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 following article comes from Paul Marks, regular commenter here. Thomas Paine (author of Common Sense, The Age of Reason, and others) is someone who, at one point, would have been as familiar to an American or Briton of decent reading as, say, the Founders, or a character such as Davy Crockett or Daniel Boone. Paine’s books were read as avidly as any social media post today, and were arguably far more influential and profound. Paine was immensely influential in his time. But he had serious flaws in his views, as Paul Marks argues, and was foolish in the extreme about the French Revolution and where it might lead. He ended up nearly losing his life in France.
Another person who wielded great influence in the ideas of the Founders was John Locke, the English writer. Views such as the idea that Man is a “self owner”, for example, and of how property legitimately comes into existence, are often associated with Locke.
I can recommend this book by Yuval Levin, comparing and contrasting Edmund Burke (who supported the American colonists in their bid for independence), and Paine. See also this book about the Founding by Timothy Sandefur, which readers might enjoy. And one more is America’s Revolutionary Mind, by C Bradley Thompson.
Of course, this sort of topic might appear “arcane” to some, but at a time when the Founding, and the the origins of the greatest free nation on earth, are sometimes questioned and even attacked, it is never a waste of time to re-visit the territory and learn new lessons.
Anyway, over to the “Sage of Kettering”:
Thomas “Tom” Paine is mocked for holding that it was wrong for monarchies to have fiat money (rather than gold and silver coin), and high taxes and lots of government spending – but just fine for democratically elected governments to-do-the-same-things. His position was indeed absurd – but what was the source of his specific economic position that high taxes, specifically high land taxes, should fund lots of benefits, education for the poor, old age pensions, money for the poor generally – and-so-on?
Well Adam Smith implied there was something special about land taxation – and David Ricardo and Henry George developed this idea long after the death of Mr Paine – and the idea was not fully refuted till the American economist Frank Fetter just over a century ago, although experience in Ireland in the 1840s where the British government tried to run the Poor Law welfare schemes by a land tax, assuming that this would just hurt “the landowners”, should have discredited the idea that taxing land is somehow special – in Ireland the economy totally collapsed and between a quarter and a third of the population either died or fled the country. But there is more to all this than just taking a few, false, hints from Adam Smith and running wild with them.
As far back as John Locke there was a mixing (by slight of hand) of individual consent and majority consent. Gough (Oriel Oxford about 70 years ago now) showed in his book on Locke that medieval thinkers understood the difference between majority consent and individual consent – and that Locke, in his “Two Treatises on Government” mixed them up – in order to imply that a government is not coercive if it has majority support, that you as an individual are not being coerced, no matter what government does to you, if you had a vote – if only one vote out of millions (a doctrine that makes no sense – but a doctrine that both Mr Paine and Rousseau before him, later ran wild with).
Nor is it just the political side – there is also an element of economic thinking that Mr Paine may (perhaps) have taken from John Locke. Locke held, contrary to Hugo Grotius (the Dutch theologian and legal thinker) and other theologians and legal thinkers, that God gave land (the world) to humanity in-common – rather than land being unowned till claimed (the Roman or Common Law position).
As Locke held (by his interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible – thinkers such as Hugo Grotius held to a very different interpretation) that the land was originally given to humans in-common, he held that private ownership had to be “justified” – either by “as much and as good left for others” (clearly impossible with a rising population) or by some sort of payment to meet the “Lockian Proviso” – see how Mr Paine might get the idea of a land tax and various benefits funded by it, from this position of John Locke? Although, yes, Thomas Paine rejected Christianity – and it was from his interpretation of Christianity (opposed by many other Christian thinkers) that Locke got his ideas, in this area, from.
John Locke even held that if a ship’s captain with a cargo of food refused to sell it in a port where there starving people, seeking a better price at another port, the captain was “guilty of murder” – seemingly oblivious to the fact that this would (given there have always been hungry people in some part of the world) bid the price of food down to zero, bankrupting not just the captain – but also the farmers. It is also just legally wrong – as the captain may (may) be a very morally bad person (lacking in the virtue of charity – mercy), but he is NOT “guilty of murder” as any lawyer (of either English Common Law or Roman Law) could have told Mr Locke.
