The best way to reveal the true political colours of a bloggertarian is to call his bluff: there’s usually a good old-fashioned red-faced colonel underneath the shiny modern exterior. Right Next Time nails the UK Libertarian Party: all liberty, all the time, for all of the people—except for Johnny Foreigner.
11Mar08 — 30
Is Andrew R who I think it is?
Not saying here who I think it is. Not that it’s difficult to work out yersell like.
Anyway — yes — stick it to the feudalism loving cranks with big bank accounts and tiny brains and even smaller dicks.
OOOps — forgot to call them crypto-fascists as well. There – done it now anyway.
I’m still going to vote for who I’ve always voted for but if somebody starts a new party I’ll at least have a look and listen…crypto fascists…I doubt it somehow.
I don’t know who you think I am Will, but I’m probably not.
Thanks for the link! Like I say, it’d be even funnier if they weren’t Little Britishers – if the anti-politics party is fudging their principles for the sake of votes, I will laugh and laugh and laugh.
“crypto fascists…I doubt it somehow.”
Johny foreigner? You changed that.
It would be nice to have not so much a libertarian party as a practicalarian party and maybe practicalarians sometimes confuse themselves with libertarians. Remove all the dogmas and the high flown ideals, just go with what has been shown to work. The idea that people should do what they like unless there was a provenly good reason in the public interest may well be part of that as reasonable liberty contributes to well being.
Practicalarians might well have some attitudes that some PC sorts would consider xenophobic because culturally mixed societies, when those cultures have very different ideas about the direction society should take, do not work and never have. On a human level, to be with one’s own kind is a normal human need. This is not some white racist thing, why else do migrants always go to where their compatriots live?
On the other hand, practicalarians would never go for the daft idea that colour or race is the main factor and that a white layabout is better than a high earning black or Asian.
The previous commenter used the formulation ‘PC sorts’ — as such everyone ignore. Loony and ignorant vile shit.
Yep. For about fifteen seconds it read “the nig-nogs”, but I didn’t want peeople to think I was accusing the Libertarian Party of being racist (and thereby come across like a pseudo-Leftist denouncing someone with he disagrees with).
xoggoth, are you sitting in front of your computer all day refreshing PooterGeek’s front page ten times a minute?
Of course I do, doesn’t everyone one?
I assume you were getting at DK among others as have noticed you two get on like a house on fire. One thing you do seem to have in common is the total unpleasantness of some of your commenters.
“One thing you do seem to have in common is the total unpleasantness of some of your commenters.”
OOO boo hoo — cry.
Spot-bloody-on. Bloggertarians *always* need a government to blame their many failings on:
“Oh it so pains me, but I would let you do that, if it weren’t for the damned government stopping me! Be off with you! [winks to audience]”
Yeah, looks like LPUK needs to “find itself”.
I’m a wishy-washy, eclectically libertarian type myself. I think that makes me as bad as a vegetarian that eats white meat, but I’m sure if I think long and hard enough about it I can find a rational justification for my position. In the meantime, riling up “L”ibertarians with comments along the lines of, “Yeah, I’m basically libertarian, but I’m rather partial to national health care.” is good for a giggle if nothing else.
They’re JOLLY ANGRY you know….
And absolutely NOT crypto fascists
JOLLY ANGRY, and very easily upset. Bloggertarian-baiting is such good sport, what?
“Spot-bloody-on. Bloggertarians *always* need a government to blame their many failings on:”
Right – that’s why so many “bloggertarians” somehow have the drive to set up their own businesses, is it? Why libertarians typically despise the culture of irresponsibility that is the result of government policy?
The people I meet who think someone else is going to do it for them are typically Labour voters.
I think it’s less about having drive than it is about having capital. I certainly wouldn’t have been able to set up in business on my own without my redundancy money (and I had low start-up costs).
I’ve yet to read/meet a badly-off bloggertarian, but my explanation for this, that they were monied before they were bloggertarians, is rather more economical than yours, that they are talented entrepreneurs.
Why can’t the sort of rich people who want to keep as much of their riches as possible—a desire I don’t object to, incidentally: wealth isn’t finite—just be honest about wanting to keep as much of their riches as possible? The claim that they are interested in the freedom of the Common Man is a joke. Most of the things they advocate would—unlike their simply hanging on to their own cash—be against his interests. And he knows it.
They’re like Marxists. They pursue their own anti-human ideological fantasies while claiming to be fighting for the Common Man—and, in a representative democracy, the Common Man rightly and repeatedly tells them to stick their ideology where the sun don’t shine. Ain’t false consciousness a bitch? Or perhaps it’s their much trumpeted “wisdom of crowds” that saves the crowds from being suckered by modish Internet wank.
