Monday, December 08, 2008

I have said it before...

... but The Nameless Libertarian has said it again.
One of the phrases I see from time to time - sometimes linked to my own ramblings - that irritates me is "right-wing Libertarian." Now, I am a Libertarian - if you haven't picked that up from by blogging pseudonym then you really need to engage those little grey cells. But I wouldn't define myself as right-wing.
...

So I am not right-wing; nor am I left-wing. Rather, I favour an ideology that calls for control of the state rather than state control. Traditional left-wing and right-wing parties cannot offer that, since they all favour state control in different ways. So for the record, I am neither left-wing or right-wing. I appreciate it may be difficult for some to grasp that, in a society where all political views tend to be tagged as left-wing or right-wing. However, these categories are actually irrelevant. The real conflict is between those who would increase the power of the state in some way, and those who would control and reduce the influence of the state.

Do go and read the whole thing; and—for the record—I agree with, endorse and apply to myself everything that the man says.
The former have dominated the political agenda in the UK and in the West for too long. Now we need to leave behind the simplistic talk of right and left, and start thinking about just how much we want the state to be involved in our lives.

And if people disagree with the idea of statism, then they need to be able to show that with their votes. Which is why we started the UK Libertarian Party in the first place...

29 comments:

Ian B said...

A good article, but as a kind of thematic follow-up to my comment on the previous post, he falls into the error which most people do (and which indeed I used to) of considering the left to be socially "liberal". They aren't. They promote some groups which right-wing conservatives disapprove of (e.g. gays), and have in the Left Wing Tabernacle some socially liberal campaigners, but as a movement they are social conservatives, just with some different emphases. They are astonishingly good at pretending to be wild hip-swinging radicals when in fact they're as liberal as a busload of nuns.

It's the left who have brought in most of the social constraints we live under today- state actions against beer, drugs, porn and prostitution, for instance. It was the left who were the big fans of eugenics and state control of reproduction, which inspired the anti-Darwinist backlash from the Christian Right. The Right want to control some things (sex, in particular); the Left want to control every aspect of society. They aren't liberals.

They have this reputation of being so largely it seems because they've always carried with them a halo of cranks- nudists, fruit juice drinkers and sandal wearers one might say. But the mainstream moral position of the Left has always been, and will always be, a boot-faced old baggage smashing up a saloon or trying to ban pretty girls on magazine covers. Left ain't "liberal" in any way shape or form, economically or socially.

Anonymous said...

That doesn't explain why you're all so pisspoor that you can't even field a candidate at an election. Instead preferring to boast about how much booze you can drink.

It's all a laugh and jolly boating weather eh Chris?

Guthrum said...

Trolls who have MP's who want to bequeath their seats to their sons

Tosser

Anonymous said...

LPUK has not been going a year yet, nor do we accept dodgy donations in exchange for peerages, influence or favours, nor set up 'charities' to fund leadership challenges.

Anonymous said...

http://lpuksoutheast.blogspot.com/

Join us if you want to

Roger Thornhill said...

Yep, the Left are, IMHO, worse than the Right for the left KNOW they are correct in what they do (irony required).

The term "right libertarian" exists because lefties think anything NOT(Left)=Right which is absurd. Secondly, they think that they themselves are "left libertarians" but alas that is, in truth, pretty much an oxymoron.

James Higham said...

There are many irritating terms like that. If we accept the quadrant model, then the terms left wing/right wing become meaningless.

max the impaler said...

Look..I just want to be left alone. My body,my life.I want to drink what I want,where I want.I want to smoke where I want,when I want.I want to keep what I earn.I don't want to kill anybody.I am anti-racist.I dont want to tell anyone else how to live their life.So will all you right-wing, and left-wing, and eco-fascists just fuck-off and ruin your own piss-poor miserable little lives.

Budgie said...

Originally the right (wing) of the French assembly (semi circular seating arrangement) were pro-state and the left were anti-state. So in the 19th C in Britain the Liberals were left and the Tories were right.

