There are 31 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Masterful, Pseud!

    • #1
  2. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    “All Members of any society may not agree on what is beneficial, certainly to Them.”

    That’s it, Right there. The very foundation is built on quicksand.

    Thanks for the heads up, Pseudo. I love that Man.

    • #2
  3. EThompson Inactive
    EThompson
    @EThompson

    This is officially my favorite post of 2014 because it gives a face to Anthony (A.M.) Daniels- one of my most beloved icons and author of Our Culture, What’s Left Of It, The New Vichy Syndrome, Life at the Bottom, The Worldview That Makes the Underclass, et al.
     
    Kudos to Oxford for having the gumption to actually honor an invitation to a “controversial” speaker.

    • #3
  4. user_82762 Thatcher
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Pseud,

    And so we come to the case of the Affordable Care Act.  The Affordable Care Act does not work because the Affordable Care Act can not work.  Single payer would only be a more extreme fool’s fantasy.  The only question is how many fools there are in this country?  To put it bluntly, can we stop a fool’s experiment that will wind up killing many many good people?

    Great Post.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #4
  5. Susan in Seattle Member
    Susan in Seattle
    @SusaninSeattle

    Excellent.  Thank you.   He is one of my all-time favorites.

    • #5
  6. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    Great, Pseud.  I actually watched this a couple months ago at Gates of Vienna (the website I  visit most often — cuz, like, we really are witnessing the closing of the West). Dymphna’s analysis is worth reading-  her take-down of Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn, who represented the other side of this debate:

    http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/03/to-be-considered-are-socialists-fun-impaired/

    Daniel Hannan also spoke at the event.  No surprise, it’s very good.

    (Though I don’t quite  buy Hannan’s round-about metaphor. It’s the $%#!ing socialists in Santa Monica and Santa Barbara who have started placing them in neighborhoods in recent years, replacing four-way stop intersections, and they’re NOT an improvement!)

    • #6
  7. Ryan M Member
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Robert Lux:

    (Though I don’t quite buy Hannan’s round-about metaphor. It’s the $%#!ing socialists in Santa Monica and Santa Barbara who have started placing them in neighborhoods in recent years, replacing four-way stop intersections, and they’re NOT an improvement!)

     It wasn’t Hannan… and I only know that because I just got distracted and watched about 5 of the speeches.  That said, they aren’t an improvement on 4 way stops, but he was comparing them to lights.  How many times have you sat at a traffic light when no traffic was coming and just twiddled your thumbs?  At a 4 way stop, you look both ways and move along; just like at a roundabout.

    In keeping with his point, what socialism fails to take into consideration is that we are all perfectly capable of operating as social creatures without having someone tell us how to do it.  And the decision of a person in Montana vs that of a person in Virginia or DC or New York or Utah, is a perfect example of why someone at the top shouldn’t be setting all of the traffic lights without seeing the traffic.

    • #7
  8. EThompson Inactive
    EThompson
    @EThompson

    Ryan M:

    Robert Lux:

    (Though I don’t quite buy Hannan’s round-about metaphor. It’s the $%#!ing socialists in Santa Monica and Santa Barbara who have started placing them in neighborhoods in recent years, replacing four-way stop intersections, and they’re NOT an improvement!)

    At a 4 way stop, you look both ways and move along; just like at a roundabout.

     

    Roundabouts create more chaos than anything. Here in my lovely resort town that disparages the ugliness of stop signs and traffic lights, I witness 2-3 accidents or ‘near-misses’ every single day driving to the damn grocery store.

    • #8
  9. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    My memory was a bit skewed on that — it was John Redwood, conservative MP, who made the analogy to roundabouts.  Redwood’s speech is also well worth watching. Moreover, it’s amusing:

    How I love English oratory- they are masters of it and pretty much blow away Americans.

    Though I can’t help but mention: it’s good to be mindful of the Founders’ aversion for parliamentary government, an element of that aversion being that great emphasis on oratory and debating skills is tantamount to sophistry and demagogy. The political isn’t rhetoric. Cue Strauss’s brilliant insight about Socrates’ and Machiavelli’s common front against the sophists…

    • #9
  10. EThompson Inactive
    EThompson
    @EThompson

    How I love English oratory- they are masters of it and pretty much blow away Americans.

    Agree Robert, but talk is cheap!

    • #10
  11. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    talk is cheap!”

    Agree. Contra libertarians, the political is not about consent or persuasion or argument. It’s about drawing the lines — drawing the line to this peculiar word individuality. Hannan, like most libertarians, seems to accept the basic Hobbesian premise: a person is free only if he doesn’t have any external constraint. But Hobbes says this because he believes people don’t have freedom anyway. In a nutshell, this is libertarians’ determinism. Capitalism, open borders, family liberated from natural bonds: these will ineluctably assimilate everyone into efficient, rational utility maximizers. Spontaneous order. But libertarians’ causal arrows are reversed. 

