“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both.”

Matthew, you said my political beliefs meant I advocated paedophilia. I have no interest in anything else you might have to say.

No, I did not say that. I was simply taking to the limit – boundary testing as we computer programmers call it – the argument that taxation and government legislation are evil restrictions on freedom and nothing else is an evil restriction on freedom.

I note that we are born owning nothing but our own bodies and our own minds. If we do not acquire the necessary sustenance to live, we die. If we own nothing but our own bodies and our own minds, we do not own the necessary sustenance to live. Being forced to die, is, I think, the ultimate restriction on freedom. So, what is someone who owns nothing but their own body to do? You say it is evil for the state to take wealth from others in order to support them. Very well, so what to do in desperation? Sell one’s body, if there is no alternative, in a crude and literal way. If you will at least admit that someone forced through owning nothing else to do that is having their freedom restricted, you will at last have acknowledged that which so far you have refused to acknowledge – that there are other restrictions to freedom apart from taxation and government legislation.

You’re hoping that somehow society can be liberal while the economy is authoritarian, and my position is that that cannot be done.

Where am I hoping that? Simply because I feel that there are some whose views on what is “liberal” give an over-emphasis to some aspects at the cost of ignoring others, does not mean I want a rigidly controlled “authoritarian” economy.

If we can agree that freedom does require at least some sort of state funded by some sort of taxation, we can argue where the balance might lie. I am happy to accept that getting the balance wrong either way results in a reduction overall of freedom. You seem to believe that adopting any position whereby one thinks the balance might be a little too much towards the “economic” means one must want an “authoritarian” economy.

As I’ve already said, I’m not opposed to freedom to trade or freedom from excessive taxation, I regard these as important freedoms. I just don’t regard them as the only freedoms it’s worth bothering about.

There is no material interest in it.

Those who want to be free from the state to make money are far safer with a lot of hanging and flogging going on, and without an organised movement of the disadvantaged to hold them back (so it is convenient to feed out divisive narratives on identity politics to stop the organisation happening).

Those who want freedom from sickness and insecurity want a bedrock there to protect them and advance their interests. This is usually expressed through the state.

Both of these groups have real things incentivising them do believe in what they do, and to make it happen. Both also contain a spectrum of opinion, of course, but the point is that there is an underlying interest.

In fact, only the vulnerable side really have a grassroots presence. But the wealthy side doesn’t need one, it has the daily mail, and can afford stamps and printing costs.

So I think you’re being “unabalanced”. You’re hoping that somehow society can be liberal while the economy is authoritarian, and my position is that that cannot be done. To control the economy, one must control society- and to control society, one must control the economy. To free either, to whatever degree you may desire, requires freeing both.

“Just because I’m critical of an unbalanced economic approach to liberalism which ignores all other factors doesn’t mean I don’t recognise that free trade and freedom from excessive taxation ARE important aspects of liberalism”.

Matthew, I don’t know of anyone, and have not encountered anyone in the party, who thinks that would be a good idea. I don’t know of a single liberal economist who thinks completely unregulated free-for-alls create good results.

Good, so what are we arguing about?

I think it is about where the balance lies, and some, Charlotte is a good example, seem to have a position where those aspects of liberalism deemed “economic” are given a hugely greater weighting than others. As I keep saying, I do feel that people who own nothing and aren’t particularly skilled or intelligent are forced almost into slavery by the sort of “economic liberalism” the likes of Charlotte want. I know you’ve raised CBI paid by LVT as a solution to this, but I’m not sure everyone who calls themselves “economic liberal” would support such things rather than just denounce them as more evil taxation and state handouts. I haven’t heard a convincing reply to my point from Charlotte, just a claim she’s insulted because I point out the final consequence of what she wants – selling your kids into prostitution in order to stay alive – that DOES happen in some parts of the world.

IanB’s response to me was ridiculous, because it seemed to assume that anyone who felt there must be a balance between econmic and other aspects of liberalism must be some sort of evil commie. Just because I’m critical of an unbalanced economic approach to liberalism which ignores all other factors doesn’t mean I don’t recognise that free trade and freedom from excessive taxation aren’t important aspects of liberalism.

If we are to take Ian B’s argument seriously (and Charlotte took it so seriously she proudly reproduced it as a new article of her own), then we must suppose that those countries in Europe which have higher taxation and state spending than ours must be evil illiberal hell-holes, just like the USSR.

Ian B and Charlotte see no difference between, say The Netherlands or Sweden than the old USSR and North Korea. I think there is a difference, and that the Netherlands and Sweden are fairly liberal countries.

Can you point me at someone you think does so I can confirm or read what they’ve said?

Because if that’s who you’re talking about when you talk about those evil economic liberals, I think we’re safe from them. You might want to give them a different label, as those of us who find it difficult to comprehend being liberal without believing in competition would rather you didn’t use the term “economic liberal” when you mean “economically illiterate idiot”.

Try reading what I wrote:

I use “economic liberal” here just as a shorthand, for people who think of “liberal” as primarily in terms of unleashing businessmen to do what they will.

I did not say I was opposed to any sort of freedom of people in economic matters. I just said I am not the sort of person who focuses on that to the exclusion of anything else.

You write as if there is no alternative to either gung-ho complete low-tax minimal state spending government, and soviet-style rigid state control. That is rubbish.