Thursday, 13 March 2008

Surfing the Libertarian Tide

My regular reader will probably know that I am a sort of "bloggertarian": a ranter and raver at government excesses (not that there's anything wrong with this, of course) but someone who's happy enough to endorse authoritarian regimes when it suits him (ie Rome).

Actually, now I come to think of it, this government's attempts to nationalise everything from opinions on human reproduction to crappy banks are _worth_ getting fucking angry about.


Anyhow, I have just joined the Libertarian Party's _website_ though not the LP itself. I don't think I can, in all honesty: but for the record, I agree with them 100% on lauranorder, education (especially), the constitution (and the EU - not Europe) and welfare. Their forum is interesting but could probably do with a few socialists to liven up the debate: I hope it becomes a real centre for debate on these key issues, while the main parties carve it all up between their smug snouts in the trough fat faces.

If that makes me a right wing bigot then so what*, fuck you.

If it makes me a hypocrite, then fair enough.

*Sorry, sorry. I meant "so weak".**

**in fact that is what I _did_ say, and anyone who says otherwise is a cunt.***

***if you don't get the reference, google it under "Ed Balls" + "twat" + "arrogant cunt" + "faux class warrior" + "dickhead" + " oh fuck I've been fucked better change Hansard before anyone gets hold of the video oh fuck Guido already did".


Matt M said...

It'd be nice if libertarianism had more influence in political debates. Even if I don't agree with all of their policies it's still good for people to oppose authoritarianism and waste in government.

They do seem to overlook the influence of circumstances on the development of character though. Although I think that would be better dealt with through some kind of Basic Citizen's Income (which I know a number of libertarians support) than the current welfare system, I also think that some form of publicly-funded/supported transport is necessary - as opportunities are no good if people can't get to them. The issue of education is also a tricky one for me - as I've yet to see anyone deal with the important issue of child vs. parent rights. If my parents can choose to send me to a school that heavily indoctrinates me in certain political or religious cultures then what happens to my right not to get f*cked up in the head at an early age?

The Tin Drummer said...

Yes, Matt. That's one of the reasons I certainly can't call myself a libertarian now and probably won't in the future. I think it is necessary to restrain the rights of children for "their own good", and that is probably inconsistent with a truly libertarian position. I suppose I think that adults should have as many freedoms as possible, including those to organise their transport, health and education of their children. I certainly _don't_ think that a public service ethos, involving high taxation, rationed services, and a culture of not really being allowed to criticise public sector employees is a good thing and I am not convinced that "but many people are simply unable to look after themselves" is a good enough argument in favour of non-public sector education or health. I tend to agree with you on a certain level of, say, public transport, but I don't think it's morally better than private transport. I don't think, as certain progressive types do, that because not all people can avail themselves of a given opportunity, that no-one should. I agree with you, probably, on a CBI, though I haven't really thought it through.

That's why I describe myself as a "bloggertarian", the term leftists use to insult libertarians: I haven't taken the time to think through consistent positions. But I am thinking about it more and more. I might just come down on the authoritarian conservative side (where I started, more or less!).

fake consultant said...

as my brit friends consider the question of a constitution, i am always asking if they have considered a change in the relationship between the people, the crown, and parliament.

in the us, the function of the constitution is to specifically delineate what powers are granted by the people to government...and to remind government that all other powers are retained by the people.

when you envision a uk constitution, do you see those sorts of changes as part of the deal?