Sometimes when checking the back end of a blog, you come across stuff that you’d forgotten because people pick up on an old story. There have been two lately that have drawn my attention – not least for the sheer idiocy and nastiness involved. The first was an old discussion with Doctor Vee on the merits of Summer. I love it, he hates it. Anyway, I’d thought the discussion, having amicably exchanged opinions, long dead. Not so, however. It has been revived by someone called Jason. He has this to say:
Oh I just read the comments at the bottom of this ‘Pingback >Longrider i love the summer’
OMG its revolting about ‘glorous sunshine’ a ballet dancing bloody dragonflies!!!!!
That person needs theropy!
Clearly we are dealing with a superior, high level of intelligence here – he cannot string a sentence together, uses the screamer and cannot manage to quote accurately (I talked of a “mating dance” – a specific behaviour recognised among some bird and insect species. Something that the juvenile Jason would have realised if he had received an education). All of that, and he decides that I am mentally ill. Although, to be fair, given that he cannot even spell therapy, we can safely assume that he is not competent to make such a diagnosis.
Given my general lack of tolerance towards idiots, my response was just the one word; “moron”. I felt it sufficiently succinct and accurate.
Anyway, Jason comes back with the most absurd accusation yet (and, to be fair, hilarious). Apparently, I am a bully:
I was just called a ‘Moron’ by Longrider, well those where your comments!
This blog is for Winter/Cold weather lovers so go away and bake in your death star!!!!!!!!!!!….(who’s the moron?)
Where to begin when faced with such amoeba-like wit? Well, firstly, those were not my comments. Read the original again and google “mating dance”. Can you manage that you semi-literate fuckwit? And, taken out of context, the quote gives a misleading impression. I was discussing the British summer – both the good and the bad. I was bemoaning that it is mostly the latter as anyone who enjoyed this year’s barbecue summer will attest. And, no, Dr Vee’s blog is not “for winter lovers” it is a general blog with a range of discussions – and anyone who understands anything at all about the medium realises that contrary opinions will be aired.
As for the sun being a death star – what a prick. I mean, really. Just try living without it you little moron. It goes on:
Summer lovers are bullies!
Yes Longrider this is what you are!
At this stage – if ever there was any doubt – I know that I am dealing with a simpleton. This is someone who deliberately misquoted in order to mislead and then accuses a complete stranger of suffering a mental illness on the basis of nothing more substantial than that I wrote something he didn’t like and when called on it accuses me of being a bully. What a cretin. No one has bullied the little prick – he behaved like a jerk and got the response he so richly deserved. There was nothing left, therefore, but to engage in a little public humiliation. Job done, I think.
…And over at Blogdial:
Anyway, apart from the terminally stupid Jason, I also discovered a blog written by someone who thinks that I should not exist. The discussion was one from earlier this year, regarding Richard Murphy. It seems that I am a melanoma.
This guy is only a melanoma spot (treatable with simple excision) because he is calling himself a Libertarian and seems to have a little sense, even though he has not worked it all out yet… still he has been touched by THE CANCER THAT IS KILLING BRITAIN.
It took me a few minutes to get what this person is wittering on about – after all, the piece under discussion was a while ago and I’ve slept since then.
It seems that it is because despite being a Libertarian/Classical Liberal, I am prepared to make compromises when it comes to taxation. This is called realism; an acceptance of the world as it is. Those Libertarians who advocate anarchy will forever remain shouting, largely ignored, on the sidelines. Britain is a largely centre ground country and some compromise is inevitable in order to be elected and to undo some of the wrongs wrought by the social democrats. And, as with any philosophy, there will be shades of opinion. I can accept this, the folks at Blogdial cannot, it seems:
These diseased people and their ‘thinking’ are the problem.
It would be better for us all if they did not exist; in fact, they are far more dangerous than the statistically insignificant number of perverts out there or the even more rare serial killer.
The harm that these cancer spreaders do affects millions of people; and they spread the disease merely by existing. They literally can kill an entire country and way of life by just being. They are the physical embodiment of, and the vector of and the multiplier of cancer, of the debilitating, destroying and horrible disease that before our very eyes, has turned Britain into a dystopia.
