherwise hissy-fit themselves into a cocked hat. But that doesn’t matter because the truth has been spoken and it’s out there in black-and-white for every anti-self-defence nut to see and try, in vain, to rebut.
This is a good start. In fact, and I don’t want to runoff at the mouth here or jump the gun (pun gleefully intended) but I do believe that we could be getting just a little bit of traction with this issue. About bloody time, too.
You may find me one day dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you’ll find me in a pile of brass.
– Trooper M. Padgett
Whilst Samizdata.net is not trying to start a flame war with LewRockwell.com, it would be fair to say that once we stray out of the area of economics, we disagree with them fairly consistantly on issues of war and peace. Alan Forrester adds his views on the subject.
One of my favourite ways of thinking about libertarianism is that we ought to have libertarian institutions because people are ignorant. I’m not misanthropic, it’s just that outside a very narrow range of expertise people tend to know nothing and this ignorance means that we should strive to have a world in which people can offer advice to each other without making it compulsory. Interestingly enough there is a brilliant illustration of this within the libertarian community itself at Lew Rockwell.com, those Lew Rockwell fellows know everything there is to know about free market economics and I take my hat off to them in that respect. But when it comes to moral and political philosophy and in particular the morality and politics of war they don’t have a clue.
Take, for example, this bizarre piece: Bloodthirsty ‘Libertarians’ by Walter Block
“The libertarian non-aggression axiom is the essence of libertarianism. Take away this axiom, and libertarianism might as well be libraryism, or vegetarianism. Thus, if a person is to be a libertarian, he must, he absolutely must, in my opinion, be able to distinguish aggression from defense.”
How exactly one is supposed to derive all political wisdom from a single catchphrase rather than look at real problems and try to figure out how one could deal with them in away that is conducive to problem-solving I’m not sure. However, even on the basis of the non-aggression rule, the comments below are complete tosh.
“You don’t have to wait until I actually punch you in the nose to take violent action against me. You don’t even have to wait until my fist is within a yard of you, moving in your direction. However, if you haul off and punch me in the nose in a preemptive strike, on the ground that I might punch you in the future, then you are an aggressor.”
So let me get this straight. You’re standing atop a pile of dismembered corpses, laughing like a madman and brandishing a chainsaw covered in blood. You haven’t noticed me yet, but I’m a few hundred metres away with a telescopic rifle. Am I allowed to blow your head clean off your
shoulders or not? → Continue reading: Libertarianism is not about nonaggression, it is about liberty
|
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