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]

The Pretzel of Death!

Over on Matthew Edgar’s blog, he outlines several scenarios for how Bush nearly choked on a pretzel. I rather liked: “The dogs attacked Bush to tell him that he [Bush] better not try to take them out like Clinton took out Buddy.”… but the truth does not require such pretzel logic, Matthew. Apply Occam’s razor and the real reason is apparent:

Bush suddenly realised that the pretzel was in the shape of a peace sign and started choking.

Birds of a feather… sometimes don’t flock together

Dr. Frank on the Blogs of War has blogged an article called Group Think which raises all sorts of interesting issues to those of a libertarian persuasion. He also touches upon one of my earlier bloggings.

I have no stake in the “whither libertarianism” question that appears as the background to many such arguments, and I’m probably missing some of the subtleties of it; but just because the idea of attacking Iraq is a hobbyhorse of “National Greatness” conservatism doesn’t automatically mean it’s a bad idea. Saddam Hussein is dangerous. He’ll have to be dealt with in some way sooner or later, whether or not doing so would be in line with the official principles of libertarianism (whatever they turn out to be.)

Libertarianism is not a political party, it is a social but non-statist meta-context within which political though occurs: a ‘vibe’ if you like. There are no ‘official’ principals and by its very nature there are only a loose series of underpinnings as the ends of libertarianism is simply liberty, rather than, say, tractor production or discouraging one-parent families. In my view at least, all forms of genuine libertarianism revolve around this:

You are not a libertarian unless you accept as axiomatic that, at its core, society must allow individuals to make their own choices in the pursuit of self-defined ends.

I have always thought all the other sundry libertarian principles often quoted, such as ‘Propertarianism’ and the ‘non-initiation of force’ principles all flow from that. Other libertarians see it the other way around.

Can the “aggressive defender” sub-species in de Havilland’s aviary legitimately launch pre-emptive strikes without turning into an Imperialist “predator?”

For sure. The big difference would be going in to destroy a threat and then going home or going in and making all of Arabia and Iraq into an American satrapy, as some seem to be suggesting.

There are those who maintain that any military action on behalf of US/British/Western security is automatically suspect; this, as de Havilland points out, is often elaborated into a belief that “anyone the American and/or British states opposes must therefore be one of the good guys.” That’s the shared target of “anti-idiotarians” where this issue is concerned, isn’t it?

Yes indeed. It seems to me that September 11th was a watershed in that it resulted in an event so stark in its moral simplicity and lacking in the ambiguity that shades Iraq, Israel, Kosovo etc. that the true nature of many was revealed in the shadowless light of the burning twin towers. Much to my astonishment some on the left, like Christopher Hitchens, turned out to be critically rational whilst many who I had thought far better of, were revealed to be crypto-subjectivists so emotionally attached to their unalterable world views as to be incapable of rational moral judgement.

And by the way, I wonder why all my recent articles seem to feature birds in some form or other? Is someone e-mailing me subliminal messages?

New Black Panther Party de-clawed

Sean McCray has an interesting de-construction of the New Black Panther Party over on Next Right. Judging by Sean’s analysis, the Panther is just a soggy little crypto-Marxist pussy cat.

Bloggers: the birds on the Hippopotamus of Big Media’s back

Glenn Reynolds has some well aimed remarks about Tim Cavanaugh’s rather meandering article about bloggers. Whilst I concur with Glenn’s remarks, he lets Cavanaugh off far too easy. Cavanaugh states:

For all the bitching they log about the mainstream media, none of the bloggers are actually cruising the streets of Peshawar or Aden or Mogadishu. Thus, they’re wholly dependent upon that very same mainstream media. You can cut on Salon all you like, Mr. Blogger, but they have a man in Afghanistan. Do you?

He does not seem to grasp that we are about punditry not field reporting. The fact is, there are bloggers all over the world pointing out obscure stuff and commenting on it… hell Samizdata alone has contributors in Britain, Ireland, USA, Croatia and Australia. Without Tim Blair and Jason Soon, how many of us would pick up on the Australian stories they bring to our attention? Salon may have a reporter in Afghanistan, but of all the commentary about Muslims that I have seen in Salon, is it really more insightful or informed than that found on Adil Farooq’s blog Muslimpundit? No, it is not.

