Far, far, far from from the fantasy of libertarians as gun totting survivalists, brazen cads in the form of Alan B’Stard or the pristine and prodigious builders of railroads, engines and buildings lies the reality: Libertarians are mostly rebellious geeks.
How do I know that? Well, the clue is in the incredibly skewed gender balance in favour of men (many of whom seem to be IT professionals) and the copious amount of reading that seems to be required. There’s libertarian support groups, libertarian political parties, and of course libertarian blogs – but the hierarchy is remarkable – the more outspoken and naughty you are the more accolades, plaudits and readers you get.
The only conclusion to draw is that the time of the evil dork may well be here. They run the frickin’ internet and they’re going to use their advantage on the internet to affect change in the real world. Well, that’s the plan.
Look, it’s not a criticism. I’m a nerd myself – I stayed behind at work a few days ago so I could build a robot out of the office Lego Mindstorms kit, so I ain’t throwing stones here.
But here’s the problem: If libertarianism is going to escape the political blogosphere (which is itself one mighty orgasm of geeky self-pleasure) it needs to be something that non-geeks can relate to.
So Chris Mounsey’s election to leader of the Libertarian Party is fantastic news for fellow “evil nerds”, but can Chris reach out to a more broad audience? Chris runs the infamous and fantastically sweary Devil’s Kitchen blog, and because he’s one of the naughtiest geeks (second only to the incredibly, incredibly naughty Guido Fawkes) he’s right at the top of the evil dork hierarchy.
Perhaps it’s too early for the Libertarian Party to be worried about reaching a more mainstream audience, but it’s got to be one of the biggest and most pressing matters on that party’s to-do list. Winning elections demands it, and winning power demands winning elections..
But see, all joking aside, the Evil Dorks are still onto something. You have to be outside of the mainstream to be able to see what other people don’t, and sometimes you need to go beyond what is classed as a ‘normal life’ to discover where the boundaries and barriers really are. If you never look up from the X-Factor you’re not going to notice anything wrong at all.
Sadly political change doesn’t come from a small hardcore niche of political obsessives though – at least, it doesn’t end there. It starts there (and you can argue that the internet has made that easier) – but movements either go mainstream or they remain in the shadows like mental state socialist and communist groups of old.
So the challenge for Chris – and all libertarians – is to find a way to communicate a libertarian message to non-geeks, to ‘normal’ people. I know I’m stumped on this, and have been for some time – but still doesn’t change the fact it needs doing.
Obnoxio The Clown said...
3 Dec 09 at 12:57 am
I find that just explaining to people what Libertarianism actually means, renders them surprisingly receptive.
But of course, us dorks aren’t known for our social skills.
(
Al Jahom said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:03 am
You mean dumb down, Ms Gore? [looks over rim of glasses]
I thought you turned apostate so you could criticise the Dib Lems.
Bollocks.. she’s right lads. Another game of Warcraft?
leon said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:04 am
Someone let that idiotic fuck Devil’s Kitchen be leader of a political party!? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!
Fuck me that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all week!
Charlotte Gore said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:06 am
I thought you turned apostate so you could criticise the Dib Lems.
Yeah but I have broad interests and I don’t want to start my new independent blogging phase by acting as a new fluffer for internet libertarians.
Charlotte Gore said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:07 am
And no, definitely not dumbing down. You don’t need to dumb down – you just need to make it relevant, point out the cause and effect, you know?
Martin said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:11 am
@leon:
Gordon Brown.
David Cameron.
Nick Clegg.
Nick Griffin.
I’m sure DK is looking increasingly attractive now…
leon said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:12 am
Not by a long shot I’d have any of the top three running the country any day of the week over that racist little turd.
Charlotte Gore said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:14 am
He’s racist?
Martin said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:15 am
Either he’s referring to Griffin, or we’re about to have some hot libel action on this blog.
Rab C. Nesbitt said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:23 am
I’m just an ordinary working guy, who doesn’t work in I.T. or anything remotely geeky and I’m a member of LPUK. Yes, I blog. I’m not particularly good at it but I enjoy it.
