I haven’t seen Taking liberties so I cannot comment on its merit one way or another. When I get the time and all that (there’s precious little of that at the moment). However, Neil has and he is not impressed. Why am I not surprised by this?
People who talk of Chris Atkins’s ridiculous film in glowing terms and proclaim ‘Nazi State’ at the drop of a hat are like those who protest against choice on abortion – they are extremists who represent about 6% of the population.
Oh… right, a non sequitur before we even get started… Actually, those of us who oppose the Blair regime do not proclaim ‘Nazi State’ at the drop of a hat. We do, where it is appropriate, draw parallels between what happened in Nazi Germany, Stalin’s USSR and the East German state when it is relevant to the argument. For example, there are startling similarities in the powers granted to the state between the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 in the UK and the Enabling Act of 1933. This is a relevant example of a state granting itself unprecedented and unnecessary power. What Neil is doing here though is to engage the classic Blair trick of misrepresenting and demonising those who oppose him. Given that libertarians are, for the most part, people who abhor the erosion of the rule of law, believe that we should have freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement and that our society should be civil and therefore civilised, I am at a loss as to which dictionary Neil used to define the word “extremist”. If people like me are extreme, what does that make Neil?
Neil’s parallel with the anti-abortionists is one of the oddest I have seen him use. The anti-abortionists are opposed to choice. Libertarians are passionate about defending choice – the two positions are diametrically opposed. There follows then an illogical and frankly baffling attack on Guido Fawkes. Now, I don’t hold a brief for Guido; I think he does blogging a disservice, but what this has to do with anything is baffling. This, of course is the ad hominem attack. So, two logical fallacies in the first paragraph. we are doing well so far.
What this is about is their own insecurities at not getting their own way, rather than anything to do with true civil liberties. If it was to do with civil liberties then they would talk of written constitutions and agree with the Human Rights Act – yet from my experience, most of them are anti-social brats just concerned about the freedom to do what they want – moaning about speed cameras that save lives, CCTV that catches criminals, arguing in favour of legalising guns or smoking indoors – things that needlessly kill people and the so called ‘traditional freedom’ to kill foxes, and most of all the indignity of having to pay income taxes that help the poor, that really gets their goat! All these things affect their middle class freedom to drive fast, get drunk and disorderly, enjoy ‘blood sports’ and let ‘stupid poor people’ kill themselves. “Everyone knows, only working class people should be punished for breaking the law, cameras are too fair catching rich and poor alike, my daddy knows the local bobbies – they will let me off because I’m a law abiding rich person when I break the law”.
This little rant is another demonisation taken from the Blair book of avoiding the discussion by twisting ones’ opponents position and attacking that. A stawman, in fact. My oh my, three logical fallacies in two paragraphs. Firstly, let’s make one thing clear; libertarians frequently disagree on just about anything (and they do not always come from the traditional “right”) – except the concept of liberty. That goes back to my earlier list, you know; the freedom of association, speech, protest, assembly, movement and so on.
I’m not going to dissect Neil’s statement here as I’d be all night doing so and I do have a life to live. Suffice to say, that the concept of liberty and the rule of law does not mean that we want “stupid people to kill themselves” or that we want to drive as fast as we like wherever we want, or that we should not pay income taxes. Such a sweeping generalisation insults not only the people trying to have a rational discussion, but insults Neil too, because, frankly, it’s one of the biggest piles of bollocks he’s come up with in a long time and his output is pretty big. Perhaps the worst piece of nonsense though is his misrepresentation regarding the law. Libertarians do not seek to break the law, they (we) desire a law abiding society, one that values the rule of law. This is something that the Blair regime has systematically undermined with his “summary justice”.
It is of course impossible to argue against someone who talks about what ‘could’ happen in the future.
You have to consider the future; to do otherwise is inherently foolish. That’s the point of such phrases as “reasonable foresight”. It is reasonably foreseeable that given extra powers, politicians and their minions will, sooner or later, use them. Just as you have to consider the future, you should also look to the past. A society that fails to learn from history will continue to repeat it. Had Blair and Bush bothered to learn from Vietnam, they might just have thought twice before wading into Iraq. On the other hand…
People can still protest where they like – and even on the odd occasion where someone gets an £80 fine or a night in a cell – it is not on the same planet as people being bumped off or disappearing in the night
Another strawman – no one has suggested anything of the sort. Protest in a liberal democracy is free. We should not have to ask permission to protest in a public place. It is not up to the state to decide where or when we may protest. Given the power, it is reasonably forseeable that the state might just decline such permission. Better, then, for them not to have the power.
There has never been such a level of hysterical criticism of a government than the criticism levelled at this Labour government, yet there is no internment or sus laws, no poll tax riots or brutalised trade unionists like there were under the Tories. Minorities and others have freedoms they would never even of dreamt of having in even the recent past.