Bollocks.
If the attitude of my fellow Libertarians is that I am worse than a paedophile or serial killer (thanks for that piece of rampant stupidity), count me out and while you are at it, get a sense of perspective.
—————————
Update: It seems that doltish Jason isn’t the only one who is as thick as two short planks and willing to share it with the world. Take a bow, MaRnA đ. Blockheaded twat.
I really ought to have become used to the realisation that the interweb is full of stupid, ignorant and downright cretinous little morons. But, funnily enough, they still have the capacity to surprise with their illiterate, vacuous little rants. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a sad reflection on our society.
—————————
Update: My, oh my, these two cretins really are the gift that keeps on giving. Clearly English comprehension is beyond their tiny grasp. Still, I think the amusement has pretty much run its course now. Winding them up is just too easy and the illiterate drivel is like a waterfall – I can only take so much as it is tiring after a while. It’s a tactic I saw Dumb Jon use last year – don’t ever engage with what someone has actually said. Instead, grossly misrepresent it or better still, invent something and claim that that was said instead. Then pour liquid bullshit liberally over it and present it as some sort of argument. A tactic used mostly by the less intelligent who are incapable of logical debate – although not always. A lad I went to college with tended to use it, but that was pure spite on his part.
Anyway, it’s the usual childish nonsense I used to see on forums – anyone who disagrees is a Nazi (roll over, Godwin) or a bully or, the one not seen on this occasion, but given time would probably have cropped up; restricting their freedom of speech. That’s always a good one to throw at people who dare to contradict one’s favoured argument. Now, apparently, I’m politically correct – don’t, please, you’re killing me. Clearly in calling Jason a moron I was grossly overestimating his intellectual powers.
Still, enough already. Really. Ahem, now where was I?
———————————
Absolutely the final update: I was over at Dr Vee’s commenting on his latest post when I see that the terminally cretinous Marna has decreed that those of us who disagree on the matter of summer are not intellegent[sic]. Oh, yeah, sorry, it’s “intellegent!!!!!!” (must get it right). You couldn’t make it up. Clearly they don’t do irony and I think the parody singularity has just been passed.
I love warm weather, but I’m not a big fan of insects. Which is why I like England – hardly any insects.
.-= My last blog ..The Wit & Wisdom of Harriet Harman =-.
Well. I personally THINK that they’re absolutely RIGHT. And until people like YOU and BASTARDS like ME are immolated by the weapons of DEATH we’re self-evidently building in our OUTSIDE TOILETS, then the Brave New World of UNLIMITED RICE PUDDING can never BE! BLAAAARGGGHHH! BLEEEUUUUNG! BEEEEEEEHHHH! WIBBLE! *Carted off by two big blokes in white COATS*
.-= My last blog ..So, Just What Would it Take? =-.
Er, on that note…
Mark – dig a pond and see how many insects there are. Or maybe not đ
“Sometimes when checking the back end of a blog, you come across stuff that youâd forgotten because people pick up on an old story…”
That’s where one of those ‘recent comments’ thingies would come in useful…
.-= My last blog .."Sanctuary! Sanctuary!" =-.
They’re not social democrats. They are authoritarian socialists – nanny-knows-besters.
These were comments on Dr Vee’s that linked back to mine. It was the inbound link that alerted me.
What still has the capacity to surprise me – and it shouldn’t – is the sheer stupidity of some people.
True enough.
It always amazes me the number of idiots who see anarchism as libertarianism. Libertarianism is small state, not no state, it’s about respect for others as well as freedom. That’s why a libertarian state will still have some taxation and rule of law, strongly applied when breached too. All it wont do is interfere in peoples daily lives for no good reason.
Which was pretty much the stance I was taking.
