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]
|
I’ve had it on my mind recently to check out the website of Amnesty International. I do recall clearly that, when I was a student, it was an organisation so esteemed that it was generally held to be the very highest arbiter of human affairs among anybody who was anybody. Why, the mere utterance of its name was sufficient to bring on paroxysms of crippling guilt and po-faced righteousness in equal measure
So I moseyed along to their website to see what they had to say for themselves these days, and guess what I found? Well, according to Amnesty the way to ‘Stop the Terror’ is to abolish the trade in small arms.
They’d be better off trying to stop the proliferation of the word sustainable which pops up all over their website like a plague
Now, in fairness to them, they do highlight the fact that small arms are used by tyrannical governments, guerillas and criminals to bully and kill innocent civilians but what they speciously fail to realise is that abolishing the means of self-defence is not the way to discourage them
Oh and there’s a lot of other guff about the diamond trade being (shock, horror) unregulated and a general lamentation about the slow progress of World Government under the strict auspices of the UN (which they clearly worship). In short it is more or less everything that can be expected from your average post-modernist left-wing lobby group
Of course, there is nothing wrong, indeed there is everything right, with campaigning against government abuse and torture of citizens but there is a great deal wrong with their promotion of ‘entitlements’ as ‘rights’ and with their underlying assumption that all human life can be preserved and sustained by writing lots of noble things on lots of bits of paper and entrusting their stewardship to diverse grand-sounding conventions and bureaucracies. Some people don’t quite get it. These guys don’t get it at all
Far from being a ‘Candle in the Darkness’, Amnesty International is just another one of those organisations that know everything about human rights and nothing at all about human liberties
Some strange (and over optimistic) search engine hit on the Samizdata over the last week:
via Google: conspiracy+code+illuminatus
via Lycos: naked+Claudia+Christian
via Google: cat+sex+libertarian
via Yahoo: balkan+murder
via Lycos: Natalija+Radic+naked
via Yahoo: hawala+tax+computer
via Google: London+prostitution
via Yahoo: guns+wild+Italian
via Yahoo: cypherpunk+libertarian
via Yahoo: elephant+economics
I must point out that my rule of life prescribes as an absolute sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after, and if need be, during all meals and in the intervals between them
– Winston S. Churchill, on the occasion of lunch with Ibn Saud, King of Saudi Arabia
It seems curious to me that many of the people who were pouring scorn on the US insistence that it was fighting a ‘war’ against Al Qaeda, rather than just treating September 11th as a criminal matter, are the same people now howling about treatment of captive Al Qaeda fighters. So let me get this straight: this is not a war but these pundits want the captives to be treated according to the Geneva Convention?
Interesting. Next time I get pulled over for speeding, I will refuse to pay the ticket on the grounds I was not treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. That should work.
Also I saw one talking head after another on the television tonight, usually ‘Professors of Middle Eastern Studies’ that I have never heard of before, declaiming that “this treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners is going to ‘inflame the Arab street’ like never before!”. Ah, the good old ‘Arab Street’ again. Earth calling all ‘Professors of Middle Eastern Studies’: no one in the Western world who actually matters gives a damn about the mythical ‘Arab street’. Perhaps these ‘Professors’ need to take a sabbatical and do some ‘American Studies’ before they get in front of a camera and have the opposite effect on US opinion they were probably hoping for.
When the average westerner (i.e. not Robert Fisk) hears these people’s warnings followed by a clip of a street full of chanting Arab and burning American flags, what is going through their heads is not “Oh… we’d better get Alan Dershowitz out to Guantanamo Bay pronto to represent those poor Al Qaeda guys.” No, they are thinking “Gee, I wonder how many of those fuckers in that ‘Arab street’ I’m looking at on the TV a single cluster bomb would take out if dropped right about…now.”
While enthralled in an argument over God with one of my philosophy teachers, we hit upon an interesting subject that severely challenged my beliefs about the world. That subject was the question: are we determined by God to do things, or do we have the power of free will via spontaneous order.
The teacher’s assertion was that we are determined by God to do whatever God wants us to do. He further declared that the silly idea of individuality and the other silly idea of natural laws were a bunch of bunk that Thomas Jefferson (among many others) abused to gain power. These natural laws and notions that the individual was sovereign believed that spontaneous order works. Let me divert from the post for a moment and argue against two things here:
1) I believe that there are natural laws. In the state of nature, with no forms of civilization or order (including religion, government, and other oppressors) around, we would behave by these fundamental natural laws, without question, because they are natural. By nature, for example, we have the ability to operate individually for our personal good. That good involves saying what we think, owning property, having the ability to defend ourselves, and, among many others, having the ability to live. If those natural rights sound familiar, that is only because they are defended by the Bill of Rights. Libertarianism, I contend, revolves heavily around the idea of natural rights or natural laws. Without them, there is no justification for claiming that the individual is sovereign, which, need I say, libertarianism does.
2) Spontaneous order is what guides the world, not some cockeyed notion of God’s will determining us from birth to death. By nature things happen which force us to adjust and change our beliefs about the world. This is seen daily in capitalism, because of the innovation that is constantly undergone to correct past problems. I contend that people innovate and change without being determined to do so. But as my teacher would say, do we really know anything?
