Love, hate and the threat to internet free speech

Richard Carvath is standing as an independent candidate for Salford and Eccles in the upcoming general election, and he has upset a few people by sharing his views on homosexuality. On Monday, he wrote a blog entry called, “Tories select homosexual pervert for Salford and Eccles.”

Woof! No messing. He continues,

The Conservative Party has just selected homosexual Matthew Sephton as their candidate for Salford and Eccles.

As a rival [and pro-heterosexual!] candidate I welcome Matthew to the contest for Salford and Eccles.

Matthew’s own blog is heavy with pro homosexual pervert content: see here, here and here….

I very much doubt that the vast majority of the Salford and Eccles electorate will want to be represented by a prominent homosexual activist – and one who neither lives nor works in the constituency.

The following day, he received a letter from the local constabulary,

“Richard Carvath

We have received a complaint today regarding concerns over the content of your blog article dated Monday 7th December 2009.

A reader of your article has made a complaint that the content is offensive and feels strongly enough to report this matter to the police. He wishes for you to be advised over the potential alarm and distress caused by your article. Whilst not taking this at face value and understanding the meaning of language and how it can be misinterpreted, it could be argued that the context of the comments made could be construed to be borderline criminal.

At this stage I feel it would be advisable for you to remove this from your blog thereby preventing misinterpretation.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. …

Regards

PC2401 Jacky Thompson.”

So, the police are now ‘advising’ people to take down blog posts if someone doesn’t like them. Thankfully, Mr. Carvath told them a few home truths.

“Dear PC Thompson,

Thank you for your email.

There is nothing criminal about my blog article and so I have no intention of removing it for the foreseeable future.

Well exactly, but in a dictatorship, truth gets censored.

Homosexuality is a perversion: that is both moral truth and medical fact. Therefore it is quite reasonable for me to refer to a person in whom the perversion of homosexuality is manifest as a homosexual pervert. Let me make it clear that I do not use the term ‘homosexual pervert’ as a pejorative term – derogation is not my motive in using the term; I use the term simply to convey the true nature of what homosexuality is because I believe that the truth matters.

He explains a very important distinction here, and one which seems to escape many people.

I’m aware that you are employed by an organisation [GMP] which is politically in favour of homosexual perversion. I’m aware that GMP celebrates its association with the militant perverts’ organisation Stonewall. I’m aware of the secular humanist socio-political orthodoxy of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ which GMP panders to.

Can’t argue with any of that.

My advice to you is to stop being a social engineer trying to suppress free speech and get on with genuine police work.

Hear, hear!

It is not a crime to criticise homosexuality and nor is it a crime to refer to a public gay political activist as a homosexual pervert.

Even if it were a crime I’m a British evangelical Christian so nothing and nobody is going to tell me what I can and can’t say in my own country. As a Christian I speak and act out of love – not hate – so my motive for referring to homosexuality as a perversion is love.

My advice to you is to get on with dealing with real crime like robbery, rape and murder and stop trying to suppress free speech.

Never has there been clearer proof of the vital importance of the Waddington free speech safeguard!

Absolutely.

Most of the replies left on his blog seem to be from angry heterosexuals. Perhaps Mr Carvath’s strength and honesty of language has made folks’ brains go into meltdown. I left this comment myself,

These comments from heterosexuals go to show how well they have been trained by the media.

How has this been achieved? Read the blueprint from the USA.

“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights.”

“Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible. The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”

“Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seem as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression.”

Homosexuals don’t want their lifestyle criticised. Fair enough, I suppose. None of us likes being disagreed with, especially while we are entrenched in sin, but nobody is infallible and beyond criticism. Furthermore, everyone has the right to call a spade a spade. Just like the messages left on Mr Carvath’s blog and the Pink News website, where personal criticism of him and his faith are rife.

But then, over the past few years we have come to expect some people to believe they are more equal than others.

Someone called Jeff Duncan even reported Mr Carvath to the police again via a police website and urged others to follow, saying,

Hiss [sic] vile homophobic hate remarks have STILL not been removed.

What these people should realise, and be very thankful for, is that we live in a society that does tolerate differences of opinion. Those who claimed to be persecuted are now the persecutors. They have become that strong and prideful tribe.

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

68 Responses to Love, hate and the threat to internet free speech

  1. The links to Mr. Sephton’s blog were interesting. The most significant, IMHO, was the one on the European Elections, and why members of the LGBT community should vote Conservative. It included the following: “We also gave strong backing to action on hate crimes in the Criminal Justice Act.”

    It is a pretty sad comment on the LGBT community that it is being assumed that they are all enthusiastic supporters of the dubious concept of ‘hate crimes’.

  2. indigomyth says:

    This is a man who says that

    //As MP for Salford and Eccles, Richard Carvath will work for a complete ban on homosexuals fostering or adopting children, for the abolition of civil partnerships, for the re-criminalisation of the act of buggery,10 for the restoration of ‘Section 28’11 and for the criminalisation of public homosexual behaviour and the public promotion of homosexuality.//

    So, once again Stewart, you fail to tackle the authoritarianism of those that you laud. Mr Carvath is opposed to freedom of speech and freedom of expression (the criminalisation of public homosexual behaviour and the public promotion of homosexuality), he is opposed to body autonomy and personal sovereignty (the re-criminalisation of the act of buggery), opposed to the right for parents to have their children educated the way they want (for the restoration of Section 28), the right to freedom of religion and conscience (for the abolition of civil partnerships), and the right to freedom of association, and individual enterprise (a complete ban on homosexuals fostering or adopting children).

    Tell me, Stewart, just how many of these things do you agree with? Just how much do you want the state to control what people say, do, think and how they act? How authoritarian are you?

  3. indigomyth says:

    //What these people should realise, and be very thankful for, is that we live in a society that does tolerate differences of opinion. Those who claimed to be persecuted are now the persecutors. //

    And, you seriously do not see how Mr Carvath is not being tolerant of other peoples opinions about homosexuality, when he says that he wants to ban public promotion of homosexuality.

    Tell me how you reconcile your criticism of authoritarianism, with your apparent thought for this disgusting individual (note, I am not criticising him for his opinions about homosexuality, though I do believe that those beliefs are also repugnant, but rather for the actions he wants the state to engage in against individuals, about the violence he endorses.

  4. indigomyth says:

    I also found this little tit-bit amusing
    //The State should uphold liberty – which is the freedom to engage in all that is good – and it is the State’s prerogative to administer justice//

    What of the right to do what is wrong? And which authority will be the arbiter of what is good and what is bad, what is evil and what is pure? Mr Carvath seems to view liberty as merely the right to do what he things is correct.