The proper meaning of anarchy is self-government – not, as so many wrongly think, violent mayhem. It is a noble ideal, but an impracticable one. Without any rules and regulations at all there would always be some perverse idiots who insist on driving on the right when nearly everyone else voluntarily drives on the left for mutual convenience. So I am an anarchist-but. Unfortunately, we do need minimal laws. The task for libertarians is to keep lawmakers from intruding more and more into areas which are none of their business. While there is currently a growing distaste for the overweening nanny state fostered by New Labour and also, alas, by the Tories and LibDems, there is not as yet a strong enough general consciousness of the value of liberty and the crucial role which free thought, speech, and action play in genuine democracy.
Indeed – anarchy is simply impracticable in the real world. Minarchism is a more realisable aim.
Unfortunately, I feel that even this is a long way off. The general consciousness is one of the state being mother and father and lots of laws being necessary to control the “bad” people. A popular meme being that without specific laws, people wouldn’t realise that certain behaviours are wrong.
Sigh… It’s why I despair when I read comments such as those in the first part of this post. Stupidity is rife and I see little sign of critical thinking. I am repeatedly reminded of Boxer in Animal Farm.
Sounds like ‘Jason’ really needs to get out more. From what you have posted he appears frightened that he will immediately immolate without a dead grey overcast. Failing that said abuser needs an immediate review of his current medication.
Hi ho. I find vapid insults of this nature are rather like poison for the soul. They only affect you if you take them to heart. Keep up the thoughtful and amusing posts.
“Shades of opinion”? “Realism”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YleZcGvr5UQ#t=13m30s
The section of the linked video describes the result of this thinking. The result is always the sort of world that moral people do not want to live in.
Stealing is wrong. It is always wrong, wether the state does it or individuals do it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to steal.
This is fundamental to Libertarianism. If you do not accept this, then you cannot call yourself a Libertarian.
I refer you all to this masterpiece.
.-= My last blog ..65 Ways to Fix Broken Britain =-.
Bill, I’m a long way from home and had a few hours between writing my invoices and getting on the road to the next job, so ripping Jason a new one provided a few moments of mild amusement. To be sure, his lack of intellect did make it much like shooting fish an a barrel. I do swear that with each passing day, I become more and more like my cats… đ
CF – indeed.
Hugh, in many respects, you make my case for me. If you either cannot, or will not see the world in shades of grey, that’s your choice. However, people will still be voting for the big three and we will still be suffering the consequences long after you and I are dust. The alternative, is to compromise and at least get some things pushed through. Don’t like that stance? Object to pragmatism over idealism? Well, too bad – that’s the reality I was talking of and it’s the reality that many other libertarians accept as well – see QM above, for example. That we are even having this discussion is more evidence of those shades of opinion.
My real issue with the Blogdial comment however, goes further. To accuse a potential ally of being a melanoma who should not exist, who is worse than a paedophile or serial killer is idiocy of the first water – firstly because it is patent hyperbole and untrue and secondly, because any opportunity for recruiting that person is blown out of the water. A classic piece of foot shooting. Way to go.
I’ll be the judge of that.
Hugh, in many respects, you make my case for me. If you either cannot, or will not see the world in shades of grey, thatâs your choice.
The point here is wether or not you have principles. If you have principles, then you cannot be for stealing or murder by the state. Its like being a little pregnant; there is no such thing.
However, people will still be voting for the big three and we will still be suffering the consequences long after you and I are dust.
This is entirely irrelevant to wether or not staling and murder by the state is right or wrong, or what it is to be a libertarian in principle. There will always be people who do not agree with us; that does not change the nature of the universe and what is or is not right and wrong.
The alternative, is to compromise and at least get some things pushed through. Donât like that stance? Object to pragmatism over idealism? Well, too bad â thatâs the reality I was talking of and itâs the reality that many other libertarians accept as well
Rothbard deals explicitly with people who think like this. I will leave it to you to go and look it up. We cannot compromise our principles no matter what. We can agree that we might not be able to get to a libertarian country in one step, but that has nothing to do with the truth of what we believe in, any more than compromising on what we think gravity is has any bearing on fruit falling off of trees.
My real issue with the Blogdial comment however, goes further. To accuse a potential ally of being a melanoma who should not exist, who is worse than a paedophile or serial killer is idiocy of the first water â firstly because it is patent hyperbole and untrue and secondly, because any opportunity of recruiting that person is blown out of the water. A classic piece of foot shooting. Way to go.
