Labour’s obsession with the Tories’ friends – and ‘gay’ rights

Alex Smith on LabourList reports on a Liberal Conspiracy story that “one of David Cameron’s allies in the Tories’ new European group personally voted for a Lithuanian law that has been described as a harsher, more wide-reaching version of Britain’s Section 28.”

Amnesty has called on the EU to do something about Lithuania’s proposed laws which will criminalise “promoting homosexual relations in public places” which is “punishable with community work or a fine or imprisonment.” Another new article warns that “the promotion of homosexual relations or financing of the promotion in public places is to be punished by a fine from one thousand to five thousand litas.”

Amnesty have sadly been taken over by the diversity and equality brigade. They recently changed their code and came out in favour of a woman’s ‘right’ to an abortion. Nothing about the child’s right to life, or the father’s rights, naturally.

As I wrote to LabourList:

Homosexuality should NOT be promoted to children.

Some people believe that encouraging youngsters to identify with a ‘sexuality’ at a young age, when they are not mature, actually encourages suicidal thoughts.

What do we have in Britain? Stonewall going into schools to bang on about ‘homophobic bullying’.

All bullying should be tackled – BY THE SCHOOLS. In my opinion, Stonewall are using bullying as an excuse to normalise unnatural sexual practices to attract youngsters, because they know that when they have matured and their hormones settle down, most will be beyond recruitment.

Children are used as pawns in all sorts of political games. Good on the Lithuanians for dealing with this one, because loose morals kill civilisations.

—————-

Peter Tatchell wrote this in 1989:

To echo the sentiments of the early gay liberationists: our ultimate goal must be a sexual revolution to enable everyone to share the joy of same-sex desire and love. That is the truly emancipatory vision of the GLF era. May we never forget it.” (The emphasis is Tatchell’s.)

The Movement’s leaders don’t want equality, but a wholesale change in society’s values. This means devaluing marriage, which is the underpinning of any free and successful society.

Why they should want ‘everyone’ to be engaging in same-sex activity is beyond me, unless it is simply due to their lust for power, or perhaps if everyone is doing it, they think their guilt and shame might be lessened.

But it is clear that if they really do want “everyone” involved then it means massive conditioning and that means getting them while they’re young.

So who are Labour in bed with, so to speak? Well, Stonewall, for a start.

At Stonewall’s 2008 Equality Dinner, “Sir Ian McKellen, a co-founder of Stonewall, gave a rousing keynote speech about the charity’s ‘tireless work for equality’. He shared with the 540 guests that he had visited Tony Blair on behalf of Stonewall three months before his election as Prime Minister. ‘I reeled off Stonewall’s demands, and he nodded, wrote them down and put a tick by them all. Then he said we will do all that.’

And also providers of ‘sexual health’ services, which is a euphemism for providing contraception and abortion.

Simon Blake is the Chief Executive of Brook and he is backing the call for children to be taught about ‘sexual pleasure‘. He is part of the government’s Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG), whose ideas include sex education for five year olds with no opt-out permitted for dissenting parents.

Brook’s ‘services’ are in the field of contraception and abortion. What idiots would allow these people to advise them when they have a vested interest in as many sexually active teenagers being raised as possible?

This is how desperate the powers-that-be are to produce a nation of dysfunctional people who are then at the mercy of the State. Promiscuous youngsters have a harder time finding permanent relationships when they are older. This, together with the agenda to get everyone into homosexuality, is having the intended effect of devaluing marriage in society.

The Telegraph reported that in 1976, illegitimacy was 9% in Britain. In 2007 it was 44.4%.

Among British-born mothers the proportion of babies born out of wedlock is likely to be above the landmark 50 per cent already, as immigrants are more likely to have children within marriage.

This is devastating.

Political correctness, so called, is evil. Please stop supporting political parties who get their advice from groups who have a vested interest in society falling apart.

This entry was posted in Crime and Punishment, EU, Homosexuality, Social Engineering and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Labour’s obsession with the Tories’ friends – and ‘gay’ rights

  1. Dave Semple says:

    I thought people like you were just scare stories told to the rest of us by the Daily Mail. Cripes, how wrong was I? But seriously, this is satire right? Or a contest to see how many logical fallacies you could fit into one article?

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hello Dave,

    No, we’re real enough. There aren’t many of us, but we’re increasing in number. We’ve been cornered and so there is nowhere else to go but fight back against the self-interest groups and the perverts in the sex ‘education’ industry.

    I am wondering why *you* support them?

    What “logical fallacies” have I made? For example, hedonism has caused empires to collapse. Look at the pathetic state of this country after a few decades of decadence. We’re not even an independent nation anymore because everyone’s so busy fighting for what seems good in their own eyes.

  3. Stuart says:

    What about the New Labour’s (and the left in general’s) love affair with Islam?

    I’ve never seen LL highlight what they call “homophobia” in Islam.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    When rights collide, Stuart. They don’t want to be seen to be taking sides when both are seen as special to the Righteous.

  5. Neil says:

    My God, there really are still people who think that homosexuality is something that can be taught! Do you also think that children can be persuaded to change the colour of their skin, if you “get them while they’re young”!!?

    Homosexuality is NOT something you can be taught, or a disease you can catch – it’s something we are born with. It took me 15 years to come out to friends and family – partly through fear of bigots such as yourself, but mainly because I grew up in a Small Town, and knew nobody else who was gay (in fact, I didn’t even know what Gay was). I was worried that I was abnormal, or a pervert – possibly you think that I am – and those thoughts very nearly drew me to suicide. Sex education never mentioned homosexuality – if it had, I would at least have drawn comfort that I was not alone. No-one “persuaded” me to become gay – but plenty of people made me deeply unhappy that I was.

    You asked Dave Semple what logical fallacies you have made. Well, Peter Tatchell does NOT say (or even imply) that he wants everyone to engage in same-sex activity. He simply wants everyone to treat same-sex love and desire as a joyous thing – just as everyone treats heterosexual love and desire as a joyous thing.

    You want another one? A wholesale change in Society’s values means devaluing marriage. Huh? Why?
    Firstly, if Society’s values include the right to treat homosexuals differently to the rest of the population, then I’m all in favour of change. Secondly, why would this devalue marriage? In fact, same-sex couples campaigned for years – not to do away with marriage, but to allow us to share in it, but marrying our partners. (Of course, even the Labour government had to appease the right-wing religious bigots such as yourself, so we have to call it “Civil Partnership”). Far from devaluing marriage, it has made it far more relevant to many Gay Men and Women.

    One more: That the “promotion” of homosexuality (BTW, that ambiguous phrasing from Section 28 is something the Tories dreamt up) leads to hedonism. What? Why? I know plenty of Gay Men and Lesbians who lead lifestyles that are not hedonistic in the slightest!

    Gay rights activists never wanted (or now want) schools to promote homosexuality in preference to hetero relationships. HETEROsexuality IS promoted in schools, and therefore Homosexuality should be promoted equally. That’s what we want – EQUALITY.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hello Neil,

    Firstly, comparing homosexuality with skin colour is a terrible argument – but one that is often used. Skin colour is ‘being’ while homosexual activity is ‘doing’. You don’t ‘do’ black or ‘commit’ white, you just are.

    This is why racism is about the stupidest thing there is.

    Now, there are homosexuals who recruit young men especially. Surely you don’t deny this? People do get ensnared into the lifestyle.

    I genuinely do feel for you about your struggles. Same with everyone who goes through the same. I’m not some kind of uncompassionate, judgmental monster, but I do realise that there are rights and wrongs and that there are always consequences for sin. We all struggle with different things. With me, the biggest one was alcohol. I won’t go into it, but God’s grace was required to get me clean again. I didn’t manage it alone. I could have said, I’m an alcoholic, therefore I must keep drinking. It’s not my fault.

    Tatchell’s quote could, I guess, be taken either way.

    Me dinner’s ready. I shall return!

  7. Stewart Cowan says:

    …Neil,

    By legitimising other forms of relationships, marriage will naturally decline. Just consider the behaviour of bisexuals. Clearly, if you make this kind of behaviour seem acceptable then those who find it hard to control themselves will be unwilling or unable to remove themselves from it and settle down in marriage.

    Similarly, if schools teach that homosexuality is normal, then some will inevitably drift that way that wouldn’t have otherwise once their hormones settle down.

    Homosexual behaviour *is* hedonistic.

    Why should homosexuality be treated ‘equally’ by schools? Don’t the parents have a say or should they, like the rest of us, be expected to take what we’re given?

    Do you also believe bisexuality should be taught to children as being normal and worthy?

  8. Steven says:

    I really don’t know where you are coming from Stewart. This must be something you have thought about quite a lot and deeply.

