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]
|
When Janis Ian wrote her first article on the rather big shop of horrors the music industry has become, she expected it would be read by the usual few fans and industry friends who visit her web site.
Boy was she ever wrong!
Janis was not fully aware of the magnitude of the war raging across the Internet between “us” the consumers (and lowly creators) of music and “them” the parasitic entities of “Big Music”. At the very least she did not expect a huge organized opposition ready and willing to adopt her as a figurehead.
She should have known better and I mean that in a very positive way. Read her response to it all and you will see what I mean. This is one extremely intelligent woman, someone who is far more than a well known songwriter. She understands the business of music and how to make a living off it. She knows how to research, learn and synthesize technical issues in short order.
She’s also a very nice person who took the time and trouble to individually and personally respond to many strangers who contacted her. One of them was myself and she and I had a lovely email chat. We grew up only a few short miles apart in the Ohio River Valley in the same time period and we both started writing songs early on so there is a bit of commonality Of course the difference is her songs were great and she is justifiably famed for them, whereas mine were merely okay and I am perhaps justifiably unfamous.
What is important to those of us who have never reached her heights in the “biz” is her inside knowledge that the Majors are just as sleazy, just as crooked and just as intent on screwing the last possible dime out of the artist as any of us ever imagined we knew.
If you have any interest in music or in keeping culture open, read what she has to say.
Oh, and by the way… go buy some of her records. She’s a really nice lady and deserves your support.
My suspicions have been confirmed! Now I know what a large proportion of car (and van) drivers are thinking when I ride past them on my motorbike during rush hour traffic. 
Adriana had a calming effect on the drivers in the traffic jam
Remember when mum and dad used to get you to mow the lawn as punishment for skimping on the washing up? Well, those days of pushing a mower along the lawn while sneezing with hayfever are over, thanks to this great new development.
Proves that one of the great motivators of human ingenuity is sheer laziness.
It appears the story that a number of Conservative MPs are thinking of breaking off from the main Tory party and are part inspired by the views of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand has triggered some comment. In the right-leaning weekly journal the Spectator, writer Michael Harrington attacks the late Miss Rand and all she stood for in an article so full of bile that he succeeds in raising her in my estimation, even though I have problems with bits of her philosophy.
Let’s take a look:
She is still a hero on the Libertarian Right in the United States but it is rare to hear her name in English Conservative circles.
True (heroine actually). But the libertarian meme is spreading in the UK, and Michael, be very afraid.
Margaret Thatcher never really meant to say that there was no such thing as society, but Ayn Rand would have said it and meant it.
And your point is?
Though few people noticed it, Atlas Shrugged is a long, inverted and malevolent parody of the New Testament. (John) Galt convinces his followers, without much difficulty, that they have been working too hard on behalf of others instead of spending all their time on their own interests. They are being exploited by a corrupt semi-socialist polticial system. And by allowing themselves to be used they are enabling the system to continue.
Eh? I am not aware Rand thought of the novel’s essential structure as being an inversion of the Bible. What exactly is malevolent about her doctrine of Man’s right to live for his own sake rather than sacrifice it to others? Come on Mr Harrington, don’t be shy. Give us some reasons why you think Miss Rand’s brand of ethical egoism is wrong. After all, an egoist could justly claim that benevolence towards others is in fact often very ‘selfish’ since it still means doing something of value to the actor as well as the beneficiary. Ultimately, the rational (as opposed to non-rational) egoist believes life is not zero-sum, either in a material or non material sense.
I fear that Harrington has missed the essential point of what Rand is about and why she continues to motivate libertarians, and Conservatives, to this day despite any criticisms we may have of her views. The essential point is that she made it clear that the case for liberty cannot just be won showing that it produces X more GDP than socialism or some other ‘overall good’. Ultimately, the case needs a moral foundation, and Rand provided a pretty powerful one.
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
Although he is not the first to comment on the large (and growing) rift between the USA and Europe, James Bennett delivers up a superb analysis of the role of Tony Blair in trying to act as a bridge between them and why he may well end up as political hamburger as a result:
“As always, the biggest problem is the inherent structural one implied in Blair’s strategy: the assumption that by integrating more completely into the European Union, Britain is also serving America’s interests by being a bridge between the two continents. This is not an eccentric position; it has been the standard assumption of the American foreign policy establishment from the end of the Second World War. It is, however, wrong. Where it fails is the assumption that Europe as a whole and America are sufficiently alike that their interests will naturally be aligned.
Jim is spot on. For all his blather about ‘modernisation’, Blair has both feet firmly planted in the past, seemingly unaware of his inability to bridge the gulf between the two civilisations and equally oblivious to the harsh fact that the gulf may not be bridgeable at all. This is not just about the Middle East or Iraq; they are merely symptoms of a divergence that is economic, political, cultural and even spiritual.
In some senses, the EU and Radical Islam have more in common. Their respective visions are, for sure, not the same, but they do share the quality of being a settled view about the way the world should be and neither can really brook any meaningful alternatives, lest their own visions be undermined. For Radical Islam, the answer is endless Jihad; for the EU the answer is the Kyoto Protocol, the ICC and global regulation. In both cases, the message to America is the same: submit.
For the EU elite, America is like a rebellious teenager that they simply don’t understand. How can they insist on sovereignty when it obstructs ‘progress’? How can they insist on the right of self-defence when we know that true security comes only through concessions and negotiation? How dare they cherish Western values when we know that all values are equal? For the Eurocrats, America is not just mystifying, it’s offensive.
