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!

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.

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.

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.

““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!

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.