    When homosexuality was banned in the form of Section 28 there was no mention of gay rights or issues during this time, yet men and women still realised they fancied people of the same sex and went about following these feelings. Even when homosexuality was illegal and no mention of it in society, homosexuality still went on in the secret pubs and bedroom behind the husband or wife’s back.

    As heterosexual feelings are natural and just occur then so does homosexual ones. This is a feeling that goes on in the natural brain of a human being and not the mind. The mind has to follow suit and this is why many people struggle to come to terms with being homosexual because most people are brought up to share a life with people of the opposite sex.

    Everyone of us has a life to live and one to live which god has given us to the best of our abilities. Let gays be happy with who they are and let people who are finding there own sexuality do it without installing hatred. If you are unhappy then it is only the way you think that is making you so.

  9. Stewart Cowan says:

    Steven, the Almighty made man and woman for a reason –

    From Matthew chapter 19:

    4…Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    Like I asked Neil, above:

    Do you also believe bisexuality should be taught to children as being normal and worthy?

    Where do you draw the line between what is right and what is wrong in sexual matters?

  10. indigomyth says:

    //Where do you draw the line between what is right and what is wrong in sexual matters?//

    I believe that the state should not draw any lines in sexual matters that are conducted between mutually consenting adults. Not prostitution, not incest, not bisexual orgies. I would even reconsider bans on bestiality. The only job of the state is to defend the freedom of the individual, and if the individual wishes to live a libertine existence, provided that they do not restrict the liberty of others, it is their right to do so. Simple.

    Having read a few of your posts, you seem to desire the state to encourage people to act in accordance with your convictions, for no reason other than it will prevent them from going to hell.

  11. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hello Indigomyth,

    Every society has boundaries, sexual and otherwise, even between consenting adults, because what people do in private still actually affects the rest of the tribe in one way or another.

    Societies that descend into hedonism cannot last long.

    I cannot think of anything more important than to encourage people to avoid going to Hell.

    Look at the world. Time is short.

  12. indigomyth says:

    //Every society has boundaries, sexual and otherwise, even between consenting adults, because what people do in private still actually affects the rest of the tribe in one way or another.//

    Yes, they do, but they should not. The right of the individual to use their bodies how they wish supersedes any “common good” “societal good”. And, I did not say “affects” I said “restrict the liberty of others”. You “affect” me, by writing this blog. Muslims “affect” me by protesting about the evils of free speech, the BNP “affects” me by spewing their racist nonsense. And yet none of that gives me the authority to restrict their liberty, their right to free speech, their right to free association, their right to protest, their right to freedom of religion. Their is no right to not be “affected”, or offended. There is only the right to not be forced or coerced to do something that you do not want. Also, you have no “right” to expect society, the tribe, the community, to do anything for you. You only have the right to non-interference. If people do not want to have children in marriage, then what authority do you have to try and bribe them to do so? How will it “affect” you? If we dismantle the welfare state, it should not affect you at all.

    Also, I fail to see why we should prefer being “affected” by individuals doing as they wish with their own bodies, rather than the state “affecting” individuals based upon some spurious notion of the “common good”.

    //Societies that descend into hedonism cannot last long. //

    I have no concern for “society”. I care only about the freedom of the individual to be free from coercion and violence at the hands of the state.

    //I cannot think of anything more important than to encourage people to avoid going to Hell.//

    Their freedom? Also, what form is your “encouragement” taking? Is it coercion and threat of violence by the state, if they fail to live in the way that you specify? Based on your principle, it is acceptable for the state to discourage people from changing from Christianity, because to do so would be to put the eternal salvation of their soul in jeopardy.

  13. indigomyth says:

    //Societies that descend into hedonism cannot last long.//

    Also, what makes you think that they would? If marriage is so brilliant, so fantastic, then why does it require the support of the state, through financial bribes? It is quite simple, if marriage is good for individuals, then it does not require the state to support it. If it is not good for individuals, then the state has no business coercing people into entering into it. Either way, you lose.

    And, what form of “society” are you talking about? The leviathan, centralised, bureaucratic, authoritarian state? Yes, if people are allowed to do what they want, that form of society will collapse, and good riddance to it. If however, you want a state based on voluntary action, voluntary association, free trade and individual liberty, then hedonism and libertinism MUST be permitted. Otherwise, you simply have a state that uses threats of violence to ensure compliance of personal actions.

    So, all drugs should be decriminalised, all sexual activity between consenting people should be decriminalised, all speech should be permitted, all discrimination should be allowed by private organisations. That is true liberty. What you want is an authoritarian state that “encourages” people to live according to Christian principles. Yet the state has not the authority, or the right, to do that.

  14. Stewart Cowan says:

    Indigo,

    I’m afraid that kind of attitude (stuff society) will hurt us all. If it’s not all for one and one for all, then there must be unpleasantness along life’s way.

    You can force someone to go to church, but you can’t coerce them into believing.

    I certainly do not want a centralised, bureaucratic, authoritarian state and my posts make that clear, but at the same time, there must be a rule of law; there must be standards; there must be punishment for stepping over the line, otherwise society cannot remain civilised.

    Let’s be honest, this is all about the supposed ‘right’ for people of the same sex to commit crimes against nature, isn’t it? As usual.

  15. indigomyth says:

    //I’m afraid that kind of attitude (stuff society) will hurt us all. If it’s not all for one and one for all, then there must be unpleasantness along life’s way.//

    Good! Let there be mountains of unpleasantness! Let people take drugs to their hearts content, and allow them to die in their thousands, if it is their desire. Let alcoholics plunge themselves into nightmares of agony, through their own feckless choices. Let prostitutes be racked by the diseases of their profession. And let them all know that the state will never interfere to save them. I imagine that would be a greater incentive for people to live good lives, rather than state restriction of liberty. Destroy the welfare state, and every idiotic alcoholic will either die of liver failure, be rescued by a “good Samaritan”, or will have the strength to pull themselves together.

    And, if drug takers, alcoholics and prostitutes can live pleasant lives, that restrict no one else’s liberty, then good for them. It is not for the state to enforce “moral conduct” – that is the obsession of theocracies, tyrannies and communism.

    Life for some people deserves to be utterly unpleasant. But it must be an unpleasantness of their own making, not one artificially manufactured by the state.

    Indeed, your reasoning is similar to communists and socialists. Forget individualism people, join the commune and gain the advantage of everyone else’s labour and hard-work!

    //You can force someone to go to church, but you can’t coerce them into believing.// – I hope this is just a hypothetical, rather than an articulation of what you desire for the state.

    //but at the same time, there must be a rule of law; there must be standards; there must be punishment for stepping over the line, otherwise society cannot remain civilised.//

    Yes, and the rule of law is to defend individual liberty, freedom of speech, of association, of religion. Laws against prostitution restrict individual liberty, the right of the women to define how and who can use her body. Laws against drug use restrict the way people can use their own bodies. Laws against gay marriage restrict peoples right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. And what line? The line of offence? Tough, there is no limit on offence.

    Whose version of civilisation? I would say that any civilisation that feels compelled to use violence to get people to stop doing things to their own bodies, is no civilisation worth preserving. It is, in short, a civilisation without individual liberty. Indeed, you must have a pretty pathetic view of the attractiveness of your own convictions, your own way of living, if you think you need the state to coerce people with bribes of cash in order to make them live that way. As I said before, if marriage is so bloody brilliant, then why do you feel compelled to eliminate all competition, or even discussion of all competition. Is it perhaps your Christian authoritarianism?

    //Let’s be honest, this is all about the supposed ‘right’ for people of the same sex to commit crimes against nature, isn’t it? As usual.//

    Yep. They have a right to use their body in exactly they manner they want, provided they do not restrict the liberty of other people. And, of course, it is only your version of “nature”, as I am sure you are aware. Indeed, as a creationist, the whole resort to “nature” must be a bit difficult, since the Fall was meant to pervert nature from God’s holy design. That is why we have things like carnivores and infanticide.

    But, anyway, it is really quite irrelevant if homosexuality is or is not a crime against nature, it is still their right to do it, to talk about it positively (remember that little thing called Freedom of Speech), and even to celebrate it in their communities, friends, families (freedom on conscience, religion and association). And if you advocate the state interfering in that, it is YOU that is in the wrong. It is YOU that wishes to use violence against people that have done no non-consenting violence against anyone else. It is YOU that wants the state to interfere to further your own aim of “saving their souls”. It is YOU that is being violent, aggressive and authoritarian to other human beings.

    It just as it is a right to use whatever drugs you want, drink what you want, die how you want, believe as you want, worship as you want, dress as you want, speak as you want.