Blogdial is right that people who compromise on their principles are a part of the problem. How they say it might be a little unpalatable, but the truth remains the same. Britain is in big trouble because people have allowed many incremental concessions to their liberties for expediency or safety; just like a cancer, the erosion of liberty has happened one cell at a time. I wouldn’t take it personally; this is the internet after all.
The number of people who have allowed this to happen is far greater than the criminals that get all the headlines. This is merely a fact. And a hard to swallow one at that.
As for you being the judge of wether or not you can call yourself a libertarian, I am afraid that you simply cannot declare yourself a libertarian, not believe in what libertarianism is all about and also be taken seriously. Its like a communist saying that he is a capitalist, because by HIS judgement, he is a capitalist, even though he doesn’t believe in free markets or anything to do with capitalism. Its like a gay man saying that he is a heterosexual ‘because he is the juge of what a heterosexual is’ despite the fact that being a heterosexual means loving women and not men and only that. Libertarianism is exactly the same; you either believe in the philosophy or you do not. If you do not, then you are not a libertarian. You might be something else, and a decent, caring and thoughtful person to boot, but you are NOT a libertarian.
Being a member of the libertarian party also does not make you a libertarian. An avowed communist can pay his fees and dues and join the libertarian party and be diametrically opposed to the libertarian philosophy.
As I said, you make my point again for me.
Every political philosophy will have shades of opinion within it from the mild to the absolute with differing flavours in between. To refuse to acknowledge this is to declare the Earth flat.
At no time have I approved of either murder or stealing. If you cannot accept a degree of pragmatism in fellow travellers, then that is your problem, not mine. You will forever be shouting from the sidelines. Any attempt to make change has to start from where people are currently and engage them in language they will accept. The very extreme libertarianism you espouse plays straight into the hands of the Richard Murphys of this world.
Like many Libertarians, I am a small state minarchist. I believe in small changes – a little at a time to achieve a final goal. But I do not believe in “no state” and am unlikely to change my mind on that, as I want to see a national defence and national justice system. If you cannot accept that this is a libertarian position, the problem lies with you, not me. As I said, I’ll be the judge of what I am and no one else will decide for me.
Blogdial, frankly, has lost me as a potential ally for the reasons stated. They are not only unpalatable – deeply repugnant, even, the comparison with paedophiles and serial killers is factually wrong.
I am a small state minarchist
That is what I mean. You are not a libertarian, but are a ‘a small state minarchist’. I have no problem with this whatsoever. I completely agree that there are shades of grey, and many gradations of people’s beliefs; I am simply saying, and you confirm this, that you are not a libertarian.
As for shouting from the sidelines, what you are saying is that Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul and the Von Mises institute are ‘shouting from the sidelines’. These people are some of the most influential voices on earth at the moment.
If that is ‘the sidelines’ I am happy to be counted in their number. They do not compromise their principles, are having a huge influence and are not in any way ambiguous about what they are or what they think.
Pragmatism leads directly to failure of the kind that we are seeing all around us. I do not desire to be a fellow traveller with pragmatists, because that road leads to tyranny.
True libertarians can accept other people and their philosophies (whatever they are) because we never advocate force to be used on other people. Others, sadly, are happy to use force on libertarians because it is ‘pragmatic’. This is immoral, and against the central idea of libertarianism…. but then I am repeating myself. Nice blog keep up the good work!
There is a multitude of rude and abusive cretins on the internet. They contribute nothing to intelligent discussion. Best ignore them or, if they make a nuisance of themselves, tell them, as I do, that they are not welcome on your blog.
As for your “true Scotsman” dispute with Hugh, the far more serious issue is that not only this generation, but previous ones since the 1970s, have largely forgotten what liberty is, and what historic British attitudes to it were. (The egregious Charles Clarke once said that teaching history was a waste of time. As Mandy Rice-Davies – who she? – remarked, he would, wouldn’t he?). I very much doubt whether a contemporary teenager, even one who has taken history as a specialist subject, has heard of Peterloo, or knows what the Six Acts were. Nor do they care. Thanks to the assiduously cultivated climate of fear, many people feel “safer” with all the rules and regulations, CCTV cameras (which are so conveniently switched off when the authorities do anything dodgy) and neighbourly snooping introduced by New Labour under the pretext of ‘War on Terror’. Frank Furedi has documented all this very well in his books “Culture of Fear” and “Politics of Fear”.
