Bloggers – from across the political spectrum – should be rightly humbled by the fortunes of LPUK in Norwich. Just 36 votes. It seems that the readers of LPUK blogs, although there’s a lot of them, either don’t live in Norwich, stayed at home or worse – voted for the Tories.
See, the Tories seem to be able to have it both ways. You’ve got Dave “I’m not a libertarian” Cameron using their party’s libertarians as political whipping boys to demonstrate his own Blue Labour credentials, yet many people still seem to think that if you believe in economic and personal freedom that the Tories are a perfectly good home.
They’re no more a good home than the Lib Dems, and that’s a fact. I stay the Lib Dems because libertarianism is just another word for Liberal, and I do my bit trying to help keep this strand liberal thought alive in this party on a point of principle. It might seem like a stupid waste of everyone’s time but I wouldn’t really be a liberal if I didn’t insist on doing things my way.
These things are going to seem a lot more clear once the Tories take over. Parties in power are what they are. Parties not yet in power are whatever the voters and supporters hope they are (hello, Obama!) – something currently working in the Tories favour. But then, people who call themselves socialists vote Labour in preference to parties like the Socialist Worker’s Party out of pragmatism and realism. Compromise is an ugly, ugly thing.
So, back to the point – blogs alone, it seems, are not going to win elections for LPUK. They clearly should have attracted a good chunk of the 11 in 20 that didn’t want to vote for anyone, which seems to be the fundamental flaw in libertarian political movement (and the NOTA party, and the ‘put a real person in parliament’ campaign.) All these movements have, in common, the desire to attract people who are currently disengaged from mainstream politics.
They don’t vote though. They’re not going to vote, either. You need a personal connection with people to make them care enough to go out and vote for you, and blogs alone – at least so far – aren’t going to achieve that.
Leaflets don’t achieve that either. Let’s face it, political leaflets are unsolicited junk mail at the end of the day, treated accordingly and potentially with a lower than normal response rate. It’s a dismal, pitiful excuse for campaigning – why, in all seriousness, would anyone think that a sheet of paper shoved through a door is ever going to be enough to persuade someone to leave their home and cast a vote, especially for a party other than the Big Three? Affiliation with the Big Three is a seal of approval for a candidate, the value of which depends on the value people place in the parties themselves. The value of approval by an unknown party is worthless, so a single, simple leaflet is also worthless.
So what now? Now people who want to change politics need to start pushing campaigning to another level. Political movements – successful movements – cannot exist in a vacuum completely disconnected from people’s lives. The Labour movement got to people through the workplace, through trade union membership. Conservatives, traditionally speaking, got to people through churches and other society functions.
We still see some of this – politicians who want to get ahead need to get themselves into as many clubs, societies, committees and working groups as they can, to meet as many of the influential people as possible, although this seems mostly to serve to establish themselves as “pillars of the community,” so to speak. This might help boost their Political CV, but does it really replace that sort of relationship with a political movement seen in the early days of Trade Unionism? Of course not.
So where’s the social connection between political movement of the future and people going to come from? “The Internet” seems like the obvious answer, but that’s not a personal connection, it doesn’t reach those people who don’t think and breathe politics like we do. The internet is the means of organising the people who are going to do the ‘connecting’, but the bit in-between, that’s what’s missing.
What’s the answer?
Bunny Smedley said...
25 Jul 09 at 5:36 pm
“Libertarianism is just another word for Liberal” …
Charlotte, you’re so right about so many things – not this one, thought! Please don’t try to flatten out the rich diversity of libertarian thinking. There are plenty of ways to arrive at an enthusiasm for, say, free migration, the abolition of taxation, the abolition of the welfare state, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, a free trade in human organs, etc, etc, without being even slightly ‘Liberal’ at any point in one’s journey – conservative ways, anarchist ways, you name it. Which is to say, as much as I respect you both as a libertarian and as a Liberal, it absolutely amazes me that you seem to view those two indentities as coterminus.