I deliberately chose my blog ‘character’ to be as far away from ‘geek’ as possible. I await a letter from the BBC lawyers.
Indeed, there is much to read about Libertarianism. No doubt about that. But I haven’t read a single book on the subject and I don’t intend to either.
But without ‘ordinary joe’ types like me, the party will get nowhere.
Rab C. Nesbitt said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:44 am
Also, I think a lot of Libertarian, (note the capital l), blogs actually damage the cause.
The ‘hardcore’ followers actually scare people off. I know, I’ve witnessed it.
The message needs to be softened a tad, but with the principles still the same. And it needs to break out of the internet, no one’s heard of us!
Steve Tierney said...
3 Dec 09 at 2:24 am
If there’s one thing that ordinary people, particularly British ordinary people do not like, it is being told what to do. Being bullied.
This is the principle of Libertarianism which will strike the most deep and profound chord.
If you tell a British person: “You cannot do this” they will look for a way to do it.
We are struggling beneath an ever-growing mountain of pointless legislation and regulation and everybody can feel it. There’s your leverage.
Who is best to decide how you should live your life?
You are.
Who is best to decide what risks you take?
You are.
Who is best to decide how to bring up your children?
You are.
Who is best to decide how you should speak and behave?
You are.
Who is best to decide how you should spend the money you fairly earn?
YOU ARE.
That’s the angle I’d take.
sconzey said...
3 Dec 09 at 3:10 am
Far more convincing than someone trying to explain to you this wonderful idea they’ve had is seeing it work
James Schneider said...
3 Dec 09 at 9:11 am
I think a return to libertarianism’s 19th century intellectual history would be a good place to start. Reconnect with socialism (before it got obsessed with Statism) and begin to phrase libertarianism in a more of a populist left discourse. Freedom lovers will still love it. Gun nuts will still love it. But it will branch out to a huge swathe of the population who are interested in both self and mutual help and know, even if they don’t say it, that the centralized command and control State hasn’t done the business.
Gregg said...
3 Dec 09 at 9:35 am
I’m crap with technology, prefer campaigning on doorsteps to the internet and, although I have a few books on libertarianism, haven’t read any of them.
I’m a very naughty boy and Chairman of the Libertarian Party. Do I need help?
Rosscoe said...
3 Dec 09 at 11:44 am
I’d agree with Steve Tierny it’s probably the angle of libertarianism that would have the most resonance with the general public as no one like being told what to do in this country. The problem is that nearly everyone likes telling other people what to do:
Who is best to decide how you should live your life?
I AM.
Who is best to decide what risks you take?
I AM.
Who is best to decide how to bring up your children?
I AM.
Who is best to decide how you should speak and behave?
I AM.
Who is best to decide how you should spend the money you fairly earn?
I AM
the above would be a fairer way of looking at how lots of people view freedom in this country.
BTW Leon @ 1:12am when the name of buggery bollocks have you ever read anything remotly racist written by DK? have been reading his blog for years and he’s never come across as even slightly racist.
James Schneider said...
3 Dec 09 at 12:02 pm
Rosscoe,
Who is best decides how you live your life?
You
Who is best to decide what risks you take?
It doesn’t matter. Its your decision provided there are no knock on affects.
Who is best to decide how to bring up your children?
You, as long as you don’t infringe upon their liberty. Kids are not your, or anybody else’s property.
Who decides best how you should speak and behave?
You, within some basic societal limits – you can’t break my arm for disagreeing with you etc – there is a contract between citizens on behavior.
Who is best to decide how you should spend the money you fairly earn?
You are but there the question of “fairly earn” needs to be addressed. Do you hold any unfair privileged position will allows you to distort the fair and smooth workings of the market (e.g. monopoly power, rent seeking, state aided property speculation etc).
This is a start to look at freedom, but to forget power relations, and the fact that the market most certainly isn’t free much be heavily born in mind too.
Jock said...