    And, I have to say, why should my money be taken from me, under threat of violence, by the state, and given to some couple who the state has deemed appropriate to receive MY money, just because the man has chosen to stick his d*ck in one women (allegedly) for life, with the aim of procreating. Thanks, but no thanks. I would rather spend my money on things I want, not what you or the state wants. Hey, here’s an idea, you think people should be married, right? Well, you give your hard earned money to some young couple. A % of every pay cheque can go to someone else. Brilliant! That is just left-wing, communitarian, redistributionist nonsense. You want to have children, pay for they yourself! Don’t come crying to my door wanting my cash, because you are too idiotic to plan ahead.

  16. Stewart Cowan says:

    Oh dear, Indigo, this is so morally reprehensible and logically flawed. Is this school of thought given a particular name?

    You probably don’t know that I was an alcoholic for years. Unemployed and unemployable for most of it. I finally DID manage to get decent help (family and NHS) and was detoxed and have never drank gain.

    If everyone in the world had been as selfish as you, I would have died. No question. Now I am a productive member of *society* paying (too much) tax. You do agree you sound selfish, don’t you?

    The alcohol treatment part of the hospital was by far the busiest NHS facility I’ve ever seen. If it wasn’t there, there would probably be thousands of extra alcoholics in the area, being a nuisance and worse. Seriously blighting OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES!

    P.S. And I don’t wish to use violence against people. Don’t know where you got that idea from.

  17. indigomyth says:

    //If everyone in the world had been as selfish as you, I would have died. No question. Now I am a productive member of *society* paying (too much) tax. You do agree you sound selfish, don’t you?//

    Yes, I was aware that you were an alcoholic. That is why I choose alcoholism. Consider, if you had died, then there would be no cost to society. This is the brutality of freedom. The fact you now pay taxes is simply evidence that the state is determined to interfere more in other peoples lives.

    Of course I sound selfish – but we are dealing with things that are mine – my freedom of speech, my freedom of association, my property being taken from ME through taxation. It is entirely appropriate to be selfish about things of the self. Indeed, it is positively selfish of you to expect me to give you money if you fall off the wagon. Not just that, but you want to the state to force me to give up money (taxation) in order to support feckless idiots.

    //The alcohol treatment part of the hospital was by far the busiest NHS facility I’ve ever seen. If it wasn’t there, there would probably be thousands of extra alcoholics in the area, being a nuisance and worse. Seriously blighting OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES!//

    Tell me, was the alcohol treatment centre funded by voluntary donations? No? Then some people had their property (money) taken from them (taxation) under threat of violence (imprisonment and fining)? Is that morally good to you? That some people were forced to pay for your treatment? Is that how highly you rate your life, that it is worth forcing other people to give you money to get better? That way lies socialised healthcare. Are you not an adult? Are you responsible for your own actions, your own failing? Then why do you think that the state should save you from your own bad choices?

    //If it wasn’t there, there would probably be thousands of extra alcoholics in the area, being a nuisance and worse. Seriously blighting OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES!//

    And, if they threatened their live, liberty or property, then they would be punished by imprisonment. However, provided that they are merely alcoholic in their own homes, slowly poisoning themselves to death, then they cause no harm to others. Indeed, if they were not provided with healthcare, most of them would be dead or too ill to cause a nuisance – problem solved!

    Better that we punish people for doing things that are actually wrong (murder, GBH, theft) rather than restricting the liberty and freedom of everyone, innocent and guilty, so as to avoid such circumstances.

    And, I know you are going to argue about the public funding of prisons. Well, sooner that we fund prisons publicly, rather than have the state using violence to enforce your idea of what marriage is, because of your particular beliefs about god, rather than have the state restrict the liberty of innocent people, over some perverse notion of “pre-empting” moral decay.

    //P.S. And I don’t wish to use violence against people. Don’t know where you got that idea from.//

    You advocate the state suppress speech you do not like, that is using violence to restrict speech isn’t it? It is violent to take away someone’s freedom and liberty, isn’t it? Therefore imprisonment is violence, and should only be used against those that are likewise violent. Is it violent to take away someone’s property (otherwise called theft, though sometimes called taxation)? Yes, well it should be only used against those that are likewise violent? All the state has, is violence, so whenever you advocate laws against people, actions, speech, you are advocating the use of state violence against people. Never, ever forget that.

    //Oh dear, Indigo, this is so morally reprehensible and logically flawed. Is this school of thought given a particular name?//

    Well, you only think it is morally reprehensible because you have no love of liberty, and you have not shown how it is logically flawed. It is called libertarianism – it is getting more popular all the time among people that love liberty and freedom.

  18. indigomyth says:

    I am reading a book at the moment by David Boaz. It is called Libertarianism: A Primer. It is well worth a read. It has this passage you may find interesting:

    “For libertarians, the basic unit of social analysis is the individual. It is hard to imagine how it could be anything else. Individuals are, in all cases, the source and foundation of creativity, activity, and society. Only individuals can think, love, pursue projects, act. Groups don’t have plans or intentions. Only individuals are capable of choice, in the sense of anticipating the outcomes of of alternative courses of action and weighing the consequences.”

    I would contend that it is the individual, not the family, that is the basic unit of society. And, you cannot blame they way other people live, for your own failings and shortcomings.

  19. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    Some say ‘Liberty’, others see ‘Anarchy’.

  20. Stewart Cowan says:

    Exactly, English. That’s what Indigo’s doctrine would lead to were it ever given the chance.

    And think about this, Indigo, and I agree, we are taxed far too much, but without a strong sense of ‘society’ we become prey for other, better-organised nations, who, if they invade, won’t give a fig for your ideas about libertarianism.

    I’d love not to have to pay tax. I’d love not caring what the consequences of sin are on our nation. Things don’t always work out how we want and sometimes that’s a good thing.

    What do you get out of the parable of the good Samaritan? What would you do if you saw someone in need of help?

  21. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘without a strong sense of ’society’ we become prey for other, better-organised nations, who, if they invade, won’t give a fig for your ideas about libertarianism’.

    Exactly Stewart. Exactly. Except that I’d say for ‘better-organised’ read ‘considerably more authoritarian than is your worst nightmare’. And they don’t even have to invade militarily, although I wouldn’t rule that out (just when you’ve decided that that kind of thing is a thing of the of the distant, barbaric past whaddya know – it happens again). But they can invade financially. They can just buy us while we are out of our heads on liberty. Shut down our industries and claim a fortune in carbon offset at the same time (hat-tip to Old Rightie). Indeed, that’s what they are doing.

  22. Jim Baxter says:

    Actually, this is worth developing. On Stewart’s Blog? – Stewart Cowan the hardly-known and if known almost always ignored, religious nut? Yes. The very one.

    I have a confession to make, and I am not Catholic or religious in any way. The latter in particular will come as a surprise to Stewart and English Viking but we must struggle on.

    I used to be a libertarian. Until very recently, in fact, to my shame, because it is an extraordinarly blinkered, foolish view. I used to agree with all that Indigomyth has said and then some. I would have legaised guns – if you shoot someone dead then face a murder charge but don’t ban guns. Narcotics and cocaine -(Hi America – they’re OPPOSITES!) – were legally available – pre 1916 – when this country was the most powerful country on Earth so talk of social disintegration is nonsense. Make them available again and we will save bilions on policing – tax them – the drug usage rate will probably even go down and the Treasury will benefit immeasurably.

    Maybe. But if it happens, enjoy it quickly, because we will be swept aside very soon by the first nation or nations not to take that view, perhaps one or ones much larger than we are in the whole of Europe. And if narcotics are freely available when we are as well-informed as we are today about the might, a might never before known, of a foe and our own feebleness in the face of themn what will we do? Fight them in the hills or give up and shoot up?

    And their soldiers will be motivated by righteous disgust at our decadence and resentment at our sexual freedoms comapered with the scarcity of wives in their own country. We will be gone faster than spit on a griddle.

    So, best not. Best show that we still have teeth, that we are tough enough to be capable of facing the days without the drugs of dreams, much as we might like to escape into them. That way we we might still have a chance. Prevention is better than cure.

  23. indigomyth says:

    English Viking,
    //Some say ‘Liberty’, others see ‘Anarchy’.//

    An elementary mistake. Libertarians want the government to exist to defend peoples individual liberty. Anarchists want no government, because they see the government as an institution that will always be corrupted. Also, what type of anarchism? Anarcho-capitalism? Try and learn the difference.