    In short, Stewart, you could hardly have chosen a worse person to set up as a defender of liberty.

  5. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hi Indigo,

    I agree with Mr Carvath on all those points you raised. I would add that homosexual attraction should once again be considered a mental illness, as it was until 30-40 years ago when ‘gay’ activists bullied the psychiatric profession into removing it from their list.

    Like we’ve been arguing on another thread, there have to be rules. A completely liberal society cannot last long.

    Mr Carvath is not being tolerant, I agree, but that is his prerogative, surely? Are you tolerant of everything and everyone all the time? The problem in this country has been that sometimes people have been too tolerant and swept important matters under the carpet so our institutions are staffed with people with this insane multicultural, anti-Christian, anti-British, anti-family mindset.

    Can you see what I mean, how this is bound to damage society?

    Tell me how you reconcile your criticism of authoritarianism, with your apparent thought for this disgusting individual…for the actions he wants the state to engage in against individuals, about the violence he endorses.

    I think he would do well to choose some of his words more carefully, but I agree with him that buggery should be an offence (as it is in N. Ireland), that Section 28 should be reintroduced to help protect children from being groomed by teachers, sex-ed and Stonewall.

    I don’t want to see public homosexual behaviour; do you? This is a good example of why we need rules. To most people, the sight of such things is disturbing (to say the least), therefore, why should the majority have to witness public displays of what they see as, and what nature confirms is, depravity?

    We can only be free when there are rules. We just have to have the right ones. Judeo-Christian values suited most people just fine, but outspoken minorities have made society less free by insisting we change the rules. It’s swapping one set of rules for another. There will always be rules because there have to be. We had good ones, now we have bad ones.

  6. indigomyth says:

    Stewart Cowan

    //like we’ve been arguing on another thread, there have to be rules. A completely liberal society cannot last long.//

    But the rules should protect peoples liberty – their freedom of speech, and all the others. What you are saying is that a society needs to be authoritarian in order to survive, just so long as it is not your freedom that is restricted.

    //The problem in this country has been that sometimes people have been too tolerant and swept important matters under the carpet so our institutions are staffed with people with this insane multicultural, anti-Christian, anti-British, anti-family mindset.//

    No, tolerance is a great thing. The problem is that the current government does not tolerate people or institutions, but seeks to regulate and control people, like you do.

    //I think he would do well to choose some of his words more carefully, but I agree with him that buggery should be an offence (as it is in N. Ireland), that Section 28 should be reintroduced to help protect children from being groomed by teachers, sex-ed and Stonewall.//

    So you think that adults have no right to do what they want with their own bodies, even in the privacy of their own home! What kind of world do you live in where you think that you can say these things, and then complain about authoritarianism? You do not even believe that people own their own bodies!!

    Nor do you believe that pro-homosexual parents, or liberals, should be allowed to educate their children as they wish, and seek to impose a one-size fits all education policy. Section 28 is not needed, all that is needed is a general law saying that parents have the right to say how their children are educated, and to punish those that seek to overturn that will. What Section 28 did was impose a rule upon all people and parents saying that no-one had the right to educate their children as they wish, but instead follow the anti-homosexual stance you are advocating.

    There are already rules against having sex with children, and rules against grooming them, and I am pretty sure that most parents will protect their children from what they think is harmful. However, that does not mean that you, or the state, has the authority to dictate what education can and cannot be taught to children.

    //I don’t want to see public homosexual behaviour; do you? This is a good example of why we need rules. To most people, the sight of such things is disturbing (to say the least), therefore, why should the majority have to witness public displays of what they see as, and what nature confirms is, depravity?//

    Because there is no right not to be offended! There is no right in Muslim countries to expect Christians to keep their religion covered up, there is no right to demand that mixed-race couples should not be seen, so I am utterly baffled by your idea that, some how, you have a right not to be offended / disgusted / appalled in this instance. Tell me, if the majority of people in this country wanted to stop you from displaying your Christian beliefs, would that make it correct? Whence does your right not to be offended come from, and how does it differ from the claimed right of Muslims to not be offended. You are, in fact, advocating the very same censorship of homosexuality, as Muslim countries are of Christianity. And you do not think that this is dissonance? You cannot see that you have laid down a rule in one place, and choose to ignore it in another?

    Again, you have a warped view of “rights”. You seem to be under the utter delusion that you have the right to not be offended, to not be insulted, to not be disgusted by something, not even to be affected, as you have continually focused on. A simple question: Do you believe that people have the right not to be offended / disgusted / appalled? And if it is a right, does it not equally apply to homosexuals, Muslims, Christians, Jews or any other division of society you care to list?

    //We can only be free when there are rules. We just have to have the right ones.//

    Yes, and the rules are to defend individual liberty, free speech, free association and all the others. There are no such thing as the right not to be offended, therefore any, ANY, rules that attempt to defend that “right”, are unspeakably evil.

    //Judeo-Christian values suited most people just fine, but outspoken minorities have made society less free by insisting we change the rules. It’s swapping one set of rules for another. There will always be rules because there have to be. We had good ones, now we have bad ones.//

    How is society less free, because minorities wanted to practice their own activities, with their own bodies? What possible definition of “freedom” must you be using to think, for a single moment, that you can set yourself as a defender of liberty, when you think that the state has the authority to tell people how they can use their own bodies! What you are arguing for is a set of rules that restrict the freedom of one group, because it might offend another one. How were rules regulating private, or even public, conduct between adults, commensurate with liberty? Again, I am amazed that you can possibly believe that those rules made people free!?

    In short, you do not have a single problem with authoritarianism, but only is it is you, and your belief system, that is in authority.

    //Can you see what I mean, how this is bound to damage society? //

    Damage society! Again your communitarian thinking raises its ugly head. Tell me, how do you get from a state that does not interfere, to one that promotes what you think is good? Also, you seem to be under the impression that if a government is not expressly pro-,it must be anti-. This is nonsense.

    Tell me, exactly how do you justify calling yourself tolerant, when you want to use violence to stop people doing what they want with their own bodies? How can that possibly, in any sense, in tolerant – you aren’t “tolerating” anything – you are persecuting things. You would agree, I presume, that you would not tolerate buggery, that you would not tolerate sex-ed, even in a school where teachers approve, that you would not tolerate people speaking positively about homosexuality. Where, exactly, does your tolerance start, because I have yet to find it on any of your posts, particularly the ones about homosexuality.

  7. Vronsky says:

    I guess this is just another part of this New World Order thingy – it’s to reduce population. Logically, the more homosexuals, the lower the birthrate. See it now?