3 Dec 09 at 12:42 pm
Then there are those of us who are sceptical that true freedom from the state’s depredations can be achieved through state structures such as political parties, at all, whether libertarian or not.
So there is another “type” of libertarianism that wants to do, not talk, if you will (that’s not meant to be as harsh as it sounds – I hope you get what I mean). We need to find things the state doesn’t do at all well (and we’re already on a big big list) and find other ways of doing them, then we go back to them and say “you don’t need to be doing this, we’re doing it better without you”.
That said, it is easier to say than to do – since where the state has a monopoly of things it frequently does its darnest to ensure that nobody else can muscle in without a lot of hassle. For this we need our existing political networks – not to be “in control” necessarily, but to help us persuade those who are, when a viable alternative to state action is shown to them, to take them seriously.
Jock said...
3 Dec 09 at 12:45 pm
I christened it “viral anarchism”…:-)
Charlotte Gore said...
3 Dec 09 at 12:47 pm
Viral anarchism? I like the concept a lot.
Rosscoe said...
3 Dec 09 at 12:54 pm
James,
Perhaps I should have made myself clearer; I believe that an individual is the only person with the right to make decisions that affect only themselves as I’m sure that most people who read this blog do. My point was that though most people in the UK don’t like being told what to do, and so this is probably the best angle to take to promote libertarianism, we have also become a nation of insufferable prod-noses who delight in hectoring, lecturing and bossing around our fellow citizens on every issue under the sun.
As an example take the planning regulations. If a person in England wants to build an extension to their house or a conservatory and are refused planning permission it is an outrage, you will hear cries of lamentation about how they own the property how their plans don’t affect anything etc, they will very quickly become the most eloquent advocates against state interference on private property that you could possibly imagine.
If that same persons neighbor wishes to build a conservatory or extension, or even paint their front door a different colour from the norm on the street you will then, all of a sudden, hear them talking about community ownership of the character of the built environment, about their right to object and bemoaning the fact that the council aren’t doing enough to stop “inappropriate” development.
Its the same with a whole range of issues- for example drugs where many politicians and huge numbers of the general public or their children have taken them but they still support stronger crimanl sentences and sanctions for OTHER people, Tax where everyone pays too much apart from those who are richer than the person being asked- who should always pay more and regulation where no one want to be told how to do their job, but everyone always knows best how someone else should do theirs.
It’s this aspect of the British character that needs to be challenged if we are ever to make headway.
Techno Mystic said...
3 Dec 09 at 12:58 pm
I’m always getting into trouble for being outspoken and naughty so I must be a libertarian.
A good post.
James Schneider said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:35 pm
Rosscoe, on that point I completely agree with you. But what if narrow utilitarianism is right, we are just narrow rational utility maximizers, and every hectorer is just acting in their own self interest?
Hythlodaeus said...
3 Dec 09 at 1:50 pm
While I know very little of the UK Libertarian Party, and wouldn’t seek to criticise it (or any of the above commenters), Libertarians do have to realise that there is an element who call themselves Libertarian while also advocating policies which are in keeping with that of Nick Griffin.
Part of this would be due to Griffin actively using libertarian rhetoric amongst all the other philosophies which he has co-opted into his hateful cause.
It’s also worth noting the interesting parallels between Ayn Rand’s objectivism and libertarianism. Her take on the ‘Who is responsible? I Am’ quote above runs something like this:
This, however, also illustrates the main flaw of extreme libertarianism. Nearly no decision affects only ourselves. To use the example of drugs used above, addiction can affect entire families. Just because we all have access to all drugs, that does not mean it’s going to lessen any problems. Indeed, given our country’s passion for alcohol, it could well make things worse by giving more people more access to them.
Libertarianism is a very dangerous double-edged sword.
On the other hand, I do think Ron Paul has some interesting ideas.
Rosscoe said...
3 Dec 09 at 2:47 pm
James,
That’s the concern! Freedom used to be considered its own reward; somewhere along the line we collectively seem to have lost the will to have it.