But there is also a deeper, darker cause of Europe’s mistrust. The political classes of Europe may disagree on many things but of on one issue there is no dissent: the European Union and the overriding importance of creating a country called ‘Europe’. Everything else, all policy, all laws and all effort must be focussed on melding together a continent’s worth of fractious nations into one monolithic political and social entity with one government, one flag, one currency, one voice etc. They can’t do it and they know in their hearts that they can’t do it. So instead of having an identity, they are creating an anti-identity and that anti-identity is anti-America. It is how the EU will define itself, being unable to define itself by any other totems.
Regardless of the fate of the Iraqi regime, America will most likely get more American and, Europe, with the cancer of post-modernism coded into its DNA, will get more anti-American. Cold War it may not be, but it will be cold. Freezing, in fact.
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.
The cause of a free market in energy has been given a right bashing from the collapse of US energy trading firm Enron and the electricity blackouts in California. But it seems the guys and gals in Texas are showing that a properly deregulated energy market can really work. Here’s a chunk of a report in the Financial Times (not availiable on FT website):
Critics warned that the state would face its biggest challenge in the heat of the summer, when power usage is greatest. Yet, already mid-way through August, Texas is still passing the test, boasting 30 percent more electricity than it needs.
I would contend that the key to this success is that Texas has gone for full deregulation, rather than the dog’s breakfast of a mess created in California. In California, wholesale distributors of electricity were allowed to set their prices in a market but the retail distributors had their charges capped. When electricity prices went into hyperspace over a year ago, a lot of California’s power retailers saw their balance sheets blow up. Ultimately, if the price mechanism is not allowed to work properly, how is rising consumer demand going to create the incentive to increase production?
Of course another problem in California has been the baleful influence of the Green movement, killing things like nuclear power, but that is another argument for another time.
Right. I’ve had enough of American women whining about why English chaps are such terrible dates. It is surely up to us, or at least those of us who are single guys, to step up to the plate, so to speak, and bury the issue once and for all. The latest of American ladies to lambast the English male, the delectable New Yorker and frequent visitor to these shores, Gwyneth Paltrow says she hardly ever gets asked out for a date when she is over here.
Come on male Samizdatistas of London. Let’s do our duty. We could even get Gwynnie to start a blog.
 Seriously in need of an Englishman
Everybody, soon or late, sits down to a banquet of consequences.
-Robert Louis Stevenson
I always enjoyed the Village Voice. It’s one of those publications that may gladden or infuriate, sometimes in the same issue, but will always tell the truth as they see it. They are invariably interesting to read, far more so than the bland uptown (well midtown: NY Times overlooks Times Square) papers. It was also my neighborhood paper for a good part of two years, so I got in the habit of reading it over a morning coffee at the Sidewalk Cafe.
Today I ran across this fascinating article. I have long wondered, and by long I mean twenty years or more, whether the city as we know it can survive the amplification of capabilities of “one man working alone”. My own suspicion is the combination of information technology and nanotechnology will allow humanity to disperse at the same time low density becomes a matter of safety.
But even under the more dire of possible future histories, I cannot see us doing without places like New York. We need the energy and creativty and well, life of it. Many cities may die, but the cultural centres will live on, even if they have to be rebuilt and repopulated once a generation.
East Village flat mate watching
Hollywood film crew
on street below
(photo D.Amon)
There is a lengthy article on USS Clueless about why the US military is the best practitioner of high initiative warfare, tracing it to the empowering influence of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. I disagree on many levels starting with the fact I do not think the US military is the best (or even particularly remarkable) at ‘high initiative warfare’.
The US military does not achieve its results as Steven Den Beste suggests, by empowering individual soldiers and harnessing their brains and initiative more than any number of armies I could mention, but rather it achieves results by maximising its true advantages: firstly a huge economy and therefore sheer firepower (it can afford to shoot more bullets/drop more bombs) and secondly, its advanced technology (it can make its aeroplanes hard to shoot down and therefore safely drop smart bombs on people they don’t like from 20,000 feet). In simply wins by dumping large numbers of expensive smart bombs and cruise missiles on the enemy where it hurts most, followed by precise massed artillery if required. The job of America’s infantry and tank jockeys is to pick their way through the crater pocked remnants to what gets left over after the aerial (and maybe artillery) bombardment. Factor out the high tech long range bombardment capabilities, which is unique in the world at the moment, and whilst the US army is a fine one, it is not particularly exceptional in the way it fights compared to many other armies.
There are many armies in the world who are better than the US at the sort of small unit tactics that rely on ’empowered’ soldiers at low level (such as Israel, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand). Frankly France’s 2eme REP is probably more optimised for what Steven thinks is a “new approach” to fighting than the much higher firepower US 82nd Airborne, precisely because it has less firepower and thus is forced to rely on élan et cran as well as to fight smart… and with very little help from 20,000 feet. It is in the ‘big stuff’ that no one can match the US, i.e. when it comes to the Godzilla-like ‘grid square removal’ that characterized the Gulf War.
This is not to denigrate the US military, far from it actually: that is a highly rational way to fight if you can afford it. But please realise that the way the USA fights is just the confluence of technology and economy, added to a particularly American political horror of friendly casualties, rather than some emerging ‘First Amendment Powered’ super soldiers. The German Fallschimjägers landing on Crete in 1941 displayed all the characteristics of low level high initiative fight smart upward info-flow empowerment yet it would be safe to say they were not benefiting from the First Amendment of the US Constitution or democracy.
|
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