So, in all this, if (if) ideas are developed in a certain way it is quite possible to go from John Locke (supposedly the founder of English liberalism) to the Collectivism of Thomas Paine or even Rousseau – and of the French Revolution rather than individual private property based American Revolution. This is one of the reasons why American Founding Fathers such as Roger Sherman and John Adams were so opposed to Thomas Paine.
Over the seas and far away, President Milei of Argentina has abolished a government function, that of INADI, the purpose of which was easily comprehensible from its name in Spanish, the Instituto Nacional contra la Discriminación, la Xenofobia y el Racismo the newspaper La Nación has this report, and I quote.
“Disolvimos el INADI. Ente ideológico de uso político partidario. Despedimos a los empleados y devolvimos el edificio. Nuestra gestión se concentra en achicar el Estado y cerrar los organismos innecesarios. No creemos en la utopía del Estado eficiente. Vamos por más, mucho más”, escribió el ministro de Justicia.
” ‘We have dissolved the INADI. An ideological entity of partisan political use. We are dismissing the staff and are taking back the premises. Our management will focus on shrinking the State and closing unnecessary organs. We do not believe in the utopia of the efficient State. We will be doing more, much more.’, wrote the Ministry of Justice.”
Looks like he means what he says. On one YT video (in Spanish) I saw a comment to the effect of ‘If there isn’t a government Department for Breathing, will we all be asphyxiated?’.
This article by Tom Slater is worth reading in full, but I wanted to post these words in particular because they get to the heart, as I see it, of the current mayhem on the streets of certain British towns:
At the very least, elite identitarianism – with its crusades against whiteness and white privilege – has been a recruiting sergeant for a white-identitarian backlash.
Here is an excellent overview of the situation by Helen Dale.
This infernal dynamic is what will make tackling the new sectarianism in our midst so difficult. We have an elite that will almost certainly fight this identitarianism with more identitarianism – not to mention censorship. There’s already talk of clamping down on social media, perhaps even banning ‘Islamophobia’. The pundits are having another one of their McCarthyite spasms, demonising anyone who has ever criticised multiculturalism, mass immigration or Islamist extremism. All of which seems guaranteed to push these conversations to the margins, where blowhards can spew their bile unchallenged. All the while, the state will continue to ignore the myriad other forms of racial and religious sectarianism that have reared their head of late – not least the anti-Semitic, Islamist agitation that has been blighting Britain’s streets for 10 months now.
Those racist rioters must face the full force of the law. We must show our solidarity with the communities menaced by this violence. We also cannot allow the bigoted criminality of a tiny few to become a pretext to silence the concerns and corrode the freedoms of the many. But beyond the days and weeks ahead we also need a much, much bigger conversation about how to confront the racial thinking, ‘multicultural’ sectarianism and identity politics that have brought us to this point.
I also think that some, if not all, of the evil consequences of identity politics and the rest must be traced back to academia and what passes for intellectual activity. This situation has been brewing for years. There are a number of excellent studies about all this, but I think Cynical Theories, by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, is as good a place to start as ever.
Unpicking all this is going to take a great deal of work. Yes, reducing net immigration, particularly from certain parts of the world, is part of it, if only to give more time for those newly arrived (legally) on these shores to be assimilated. Restricting immigration is only part of it, even if I accept that my views on it are a good deal more libertarian than others on this blog. But far more work is also needed, in my view, to push back against the idea of turning everyone into members of a tribe. Tribalism, along with emotionalism, is the curse of our age. To that point, I also recommend this short book by Objectivist writer Nikos Sotirakopoulos, whose commentaries I follow.
And one way to start changing is not play the game, as so many in the MSM and political world do, of assuming that everyone has to be addressed as part of a “community”, with their self-appointed leaders. A person living legally in the UK is a British citizen, period. No need for hyphens, community tags, whatsoever. If you see newscasters, journalists, MPs or others engaging in this, call them out. Write to them (politely) to point this all out.
And we need to kill an entitlement culture, which I suspect is widespread among the wider public, if not more so, than those who have just legally arrived on these shores. The Welfare State – at least its modern manifestation – has played a part in creating an underclass of people who are prey to the temptations of violence and easy (usually wrong) solutions. In this regard I think of two books, written some while ago, that are worth re-visiting: Mind The Gap, by Ferdinand Mount (journalist and former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher) and Life at the Bottom, by Theodore Dalrymple, aka Anthony Daniels.
