This blog is closed and has moved to http://Charlottegore.com. See you there!
I've been keeping my eye on LPUK (Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom) for some time. I have some sympathy with them and to be honest I find their platform quite attractive. Two things stop me jumping ship. The first is, and I know this sounds ridiculous coming from a Lib Dem, but the Lib Dems actually have more chance of forming a Government than LPUK at the moment, although Never Say Never about this sort of thing. Like any political movement, if LPUK can connect with a mass movement of people and truly inspire then anything's possible - especially in this day and age. At the moment they're attractive to the hardcore only - and I think the swear bloggers (more on them later) are to LPUK what dominance of chav estates is for the BNP - it's a foot in the political door but it's ultimately a dead end. But concentrating on a 'pure' ideology is the correct way to build a solid and enthusiastic base around which you can build more moderate networks across the country. Their policy platforms will morph into their 'end goals' and the closer to power they get - assuming they survive and are well organised - the more their actual policies will be about 'pushing' things in the right direction.
And this is important, because this is what the Three Main Parties do without thinking. They get themselves elected based on a manifesto that is, in effect, their first 3 moves in a game of chess. We have no idea what their plan for checkmate actually is, although we're getting pretty close with Labour. It's all about the direction rather than the master plan.
An electable LPUK, one that found itself as Her Majesty's Opposition, would look very very different to the one we see today.
Successful political parties invariably need to be flexible, dynamic and organic coalitions. The Liberal Democrats are that, at least. It means I have to tolerate policies and opinions that I profoundly disagree with, and share membership of the party with communists. I put up with this because the important thing for me is keeping the idea of some sort of liberal party alive in the UK consciousness, even if our version of liberalism is baffling, depressingly collectivist, occasionally authoritarian and nannying and ultimately crippled by our support for the EU and the primacy of the Environment over all other considerations - electoral, economic and ideological.
A Liberal Democrat party that found itself as Her Majesty's Opposition would also look very different to the one we see today. I know this, and I think most people in our party know it to. We know, deep down, that our strategy is flawed, that it will not deliver power and that without changing the public will continue to reject us. I don't blame the public, or think they're stupid, or blame our leadership for failure to communicate properly with them. They have an impossible job. In a climate where people hate politicians, hate the Government and hate politics in general, we come third to Labour and the Conservatives, and in real life I rarely bump into anyone that's got a good word to say about either. Seriously this simple statement of our predicament should send a shiver down the spine of any Lib Dem. It is a terrible, terrible state of affairs.
The sooner we accept this the sooner we can start to ask, "What do we do about it then?" and maybe we can change things.
One day (I sincerely hope) the Liberal Democrats will complete some kind of transition into their rightful and natural place as the economically and socially liberal party. I'd like to believe, also, that this would be the answer to "what do we do about it then?" although I have no evidence to back that sort of claim up, and I know that far more people think the One True Path for our party is to become an even more radical lefty party redistributin' this, collectivisin' that and bannin' t'other.
But I want Free Trade and Free Minds. It's a beautiful and elegant combination that puts individuals as the masters of their own lives, and gets away from humans-as-mindless-children-sheparded-by-politicians syndrome. I've got one life and I'll be damned if any politician is going to tell me how I should live it. I might, on my death bed, regret my life choices and the way I've lived but that's what I want - I want to regret my life and my choices, not regret that I didn't get the opportunity to even make any.
But anyway, where was I in this great ramble-o-thon? Oh yes. Human Beans! Human beings are awesome creatures - our capacity to change, to experiment, to discard what does not work and embrace what works is what makes us special. We're adaptable, creative, sneaky, communicating problem solving machines. We're brilliant. Well, we all have the potential to be brilliant anyway, assuming we can consign slums, illiteracy, prohibition, protectionism and lifelong unemployment to the bin of history at some point. That'd be nice.
That's why economic and social liberalism will prove robust enough to still be around in some form or another long after Socialism has gone the way of all the other dead ideologies (Democratic Feudalism anyone?), because that's what it is: It's politics based around the way that human beings have achieved and been successful since we first came down from the trees. It's the human ideology, the idea that humans should be humans. I mean, you can't get simpler than that, can you?