    //And think about this, Indigo, and I agree, we are taxed far too much, but without a strong sense of ’society’ we become prey for other, better-organised nations, who, if they invade, won’t give a fig for your ideas about libertarianism.//

    Not at all. If people love liberty, if they are armed, then they can defend themselves against any attackers. Also, I find it amusing that you consider taking away other peoples liberty is a suitable price to pay for the existence of the nation state. It is collectivism at its very worse.

    //I’d love not caring what the consequences of sin are on our nation. Things don’t always work out how we want and sometimes that’s a good thing.//

    Well, you could take responsibility of your own actions, and leave other people to their lives. But you will not do that, will you? You have not provided a reason as to why you have a right not to be “affected” by other people. Indeed, Free Speech means that you must have the right to affect people.

    Indeed, once again you are concerned with the affects on the “nation”. The nation if just a collection of people – unless you can show how sin denies the liberty of other people, which you have not done, then your argument is simply more collectivist nonsense.

    //What do you get out of the parable of the good Samaritan? What would you do if you saw someone in need of help?//

    I suspected you would ask this. I think it is a good story, with a good moral code. However, notice that the Samaritan was not forced to help, and the Jew was not forced to accept his help – they entered into a voluntary arrangement. And, the Jew was in his situation because he was attacked by bandits, not because he made bad choices about drinking alcohol and taking drugs.

    You have twisted this parable into a situation where the Samaritan is paid to help the Jew, with money stolen by the bandits that have just mugged the Jew. And the Jew doesn’t want assistance, but the Samaritan forces his “help” on the Jew.

    The moral of the Samaritan parable is that voluntary, mutual, agreement is the only moral form of contract.

    I would help the person in trouble. However, if they asked not to be helped, I would move on. The fact that money is extracted from me, under threat of violence, is particularly grating.

  24. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    //But they can invade financially. They can just buy us while we are out of our heads on liberty.//

    You can’t invade financially, in a free trade state. If people wish to trade with foreign nations, then that is the choice of individuals. And again, you assume that everyone will be drugged up and drunk. That is simply not true. Is not sobriety of itself a good thing?

    //Maybe. But if it happens, enjoy it quickly, because we will be swept aside very soon by the first nation or nations not to take that view, perhaps one or ones much larger than we are in the whole of Europe. And if narcotics are freely available when we are as well-informed as we are today about the might, a might never before known, of a foe and our own feebleness in the face of themn what will we do? Fight them in the hills or give up and shoot up?//

    Really, hasn’t happened to Portugal and Holland. Having a liberal attitude does not mean that you are not vigilant against external threats. And, incidentally, how can you have a strong sense of society, in a society where everyone advocates violence against anyone that disagrees with them? A libertarian society is one that will viciously protect its freedom.

    //And their soldiers will be motivated by righteous disgust at our decadence and resentment at our sexual freedoms comapered with the scarcity of wives in their own country. We will be gone faster than spit on a griddle.//

    So, what you are saying, is that we should become authoritarian, illiberal and restrictive, on the basis that it might annoy people in other countries. More collectivist nonsense. Based on your view, we should institute Sharia law now, to prevent annoying other people. Pathetic. So your answer to the problem of international terrorism, is to role over and become like them? SO much for having courage. DO you also think that we should have adopted Nazism, to appease Hitler? That is the equivalent of what you are saying.

    //So, best not. Best show that we still have teeth, that we are tough enough to be capable of facing the days without the drugs of dreams, much as we might like to escape into them. That way we we might still have a chance. Prevention is better than cure.//

    Again, all this “we”. What about the “I”? you have completely ignored the individual. In your world view, the individual can go hang, and it is the collective that must survive. Some people will want to face the days on drugs, and what authority do you have to stop them? Where do you get the right to tell them how they can use their bodies?

    Prevention is never better than cure. To prevent means to use violence against people that are innocent, and is therefore abhorrent to all those that love liberty.

    Strange that you want to show we have teeth, by becoming a disgusting, authoritarian, proscriptive society, exactly like the ones we are trying to repel. Tell me, what is the benefit of being in one disgusting, authoritarian, proscriptive society and another disgusting, authoritarian, proscriptive society.

  25. indigomyth says:

    //about the might, a might never before known, of a foe and our own feebleness in the face of themn what will we do?//

    What? A collection of psychotic Islamic terrorists? You consider them mighty!? You have really been drinking from the neo-con cup, havn’t you? 3000 people died in New York. The population of the USA is 250,000,000. And you consider that an existential threat?

  26. Jim Baxter says:

    Indigomyth,

    You got a little personal there it seems to me. Let me respond in kind – nothing I like better. My guess is that you are about 17. And quite fat.

    There. That’s all. But do let me know if you want more, won’t you?

    A collection of terrorists mighty? No. I don’t think so either. Try again. And yes – self-denial is a strength – one to advertise – what little of it there is left. Nor will we all get smashed immediately if Class A drugs become available – but when a threat comes I reckon many would. I think I said that earlier. Apologies for not making that clearer.

  27. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter

    LOL at your above post. I am not sure about the fat thing, but almost certainly a Sixth Form Socialist. I bet he has a T-shirt with Che Guevara on it.

  28. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    //And yes – self-denial is a strength – one to advertise – what little of it there is left.//

    Yes, the important word being “self” – not denial brought about by criminalization and coercion by the state or government. In that there is absolutely no worth. If you wish to deny yourself the things that you want, then go right ahead. However, you have not the authority, or the right, to make other people do what you want with their bodies. That is not “self-denial”. That is illiberal and tyrannical.

    //A collection of terrorists mighty? No. I don’t think so either//

    Then what is this mighty foe that you talk of? Greater than Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini? It must be pretty big?

    //Nor will we all get smashed immediately if Class A drugs become available – but when a threat comes I reckon many would.//

    And what authority do you have to deny them that? Again, if you want to deny yourself drugs, then fine. Do not presume to take on the authority to dictate to other people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies.

    //You got a little personal there it seems to me. Let me respond in kind – nothing I like better. My guess is that you are about 17. And quite fat.//

    Not really. I made no remarks about your age, weight, appearance, or even your intelligence. I did, however, say some of the things you were saying were nonsense and pathetic, which is hardly a personal attack, is it? Please do try and focus, and not resort to ad hominem attacks. It is most boring.

    Oh, and Portugal and Holland still have not been invaded by hostile nations who have seen the weakness brought about by drug use. Well, I am sure that they are just biding their time, right? France is probably right now drawing up plans to invade Holland as we speak.

    English VIking,

    //LOL at your above post. I am not sure about the fat thing, but almost certainly a Sixth Form Socialist. I bet he has a T-shirt with Che Guevara on it.//

    More political ignorance. Che Guevara, the mass murderer? Libertarians and socialists are completely opposed to one another. Have you not heard me denounce the NHS, the love thing of Socialists? Have you not heard me decry taxation, the methodology of the Socialist? So I can only presume you are referring to me as a socialist, in a purely non-economic sense. Indeed, Stewart Cowan is more a socialist than me.

    Once again, do try and learn a little about politics before trying to contribute. There are plenty of libertarian websites which can educate you as to the political ideology of liberty.

  29. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘Then what is this mighty foe that you talk of? Greater than Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini? It must be pretty big?’

    It must be indeed, no question mark required.

    ‘It is most boring.’

    Not, apparently, to English Viking.

  30. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘Not, apparently, to English Viking.’

    In other words, do try to consider others, there’s a good colour-scheme.

  31. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    If you are a prime example of a Libertarian, I am forced to conclude that the main tenets of this philosophy are ignorance, arrogance and an overgrown sense of one’s own importance, coupled with a sneering contempt for dissenting opinions.

    I am not ignorant of Che’s crimes, nor of the silly, childish squeals of delight from impressionable persons who vainly imagine a world without social structure or people, organisations and systems to enforce rules that are for the common good.

    You display ignorance about the destruction of sovereign nations, even empires, when the leaders and laws of those nations are given over to decadence, or as you would call it, liberty. Holland has indeed been invaded, by the very persons whom you consider no threat to the West. Their politicians cannot speak their minds and then walk the streets without being shot or stabbed by their invaders, nor their film-makers. Not much freedom there then, and it can only get worse as the muslim population balloons from an already colossal 25% of residents. The destruction of not just Holland, but almost all of Western Europe, is only a couple of decades away.

    You ask if I have heard you denounce and decry this, that and the other. Denouncing and decrying seems to be just about all that you do. You appear to have nothing to say, and you say it far too loudly.

  32. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    I concur with all of that. It amuses me, sometimes, to hear shrill brats squeal about their liberties and the importance of their ‘rights’ as individuals to do as they please ‘so long as it doesn’t affect the freedoms of others’ of course; that little rider is a common one. That everybody doing as they please does indeed harm freedom, and that such freedoms as they currently enjoy have been bought by the myriad sacrifices others have made, are thoughts that never enter their heads.