Oh, God! The “blame Thatcher” argument. Thatcher left power nearly two decades ago. This is another strawman – we’ve got a positive Dr Who episode of the buggers now. I really don’t give a flying fuck what Thatcher got up to twenty years ago. I protested about that at the time. That Thatcher was worse (whether true or not) is not a defence for Blair. I hold him accountable for his actions, not in comparison with those of his predecessors. His actions are directly responsible for an erosion of our civil liberties, for the obsessive surveillance state – he is the fucker responsible for the spotty oik who demands to see my papers when I want to make a purchase using my credit card. And, you do not create freedom by taking it away.
Okay, yes, as an aside, there is the underlying clause that total freedom would lead to anarchy. That is why libertarians approve of the rule of law. We acknowledge commonly accepted limitations on individual freedoms that would otherwise hurt others. This is encapsulated neatly in murder, offences against the person and theft. Pretty much everything else should be none of the state’s business as we can (or at least should) be able to sort things out among ourselves in a civilised and civil society.
What this pathetic film and it’s cult followers do is belittle the true achievements that have been made and make it more likely we will get a Tory government that will really take our liberties away again like they have done many times in the past.
Well, given that David Cameron is nothing more than New Labour Lite, there is probably a point here.
Urko has been manfully manning the barricades. I do wonder sometimes why we bother – although if anyone drops by, they might, just might, get a glimpse into the New Labour mindset and recoil in horror at the creatures currently stalking the corridors of power.
First off, he makes the point about Neil’s tendency to use a broad brush (well, a mop and bucket):
Hmm – so were all a minority and right wing. You are wrong on both counts, not unusually. Sadly for you and your desire to see us all branded property of the state, there’s unease about these intrusions and not just from your “usual suspects”.
To which Neil just can’t resist a sideswipe at NO2ID, despite Urko’s perfectly clear statements:
NO2ID are hypocrites as well because they take the advantages on using mobile phones, bank accounts and internet while moaning about them without ever giving even ONE concrete example of how it has been detrimental to them. Once again – rubbish.
No, Neil, there is a difference as has been pointed out repeatedly to you. Choice; people can choose not to have a mobile phone and I know several who have made that choice. I, for one, do not use loyalty cards as I do not want to share my shopping habits – again; choice. Government schemes involve compulsion. I don’t know why I’m bothering here; Neil is of the same warped mindset as Darra Singh and his compulsory voluntary work. Even Orwell could not have dreamed up such contortions of the English language.
It is about an irrational fear of new technology and authority – I trust the government that gives me the NHS, pensions etc – you do not – it is as simple as that. the government is just an extension of us. If you don’t trust the government you do not trust society and reactionary people like that go join the Tories, buy guns and build electric fences around their surburban houses.
Bollocks. I am a self-confessed technology and gadget geek. I love to play with the latest technology. That I view government with suspicion is based upon their behaviour and nothing else. They have behaved badly, so I do my level best to limit my interaction with them. Given that power corrupts, it is always wise to view those who seek it with a degree of caution.
Oh, joyous! I might have to have a go at Neil’s rant myself! Just one point…
“The anti-abortionists are opposed to choice. Libertarians are passionate about defending choice – the two positions are diametrically opposed.”
That is true up to a point; however, as you point out, libertarians do love to disagree and abortion is, for instance, one issue on which Tim Worstall and I are opposed.
Tim contends that abortion is an offence against the unborn child — removing its right to choose — and is thus anti-. I am pro-choice (up to a certain point in development).
DK
My position is similar to yours. That said, it’s a strange parallel to use, don’t you think?
Longrider: My attack on Guido Fawkes is because he is the sort of bona-fide libertarian who unintentially would be running this country if you lot got your way and my impression is he would make Britain a hell of a lot less free.
On a scale of 1 to 100, where 100 is a Nazi State, Blair’s Britain (like most EU countries) comes in less than 5. (For comparison, Thatcher probably took us to 10 to 15 and Blair would be doing much better if it wasn’t for a lot of legislation left over from Thatcher).
This argument about what somebody could potentially do in the future, is the same argument anti-choicers use about the potential of an embryo. An embryo is not a human being and a Civil Contingencies Act is not a fascist state. You could use this argument against anything. Is it a credible argument against democracy to say that ‘potentially’ voters could vote for a Nazi government? In the same way it is not an argument against this government to say laws they have passed ‘could potentially’ be of benefit to a future Nazi government.
We all know that if we elect the Nazis, it wouldn’t take them long to sweep aside our present laws (especially as there is a much bigger issue here of having an undemocratic electoral system, too centralised power and no written constitution), what this or any other government has done would be irrelevant. I do not see this government as a pre-curser to a Nazi one in any way and to suggest this is not only ridiculous but dangerous because it just breeds needless cynicism and fear – and we all know how the right-wing feed on that, as 1930’s Germany demonstrated.
