Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Some people don't get it

I have discovered a post about the Libertarian Party, in which the author disagrees with two core planks of the general LPUK theme.
Generally speaking I like the idea of a libertarian party here in Britain, but this group is making it a tad difficult for me to support them. For one thing they are fully supportive of the British military, saying that they’d be in our minds and budget. Is there a need for a standing army in a libertarian society? I don’t think so. For me, having voluntary militia and or territorial army units would be far better.

Well, that rather depends on whether you think that there is a military risk.

Let us reiterate my core principles: I am a free-trade minarchist libertarian. Wikipedia defines minarchism in this way.
In civics, minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism or small government, is the view that the size, role and influence of government in a free society should be minimal—only large enough to protect the liberty and property of each individual.

So, a government that protects life, liberty and property is the maximum reach that I would like it to have; however, this is also the minimum reach that I would like it to have and is certainly the minimum that it should do in practice (even if the maximum reach must occasionally be extended for the sake of practicality).

So, any military should be as effective as possible, especially as we have overseas properties that could be in a precarious position. Therefore, the military should be as effective as possible.

Now, I am not willing to believe that people who spend a couple of days a month, if that, yomping through some woodland in Surrey are going to be as effective or efficient as those who are employed be full-time soldiers, or sailors, or pilots, or their support crews.

So, a standing army and not a voluntary militia.
Another reason why it is that I am unable to support them is their stance on Europe, i.e. the EU. Basically they are against it. I’m not a fan of the EU in the way it’s formated now, being as it is corrupt and heavily statist (I’d call myself an EU reformist).

I'd call you a fucking idiot.

The EU is not reformable; it was designed, from the off, to be precisely what it is now: a federal government—although "empire" would be a closer analogy, given that the democratic component of it is a talking shop with no power to initiate law. There is now no area of British policy in which the EU does not have some influence, and EU law has primacy over British law.

Second, the EU is a protectionist customs union, designed to shore up inefficient businesses against competition. I'm not entirely sure how you can be a libertarian and not be in favour of free-trade—since an awful lot of libertarian thought is predicated on precisely people's ability to do so—but apparently this writer is one of those rare and deluded creatures.
But to pull out would be a disaster.

Um... How, exactly? I am fed to the back teeth with pro-EU monkey-boys stating this as though they had some facts to back it up.

All of the credible economic studies of the EU, a few of which I quoted in this lengthy (and non-sweary) post, show that Britain would be substantially better off outwith the EU even if the EU stopped trading freely with us. Even the EU Commission's own figures show that the cost of EU regulations to business is some three times the benefit of being within the single market.

Very roughly, and from memory (see the post cited above for more accurate figurs), the pertinent figures are these:
  • 80% of our market in trade and services is domestic.

  • 10% of our trade and services terminate in the EU.

  • 10% of our trade and services terminate somewhere else in the world.

  • We have an annual trade deficit with the EU of some £9 billion.

  • Therefore, anyone who thinks that the EU will stop trading with us were we to withdraw is a fucking moron.

  • The EU Commission estimates that the EU will be producing a mere 10% of the world's output by 2050.

  • Anyone who thinks that we would be economically worse off outwith the EU is an even bigger fucking moron.

The conclusion is that the author of The Libertorian is a colossal fucking moron. But it gets worse...
This is an isolationist policy.

No, it isn't. Should we:
  1. trade freely with the entire world, or

  2. should we trade freely with only a small part of it, a part that is deliberately designed to make trading with the rest of the world more difficult?

Which one of those two options is the more isolationist, would you say?

If you chose [2.] then, congratulations: you aren't a total fuckwit.
Not only that, but we’d have to abide by EU laws if we want to trade with them, laws we would not be able to change from the outside.

Yet another pathetic argument trotted out: it might have come from Chapter 1 of Defending The EU For Morons.

First, that shouldn't be too much of a problem: those companies that wish to trade with the EU can choose to comply with EU trade rules. Those companies who do not want to trade with the EU won't have to. Is that simple enough?

Second, why should we care if the EU won't trade with us? It is imports that make us rich. And on that note, what can we get from the EU that we cannot get cheaper from elsewhere? I'm struggling to think of anything.

But, despite producing no evidence whatso-fucking-ever, the Libertorian has decided that withdrawal would be a "disaster". The Libertorian is a fucking moron.
No, I will not be supporting this new libertarian party.

Good. I wouldn't like to speak on behalf of the UK Libertarian Party, but I am sure that they have little time for libertarians who:
  1. don't believe in free trade,

  2. support unelected bureaucracies,

  3. don't support the defence of life, liberty and property,

  4. are total fucking morons.

Fucking hellski.

P.S. Read this guy's only other post. Libertarian, my fucking arse...
Only by working together can we overcome our “my truth is better than yours” attitude, for all truths are correct.

My truth is better than yours, I'm just not going to force my beliefs on you. And there are lots of people I don't want to work with; being libertarian means that I shouldn't have to be forced to work with these fuckers. I think that you've got the wrong address: you need to trot to the other side of town and join these guys...


Ed said...

DK, you are on fire! The blog is perhaps coming close to being as satisfying as a cup of Typhoo. Keep up the great work.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Why, thank you. If I try a little harder, maybe I'll be able to bring myself up to the level of a nice cup of Twinings...


Tito said...

No joke, every morning I have to force myself to choose between DK or Twinings breakfast tea.

Matthew Revell said...

Surely your straightforward style is more analogous to Yorkshire Tea - like tea fookin' oughta be.

When you're in a particularly riled mood, perhaps Yorkshire Tea for Hard Water Areas.

Ed said...

Hmm I meant that no longer does one "only get an "oo" from Tyhoo", I wasn't suggesting that you were comparable to a low-grade cuppa.


Newmania said...

That was a superb post DK you are tackling the core issues here which I sometimes feel you skirt around in your desire to be exciting (tsk tsk).

Forming a boring cautious and self interested narrative for exit is essential in removng the understandable small c Conservative fears people tend to have about their mortgages and so on.I was fortunate enought to spend about ten minutes chatting to Christopher Booker( CEEerlunk!) once and he was tremendous on this very subject.

Thinking back to the 'Common market referendum' it was the radicalism of the "extremists" that scared the British into a trade association. The BBC and progressive establishment were better funded and deeply dug in but the No campaign didn`t help themsleves.

If our fate is to lurk with third world coutries like Norway and Switzerland so be it ..."We dwell amongst our own" as the infuriatingly misunderstood Churchill said " We are in Europe but not of it " as he also said.

Tomrat247 said...

How did a comment forum on an apparent wolf in sheeps clothing to libertarian values end up discussing tea-based metaphors? To put my own oar in DK's blog is more like a cup of Starbuck's Chai - satisying but with a hint of spicyness.

This chap appears to have missed the point of liberterianism


Has the 1688 bill of rights been abolished?Iam not aware that it has,consequently eu law does not have primacy over it.

Devil's Kitchen said...


EU law has primacy over home law. This precedent was set in a case over fishing rights in the 70s.