In a follow-up article on the Bloggertarian argument, Chris of Strange Stuff digressed into identity cards and a citizen’s basic income. I admit to being somewhat ambivalent about CBI, although am vigorously opposed to any form of compulsory identity card, with or without the odious national identity register. This is because identity cards are a solution to the problem of people not having identity cards, and, frankly, I am not prepared to accept anyone “managing” my identity for me.
It was the “do nothing” alternative of my approach, that Paulie objects to and he responded accordingly to my response in Chris’ comments. Firstly, my remarks, to put the discussion into perspective:
Frankly, I regard CBI an irrelevance to this discussion, which is why I did not enter into that discussion, although it does make an interesting discussion in its own right.
What those of us criticising the government are doing does not require us to provide “solutions” or alternatives. Our parliamentary democracy is deeply flawed, but is the least worst option currently available. I am not proposing to change it. What I am objecting to is the behaviour of those individuals we have elected to serve us.
If, as I suspect, this is as much about the desire of the bureaucrats in government departments as it is about autocratic politicians, then it is up to politicians to use the “N” word; No. That thy haven’t says much about them. And, if necessary, we, the electorate may have to force their hand, much as happened over the poll tax. Much as happened in France recently.
John Major’s cabinet decided that ID cards were not necessary so, too, could the current cabinet. We do not need to offer an alternative political system to achieve that. Nor, for that matter do we need to proffer an alternative policy. The policy itself is a solution for nothing, so no alternative is necessary.
We could do with an electoral system that does not disenfranchise everyone who does not live in a key marginal; but that’s another discussion.
I really must proof read more before hitting the “send” button. Far too many uses of the word “discussion” in that opening paragraph.
Now, Paulie comes in with pretty much a repeat of earlier arguments (and it is worth pointing out that Chris has responded to the ahistorical one rather neatly, in my opinion).
“What those of us criticising the government are doing does not require us to provide “solutions” or alternatives.”
Yes – this is what I mean when I use words like ‘negativist’ and ‘ahistorical’. You can decide that it’s a respectable argument to keep saying ‘don’t do that’ whenever a suggestion is made, but you will find it very hard to sustain once a second subject is introduced into an argument – and it tends to ignore the reasons why your interlocutor is tempted to do the something that you are objecting to in the first place.
Sooner or later, someone will ask you ‘what would YOU do then?’ – and when you finally give them an answer, they’ll probably be able to piss all over it unless it’s based upon a defensible understanding of how things really work.
Yes, actually, I do mean “don’t do that” and I bloody well do understand how things work, thank you very much.
I raised the matter of identity cards because it is an example of where no solution needs to be proffered. I am not going to be trapped into providing a solution to a problem that does not exist in the first place; a problem created by the people who want to produce a solution (and make a few bob on the side from it). Sorry, I’m simply not playing that game. Another example would be the increasingly shrill demands by the home office for greater detention powers. The “problem” is supposed to be a conspiracy of global terrorism, yet the Thatcher approach to terrorist activity is the appropriate one; carry on as normal. Her response was set against the backdrop of a rather more dangerous campaign of terror, of a sustained bombing campaign on mainland Britain that nearly wiped out the cabinet.
Despite the personal risk, her approach was; do nothing – well, nothing radically different to what we were currently doing – and hunt down and prosecute the perpetrators using criminal law. If the home office feels that it is unable to prosecute current terror suspects appropriately, then as has been suggested a number of times; revisit the rules regarding acceptable evidence. Simply holding them for long periods of time (when they may be innocent of any crime) is not a solution and doing nothing in that instance; is.
Paulie offers the historical relationship between parliament and the people as an excuse for “doing something” rather than “doing nothing”.
This is one aspect of bloggertarian argument that I don’t really get. Most ‘libertarians’ tend to be very keen on the way that markets work – particularly the way that markets incentivise people. Yet when you ask them to assess why politicians are incentivised to behave the way they currently do (and that to change things, you need to change the incentives) then the response is to tell them bluntly to ‘just say no’ whenever someone wants them to do something.
What motivates politicians is power. It’s the same motivation that drives the senior civil servants who drip the authoritarian control-freak poison in their ears. But… Pointing out that they are behaving badly or that one policy is ill-conceived does not mean that we are obliged to provide a framework for a whole new political system before we can start to discuss it. There are no prerequisites for discussing one political point. That, frankly, is illogical and stifles the debate. Homing in on one issue is not negative, nor is it ahistorical. It is perfectly possible to deal with a single matter in isolation – and that is what NO2ID are doing. That they do so is a policy decision; they are a single issue campaign, and much of my discussions here are centred around that and subsidiary issues. I am not campaigning for a change in the way we incentivise politicians, nor am I campaigning for a change in our electoral system, despite being unhappy with both. And I am not prepared to be told that I should before entering into the subject matter that I want to raise.
