I do actually remember the days when I’d say, “The Government should stop people from doing X” and think, you know, the people who want to do X? They’re scum, aren’t they? Who cares what they think? Sure a lot of people won’t like it, but the greater good will be served.
I used to think like that. Over time, however, as I found myself more and more in the ‘X’ category at the hands of this Government, I began to become more and more uneasy about this sort of thing. Who am I to impose anything on anyone? What if I’m wrong? The reasoning that you had to be a bit fascist if you wanted to be properly liberal stopped making sense. The best way to fight fascism is to promote liberalism, and that means using liberalism as your weapon of choice.
Fascism isn’t killing Jews, although fascists have killed Jews. Fascism isn’t racism, although fascists can be racist. Fascism, at it’s heart, is the principle that what’s good for the group is good for everyone in the group, irrespective of the needs or concerns of individuals within the group. That’s what fascism is, in a nutshell – and while it’s got different names and nicer branding, fascism was and still is a hugely popular idea across Europe and the rest of the world, encapsulating as it does both Socialist and Christian Dogma about Collectivism.
Thanks to a hat tip from Martin on twitter, I came across this horrible little piece of fascism from the Guardian:
The internet requires regulation, just as film, television and computer games do. If companies such as Facebook abdicate that responsibility, it suggests government intervention is needed to prevent an internet-powered surge in racial hatred. The spread of racism and hate is not something that can be left to chance or the whims of the private sector. Working against hate, bullying and racism must be part of the price companies pay when they offer an online social environment as their product.
Requires? Surely it is not the internet that requires the regulation. It is politicians and idiots like Andre Oboler, the article’s author, that demand and ‘require’ these things to be regulated. It’s a subtle distinction, but it’s always worth remembering who benefits?
It’s not even worth debating this moron’s specific argument. The point is he wants to use fascist tools against fascists he doesn’t like, as a way of trying to stem the tide of fascism on the internet. Anti-Fascism FAIL.
Free Speech is a wonderful, wonderful thing Andre. You brush it aside too easily.
Letters From A Tory said...
14 Jul 09 at 10:02 am
“Working against hate, bullying and racism”
Surely this is socialist authoritarian code for ‘working against anyone who says anything that we don’t like, such as people who disagree with the notion of equality or people standing up for this country’.
Awful article, awful premise.
Ian B said...
14 Jul 09 at 10:12 am
Shall I do my, “these people are crazy” speech again?
Thomas Atcheson said...
14 Jul 09 at 10:18 am
Although I agree with your sentiments, surely you are taking the Guardian too literally.
Liberalism normally understands the role of the Government as a body that steps in to correct failures in an otherwise ‘Perfect’ system (rather than leave a lassez faire system in place looking to correct itself).
The comment made is that self regulation by Facebook isn’t working so an external regulator is needed. In this case rather poor judgements of taste and decency by the organisation.
In reality the facebook arguement is more about a the organisation reacting badly to something it should have foreseen. Just like common law, a consistent set of rulings is needed to underline natural law when it comes to calling for civil disobedience, law breaking, racism, hate etc.
Instead the random exclusision/ non-actions seem predetermined. Surely the right of one person with the power to terminate social media accounts of millions just because they own the company is not liberalism. Surely intervention is justified to restore individuals right to speak wihtout the fear of persecution.
However, the laws could go to far and that is a real fear.
Ian B said...
14 Jul 09 at 10:31 am
Surely the right of one person with the power to terminate social media accounts of millions just because they own the company is not liberalism.
Actually, it is. Firstly, there’s no obvious reason why Facebook would destroy their customer base arbitrarily. Why should we fear such a thing? Secondly they have no power over these people. A facebook account isn’t exactly one of life’s basic needs. How terrifying, that a private company can have such power to terminate Facebook accounts! Truly, makes ya tremble, doesn’t it?
The comment made is that self regulation by Facebook isn’t working so an external regulator is needed. In this case rather poor judgements of taste and decency by the organisation.
Er, taste and decency? Why is that anybody’s business but the service’s provider and its users? Presumably the customers use the service because they like it, so the “taste and decency” must be somewhere in the reasonable zone.
It’s like the argument that unregulated TV would be full of sex and violence. Firstly, the TV companies don’t want to upset their customers, so will try to show whatever shows people will watch. Secondly, if the customers actually want sex and violence, whose business is it to force them otherwise?
Liberalism normally understands the role of the Government as a body that steps in to correct failures in an otherwise ‘Perfect’ system (rather than leave a lassez faire system in place looking to correct itself).
No, you’re confusing liberalism with progressivism, i.e. socialism.
Jake Motta said...
14 Jul 09 at 1:54 pm
I completely agree with the points this blog makes when dealing with freedom of speech in the philosophical sense, but how does your vision of liberalism deal with actual human actions (the obvious next step from words) that are fascist/anti liberal (but obviously still legal) e.g. certain Religious practices…. just ignore them?
It is an issue that I struggle to have an answer for whilst retaining an enlightened liberal stance so I’d be interested to know your thoughts.
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Jul 09 at 2:12 pm
Jake,
On the religion issue, I obviously seek a complete separation of church and state, and a guarantee to all that the rule of law trumps any religious laws and that the only possible punishment for any infraction of religion derived rules should a matter for their deity to handle in the afterlife
If abusing an individual is illegal under the law of the land, then it’s illegal whether or not religious laws permits it or demands it.
Religious freedom should be for individuals to choose to practice a religion. I see no particular need for ‘religious freedom’ for institutions, churches etc. Freedom to indoctrinate? Hmm.
Oranjepan said...
14 Jul 09 at 2:35 pm
Aren’t there two types of fascism though?