I get the daily posts from the Law & Liberty blog, and this struck me as interesting, because of the preamble:
Dozens of start-ups now offer Artificial Intelligence tools to help businesses set market prices. Assuming unlimited computing power to run such models and comprehensive data sets to train them, can AI replicate the way human actors make decisions in the marketplace? Socialists have argued for more than a century that enlightened bureaucrats can set prices as well as the myriad of private actors in the marketplace. Ludwig von Mises offered a celebrated refutation of the socialist case. Does the vast computing power behind Large Language Models give new life to the socialist argument? The answer is no, but Mises’ argument needs to be updated and sharpened.
The author of the article, David P Goldman, goes on to explain the problem. As the article is free to access, I won’t reproduce other paragraphs here apart from the two final ones:
AI can’t replace the innovative creativity of entrepreneurs. On the contrary: AI itself is an innovation whose outcome is uncertain. Some applications (replacing human beings on corporate help desks, for example) may turn out to be trivial; others, for example devising new pharmaceuticals, may be revolutionary. Only in an imaginary world in which no innovation occurs could we envision an AI-driven marketplace.
Artificial Intelligence isn’t intelligence in the first place. It can replicate the lower-order functions of the human mind, the sorting and categorizing faculty, and perform such operations much faster than humans. But it cannot reproduce the higher-order functions of the mind—what Immanuel Kant called Vernunft (roughly, critical reason) as opposed to Verstand (usually translated as “understanding”). It can mine data from past experience, but it can’t stand at a distance from experience and ask, “What if we did things differently?” Freedom is the freedom to create, and that is what free societies must preserve.
This seems right to me. I think AI is going to produce marvels, but I don’t see it removing the need for boldness, risk-taking and ability that all great businessmen have to “look around corners”. To ome extent I am a techno-optimist, as the likes of Marc Andreessen, the US venture capitalist, is. But I am not, I hope, Panglossian, or the opposite of a perma-doomster, either.
It is also interesting to consider how governments, for example, might seize the idea that AI makes it possible to co-ordinate human activity in ways that eliminate all that pesky free market exchange and messy entrepreneurship. This line of thinking resembles the view of certain science fiction writers who tried to imagine a post-scarcity world. (Science fiction often contains lots of economics, as this article by Rick Liebling shows.) Eliminate the idea of scarcity, so the argument runs, and then the underlying foundation of economics – “the study of scarce resources that have alternative uses” – falls away. It is easy to see the utopian attractions if you like to mould humanity to your will. I mean, what could go wrong?
Eliminate scarcity, then who needs enforceable property rights and rules about “mine and thine”?
In a post-scarcity world, where will the sense of urgency come – the sense of adventure, that drives great businessmen to create and innovate to push back against such scarcity? (This is also the fear that some might have of universal basic income – creating a world of indolent trustafarians who, like a couch potato, suffer muscle loss and mental decline because they don’t have to work or struggle to build anything.)
Karl Marx dreamed of a post-scarcity world – that seems the logical end-point of his communist utopia, to the extent he fleshed it out at all. (The irony being that his ideas helped inspire some of the greatest Man-made famines and loss of life in recorded history, in part because of the failure to understand the importance of property, prices and incentives.)
I am sure that some of this post-scarcity thinking might be encouraged by AI. But then again, AI uses a lot of electricity, and even without the distractions of Net Zero (no laughing in the class, people), producing the power necessary for modern high-potency computing requires a lot of stuff. And mention of science fiction reminds me of the “There Ain’t No Such Thing As a Free Lunch” that came from Robert A Heinlein, and later taken up by Professor Milton Friedman.
“Economics without price theory is knowledge without wisdom. Any economist can analyze data to estimate how many lives you’d save by requiring car seats for toddlers on airplanes. It takes a price theorist to ask how many lives you’d lose when the resulting increase in airfares prompts families to drive—which is far more dangerous—instead of fly. Price theory breeds wiser policymakers and wiser voters. If we fail to teach it, that’s a tragedy.”
– Steven E. Landsburg
Earlier this week three girls were stabbed to death in Southport. Several others are still in hospital. A 17-year-old of foreign ancestry has been arrested. This has led to protests which in turn have led to disorder. The communist establishment has blamed the disorder on “far right” outsiders. Given how widespread the protests/riots have become we will soon have to conclude that the whole of the British “far right” live at 10A Acacia Terrace, Nether Wallop.