I was going to mention the not true Scotsman, but you beat me to it.
The dictionary definition of libertarian recognises that it is a fairly broad church, so I will continue to call myself a libertarian as it is an accurate description.
Yes, Hugh, I am aware of the people you mention. And I notice that the USA is a libertarian haven…
Nice ideas, but they simply do not work in practice. The UK has a population of 60 million with an electorate of what, around half that? As you cannot please all of the people all of the time, you have to sacrifice some ideals in order to get others through – or people simply will not vote for you. All or nothing is more likely to mean nothing. If I have to compromise on, say tax, which is not a high priority for me, in order to roll back the surveillance state and the nanny culture, then damned right I will do it and still call myself a libertarian, because that is precisely what I am.
Any political party that goes to the polls on a no tax ticket will be laughed out of court. Look at the reaction to LPUK when they proposed no income tax. And, by your very narrow definition of libertarianism, LPUK is not a libertarian party. I’m sure they will be pleased about that đ
One final point on the matter of tax being theft. While I would agree that our current system is little more than extortion with violence, the general principle that all tax is theft just isn’t true. I want to have a standing army and justice system. Therefore, I agree to pay taxes to fund them. If I have agreed, then there is no theft. Those areas of spending with which I do not agree – vehemently oppose, even, you may conclude as constituting theft. Given that people keep voting for high tax parties, we have to conclude that they have also agreed to pay those taxes.
Accepting this is not immoral.
Oh yes i agree longrider that Jason is a taxation liberational determined minchist,
how can it be possible for someone to talk about something like loving winter,are you serious that cant be true!!!!!
I dug a pond and heaps of bugs came out!!!
That murma and jason dont know what hot weather is do they??
Um yeah i think they might they lived in Soth Australia in Australia and i did some study on it and googled it and it says that is the hotest place in the southern hemesphere and the world!
OMG i could not believe that crap that stupid murna was talking about hes obviously not very bright!!!
I just love Summer the swet,the sunburn,the flies and bugs crawling over me and of course BBQs and outdoor entertainment…and beers with my friends!
i live in cold Ireland and its true warm rain..
Have a Guiness on me!
how are you supposed to look great in winter clothes like really they arent flattering are they long rider!
i am thinking moving to spain!
at least i would get my Sun!
this site is such a true reflection of you long rider good on you!!!
You really are the gift that keeps on giving, aren’t you?
I think, having followed this interesting to and fro, that I am confirmed in one of my own vital tenets.
The most egregious and outrageous failures in government seem to manifest themselves when ‘ideological purity’ rears it’s ugly head, whether manifested in nationalisation, botched or hasty privatisation; or in it’s rawest form, the Killing Fields of Cambodia.
At any given time, a substantial portion of the electorate will not have voted for you, and may actively oppose you and what you stand for.
Either you bulldoze them and their beliefs in the name of your principles, or you compromise to minimise the unfavourable impact of your policies on the ‘temporarily disenfranchised’.
Does not imposing the tyranny of the majority equally constitute initiation of force?
.-= My last blog ..So, Just What Would it Take? =-.
While I would agree that our current system is little more than extortion with violence,
Agreed.
the general principle that all tax is theft just isnât true. I want to have a standing army and justice system. Therefore, I agree to pay taxes to fund them. If I have agreed, then there is no theft. Those areas of spending with which I do not agree â vehemently oppose, even, you may conclude as constituting theft. Given that people keep voting for high tax parties, we have to conclude that they have also agreed to pay those taxes.
The distinction you fail to make here is that you agree to volunteer your money. Those people who do not agree to volunteer their money and who have it taken away from them by force are having their money stolen from them, and that is wrong.