First, like you say, is the ‘communitarian’ tyrrany that says what is good for the group is good for everyone in that group (favoured by Labour and the lafties)
Second, like you neglect, is the ‘libertarian’ tyrrany that says whay is good for one individual is good for all individuals.
Before anyone jumps down my throat I use inverted commas to distinguish the potential tyrranical aspects of each ‘ideology’ rather than to say that they are necessarily so, because it’s only by balancing the two that unwanted aspects of either are averted and coherence found.
But anyway, let’s not give ‘fascism’ any credence by describing it as anything other than it’s real name: it is massively incoherent. Social democracy and conservatism are only slightly less incoherent – should we be grateful for small mercies?
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Jul 09 at 2:40 pm
There is no libertarian tyranny though. The whole point is not to impose on all individuals what is good for a minority of individuals.
It is the very opposite of fascism.
Jake Motta said...
14 Jul 09 at 2:42 pm
Completely concur re religion, guess I should have put my question better. Is it right to fight for a liberal way of life, or is it essentially a long term commitment to the social evolution of human beings?
The American War of Independence was essentially fought for the right to personal and economic freedom from a tyrannical King. The American Civil War a result of a ideological schism between a liberal north and retrograde south. Both wars could be argued to be fought for a liberal way of life but equally have been regarded by some as exercises in fascism
Apologies for the references to American History (Its my pet subject) but I guess my main point is that there must be a point where liberal views need to be defined clearly and fought for, in the process essentially subjugating those who would prefer something else ergo moving away from liberalism to some degree?
Oranjepan said...
14 Jul 09 at 2:54 pm
In your ideal ideology, yes. But all ideologies get twisted by those who see them subjectively. ‘Libertarian’ tyrrany (as I’m calling it) might also be the ’strong leader’ complex. I think it’s a matter of application – you (as a dear sweet mere prole) would apply it differently to some high-flying super-exec.
Good libertarianism is a subset of liberalism, whereas bad libertarianism is a subset of incoherence.
I tend to agree with your diagnoses and that the current circumstances require a bit more of your prescriptions, but I try to avoid sticking to any dogma as I can see how the see-saw can quickly tip over and how this leaves you open to future couterattacks.
I want to ask if you’ve thought about situations where libertarianism might go ‘too far’ – clearly Brown hadn’t considered the limits of his own capabilities otherwise he’d have stopped at Nr11, so it’s something which even those at the top are capable of neglecting.
Oranjepan said...
14 Jul 09 at 3:01 pm
Jake,
you want to define liberal views so that you know what youre fighting for?
Good. That’s liberalism – the ability to constantly redefine and gain sharper definition.
It’s about participation in our own lives.
It’s not about having an answer, but the journey of discovering it. It’s about actively disagreeing and learning why. It is about the process, not the outcome. etc etc.
Lady Schwarz said...
14 Jul 09 at 3:13 pm
I never understand why people want to reduce the freedom of the net, why isn’t self regulation perfectly fine? I’ve not seen a site that doesn’t give you the ability to do it; report abuse buttons, block users, make profiles available to selected people and the most important one…the mouse. You have a choice to stop posting, going to a site and reading other peoples comments. You can challenge people, walk away or report them and best of all you can do it for yourself. You decide what’s offensive, stupid and informative, not Harriet Harman. For me that’s what makes the internet so wonderful.
Jake Motta said...
14 Jul 09 at 4:20 pm
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” according to Thomas Jefferson…. I guess in a pragmatic sense I agree but then I am a Project Manager…
DavidNcl said...
14 Jul 09 at 7:10 pm
“‘Libertarian’ tyrrany (as I’m calling it) might also be the ’strong leader’ complex. I think it’s a matter of application – you (as a dear sweet mere prole) would apply it differently to some high-flying super-exec.”
What is this even about? Can anyone really parse this?
or what about this:
“It’s not about having an answer, but the journey of discovering it. It’s about actively disagreeing and learning why. It is about the process, not the outcome. etc etc”
This stuff is just word salad.
Jim said...
14 Jul 09 at 9:14 pm
Why is life these days more and more like Atlas Shrugged?
Everyday I read stuff, and hear politicians on the TV, and I’m reminded of that book.
It is a powerful reminder of where society is currently headed.
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 7:49 am
So what does the libertarian advise for people who have no idea or are uncertain about what’s good for them? On whose authority should a libertarians advice be believed?
Ian B said...
15 Jul 09 at 8:16 am
So what does the libertarian advise for people who have no idea or are uncertain about what’s good for them? On whose authority should a libertarians advice be believed?
Why appeal to authority? The collectivist usually does, being a natural follower. But authority is a double edged sword. It may give you good advice, or bad. Most of the harm in the world is done by authority.
In a situation where one has insufficient knowledge or experience to wisely judge, there is no clear cut answer. One can see however that there is a preferred strategy, which is scepticism- that is, to exercise caution. The more extreme or potentially harmful to you (including financially) the course of action being advised is, the more sceptical one should be.
For instance; if you are unsure about how to be healthier, but you are advised to eat fruit and vegetables, that is not a particularly perilous advice to follow, so is worth the risk. If they say you must pay them £300 to irrigate your arsehole, greater scepticism is the natural response. It may be that anal jetwashing will be beneficial to you, but it seems on a rule of thumb to be unlikely, so you should exercise scepticism and seek greater knowledge until you feel confident to make a decision.
It is interesting to note that those who consider themselves most educated are more likely to be taken in by quackery and mysticism; because they believe themselves educated enough to make a rational judgement, they are easy prey to feng shui consultants, nature cranks and so on. The less educated classes, being aware of their ignorance tend to naturally apply the sceptical strategy- that is I do not know if this guy is bullshitting me or not, so I will exercise caution. Hence the more up-market the shop you go in, the more likely is to be stocked with bumhole jetwashers, bottles of homeopathic water and fairtrade green tea.