    I don’t want to make you any more anxious than you are at present, but did you know that The United States Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio have suggested the creation of a Gay Bomb? The idea of this hideous weapon would be to make enemy troops sexually attractive to each other, and the US marines could then sweep unopposed over their positions while they were locked in vigorous buggery. What if such a dreadful device should fall into the wrong hands? Armagaydon!!

  8. indigomyth says:

    *even in a school where parents approve

  9. indigomyth says:

    //Are you tolerant of everything and everyone all the time?//

    To answer your question – no I am not personally tolerant of everything and everyone all the time. However, there is a vast gulf between that, and actually advocating the state is employed to persecute people on the basis of what they do with their own bodies. I do not think that the state is an arm of my morality. I hate the BNP, yet I advocate tolerance. I hate Islamists, and their beliefs, yet I advocate tolerance. I hate you, and your beliefs, yet I advocate tolerance. You, on the other hand, see things that you do not like, and want the state in to stop them, because you are so thin skinned as to believe you have a right not to be offended.

    //The problem in this country has been that sometimes people have been too tolerant//

    So, in one breath you laud tolerance, and in the other you denigrate it! I do not understand how your mind works – there seems to be no connection between what you want in one instance, and what you say in another. It makes discerning any possible sense from your ideology, almost impossible, because there is no overarching theme. In one place you decry authoritarianism and intolerance, in the other you laud authoritarianism and intolerance, in one place you criticise statism and government involvement, in others you appeal for statism and government involvement. In one place you advocate a parents right to choose how their child is educated, in another you advocate restrictions on how and what children can be taught. In one place you celebrate free speech and free association, in another you denounce it. What is up with your ideology, that is sustains this many contradictions? Do you not see the huge discrepancies in your whole theory of society and individual rights?

  10. indigomyth says:

    I found this statement, made by you on Carvath’s blog:

    //The whole point is that nobody should have his opinions moderated in a free society.//

    Except, apparently, if those opinions are pro-homosexual.

    Sorry for the repeat posts, but the level of sheer illiberal, authoritarian, double-think that pervades this blog needs to be challenged by someone.

  11. Rosewing says:

    It appears that indgomyth misses the whole point.Free speech is free speech.I am of the opinion that there should be NO restrictions whatsoever.Take the recent case of the guest house owners taken to court for saying to a moslem that the hejab was a symbol of female bondage it is! The woman should have argued her point not scream foul to the police.We have to debate issues not just cry “You can’t say that” Personally I’m not religious but I know homosexuality is wrong & disgusting. The law now allows it simply because of the pressure from media queens

  12. indigomyth says:

    Rosewing,

    On the contrary, I support complete and total free speech as well. Which also include the freedom to “promote” homosexuality. To say that homosexuality is not evil, not wrong, and not sinful. This is the precise point I am making – it is people like Stewart and Carvath that wish to restrict speech to that which they think is acceptable – that is why both Carvath and Cowan support restrictions on the “promotion” of homosexuality, in short the restriction of speech declaring homosexuality to not be sinful, abhorrent and wrong. Do you also support said restrictions of speech?

    I agree about the recent case of the Muslims and Christians being a travesty. But I apply my standard equally.

    //The law now allows it simply because of the pressure from media queens//

    So you do not actually believe it is an intrinsic right to have the freedom to do what you wish with your own body – that the state, or Carvath, or Cowan, have the authority to tell you what activities you can and cannot engage in, even if they restrict no one else’s liberty?

    Perhaps the law allows it, because we finally recognised that people have the sole authority over their bodies, and no one else had the right to dictate how someone can and cannot use their bodies, in mutually, consenting, voluntary arrangements? Tell me, do you agree, or are you an authoritarian?

  13. Stewart Cowan says:

    Indigo,

    You hate a lot of people. No wonder you’re angry and confuse. Hatred hurts the hater more than the hated. It saps your strength and can leave you emotionally and spiritually exhausted.

    What is up with your ideology, that is sustains this many contradictions? Do you not see the huge discrepancies in your whole theory of society and individual rights?

    Not at all. The fact is that society needs rules. It has to be structured. There need to be laws in place to protect us from criminals, but who decides what is a crime? Our laws used to be based on Judeo-Christian ideas, ancient wisdom and common sense, but now they are increasingly based on whims and trends and made by people in other countries who are not accountable to us and who have an agenda to promote. This agenda involves weakening society through weakening families. This is one reason for the sudden acceptance of homosexuality.

  14. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    You seem very keen on the freedom of speech, unless people say things that you don’t agree with and cannot disprove. If a person wishes to express his desire to see buggery outlawed, I thought a libertarian would applaud his exercise of freedom in saying so. Obviously there are conditions to the ‘freedom’ you so falsely espouse.

  15. indigomyth says:

    English Viking,

    //You seem very keen on the freedom of speech, unless people say things that you don’t agree with and cannot disprove. If a person wishes to express his desire to see buggery outlawed, I thought a libertarian would applaud his exercise of freedom in saying so. Obviously there are conditions to the ‘freedom’ you so falsely espouse.//

    What is so complicated about this idea!? I do not want to make his speech illegal, understand? Do you comprehend what it means to condemn something, but not make it illegal, or are you so used to saying that everything that you do not like should be illegal, that you cannot fathom how someone can condemn something, but not want to make it illegal. I have not expressed a single thought or word on here, about restricting Carvath or Cowan’s freedom of speech. Find me one single example, where I have proposed laws against what they have said, otherwise admit that your accusation is utterly false. Show me where I have issued conditions that would prohibit Carvath’s liberty? Where, where I have said ANYTHING, about restricting speech?

    I condemn racist speech, but I do not want to make it illegal. Do you understand?

    //unless people say things that you don’t agree with and cannot disprove.//

    Well I have disproved it, based upon the simple principle of self-ownership and you have failed to counter my libertarian arguments, merely resorting to your own “experience”, you have not provided arguments or reasoning, merely hot air and whistling.

    Stewart Cowan,

    //You hate a lot of people. No wonder you’re angry and confuse. Hatred hurts the hater more than the hated. It saps your strength and can leave you emotionally and spiritually exhausted.//

    Of course I do. I am angry because of your desired tyranny, and confused by your convolutions and inconsistencies.

    //Not at all. The fact is that society needs rules. It has to be structured. There need to be laws in place to protect us from criminals, but who decides what is a crime?//

    Those things that limit other peoples freedom. Or, in short, those things that involve aggression against other people: Murder, rape, theft, fraud. All are violations of peoples life, liberty and property. There is only one coherent standard of freedom, and that is the libertarian one. There should never be a conflict of rights, and if there are, then one thing cannot be a right.