Personally, I think the reason libertarian parties tend to do badly at the polls has a lot to do with the paradox embedded in their nature – “we don’t believe in government, so please elect us to govern you” – meaing that lots of gut-level libertarians find politics annoying or irrelevant, hate the constraints of party structures, are better at splitting into factions than swallowing their differences and cooperating, and find it difficult to make a case for what they’d do with actual power in the unlikely event that they might be allowed anywhere near it.
As for the serious question at the end of your post, though – no idea. Politics does feel quite tired out now, not very much fun, both self-regarding and self-hating – and what sane person would want to get involved in any of that?
By the way, I think that you and I may be the only two people left in the blogosphere now, although you, at least, claim to be on holiday … a bit of a working holiday from the look of it!
steves said...
25 Jul 09 at 6:25 pm
Charlotte
I agree with your article in the main, and believe your position is a fine example to prove your point. You claim to be a liberal – your write and seem to be a liberal from what i have seen. But you belong to the most statist and socialist wing of the three social democratic groups pretending to be against each otehr.
The orange book liberals, the free market tories, and maybe even some Labour bods are of a similar ilk all cling to the same delusion. That your party isnt realy socialist, and will be different once in power. If you all had the nerve to hold out for your priciples, even form a new party, then we would have an alternativ. until that day then UKIP, LPUk are our only hope.
Thomas Byrne said...
25 Jul 09 at 8:47 pm
I agree that the blogosphere is very introverted, there has to be a way to reach out to the public – politics generally, not just libertarianism.
DavidNcl said...
25 Jul 09 at 9:12 pm
LPUK have nothing to do with freedom, free markets and free people.
Basically it’s the UK’s anti-politics party + a dose of snobby, proto-marxist, anti-industrial bullshit.
Fuck ‘em.
Roger Thornhill said...
25 Jul 09 at 9:30 pm
DavidNcl
Provide reasoned argument, proof (facts, policy, you know…or do you?) for your assertions.
Some might retort with a phrase that ends “and the horse you rode in on”, but the horse did not and will not have given consent, so that is against my principles.
Roger Thornhill said...
25 Jul 09 at 9:56 pm
Charlotte,
You are not wrong. The internet can mobilise and draw together those of a common cause, of a common cause, mind. To spread the cause needs, I think, the human touch. It often needs “bright shiny feathers” to be displayed so that people “cleave to the winner”.
Cameron has bright shiny feathers.
Blair was a peacock.
Brown is a thrush.
DavidNcl said...
25 Jul 09 at 10:00 pm
Cetainly Roger.
I always liked this as an exposition of the core issue at the heart of failure of LPUK: Vessey goes mental
And there’s always this: doomer drivel
libertarian said...
25 Jul 09 at 10:11 pm
Charlotte,
I enjoy your blog, couple of thoughts on this piece.
You are right that Libertarianism is another word for Liberal . I’m afraid though that you are in the Lib Dems who are neither Liberal or Libertarian.
In Norwhich a lot of Libertarian votes went to UKIP who’s manifesto and policies are all mildly libertarian .
I cannot for the life of me work out why you are a Lib Dem
DavidNcl said...
25 Jul 09 at 10:14 pm
Nor can I libertarian.
But there are no good parties for those that would choose freedom.
I suggest we all reclaim the liberals.
Charlotte Gore said...
25 Jul 09 at 10:20 pm
libertarian,
Leaving liberalism to people who don’t understand the different between social democracy and liberalism is, I think, unforgivable.
Leaving it to Conservatives, who are by their nature, you know, conservative, is just as unforgivable.
Lib Dems are like a qualified doctor choosing to work in McDonalds for the sheer fuck it – so I’m just here pointing at the letters after their name, you know?
Think This said...
26 Jul 09 at 1:38 am
Libertarians have a strange problem in that there are effectively 4 parties in the UK to whom they could quite comfortably align themselves to.