People giving their money away by choice is called ‘charity’ or ‘volunteerism’ or ‘philanthropy’. None of those things are ‘Tax’. Tax is the compulsory taking of money from people by the state. All tax is therefore theft and immoral. It is a good idea to be precise when we talk about these matters so that there is no ambiguity or confusion.
A person may indeed choose to comply with taxation, but any situation where there is compulsion in the taking of money from a person is immoral; the fact that someone willingly goes along with it does not change the nature of it.
Libertarians do not have a problem with people voluntarily joining collectives for their own purposes; what they are against is people joining collectives and then those collectives hiring thugs to steal money from other people for the collective’s ends.
Accepting this is not immoral.
To say that it is legitimate for the state to use force to steal from people, is to accept the legitimacy of using violence to steal money. That is immoral on its face. A true libertarian cannot accept such a state, on principle, and calls it what it is: immoral.
Are you saying, then, Hugh that Libertarians (as you define them) don’t accept the rule of the majority? Admittedly we are a long way from that, but if a parliamentary majority – even one elected under our warped FPTP system – votes for the imposition of certain taxes, I don’t see how you can credibly call that “theft”, even if you don’t agree with all the uses to which the taxes are put.
anticant:
Are you saying, then, Hugh that Libertarians (as you define them) donât accept the rule of the majority?
Yes. Libertarians do not accept that the state (or the majority) has rights that are different from individuals. The majority cannot vote to steal your money (tax), cannot enslave you (conscription), cannot murder other people (wage war), because no individual has this right. Furthermore, no individual can cede a right to another that they do not posses, so to say that majority authorises this is not sufficient to legitimise these actions.
Admittedly we are a long way from that, but if a parliamentary majority â even one elected under our warped FPTP system â votes for the imposition of certain taxes, I donât see how you can credibly call that âtheftâ, even if you donât agree with all the uses to which the taxes are put.
It is stealing, no matter how many people agree that it should be done.
For a primer on what libertarianism is really all about, take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
which makes it all very clear.
There is a paradox here. Let’s assume that a Libertarian government is formed on the same popular vote as the existing government – around 22% with a mandate of abolishing tax and the welfare state (it won’t fly, but just run with it for the sake of argument). A large proportion of the population would be forced against their will to give up tax funded provisions that they have taken for granted – the welfare state, healthcare free at point of service and such. They will be forced to take out their own health insurance and cater for themselves – something they will most vehemently oppose.
Any state – even one formed by a Libertarian party, even a party that decided to abolish government, would involve the use of force on those who disagree.
I see a puff of logic is looming…
The problem that lies at the heart of all ideologies is that in their pure form, they do not survive contact with the real world. Purists may not like it, but that is the harsh reality.
You are always left with the question; what to compromise? LPUK has made a few of its own.
There is a paradox here. Letâs assume that a Libertarian government is formed on the same popular vote as the existing government â around 22% with a mandate of abolishing tax and the welfare state (it wonât fly, but just run with it for the sake of argument). A large proportion of the population would be forced against their will to give up tax funded provisions that they have taken for granted â the welfare state, healthcare free at point of service and such.
This is faulty reasoning.
There would be nothing to stop the 78% of people remaining from collectivising themselves and providing for themselves, the services that they require. This is not ‘forcing’ anyone to do anything; quite the opposite. People would be freed to form their own associations for their own benefit; associations that would be highly efficient and tailored to precisely what the participants wanted. And using the figures you provide, there would be more than enough people to finance what they want.
This is a removal of the use of force, not the application of force.
They will be forced to take out their own health insurance and cater for themselves â something they will most vehemently oppose.
This is not true. They can take out insurance, or not. They can form new collectives or not. Whatever they do, it will be their freely made choice to solve their problem in the way they see fit; force, especially government force, would have nothing to do with it.
I think there may be confusion here surrounding the meaning of the word ‘force’ and what it means to be compelled by need. People need to eat. Their bodies do not ‘force’ them to eat by becoming hungry. Its similar to saying that if ice cream van is out of vanilla, the people who want vanilla are ‘forced’ buy chocolate. They might opt for chocolate or no ice cream at all, but they are not forced to buy another flavour.