    And, who exactly, is the victim in consenting homosexual relationships? Where are they? Or do you really believe that you are made a victim by a homosexual couple having sex next door?

    And, why do there need to be rules governing speech? Provide me with the argument, the reasoning.

    //Our laws used to be based on Judeo-Christian ideas, ancient wisdom and common sense, but now they are increasingly based on whims and trends and made by people in other countries who are not accountable to us and who have an agenda to promote.//

    Ancient wisdom and common sense? Like the common sense position that people do not own their bodies? That other people have the authority to dictate what people can and cannot do with their bodies.

    //This agenda involves weakening society through weakening families. This is one reason for the sudden acceptance of homosexuality.//

    Errm, how does accepting homosexuality, weaken families? If families are so great, so brilliant, so fantastic, then they can survive on their own, without state sponsorship. You are like someone in the market, claiming that you can only sell apples, because if you sold peaches then no-one would buy any apples. It is just that ridiculous. If you believe that the family is so fantastic, it should be able to survive on its own, without state meddling. People have different tastes, and I fail to see how accepting homosexuality makes families weaker. Also, you conflate acceptance and tolerance.

    You also, have not answered any of my other questions, have you? So, I shall put them in any easy to handle format:

    1) Do you want to restrict speech showing homosexuality in a positive light? Yes or No?
    2) Is it not true that a law forbidding the saying of something is a restriction of speech? Yes or No?
    3) It it not true that restricted speech and free speech are logically opposite to one another? Yes or No?
    4) Therefore, is it not true that you do not support free speech? Yes or No.

    5) Is not passing laws against parents having their child taught the way they want, a restriction of parental rights? Yes or No
    6) Is it not true that you advocate passing laws dictating what teachers, schools and, as a result, parents, can and cannot teach their children about sex education and homosexuality? Yes or No
    7) Therefore, is it not true that you not believe in parental choice in education, but favour passing laws dictating what they must teach their children? Yes or No

    8) Is not true that you favour making homosexuality illegal? Yes or No
    9) Is it not true that “tolerance” means the permitting of something to occur, even if you do not agree with it? Yes or No
    10) Is not the making of something illegal the removing of permission to perform that act, speech or deed. Yes or No
    11) Therefore, are you not intolerant. Yes or No

    Either answer these questions, show how they draw false conclusions, or admit that you do not believe in free speech, do not believe in parental choice and are not tolerant.

  16. indigomyth says:

    //The fact is that society needs rules. It has to be structured//

    So, you choose laws and authoritarianism over freedom and liberty. It is simple. You cannot on one hand say you want free speech, then clamour for laws restricting speech. It logically inconsistent, they are mutually exclusive.

  17. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘As long as it does no harm to others or infringes the liberties of others’ etc. is the flaw at the heart of the libetarian view.’

    As I’ve said several times, I regard Stewart’s apparent obsession with homsosexuality as bizarre, but then it has its basis in his religious beliefs which I consider to be equally bizarre: homosexuality is completely natural and not harmful to society in any way, as evidenced by the prolonged success of many societies in which it simply was not considered to be an ‘issue’. I don’t happen to like it, having a natural aversion to the smell of other men. However well-washed or otherwise they are, their odours repel me. I love the smell of women, even quite sweaty ones, so it’s not that I just dislike bodily smells of any kind.

    But the rightful, in my view, decriminalising and acceptance of homsexuality does not advance the libertarian case one bit, not one bit. Who decides what is harmful or not harmful or infringes liberties in a libertarian system?

  18. Jim Baxter says:

    Oops. No apostrophe necessary after ‘view’ in the above. I wasn’t quoting anybody.

    Should people be free to have sex in public places. If my partner and I are feeling frisky in the park of a warm Sunday why shouldn’t we get naked and get down to whatever we like, genital, oral, anal, and anything else we can think of, in full view of anybody who cares to look?? If others are ‘offended’ then surely they are the ones who have the problem. After all, they can look away, and we are consenting adults and harming nobody. who decides?

    If I get out of my tree on legalised heroin why shouldn’t I be allowed to do so in the park, and gaze at the sky insensibly for hours with my mouth hanging open, as long as I am not causing an obstruction? If children see me and are scared then it is up to their parents to explain that I am exercising my rights and harming nobody, surely? Who decides?

    Plenty more examples if you don’t like those.

  19. Jim Baxter says:

    MTS, Stewart, Internet Explorer seems to being playing silly bloggers with your site again.

  20. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    //But the rightful, in my view, decriminalising and acceptance of homsexuality does not advance the libertarian case one bit, not one bit. Who decides what is harmful or not harmful or infringes liberties in a libertarian system?//

    How does it not advance the libertarian cause? The libertarian cause is all about self-ownership – by tolerating homosexuality, the state (and society) is showing that it recognises that individuals are the entire authority on how their own bodies can be used. The same as with tolerating drug usage.

    //Who decides what is harmful or not harmful//

    I presume you mean in regards to society, not to individuals. I do not believe that self-harm should be legislated on – if people want to do unhealthy things, then that is their wish.

    I see the most harm coming from people who wish to control others, by use of violence. Social engineering, which is all that state-sponsored marriage is, is immoral because it tries to contort people into things they are not, and uses violence when they fail.

    And, this is mainly about the individual. What “harms” society, may be good for the individual. If the society is corrupt, then liberty can “harm” it, as in make it more unstable.

    After all, the quest for society should not be the most stable; in 1984, Oceania was very stable, because of brutal repression. However, I would not call that right.

    //infringes liberties in a libertarian system?//

    Well, as I have said, only those things that directly restrict liberty, which are those things that involve violence, coercion, or deception (fraud). Ultimately, you have to stop asking the question of “who decides”, because the point is that no-one has the right to tell you what your body can and cannot be used for. The idea that everything should be put to the vote is fundamentally flawed, because there are many things that the majority have no business dictating – what you wear being one example. So democracy is not the best system (who would want to be subjected to the majority view in Saudi Arabia?).

    The fact is that most people are inherently authoritarian. There needs to be something to stop people being violent to others, and that thing is the government. That is why I am a libertarian not an anarchist.

    Rights are things that can never be in conflict, they are things that can always exist side by side. So any theory of rights that requires one “right” to be subsumed, is incoherent. The classic example being the “right” to not be offended, vs the right to free speech and expression (via print or performance for example).

    I guess one would have to believe that to aggress against people that have done no physical violence to you or your property, is fundamentally wrong. That is the basic axiom. I cannot reduce it beyond that. If people accept that, then the rest of libertarianism flows easily from that principle. No one need “decide” because it would be self-evidently true what was an infringement of liberty and what would not be.