Hell it was the monkey that said, "hey, do us a favour, there's some fruit on the ground. Shout if you see a Lion, okay? I'm going down!" that kick-started our whole civilisation. It's part of our DNA to experiment, to change and to innovate. We all, all of us, every single one of us, constantly tweak things and improve things. We learn, we grow, we observe, we act - it's who we are.
So Liberalism, economic and social - the primacy of the individual and the removal of power from sources of illegitimate authority - including the Government, Monopolies, Churches etc - this is how we grow. This is how we get to the next level.
In my heart I support the Liberal Democrats because, as unlikely as it feels just now, they are the perfect vehicle for this sort of agenda. It is ours. It belongs to us. Sure we got a massive bang on the head and seem to be suffering from soap-opera style amnesia, but we'll remember eventually. I hope.
This blog is closed and has moved to http://Charlottegore.com. See you there!
Posts
49 comments:
I agree, and I hope one day all, or at least most of the libertarians could be wooed to join the Liberal Democrats (or what ever the party's name will be at that time).
Meanwhile I think it is important to keep contact between the libertarians of all parties, and those libertarians, who aren't members of any party. Have you already joined the Open Liberty Alliance Forum?
I'm not but I'll have a look :)
Thanks!
As a member, I can only but say:
I agree. We, the LPUK, will need to adapt and compromise. The questions are: When? In what areas?
And while you're at it, why not check also the Libertarian Alliance Forum (there are actually two of them, but I think that the discussion on this one is at a higher level.). ;-)
You said there were two reasons that have prevented you jumping ship, the first being the LP's un-electability... what was the second? I might have just missed it but I don't think you mentioned a second.
Personally, I think the LP should not merely stay where it is in terms of policy, but be MORE radical. I recognise that radical change will not take place over night, that there needs to be moderate changes first (well, usually, not always, there are occasionally massively radical shifts in policy e.g. Germany 1933) but I think it's essential for there to be a 'model' party out there that's supporting a radical 'true' policy set. Labour only looks moderate because there's socialist and communist parties. The tories only look moderate because there's UKIP and the BNP.
With a radical LP these radical ideas are at least on the political map. If there was no radical LP, those radical ideas would seem beyond the realms of the ridiculous given that nobody, not even an unelectable third/fourth party would be supporting them.
Once you've got that then two things can be done. Firstly, a second, moderate party can be formed to fill that need, or an existing party or parties can move in that direction.
Scott,
Second reason was believing that the Lib Dems should be filling this role.
What you say about the role of LPUK (and why Labour seems moderate) is spot on I think. Very very interesting.
I think it is almost impossible to create a new party and get it enough publicity and credibility in the eyes of the voters (credibility as a party which can actually gain seats, and thus which the voter could vote without wasting his vote, especially under the FPTP) to make a difference. Libertarians would do better, if they all came over to the Liberal Democrats and would try to influence from inside. Otherwise they end up as just one more of the many small no-hope parties UK is full of. (Of course libertarians could also pick one of the other three big parties, but they aren't as close to the libertarian ideals to start from, and because they have more members, they are also more difficult to influence.)
...one of the other two big parties, obviously.
Charlotte,
Shouldnt that be ex?? Incidentally, both the Hitchens brothers are ex communists too...hard to believe I know but true; seeing the limits to capitalism and yes saying that in some regards Marx was correct in terms of pointing to the tendency of capitalism to crisis and the limits of what it provides just puts me in the company of the current Archbishop of Canterbury who said similar things....
As yes, the renowned economist the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Ex communist then. I stand corrected.
I wonder if the analysis is slightly wrong. Most new parties are "single issue" parties - either in policy (eg UKIP) or in dogma* (think Green, far left or LPUK).
It's interesting, both types of these micro parties have their successes and failures. Their simplicity* attracts a certain kind of member/activist (see sweary bloggers).
The only parties to have achieved anything approaching success with our current electoral system in the UK, are those that swap ideological purity for being wide-churches. People vote for the party that (a) seems to be heading in the right direction politically - as indicated by a few key policies, unity etc and that is (b) a movement that can win, or that is the obvious alternative to the party that's currently in power. A broad-based party with a general sense of ideological direction can tick both these boxes.
I don't know that success will follow for those who set up new micro parties - and those within my own, the Liberal Democrats - who seek (their view of) ideological purity, to narrow the base.