Firstly their are the Tories, of which I am a member. The Tories are now the party which seems to have the most Libertarians and the most libertarian backing out of all parties. We have Alan Duncan on the front bench and we have the likes of the brilliant Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell who have made waves in the past year. The youth wing – Conservative Future – is also extremely libertarian minded, with its chairman Michael Rock, describing himself as a libertarian/classical liberal. There is also the knowledge that out of all choices, the Tories are the most likely to actually win power. Thus with the Conservatives there is the greatest chance of having actual libertarian policies or libertarian influenced policies into place.
Then there are UKIP whose polices are the most libertarian bar LPUK (who I shall come on to). The problem with UKIP is that half of its supporters are swing BNP voters, and the other half are annoyed Tories. The party leadership is fairly sound but there are still some strong right wing authoritarians to be found. The party is more ideologically pure than the Tories, but still has the problems outlined above. Their immigration policy of a 5 year ban on immigration is in stark contrast to any Libertarian principles and seeks to pander to the BNP. UKIP has a strong chance to become a successful libertarian party in time, but first it needs to succeed in general elections and boot out some of the old authoritarians left in the party.
3rd come the Lib Dems. They have a handful of Libertarians in the form of the Orange Bookers and a few others. These are the people who keep the old 19th century liberal party alive in a party which is now dominated by the ‘social democrat’ side. The Lib Dems have the real ‘history’ of true liberalism on their side, and so I can understand those who want to try and take the party back to its true liberal roots. However this said, I think these sort of efforts are now better made inside the Tory party who seem a) more open to them and b) more likely to gain power and thus put the ideas into practice. For me the lib dems must now be resided to no more than social democrats.
Then their is the new LPUK. The most pure and ideologically libertarian as their name would suggest. The problem is they have 0% chance of getting into power and so it almost feels that any effort or money spent on campaigning or supporting them is a waste. Especially when there are already strong libertarian movements within 3 already successful political parties, who all hold seats and have an established voter base.
For myself the obvious choice for Libertarians are the Tories as they seem to be the most libertarian inclined and have the most chance of having power and therefore being actually able to do something! I would encourage other libertarians to join the party to help move it in the direction we want it to go in! Oh and don’t forget Maggie famously throwing a copy of Hayek down on a table during a Tory policy meeting and crying “this is what we believe” – I rest my case.
Steve Tierney said...
26 Jul 09 at 1:40 am
You know what’s irritating? The holier-than-thou: “I’m keeping the Lib Dems Liberal” nonsense you spout while presuming the Conservatives couldn’t possibly be a home for those of us with Libertarian leanings.
The Conservatives are not the same party now that they were fifty years ago. I know its politically “great fun” to suggest they are, but anybody honest can see its not so.
There are many Conservatives who also describe themselves as Libertarian.
Most political groups are a pretty broad church these days, breaking up into different subsets who do their best to keep their own ideals alive within the party machine.
In the same way you describe yourself as being a voice for Libertarianism in the Lib Dems, there are plenty of people doing the same, for the same reasons, in the Conservatives. You presume the Lib Dems are better at it – and I’d argue that point.
Lib Dems choose to ignore Liberalism where it might challenge their European ambitions or where they prefer a “positive message” restriction of liberty, and Conservatives ignore it where it bounces against one of their sacred cows, and Labour just ignore it on principle.
LPUK call us all “authoritarian”. You can take it even further, forget the rule of law, and cry anarchy. Anarchists would call LKUP authoritarian.
In the end, LPUK did so dreadfully badly because they picked a candidate who looked like a schoolkid. I’m sure he’s a very eloquent and intelligent speaker (so people keep telling me) and I’m sure he can debate the case for Libertarianism with some authority. But he looks like he should probably ask his Mum’s permission to be out so late. And that, I think, was their problem – rightly or wrongly.
Charlotte Gore said...
26 Jul 09 at 1:41 am
Ah yes, but she didn’t actually read it, so the story goes…
Hayek’s Dilemma still very valid.
Charlotte Gore said...
