Bloggertarians

I’ve been somewhat bemused by the developing row over what certain aspects of the liberal left call “bloggertarians”. Given my general dislike of labels, I’m amused to find that I am one of the so labelled offenders. Oh, and while we are at it, surely “liberal left” is an oxymoron. I know, I know, I was once an active member of the Labour party and have always considered myself a liberal. That is, a liberal in the classical sense. I believe that individuals should be left to make decisions for themselves regarding their lives. It is their individualism that these people seem to abhor, and I quote from DK’s site as I do not have, nor do I want a Facebook account so cannot access the Bloggertarian monitoring service:

They are radical individualists, anti-collectivists who have merely included women, homosexuals and artists in their coalition.

I have no idea who this fatuous prick is, but we are all individuals. That is after all what makes society; a collection of individuals. And, before we subscribe to the idea that the collective is greater than the individuals who make it up, just down the road from me is a bridge. A bridge that would not have existed had it not been for the genius of an individual. The same individual who built the railway that links this fair city to the capital. It is individuals’ talent and genius that creates and inspires. So, damn right I am an individualist and to hell and beyond with collectivists who would subsume the creativity of individuals in the dross of mediocrity. Nasty collectivists such as the truly abhorrent David Blunkett who I once heard on the radio railing against individualism. I am aware, as are those who think the way I do, that humanity is driven by self-interest. It is better therefore to harness that self-interest than to subvert it through force.

Ahem, that little rant over, let’s get back to the tedious little tosspots who have decided that those of us who do not subscribe to their vision of a mediocre, talentless existence in the collective have set themselves up as “concerned citizens” to keep an eye on we rebellious folk, because we are apparently politically incoherent and ahistorical:

A like-minded group of concerned citizens dedicated to the study of arrested development in adult males and the obsessive ahistorical liberalism that many of them tend to promote on weblogs.

This behaviour and belief system is almost unknown outside of this medium.

My initial reaction to this self-righteous pile of wank was… “What a bunch of sell-righteous wankers”. That opinion, following the comments from the main offender in DK’s comments remains not only unchanged, but reaffirmed. I guess if you bandy long words around that you don’t really understand yourself, you can hope that others will be impressed. Let’s take ahistorical shall we?

Not concerned with or not taking into account history or historical development, especially when examining a phenomenon that changes over time

Au contraire, I am well aware of the effects of history, as are those who likewise are accused, DK and Mr Eugenidies for example. We are aware of the effects of an over-burgeoning state as has happened during recent European history. The desire by the state to gather and catalogue the minutiae of our lives was only half a lifetime ago and the state responsible was dismantled by the people it oppressed. To suggest that the current administration in the UK is similar to that of the East German communist regime may sound fanciful, but the desire to build a database state and catalogue information about the minutiae of our lives is identical. We have a historical precedent. Pointing this out and complaining about it is neither negative nor ahistorical. It is, frankly, pointing out what is beneath our noses. People will, sooner or later, react against it as did our German neighbours.

I understand what liberal means, too; and it does not mean forcing people to live the way you want them to, it means leaving them alone to make their own choices in life. But, then, these rabid little communists – oh, sorry, concerned citizens – will never understand this, as they derive their power from control over others.

Moving on, another charge directed at bloggertarians from the terminally ignorant Paulie is that of feudalism… Jesus, what a dickhead:

You still think that you’re ‘libertarians’ don’t you, you shower of feudalist shitheads?

This, dear reader, is the standard of debate we can expect. Let’s take a look at feudalism shall we?

The legal and social system that existed in medieval Europe, in which vassals held land from lords in exchange for military service

And how, exactly does this fit in with libertarian philosophy? Oh, that’s right; it’s the antithesis of libertarian philosophy. Frankly, the idea that someone else has claim – to the point of death – over mine or anyone else’s life is repugnant to me and to those who think and write the way that I do. Indeed, while I understand the need in times of war for conscription, I find the very thought abhorrent and would, were I eligible, refuse on the basis of principle, because the state does not own me, my body or my life.

One of the criticisms laid at our door is that we are free market radicals; the market can do no harm and the state is evil. This is simply not true. It is a classic strawman. The market can and does seek to catalogue us for marketing purposes. The difference – and it is significant – is that I can tell market researchers where to get off. Indeed, I do just that. Tell the state to piss off when they are putting their census through your door and you face a fine. In simple terms, the state uses compulsion in a manner that is not open to corporations. Sure, there may be a need to exert some level of regulation in the market, but it need not come from the state. No one is forcing shoppers to buy their produce from Tescos. If you feel strongly about their market share (and, frankly, I do) then shop elsewhere. Go to your local farmer’s market and buy directly from the supplier. The problem with the state getting involved is that the state has a history of incompetence, one that was reaffirmed this past week with the loss of sensitive data.

One final point; Paulie claims that his playground debating tactics are a response to DK’s swearing. Unfortunately for Paulie, while DK’s use of foul language comes across as amusing and erudite, Paulie merely comes across as a petulant prick. This is because DK can write…

Update: Tweaked to improve syntax.