  21. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    //Should people be free to have sex in public places. If my partner and I are feeling frisky in the park of a warm Sunday why shouldn’t we get naked and get down to whatever we like, genital, oral, anal, and anything else we can think of, in full view of anybody who cares to look?? If others are ‘offended’ then surely they are the ones who have the problem. After all, they can look away, and we are consenting adults and harming nobody. who decides?//

    Define “public”? Do you mean public parks, or private businesses, bars, clubs etc? If the latter, then yes, they should be able to have sex anywhere they want, because it is private property. I would be also inclined to say yes to the former, for the simple reason that most people would not do it, so the law is unnecessary. Of course, the real answer is to make most things private property, and then it is up to the individual owner what can and cannot occur in their establishment. Do not like people having sex in my shopping precint, then go somewhere else! In reality, of course, all shopping precints would have rules against public sex, because those acts would deter shoppers, so profits would fall. That is the power of property rights – it resolves these complex questions quite simply.

    //If I get out of my tree on legalised heroin why shouldn’t I be allowed to do so in the park, and gaze at the sky insensibly for hours with my mouth hanging open, as long as I am not causing an obstruction? If children see me and are scared then it is up to their parents to explain that I am exercising my rights and harming nobody, surely? Who decides?//

    Yep, that is your right. I presume you are a taxpayer? In that case, the ground you are standing on has been paid with by your money, you own it, in part, and have the right to use it the way you want. If someone wants to alter the situation, then they can offer to buy the park, become a private owner, and declare inebriation on the site to be an ejectable offence. You see, property rights resolve the problem!

  22. Jim Baxter says:

    It doesn’t advance the libertarian cause because, contrary to the religious beliefs that it is ‘sin’ and sin is harmful, there has never been any evidence that homosexuality is harmful. It’s politically neutral, whether or not some people see it that way. But drugs are political and a country’s attitude to them sends signals to predators.

    Private is not public. Handy distinction. I’ve I’d maent private I wouldn’t have said public. But let’s be clear, sex in public is OK in principle because most people would not do it? So. how many people have to do it before it is not OK? And, small children going to the park with their boats to sail on the pond should be taught to expect to see and hear adults are pumping away it with each other?

    I see. How about a bit of S&M? Public masturbation? I don’t mean now. I mean in those public places. That’s OK too I take it. Any practice you can think of and maybe some that you can’t. All OK because they ‘do no harm’. If the majority or even a minority think such things harmful then their view is ignorant I suppose – they need to be educated do they? I can do what I like in front of anybody of any age and if I say it’s not harmful because I am not committing violence or coercing anybody then it’s not harmful and that’s that.

    Interesting.

  23. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    //It doesn’t advance the libertarian cause because, contrary to the religious beliefs that it is ’sin’ and sin is harmful, there has never been any evidence that homosexuality is harmful. It’s politically neutral, whether or not some people see it that way. But drugs are political and a country’s attitude to them sends signals to predators.//

    However, the fact that people believe it is a sin, and yet still permit it, shows that they acknowledge that other people have a right to sin with their own bodies. It is a recognition of the right to do wrong. Those Christians that resolutely believe that homosexuality is wrong, yet do not think it should be illegal or that speech promoting it should be forbidden. That is a libertarian attitude. Drugs are again another issue of personal sovereignty.

    //Private is not public. Handy distinction. I’ve I’d maent private I wouldn’t have said public.//

    What about a privately owned pub or bar or brothel? Private places open to the public. Private is public, when something is open to the public. However, it still does not get owned by the public. So when you say “public” do you mean publicly owned, or privately owned, but open to the public (like a public house), or privately owned and restricted to the private member, or owner (like a private club)? Sorry if I dodged your point – it was unintended.

    //But let’s be clear, sex in public is OK in principle because most people would not do it?// Well, that and the connected point I made next //I presume you are a taxpayer? In that case, the ground you are standing on has been paid with by your money, you own it, in part, and have the right to use it the way you want.// Combine those two things, and yes, you have the answer.

    //So how many people have to do it before it is not OK?//

    No number of people. You misunderstand what I mean. It is not a problem, because most people would not do it. And if most people did it, it would also not be a problem, because most people would be doing it! In the first instance, it is not a problem because the chances of it actually happening is statistically small. In the second instance, so many people would be doing it that few people would mind, therefore people would not be complaining.

    //And, small children going to the park with their boats to sail on the pond should be taught to expect to see and hear adults are pumping away it with each other? //

    Not really. They should be taught that it is wrong, I think. However, they should also be taught that it is a person’s right to use their own body as they see fit. And, if parents want to ensure that their child will not be exposed to that type of inappropriate behaviour, they can send them to a privately owned pond, where they can guarantee that people will not do that. Society is not meant to be a crèche, softened for the benefit of children.

    //I see. How about a bit of S&M? Public masturbation? I don’t mean now. I mean in those public places. That’s OK too I take it. Any practice you can think of and maybe some that you can’t. All OK because they ‘do no harm’.//

    Yep. But of course, I do not expect those things to happen. And, if people did not like them, land could be purchased and converted to private property.

    If you wanted a more realistic example, of course, you could take the issue of naturism. I do not believe that Nazi symbol and uniforms should be illegal, nor public display of them. Now, would it not be more offensive to general sensibilities for someone to walk around in a Nazi uniform, rather than buck naked?

    // If the majority or even a minority think such things harmful then their view is ignorant I suppose – they need to be educated do they?//

    If they are going to use violence against people that have done no violence, then they should be, yes. Interestingly, Muslim countries seem to think that women going about with bare heads is very harmful and destructive, yet I have yet to hear your support of Muslim countries dictating what Christian women wear?

    // I can do what I like in front of anybody of any age and if I say it’s not harmful because I am not committing violence or coercing anybody then it’s not harmful and that’s that.//

    Well, it depends if your action is aimed at somebody of a particular age, or if it is incidental. Parents have ultimate authority over their children, so should control what they see and hear, and how they are educated. However, this does not mean controlling what other people do, unless other people are forcibly aiming their activity at children that the parents do not want.

    For example, I would not support a feminist telling the child of a Muslim woman to take off their veil and go contrary to their parents wishes. That would be wrong. However, I also do not support the Muslim woman who demands that the feminist go about with a covered head at all times in public, so that her children do not have to see the bad example. I do not support homosexual activists telling children or young adults about homosexuality, without their parents consent, however I also do not support the Christian campaigners that want to stop all public displays of homosexual activity and positive speech about homosexuality. I do not support racial egalitarians who tell white supremacist children that black people are equal, however, nor do I support white supremacists that try and make all black people in society act subservient to them, for the benefit of their children. You see the rope I walk?