Hythlodeaus, I’ve always been a bit uneasy with Rand, personally I would never presume to tell someone what the highest moral purpose of their life should be, whether it’s following a religion, giving everything to charity or the achievement of their own happiness, that’s surely for them to decide. It’s also a bit of mistake to assume that all libertarians wish to live isolated lives. I would suggest that the main point of being a libertarian is that you cannot use force (or its threat) to compel people into a course of action, as long as social interaction is voluntary then there is no reason for us all to be hiding in the hills with stacks of tinned food and lots of guns and ammo.
If we go back to the example of drugs, yes it’s true that addiction can have devastating effects on the friends and family of the addict as they care about the person concerned. However it’s up to them how they deal with it, some will offer support some will feel that they cannot and will cut the person out of their lives. This is sad but ultimately it is for the people who know someone to decide how far that persons actions can be allowed to affect them before they cut them off. We do not have the right not to be hurt disappointed or let down by the people we know and care about and whether the course of action they are engaged in is legal (adultery for example) or illegal (drug abuse) is neither here or there when assessing the hurt done. The point is that as long as my actions do not forcibly deprive someone else of there life, liberty or property- as long as they still have the choice to walk away, then it’s a matter between me and them and nothing to do with the state or the criminal law.
Jock Coats said...
3 Dec 09 at 2:59 pm
Roosoe –
I wouldn’t say that Rand’s stuff is actually in any way representative of libertarian-anarchism. At best it is a sub-type, otherwise completely different. But to use a quote from Rand to suggest a “flaw of extreme libertarianism” is not really apt.
Regarding “isolated lives” – what is important is that for most of the lifespan of anarchist/libertarian thought the opposite of the state, and the concept whose implacable enemy is the state, is “society”. Society as set out by the likes of Paine, Proudhon and Nock, as “all the voluntary associations” we make one with another (some of which we do not know about necessarily). Civil society, forever being weakened and destroyed by the state. There is nothing that implies “isolation” in anarchism or libertarianism.
PRL said...
3 Dec 09 at 3:59 pm
I would argue that Chris is an ideal candidate to run LPUK.
He uses the DK moniker for a reason and may well be wise to move away from that as he develops his role in LPUK, as having met him as a person he comes across as thoughtful, passionate and articulate, with barely a swear word in sight. The only thing that counts against him in the current climate is the Eton link, but as a recent convert to the LPUK cause I’m more than happy to have him represent us.
As for racist? Hmmm… I cannot refute the allegation as I don’t know what it related to however he certainly didn’t give off any such impression.
PRL said...
3 Dec 09 at 4:01 pm
*in person rather than “as a person”, too much time playing Quake and Doom or whatever us ‘geeks’ play has obviously left it’s mark…
bella gerens said...
3 Dec 09 at 7:25 pm
Just to clear up any confusion: DK is not a racist. I think I would know by now if he were.
amcguinn said...
3 Dec 09 at 10:32 pm
Chris is not DK, he just plays him on TV. He’s actually a very persuasive speaker in person, and much less nerdy, than, say, me. The swearblogging would be a handicap to his becoming Prime Minister, but I suspect he’s the right person to move the party forward at this point.
The Great Simpleton said...
4 Dec 09 at 12:23 am
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a a majority of MPs whose attitude to any issue was:
How can we address this problem with the minimum impact on the majority?
Which solution best ensures the liberty of the individual is considered as a priority?
Why can’t this be solved at the local level?
And accept that sometimes, with sadness, that intervention at the national level is needed.
Rather than:
How can I get more votes this situation? What gives me the greatest advantage? How do I get more power? What will the Sun/Mail/Mirror want me to say? How can I service my preferred minority?
Anna Raccoon said...
4 Dec 09 at 1:35 pm
What an excellent post Charlotte.
****Claps****
Thom said...
4 Dec 09 at 2:50 pm
It seems Rab has beaten me to the punch in his comment!