  33. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    //That everybody doing as they please does indeed harm freedom, and that such freedoms as they currently enjoy have been bought by the myriad sacrifices others have made, are thoughts that never enter their heads.//

    How can it harm freedom? No one here has provided examples of how people doing as they wish harms liberty. You call it a little rider, however it is one common from J.S Mill’s principle of harm. Unless you are going to call J.S. Mill a shrill brat?

    Notice that the sacrifices others have made have been against people that wanted to control other peoples actions, thoughts and deeds. In short, people like you.

    And, I would have thought that

    //thoughts that never enter their heads//
    and

    //so long as it doesn’t affect the freedoms of others’ of course//

    was contradictory. The caveat is necessary precisely because Libertarians recognise that what people wants sometimes limits the freedom of other people.

    English Viking,

    //I am forced to conclude that the main tenets of this philosophy are ignorance, arrogance and an overgrown sense of one’s own importance, coupled with a sneering contempt for dissenting opinions.//

    How can one have an overgrown sense of one’s own importance, the importance of the individual? What would you put first? The society, the community, the nation?

    Incidentally, do therefore admit that you know nothing of libertarianism? I do not understand how you can say that I am a socialist? What do these words mean to you, because the way you are using them is completely against how they are usually used.

    //coupled with a sneering contempt for dissenting opinions.//

    Oh, you mean like Jim’s?
    //Until very recently, in fact, to my shame, because it is an extraordinarly blinkered, foolish view.//

    And, the fact that it is not just “your view”, but in fact a desire to subjugate other people to your will, to make them behave as you want, I would imagine that it is entirely correct to be contemptuous of your views. You want to control people, and threaten them with violence if they do not comply- that is worthy of contempt. What element of this is complicated?

    //nor of the silly, childish squeals of delight from impressionable persons who vainly imagine a world without social structure or people, organisations and systems to enforce rules that are for the common good.//

    So, you think Ron Paul is silly and childish? How are your squeals, or the squeals of Stewart about sin, and better? I have been answering your questions, and posing my own. You have resorted to name calling and ad hominem attacks – who is being childish?

    And, do renounce your accusation of me being a socialist, or are you going to continue parading your ignorance about political ideologies and social models?

    Socialism and Communism are most definitely not about a world without social structures! So, how can you compare the collectivism of socialism and communism, to the individualism of Libertarianism? It is contrary to logic.

    //You ask if I have heard you denounce and decry this, that and the other. Denouncing and decrying seems to be just about all that you do. You appear to have nothing to say, and you say it far too loudly.//

    But if you have heard, then you must agree that I am not a socialist? Socialism is about retribution, to which I am opposed. Socialism is about forced collectivism, to which I am opposed. I do not understand the logic of your accusation. Can you explain, please?

    I have said many things, I have asked many question, such as //And what authority do you have to deny them that?//. And yet you do not answer? I respond to your accusation of me being a socialist, and you ignore the facts I suggest, and do not alter your accusation, merely divert the topic to me being shrill. I am trying to have a sensible debate, as is possible on many forums. But you seem only interested about ad hominem attacks, ignoring points raised, blanking questions asked.

    //Holland has indeed been invaded, by the very persons whom you consider no threat to the West. //

    Well, again, you fall into the trap of all collectivists. Some Muslims will be violent murderers, others will not be. Some Christians will want to control people, some Christians will not. Those that are violent, must be punished – those that have done nothing wrong can go about their business.

    //Not much freedom there then, and it can only get worse as the muslim population balloons from an already colossal 25% of residents. The destruction of not just Holland, but almost all of Western Europe, is only a couple of decades away.//

    And your answer to the illiberality of certain sections of the Muslim community, is to become illiberal? Your answer to restrictions on speech, are to propose restrictions on speech? And, very few of those 25% are violent, are terrorists. To generalise is illogical.

  34. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘Notice that the sacrifices others have made have been against people that wanted to control other peoples actions, thoughts and deeds. In short, people like you.’

    Sacrifices have been made to preserve a way of life that a free-for-all would destroy, and, to the extent that it is with us now, is destroying.

    People like me eh? Tut tut. That’s a tad presumptious. Typical juvenile ranting.

    ‘To generalise is illogical.’

    That’s a generalisation.

  35. indigomyth says:

    Perhaps you can look at some Libertarian sites, and learn about liberty

    http://lpuk.org/
    http://www.samizdata.net/blog/
    http://www.libertarian.co.uk/
    http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/
    http://libertarianchristians.com/

    Perhaps you will find someone that can articulate things in a way that I am unable

  36. Stewart Cowan says:

    Indigo, English is right about the threat from Islam. I don’t think it’s 25% in the Netherlands, but it doesn’t have to be in order to be a threat to their way of life.

    We in the West have been dumbed down and conditioned to accept our own enslavement. We have been taught that to speak out against mass immigration is ‘racist’, ‘hateful’, etc. The ‘invaders’ are from the old school of thought and have self-esteem and value their customs and want to hold onto them. Some of them are prepared to battle, not just to graft their ways onto ours, but to replace them altogether.

    Because of our laziness and stupidity, brought on by consumerism, TV and sin, we’ve just sat back (and I’m as guilty as the next person) because we didn’t see the danger. Then, all-of-a-sudden, we’re supposed to watch what we say in case the police want to talk to us and then it gets worse: ‘no-go areas’ for us natives and talk of Sharia law.

    Because we, as a society, didn’t stand up for ourselves, together, and hold the government to account for their treachery, our whole way of life is being changed.

    And you’d think the people coming here are all sweetness and light. There are warring factions all over the country. Indians vs Pakistanis, for example, and I read about Iraqi asylum seekers and Afghani asylum seekers having pitched battles in the streets.

    The point being that people come here and want the ‘liberty’ to carry on exactly as they want.

    Perhaps that’s why their own countries are always in a state.

  37. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘Perhaps you can look at some Libertarian sites, and learn about liberty’

    Perhaps I learned all about that stuff years ago and don’t agree with it. It’s a common mistake to assume that people who disagree with you just don’t have enough information yet.

  38. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    I have communicated only once with you, so accusing me of ignoring questions posed in earlier conversations is a bit daft.

    I’ll give what I believe to be the sound reasons for the prohibition of some ‘freedoms’ by others. Incidentally, I think that it is possible that you are a fan of Libertarianism because you are sick of the current form of government, which obviously is not terribly successful. I agree that the current form is not good, I disagree that your ideas are better.

    You propose that all persons should be allowed to take whatever drugs they like, for example, and if the person taking them harms no-one else in the process, what’s the big deal? (You’ll have to correct me if this is not your point of view). Sounds reasonable, in theory, but if put into practice the reality is very different. People under the influence of narcotics and hallucinogens are going to behave very differently to people not on these substances. Must we wait until this person harms somebody else until we intervene? Does he have to microwave his child (real case scenario) before we can take action? It is a fact that people who regularly take these kinds of substances can experience severe mental problems and long term physical illnesses. Is allowing this person the freedom to slowly kill himself not damaging the freedoms and rights of his children to be raised by a father who is not constantly stoned? What if he does not live long enough to give them a decent grounding in life, is this not damaging the children? What about the harm done to his neighbours, even if he commits no crimes, caused by the drop in value in their home because they live next door to an opium den?

    I believe that SOME level of taxation is a good thing, if spent wisely, because greater things can be achieved for the benefit of all, simply by reason of the economies of scale. The vast engineering projects undertaken by governments or the huge and extremely expensive advancements in medicine, for example. I also believe that the current levels of taxation are outrageous and that the persons in charge of spending them are utterly incompetent and should be imprisoned for crimes against the nation.

    ‘How can one have an overgrown sense of one’s own importance, the importance of the individual? you ask…

    One can have an overgrown sense of one’s own importance by displaying arrogance when expressing one’s views, as though they are self-evidently correct and thinking that those who do not agree are either stupid or ignorant.

    ‘What would you put first? The society, the community, the nation?’ you ask…

    In my life, my first and foremost commitment is to God. My next commitment is to my family, my wife, my children. Then my brothers and sisters in Christ, my neighbours, friends, associates. Then I value my community, then my nation. If any of these things are threatened it is my duty to respond, to defend then by all means necessary.

    //Until very recently, in fact, to my shame, because it is an extraordinarly blinkered, foolish view.//
    And, the fact that it is not just “your view”, but in fact a desire to subjugate other people to your will, to make them behave as you want, I would imagine that it is entirely correct to be contemptuous of your views. You want to control people, and threaten them with violence if they do not comply- that is worthy of contempt. What element of this is complicated?