  24. Jim Baxter says:

    I don’t misunderstand. It is you who fails to explain. I can see no reason why consenting adults should not be allowed to get up to any kind of sexual activity they care to in privately owned places where people choose to go knowing what to expect. If men wish to have their testicles nailed to a table and they can find another who is happy to wield the hammer then the very best of luck to them. The Spanner prosecution was a disgrace. But, consensual sexual acts tend stay where they are enacted. Drug taking does not. It spills over into other people’s lives and is not likely to be kept private. Consider what cocaine, LSD, ansd amphetamine does to people. We should allow peopel dosed up on drugs like those to roam the streets should we? These drugs are insidious and unpredicatable. You have to draw a line somewhere. I draw it at alcohol and nicotine – they can stay legal.

    ‘I also do not support the Christian campaigners that want to stop all public displays of homosexual activity and positive speech about homosexuality.’ Nor do I – not all displays – and I do not discrimate between sexual orientations. Kissing, even French kissing, or holding hands is one thing – but how about, oh, say heavy petting in the streets – hetero-home-or multisexual. Again, I don’t mean now and not between you and me. Displays like that are sickening. People are entitled to keep their lunches down. there your libertariansism shows its destructive self for what it is: a wish to destroy the sensitivities of the majority.

    If Christians go to Muslim countries then they should respect the culture of those countries.

    I consider the expression of certain behaviours by others in some places to be socially harmful and that rules of behaviour should a apply to all of us in public – those rules include being considerate of others’ views and not assuming that those views need to be anihilated because individual ‘rights’ take precedence. Society has a right to be protected from displays of everybody doing whatever their ‘own thing’ is.

  25. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,
    //Drug taking does not. It spills over into other people’s lives and is not likely to be kept private. Consider what cocaine, LSD, ansd amphetamine does to people. We should allow peopel dosed up on drugs like those to roam the streets should we? These drugs are insidious and unpredicatable. You have to draw a line somewhere. I draw it at alcohol and nicotine – they can stay legal.//

    But alcohol makes people violent, unpredictable and aggressive. It is one of the worst drugs that people can take. Cocaine, LSD and amphetamine do not make people violent or aggressive. It is the drugs trade that is violent. If we made drugs legal, then it would strangle the market monopoly, and mean people could get it more cheaply from other suppliers. Even heroin is not that bad, when in its pure form. It only makes people sick, which will kill them. If anyone does break the law, by being violent to other people, then by all means, lock them up. However, “prevention” necessarily means using violence against the innocent. Even if 9/10 people who took heroin went on to kill someone, it would not make it right to make heroin illegal, because the crime is the violence, not the cause of the violence. Evidence I have seen, like this http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/drugmort.htm suggests that the most dangerous drugs, by percentage of users, is tobacco and alcohol.

    //Nor do I – not all displays – and I do not discrimate between sexual orientations. Kissing, even French kissing, or holding hands is one thing – but how about, oh, say heavy petting in the streets – hetero-home-or multisexual. Again, I don’t mean now and not between you and me. Displays like that are sickening. People are entitled to keep their lunches down. there your libertariansism shows its destructive self for what it is: a wish to destroy the sensitivities of the majority.//

    Libertarianism is not about destroying the sensitivities or sensibilities of the majority, it is about saying that the majority do not have a right to not be offended, and do not have the right to use violence if they are. There is no pro-active injunction in libertarian ideology saying “go out and offend the majority”. Rather, it recognises in a pluralistic society a multitude of sensitivities, and tries to draw a universal law for people to live together happily. It is impossible to make a coherent “right not to be offended”, so the opposite must be “the right to offend”. DO you believe people have a right not to be offended?

    //If Christians go to Muslim countries then they should respect the culture of those countries. //

    Why? The culture of those Muslim countries that have authoritarian, controlling, illiberal theocracy are abhorrent abominations. It is inferior to ours. What of those Christians that live in those countries, and have done since birth? Would you also say that they should avoid offending the Muslim majority.

    //I consider the expression of certain behaviours by others in some places to be socially harmful and that rules of behaviour should a apply to all of us in public – those rules include being considerate of others’ views and not assuming that those views need to be anihilated because individual ‘rights’ take precedence.//

    But rights are fundamental to people. They cannot be violated without punishment, precisely because they are things that are inherent to being human. They are also utilitarianly beneficial.

    //I consider the expression of certain behaviours by others in some places to be socially harmful //

    But not individually harmful? Society is not a separate entity – it is merely a collection of individuals, and their personal interactions. It cannot have “rights”, because it is not a person. Indeed, one may reasonably ask, how can you “harm” society? You cannot cause it physical injury, you cannot cause it mental or emotional injury, so I do not see how you can harm it. Stalin did not harm society – he killed millions of people, violating their human rights. So, could you explain how you can harm society, rather than harming individuals?

    //those rules include being considerate of others’ views and not assuming that those views need to be anihilated because individual ‘rights’ take precedence.//

    Well, I never said anything about annihilating those views. That would involve aggression against individuals. I think people should reason and debate the respective benefits of their position, their way of living, rather than trying to coerce other people to abide by their morality. Carvath and Cowan are doing exactly as you say – they want to annihilate those views that those views they disagree with, they want to make them illegal, and advocate the use of state violence against those that articulate views they find repugnant.

    You do realise, that under Carvath and Cowan’s ideal system the statement you made earlier:

    // homosexuality is completely natural and not harmful to society in any way, as evidenced by the prolonged success of many societies in which it simply was not considered to be an ‘issue//

    would be an arrestable offence, subject to repression by state violence. What you have said is make a non-negative comment about homosexuality, you have not condemned it, therefore, you are “promoting” it, by saying it does not cause harm. If I am wrong, perhaps Cowan can intercede and correct me.

    //Society has a right to be protected from displays of everybody doing whatever their ‘own thing’ is.//

    Why? I again ask, how can a collective of individuals be granted a “right” not present in the individual? Are you not performing the communitarian mistake of seeing collections of people, and ignoring the people?

  26. Jim Baxter says:

    Cocaine, LSD and amphetamine do not make people violent or aggressive.

    They bloody well do. Drunks are fairly predictable and obvious from some way off. Not so a fired up coke or speed-head. Booze is the devil we know. |Also it is, and this is important, much harder to become addicted to booze than it is to cocaine. Much harder. And believe me, I’ve tried.