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 8:44 am
Yes, I agree that authority is a double-edged sword, and I’d be sceptical if you suggested liberty wasn’t.
How does a libertarian know which edge is sharper without cutting anyone’s hands off?
It seems to me, Ian B, that you are proposing moderation, not libertarianism.
David Ncl,
do you give lessons in debating? how much do you charge? or is it supposed to be free entertainment to see you flaunt your inability to read properly? are you a drummer?
Ian B said...
15 Jul 09 at 9:04 am
I am not obligated to discuss only libertarianism on the internets. If we were discussing astronomy, I would discuss astronomy, not libertarianism or some kind of “libertarian astronomy”.
There isn’t a libertarian analysis of what one should do when faced with a decision about which one has insufficient knowledge; it’s not part of libertarianism’s remit. It’s like asking for the libertarian view on the planet Mars. There isn’t one.
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 9:53 am
So, libertarianism isn’t a philosophy?
Ian B said...
15 Jul 09 at 10:01 am
Well, that doesn’t actually follow from what I said Oranjepan, I said that there are some things in heaven and earth that are not covered by libertarianism. Lots of things in fact.
But since you ask, actually libertarianism isn’t a philosophy (though many libertarians mistakenly treat it as one). It’s actually a rejection of political philosophies- the analogue of atheism in political terms. Just as atheism isn’t a religion- it is a rejection of religions, libertarianism isn’t a political philosophy, it’s a rejection of political philosophies.
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 10:10 am
I’m prepared to dispute your confident assertions Ian.
Atheism is a religion (worship of Saint Richard Dawkins included), except where it is confused with agnosticism as an excuse for apathy.
Equally, if libertarianism doesn’t pretend to be a political philosophy then why does it offer any rationale for rejection of other political philosophies? Either this rejection is in it’s remit or it isn’t. Unless I’m very much mistaken.
Y’see libertarians can’t even agree what libertarianism is with themselves, let alone with each other. So what chance have you got of convincing sceptics like myself?
Ian B said...
15 Jul 09 at 10:17 am
Well, some atheists take it too far and make it into a belief system, though to be fair those who do that are generally actually members of some other belief system (e.g. scientism in the case of Dawkinsians). But the term “atheist” merely describes somebody who is not a believer in any religion. It’s the “None of the above” option.
Likewise at its core, libertarianism is the “none of the above” option for politics. If asked what political programme a libertarian desires, the answer is “none”. A libertarian government is a literal “do nothing” government. Libertarians do of course seek policy change compared to current government policy programmes, but that is simply a dismantling of those policy programmes without replacing them with anything else- a return to the neutral position (in the same way as an atheist in a theocracy would simply desire dismantling of the theocracy).
Charlotte Gore said...
15 Jul 09 at 10:28 am
Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s the absence of belief – the ‘a’ negates the ‘theism’ bit.
I’m not sure about libertarianism not being a political philosophy though. Liberalism (in the classical or libertarian sense) is one of core fundamental political theories. The philosophy comes from debating about why liberalism is actually good.
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 10:51 am
Agnosticism is the absence of belief , atheism is the belief that there is/are no deity(ies)(from gnossos – belief, theos – god). Different things entirely.
However it’s fascinating to see what people mean when they say ‘libertarian’. They should be more clear about it.
Basically I’m sceptical that ‘libertarianism’ isn’t just the most recent piece of political jargon to be popularised because it hasn’t yet been tarnished by association with a failed government, and all the trendy young turks need a new bandwagon to hitch themselves to while distancing themselves from ancient history (or the early nineties).
Ian B said...
15 Jul 09 at 11:01 am
Well, we can be picky about atheism definitions, but to my mind agnosticism is intellectual cowardice. It’s a mindset of “I can’t prove homeopathy doesn’t work, it might” rather than having the courage to say “homeopathy is bullshit”.
As to libertarianism, it is actually a more recent term for liberalism, coined because the term liberal was hopelessly tarnished (particularly in the USA) with socialism and central planning.
What it means to most people in practical terms, I think, is just a despair and disbelief at the collapse of our societies into central planning by madmen. People are declaring themselves libertarian because they recognise a trajectory into extremism. Most of us are prepared to put up with some government intervention, taxes, state provision etc etc. People are simply turning to libertarianism out of sheer terror of what the political class will inflict upon us next.
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 12:40 pm
Ian B,
I don’t think it’s being simply picky about definitions when somebody is trying to argue that black is white – surely where medicine is concerned the starting point should be that a remedy must be proved to work, not disproved.
It strikes me that you’re arguing from inverted assumptions. What next, guilty until proved innocent?
So let me get the central tenets of ‘libertarianism’ straight according to you…
1)evidence-based policy-making
2)decentralisation
3)moderatism
4)market capitalism
those are all pretty standard ideas represented within the mainstream party spectrum in parliament. There may be a fair debate about the practical application of theory on policy, but it seems to me that you are just following the wisdom of crowds in expressing dislike of the political process. I would be more impressed if you were trying to make society work rather than just repeating the old refrain that it is going to hell in a handbasket.
I mean, I love reading Charlotte’s stuff, but the negativity just isn’t inspiring. A coherent philosophy needs to offer more than a critique of others if it is to be successful – it needs to offer a vision of a better world.
Now I don’t think drowning in regulation is to anyone’s benefit, but good laws ARE a good thing and I support better laws.
Robert Mitchum is on E4 in ‘Man with a Gun’ right now – excellent cinematic essay on the subject. Probably not enough special effects to grab your attention though.
Ian B said...