Then comes the interesting bit: socialism started to expand in the 19th C and socialists (who are naturally liars and deceivers) chose to claim that they were "left" despite being pro-state (but just a different "establishment" - themselves).

Hence National Socialists are pro-state and nationalists, whereas International Socialists are new world order pro-statists. Despite their claims, socialists are not "left wing" in the original meaning of the words.

Corollary: if you want to conquer a country, conquer the language first. Then your opponents won't have the words to oppose you. This is what the socialists did.

JPT said...

When you eventually become a pretty big noise the government and the liberal elite will come gunning for you.
They'll probably call you Right Wing Anarchists and adopt a 'no platform' stance towards you.
Good luck.

The Nameless Libertarian said...

"They'll probably call you Right Wing Anarchists and adopt a 'no platform' stance towards you."

You're right; but those vague, baseless and empty jibes should be easily dispensed with by explaining what Libertarians actually stand for.

TNL

haddock said...

JPT, if is the word, not when.
Some Libertarians present the party as a shallow "drink and do drugs wherever you like party" with no policy other than wishful thinking.
Societies have formed that have a desire for little or no state interference and with little call on the state other than mind their own business....the Amish are an example but of course being religious they will be objects of derision by Libertarians such as DK rather than an example of a working system.

John East said...

Most view the political apectrum as a straight line with right and left at either end, but the simple mental experiment of bending this line into a circle reveals the truth. Left and right, both big government control freaks, side by side.

Andrew said...

My concern is that the UKLP is nothing more than a diversion for a bunch of like minded people on the Internet. They sure talk a great game, but some blog posts from their main site teeter towards socialist dogma -- such as defending Naomi Klein and denigrating people for daring to want cheap, plentiful goods, for instance.

Although I personally don't care for labels, my own views are decidedly of the market anarchist persuasion so I'm perhaps expecting the LPUK too good to be true.

I suppose the ultimate litmus test will be if one of their candidates gets voted in and can actually resist the temptations of the statists...

mikey said...

Anonymous said...
That doesn't explain why you're all so pisspoor that you can't even field a candidate at an election.

Oh go on Anonymous, you fuckwit troll, do tell us all about the time you started a new national political party and fielded a candidate within the year.

Wanker.

Revolution Harry said...

Budgie, I see from your comment you have an awareness of the New World Order. A rare thing these days. You might be interested in this organisation founded by G. Edward Griffin, the author of the excellent expose of the corrupt banking system 'The Creature From Jekyll Island'.

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=creed

Instead of the old left/right paradigm he views the world as being divided into collectivists and individualists.

Let us be specific. Collectivists advocate controlled elections, controlled media, controlled education, the elimination of free speech, disarmament of the population, fiat money, a cartelized health-care system, military imperialism, and global government.

The ideology of Freedom Force is individualism, the opposite of collectivism at every point. Individualists advocate honest elections, a competitive media, an educational system responsive to parents, encouragement of free speech, a well-armed citizenry, sound money, freedom-of-choice in health care, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and national sovereignty.

If anyone wants to read a sober account of the New World Order/Global Government agenda you should click the link below and scroll down to the 4 essays and one YouTube video he's done on the subject.

Banking reform should be the number priority of any party including UKLP.

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=issues

Ian B said...

Andrew-

there do indeed seem to be some strange ideas circulating at LPUK's secret subterranean headquarters- some misunderstanding of markets leading to sympathy for the lunatic "reducing growth" ideas popular among anti-capitalists and Georgist land value tax nonsense (another of those quaint 19th century socialist ideas which is effectively state ownership of all land... brrrr) but I don't think we should worry too much at this point. If the LPUK starts heading towards political success polices can be modified en route.

It's worth remembering that the main political parties are full of policies that their specific members don't necessariy support. People vote for them anyway, as "closest to what I want" and I'm prepared to support LPUK on that basis. Nobody's going to create an "exactly what Ian B wants" party, so I'll make do with the best available.