    You do realise, that under Carvath and Cowan’s ideal system the statement you made earlier:

    // homosexuality is completely natural and not harmful to society in any way, as evidenced by the prolonged success of many societies in which it simply was not considered to be an ‘issue//

    would be an arrestable offence, subject to repression by state violence. What you have said is make a non-negative comment about homosexuality, you have not condemned it, therefore, you are “promoting” it, by saying it does not cause harm. If I am wrong, perhaps Cowan can intercede and correct me.

    I do, and I completely disgaree with them. But homosexuality is socially harmless. We can all think of great, brave men and women who have been homosexual or bisexual. It was their talent and courage that made them great though, not their sexuality.

    We should not impose every aspect of our individuality on others. That is an infringement of others’ rights. Sexuality, apart from light displays of affection, should be kept personal and private. There should be a common ground of rules of public behaviour. Indeed there still is. Just.

  27. Stewart Cowan says:

    @English Viking,

    If a person wishes to express his desire to see buggery outlawed, I thought a libertarian would applaud his exercise of freedom in saying so. Obviously there are conditions to the ‘freedom’ you so falsely espouse.

    Very well put. I’m allowed to say it, but not mean it.

    @Indigomyth,

    And, who exactly, is the victim in consenting homosexual relationships? Where are they? Or do you really believe that you are made a victim by a homosexual couple having sex next door?

    There are many potential victims, e.g.

    Homosexuality is generally a very promiscuous ‘lifestyle’ and so disease gets spread around which can a) spread to women via bisexuals and b) cost taxpayers a fortune.

    It deprives potential grandparents of grandchildren and generally weakens families.

    1) Do you want to restrict speech showing homosexuality in a positive light? Yes or No?

    YES

    2) Is it not true that a law forbidding the saying of something is a restriction of speech? Yes or No?

    It depends. Teaching children that perverted behaviour is acceptable is not a legitimate use of free speech.

    3) It it not true that restricted speech and free speech are logically opposite to one another? Yes or No?

    See 2)

    4) Therefore, is it not true that you do not support free speech? Yes or No.

    See 2)

    5) Is not passing laws against parents having their child taught the way they want, a restriction of parental rights? Yes or No

    See 2)

    6) Is it not true that you advocate passing laws dictating what teachers, schools and, as a result, parents, can and cannot teach their children about sex education and homosexuality? Yes or No

    See 2) I can’t stop parents perverting their children with sexual depravity if that’s what they so desire.

    7) Therefore, is it not true that you not believe in parental choice in education, but favour passing laws dictating what they must teach their children? Yes or No

    This is getting silly. I am not in favour of the teaching of perversion. Hey – I’m the NORMAL one!

    8) Is not true that you favour making homosexuality illegal? Yes or No

    YES

    9) Is it not true that “tolerance” means the permitting of something to occur, even if you do not agree with it? Yes or No

    Who said I am prepared to tolerate anything and everything? I’m not.

    10) Is not the making of something illegal the removing of permission to perform that act, speech or deed. Yes or No

    Of course.

    11) Therefore, are you not intolerant. Yes or No

    As I have said, I am intolerant of certain things. Like I also said, I am normal. Normal people are intolerant of deviant behaviour.

  28. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jim,

    Thanks re. IE. I usually use Firefox so don’t find out.

    You also demonstrated why there are limits to what we should be allowed to do and why Indigo’s system could not possibly benefit anyone, except incredibly selfish and wayward individuals.

    But, homosexuality is extremely harmful as are all forms of degenerate behaviour because they impact on civilised society, not to mention the damage they do to the anatomy and minds of those concerned.

    @Indigo

    Jim seems to be tolerating, perhaps almost promoting, homosexual acts, in fact all depraved sexual acts, even involving tables and nails! Thankfully, he is seemingly into neither of these perversions.

    What’s wrong with stamp collecting, for goodness sake?

  29. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    //We should not impose every aspect of our individuality on others. That is an infringement of others’ rights. Sexuality, apart from light displays of affection, should be kept personal and private. There should be a common ground of rules of public behaviour. Indeed there still is. Just.//

    It is not imposing it on other people. I happen to agree with you that sexuality should be kept personal and private. However, I do not think those rules should be law. Also, how does it infringe on the rights of others? What rights?

    I asked you before about how can a collection of people can have rights that are not present in the individual. May you answer?

    Stewart Cowan,

    //Homosexuality is generally a very promiscuous ‘lifestyle’ and so disease gets spread around which can a) spread to women via bisexuals and b) cost taxpayers a fortune.

    It deprives potential grandparents of grandchildren and generally weakens families.//

    It may only cost taxpayers because we have this disaster of a socialist health care system. And, in any case, are they not also taxpayers? So do they not have a right to use the health care the way they want? They were forced to pay for it, after all. And, tobacco and alcohol cost far more to the system then std’s, so why do you not seek to make them illegal?

    So now you construe that grandparents have a right to expect grandchildren, and therefore believe that parents have a right to say how their adult children can use their own bodies! So you do not believe people own themselves. Why should it matter if grandparents want grandchildren? Surely all that matters is whether the individual wants their own children?

    Also, you again say “generally” – why should non-promiscuous homosexuals be punished for what other homosexuals have done? It is punishing innocent people.

    Also, how does it weaken families?

    //It depends. Teaching children that perverted behaviour is acceptable is not a legitimate use of free speech.//

    Ahh, so now you have added caveats to the idea of free speech which excludes what you think is perverted. Fantastic! Well, I believe that your declaration that homosexuality is perverted is perverted, and therefore not a legitimate use of free speech. Therefore restricting it is not restricting speech! Brilliant!

    Of course, what you are arguing is nonsense. If free speech = non-restricted speech, then what you are arguing is that non-restricted speech is the same as restricted speech, which is logically impossible. Do you understand?

    It cannot “depend” on anything. Laws against saying homosexuality is positive, restricts speech. On that you agree. Yet, you claim to laud free speech, which is, by definition, speech that is not restricted by law. Therefore you do not favour free speech, you only favour speech that you agree with. You cannot, logically, have it both ways. It is impossible to favour non-restricted AND restricted speech at the same time – so I ask again – Do you believe in non-restricted speech?

    Are you now setting yourself up as the “Arbiter of Legitimate Speech”, Stewart? Do you get to sit on a high chair, with a wig, and proclaim things “Legitimate” and “Non-legitimate”. Hey, you can call yourself a Mullah, and be granted the power to declare on every aspect of individual conduct! For someone who claims to deride authoritarianism, you are certainly very authoritarian!