Instapundit has so many eye balls each day that it is clear from Glenn’s posts he gets a huge amount of useful pointers and comments from readers, which provides news and perspectives in and of itself. Cavanaugh seems to have missed that altogether. There is a degree of responsiveness and dynamism that more established, less immediate media channels cannot match. We blogs are not trying to replace the established media, but rather we have popped up to fill an empty but useful ecological niche, rather like the birds hitching a ride on the back of a hippopotamus and in return nibbling at unwanted parasites in the hippo’s unscratchable nooks and crannies. If we are the birds, and BigMediatm is the hippo, guess what that makes Tim Cavanaugh…

And as for Cavanaugh sneering at the fact we all refer to each other, there are two points:

  1. Firstly, we can afford to be civil to each other because we are not all competing for a limited pool of jobs (no wonder he hates us)… we see each other as a resource rather than rivals, even more so when we disagree.
  2. Secondly, it is that ‘hive mind’ thing Glenn once mentioned. Someone picks up on a story and the ‘hive’ swarms together, dissecting it and commenting, with a slew of follow up posts as the hive’s different ‘takes’ collide…such as the various ‘interblog’ gun wars or Enron debates (for that is what they are, debates).

Established media pundits feed off their network reporters… bloggers feed off each other in much the same way, following their hyperlinks to their sources. And as our sources are far more varied (Peter Jennings is not prone to dissect all too many odd Pravda or Zambia Post or bonkers Feral Tribune articles he found by listening to someone else’s broadcast), so too are the opinions and directions we go in.

And of course the editorless ‘screw the received wisdom’ blogger ethos was never going to make us friends in Cavanaugh’s circles.

Glenn is of course right that bottom feeders like Cavanaugh just do not like the competition… and the fact many of us write better than he does and about more varied things. But most of all he dislikes us because we do not fit into any of his limited pigeon holes neatly. He reads us but his silly article shows he sure as hell does not understand us.

Blogger riding on Big Media

Just for the record

The shooting of the postal worker mentioned by Perry in an earlier article occurred only a few blocks from where I live. Of course all I knew of it was some sirens (common) and the sound of Brit choppers hovering in the area (likewise).

The postal workers threatened to stop all mail delivery if the neighborhoods in question did not guarantee safety of all postal workers, regardless of religion. I have heard the public outrage from across the entire spectrum shocked the paras to the point that they are talking disbandment, although I have not read confirmation of such. It’s probably in the local papers if so. People may be getting shot just up the street, but I still have to get projects out the door (cablemodem?) or I don’t eat. It’s funny how you can know what’s going on all over the world and hardly notice the world news happening around the corner.

Well, they asked, didn’t they?

The cast of characters at DOD briefings has been a great relief after years of mealy mouthed morons who went pale at the thought of admitting their job was to defend their country by letting the other side die for their country as quickly as possible. I had a particular chuckle over the following from the 11th December 2001 DOD News Briefing.

Q: Which was what? What was the desired effect?
Q: Can you describe to us anecdotally what the —
Myers: The desired effect was to kill al Qaeda.
Q: What sort of results are you aware of? What did your people on the ground see?
Myers: Dead al Qaeda. (Laughter.)

I wonder if they break into laughter as soon as they leave the press behind in the briefing room? Personally I’d be near pissing myself as soon as the door closed.

Collectivism kills

Over 3000 mostly American civilians die when Al Qaeda terrorists hijack four civilian airliners and crash two of them into office buildings in New York. A 22 year old Catholic postman is gunned down in the street by the ‘Loyalist’ Red Hand Defenders in Northern Ireland. Six Israeli Jews are gunned down during the bat mitzvah of a 12 year old girl by a Palestinian terrorist with the Al Asqa Martyrs Brigade, an offshoot of Fatah.

In none of these cases was there any pretence that the people being murdered were military targets or in any meaningful way part of the apparatus of state. They were just members of the wrong collective group.

Collectivism is the real world manifestation of the subjective, emotion based feral animal origins of humanity, like some recurring echo emanating from the primitive reptile brain that physically exists in all of us. It is the antithesis of rational objectivity, something that no amount of fancy verbiage from Marx or Chomsky or Himmler or Plato or Rousseau can disguise in their respective paeans to force and unity over intellect and evolution. Collectivism is a fancy word for tribalism. It is a hold over, an atavistic throw back to times before the modern civilisation of the extended order.

