Others have commented on Richard Murphy’s risible attempt to paint himself as a libertarian.
Dammit, if you use the real definition it is very clear I am a libertarian. I consider myself to be so – I genuinely want to provide the individual with the opportunity to make choice.
Once again, we have the socialist warping of words going on. Any casual observer is likely to choke on his cornflakes over such a massive lack of self-awareness.
Still, just for clarity, let’s look at what the dictionary says. As libertarian is an American word rather than a British one, I dug out my Thorndike Barnhart:
lib er tar i an n.
1 person who advocates liberty, especially in thought or conduct.
2 person who maintains doctrine of the freedom of the will.
Dictionary.com has an addition to this:
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
Conduct includes free movement of people, money, services and goods, which is a core tenet of libertarian thought. Fairly conclusive, really. By these definitions, Murphy is, most definitely, not a libertarian, not even close, not within a parsec and a half; unless freedom suddenly became slavery, war became peace and authoritarianism became libertarianism while I was having my afternoon nap.
When these people try to twist the language to steal words, it is up to us to complain loudly, repeatedly and vigorously and deny them their use.
One final thought about the buffoon Murphy, just who does he think he is, providing people with choices? It is not his to provide, the patronising bastard.
“freedom suddenly became slavery, war became peace and authoritarianism became libertarianism”.
Oh silly old you, Longrider. Don’t you realise that words mean whatever the Guardian says they mean? And that this may change from moment to moment as required by the latest disaster the state has sprung upon us?
Please try to keep up.
Libertarianism must be the ‘in’ political position now seeing as the world and his wife seems to be claiming to be one.
Alan Maryon-Davies struck me as absurd for suggesting he is libertarian in a BBC article while simultaneously calling for MORE nannying from the state.
Those on the left have already subverted the definition of being a liberal – looks like they are trying the same trick with the term ‘libertarian’.
Libertarian or not, Murphy is a prize jerk.
I genuinely want to provide the individual with the opportunity to make choice.
He really doesn’t get it, does he? Libertarians don’t presume that authority to provide the opportunity for other to make a choice, that is called paternalism. Presumably in Ritchie’s world he will be the paternalist providing a menu of approved choices.
Do you think I should invite him to join LPUK? I’m sure he would welcome the opportunity to sign up to our constitution and manifesto 😉
Yes, this one was raging over my way too. He seems to be claiming there are two Richards now.
Libertarians, in the American sense, are simply old time economic liberals taken to the extreme. In the US they can’t be called what they are – economic liberals – because that would confuse the Moronicans who think a ‘liberal’ is a cross between Che Guevara and Stalin. On the British scene it is perfectly consistent to refer to social libertarians, who may or may not be economic liberals.