I’m a bit late with this discourse (busy and all that). However, I wanted to comment as I have a slightly different perspective. Councillor Terry Kelly accuses David Farrer of being a far right nutter.
When you write a political web page you expect feedback, some of it hostile, some supportive and some disturbing. I was told that some guy had written about me on his blog in a very uncomplimentary way, this complete eejit ( David Ferrens from memory ) writes very well which makes him even more sinister because he’s a barking far right nutter. He uses Burns’s phrase “whiskey & freedom gang the gither” as his title which I’m sure would have the second rate old Ayrshire plagiarist spinning in his grave, his views however and the views of the incestuous sycophants who write to him are capable of making your skin crawl. These people peddle very dangerous and disturbing views, they come across as being capable of almost anything which doesn’t require courage, they describe themselves as libertarians of the right to which I have to say, I’ve never met or heard of a right wing libertarian who wasn’t well off and self obsessed.
Riiiight. What we have here is insult without backup. What views are “disturbing”? In what way is David Farrer “sinister”? Left handed, perchance? And self obsessed? Can’t say I’d noticed. But then, libertarianism isn’t about “self” it’s about liberty. And liberty is for everyone.
Anyway, my perspective is slightly different because I come from a Labour background. My parents voted Labour, my grandparents voted Labour, I was educated by the state (for all the good it did me) and had to put right the resulting deficiencies myself; I’ve been a trades union activist and representative, I was a card carrying member of the Labour party and campaigned for them, consequently I know a little about socialism from the inside. Mr Kelly declares himself a socialist, therefore I understand him. On his sidebar he claims to approve of the redistribution of wealth.
The problem, of course, is that socialism just doesn’t work in practice. I began to realise this following the 1997 election. The egalitarian ideals are all very well, but we are not all equal and that evidence stares us in the face. “Redistributing” someone’s wealth is simply theft by another name. The fine principle of each according to his means and each according to his needs boils down to state sponsored theft from those who work in order to provide handouts for those who don’t. If working hard means having the fruits of one’s labour forcibly removed and fed to the feckless layabouts who can’t be arsed, then you start to think twice about the benefits of entrepreneurship, and that ultimately destroys the economy. We can’t all be feckless layabouts; who would provide the handouts?
The idea that wealth creation is some evil influence again flies in the face of reason and facts. People who start businesses do so with their own capital or borrow against their assets. They spend time, effort and sleepless nights getting together business plans and putting those plans into practice. Eventually, if they are successful, then everyone wins. They become wealthy (and it takes an incredible degree of mean spiritedness to begrudge them that), they provide employment, they provide earnings for suppliers, they provide a product or service for their customers and they pay taxes, so the robber barons in the exchequer get a cut too. Wealth creators are good. The evidence tells us so. Wealth creation is a part of human nature. Now here’s the rub. You can’t be a socialist and sign up to this concept. And, another rub while we are at it; wealth creation and its knock-on effect is a matter of fact, not opinion.
So, what do we do when faced with a conflict between what we have been taught to believe; and believe with a passion; and the hard, cold facts? Well, one option is denial. The other is to stare the facts square in the eye, tip one’s hat and revise one’s opinion. The day I did that, I ceased to be a socialist. Councillor Kelly’s writing; dire, ignorant and dull; a consequence of the education he would enforce on future generations; displays sufficient denial to keep an AA convention going for a fortnight with nary time for a tea break.
If he genuinely believes the tosh he writes, it is he, not David Farrer who is sinister and dangerous. For it is his party that is demolishing the rule of law, the right to freedom of expression, the right of assembly, freedom of religion, and desires to steal our very identities and franchise them back to us. Such authoritarian control freaks need petty officials to do their dirty work for them. Step forward Mr Kelly. Y’see, that’s the beauty of socialism, the mediocre rise to power and in their insecurity seek to control and subvert those who are their natural betters; those with charisma, drive, creativity and talent; for such people expose them for what they are; petty tyrants full of ignorance, spite, envy and bile. And it is that, above all, which I most detest about socialism.
What you said.