It would be nice if the LPUK cabal all got some Von Mises books for christmas, though.

Dan Vevers said...

Ian B,

i think I speak for most of the economics-minded LPUK members when I say Von Mises is one of our chief influences.

Andrew, as for the blog, is doesn't represent the official views or positions of the party. I don't think many of us are any fan of Naomi Klein.

Harry, we're all for the individualist principles you advocate, although as for all the NWO stuff, I'll leave that to you tin-foil hat wearers!

However, we have proposed substantive monetary policy and banking reform: http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/economy/monetary-reform.php

Dan Vevers

Andrew said...

@Ian B & Dan Vevers

I agree that a party can have contradicting views from time to time, but I suppose ought to be some ideological consistency, too.

If the UKLP is smart, it should spend this time simply building a base of support. It may take months or years but you'll have to bludgeon the cheap emotional pull of socialism (and all left wing ideology; 'let big nanny take care of all you destitute cattle, er, souls') and encourage people to think rationally again.

My only other concern is the UKLP losing the will to dismantle the state when in power -- remember how quickly the Republican Party abandoned its principles in 2000 (and Thomas Jefferson, too) for small government for some Iranian inspired (ironic, no?) moralistic police state?

Anonymous said...

Haddock

Anyone seriously interested in the LPUK would quickly realise that it is much more than a "drink and do drugs wherever you like party".

However de-criminalisation of drugs and a halt to the statist crusade against alcohol are both libertarian policies.

Do you support them? If not you may be in the wrong place.

haddock said...

Anon 11:25
I think you miss the point I was making. People see the earnest well-meaning guff trotted out by libertarians; they see the grand ideas the wishful thinkings but very few real proposals. We see DK's rants against bans on drinking yourself stupid on the tube, we see his crusade for drugs for all. It is Libertarian apparently to let a woman decide whether to kill her unborn child ( with never a mention of the rights of the father of that child. )
Let us see some real-world proposals.
Whatever made you think I support 'them'.... If I am to criticise areas of libertarian policy I would consider myself to be in the right place.... unless, like many 'Libertarians' ( DK for example) you think anyone with a conflicting view is a thick stupid cunt.

Ian B said...

Haddock

I'm a member of the LPUK but not one of the cabal, I just paid me tenner kind of thing. There's a full policy doodad on the LPUK website. If you can get access to an internet, why not go there and read it?

And. Social issues such as alcohol, tobacco and drug control are a central plank of the authoritarian state, not trivial. They are a vital part of the "real world". The havoc wreaked by drug prohibition is beyond measure, for instance. But it's also an important ideological thing- if we accept that the government has the power to ordain what we may or may not put into our own bodies, if they have the power to persecute us for doing so in arbitrarily chosen places or at arbitrarily chosen times, we have lost our rights as individuals and all other arguments are lost. Which is one reason that progressives are so consistently obsessed with such controls over lifestyle. They make the body the property of the state. From that principle springs all the controls that make our lives such purgatory.

Anonymous said...

Haddock

If you are saying you are against people having the right to take whatever drugs they wish you are entitled to take that view but you cannot say that is a libertarian stance.

I might have an aversion to sea fishing but I would never try to stop somone else doing it. That is the libertarian position.

Simple really.

Revolution Harry said...

'...as for all the NWO stuff, I'll leave that to you tin-foil hat wearers.'

Gordon Brown has twice recently spoke about a 'New World Order'. The old world was nation states, the new world is global government. Brown is a Fabian, as was Blair and as is Mandelson, Milliband etc

Regarding the Fabian socialists, G. Edward Griffin explains:

“The Fabians were an elite group of intellectuals who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing socialism to the world. Whereas Communists wanted to establish socialism quickly through violence and revolution, the Fabians preferred to do it slowly through propaganda and legislation. The word socialism was not to be used. Instead, they would speak of the benefits for the people such as welfare, medical care, higher wages, and better working conditions. In this way, they planned to accomplish their objective without bloodshed and even without serious opposition.”