I also think that the dogmatism lends itself to infighting (again, see far left and perhaps LPUK!). I know this is present in all parties, but the falling out has more of an affect on smaller organisations that have fewer people. If someone leaves the Lib Dems, Labour or the Conservatives in a huff, there are usually other people to take up the slack - not necessarily the case in a micro party (I might also suggest that the kind of person who joins a micro party might be slightly more dogmatic than one who joins a generalist party).
-------------------
*I don't mean this in a perjorative sense, just the best way to describe what I mean.
Anthony, I agree completely that to achieve real electoral success that you need to encompass a rather large range of views.
But then I also tend to think that it is our current proposition that is limiting our appeal. Everyone knows us as the Pro-Enviroment, Pro-EU, Pro-Public Sector party. In many people's eyes we're just a more bleeding heart, hippy version of Labour. That might float your boat but for the majority that's a very, very niche sort of appeal.
I do not wish to narrow our base. Quite the opposite.
Well, generally speaking we are a pro-EU, pro-Environment, bleeding-heart movement*. But then again, our pro EU-ness is qualified (even if we don't dare argue for this at the relevant times). We are also generally individualistic, localist and pro-devolution.
I do agree that we would widen our appeal if we appeared more coherent in our direction, made sure that neither major party could say we were a wishy-washy version of the other.
Whilst the libertarian perspective is attractive on certain things, and indeed must influence our policy-making, a pure libertarian party has an even more niche
appeal.
---
*I don't agree we are pro-public sector, and recently we've made significant moves away from being such - and this is a good thing.
I don't believe that the majority of our members are pro-EU. They are probably pro-Europe - which is another matter altogether. The powers that be in the Party continue to associate us with the EU and I think it's time we stopped this. I'm an ardent European but I have no truck with the corrupt European Commission and the toothless European Parliament.
Charlotte,
Thanks for accepting the correction. As regards the Archbish he's a bit of a mixed bag in his views; i was merely pointing out that accepting an argument on a specific thing doesnt make you lock-stock that thing; i've been accused of putting a 'libertarian line' on web self-censorship for example in regards to a piece I wrote on Andy Burnham. Maybe it is and maybe it isnt but I think we can agree even if it was that wouldnt make me a libertarian :).
Now concretly in terms of being a 'bleeding heart' party that is simply a myth. Social liberalism has a heritage just as your line does (though your argument that it is the one true path does sound rather 'unbroken threadish' to me). History is infinately more complex than you potray it here...
Anthony is right about a niche appeal and you have to answer the question that if isn't a niche appeal then why isnt the LPUK more successful and why is it that you rightly ackowledge that the Liberal Democrats are much closer to power??
I'm pro-EU in the sense that i like the ideal of nation states coming together like they do in the EU but less keen about how it is executed sometimes. In general though I still come down on the side of saying it is a 'good thing'; imperfect and flawed yes but still the right direction.
What many libertarians fail to understand, that EU is just a tool, like any government. It's not inherently bad or good (unless you believe that government in general is inherently bad like some libertarians do, but then you could just as well be anti-UK, also). If we look at the situation before EU, we can see, that it has done some good as well as some bad. At least it has removed toll barriers between the member countries, which is often forgotten and taken as granted.
Of course EU needs to be reformed. I think that Centre for the New Europe offers construcive views how to do that.
Darrell, if it's a myth it's a myth that most people believe.
As to why the Lib Dems are more popular.. well we have 60k ish members and have been going for 20 years. They've not fought a single election yet. Our popularity isn't exactly anything to boast about.
I keep stressing over and over again that what I want is a change of direction and emphasis not a complete total shift to a hardline libertarian agenda.
Well, my opinion on the EU (whilst being very pro-Europe and a happy European) is that, yes, the trading bloc is good, but the protectionism against non-EU states, especially in terms of agriculture, is a very bad thing.
The EU members are probably more economically liberal then they would be without the EU but the directives and regulatory burden is severe and acts as a new form of tariffs as far as I'm concerned. Free Trade, but only if you follow our rules.
I have serious doubts about the ability to reform the EU. I am EU-Pessimistic.
