Your humble Devil has met a goodly number of libertarians throughout the last few years—some through LPUK meetings, some through this blog and some through political functions. And there are, of course, a great many self-described libertarian bloggers, whom I read quite frequently.
Through all of this, it has struck me that there are really two types of people who describe themselves as libertarians. Yes, yes: there are Objectivists and Rights Theory and Consequentialists and all those other myriad divisions but actually, throughout this spectrum of opinion (and they are, generally, only divisions of degree), you can still determine whether someone is one of two types—which, for want of a little more thought and current precision of words, I shall call Negative and Positive Libertarians.
Negative Libertarians are generally those whose emphasis is on the "leave me the fuck alone"—the "don't tread on me"—aspects of libertarianism. They rail against the state because they want to get the state out of their lives; they tend, also, to be the greatest advocates of guns, for instance. They are, effectively, people who don't like people—misanthropes if you will.
Positive Libertarians are those who believe that more freedom will be good for everybody—that society will, on the whole, benefit. They are those who actually like people and who believe, essentially, that people will—given the right tools, e.g. information, motivation and the ability to think—make sensible choices for themselves. Positive Libertarians tend to believe that the state is evil because it removes those essential tools from people and thus demeans them. Positive Libertarians believe that people are essentially decent.
It should go without saying, despite my rants against the moronic populace of this country, that your humble Devil counts himself amongst the latter group. The reason that I rail against institutional idiocy and the refusal of some to engage their brains is because I feel such a terrible disappointment. As I have said before, the largest and most potent attack on my libertarianism is the general public.
But that is when I reflect upon the fact that the state has—quite deliberately—destroyed their critical faculties; it has quite intentionally neutered the education system; it has calculatingly removed the need to think and consciously attempted to destroy the rewards for doing so.
The state is fundamentally evil—for, apart from anything else, it can never be anything other than a looter—and those who have wrought it into its current shape are the very worst that mankind can produce. And that is why they must hang.
They must hang because they have, calculatingly and with malice aforethought, brought the brilliance of humanity down to the gutter in order to secure their own sinecures. They do not produce and they do not add anything to society: instead, they thieve and they steal from the talented and the hard-working. And they use that money to feather their own nests and to bribe the weak-willed with the produce of another man's labour. They are disgusting and absolutely evil.
And that is why libertarians, whether Positive or Negative, are right and must win or else society will crumble. Already we can see that our governments are spending far more than they take in tax: all of that will have to be paid for. And as these grasping scum—and their stooges in the media and the charities, and their useful idiots in the general population—advocate yet more and more special causes to divert our money to, so they will start to reach the extent of even their very long line of credit.
In fact, it is happening already. And so, to maintain their bribes, they are going to have to start tapping us for more and more money. In 1885, the state spent just 8% of GDP; now it spends over 40%. How long can we carry on feeding this relentless and reckless spending machine? How high must taxes rise—50%? 60%? 70%? 90% or 100%?—before we finally throw off the shackles and say, "no more. We will not, we cannot, continue to fund this profligacy! We cannot, we will not, continue to fund these looters and these parasites."
As your humble Devil has recently opined, the WHO is not fit or purpose —its original mandate of public health having been perverted by sing...
Short answer: no. Slightly longer answer: Vote Leave did play fast and loose with the actual definitions—hey! it's marketing. And in...
Sorry, I've not been on my best form recently. I have suspected for some time that the realtionship was not going to last, even to the d...
With the CRU emails having been examined, it seems that some people—mainly techies—are really starting to dig into the data files. These fil...