I’m a member of LPUK – proudly so – yet I don’t work in IT; I temp having lost my job for a chemical distributor earlier this year for the local council (which I will write about only when I leave) doing a fairly mundane clerical job, but have been in academia, have a degree in chemistry and have worked in so many fields my CV is now several pages long.
I think I was a libertarian long before I even knew the word; I used to think I would be happy giving up half of my wage or more if I felt the state could provide the type of services it promised but when it became blindingly apparent it couldn’t and it’s intervention over the years is having an extremely negative effect, it became blatantly clear to me that no level of money would fix the problems; it is the underlying premise on which collectivist governments operate that is at fault.
That is what makes LPUK so important; It is the statement that their is a sphere of influence rond each one of us which no man should be able to interfere with without consent or jut cause; you can be a Supposi-Tory (TM Dr. North), a communist or anything you want under a libertarian government; the same cannot be said the other way around, and it is the path of least resistance that has caused the terminally compromised big 3 exist so long.
Paul S said...
4 Dec 09 at 11:16 pm
Right, so you are actually aware of libertarianism (in some vague sense) and the UK Libertarian Party.
How come you still can’t put the pieces together and work out that the politics you spew out on this blog are far closer to UKLP than the Lib Dems? And I mean far, far closer?
Charlotte Gore said...
4 Dec 09 at 11:31 pm
Yeah I’m totally aware of that.
Kevin Monk said...
5 Dec 09 at 2:03 am
I think rationally and that’s why libertarianism appeals to me.
I work and play every day with painters, artists, illustrators and musicians. The libertarian philosophy doesn’t appeal to many of them because they’re incapable of rational thought. Sound harsh? Probably. The question is: What can be done about it? Most artists/creative types can’t think that way.
I was trying to explain to a group of people why the zero on a roulette wheel is the only thing that swings the odds in the house’s favour and it was met with complete derision. If I’d been doing the same thing to a bunch of IT professionals then I’d have no problem.
Geeks understand rational argument. Most people don’t.
Let the geeks speak out loud and clear!
Selling libertarianism to the irrational is like trying to sell shampoo to a bald man.
Southie said...
5 Dec 09 at 2:11 pm
“but movements either go mainstream or they remain in the shadows like mental state socialist and communist groups of old.”
Communism was mainstream,
also, the Living Marxism fruitcakes ( and they are truly deranged), couldn’t possibly have proselytized more efficiently.
Southie
Southie said...
5 Dec 09 at 2:15 pm
“Geeks understand rational argument. Most people don’t.”
They are generally unemployable within the context of protection of the realm, state, etc.
Southie
The Great Simpleton said...
5 Dec 09 at 3:46 pm
They are generally unemployable within the context of protection of the realm, state, etc.
What on earth does that mean?
Southie said...
5 Dec 09 at 7:05 pm
“They are generally unemployable within the context of protection of the realm, state, etc.”
Like that 1930s Cambridge/Oxford stuff.
State security has to be a religion all on its own, no room for other hobbies.
Do you wait for Jack Black to go into witness protection program or do you use him for target practice? I knew I would have bagged him up for the zoo
Real life is like that, there has to be humor, or it is just sickening violence.
That could be wrong.
Southie
The Great Simpleton said...
5 Dec 09 at 7:22 pm
Although I didn’t know the name I have always had libertarian views and that didn’t stop me getting a PV and working in areas where I had access to Top Secret and higher clearance documents when I was in the army. Libertarians take the protection of the country quite seriously.
pagar said...
5 Dec 09 at 8:26 pm
Charlotte
Yeah I’m totally aware of that
So why don’t you come and join us?
bella gerens » Blog Archive » Navel gazing said...
30 Dec 09 at 10:57 pm
[...] Charlotte Gore has written an insightful post about the challenge of taking libertarian political ideas, and the Libertarian Party, mainstream. As she points out, libertarianism is still more popular online than out in the ‘real world.’ There are a number of reasons for this, but she flags up two rather important ones: first, it can seem intellectually exclusive, given the complex character of libertarian literature; second, the online libertarian community consists largely of self-selecting, not to put too fine a point on it, geeks. [...]