Let me stop with my philosophical diatribes that seem to be more prominent on Sunday morning than other times (those dang religious shows) and turn now to the question of what does this have to with liberal bias on campus. Just wait!
The teacher, as I stated, declared that every course of action was chosen by God. God had determined John Locke and others to invent the notion that in the state of nature, there are natural laws. This was to trick humans to think that God did not exist, hence the rise in the 18th and 19th centuries of deistic and atheistic notions; which God had determined.
He continued to say that in the 20th century God showed his power by causing the Great Depression (he determined the stock market to crash), to force religion back into our lives. Then he determined us to call for big government as a sign of religion; big government was a new age pyramid for God, if you will. I am not making this up!
Now here is how I look at it: I am a deist: there are laws in the universe that are not intruded upon by God. Second, I believe, as stated, in natural laws. Third, I believe that natural laws clearly defy the growth of government; and seeming that God does not supervise or enforce those natural laws, God does not support big government either.
Regardless if you agree with me or not on my religious views, I think most of us (I hope) can agree that God does not support big government. However, if you listened to the teacher one might think that FDR was God’s second son. (That would make Daschle…)
But wait, it gets better. I asked him to explain the infidels who do not support big government? His answer: the devil put them on this earth to torment God, and so far God is winning showing his strength with every new government program. So, to my fellow devil worshiping libertarians, advocate evil by advocating limited government.
It seems our new ‘Havens of fluorescent idiocy’ links section is proving very popular!
If we do not include all the suggested links readers have been sending in, that does not necessarily mean we do not agree that the site suggested is a pile of steaming idiocy, just that it is not quite ‘fluorescent’ enough to qualify.
There are several newspapers in our ‘Dead tree compost’ links section that are extravagant producers of said ‘steaming piles’ but occasionally redeem themselves… sometimes only very occasionally. There is indeed a good reason we call that section of our links ‘compost’.
Rafe Champion puts the intellectual boot in one again in the latest round of the Interblog Popper WarsTM
The debate between Karl Popper and his opponents has not advanced very far in seven decades and it is tempting to conclude that it is a waste of time to argue with philosophers about these things. In my view the fault lies entirely with Popper’s opponents who clearly demonstrate that “true belief” theories of knowlege produce “true believers” who persist in their beliefs regardless of effective counter-arguments. Because most of the evils in the world can be attributed to the activities of fanatics (people who are not prepared to reconsider any of their “true beliefs”) I am prepared to persist for a few more rounds of this debate in the hope of explaining how some ideas from Popper and his colleague Bill Bartley can help us to move on. In the meantime, I think that those “rationalists” like Will who persist in defending “true belief” theories of knowledge are in fact “selling the other guy’s product” (that is, irrationalism).
Recall my previous contribution where I explained that critical rationalism is concerned with forming and testing “critical preferences” for scientific theories or social policies (or anything else) so that our preferences can change in an orderly fashion in the light of new evidence or new arguments. For this reason I do not agree with Will’s insistence:
that Popperianism is at bottom a skeptical philosophy of darkness, which, despite the enthusiastic rationalist rhetoric of Popperian advocates, shares more with Rorty-like post-modern pragmatism than pro-reason philosophies of light.
He wrote (in criticism of the Popper’s view that we cannot achieve certainty):
For my part, I have not been made to see what is wrong with being certain in seeing mugs on desks, nor in the problem of a proposition becoming more likely true in light of new evidence
By all means be certain (in your own mind) about mugs on desks and anything else, but bear in mind that our senses are fallible as proved by optical illusions, hallucinations and bad calls by referees and commentators in fast-moving sports. Subjective certainty proves nothing, certainly it does not prove the truth of any general scientific or moral principle. So much for that oft repeated criticism of Popper.
As for a proposition becoming “more likely true” or more probable in light of new evidence, the problem for Will and his mates is to produce the formula to indicate the supposed increase in likelihood or probability. Popperians have no argument with the proposition that there are true propositions, the problem is to know whether any particular (contested) proposition is true or false.
Will wrote:
Popper is wrong that positive instances don’t raise the probability of a hypothesis. According to Popper and Champion, the probability of Newton’s theory being true, even after all its success, was the same as the probability of cats giving birth to elephants. And that’s absurd
There are two ways of talking about probability. One is when we say that Team A will probably beat Team B in a forthcoming football game. We usually mean that we have formed a critical preference for Team A, given what we know about the game and the two teams. We may sensibly add provisos regarding dud decisions by the referee, injuries to key players etc etc. and the possibility of an upset. That is Popperian and it has nothing to do with a formula that provides a numerical value (p) attached to the proposition “Team A will win”.
Scientists use that kind of “probability” talk when they compare the relative merits of competing scientific theories. We know that Newton’s theory is not true, despite its immense improvement on earlier theories, so it is doubly absurd to think in terms of the (numerical) probability of its truth. What century is Will living in?