So, who are these “far right”-ists? Well given how often Tommy Robinson and his supporters are labelled “far right” it would seem that either of the two demos he has organised in London this year would be good places to find out. As it happens I attended both of them.
Both times I drafted but didn’t publish a light-hearted piece for Samizdata. For the second – which took place what seems a very long week ago – I imagined what a Nazi might make of it. The long and the short of it was not much but given the events of this week it didn’t seem appropriate to post it.
Given the crowd and their flags one would have to conclude that the “far right” are people who are proud of their countries of origin whether they be England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland (both bits) or Britain as a whole, Canada, Israel or pre-revolutionary Iran. One would also have to conclude that many are far from the stereotypical pissed-up, white, working-class male.
Given the speakers one would have to conclude that they are extremely sceptical about mass migration, deeply suspicious about the way the law is being administered, in favour of freedom of speech, pro-Christian, mostly Reform voters and of all the colours and sexes under the sun.
And very, very angry.
 Belfast today. Is there nothing the far right cannot do? Update I have taken on board Mr Ed’s quite correct comments and kicked myself appropriately. And Natalie’s too. The use of the word “foreigner” is, I accept, contentious.
“Flashback: Harris fumed at Americans for saying ‘Merry Christmas’ before illegal migrants got protections”, Fox News reports:
Then-Sen. Kamala Harris warned Americans not to say “Merry Christmas” until there was permanent status for some illegal immigrants — amid a Trump-era battle over protections for some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.
“And when we all sing happy tunes, and sing Merry Christmas, and wish each other Merry Christmas, these children are not going to have a Merry Christmas. How dare we speak Merry Christmas. How dare we? They will not have a Merry Christmas,” she said at a 2017 press conference, a video of which was obtained by Fox News Digital.
Speakers pushed for the passage of the Dream Act, which would grant a pathway to citizenship for some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors, NBC News reported.
Here is the video and here is the 2017 NBC article to which the article refers.
This clip has got a lot of play because it shows Kamala Harris as a purse-lipped woke puritan. Fair enough, she is one. Even if one completely accepted her point of view that passing the DREAM1 Act was a desirable objective in 2017, why should that not having been done be the thing that made it outrageous for Americans to wish each other “Merry Christmas” until it was done? There were plenty of worse things going on in the world in 2017: wars, famines, natural catastrophes, terrorism, poverty, crime. Why were these miseries not enough to prompt the curtailment of Christmas greetings until they were solved? Nor were these evils limited to the year 2017. So far as I know the DREAM Act has not been passed to this day. So we must assume Kamala Harris has now personally abstained from “speaking Merry Christmas” for six years and seven months and is still saying “How dare you” to anyone else who does it.
Yet in her defence, gestures of self-abnegation as a demonstration of commitment such as Harris made have a long history. In 1601, during the Dutch Revolt, Archduke Albert of Austria was laying siege to Ostend. His wife, Isabella Clara Eugenia, Infanta of Spain, declared that she would not change her shift until the city fell2. Since that did not happen until September 1604, her underwear got a bit grubby, giving rise to the colour term “Isabelline”.
Now that’s what I call commitment. If she wants to be taken seriously, Kamala Harris needs to follow the example of Isabella and urge her followers to do likewise.
*
1No offence, Yanks, but for introducing the idea of bills or laws whose titles spell out aspirational words, your entire nation deserves to suffer the fate of Ostend.
2This story has been fact-checked to the standard expected of the Guardian or the New York Times.
Douglas Young ponders how close to the edge our lives are.
In the wake of the near assassination of former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally, a large number of Americans have wondered if he survived solely “by the grace of God.” Indeed, many believe that the Almighty Himself must have altered the direction of the assassin’s bullet so that it grazed Mr. Trump’s ear instead of hitting his head.
But if we accept this and are logically consistent, do we not also have to believe that God guided the assassin’s bullet that killed the devoted father shielding his wife and children at the event, as well as the bullets seriously wounding two other men? Or that He simply did not care about them?
I think the July 13 assassination attempt is all the more disturbing because it highlights so starkly just how huge a role luck plays in our lives. It is sobering to realize that, no matter how good or careful we think we are, very often we have no control over whether we get terminal cancer, crippled or killed in a car wreck, or even shot.