Most politicians’ actions tend to be based partly upon the calculation of ‘what will get me re-elected?’
I’d never have figured that one out…
The reason that ‘don’t do that’ won’t work as an argument is because they have already calculated that inactivity will present them with a greater price.
Well, yes, I knew that, too. It doesn’t negate the “don’t do that”, though; if “don’t do that” is, indeed, the appropriate response to the “solution” being proffered. Frankly, the less politicians do, the better. The stupidity of the masses is not a reasonable excuse for illiberal law-making.
This is the crux of where Paulie thinks I don’t understand “how things work”. I recall the latter years of the Wilson administration and the build up to the 1970 election and have taken an active interest in political matters ever since. So, I’ve observed our political process for over thirty years and I’ve not been too impressed by the outcomes. I’ve watched as the populace has become increasingly dependent on the state and the developing parasitic relationship between those who are supposed to represent us and the represented. I find it alarming that the predictable wail in the aftermath of just about anything going wrong is; “the government must do something” and, indeed, with one eye on the opinion polls; politicians are all too ready to comply and all too often it involves banning something. And, all too often, they pre-empt this cry for help by bigging-up the “problem” in the first place. The white charger is all groomed, saddled and ready for the inevitable response.
Like a junkie trapped in a downward spiral of addiction, the electorate is tied hopelessly into a cycle of highly illiberal law-making to justify the politicians’ existence and those politicians will continue to look for the main chance to keep themselves elected. The solution? Cold turkey. It would take a brave politician to do it though, but slashing the government to the bare minimum and for the electorate to manage their own lives would be a start. I’d like to see a great repeal act. Yes, I know, in our current climate it isn’t going to happen, but I use this to illustrate that contrary to one man’s view, I do understand what is going on; I’ve observed it at first hand and I am appalled. I can’t do much (if anything) about it. What I can do is use this space to talk about it and, hopefully, make a few people think about what is going on. Acorns and oaks and all that.
The institutional scepticism that characterised the latter years of John Major’s government compounded the public perception of sclerosis there – you picked possibly the worst illustration possible for that argument.
No, I didn’t. I used it as an illustration of what can happen when people decide that politicians have over-stepped the mark. That this resulted in nothing better – and possibly worse – is a side issue and not one I was discussing. The French example was similarly ill-conceived and is already having repercussions. Revolution of any kind involves chaos and the outcomes can be worse than those which preceded them.
The rest of Paulie’s comment relates to local taxation. I happen to agree with much of it, but that is not the subject under discussion, so I’m not going to follow it through.
One area where I accept the charge of negativism is my attitude towards politicians. I despise them all, utterly and completely. They are beneath contempt. I apply this equally to all of them, irrespective of party. I can offer no solution to this – unless you count the rope and lamp post one…
Anyway, do read Chris’ demolition of the ahistorical theory, it makes interesting reading.
Agreed. “Do nothing” should be the first rule.
If people are crying out for something to be done, then by all means, consider it and then explain sensibly why it is, all things considered, usually better to do nothing.
But on the whole, people aren’t crying out for ID cards are they? And most wouldn’t give a shit about ‘climate change’ if politicians etc hadn’t invented this story in the first place. Neither do I remember people going on the barricades and demanding a research and development tax credit. And so on.
Demolition?
You lot do love yourselves don’t you?
I’ve posted a reply to this lot here to avoid duplication:
http://strange_stuff.blogspot.com/2007/12/bloggertarian-question.html
My god, you really are an arrogant little prick, aren’t you? Further attempts to discuss this rationally with you are clearly wasted. I gave you the benefit of the doubt even given your risible and disgraceful performance over at the Kitchen, but that was misplaced. Not a mistake I shall repeat.
As for your suggestion that I am misanthropic and anti-democratic (oh, and that ahistorical bollocks bit, too) – words fail me. You are a fool and my original negative assessment of you is confirmed. Your whole response over at Strange Stuff is a massive strawman. I don’t waste effort defending what I have not said.
This whole thing started of with ‘The Kitchen’ directly refering to me as a cunt in several different ways, and my arguments as being stupid (in much stronger terms than that as well). I note that you’ve only taken issue with me and my arguments to the exclusion of all others, so save me the lectures in incivilty and arrogance will you?