And then I see a huge protest against violence in Northern Ireland like the one today. A great and wonderful angry howl against sectarian violence by both catholics and protestants together, all revolted by the madness in the hearts of paramilitary murderers. And there, amongst the grim faced ranks of ordinary people standing under their umbrellas in the rain, I catch sight of members of the Orange Order, of Sinn Fein, of the SDLP, of various well meaning ‘left’ and ‘right’ wing groups, all calling for unity.

Wrong.

Tragically, terribly and utterly wrong.

The world already has enough ‘unity’ to kill every man woman and child one hundred times over. The lasting repulse of tribal violence will not come from ‘unity’, which is just an appeal for the creation of a different, larger tribe to combat the ‘other’ tribes, but rather individualism: the explicit rejection of every tie that comes not through choice but from force. Do not mistake collective action for collectivism, for it is the latter, not the former, that both ‘left’ and ‘right’ has on offer.

The answer is not ‘Unity’, which is just short hand for ‘join us, not them’… the answer is ‘Don’t tread on me’

Libertarian goes to college: two quick hits

Truth on campus?
With the new airport security measures going into action today across the old USA, I expected to hear my teachers rejoice that Big Brother has come to the airports to “protect” us.

However, one of my teachers surprised me, saying, and I quote:

“The new airport security bill combines the worst of the private sector with the worst of the federal government”

Despite all the negative stuff that goes on at the university, in terms of the “politically correct” nonsense and blatant communism, there are some good things, such as far and few between truthful statements.

The good times can’t last forever
Showing their Puritanism-like beliefs, the university has beefed up the anti-drug and anti-sex rhetoric. While I am anti-sex and I am anti-drug, the university’s luck with cracking down on these vice crimes is doomed with the same fate that plagued the War on Drugs, the War on This, and the War on That.. College kids, with the exception being me and ummm me, want sex and want drugs. The authoritarian puritans that run the school apparently have no concept of reality, and instead want to violate human nature and individual rights to sex and to getting high.

Harsh but cruel

Q: What is the difference between Argentina and Japan?

A: About five years

The most interesting remarks regarding L’Affaire Raimondo

Jim Henley over on Unqualified Offerings has turned a private exchange between us into a very interesting open letter to yours truly. He makes some very interesting points!

I’ve got to tell you, Perry, I get infuriated too. What we have is, on one side, Rothbardians arguing that prophylactic war is incompatible with limited government. On the other, self-described “anti-idiotarians” who claim to believe that it is. The identity of the actual idiots here is less clear to me than it is to some others. When you factor in the Rothbardians’ least tenable thesis – that “aggressive defense” can never be anything but a smokescreen for imperialism – neither side seems to brim with promise.

Sort of Anti-anti-antiwar.com… but only sort of. I have always thought Unqualified Offerings was a daily ‘must read’ and this confirms it if you enjoy the illuminating spotlights of reason and insight. Thought provoking stuff.

Are you an ‘Anti-speciesist’?

“Speciesism is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species. Speciesism is wrong for the same reason racism and sexism are wrong–because all beings interests should count equally. Peter Singer refers to this as “the principle of equality”. “All the arguments to prove human superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals”. For any individual who can suffer, the degree of suffering, not the species of the sufferer is what should count”

I promise that I have not made this up. It is lifted from the ‘Animal Rights’ section of ZNET which, quite deservedly, has a link in our ‘Havens of Fluorescent Idiocy’ section

Must rush now. I’ve got a member of another species nicely browning off under the grill.

This week’s weird search engine hits on Samizdata

Also we have seem some previously unknown search engines… some of these are definitely ‘things that make you go hmmm.’

Via Google: Kunduz+rescue+pakistan+helicopter+brigadiers

Via Buscador.Lycos: sinister+creative+killing

Via Lycos: Cicero+economics

Via Lycos: oppressive+governments

Via Google: Bond+supervillain+bin+Laden

Via Sidesearch: american+indian+beliefs

Via Tsunamisearch: kylie+minogue+fake

Via Tsunamisearch: kylie+minogue+naked

Via Whatuseek.com: public+rationality

Via Google: al+qaeda+airlifted+antonov+afghanistan

Via Tsunamisearch: jeri+ryan+porn

Via Brisbane.t-online: England+porn

Via Google: sig+239+vs.+sig+229

Via Google: Bennett+Anglosphere

Via Google: fortune+born+on+22January+astrology

Via Alltheweb: Arabic+bikini

Via Alltheweb: Poland+citizenship+request

Via Redesearch: libertarians+and+greens

Via Search.kvasir: ladies+spanking