26 Jul 09 at 1:54 am
I wouldn’t argue that the Lib Dems are better at arguing for Libertarianism.
I’m saying Libertarians in the Tories are closer to power but no closer to ‘winning’ than LPUK or me
The Tories do start from a somewhat more sympathetic attitude towards economic liberalism ‘in general’, although there’s no policies that make that apparent.
Wait for the manifestos, I suppose.
Think This said...
26 Jul 09 at 2:19 am
Oh here is an article you all may find interesting. There was once talk of a Tory split and a new Libertarian party forming – proof of the strenght of the Tory Libertarian movement:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1404283/Young-Tories-talk-of-split-unless-party-is-reformed.html
Think This said...
26 Jul 09 at 2:24 am
and more breaking news -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6727682.ece
Tories may allow schools to be run for profit. If this was true then we would have a true libertarian shift in policy there!
Guy Herbert said...
26 Jul 09 at 9:15 am
Though you have a point in general, I don’t believe it is true that “socialists vote Labour in preference to parties like the Socialist Worker’s Party out of pragmatism and realism.” They vote Labour because they believe it is really socialist underneath, rather as British Communists supported the Soviet Union as an act of faith, but with a bit more justification.
It is, incidentally impossible to vote for the Socialist Worker’s Party, which does not stand at elections and not even a registered political party. (It would have to publish accounts.) What you can do is vote for front parties, but these tend to be tailored to exploit particular discontents rather than offering anything like a programme of socialism.
I think the reason almost no-one voted for LPUK, and probably almost no-one ever will, is that they are even more reluctant to compromise with political reality than the Greens.
Ian B said...
26 Jul 09 at 11:12 am
People vote for policies, not ideologies. And as Charlotte says, because of community organising. The only significant electoral upset- the rise of a new dominant party- in British electoral history, was the rise of the Labour Party, which was the political wing of community movements- trade unionism, co-operativism. and so on. Even at its socialist height, very few of its voters had read Das Kapital. They were voting for simple policies- guaranteed holidays, more social security, council housing, the national health, pensions and so on. There was a demand among the masses for these things and Labour answered it. And, they voted for a gradualist party. Avowedly communist parties have never achieved any significant success in the anglosphere and have worked instead to influence politics in other ways- the great notable success being the rise of the single issue pressure group.
The question is what libertarianism is offering people. Part of the problem is that libertarianism is not a movement at all; the diversity of opinion within it could not be greater. There are pro-corporate libertarians and anti-corporate libertarians. There are those who say that anyone opposed to completely open borders cannot be a libertarian- but there are also closed borders libertarians. And so on.
What recognition libertarianism has among the general population is largely negative. It is associated with being anti-social, selfish and uncaring. Libertarianism is not short of people who will happily declare they would switch off the entire welfare state and leave people to starve. The argument from our opponents that we are people who’ve done alright for ourselves and just want to pull up the ladder is unfortunately “proven” by such people. Harshness in policy is electoral suicide. Ordinary people may well object to those who are fiddling or playing the rules of welfare, but they don’t want welfare, the NHS or pensions abolished. A century of welfarism and economic ruin has left millions without the wherewithal to look after themselves in a purist-libertarian way. They aren’t going to vote away the few dried crusts the state hands to them, not at this stage of the game. The libertarian message on this must be, at most, “our policies will mean fewer people will need state provision” not “we will take it away”. Nobody is going to vote for the latter.
Likewise promoting libertarianism as “open borders” is madness. The idea that libertarians must apply purist libertarian principles to those outside their polity arose before the current era of mass migration and is ideologically unsound anyway. A libertarian nation is under no more obligation to consider those outside it than a socialist one is obligated to provide unemployment cheques to foreigners. It is nice to dream of a distant day when borders disappear, but that can only occur when the world has become a very different place- effectively when every nation on the globe has become liberal/libertarian and, attained approximately equivalent economic status, and compatible cultural values. None of which we are anywhere near. If there is a single issue arousing widespread concern among the populace which the hegemonic parties refuse to address (since it is part of the social-democratic songsheet) it is mass immigration. People see their country dissolving before their eyes, traditional British cultural values disappearing, and this leaves them uncertain and scared. Hence the growing success of the first ever significant British fascist party. People aren’t voting BNP for autarky or volkschulen or the other fascist drivel in their manifesto. They’re voting BNP because they believe in the concept of nation as homeland.