15 Jul 09 at 1:07 pm
Oranjepan, I’ve just realised that I got two discussions in two different threads, this and another one about climate change, confused. I must admit I have no idea what we’re actually arguing about any more in this thread. Basically I’ve got email alerts on, and when you asked about authority I got confused and presumed that was a post following the discussion about whether to trust scientists about climate change. But it wasn’t.
But in general, it is not “negative” to be opposed to the assumptions of the current system, whatever we are discussing. If we were in a theocracy for instnace, the person saying “I don’t want any of the religious parties’ policies, I just want to be left alone” isn’t being negative, they are just expressing a desire to not have to choose a particular theocratic option.
Also, none of your four tenets are available within the current mainstream parties (arguably the first to some degree). That is why libertarians are so pissed off. The centre, from our perspective, has moved to an extreme, so centrism as defined currently represents extremism.
A partiuclar fallacy in what you wrote is that we should be “trying to make society work”. This is a presumption of progressivism- that it is politicians’ jobs to “make society work”. The general liberterian view is that society works best when left to its own devices, and that everything meddling progressives do to attempt to “make it work” actually just fuck it up, like that “you did not want to do that” Harry Enfield character. Social and economic problems are caused by politicians. I know you don’t agree with that, but that is the libertarian view. It is not negative to wish that interfering incompetent twats would just mind their own goddamned business.
It is people with “visions of a better world” who are the biggest problem in the world. If we could encase all those visionaries in concrete and sequester their worthless hides in the depths of the ocean, then the world would be a much better place, pretty much instantly. How’s that for a vision?
Malcolm Todd said...
15 Jul 09 at 1:43 pm
I’ve wondered from time to time (’cause sometimes I have nothing important to do) what a ‘libertarian’ is. If Ian B is right, then it’s just what we used to call ‘anarchist’ in my youth. Why run scared of the word? It means ‘no-government-ist’, which is exactly what you’re claiming to be.
Got precious little to do with liberty or justice or non-pig-flying reality, of course, but that never deterred the anarchists in the past, either, and I always found them rather sweet.
Charlotte Gore said...
15 Jul 09 at 1:46 pm
There’s a fundamental difference between anarchism which I certainly don’t subscribe to and libertarianism, which generally seems to accept that the State does need to provide courts, rule of law, defence of realm and all that – the framework under which individuals can then trade and interact on an equal footing.
Anarchism, as far as I can tell, is some sort of hell.
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 1:48 pm
Are you trying to be funny?
If you admit you aren’t considering what you say then I don’t see why I should take anything you have said seriously.
Please stop trying to categorise everything and try engaging instead. Try engaging your own mind for starters.
Frankly I find your vision of a better world where millions of rotting corpses litter the oceans quite disgusting on all sorts of levels. If that’s libertarianism, then I want no part of it.
Do you really mean that “interfering incompetent twats” are worse than ‘evil bastards’? What about all those “interfering incompetent twats” who expose the criminal behaviour of ‘evil bastards’? Damninconvenienthuh?
If you really want to tell people to stop interfering then you can start by telling me what is not my business so that I don’t interfere in it. IMO anything which affects my life is my business and I don’t know who is better placed than me to judge what that involves.
Amusing as this is, and I wish you the best of luck in your rehabilitation, but I’ve got to get on with something productive now. Robert Mitchum – hero!
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 1:56 pm
Charlotte – anarchy – an-archism – ie no heirarchy, not necessarily disorder (as it is often categorised by monarchists), but I guess that depends on the individuals.
I stayed in an autonomen house for a while – it was bizarre. Fascist insanity for half the time, pure zen and free love for the other half. It was an eyeopening experiment for sure, but not something I’d recommend.
Malcolm Todd said...
15 Jul 09 at 2:26 pm
Okay, so you’re still allowing for some sort of government (not sure Ian B is, but perhaps courts and police don’t count as “interfering twats”). But seriously – no state pension? No free health-care, even for the congenitally disabled? Environmental protection abandoned, or trusted to the hitherto-unsuspected tender mercies of the market? I believe in broad-church parties, but if you and I are both Lib Dems, then whatever ‘libertarian’ means, ‘liberal democract’ can’t mean much more than ‘breather’…
Charlotte Gore said...
15 Jul 09 at 3:05 pm
There’s a distinction between what might be ‘ideal’ and what I’m prepared to tolerate
It’s a direction of travel that matters.
There’s a lot of things we have that are provided by the state that don’t need to be, but a lot of things that would require generations to phase out.
I don’t believe in just cutting everything off.
Malcolm Todd said...
15 Jul 09 at 3:16 pm
What a relief. Will uncross legs now.
Ian B said...
15 Jul 09 at 5:04 pm
Oranjepan-
Try engaging your own mind for starters.
How typical of the collectivist mind. Rude, arrogant, ignorant.
If you really want to tell people to stop interfering then you can start by telling me what is not my business so that I don’t interfere in it. IMO anything which affects my life is my business and I don’t know who is better placed than me to judge what that involves.
…the self important petty tyrant who cannot just mind his own business because, in that mind, everything is his business.
Look, if you want to know what libertarianism is, google it. There is lots on the web about it. If, on the other hand, you are just interested in proclaiming your own superiority, which appears to be the case, then I am sorry to have indulged you and provided a tiny little crate for you to stand on.
Malcolm Todd-
Anarchism would be the extreme end of libertarianism. In general though libertarianism is just seeking the smallest possible government, and there is of course much debate about how small that is. IOW, it is a tendency in the smaller government direction, unlike collectivism which seeks always to increase the powers of government, the greatest flaw of which is that you end up governed by dim-witted poltroons like Oranjepan.
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 5:56 pm
Ian,
swallowed a dictionary, have you?