"When the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people - will hate the new world order - and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people."

H. G. Wells (Fabian), "The New World Order" 1939

That's all of you commenting here; a generation of malcontents.

“Behind the division of humanity stand those Enlightened Ones whose right and privilege it is to watch over human evolution and to guide the destinies of men…This they do through the implanting of ideas in the minds of the world thinkers, so that these ideas in due time receive recognition and eventually become controlling factors in human life. They train the members of the New Group of World Servers in the task of changing these ideas into ideals. These in turn become the desired objectives of the thinkers and are then taught to the powerful middle class and worked up into world forms of governments or religion, thus forming the basis of the New World Order.”

Alice Bailey, Occultist, Fabian and Head of the Lucis (formerly Lucifer) Trust

The other of the two main organisations involved in creating world government is the Royal Institute of International Affairs or Chatham House as it's more often called these days.

The late Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor), Professor of History at Georgetown University and member of the Council On Foreign Relations, stated in his book ‘Tragedy & Hope’ that "the CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established."

The society he's referring to is the RIIA.

I could carry on giving you scores of quotes and evidence that clearly show that the direction this country and the world is taking is towards global government. The global warming scam is one of the mechanisms, as is the 'credit crunch' lie. The EU is one of the four power centres of this future 'New World Order. I wish I had time to write more.

Dan, I'd get your tin hat ready if I were you.

Mitch said...

OT but thought you might like this.

Turn up the heat, somebody. The globe is freezing. Even Al Gore is looking for an extra blanket. Winter has barely come to the northern latitudes and already we've got bigger goosebumps than usual. So far the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports 63 record snowfalls in the United States, 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month. Only 44 Octobers over the past 114 years have been cooler than this last one.

The polar ice is accumulating faster than usual, and some of the experts now concede that the globe hasn't warmed since 1995.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/the-killer-frost-for-global-warming/

Roger Thornhill said...

Haddock: "we see his crusade for drugs for all."


No. You have reframed it. What we are saying is to stop criminalising people WRT drugs.

As for the economics, the reduce demand and LVT discusisons are just that, and not policy.

Revolution Harry said...

Dan, Budgie, DK in fact all of you please, please read this. You really think there isn't an agenda for world government or the New World Order as they like to call it?

Courtesy of the Financial Times:

Rachman proceeds to outline what the first steps to an official world government would look like, including the creation of “A legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force”.

“A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations,” writes Rachman. “It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”

Tellingly, Rachman concedes that “International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic,” citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote. “In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters,” writes Rachman.

So there you have it - one of the world’s top newspapers, editorially led by chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, a top Bilderberg luminary, openly proclaiming that not only is world government the agenda, but that world government will only be achieved through dictatorial measures because the majority of the people are dead against it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/financial-times-editorial-admits-agenda-for-dictatorial-world-government.html

Dan Vevers said...

I certainly do think there are some with an agenda of global governance - I think it's pretty obvious, in much the same way as it's pretty obvious there is an agenda for european integration.

But there are lots of political agendas out there, which are amenable to a whole load of external factors. I don't believe there's some grand, unstoppable overarching plan by the elite of the elite to enslave the globe.

Rachman's an idiot. His ideas have been expressed before. You treat the article as though the voice of the Illuminati has spoke. It's just an article in a paper.

Revolution Harry said...

But it's not in isolation Dan. There are scores of voices all singing from the same Fabian/RIIA/CFR/Bilderberg etc hymn sheet. I always thought the same as you until I delved a little deeper. What exactly are these other 'political agendas' you mention? Global capitalism? International socialism/Marxism? They are just different paths towards the same goal. The model they appear to have chosen is China which is why the West's and in particular Britain and America's manufacturing has been transported there.

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

"The idea was that those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies [marxism/fascism/socialism v. democracy/capitalism] to enable them [the Illuminati] to divide larger and larger portions of the human race into opposing camps so that they could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each other." Myron Fagan

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

Talbot is now part of Barack Obama's foreign policy team.