Charlotte,
I think most peoples preception of us is as a centre-left party which is yes to the left of Labour. Either that or they think of us as rather chemeleon-like.
There is nothing wrong with wanting the party to shift in the direction you feel it should; after all most people who are in politics think there party should shift in their direction. However, concretly what do you mean in terms of policy?? Concretly, what concessions are you willing to make to a more social liberal agenda in your 'changed direction' party??
If you want us to become like the LPUK then I think it is understandable that people would conclude you do want a 'hardline shift' because the LPUK is 'hardline libertarian' in my eyes.
Darrell your trolling is testing my patience. Stop imagining what I'm really saying and start reading what I'm actually writing.
Charlotte,
I asked at least two legitimate questions which you have thus far failed to answer. I asked what policy concessions would be made to a more social liberal agenda in this party of changed direction and concretely what your shift of emphasis would mean in terms of changed policy. I think they are eminantly reasonable questions are they not??
Although I haven't been reading your blog for long your posts sound to me like someone who is desperately trying to convince themselves to stay.Possibly some cognitive dissonance going on? Maybe you are having trouble getting over tribal loyalties before you leave and that is what these posts are about?
Anyway, I'm not pychologist so I'll leave that alone.
Perhaps this is the real reason why you will not break through in British politics to form a government:
"if our version of liberalism is baffling, depressingly collectivist, occasionally authoritarian and nannying and ultimately crippled by our support for the EU and the primacy of the Environment over all other considerations - electoral, economic and ideological."
That isn't liberalism, its the worst side of socialism and we've had 11 years of those policies. It makes you look like Gordon Brown's Labour with a yellow rosette (whereas Cameron is Blair's Labour with a blue rosette). You made that bed when you joined up with the SDP and became pro EU because Maggie was seen as a skeptic.
There is one other area that you have touched on briefly in other posts. In nearly 40 years of being intersted in politics I don't remember politicians, as a species, being so despised. Yes we have always disliked them but the current crop really are beyond the pale. This is primarily because they are professional politicians from the same mould who will say and do anything to get elected and stay in power. Your leader and front bench comes across as exactly from that mould.
Maybe LPUK or the other minor parties won't break through but I find it hard to beleive that you can change the LibDems enough to break the perception of corrupt politicians and your own recent history.
As an outsider looking in I would say that the change you are talking about making is several orders of magnitude greater than the one that changed Michael Foot's Labour Party to the one Tony Blair managed to get elected. But good luck anyway and if you stay I look foward to continuing to read about your exploits on here.
I'm not sure where all these perceptions of the LibDems come from as I think they vary across the country.
Speaking of my local party there is a broad range of viewpoints held among the membership which includes a couple of city businessmen, a couple of unemployed loafers, some university lecturers, a few mums, a couple of trades unionists, public sector workers, several professionals, self-employed, some local business-people and a range of office-workers, shop-workers, retirees and students.
They represent about as broad a range of philosophies as you are likely to find - including religious and anti-religious, anarchists and technocrats, artists and scientists, moderates and fanatics, social democrats and whigs, teetotallers and boozers, welfare-staters and bottom-liners, geeks, fashion victims, true believers and cynics.
Any gathering of our members has the potential to either explode or implode. This can turn half off attending, while the other half is liable to storm off in protest unless a resident's survey is done that week.
This debate between the two sides just makes me laugh - get any number of LibDems in a room together at once and you'll find more opinions than people. It's not that we're split between two wings, but that there are so many wings it is impossible to say at any specific moment which one will convince.
And that's just as it should be. The people who put the most work in and are most effective are usually those who get the best results. The splitters are just malcontents at their inability to work the democratic system which exists - if they had more nous than je they wouldn't be complaining that they haven't held sway. A party of one just doesn't swing.
If anybody is unhappy with their local party they are welcome to come and visit us - we're a vibrant and diverse bunch and we need all the help we can get. We're certainly never lacking for things to do if you're willing.
Scott Freeman wrote: "You said there were two reasons that have prevented you jumping ship, the first being the LP's un-electability"
By LP, do you mean the Liberal Party, or LPUK?
It appears you are thinking of "jumping ship" because the Liberal Democrats fails to be something that it has in fact never been in the first place; a libertarian party.