By all means, desert the field though. You’ve not really added anything in the first place.
No, I won’t save you the lectures on incivility and arrogance. You are uncivil, self-important and you are incredibly arrogant.
I took your points seriously – rather more than they deserved, given that they misrepresented my position and have assumed a stance on my part (on a variety of subjects) that I have not taken – without evidence to support them. Despite your strawman and sweeping assumptions, I gave a reasoned response. Clearly a mistake, as you sought to misinterpret and misrepresent it further. Quelle surprise.
Your behaviour is, frankly, disgraceful. I engaged you reasonably here, despite the previous history of angry exchange and you immediately waded in with an ad hominem.
If you think I am deserting the field though, you are very much mistaken. I am simply not bothering to engage you further. And if you think you are the field or even a major player, then you are even more arrogant and self-important than I took you for.
In your opinion. But it’s not one that matters, though, is it?
1. Where did you take any point of mine seriously? Show me an example of you taking a point that I’ve raised that doesn’t include a snide aside? And, if I recall correctly, you referred to me as a twat very early on in the proceedings. There’s no comeback on ‘twat’ apart from ‘takes one to know one’. If I’ve called you names, they have been ‘ahistorical’, ‘negativist’ ‘anti-democratic’ and ‘objective ally of Conservatives’. All three can be refuted if you want.
2. Those are not ad hominems. Calling me a ‘twat’ as you did is an ad hominem. I depicted your *arguments*. I’ve also re-read the post over at Strange Stuff and I really can’t find anything that I’ve said that can be called a strawman.
There are plenty of other ways of breaking my arguments down and describing them, but ‘strawman’ isn’t one of them.
3. It is weird to have my arguments at Devil’s Kitchen described as ‘disgraceful’. Were you keeping up? In this post:
http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2007/11/libertarianism-and-solutions.html
He described me personally and my arguments thus:
” … this fucking shit” (my post) …. ” this nitwit” (me) … “Jesus, but you (me) are a fuckwitted little tit, aren’t you?” … ” Fucktard” (me) …. “I am really not sure what Paulie thinks libertarianism is about, really. He seems to be assuming that it is the same as anarchism, in which case he’s a fucking idiot” …. “You (me) could even grow a brain”….
I notice that none of this is considered disgraceful in your books. Let me give you another epithet that isn’t an ad hominem: Your position is fantastically inconsistent.
And what about “Paulie is a twat – probably not worth bothering further…” – this before I’d even posted anything about you apart from including a link to your site in a post in which I listed a series of features that I thought contributed to a classification ‘bloggertarian’.
Nothing on your site could suggest that any of the characteristics of a bloggertarian don’t apply to you. I notice that you alighted on my line about ‘objective allies of the Tories’ and you protested that you had been a Labour Party member for years and couldn’t possibly be a Tory.
You just don’t understand what ‘objective ally’ means, do you?
(of course, in that first para, I intended to say ‘all FOUR can be refuted…)
Have we finished stamping our foot yet? What part of “I am not prepared to engage with you further” did you not understand?
The inconsistent bit.
Sigh…
Okay, one final chance, eh?
Sit back and make yourself comfortable, because this is going to be a long one:
Your initial assumption that I was a bloggertarian was based on “what you thought” rather than an assessment of what I had written. This is never a good idea and it is why Neil Harding comes in for so much derision. Remember this one?
Except that I am not opposed to CCTV – I am opposed to their indiscriminate use and am unconvinced that the plethora we currently have produce the desired outcome.
I am definitely opposed to ID cards – bang to rights there.
I am not opposed to a DNA database, I simply object to innocent people being included on it.
I am not, nor have I ever, objected to the principle of police powers. I object to politicisation of the police – whichever party is doing it.
So, that’s one and a half out of four. Not too inspiring, really, is it?
You misrepresented me and I was, quite understandably irritated and responded accordingly; your opening gambit was a strawman. You might not like the accusation, but it is a classic example of the genre.
Yes, the Devil’s Kitchen uses profanity. I don’t always agree with him, but find his writing amusing, not least because it is well written. Had you responded with either wit of a like kind or not risen to his bait and stuck to the issues, you may well have come off better than you did. Resorting to playground tactics simply made you look a fool – and, yes, you resorted to trolling.
The decision to set up a Bloggertarian monitoring site is, like any other “watch” site the height of hubris. It is childish and self-aggrandising. So, yes, I responded with bad temper and derision – for the exact same reason that I initially responded the way that I did to your initial post – you assumed a stance on my part that I had not explicitly made. Again, remember this?