I suspect the major novelist Norman Mailer was right that this is why we prefer conspiracy theories to make sense of senseless tragedies. So instead of a total loser like Lee Harvey Oswald being able to kill President John Kennedy and change history all by himself, we much prefer to believe that only a massive cabal involving the CIA, our military-industrial complex, the Mafia, the Russians, or the Cubans could have managed such a massively consequential crime.
Now, despite clear evidence of recent rank incompetence at the U.S. Secret Service, we are sorely tempted to believe that last month’s extremely close call with the GOP presidential nominee had to be the result of a well-coordinated plot involving the CIA, other government officials, and/or even the Secret Service – anything but that awkward and lonely assassin barely out of his teens acting by himself. Yet almost every shooter of an American president has been an utter failure who somehow single-handedly pulled off what was assumed to be almost impossible.
In 1835, President Andrew Jackson survived an assassination attempt by a deranged man convinced he was a 15th century English king. In 1881, President James Garfield was murdered by a lone gunman and likely schizophrenic whose life had been a complete catastrophe. In 1901, President William McKinley was shot to death by an unemployed socialist-anarchist. In 1963 President Kennedy was cut down by a mentally ill high school dropout who had become a communist. And in 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot by an insane loner hoping to impress a famous actress he had not even met.
→ Continue reading: This precarious life
“Yes, the Chinese put on a display of thousands of co-ordinated drummers, itself an extraordinary physical feat, but hey, WE HAVE DRAG QUEENS, DECAPITATION, AND A FAT SEX-SWAPPED JESUS.”
– David Thompson.
Of course, maybe the French organisers of the Olympic opening shindig wanted to bring a bit of Eurovision, or even better, Eurotrash, back into the limelight.
On a separate note, Ilya Somin has this thought-provoking post on how to fix the “dark side of the Olympics”.
And finally, gender fluidity comes for boxing.
I was going to write a post about the riot in Southport that followed the random knife murders of three young girls in that town carried out by Axel Rudakubana. Prior to Rudakubana’s name being released, a false rumour spread on social media that the perpetrator was a Muslim, leading the rioters to attack a mosque. Then I remembered I had already made the same points in this post about the riot in Dublin that took place in November 2023 following the attempted knife murder of three young children by Riad Bouchaker. I am not re-using the old post merely to save time: I am doing it to demonstrate that the two incidents have a great deal in common.
“Despite police not revealing the suspected knifeman’s identity or motive”
In the following quote, replace “Irish” with “British” and “would-be child murderer” with “child murderer”:
It does not excuse the riots in the least if the rioters are correct to think that the would-be child murderer is any or all of a migrant, legal or illegal, or a Muslim, or from an ethnic minority. But the obfuscation from the Irish authorities and media on this point is making the situation worse.
The usual flashpoint for riots throughout history has been a rumour of crimes committed by a member of Group A against Group B. The riots in the Lozells district of Birmingham in 2005 have been almost forgotten because whites were not involved, but they were a typical example of the type, having been sparked by a completely unsubstantiated story that a black girl had been gang-raped by a group of South Asian men.
Sometimes the rumour is true, sometimes it is not.
If, as in that case, the inciting rumour is not true, the best tool for squelching the false claim and quelling the violence is a trusted press, taking the term “press” in a wider sense than just newspapers. If the rumour is true, the best tool for quelling the violence is still a trusted press. It can do things like publicising condemnations of the crime from leaders of the group to which the perpetrator belongs. What a pity that Ireland, like much of the Western World, no longer has a trusted press because it no longer has a trustworthy press.
It’s not “Despite police not revealing the suspected knifeman’s identity or motive, far-Right thugs emboldened by “misinformation” descended on the streets of the capital”, it’s a damn sight closer to “Because of police not revealing the suspected knifeman’s identity or motive, far-Right thugs emboldened by “misinformation” descended on the streets of the capital”. If the official sources of information won’t do their jobs, don’t be surprised when people turn to unofficial sources instead.
Top Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh killed in Iran, reports the BBC.
It is particularly good that Israel killed Haniyeh while he was staying in Iran to attend the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Let all know that Iran cannot protect its proxies.
The BBC continues in its usual style:
Widely regarded as a pragmatist, Haniyeh was said to have maintained good relations with other rival Palestinian groups.
Here is a short video clip of Haniyeh pragmatically celebrating the October 7th massacres.
… hope and prayers for the freedom fighters in Venezuela. Hoping for a Nicolae Ceaușescu style exit for Nicolas Maduro.
|
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