    So unsurprisingly, belying the mellifluous rhetoric/argumentation, some discomfiting truth about Hannan, noted by another:

    “Hannan talks a lot of sense here, but let’s not forget that in his role as MEP he supports Turkey’s bid for membership (which would result in millions of Turks moving West), voted against the labelling of ritually slaughtered meat (which means we are unintentionally buying the stuff and financing the spread of Islam) and also voted in favour of prosecuting Marine Le Pen for excercising her freedom of speech. He is not really on our side.”

    • #11
  12. EThompson Inactive
    EThompson
    @EThompson

    Hannan has been a disappointment to say the least. There was a time when I wished he would move to the U.S., gain citizenship and become the next governor of CA. Not kidding.

    • #12
  13. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    “Hannan has been a disappointment to say the least. There was a time when I wished he would move to the U.S., gain citizenship and become the next governor of CA. Not kidding.”

    The patient is dead.  4th generation Hispanics vote 80% Democrat (and all data show they’re indifferent to Republican anti-immigration rhetoric!). There’s no reviving CA any more than any other South American or Third World basket case.

    And if any open border types should be reading this, the above hasn’t a scintilla to do with racism or bigotry, but rather with habituation. It has to do with almost everything we take for granted — natural rights, the absence of viewing politics as clientelism, the distinction between public and private, due process, or whatever — all being traceable to the political — i.e., to some person, or to some group of men, having determined where the line is going to be drawn.

    • #13
  14. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    I was not impressed. Poor delivery, disjointed message. I am sure many Ricos could have done better.

    • #14
  15. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    One needs to make one of several arguments:

    1: History shows complete failure, in every respect: economic, social, innovation, etc.

    2: Socialism cannot work, for one reason or another.

    He sort of gets there with the second point, which, in his argument, is really an attack on the Platonic ideal that there is an objective “good”. But this needs to be made much more clearly to impress an audience, complete with flamboyant examples. And then it must be tied into showing how such “imposed” values for “good” limit or destroy individual freedom.

    If any argument works today, it must show how socialism reduces individual freedom to do things that people want to do. To really twist the knife, we could make the argument that society rules it is Good for people to only be celibate and then monogamous after marriage to someone genetically selected to make the best children.  THAT would get people properly fired up.

    • #15
  16. Franz Drumlin Member
    Franz Drumlin
    @FranzDrumlin

    Mr. Daniels is impressive, if a bit stutter-y. But more impressive is the response from the other side of the debate delivered by a Socialist from central casting. Shrill, vituperative and devoid of specifics, unless you count the snide mention of the CIA’s involvement in the wrecking of the noble and human  Socialist experiment in Jamaica – which woulda worked, you know! if        only . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbCxBYIFPg4 

    • #16
  17. Pseudodionysius Inactive
    Pseudodionysius
    @Pseudodionysius

    I just wanted to get a promotion to Main Feed with the tag “Trotskyite Underwear” and see if anyone would notice.

    • #17
  18. EThompson Inactive
    EThompson
    @EThompson

    At the risk of offending the saints, I would like to say that your brief interaction with the secular world has been a pleasure.
    Don’t be a stranger.

    • #18
  19. Proud Skeptic Inactive
    Proud Skeptic
    @ProudSkeptic

    Well put…he could use a little help in the physical presentation, though.  It was like watching Joe Cocker.

    • #19
  20. user_1016012 Inactive
    user_1016012
    @Clay

    Robert, you write:

    Hannan, like most libertarians, seems to accept the basic Hobbesian premise: a person is free only if he doesn’t have any external constraint.

    I don’t think that’s a fair representation of Hannan’s argument. He explicitly acknowledged that government must possess the power of coercion. He also insisted, however, that government must use that power as little as possible.

    Also, I was deeply puzzled that he should have “voted in favor of prosecuting Marine Le Pen for exercising her freedom of speech,” as your source puts it. That doesn’t sound like the act of a man who can quote Milton, so I looked it up. He wrote a blog post about the affair at The Telegraph (here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100224380/meps-vote-to-have-marine-le-pen-prosecuted/). If you read it, you’ll find that he certainly didn’t vote in favor of prosecution. “Does idiocy constitute incitement?” he asks. “Not in my book.” Hannan did not vote to prosecute, but rather to lift immunity: “I now vote on principle to waive MEPs’ immunity in all cases.” His post explains.

    • #20
  21. user_428379 Thatcher
    user_428379
    @AlSparks

    He kind of lost me with his definition of socialism “the only definition worth debating.”  He ended up arguing against North Korea’s and Cuba’s totalitarian government.  That’s pretty easy.

    Our arguments are often against socialism lite (by his standards) as well.  What is wrong with Sweden’s form of socialism?  Or conversely, why does it work well if that’s his argument?  Or does it work, but not well?  What’s his position?  He basically takes himself out of the arena when arguments rage against what Clement Attlee did to Britain after World War II, or what Trudeau did to Canada in the 1960’s.