    I did not write the above quote, that one is Jim’s. However, I have no desire to subjugate anyone. I accept that a man has a right to behave however he chooses, and he must therefore accept the consequences of his actions, but only up to point. I do not accept that it is ok for people to be walking the streets high on drugs, for the reasons I gave above. The reason the government banned these things is not because they want to spoil your ‘fun’, but because they are harmful, to the taker, the taker’s family, friends and neighbours and to society in general. I think you should accept that your views are never going to become widely acceptable on a worldwide scale and therefore if a nation was foolish enough to implement them, that nation would be very vulnerable to outside (and inside) attack.

    You seem to consider Ron Paul as a prime example of a committed libertarian but he was so committed to his Libertarian Party that he abandoned it in favour of the Republican party at the last election he stood in, winning his seat for the pro-war, pro-tax, pro-abortion, pro-mega-government Republican party. Does he know something you don’t.

    ‘You have resorted to name calling and ad hominem attacks – who is being childish?’

    It is my experience that persons who like to throw a little Latin into their arguments do so because they think it makes themselves sound erudite. If you behave arrogantly, do not be surprised if people call you arrogant.

    ‘And your answer to the illiberality of certain sections of the Muslim community, is to become illiberal? Your answer to restrictions on speech, are to propose restrictions on speech? And, very few of those 25% are violent, are terrorists. To generalise is illogical.’

    I most certainly would be extremely illiberal (I would not become illiberal because I am not a liberal now) with the muslim population of the West. Fire must be fought with fire. Chamberlain was a very liberal man, had a nice cup of tea with that Hitler chap and sorted it all out without a shot fired. Thank goodness that dreadfully illiberal Churchill fellow didn’t have any say in the matter, eh? It is a myth that a person has, until recently, been allowed to say whatever they choose, whenever they choose to say it. To use the old cliché – ‘Freedom of speech has never extended to allowing a fellow to call ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre’. I believe a person should be allowed to say pretty much whatever they like, in particular they should be allowed to be outright offensive, but they should not be allowed to incite violence or disorder, in the same way that, for example, your freedom loving libertarian friends, the muslims, often do.

    ‘Well, again, you fall into the trap of all collectivists. Some Muslims will be violent murderers, others will not be. Some Christians will want to control people, some Christians will not. Those that are violent, must be punished – those that have done nothing wrong can go about their business.’

    Comparing muslims with Christians is faulty logic. It is not a basic tenet of Christianity that it’s followers are to take over the world and slay those who oppose them, while it most certainly is the central plank on which Islam is built-Jihad. Again you seem to want to wait until someone who is promising to commit murder actually does so before you ‘punish’ them. I guess that’s ok so long as it’s not your daughter who gets bombed on the Tube?

    Finally, you seem very sensitive to being considered a socialist – perhaps ye protesteth too much? I mentioned to Jim (not to you) that you were likely a ‘Sixth Form Socialist’. This was meant to indicate that I considered your childish arguments and near religious fervour for a political system similar to that of a typical 17 year old, namely naive, brash, irresponsible and ill thought out, whilst at the same time considered by that same person to be ‘right on’, ‘radical’ etc. Think ‘Rick’ from The Young Ones. If you are too young to know who he is, well, you see what I mean?

    PS You need to have a word with your Form Tutor about a bit of swotting up on logic. You don’t seem to have got a good grasp of it yet, although you have learned the trick of trying to score points by calling your opponent ‘illogical’, in a rather Spock-like fashion.

  39. English Viking says:

    Stewart,

    According to Geert Wilders (he of the outrageous hairstyle) just over 20% of the population of the Netherlands are non-dutch, with the vast majority of them coming from Islamic countries. Add in the massive problems that they have with illegal immigration and the non-registration of births and a figure of 25% is not far off. Even if it is not that much yet, when you consider that almost 40% of all births in the country are to muslim families, the deracination of Holland cannot be far off.

  40. Stewart Cowan says:

    English,

    I’m surprised by that, although how many of London’s citizens were born abroad. More than 1/4 I would think.

    When I was Indigo’s age?? I was a ‘socialist’. I have even voted Lib Dem [I feel quite sick at remembering that]. We live and grow and learn. Well, hopefully.

  41. Jim Baxter says:

    Again I agree with English. I’d say that the danger of libertarianism is that self-indulgence is prized, self-control and hence self-awareness are abandoned, and others are diminished. One problem is that you need those same others if these liberties you care for so much are to be defended. As Stewart and English have said, such a state would be especially vulnerable to a hostile takeover bid. And so it is proving.

    I’ve noticed that many libertarians are frustrated authoritarians. Others have a special vice that they wish to indulge and are infuriated, as only those who are psychologically three years old can be, to be told that they cannot indulge it. As for J.S. Mill, try Kant.

  42. indigomyth says:

    English Viking,

    Thank you for your full and complete response.

    //You propose that all persons should be allowed to take whatever drugs they like, for example, and if the person taking them harms no-one else in the process, what’s the big deal? (You’ll have to correct me if this is not your point of view). Sounds reasonable, in theory, but if put into practice the reality is very different. People under the influence of narcotics and hallucinogens are going to behave very differently to people not on these substances. Must we wait until this person harms somebody else until we intervene?//

    Yes.

    //Does he have to microwave his child (real case scenario) before we can take action?//

    Yes, or until there is a significant threat. For example, holding a gun to someone’s head is a reasonable enough reason to take action against that person.

    //Is allowing this person the freedom to slowly kill himself not damaging the freedoms and rights of his children to be raised by a father who is not constantly stoned?//

    I do not think a child has a right to be raised by a father who is not stoned. Much as I do not believe a child has the right to not be raised in a house where parents smoke constantly Out of curiosity, what about parents involved in dangerous sports, that may kill them? Are they not risking their children being raised without parents? What about parent/s that are in the armed forces? At what % risk do you get to decide is to much risk? For what reasons are you authorised to intrude into peoples lives? And why have you selected that one level, out of the myriad of others?

    //What if he does not live long enough to give them a decent grounding in life, is this not damaging the children?//

    Quite likely. However, the failure is their fathers, not mine, not yours and not societies. The children have not been abused physically or mentally (in the situation you present.

    //What about the harm done to his neighbours, even if he commits no crimes, caused by the drop in value in their home because they live next door to an opium den?//

    It is not the fault of the druggy that what he does on his own property reduces the amount that other people are willing to pay for the house next door. The transaction is between the neighbours and the potential buyers – perhaps if they recognised that each person has the right to use their property as they see fit (provided it does not damage their own property, for example, a leaking septic tank). Just because the potential buyers are illiberal, does not give the neighbour the authority to be illiberal towards the druggy, does it?

    //I believe that SOME level of taxation is a good thing, if spent wisely, because greater things can be achieved for the benefit of all, simply by reason of the economies of scale. The vast engineering projects undertaken by governments or the huge and extremely expensive advancements in medicine, for example. I also believe that the current levels of taxation are outrageous and that the persons in charge of spending them are utterly incompetent and should be imprisoned for crimes against the nation.//

    But most of the rail network was built by private companies. And there are huge private pharmaceutical companies that research drugs. And, if we had a situation where huge engineering projects, like for example, the Second Severn crossing, were funded by private companies, and they recouped their money on tolls, then that would solve a great deal of the problem. And, in any case, at what point does it become permissible to threaten people with violence to extract their money?

    //One can have an overgrown sense of one’s own importance by displaying arrogance when expressing one’s views, as though they are self-evidently correct and thinking that those who do not agree are either stupid or ignorant.//

    I do not think you or Jim stupid or ignorant. I think you illiberal and authoritarian, far worse things it must be said! My views are only self-evidently correct for those that have liberty as an essential starting point.

    //If any of these things are threatened it is my duty to respond, to defend then by all means necessary. //

    Yes, defend them. Not initiate violence against people for things that they have not done. And, can you also see that by advocating state violence against other people and their family and friends, you are being the aggressor?

    //I did not write the above quote, that one is Jim’s. //

    I was referring to this one.

    //coupled with a sneering contempt for dissenting opinions.//

    //The reason the government banned these things is not because they want to spoil your ‘fun’, but because they are harmful, to the taker, the taker’s family, friends and neighbours and to society in general.//

    The harm done to the individual is not something to be considered by the government. The taker’s family have no right to intervention by the state, if the taker wants to take the drugs – they have no right to use violence to ensure compliance of the taker. And I could not really give a fig about what “society” wants – the rights of the individual are paramount. Just because someone else might want someone to not take drugs, because it would be more convenient for them, does not grant them the authority to say how another person’s body can be used.