Am I going to have to point out the irony of your posting that on the blog of a Labour voter who responded to losing his job as a state scientist by getting on his bike, starting two businesses, and not taking a penny in state benefits—or will someone else have to do it for you?
For what it is worth, it is a problem of practicality, rather than a problem of votes. It was Hayek, I think, who made the point that an open borders policy (which would be the free-trade policy) is impossible to meet whilst there is an imbalance in other areas.
In other words, if people want to come here to work, then that is entirely fine. But people also come here because of the level of Welfare; even if they lose their job, then they have a safety net well beyond the level of their home country. To put it in scientific terms, there is an osmotic imbalance.
Of course, once the Welfare State is removed (and you know that I regard the WS, as currently set up, to be counterproductive and, in many cases, downright evil) then we can absolutely open our borders and have free trade in people as we would in goods and capital.
It may be that by the time that we get anywhere near power, then the situation may have changed; in which case, we shall change our policy. That is the only sensible thing to do.
However, may I register my deep amusement of those who claim to be on the side of the poor but have raised absolutely no objections to the pitiful state of the Personal Tax Allowance?
Oh and, PG, if you want to meet lots of non-monied bloggartarians, might I suggest that you attend our next meeting? Because the vast majority of them are not and never were “monied”: I am an exception (in that my family have money. I am really quite poor, personally).
I make no assumptions about your background or personal circumstances: why you (or Paulie, for instance) should feel free to make assumptions about mine or anyone else’s, is quite beyond me. Except, of course, that the assumptions that you make fit your prejudices. Although, of course, I would never call you a patronising bigot because that would be just wrong, wouldn’t it…?
I made no assumptions about anyone’s background. I accurately stated my experience. Of the politically interested people I’ve known who aren’t well-off, some have voted Labour, some have voted Conservative. (Fewer have voted Lib(eral)Dem or NF/BNP.) None of them has been bloggertarian.
I’ll point out again, as I did to Tim, who first brought personal histories into this discussion: my explanation for the supposedly high frequency with which bloggertarians start their own businesses makes fewer assumptions than Tim’s.
I draw conclusions about people on the basis of their behaviour and their beliefs. A bigot draws conclusions about people on the basis of their identities, for example their countries of origin.
CORRECTION: “Blind zeal in racial matters” is one definition of “bigotry”, but, according to my Chambers, “bigot” actually means:
I’ve never encountered an ideology I couldn’t mock, debunk, or refute so I think I’m off the hook by that criterion as well.
Hi Pooter Geek,
As a [membership form currently in postal system] of the LP I agree with you that this is a rubbish policy. My argument, and I hope it is one that the LP takes up, is simply to stop giving welfare to immigrants and then to open the borders and have completely free movement of people. If need be, this could happen whilst welfare continues for natives.
Of course, I don’t like welfare for natives either and I’d like to get rid of that, but that’s a separate issue.
As to my background: my household income is under the national average, and I don’t own my own business, nor have I, nor do I have any intention of doing so. I do, however, intend to be filthy rich at some point 😉
For “drive to set up their own businesses”, read “drive to put loads and loads and loads of adverts on their blogs”.
Simon Clark – I don’t think much of the LP immigration policy, but yours would hardly represent an improvement. It would be socially disastrous.
I think you’ve oversimplified the “we want to keep our money” argument.
I wouldn’t mind extra spending on health and education if it were properly spent, by allowing people more choice in their services in a competitive market.
At the same time – welfare reform, the end of government funding of arts, sport, public transportation, the end of government being a landlord, a reduction in pointless red tape for business and many other things that do sod all for the “common man”.
Simon Clark: I do, however, intend to be filthy rich at some point
Many a true word said in jest.
Tim Almond: a reduction in pointless red tape for business and many other things that do sod all for the “common man”
It always comes back to special pleading for corporations.
Why is that?
Libermertarians are the classic proof that economics is the art of using people’s greed to make them poor.
Business != corporations
Corporations aren’t affected by red tape then?
It always comes back to special pleading for corporations.
Why is that?
Since when is cutting red tape “special pleading”? I’m talking about less intervention by government, not more.
Excessive regulation raises costs to businesses (who pass it on to customers). It discourages new entrants into existing markets, which means that there is less choice and less competition, which raises prices to customers.
I have some chicken meat you may be interested in. Ignore the blue bits.
I’m very late to this. Sorry.
> I’ve yet to read/meet a badly-off bloggertarian
This is not true, Damien. While I am not too badly off now, for the first couple of years of my blogging, I was stuggling to make ends meet. Actually, no I wasn’t: I wasn’t making ends meet; I had more going out than coming in. And you read and virtually met me back then.
The reason why Libertarianism doesn’t necessarily entail support for untrammelled immigration is similar to why Libertariamism doesn’t necessarily entail opposition to war.
I stand (virtually) corrected, Squander.