So what do we have here then? People want the government to stop hassling them endlessly over their rubbish bins and the like. They’d probably like lower taxes, but they also want a welfare state. And they’re at heart nationalists who see the nation as a collective whose inhabitants reserve a right to control the entry of outsiders. None of this sits very well with libertarian ideology as it stands in our rarefied high falutin’ purist discussions in the blogosphere.
Libertarianism has, over the past century, entirely failed to prevent the forward march of statism. It may well be a hopelessly tainted brand. Our entire society has been reconstructed to make the people dependent on continued social democracy. The libertarian argument- that we should not have driven into this ditch- is entirely valid, but we are in the ditch, and a coherent, attractive plan for getting the car back out of the ditch is required, every step along the way of which must be more attractive than the one before, because you can’t sell “suffer some pain now and things will be better in twenty years” because nobody will believe that last part. And I suspect that the word “libertarian” is more of a burden than an asset, at least at this stage.
Andrew Withers (LPUK) said...
26 Jul 09 at 12:35 pm
The problem is they have 0% chance of getting into power
A bit like the Lib Dems in the two hundred year old two party design of Westminster.
I left the Liberals when they were taken over by the SDP, and since then ‘Social Democracy’ has elevated the country into a mountain of debt, involved in two illegal wars, and an underlying concept of the State will provide all, creating dependency and stifling enterprise, personal and professional.
‘Libertarians’ sheltering in High Tax & Spend parties wield no influence, Libertarians have been suspended in the LibDems for proposing Libertarian measures, Cameron has said ‘we are not a Libertarian Party’ and give me a large majority to push forward the Tory Party proposals to ‘save’ the country. So whither Libertarianism in the Tory Party. Plus with about 35% of the vote we are going to have another five years of elective dictatorship.
Charlotte- I respect your views but believe them to be a hope against hope, that Libertarianism is compatable with Social Democracy as practised by the Lib Dems.
For the sour taste of an electoral humiliation has been made somewhat sweeter by a number of Lib Dems who have joined us in the last twoo weeks, and even experienced Lib Dems who are joining us even since the result. As quote ‘ I have given up trying to put the Liberal and Libertarian view to a party that is increasingly labour lite’
Amazingly enough some in the LPUK were not expecting to win or save our deposit, but it did give the fledgling party a dose of reality and a good shakedown on how to and not to run an election campaign.
The reality is we are still in a two party state and FPTP does not reflect the mood of the British Elector. The biggest winner was the sod off party with 55% of the vote.
I see very little to cheer about across the board.
We are not going away, and eventually it will down on people that we cannot afford a massive State and produce nothing that the world want to buy.
Eventually nonsense that we are going to spend £1bn on electifying a railway line so that passengers can arrive ten minutes earlier from Bristol to Paddington, with a dimishing tax base will be exposed for the economic and electoral fraud that it is.
Charlotte- Lastly I would like to thank both you and Nich Starling who at least gave the LPUK an airing, without making an endorsement. The Media in Norwich did not even give UKIP an airing let alone the LPUK, but swooned over the Greens. UKIP beat the Greens hands down.
Getting 36 votes has not made me think any different.
The argument is still Libertarianism V Authoritarianism
Not Left/Right/Middle of the ground
Richard said...
26 Jul 09 at 3:59 pm
If Liberal Democrats were liberal then you might have a point. Since they are not the point falls before it is made.
Sam Hunt said...
26 Jul 09 at 4:35 pm
What a pathetic showing for the Libertarians. In one day of campaigning I spoke to more people in Norwich North than came out to vote for the LPUK.