It wasn't a libertarian party when you joined it. If you think you should jump ship, then it must have been you that has changed rather than the Liberal Democrats.
Left Lib, during the Gladstone era, and still until about hundred years ago, the Liberal Party came pretty close to a libertarian party.
I don't agree. Gladstone was no libertarian. Only some aspects of economic policy is there any similarity.
I didn't say that he was libertarian. I said, that during his era, the Liberal Party came pretty close to a libertarian party. Liberal Party, lets say before H. H. Asquith, was pretty much a classical liberal party, and the most moderate wing of libertarians (to which I belong) are overlapping with classical liberals.
I would not join the LibDems for the very fact that it DOES contain Communists, "Social Democrats" (Shirley W being one of the prime examples) and those who think the State is a "good". You cannot have truck with such a broad church and be able to call yourself a Libertarian. Such people will talk and talk and talk and ask for compromise after compromise so that what is left is useless, and they know it. Remaining inside the EU is a classic example - unless you can roll back the EU into a Minarchist state or a trade block only, it is going to be Statist and Authoritarian, no matter what level of "discussion" you want, however many hours of talks you have. It, as an entity, craves power and will find things to do and will want to control more and more aspects of our lives, so a Minarchist EU is out of the question. The only logical move is towards EFTA membership.
I do not believe the LibDems could be reformed from within because too many are from an alien mindset - Statists, basically - UNLESS the Conservative and Labour Parties are split asunder and so all the Social Democrats go off in one direction and all the Greens in another and etc etc until you are left with just the (half dozen or so?) Classical Liberals which is not too far off from Libertarian to begin with.
Clegg's latest "idea" about Paternity leave shows he is no Libertarian. He has no idea about SMEs, no idea where the wealth comes from in this and pretty much any country. He wants to force companies to employ someone against that company's will. FAIL.
Yes Nick's turned out to be a much more of a typical, traditional Lib Dem than I believed possible. That or he's going out of his way to lovebomb the activists because he feels that he doesn't have a proper mandate.
Either way it's not very inspiring.
A big reorganisation of the political parties in the UK would be an amazing thing if you ask me :)
And of course Roger is the epitome of wisdom!
Charlotte, I'll say this again, you are as typical of the LibDems as anyone else - even our great and gracious leader...
But what will it take to get a reorganisation of the political parties in this country - it'll take the LibDems getting into government, that's what.
So make your choice: ideological purity or real power to change things.
I know about me, I'd rather have the latter.
I would choose "ideological purity" (principle) over power.
That's where it gets fuzzy though isn't it?
If you're not in power, someone else is, and if they're anathema to your principles then the question is do you only fight them if you can beat them by being ideologically pure, or do you do whatever it takes to beat them (without actually doing anything that works against your end goals) and use the power to push things in your direction? Government is slow and legislation takes time. You can only do so much in a specific term and you need to demonstrate to the public that what you're doing is working and good for them to support the rest.
Democracy's a pain in the arse but it's what we have to work with, isn't it?
This is a review of book attacking democracy from a Austrian economic libertarian perspective:
Democracy: The God That Failed - The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order
It's harder to defend democracy from the perspective of the powerful than it is from the position of the weak, so I'll assume, David, that you're built like Schwarzenegger with a comparable armoury at your disposal.
Me, on the other hand, were I to wear trousers, that's where I'd keep my bananas. Just don't venture too deep into the jungle, is all I'll say.
orangepan "...get into power."
Well, the LPUK is a Minarchist party, so the idea is to get into Government and get as much of the State out of power as possible and return it to where it rightfully belongs: individuals.
Then, if people want to mutualise, collectivise voluntarily, then it is their choice.
Democracy is the least bad option we have of maintaining Rule of Law. Note that; my objective and that of most Libertarians, IIRC, is more towards Rule of Law, not "democracy", as in a once every 5 years, all-or-nothing, take-it-and-we-might-also-leave-it pig in a poke.
Democracy should not be an end in itself, it is a means to maintain Rule of Law. The failure to realise that is all around us.
p.s. oh, I forgot, insert after pig in a poke: "tyranny of the majority". Democracy's main function is to allow the people to remove bad governments, not vote good ones in.
p.p.s. as for "epitome of wisdom"; so, oranjepan, are you?