Rudeness is occasionally called for, especially while highlighting the irony of your attempts to play to the crowd while calling me a collectivist.
Yes, there is lots on the interweb thingy about ‘libertarianism’ but there’s very little which says what it is for. Have you read much of it? Mostly it states what it is against. So I’m asking, and you’re not obliging. Wonderful.
I tried to present an option to tailor your description in a way which could be a basis for agreement, but you retreated into your shell and got all shouty instead.
I’m open-minded about the potential application of different perspectives, but I’m afraid you’re not helping win my support for your particular cause. Which makes me wonder if you are interested in building anything. Throw as many insults around as you like, you won’t hurt my feelings, but neither will you illuminate the subject. Perhaps you could try again – and this time maybe you’ll try to play the ball.
Aren’t you even the slightest bit concerned about the glaring inconsistencies in your comments? How for instance do you explain your violent opposition to central planning, while describing your preferred ‘libertarianism’ as some sort of ‘centrist’ doctrine?
Ian B said...
15 Jul 09 at 6:01 pm
Oh, just piss of and bother somebody else. I refuse to be goaded further.
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 6:04 pm
You think you’re being goaded? That’s far too cynical. A refreshing holiday to get away from it all would probably do you good.
Charlotte Gore said...
15 Jul 09 at 6:08 pm
I trust that’s the end of it.
DavidNcl said...
15 Jul 09 at 6:22 pm
No. It’s not I’ll have another bit.
“Ian, swallowed a dictionary, have you?”
That’s a refutation right there. We’re all swayed by your Kantian chops.
Charlotte Gore said...
15 Jul 09 at 6:38 pm
What is Libertarianism For? It’s for the ability to live and die having lived your life in your own way, whilst having allowed everyone else to enjoy the same thing.
It’s for improving people’s quality of lives through the creation of wealth, cheaper prices, more efficiency and better technology. It’s for growth and prosperity and employment and industry and art and commerce and science and all those things that come from human activity.
It’s for people having dignity in their lives, being able to hold their heads up and say, “hey, this is my life, I own it,” able to enjoy the unique priviliage of having lived a life that’s uniquely theirs.
It’s not everything. The problem isn’t what we want – it’s what’s stopping us. We are, after all, the sort of people that if we want something we just go make that happen.
It’s killing me watching this economy being strangled to death – with only the promise of more to come. Managed decline is back.
It’s for liberty. It’s for individuals.
DavidNcl said...
15 Jul 09 at 7:14 pm
“It’s for liberty. It’s for individuals.”
sorta…
But why should we make this choice, rather than choosing the collective?
The question is “why is it in the interest of society to choose freedom?”
In my view freedom is not an intrinsic good. It’s all about what freedom delivers: the number of amps, mercs, anti-biotics, farms, hip transplants, MRI scanners, computers and atom bombs or 1911’s I can hope to have in my lifetime.
In short, I think that it’s more efficent and more effective to be free. That it, most of the goals held by most people will be most readily met in a Haykeian free society.
A very small percentage of people will do dramatically less well (and may die) however the consequences of trying to avoid that will result in terrible mass death events in which about 10% or more of the population will die.
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 8:40 pm
Just concentrating on the economic question – what exactly is this ‘managed decline’ you speak of?
Is it a bad thing that a couple of billion Chinese and Indians are raising themselves out of dollar-a-day insufficiency and the relative wealth of the west is declining as a result? Isn’t this growth of the global economy actually driving continued growth in living standards across the world?
That’s not so much ‘managed decline’ as differential growth rates between economies with different levels of development. Solid growth in Brici countries offsets the temporary recession in the west as we experience structural rebalancing… and there you were only a short while ago expounding the merits of global market economics weeding out bad practices among companies and regulators.
Strikes me ‘libertarians’ like to fit evidence to their pet theory as it suits them!
Still, the many attempts to distort market conditions make things far from perfect, but that’s a long way from deliberate sabotage.
Economics is not necessarily a zero-sum game with large numbers of losers. People who lose out in market capitalism are those who don’t participate either through lack of access to markets or any of a variety of artificial barriers to trade – all participation brings it’s reward.
Charlotte Gore said...
15 Jul 09 at 9:05 pm
There’s no reason why China and India rising should cause the West to decline. As you say yourself, it isn’t a zero sum game.
What I mean by ‘managed decline’ is the fact that people seem to think that it’s natural – actually desirable – for our economy to stall, even contract, as if this somehow helps other countries to bring themselves up. We’ve had ‘our turn’ and now it’s ‘their turn’
Oranjepan said...
15 Jul 09 at 9:34 pm
Unless you’ve got a better than standard economic brains in the top jobs then by definition they can do nothing else except manage the decline. Some general reduction in inequalities while maintaining upward growth would be desirable, but that would require fundamental restructuring and would probably be just a bit too liberal for the establishment to stomach!
How about inflation targets – are you with the classical liberals, who’d aim for zero percent inflation?
I tend towards this as an outcome, but I wouldn’t be strict about it by setting a target from the centre, and anyway don’t think it’s achievable through currently available mechanisms.
Ron said...
17 Jul 09 at 5:43 pm
Orangepan, you aren’t arguing against anything that people are writing here. Rather you are misreading what they write and (it seems) arguing for the sake of it while being rude and declaring yourself the winner as often as possible.
There is lots of stuff about the various strands of libertarianism all over the place in books, on the internet, etc. You can read these if you want to know what it is and then discuss it here if you like. If all you want is a silly argument about definitions then please don’t bother.
Oranjepan said...
17 Jul 09 at 6:24 pm
My Ron, that was constructive!
FWIW I don’t have major disagreements with libertarianism, but it seems to me that libertarians are unapologetic about addressing only one side of the political equation. For a government of all the people that’s just not good enough.