Andrew Withers LPUK said...
26 Jul 09 at 4:57 pm
But still people voted you into third place in favour of a morally bankrupt and failed Labour party, but if it makes you feel better………
The Great Simpleton said...
26 Jul 09 at 7:16 pm
“Ah yes, but she didn’t actually read it [Hayek, Road To Surfdom], so the story goes… ”
But she did meet him, on more than one occaision.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k0O3q5qzB7AC&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=thatcher+meets+hayek&source=bl&ots=MXqAfIgOn9&sig=XNgIQz3JQyuIqN3uUY5iLmyka9Y&hl=en&ei=lpxsSuatKcmgjAeXz_S2Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Page 292
Ian B said...
26 Jul 09 at 7:19 pm
The Road To Smurfdom? Is that the kids edition?
Roger Thornhill said...
26 Jul 09 at 9:19 pm
DavidNcl said: “LPUK have nothing to do with freedom, free markets and free people. Basically it’s the UK’s anti-politics party + a dose of snobby, proto-marxist, anti-industrial bullshit.”
I then asked for proof and reasoning
DavidNcl scrapes up with a couple of links: one a comment thread on DK, the other just a reprinted article by a non-LPUK individual. No policy statements, no explanation of how it justifies statements.
You have to do better than that, DavidNcl. FAIL, as in “epic”.
Roger Thornhill said...
26 Jul 09 at 10:54 pm
Think This.
Alas, the Tories are headed by Cameron and so unless he can be converted/overthrown, Libertarianism inside the Tory Party is like Militant under Blair.
UKIP needs to change (most of) its members and cleanse itself of the single issue stain. For their sakes I hope they did not go for a tattoo.
Would not argue with your Lib Dem except that bit about Tories being a better home, as if being up to your neck in the cesspool is better than up to your nostrils.
“Especially when there are already strong libertarian movements within 3 already successful political parties, who all hold seats and have an established voter base.”
What would you do? Join a party that is aligned to your beliefs with 0% chance of winning so that it might go to 1%, 2% and on up with your and others efforts OR join an Authoritarian party who would, at best, pay lip service to your views or just distort policy proposals to win votes but retain their Authoritarian grip?
Depends on if you are someone who prefers to be “in” a big powerful group not aligned to them (warm fuzzy feelings etc) or where you logically belong.
Bunny Smedley said...
27 Jul 09 at 8:48 am
Have you ever considered that telling people they can’t possibly be libertarians if they aren’t Liberals might be a bit limiting?
Fine, Charlotte. Obviously it’s up to you to decide who’s really a libertarian. The rest of us have just been pretending.
Sigh – Liberal fundamentalism in all its dubious glory – no more impressive for being not entirely unexpected.
Charlotte Gore said...
27 Jul 09 at 10:59 am
Did I do that? Hmm.
You’re right that people can get to ‘libertarian’ from all sorts of different directions. I don’t normally use the word liberal because it means far too many things to be a useful word. To me the cause of free trade and personal freedom is a liberal one if you go back far enough, but then liberal these days either means ‘civil liberties aware social democrat’ or ‘American crypto-socialist’ or it’s code for a mindset that embraces cultural relativism, environmentalism and new age free love type stuff.
None of which I would apply to you Bunny!
The Nameless Libertarian said...
27 Jul 09 at 2:12 pm
Put simply – you don’t win elections through blogging or leafletting people until they associate you with junk mail. You win them through people on the ground, and through making a local political connection. LPUK was devastated in Norwich North because at the start of the campaign there, we had two party members. One of whom was presumably the candidate. Whereas Chloe Smith – whatever her flaws may be – had been campaigning for 18 months for the party likely to form the next government.
And whilst I can understand why you are in the Lib Dems, I don’t see them as either Liberal or Democratic. And you are going to have to fight tooth and nail over the hardcore Social Democracy still prevalent in that compromise of a party before they will seriously consider Libertarianism as a valid ideology, let alone one that is worth the party adopting.
DavidNcl said...