Roger,
Labour gained 35% of the vote in 2005, so I hardly think it's fair to say that we live in a tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of a plurality, perhaps, but all the same...
On the subject of ideology vs pragmatism, I'm not interested in debating at this time the ends to which power is best put, only that it is impossible to put it to any purpose at all whilst you are in opposition and even harder without any parliamentary base.
I will agree however that any government is destined to fail in its purpose irrespective of how much power it accumulates. It is the nature of power that it is a transitory illusion: human nature is to be the architects of our own eventual downfall (and I say this as a tree-dweller).
So where I think we coalign is that with every additional state power there is a necessary and equal reduction in the power of private individuals and organisations to act independently - getting the balance right is less a product of instituting some universal theory as it is of trial and error on a case by case basis: any structural logic which exists is only something which can be reconstructed theoretically with hindsight on the basis of evidence and has no further application beyond that moment. Current indications may suggest we are in agreement on some current prescriptions, but will we agree tomorrow?
The precise and full combination of circumstances at any one time are absolutely unique, so it remains a truism that history doesn't repeat, it rhymes as it drives unceasingly onwards.
What I personally advocate is a politics based upon participation rather than some rigid doctrinaire approach.
That being so I have no objection in principle to anyone who wishes to get involved in any way they can, but you should choose your allies carefully if you want your effort to have the effect you hope for: the wisdom of all choices can only be determined after the event - which of us is the better judge?
How will each of our choices look when we are finally capable of stepping back?
For me my party harbours realistic ambitions of getting into government within my lifetime, so I feel justified in having some confidence that I may see it happen; 20 years is not unrealistic, 10 years is possible. All I can do is push as hard as I can in that direction.
What ambitions do you harbour?
"attacking democracy from a Austrian economic libertarian perspective"
Well, that's fucking me convinced.
Not.
Thanks for replying Oranjepan,
The LPUK does not have a "rigid doctrinaire", but does have a long term aim point to guide policy and to which we offer up alternative strategies for test.
It is good you point out about alliances. One thing for sure, I know that throwing my lot in with the LibDems that contains the people it currently contains is definitely the wrong choice in alliances. Too many Statists, Fabians.
On the issue of power - as Libertarians we understand that power corrupts and over decades a Minarchist State is likely to atrophy back to a big State, but that does not stop us - to do so is like saying "why have kids if they will eventually die?". It is a ratchet, and the more freedom people get, the sooner they will resist future attempts to take it from them. Remember, one is never more than 6ft away from a Fabian.
However, I am not sure if you accept that State power is, at best, a necessary evil that needs to be constantly reviewed to see if it is still necessary.
For the LibDems to lose all those who do not accept such a thing, I do suspect we would need the tectonic "musical chairs" I proposed. However, I think the name is against it being viable if it is just Classical Liberals left.
As for ambitions, me personally, MPs in the next decade, government in two decades. Ideally a government before the end of the first decade - we believe many people are naturally Libertarian once the scales of Welfarism and envy politics have fallen from their eyes. Be aware that once the "convenient lie" of Eco AGW CO2 has been fully exposed, the public will not be happy at those who have siezed upon it so quickly. The LibLabCon will all be tarnished.
The problem with Libertarians is that they confuse advancing liberty with defending property. It's not illiberal to advocate decreasing one person's freedom in order to increase another's by more. A liberal can justify denying a rich person a new sat nav system for their yacht in order to provide a poor person with life saving heart surgery. Wealth redistribution can be justified in terms of promoting liberty.
Rigid defence of property in the real world amounts to a defence of vested interests and is effectively a conservative policy rather than a liberal one.
Libertarian thinkers have come up with lots of interesting ideas in other areas e.g. privatising money. I think dialogue between the LPUK and those of us on the radical wing of the Lib Dems should be fruitful, but I'd resist any move towards cutting redistribution.
Andrew Chamberlain: The problem with Libertarians is that they confuse advancing liberty with defending property.
No, we do not make that confusion. Both are important and without the latter, the former is tokenistic. You cannot be free to any extent if your property is not secure also (home, possessions, wealth, life, thoughts).
However, the very idea about redistribution as being somehow advancing liberty is absurd.