Kevin Monk said...
17 Jul 09 at 7:55 pm
Wow. Excellent Article.
I visited your blog from The Devil’s Kitchen. Just one question? Why do you think so many people involved in Libertarianist politics are involved in web development? Seems to be a theme.
Good Post. I’m going to subscribe to our feed.
Ron said...
17 Jul 09 at 8:44 pm
“FWIW I don’t have major disagreements with libertarianism, but it seems to me that libertarians are unapologetic about addressing only one side of the political equation. For a government of all the people that’s just not good enough.”
This sounds very much like a major disagreement with libertarianism and therefore a contradiction in terms.
I have no idea what the political equation is or what side of it “libertarians” are unapologetic about addressing (only).
If you’ve got some particular problem with libertarianism then please just state it in simple terms.
RuariC said...
18 Jul 09 at 12:05 am
Wow. Can of worms on the Libertarian discussion.
For what it’s worth, my understanding of Libertarianism is that it seeks a government whose role is to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of the individual to live their lives in accordance with their individual choices and beliefs so long as they do not cause harm to another. Beyond that, the government can advise people, but should not seek to influence – Educate and Inform, not Command and Control. A Libertarian government accepts that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and should the public disagree they are welcome to vote against them. That’s the whole point. It’s about individual choice and rights. Provide the framework which allows people to make educated decisions, then step back and let people get on with it. If that means people choose to do something you personally disagree with, so be it. It is their choice to make – whether that be boys kissing boys or preachers shouting their bile in the streets. They are welcome to do so and everyone else is welcome to argue their own case.
If you’re really interested in what a Libertarian party would offer, I would advise visiting the LPUK website (lpuk.org). For the record, I am not a member, but I found the website to be very thought provoking.
Charlotte: this is a first visit to your site, but it shall certainly not be the last.
Daniel Earwicker said...
18 Jul 09 at 10:16 am
A very interesting/irksome discussion. One of many things in it that irked me was the usual straw man point about liberalism and anarchism. As soon as someone says there should be limits on what areas of our lives the government can take control of, you can bet someone else will say, What, are you an anarchist or something? It’s incredible that this line of “reasoning” even occurs to people in the first place, but still more incredible that they think its worth uttering. By the same token, anyone who suggests the government should increase taxes by a penny ought automatically to be accused of asking for a fundamentalist Orwellian totalitarian state (they often are in some newspapers and blogs, but that doesn’t make it true). Have accepted that we need a government, we must be able to discuss the preferred size and scope of it without being accused of either wanting to destroy it or to make it all-encompassing.
Another was the attempt to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. The etymology is of little help, because although interpreted literally atheism means “no belief in god(s)” and agnosticism means “no religious knowledge”, their accepted meanings vary, and so the meaning used very much tends to depend on the opinions of the user. Taking their meanings literally, we could view agnosticism as including atheism (”I have no religious knowledge, and therefore no belief in anything religious, including god”).
A frequent reason for raising them in debates like this is to accuse someone of pretending to know more than they can truly be certain of. Supposedly an agnostic wisely sits on the fence whereas the rash atheist leaps off to one side of the fence before they look.
This is a logical error induced by the assumption that we all share a common definition of religion. If we did, the debate would be over the probability of that single common religion being true. An atheist, being someone with “no belief” in that religion, would assign it a probability of zero, whereas an agnostic, lacking any religious knowledge, would assign it a probability of 0.5, being perfectly even handed.
But we have no such common definition of religion. We can invent as many as we wish. This is the whole point of orbiting teapots or Pastafarians – in the absence of any certain religious knowledge (mere agnosticism) these concoctions have equal footing with any other religious proposal, including much older ones, there being no reason for a belief about the cosmos to become any more reliable as time passes.
Therefore the truly even-handed non-presuming agnostic assigns an equal share of probability to all these possibly religious systems. Each religion ends up with an infinitesimally small share.
This means that the probability of any one particular religious system being true is vanishingly small, practically indistinguishable from zero; this is the true conclusion of agnosticism.
Of course, amongst this infinite set of religious assertions, we must include the assertion that there is no god. Theists love the idea that this brings those snooty atheists down a peg or two. But does it?
Recall that the conclusion of agnosticism is that the very instant we attempt to choose any specific spiritual beliefs based on faith, we also preclude an infinite selection of other clashing possibilities, and so we reduce to practically zero the chances of our beliefs being true.
Consequently there is no point whatsoever in “taking a stab” at some system of belief purely on faith. This is the modern definition of atheism, quite distinct from the simplistic etymological interpretation, and explained repeatedly and very clearly from Russell to Dawkins. It follows irresistibly from pure agnosticism if we simply accept that there is an infinite variety of possible religions (and we must, or we aren’t really being agnostic). It has nothing to do with being absolutely certain that there’s no god. It’s merely that we can be absolutely certain that any faith is no more reliable than that of the Pastafarians. This, to a committed theist, is a far more devastating accusation, even though, unfortunately for a slogan, it won’t fit on the side of a bus.
It’s not surprising that such a theme arose in this discussion, considering the two extremes of the individual acting for their own purposes and the government acting on behalf of all of us.
A person gambling with their own resources, knowing that they never have certain knowledge, will experiment on a scale that they are comfortable with in order to test their guesses and so grow their knowledge while (on the whole) profiting at the same time. In other words, they are to some degree scientific.
Meanwhile, a large government has to make huge, risky decisions almost entirely on faith. Unimaginably vast quantities of fine grained information would have to be processed to direct an entire economy from the centre, and a government committee has no channels for obtaining the information, nor the capacity to comprehend it. In order to proceed at all, they have to assume we are all more alike than we really are, and ignore diversity and variety. In other words, they have to make a leap of faith on behalf of all of us; they have to risk being wrong on a huge scale, just like any religious believer.