“The anti-abortionists are opposed to choice. Libertarians are passionate about defending choice.”
Tim Worstall would probably argue he is defending the ‘rights’ of the unborn (however spurious an argument it is). There is no perfect situation where choice is completely free – in fact I would argue that in most cases so called ‘libertarians’ end up reducing it. What you are not grasping is that choice needs a framework of regulation to thrive, it most definitely needs law and order and to keep law and order you have to use all the existing technology. There are always pluses and minuses in every decision – it is not black and white. I am not arguing for unlimited government – of course there are limits to what a government can and should do – but equally there are limits to what it shouldn’t do as well.
“We should not have to ask permission to protest in a public place. It is not up to the state to decide where or when we may protest.”
In 99% of the country – we do not have to ‘ask permission’ and there is no restrictions on what we demonstrate about (as long as it is not overly offensive or inciting violence). This is not to say that there are not isolated examples of over-zealous policing or where the law gets it wrong – Chris Atkins has managed to fill a film with such examples just as the Daily Mail fills it’s pages with negative headlines about the NHS and crime to make us all feel that public services are getting worse and crime is rising when the opposite is the truth.
Isn’t it reasonable that in a small area around parliament – obviously the most popular destination to demonstrate for people from all over the country (and more popular than ever), that there are some limiting controls to limit the numbers who protest there? It is obvious this is for practical reasons of safety etc and not some ‘fascist restriction’ on our freedom of speech – to suggest otherwise is just disingenuous.
“That I view government with suspicion is based upon their behaviour and nothing else. They have behaved badly, so I do my level best to limit my interaction with them.”
And this is the problem – cynicism coupled with apathy. It was cynicism and apathy that brought the Nazis to power just as much as their supporters. Libertarians will take us far closer to a Nazi state than this Labour government ever would.
And NO2ID are hypocrites, if you can give me one example of a person at NO2ID who ‘chooses’ not to use the internet, a mobile phone AND a bank account? I will withdraw that remark.
“There is no perfect situation where choice is completely free – in fact I would argue that in most cases so called ‘libertarians’ end up reducing it.”
Yes, but you demonstrate time and time again, Neil, that you haven’t got the faintest clue what a libertarian actually is.
There is a fundamental difference of opinion here: you think that man should only be granted the rights that the all-benevolent state grants him, c.f. the Human Rights Act. In effect, you think in the Roman Law system.
We libertarians believe that man is fundamentally free and that the only function of the state is to uphold the basic — but absolutely essential — laws which prevent assault against life, liberty and property. This is much more like the Common Law system.
The lessons of history show us that if you give people power they will use it. Power corrupts. Always.
DK
Neil – I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that Guido would be running the country intentionally or otherwise (I certainly wouldn’t vote for the bugger). However, even if true, it is a diversion from the point you were trying to make. Hence my bemusement.
I’ve said it before, I am cynical. I am cynical as a direct response to the callous manner in which Blair and his cohorts have abused power and eroded the rule of law and our civil liberties. As to whether I am apathetic, I would say this; writing about it and publishing on the Internet may cause some people to pause and take stock before casting their votes. If that is so, then job done. There is more to political activism than belonging to a political party – and as none of them fully reflect my views, I have no option but to operate outside the party structure.
DK – spot on.
DK, Longrider, I am not very good at explaining my point about liberty and choice so here is a quote I like from Johann Hari;
“If we assume all state action undermines human freedom, we will end up opposing smart measures that help people along with the ones that cause real harm. The philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously drew a distinction between “negative liberty” and “positive liberty”. Negative liberty is freedom from interference by the state. Positive liberty is freedom to achieve your goals – and sometimes, that requires help from the state. Most of us have now sunk into an unspoken belief in negative liberty alone. When we hear the government is acting, we automatically assume there is something to be feared – as though government can only take liberty, and never help us to achieve it.”
I think you guys are a great example of people who believe in negative liberty only and don’t understand the idea of positive liberty.
Neil, I understand perfectly. I’m not convinced, though that you do. This administration interferes far too much – the consequence is certainly not positive liberty, far from it.
Neil,
More importantly, we believe that negative liberty is a much much better way to organise society and that you do not appreciate that the state’s invokation of positive liberty is always and only at the cost of inherent negative liberties.
We believe that the onus should be on the state to show to a very high degree that the purported benefits from any positive liberty scheme it may have dreamed up VASTLY outweigh the CERTAIN decrease in negative liberty required.
This is almost never the case due to unintended consequences/perverse incentives (Hayek and all that) and again in almost all cases, the unintended consequences are not only inevitable but directly forseeable and usually predicted beforehand.