    Those are the arguments we’re having on Ricochet, and other conservative magazines and sites.

    • #21
  22. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    Actually, they recently replaced a four way stop with a round about on a busy intersection in my city and it has been a dramatic improvement.  The key is that the round about must be of sufficient diameter and the entrances and exits need to be designed to allow smooth merging instead of abrupt turns.  If you can’t safely navigate the roundabout at about 20 mph they are worthless.

    • #22
  23. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    It was a relatively Hayekian argument by Dalrymple.  I like Hayek, but I like Gilder better.  Hayek tells us why free markets work better than control economies, but he doesn’t do a good job of explaining why capitalism is moral and socialism is immoral.

    • #23
  24. user_428379 Thatcher
    user_428379
    @AlSparks

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

    I took this photo in Salerno, Italy in 2006.  The blue sign with the white diagonal arrow pointing downward indicates a roundabout.  There are four such signs surrounding the pole.  Putting it another way, the City of Salerno has a light pole as a roundabout.  I sat at a cafe for a couple of hours (waiting for a inter-city bus and imbibing in adult beverages) watching traffic go by, and they navigated it quite well.  It’s the only roundabout of that type I’ve seen.

    Regarding the comment on roundabouts and their optimal diameters, it depends on the density of traffic and the average traffic speed on the roads approaching the roundabout.  With low density traffic, and / or a low speed (limit?) approaching the roundabout, you can have less of a diameter and sharper turns.

    Even a light pole will work (those crazy Italians!!!).

    • #24
  25. Podkayne of Israel Member
    Podkayne of Israel
    @PodkayneofIsrael

    Trotskyite Underwear binds and clings in the wrong places or it tends to droop and hang. One Size Fits All.

    • #25
  26. Pilli Inactive
    Pilli
    @Pilli

    Podkayne of Israel:

    Trotskyite Underwear binds and clings in the wrong places or it tends to droop and hang. One Size Fits All.

     Boxers?  Briefs? Thongs? Loin cloths?  Diapers?  Aaaarrrrgghhhh!

    • #26
  27. Grendel Member
    Grendel
    @Grendel

    Franz Drumlin:

    Mr. Daniels is impressive, if a bit stutter-y. But more impressive is the response from the other side of the debate delivered by a Socialist from central casting. Shrill, vituperative and devoid of specifics…

    You have that right.  In the plonking tones you use explaining to a child why he can’t play in the traffic, she implies that Socialism is everything good that has ever been achieved, and if you are against Socialism then you are in favor of every bad thing that has ever happened.  She makes no distinction between socialist communities (like secular monasteries) and State Socialism.  She desires a state of personal fulfillment and autonomy that any libertarian might hope for, then as an aside declares that of course sometimes some central decision-making might be necessary. 
    Thoroughly dishonest.

    • #27
  28. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    Clay: Thanks for the correction regarding Hannan’s stance on Le Pen. However, just now having read his Telegraph article, I’m sorry to report I’ve lost even more respect for the man- though, to be sure, I still maintain a certain respect for him.

    France is being slowly Islamized. Only someone so far gone to ideology or lacking in sufficient courage (though Hannan certainly is courageous in many other respects) could misrepresent Le Pen’s words “as so over-the-top as to be idiotic: walking past a Moroccan cleaner in a headscarf is not the same as walking past an SS patrol.” That’s a really dishonest depiction of Le Pen’s statement- she was talking about the fact that in France today Muslim prayer spills out from mosques, taking over entire blocks. This happens in many places all over the country. It is one  manifestation, a particularly flagrant one, out of many of a type of “occupation” — certainly ideological occupation, such that to complain about the dissolution of your country’s character and cultural autonomy is sufficient to, well, get you prosecuted and potentially thrown in prison.
          

    • #28
  29. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    And needless to say, Hannan is being a weasel in voting for immunity categorically for all politicians. The real effect of Hannan’s action (needless to say his mischaracterization of Le Pen’s statement) simply serve the ongoing leftist cause of delegitimizing criticism of the Islamification of the continent.

    • #29
  30. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    I would suggest a politician voting for Turkish admittance to EU and against labeling halal meat misunderstands the on-the-ground reality of assimilation in Europe — misunderstands because he’s too imbued with a homo economicus. 

    I realize Hannan acknowledged government must possess the power of coercion — what I’ll call the drawing of boundaries to individuality — but that it must use that power as little as possible. No disagreement there. But it seems he share with most libertarians the problem that they don’t have a coherent or realistic account for why they draw a line “here” rather than “there,” other than to defer to “spontaneous order” which actually does fit with what I said about Hobbes.

    Would Hannan greet with incredulity the proposition that government plays a role in increasing prosperity, freedom and virtue in society? So for instance: if government outlaws pornography — i.e., government does *more* in one area — it consequently does less in another, given that the growth in pornography leads over time to family breakdown and thus increased demand on government power.  Ergo the issue isn’t small vs. large government, ie, the belief that freedom exists only in the exceptions to government power.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.