This is why the proper role of government is to defend the freedom of individuals, and to do everything it can to restrict its own growth beyond that role.
We should be atheists about our government’s beliefs; it spends two fifths of the national income, and almost all its decisions are based on wild guesses. Government is applied religion on a massive scale.
Charlotte Gore said...
18 Jul 09 at 12:08 pm
Daniel, beautiful. Thank you.
Malcolm Todd said...
18 Jul 09 at 8:41 pm
Hm, well I wasn’t going to bother jumping in again but I think I will. It’s either the triumph of ego, or the fact that I have some tedious tidying-up bits of work to avoid.
Taking the anarchism point first, as I’m presumably the target of that one. You’re really setting up straw men when you imply that I started jumping about shouting “anarchism” just because someone said “there should be limits on what areas of our lives the government can take control of”. Look at the thread, and it’s obvious that Ian B in particular was making far more sweeping statements about the undesirability of government intervention in all spheres. I may have overinterpreted what he was saying a little – a flaw, but one I’m not the only possessor of – but it wasn’t a tremendous stretch. What libertarians (that is, the couple of you that I’ve encountered here) seem to have in common with anarchists and the imaginary Orwellian fundamentalists is an obsession with the size of the state per se, a subject I find rather uninteresting. (Hell, let’s not get into definitions.) The important questions are all about what the state does and how, and at whose control. Size of institutions matters tremendously to how they work, but “the state” is not an institution: it is an umbrella term for a host of institutions of varying necessity, effectiveness, threat and desirability.
As for atheism/agnosticism: well, I ignored the slightly hysterical Oranjepan’s misunderstanding of the meaning and origin of “agnosticism”, but in the presence of what seem to be more analytical voices, I’ll take it up. The origin of the word is from an old Greek inscription “agnosto theo” = “to an unknown god” – not “the absence of belief” or “no religious knowledge”. As to what it means, I take it as an expression of uncertainty about what “god” might be, or mean. That isn’t the same as atheism, but the difference is probably emotional rather than logical: an atheist would be astonished infuriated by the discovery that there really was a god, an agnostic would be less surprised and rather pleased. It’s that emotional difference that can bring out the fury on both sides of that non-debate. To atheists, agnostics are trying to have it both ways, refusing to follow the logic of their presumed position to the conclusion that Daniel sets out so clearly. To agnostics, atheists are just too damn proud of themselves for ‘killing god’, and possessed of a desire to spread the word that is as irritating and baffling to the agnostic as any christian fundamentalism. I have met some faith-ists who find atheists much easier to comprehend than agnostics; but I doubt anyone is understanding anyone else very well. I almost find myself siding with those who genuinely don’t give a damn about the whole question; but in pub conversations (where much truth of character is to be found) it turns out I really can’t understand them either.
Oranjepan said...
18 Jul 09 at 10:20 pm
“Government is applied religion on a massive scale.”
I like this.
I don’t however agree that it is appropriate to assign statistical values to faith-based reasoning, and I think therefore that it is wrong to attempt to make judgements about universal truth. Our subjectivity generally precludes this ability in all of us.
By the terms of Daniel’s conceptualisation the probability of any one religion being true is ‘vanishingly small’. Within this subjective definition I would agree, but again I don’t see it as neccessary that the truth of any one subjective definition negates the possibility that another subjective definition is also true within the scope of the larger unknowable objective reality.
The even-handed non-assuming agnostic should recognise that there are sufficient different belief systems to include the potential that it is possible to reconile this apparent paradox – indeed, as I understand it, pantheism does.
In other words different competing systems can and may exist simultaneously and in complement of each other, be it with religions or politics, but we cannot escape the confines of definition so it is largely a pointless question to ask: science says science is true and religions say religion is true, well duh, but it gets us nowhere.
So the probability that any one system being true impacts upon the liklihood of another is therefore less of a conclusion than a premise defined by it’s context and ‘proven’ by the appropriate applicable method selected according to the implicit bias of the individual doing the choosing – we really have no way of acturately measuring different methods of proof, so we can only really say that different methods have value where they are applied in their own fields – and no more.
Therefore we need to change the question.
Because knowledge of universal truth is impossible it must be less important than understanding the mechanics of change.
So for me the question of political parties and religions is not which one best represents the world as I see it, but which represents the best means to change the world as I wish at the current time.
As far as ‘libertarianism’ is concerned LPUK seems more like a think tank than a political party precisely because it hasn’t addressed these mechanics (’the other side of the equation’) and looks set to remain without representation long into the future. It is a catch-22 situation, which is why it must look for a gamechanging method, such as electoral reform, and help build coalitions to support these mutual aims.
The current system of politics dictates that successful parties cannot afford to be ideologically pure, so we must all continue to make this false choice until we agree to rally behind one group which will offer the desired reforms.
Daniel Earwicker said...
19 Jul 09 at 1:02 pm
@Charlotte – Thanks!
@Malcolm – And here I was thinking that the total cost of the state has a direct bearing on our lives, as every confiscated pound spent in ignorance by the remote state is a pound’s worth of personal freedom denied to the individual with the local knowledge needed to spend it wisely. But really it’s just something I’m imagining, due to my “obsession” problem!
Re: agnosticism. The inscription agnosto theo does indeed mean to an unknown god, because a means without, gnosto (gnosis) means spiritual knowledge of or revelatory understanding about whatever is beyond the everyday world, and theo means god. But, by taking the first chunk by itself, and forming an adjective by putting -ic at the end, we arrive at a label for the school of thought that there is no spiritual knowledge.