It is almost impossible to curb negative liberties without setting up perverse incentives either at the margins or indeed throughout the whole scheme.
But as someone who denies that the welfare state is riddled with perverse incentives, I don’t really expect you to understand that.
I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that Guido would be running the country intentionally or otherwise (I certainly wouldn’t vote for the bugger).
Guido’s wouldn’t stand. His point is that all politicians are bad. His desire would be to have no one running the country: he is as close to being an anarchist libertarian as I have ever met.
DK, Longrider, I am not very good at explaining my point about liberty and choice…
Fair enough.
… so here is a quote I like from Johann Hari…
Oh, no, suddenly I’ve just switched off…
DK
OMFG You Neil Harding are so fucking deranged it would be hilarious if we were not being ruled by fucking retards like you!
I said ‘people like Guido’ would be running the country, not necessarily Guido himself. I consider David Cameron very much in Guido’s mould (although he would have strict Tory shackles on him).
A great example of positive liberty is the DNA database, within months of being implemented 100’s of rapists had been rounded up and many women’s lives made more free.
Yet you ‘negative libertarians’ oppose it vociferously. You would rather these rapists roam the streets than have a negligible effect on your negative liberty. Only 5% of people are on the DNA database, imagine how many rapists, murderers etc would be taken out of society if there was 100%. It is you lot and your ridiculous scaremongering that is preventing this from happening and preventing a huge improvement in many people’s liberty, just because of your irrational fear of the state, which is effectively like I say an irrational fear of society – you lot are one step away from putting electric fences around your homes and holing yourself up with guns like these US anti-state lunatic cults.
You’re having a laugh…
Have you any idea just how much DNA we leave lying about? What will happen is that the rate of miscarriages of justice will rocket skywards at an exponential rate as people are banged up on the basis of their DNA being discovered a the scene of a crime. Get real, please…
Of course it is not perfect there would need to be more than just DNA evidence but it allows it to be narrowed down-and like I say – you prefer there to be loads of rapists out there – I don’t. Those 100s of rapists convicted get a trial and judging by the aquittal rate for rape – there has to be pretty conclusive evidence for them to be banged up.
How’s that straw man factory of yours doing? Has Russell T Davies got enough of them yet? I wish I knew what was going on in my head as well as you seem to.
As for David Cameron – you forget this is a posh guy with a partying drug taking history – very much a self confessed libertarian – in favour of flat taxes, legalising drugs and the selfish society. Sounds just like Guido!
I was just pointing out the consequences of opposing a DNA database and that is more criminals free.
Oh, of course, he’s posh, well, naturally he’s a bad egg, then, silly me. And I thought he was unsuitable because he wants more state control over our lives. Lots of people played with drugs in their youth. It doesn’t mean anything – besides, you believe that drugs should be legalised, don’t you?
The consequence of a DNA database of the whole country will mean that more people are imprisoned – unfortunately I have this quaint objection to locking up innocent people; which is the most likely outcome of such a scheme.
I fail to see how giving the police more accurate evidence will result in more innocent people being locked up. What we do know for certain however, is that more guilty people will be imprisoned.
I am for legalising drugs but I was just emphasising another similarity between Guido and Cameron. You cannot ignore someone’s background – someone from a privileged background is much more likely to have right-wing views and less realisation of what it is like in the real world, we cannot ignore someone’s background.
Neil
What about the clincher? “If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear”. There, I’ve made your argument for you. Let’s give the authorities every piece of information about us that we can and, if possible, as much about our friends and neighbours as we can. The authorities are bound to do what’s right aren’t they? After all no-one in authority (for the last 10 years anyway) has ever done anything wrong, has even thought about doing anything wrong, has ever misused data, has ever arrested the wrong person, has ever made mistakes deliberate or otherwise – especially in DNA testing – except on this occasion. But, of course, it could never happen here, could it?
Is it relevant? In this instance we have going to parties, getting pissed and allegedly experimenting with recreational substances. So what? Big fat hairy deal. Lots of people have right wing views – Margaret Thatcher was not from a privileged background. All I see here is mean-spirited bigotry.
Of course things will go wrong – the database will be abused, there will make mistakes, but that is true of everything. Nothing is perfect.
The database will just be one more level of evidence and it will probably help more people escape harrassment from the law than it convicts people. The point is with this extra information we are more likely to get the right person and more likely to catch more of them. How you can argue against that, I do not understand.
Longrider: Cameron is a fraud. I love the comment today about the NHS. In rejecting their 2005 vouchers scheme he said ‘it will cross-subsidise private health for the well off’. I imagine this is why he was so gung-ho for it in 2005, having to backtrack now cos the electorate saw right through it. I wouldn’t trust this guy as far as I could kick him.
Neither do I, but not because he partyed at uni.