    //However, I have no desire to subjugate anyone. //

    But what you want is to subjugate someone to your will, by denying them the freedom to use their bodies how they wish. In the my OED, subjugate means to conquer and bring under control. Is that not what you want the state to do to these people?

    //You seem to consider Ron Paul as a prime example of a committed libertarian but he was so committed to his Libertarian Party that he abandoned it in favour of the Republican party at the last election he stood in, winning his seat for the pro-war, pro-tax, pro-abortion, pro-mega-government Republican party. Does he know something you don’t.//

    Yes, because he wanted to change the way the Republican party was going. If you listen to his videos, and read what he writes, he is opposed to the war, opposed to big government, opposed to taxation, opposed to drug criminalisation. He recognised the two-party nature of the US system, and chose to try and change the Republicans into what they used to be. And pro-abortion Republican Party? Really?

    //It is my experience that persons who like to throw a little Latin into their arguments do so because they think it makes themselves sound erudite. If you behave arrogantly, do not be surprised if people call you arrogant.//

    It is common when discussing matters in a logical fashion to refer to things in the formal term.

    Oh, and what about:
    //nor of the silly, childish squeals of delight//

    //it is a myth that a person has, until recently, been allowed to say whatever they choose, whenever they choose to say it. //

    I never, ever believed that was the case. There has never been a time when people have been completely free.

    //I most certainly would be extremely illiberal (I would not become illiberal because I am not a liberal now) with the muslim population of the West.//

    But one Muslim is not the same as another Muslim, so to punish one innocent Muslim for the crime of a different Muslim, makes no sense. Different Muslims have different ideas about Islam – to generalise is not particularly sensible.

    //To use the old cliché – ‘Freedom of speech has never extended to allowing a fellow to call ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre’//

    I have just been reviewing that very issue in the book I am reading. That old chestnut is easily solved by property rights. When someone buys a ticket to the theatre, they enter a contract to sit and experience a show, not to disrupt it for everyone else. By yelling “fire” they are breaking that contract, and can be legitimately punished. Just like I have given us the right to call my boss a big nosed buffoon to his face, because I entered into a voluntary contract.

    //I believe a person should be allowed to say pretty much whatever they like, in particular they should be allowed to be outright offensive, but they should not be allowed to incite violence or disorder, in the same way that, for example, your freedom loving libertarian friends, the muslims, often do.//

    I disagree. Incitement to violence or disorder are two principles of revolution – which has overthrown despots and tyrants. And despots and tyrants make the same laws against incitement to violence and disorder. I know that some Muslims are not freedom loving – but neither are you.

    //It is not a basic tenet of Christianity that it’s followers are to take over the world and slay those who oppose them, while it most certainly is the central plank on which Islam is built-Jihad. Again you seem to want to wait until someone who is promising to commit murder actually does so before you ‘punish’ them. I guess that’s ok so long as it’s not your daughter who gets bombed on the Tube?//

    Well Jihad only means “struggle”, and it is a matter of debate among Islamic scholars what Islam really says.

    Yes, only using violence against people who are imminently planning on using violence is surely a good plan of action. If people die, then that is terrible – however, it does not make it permissible for the state to use violence against innocent people.

    //Finally, you seem very sensitive to being considered a socialist – perhaps ye protesteth too much?//

    Because I do not like socialism.

    // I mentioned to Jim (not to you) that you were likely a ‘Sixth Form Socialist’. This was meant to indicate that I considered your childish arguments and near religious fervour for a political system similar to that of a typical 17 year old, namely naive, brash, irresponsible and ill thought out, whilst at the same time considered by that same person to be ‘right on’, ‘radical’ etc. Think ‘Rick’ from The Young Ones. If you are too young to know who he is, well, you see what I mean?//

    Well, they are not really childish, they have been borrowed and articulated by many political thinkers and philosophers before me. I am impassioned, certainly. They are not ill thought out; they are just based on fundamentally different ideas to yours – the notion of individual liberty and personal ownership. They are not irresponsible, because they put all the responsibility for peoples actions onto the individual.

    //PS You need to have a word with your Form Tutor about a bit of swotting up on logic. You don’t seem to have got a good grasp of it yet, although you have learned the trick of trying to score points by calling your opponent ‘illogical’, in a rather Spock-like fashion.//

    Well, I fail to see the logic of generalising about a group of diverse people. Again, I suppose it depends on what your fundamental assumptions are.

  43. Jim Baxter says:

    Freedom is wasted on the free.

    Ooops. Sorry all. Felt an aphorism coming on there. Or do I mean an aneurysm (Bevan).

    Mr Myth.

    Not freedom loving? Illiberal? Authoritarian? Me? English? Stewart? You do have a lot to learn. Trouble is, you will probably never learn it. I’ve seen it before, too, too many times. Been watching it for decades now. People who start out as self-seekers tend to stay that way. Tend to – not always. It’s a stochastic observation, not an absolute one. You’re too pleased with being ‘impassioned’. My guess is that you will always be pleased with yourself.

  44. Jim Baxter says:

    Iliberal is a word worth looking at. I really must get some sleep one of these days.

    I take one symptom of illiberality to be getting very hot under the collar when you are disagreed with. The more fundamental the beliefs with which you disagree the hotter the necks get. I disagree with English and Stewart – 180 degrees – on matters of faith and have let them know that I do. English can get slightly irritable with me sometimes but only because I have strayed from mature argument to poke him, as I think, with one of his own oars. But illiberal? Either of them? Two more tolerant interlocutors I have seldom encountered.

  45. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    But it is illiberal to want to tell people what to do with their own bodies, and threaten them with violence to get the to comply. I would hope that necks would get hot when discussing matters of freedom and violence. You believe that the state has the authority to use violence against people that have used no violence against people – that is very authoritarian.

    //I take one symptom of illiberality to be getting very hot under the collar when you are disagreed with. //

    No, illiberality is trying to use the state to encourage people to live in a way that is convenient for you. Being enthusiastic about something is not illiberal.

    Earlier you said,

    //Others have a special vice that they wish to indulge and are infuriated, as only those who are psychologically three years old can be, to be told that they cannot indulge it//

    Well, they are adults, and it is quite natural to question the authority of another person telling them that they cannot do something which hurts no one else. Indeed, why should they have to justify themselves to the state, or you? You caste the state in the role of a parents, to be master over adults. It is paternalism at its worst. What authority do you have to tell them that they cannot indulge it? Infuriation is a good reaction to being told that you cannot do something that you want to do – look at the reaction to the smoking ban. Or are you also saying those that oppose the smoking ban are psychologically three years old? Do you approve of the nanny state? Well, is that not merely telling people that they cannot do things that you happen to enjoy?

    //One problem is that you need those same others if these liberties you care for so much are to be defended.//

    I was thinking on this. What you are saying boils down to this. Person A (you) is threatened by Person C. Person C is too big for you to defeat on your own. Person B is smaller than you, but Person A and Person B together has a great enough force to defeat Person C. On your logic, it is permissible for Person A to coerce and control Person B in order to defeat the threat of Person C. However, the only thing in it for Person B, is that they get threatened, or beaten up, by Person A over Person C – the only advantage being that Person A punches less hard than Person C, which does not seem a particularly moral incentive to do things.

    And, of course, it can lead to an infinite regress. If Person C is being threatened with violence by Person D, but Person A and Person C combined is a great enough force to defeat Person D, than your ideology would have it that it is permissible for Person C to coerce and threaten Person A to ensure their support. And so on.

    Just because Person C threatens you with violence, does not give you the right to threaten Person B with violence to ensure your own protection. If Person B is stoned, or pacifist , or a conscientious objector, then that is their right – your anger still needs to be focused on Person C. You have no authority to expect Person B to help you, if they do not want to. And, as I said, there is little in this arrangement for Person B, other than to get hit a little less hard by Person A rather than Person C.

    I would say that the only moral outcome in the above situation is for Person A to be beaten up and killed by Person C. Better that than use violence against Person B to ensure their compliance to something that they do not want to do.

    Out of curiosity, what do you think about pacifists and conscientious objectors to violence? Would you also threaten and coerce them to fight so that you can remain free? Is the end result of pacifism and conscientious objection to conflict, the same as if all those people were incapacitated through drugs or disease?

    //I’d say that the danger of libertarianism is that self-indulgence is prized, self-control and hence self-awareness are abandoned, and others are diminished.//

    Not really. That is libertinism. In a libertarian society, people would be free to be self-indulgent, but they would also have to accept the consequences of that – be that liver disease, kidney failure etc. The state would not step in to help, and the person would have to rely on charity. If none was forth coming, they would die. I would not say that is the elevation of self-indulgence.