“an atheist would be astonished infuriated by the discovery that there really was a god” It seems you’re still stuck on the idea that atheism means “making up your mind before the evidence is in”, which is exactly what I laboured to dispel yesterday. If a bunch of evidence for something turns up, an atheist always greets this the same way. If a Bigfoot family were captured in the forests of California, that would be new information about the world to be incorporated into our understanding of it. Until such evidence emerges, Bigfoot deserves the same credence as the tooth fairy or any other story that anyone could make up. The same goes for god, whatever that is, however you define it, however we might find evidence for it or against it. As long as an idea has the same empirical support as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it deserves the same degree of serious consideration. That’s the core of atheism. It’s not a final unshakable belief in any specific conclusion. That’s not to say that an individual atheist may happen to have a preference of their own for some fanciful conjecture – personally I quite like the idea that snails are our alien overlords. And there are good reasons to reject certain. Also, religions often make claims that are testable (perhaps by accident?) so we are, it turns out, in a position to reject them with a high degree of confidence – the bulk of the book of Genesis, for example. That god does not exist; you can be as sure of that as you are of anything.
@Oranjepan – Do you really think every viewpoint is subjective, and every claim open to equal suspicion, impossible to verify or refute independently, due to the bias of whoever chose the method of investigation? I’ve read your post a few times now, and I can’t seem to escape that conclusion.
“science says science is true and religions say religion is true, well duh, but it gets us nowhere.”
Just… lost for words. Tell me, does gravity work today in your reality? Or has your chosen framework of perception biased you towards floating up to the ceiling?
And if you think religion restricts itself to the purely subjective… Is homosexuality an abomination? Was the Negro in the southern slave states a child, who would be made an orphan by being freed, and was he created to serve the needs of white men? Does a fertilised ovum possess a right to self-determination that overrules the wishes of a child rape victim? Is a girl allowed to learn to read? Should I treat other people as I would wish to be treated myself (by the way, I like happen to enjoy being sneezed on)? Should the USA give weapons to Israel?
Religions regularly take positions on matters like these, justifying them with nothing more than supposed divine insight, and they have serious ramifications for the people that those believers share their objective reality with.
“So for me the question of political parties and religions is not which one best represents the world as I see it, but which represents the best means to change the world as I wish at the current time.”
If it isn’t possible for us to jointly figure out a shared understanding of what state the objective world is in, then how do we know how best to change it? And how will we know when it has been changed?
Oranjepan said...
19 Jul 09 at 6:35 pm
Daniel,
you’re running a serious risk of conflating experience and perception, data and interpretation.
“If it isn’t possible for us to jointly figure out a shared understanding of what state the objective world is in, then how do we know how best to change it?”
We can never have enough data and there will always be a cognitive gap, even if we were borg. ‘We’ don’t know how best to change it, otherwise there would never be any disagreement. It is therefore down to individual choice based upon the data available such as which parties have how many seats or votes and how their manifestos and track records match up.
“how will we know when it has been changed?”
Easy – everything is constantly changing. It would be a better question to ask how we know whether the changes which take place are to our liking.
It is also a simple category mistake to treat ‘god’ in the same way as the toothfairy, loch ness monster or bigfoot, since there is widespread disagreement over the multitude of possible definitions for ‘god’. Each separate version must therefore be treated separately.
I’m confused as to the apparent contradiction in your viewpoint where you insist on the reality of objective omniscience, since usually this is a characteristic property attributed to the (clearly monotheistic) ‘god’ you are so passionately arguing against on the grounds that it is unverifiable – can you clarify this, please?
I also worry about the possibility that objectivity necessarily leads to fatalism which undermines the free will of the individual.
If I can develop your argument slightly further the logical conclusion is that science and ‘god’ are two sides of the same coin.
All of which leads me to think you don’t have the means for or are in denial about the correct description of your personal beliefs and have chosen the closest approximation to that held by the crowd you wish to follow.
I mean it’s fair enough to be confused by the sheer scale of possibilities, but I think it’s just a bit too easy to pin one’s colours to the mast quite as readily as you seem to have.
But let’s try and get away from theology and back to philosophy and practical political matters.
Daniel Earwicker said...
28 Jul 09 at 8:34 pm
Oranjepan,
I hadn’t checked this for a while, so sorry to keep you waiting for a response. Unfortunately I find on reading your most recent comment that I can’t really understand any of what you’re saying. I hesitate to use the word gibberish, because I have to accept that I may just be ignorant of some new kind of logic that you’re applying. But it does look (to me) like gibberish. Sorry once again if this is a disappointment after such a long wait.
Ron said...
29 Jul 09 at 9:25 am
It doesn’t make sense to me either I’m afraid.
Wendigo said...
21 Oct 09 at 1:08 am
So what’s been achieved here? Pseudo intellectuals going back and forth on a topic for which they have no other solution aside from going back and forth.
The world is in a dire state. The internet and “free speech” have so far contributed:
-2 girls one cup
-thee men one hammer
-countless forums where fat greasy kids snark each other into amok rampages at the local playground
-timecube
-twitter, facebook, etc etc increasing dependency (indirectly and directly) on non-renewable resources in a snowball of plastic “dependance” devices
…the list is endless…
You all know this, but choose instead to defend it, because in the end, you’ll be dead by the time it forms a head anyway so let your kids worry about it.
The problem is not people like you and I using the internet (not that I am in anyway like you people for the most part, thank the flying spaghetti monster), but rather kids who become progressively numbed through each passing generation. Internet wasn’t the start BTW, the main stream media has being molding you “enlightened free-thinkers” since the beginning.
Finally, all that really matters is this: While you all sit at your PCs discussing the validity and fate of the internet, real people doing real things are able to see shit going pear shaped in a hurry and wont be consulting you all when decision making time comes.