27 Jul 09 at 7:17 pm
Sometimes I think it’s funny watching fair Charlotte struggle. But then I remember what it was like in the tories.
The Great Simpleton said...
27 Jul 09 at 9:52 pm
I said
““Ah yes, but she didn’t actually read it [Hayek, Road To Surfdom], so the story goes… ””
And Ian B wittily replied:
“The Road To Smurfdom? Is that the kids edition?”
To point out my glaring error. Which was compounded by the fact that I have the book on my bedside table and dip in and out of it for bed time reading!
I really must either proof read better or stop comenting with a bottle of red wine inside me!
Charlotte Gore said...
27 Jul 09 at 10:02 pm
Oh, it’s funny. Masochistic abuse, I think.
Oranjepan said...
27 Jul 09 at 10:16 pm
So ‘libertarianism’ is just another way to decontaminate Thatcherism. Well we all know where that took us – to a place where the iron lady ruled with her M&S handbag.
Hayek’s dilemma is an old chestnut which I doubt will be cracked anytime soon, but I challenge the commenters here to find an adequate and lasting balance which is any better than the LibDems offer.
The dogma of ‘isms’ is absolute b&&&&&&&. The is no debate between ‘libertarianism’ and ‘authoritarianism’ because they don’t correspond.
There is however a real debate between liberty and security. To put it simply this is because you can’t have one without the other (much as everyone who isn’t a LibDem seems to wish).
The argument about civil liberties is not just because they are an end in themselves (though they are that too), but because they are the best (most effective and most efficient) means of ensuring public and private safety while also being the only reliable means of preventing a descent into disorder.
It is only by recognising the multiple different perspectives on this issue (and indeed any other) that the correct balance will ever be found.
I don’t claim to have an exclusive answer to what that balance is, but I do know that critics don’t provide answers themselves.
Roger Thornhill said...
29 Jul 09 at 1:28 pm
Orangepan
One can have security without liberty, that is for sure. The term “security” is nebulous and unfortunately you will be trying to convince me that Thomas Jefferson was wrong!
Too often “security” is about presuming that some (or even just a possible few) will be guilty in the future, so curtail the liberties of all “just in case”. The precautionary principle taken even further. It results in de facto loss of personal sovereignty. The State is itching to change things for its bureaucratic convenience and “security” is a nice cover story to achieve it.
As for “civil liberties”, why not just “liberties”? I will tell you – the collective. Civil Liberties as often pushed now are the cousins of Social Justice and Social Rights and you should know what a poison that is for Liberty.
Oranjepan said...
29 Jul 09 at 7:14 pm
Roger,
The pure reasoning in your argument is a sight to behold – “you should know what a poison that is” provides such illumination that I’m amazed you’re not regaling us with stories of your miraculous cures for blindness using logic alone.
Your ability to reach out and find common ground where agreement can be the basis of shared action is indicative of the reasons for the LPUK’s massive success in gaining, er, less than 100 votes at the Norwich North by-election.
And no, I simply won’t allow anyone to accuse you of putting words in another persons mouth!
Why don’t you tell us more about why in your view civil society is just pure evil – you are clearly much more of an expert than I.
Ian B said...
29 Jul 09 at 7:32 pm
Is Oranjepan actually some kind of scripted rantbot? His stuff doesn’t make any sense to me either. It’s appears to be all sound and fury.
Ian B said...
29 Jul 09 at 7:33 pm
Oh fucking great, just when I didn’t need a typo…
Oranjepan said...
30 Jul 09 at 12:34 pm
Ian,
I’ll take that as a compliment coming from you, but you can keep it as far as I care because I think it’s inaccurate – that was nothing like a rant.
Please call me stupid and a monkey’s uncle instead – I must be for trying to take seriously people who distort what was written, who completely fail to address the substantive matters while they engage in ad hominems (surely that’s ad hominids in this case?) based on their own distortions and are directed at someone who holds similar concerns.
Way to go guys, you’re really winning me over!