Redistribution by force is unlibertarian, no matter how you try and dress it up. You do not increase another's liberty in any meaningful way by the very act of taking money or property from another by force.
Taxation to fund the Armed Forces, Police, Courts and the Prison Service is a necessary evil until a better way can be found to fund it, but a necessary evil it will remain.
By attempting to pass it off as somehow increasing liberty is the same as saying it is a "good", and when you go down that road, Statism lies at the end and people become enslaved to work for the whim of their self-appointed "betters" who somehow know best how to spend the workers' money - better than the worker, even.
Such arrogance.
"Rigid defence of property in the real world amounts to a defence of vested interests and is effectively a conservative policy rather than a liberal one."
Not really although I can see where you're coming from.
But there's two ways to break harmful vested interests. One would be to tax and regulate them until they break as a deliberate act, and the other would be to remove tax and regulation that gives those vested interests their power in the first place.
I'm afraid I'm with Roger here. Taking people's property by force is theft whether it's the state doing it or some mugger. "I'm going to take that off you because you're not spending it on what I want you to spend it on" is a horrible, horrible idea to base a political system around.
Everything the Government does is to fix problems created by the last thing they did. The more they mess with things, the more they seem to need to mess with things more. It's a vicious cycle that's already got us to the point where half our income is taken in tax. This is a stupid state of affairs and it's strangling the private sector. We need more profit, wealth and creativity not less. These are good things. Profit is not evil. Wealth is not evil.
"A liberal can justify denying a rich person a new sat nav system for their yacht in order to provide a poor person with life saving heart surgery"
Really? By defination you will confiscate all of someones money to the point where they can't afford a satnav for their yacht? Presumably your next step is to confiscate the money they would have used to buy the yacht in the first place? All this because you deem someone rich.
What if that person has scrimped and saved and gone without other things so they can take part in this innocent sport/pasttime and this is a life saving necessity for a long challenging sail?
And why should that person be singled out for saving yet someone else who has been profligate, spending all their money on wine, women and song, as it were, be spared the cost of saving the poor persons life?
I am not advocating no taxes, just that once society has decided on a level of contribution to the central pot people should be left to get on with their own lives and not be sunject to arbitary confiscation. Even if it is the state doing it is still theft.
Appointing yourself as chief arbiter of how someone spends their own money isn't being a liberal.
All very interesting. I have a number of questions for the Libertarian-inclined among your readership, so I've started a new thread for people to give some answers.
DavidNcl: "This is a review of book attacking democracy from a Austrian economic libertarian perspective"
Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a nutcase and a bully who is destroying the credibility of Austrian economics as well as libertarianism by posing as an Austrian economist and a libertarian.
Hoppe is totally lost, when he tries to suggest, that authoritarianis, which classical liberalism (and thus libertarianism) has opposed from the beginning, is some kind of smaller evil than democracy, and anarchy smaller evil than a night-watchman state. He represent as "libertarianism" everything the classical liberalism was born to oppose, from the days of Locke.
Democracy might not be perfect, but where are all those benevolent tyrants from history, who used absolute power to advance the liberty of anybody else than themselves?
For the information of those, who don't know, Hans-Hermann Hoppe as well as Lew Rockwell represent a personal cult build around their mentor Murray Rothbard. They have organised themselves in the "Ludwig von Mises Institute", who they named after a renowned Ludwig von Mises, teacher of Rothbard, who had little to do with the ideas that the institute represents. Mises was a minarchist and utilitarian, the institute represents natural law and anarcho-capitalism, and the so-called "paleolibertarianism", a term coined by Rothbard in order to claim that he would represent some kind of "original" libertarianism when he did not. Mises himself was involved in the activities of Foundation for Economic Education.
Anon January 12, 2009 6:16 PM:
Nothing wrong with the Foundation for Economic Education in my view.
Read it all. Hazlitt and von Mises, Popper, Rand and Rothbard, Spencer and Molinari, Bastiat and Hayek.
Think. Decide.
For what its worth I think that Rothbard is interesting and literate.
The point was, that though "Mises Institute" poses as some kind of legal heir of Mises, Mises's own choice was FEE. Nothing wrong about FEE in my opinion, either.
I have also read it all, thought and decided. And I still find Hoppe and Rothbard lunatics.
Post a Comment