I’m sorry, but self-righteous wank it was the first time I read it, and self-righteous wank it is now. And if you think the behaviour and attitude is almost unknown outside of this medium, then you don’t get out enough.
When you accused us of being fuedalists, then, yes, you were being a twat. Such a position is the antithesis of my position. And it is that to which I refer most of all when I regard your behaviour as risible and disgraceful.
However, that bad blood aside, I sought to respond reasonably to your points made over at Strange Stuff. Not least, because I felt they deserved it. Hoping, possibly for a sensible debate. Rather than respond in kind, you simply went back to the bad behaviour of before. Pity.
Moving on to why I accuse you of using the strawman fallacy – I see that the Pedant General got in before me, so I quote:
Just to be clear; a strawman argument is when you attack what you would like your opponent to have said, not what was actually said. If I am a misanthrope, I would not have survived this past twenty-odd years in the training and development field, would I?
I happen to like humanity. I want it to thrive. That’s why I entered politics in the first place, it’s why I left in disgust, it’s why I am no longer a socialist. I realised that people get on best when left to their own devices. I am also capable of observing that humanity can indulge in some incredibly stupid and self destructive behaviour at times. This is not misanthropy, it is observing the facts.
Let’s have a look at another one, shall we?
But I haven’t said anything of the sort, have I? That is your assumption, not my words and it is certainly not my stance on the matter. My stance on civil liberties is apolitical – NO2ID, for example, is a cross-party campaign. To assume that I am making any assumptions of my own about others is, indeed, a strawman – hence my facetious comment about agricultural subsidies. Snide? Possibly. My humour can be somewhat dry to the point of being arid, but your inability to smile is not my problem.
It is none of these things, as has been pointed out. That I regard democracy as over-rated and deeply flawed does not mean that I am not prepared to work within it, nor that I do not recognise that there is nothing better on offer. If someone can come up with a less worse solution though, I’d be all ears.
One last one as I’m growing weary of this:
We don’t. What we are doing is pointing out that politicians are behaving badly with regards to civil liberties – at least, that’s what I am doing. My assessment of their motives is the result of thirty-odd years of observation of their behaviour.
Now, please, can we behave sensibly? I will if you will.
OK. Peace. Snide tone dropped.
I’ll pick up your points at a later date (something has come up that will probably write off the weekend for me now) 🙁
The only thing that I’ll add here is that you seem to find it funny and acceptable when ‘libertarians’ are obnoxious but not when they get it thrown back at them. Do you think that the ‘libertarian monitoring service’ was anything other than an in-joke between me and a few friends who I’ve discussed all of this stuff with before? I didn’t publicise it – DK did. And so what? If you don’t like it, I can’t help that.
I really don’t understand why you object to my response to DK either – and I had a few emails from people who thought it was quite funny, so each to his own. I *am* a relativist when it comes to some jokes if that’s OK?
I *do* think that libertarianism is extraordinarily rife on weblogs and discussion forums in a way that it isn’t in any other sphere. I’m not alone in this observation either. Aside from people I’ve met through blogging, I’ve only ever met *one* person who describes themselves with any conviction as a libertarian in the way that I think you would (like you, I expect, I’ve met plenty of pub bores who say “I’m an anarchist, I am” before calling for immigration controls).
Maybe this is because I should get out more (though I’ve never been accused of staying out of pubs and arguing with everyone before).
And because of this, I think that libertarianism has a gravitational pull on online discussions that makes those discussions less of a deliberative tool than they could be. For this reason, I think that it needs challenging – which is what I’ve been doing.
And yes, there has been a bit of knockabout involved. I think DK is a very very right-wing individual. Don’t you? When someone who I’m not disposed to approve of much calls me every kind of cunt under the sun, the gloves come off. As far as I’m concerned, I disliked the way that he referred to me and my arguments, and in this discussion I’ve given myself the green light to be as rude as I like to anyone who took his side in that discussion.
I suspect that you would have done the same?
(Oh yes – one other thing, seeing as we’re pow-wowing. When I wrote the original post, I intended to link to a few sites as examples of bloggertarians. I picked three – DK, Mr E and that other one that uses the concentration-camp photoshopping. For some reason, at the time, I was looking at your site as well and I accidentally cut-and-pasted your URL instead of the one I intended. The link to your site was an accident. I was going to change it and apologise when I noticed the mistake, but you’d already been rude about me by then. So I didn’t.
Fair enough.