    //self-control and hence self-awareness are abandoned//

    But, if self-control and self-awareness are good things for individuals to do, then it is entirely reasonable to imagine that people would engage in them. You cannot legislate on self-control and self-awareness, precisely because those things have to emerge from the self, not the state.

  46. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    I have neither the time no the inclination to post point by point rebuttals, partly because, as part of my obsession in ‘subjugating’ my wife and children I have a near pathological obsession with feeding and clothing them, so work must be done.

    Just a couple of things. You seem to think that the use or threat of violence is incompatible with Christianity. Have you read the Bible?

    Yes I am sure that the Republicans are pro-abortion. If they were anti, America would not have witnessed the destruction of 6 million children during George W’s reign. In fact if these people were such lovers of freedom Bush would never have been President in the first place, needing to fix the election in order to become ‘The Man’. This was about nine years ago, so if you are a teenager I accept that you are probably unaware of all the facts concerning the developments in both the main US parties. If you were to recognise that your youth and inexperience means that you do not yet hold enough of the pieces to complete the picture yet, you might find that a) People would take you more seriously and B) Your own opinions would be open to change.

    It’s fine and dandy to have such ideals as allowing drug addicts to devalue a neighbouring property. Just wait until you get yourself a job, sweat like a horse for a few years, deprive yourself of some of the finer things in life in order to save a deposit for a house. Move in with a sense of pride in your achievement. Develop a love for your new home and it’s character. Cry yourself to sleep at night when you realise that your house is worthless, all you effort for nought, when your smack-head neighbour devalues your property into negative equity, if you could sell it at all. The same principle applies to the unanswered scenario of your daughter being murdered in a suicide bombing on the Tube. You will hold these ridiculous ideas until you either grow up or reality dispossesses you of them, in no uncertain terms.

    I think it a fundamental part of being human, let alone Christian, that it my responsibility to defend the weak, the young, the elderly. I was young once and my parents defended me. I was weak once and the government strengthened me. I will be old one day, I hope that society will protect me. Your values only seem to work if a person strong and able. I think that libertarianism is just a fancy word for selfishness, an intellectually shallow method of dressing a lack of self control in the Emperor’s new clothes.

  47. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    Irritable? Me? How very dare you?

  48. indigomyth says:

    //Just a couple of things. You seem to think that the use or threat of violence is incompatible with Christianity. Have you read the Bible?//

    I have no such illusions. However, I did generally believe that people frowned upon violence committed against innocent people. But I could be wrong.

    //Yes I am sure that the Republicans are pro-abortion. If they were anti, America would not have witnessed the destruction of 6 million children during George W’s reign.//

    Well, going by their policies, their leaders and their supporters, they are anti-abortion.

    //If you were to recognise that your youth and inexperience means that you do not yet hold enough of the pieces to complete the picture yet, you might find that a) People would take you more seriously and B) Your own opinions would be open to change.//

    I recognise that, which is why I spend my time reading books on politics, talking with people with different views. Do you think I am here to act as a troll? I thought we were discussing things. And, I was hoping that I showed that I was genuinely considering the points raised (as in my reply to Jim Baxter, prior to your post).

    My opinions have changed alot over the past few months.

    //Just wait until you get yourself a job, sweat like a horse for a few years, deprive yourself of some of the finer things in life in order to save a deposit for a house.//

    Well, I already work full time (I am writing this response in my lunch break, as it happens), which is one of the reasons I do not like the government taking my money to give to other people.

    //Develop a love for your new home and it’s character. Cry yourself to sleep at night when you realise that your house is worthless, all you effort for nought, when your smack-head neighbour devalues your property into negative equity//

    But, why would you cry yourself to sleep if you loved the house so much? If you love it for its character, you do not need to love it for its material value.

    I would also ask, why would my anger not be more logically directed at the buyers, who believe that what someone else does on their own property is their business.

    //The same principle applies to the unanswered scenario of your daughter being murdered in a suicide bombing on the Tube. //

    Sorry for not responding to that issue earlier. I will now. I have no children, yet if my sister were killed in one of those horrible attacks, I would be utterly appalled and heart broken. But that would not give me license to persecute innocent people. I am not liberal, and I think the reintroduction of the death penalty has many positive aspects, so I am not soft on crime or criminals – I merely recognise when someone is innocent and guilty, and the acceptable time to use violence, and when not to. Indeed, my only reservations about the reintroduction of the death penalty (guillotine is my favored option) is the inherently fallible nature of the legal system.

    I understand that it is natural for people to lash out at anyone they perceive as being guilty, however, that does not give license to use violence against innocent people. I am saying what ought to be the case, not what is the case.

    //Your values only seem to work if a person strong and able. I think that libertarianism is just a fancy word for selfishness, an intellectually shallow method of dressing a lack of self control in the Emperor’s new clothes.//

    But, I am not saying that the weak, the old and the young should die. I am merely saying that by the state getting involved, it actually decreases the “well-being” of individuals. Case in point, the welfare state, which undermines peoples ability to take responsibility for their own actions. There is a lot of truth in the phrase “you work, you eat”. Not “you do not work, and the state shall mug those that do to pay for your food. And maybe a big TV. Oh, and I see you have had another baby, so we will move you to bigger house”.

    //I will be old one day, I hope that society will protect me.//

    I would sooner hope that my friends and family would protect me and look after me, not some faceless state behemoth. You work hard in your life, you earn money, you can afford private care. What does it matter to you if the care is given by the state or a private company? Indeed, should the private company not be preferred, because its funds do not come from the proceeds of theft, but rather from contributions from hard-working individuals, like yourself.

  49. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    ‘I would sooner hope that my friends and family would protect me and look after me, not some faceless state behemoth. You work hard in your life, you earn money, you can afford private care. What does it matter to you if the care is given by the state or a private company? Indeed, should the private company not be preferred, because its funds do not come from the proceeds of theft, but rather from contributions from hard-working individuals, like yourself.’

    I did not say State, I said society. My friends and family ARE society.

    If you think that private companies are not involved in the theft of your property, your insane.

    I do not advocate violence against the innocent. Mine and your definition of ‘innocent’ will doubtless differ. I also am unwilling to wait until a crime is committed before I act. Prevention is better than cure. Your ‘gun to the head’ scenario is correct. You just seem blissfully ignorant (hat tip to G. Orwell) of the fact that a gun is indeed being brandished and it is pointed at your head. Waiting until your enemies have amassed enough strength and depleted your own resources beyond a level where effective opposition can be mustered is suicide. as is waiting for your assailant to pull the trigger.

    I have already said that we agree that this current state of government is garbage, please don’t think me a defender of this pale shadow of democracy. The phrase you quote -you work, you eat – is a paraphrase from the teachings of the Apostle Paul, ‘that if any would not work, neither should he eat,’ 2 Thessalonians 3 v 10 KJV. What of those cannot, through no fault of their own, earn a living? What if they have no friends or family? Let them sing for their supper?

    We are in total agreement that the Welfare System in this country is beyond a joke and that feckless people should be made to feel the consequences of their sins, not be comforted with oodles of mine and your cash. That said, the Christian principle still stands true: The strong should protect and provide for the weak. This has been perverted into : The hardworking should provide for the lazy. I would make staggering cuts in welfare, but I would not abolish it. I have to daily guard my own heart from going down the ‘I’m alright Jack’ road. Failure to do so will lead to a callousness and arrogance that is self destructive.

    Finally, the house/druggie next door thing. Your high minded principles remain untested in this area. I will be most interested to have this conversation again, in say, 15 years time, D.V. (There’s a bit of Latin for you.) You could have all the rage you like against a prospective buyer getting the hump about dope-fiends living next door, but it won’t pay the mortgage, nor sell the house. The reason you will not admit that this scenario is one in which you would not wish to find yourself is because you know it disproves your theories on liberty.

    PS ‘//Yes I am sure that the Republicans are pro-abortion. If they were anti, America would not have witnessed the destruction of 6 million children during George W’s reign.//
    Well, going by their policies, their leaders and their supporters, they are anti-abortion.’

    Six million people would like to differ with you on this point, but they can’t, because the Republican Party sanctioned their murder.

  50. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘Well, they are adults, and it is quite natural to question the authority of another person telling them that they cannot do something which hurts no one else. Indeed, why should they have to justify themselves to the state, or you?

    They don’t have to justify anything to me. I merely disgree that they hurt no one else, disagree that they do society no harm, and so does the law. There’s nothing authoritarian about believing in the rule of law. It’s really quite ethical, actually.

    Oh and I prefer my definition of illiberality to yours. How very illiberal of you to insist that your view is correct, as is your habit of labelling people who disgree with you and telling them what they believe. I suspect you are one of those frustrated authoritarians I mentioned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>