The other type of probability is an academic industry that has been around for some hundreds of years, devoted to producing a formula that assigns a numerical value (p) to propositions (h), in the light of various bits of evidence (e). Because no usable formula has yet been obtained for that purpose, one can only conclude that this line of thought has failed, by its own standards. I know that highly learned “Bayesians” can produce formulas but equally learned critics point out that they do not work. Sorry fellas. Thanks for refraining from talk about prior probabilities. That will only land you in a regress that takes you further away from useful talk about the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories (and football teams). That is the direction of induction and attempts to justify “true beliefs”. It does not help working scientists or anyone else. It is worth noting that Popper is the only philosopher of science who has been taken seriously by any considerable number of scientists who are sensitive to the philosophical dimensions of their work (instances are Einstein, Medaware, Eccles and Monod).
Rafe Champion (Australia)
Behind the headlines, underneath the debate, hidden by the cheery faces of the elite and occluded by the gleaming fabric of the towering glass monuments in Strasbourg, something darker stirs in Europe again according to this report from UPI
Those of us who ever bothered to read the small print knew from the get-go that far from being “a great coming together of the European peoples…yadda yadda yadda..” that the whole project was nothing more than an exercise in cynical bribery and vote massaging
Nothing new here, of course. Politicians are what they are and, as my Grandmother used to say, from a pig expect a grunt. No, what is new is the sheer scale of this. Most politicians aim to buy a constituency; really ambitious ones aim for a whole country. But these guys are shooting for a whole continent!!
I’m surprised that the Greeks have joined in. They, of all people, should know a thing or two about hubris and, perhaps if they had stopped to think for a moment they would have realised that if this thing breaks it will break very, very badly
They say that time is a slow but fair judge; fair, but not always merciful
Recently razor sharp bloggista, Will Quick of DailyPundit coined the term ‘haven of fluorescent idiocy’ to perfectly describe statist/collectivist magazine New Statesman.
We at Samizdata are so impressed by this term that we, in what is of course an unprovoked act of aggression, have decided to annex the term for our own use. At the very end of the ever lengthening stalactite of links in our side bar, we have a new section called Havens of fluorescent idiocy for links to places untroubled by the light of liberty, reason and rationality.
In short, we are going to build up a list of sources for the many anti-idiotarian blog sites of all hues to use as a hunting ground. Our first three lucky winners are New Statesman (of course), Blowback and The Chomsky Archive… with more to come!
In Russia a man is called reactionary if he objects to having his property stolen and his wife and children murdered
– Winston S. Churchill
There is a very interesting little article in the Moscow Times by Robert Ware contrasting US success in Afghanistan with Russian military failure in Chechnya.
After the attacks, the United States acted with careful deliberation. Initial efforts were dedicated to diplomatic finesse that addressed the fears of foreign leaders and consolidated international support. The following weeks saw similar public relations efforts within Afghanistan. Millions of leaflets were dropped assuring Afghans of U.S. protection and offering them a clear choice if they abandoned their militant leaders. When the U.S. attack finally came, it was targeted to avoid civilian casualties and was accompanied by food drops.
Moscow did none of this. The failure of Russian policies in Chechnya began before its troops re-entered the republic when it failed to explain the reasons for its military campaign to the international community and the people of Chechnya.
Ware points out that the contrast is not just one of military success but also of the hugely different political approaches taken. He also correctly highlights the points of difference that make the analogies dangerous in some ways. Nevertheless, there is much to be learned from the vastly different outcomes of these two struggles against extremist Islamic fundamentalism. Fascinating stuff.
Lets hope that the importance of the political and social issues to the results so far in Afghanistan are not forgotten if the US decides to get involved in Somalia, as many pundits are predicting. In Somalia the clan based society is not alienated from its leaders and Al Qaeda, if they are even present, are not being supported by a central government (there is no real central government in Somalia) and thus picking a fight with the regional clans serves no purpose other than guaranteeing a fight likely to look more like Northern Ireland than Afghanistan.
In a nauseating opinion piece by authoritarian paleo-socialist Dea Birkett, writing in The Guardian (naturally), the state is urged to use force to abolish private education altogether in Britain. Birkett wants people to be deprived of even having the possibility of privately educating their children. We are told society must have a common purpose and once private education is made illegal, presumably socialist education police will start locking up people who dare to set up underground schools or educate at home. Birkett urges nothing less than universal forced backed nationally planned state education for all, regardless of what a family actually wants, in order to further national socialist goals.
But such a tiny minority holding on to such an outdated view on the right to exclusivity would increasingly appear absurd, as redundant as the royal family. Once private schools were reduced to such insignificant numbers, they could be easily, quietly closed down. The benefits would be enormous.
[…]
Education would become something we all shared, equal stakeholders in its quality and worth. Education could be effectively and efficiently planned on a national basis, in the knowledge that every child would go to a local school.
[…]
It’s no longer any good just offering carrots. It’s time to reach for the stick.
Will someone please remind me which side won the Cold War? Natalie Solent has described the equality and sense of common purpose Birkett demands as the equality and common purpose of galley slaves. If that ever comes to pass, Birkett and her ilk need to be shown that they are not the only ones who can reach for the stick.
|
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