    //This is getting silly. I am not in favour of the teaching of perversion. Hey – I’m the NORMAL one!//

    Yes, but why do you or the state have the authority to dictate what parents cannot get their chosen schools to teach their children?

    Why do you think that your preference regarding what all schools teach children, has any bearing on what they should teach? It is very very arrogant. It is all about what YOU think, what YOUR beliefs say, what YOUR god wants, what YOU think it damaging.

    //As I have said, I am intolerant of certain things. Like I also said, I am normal. Normal people are intolerant of deviant behaviour.//

    And your behaviour is deviant, therefore we can be intolerant of it!

    Tell me, why do you put the tags “authoritarianism” and “tolerance” under posts, as if that is a bad thing? You clearly believe that authoritarianism and intolerance are good things when it is you being intolerant and authoritarian.

    I would say that normal people recognise that other people are the owners of their own body, and therefore are tolerant of it. Abnormal people believe they have the authority to dictate how people live and act.

    //You also demonstrated why there are limits to what we should be allowed to do and why Indigo’s system could not possibly benefit anyone, except incredibly selfish and wayward individuals.//

    You have failed to understand my arguments, you have argued that black is white, that logical opposites are identical. It is little wonder why you cannot understand my system. I would sooner have a nation of selfish, self-centred, narcissists, rather than the tyranny, the despotism, that you want to inflict on us.

    Imagine a system where people could believe whatever they want, worship whatever they want, say whatever they want. Where the only links between people would be mutually consenting voluntary contracts. It would be brilliant.

    //But, homosexuality is extremely harmful as are all forms of degenerate behaviour because they impact on civilised society, not to mention the damage they do to the anatomy and minds of those concerned.//

    Yes, it may be harmful to the individuals that engage in it. That is irrelevant to the considerations here. People have the right to do harmful things to themselves. And, you use the term “impact” – a curious word. Like Jim, you seem to believe that society has “rights”, and not one of you have shown how a collection of individuals come to have “rights” that are non-existent in the individual. So, what INDIVIDUAL, does homosexuality actually harm, as in restricts the liberty of.

    // Jim seems to be tolerating, perhaps almost promoting, homosexual acts, in fact all depraved sexual acts, even involving tables and nails! Thankfully, he is seemingly into neither of these perversions.

    What’s wrong with stamp collecting, for goodness sake?//

    So, you would arrest Jim, if you had the chance, the power? You would authorise state violence against him, because he has said something you do not like? Be utterly honest here.

    I guess I should be quite thankful – if the quality of your responses here, Stewart, are indicative of the Christian Reconstructionist arguments generally, complete with logical contradictions and hypocrisy, then it is highly unlikely that any intelligent person will be convinced by them. All you can do is cry “I am Normal”, and try and excuse the contradictions in your arguments.

  30. Jim Baxter says:

    Also, how does it infringe on the rights of others? What rights?

    The right not to be confronted, sickened, and depressed by that gross selfishness of others, that’s what. The right to believe that we should all conform to certain rules of behaviour or our society will disintegrate, the right to hope that to some extent, while pursuing our private pleasures. we also find time to contribute to the common welfare and consider the beliefs of others. When everybody pursues their own interests nobody will be free for long.

    Stewart, there’s nothing wrong with stamp collecting. Me, I collect dust. It’s all round the house now. I may have to get a bigger place.

    I’d be prepared to have my scrotum nailed to a table today (but not to a ceiling) if I could be assured that Gordon Brown would resign immediately as a result, possibly to come round and try the sansation for himself. But, in my case, it would be a sacrifice for the greater good, not a sensual pleasure.

  31. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter
    //The right not to be confronted, sickened, and depressed by that gross selfishness of others, that’s what.//

    But, how is that a right? If I am sickened by what someone says, does that mean I have the right to curtail their speech? If I do not like what someone wears, or how they look, can I demand that they change?

    //The right to believe that we should all conform to certain rules of behaviour or our society will disintegrate,//

    That is a right, but its is freedom of belief. If they force other people to conform, by threat of violence, then that violates other peoples rights.

    // the right to hope that to some extent, while pursuing our private pleasures. we also find time to contribute to the common welfare and consider the beliefs of others. When everybody pursues their own interests nobody will be free for long.//

    Yes, but libertarianism recognises that. It is about allowing people to pursue their own voluntary relationships, be they religious, ethical or social. Not about forcing people together that do not want to go together.

    Indeed, I would argue that since humans get pleasure from helping one another, that a removal of state interference would actually contribute to an increase in societal well-being, and mutual cooperation.

    It is human nature to seek out company, and mutual relationships. It goes against that nature to try and force people together. It is social engineering. The very existence of charities indicates that people do not need the state to threaten them with violence in order to get them to cooperate towards the benefit of other people and things.

    Libertarianism is an ideology of human hope – it allows people to be free to interact to create a happy society. It allows society to form itself along fluid lines. What Cowan and his ilk want is to create rigid lines in society, which is profoundly unnatural. Libertarianism recognises the inherent fluidity and plurality of the human condition.

  32. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘It goes against that nature to try and force people together’

    I have no idea what you’re talking about. That makes two of us.

    My right to do certain things is earned by bearing some responsibilities. It does not take precedence over the rights of others to go about their activities in peace and with peace of mind, free from assault and fear of assaalt physically, visually, aurally, olfactorily, and psychologically. There are lines to be drawn and compromises to be made. Otherwise we shall have no freedom at all.

  33. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,
    //I have no idea what you’re talking about. That makes two of us.//

    Well, I do, because I can see that humans do not like being forced together. You would agree with that? Therefore, does it not go against their nature of not wanting to be forced together, to force people together? I would have thought that was obvious. Would you like to be forced to associate with people you do not like, under threat of violence from the state? I do not see how this is a controversial idea. Perhaps you can explain?

    //My right to do certain things is earned by bearing some responsibilities.//

    Not essential, general, rights. Why do you think that you have to “earn” these rights? Are they not intrinsic to humans? Also, who decides what someone has to do to “earn” these rights? The state?

    //It does not take precedence over the rights of others to go about their activities in peace and with peace of mind, free from assault and fear of assaalt physically, visually, aurally, olfactorily, and psychologically.//

    What “visual, aural and olfactory” assault!? How thin skinned would someone have to be to fear such ephemeral things! Hmm, what about if I am at home and a local farm spread muck. That stinks. So, do I then have a right to take the farmer to court, because he has assaulted my olfactory system? What about Body Odour? Does that mean BO should be illegal? Oh, what about incredibly ugly people? Should they have to cover their faces to avoid assaulting you with their appearance?

    //There are lines to be drawn and compromises to be made.//

    Perhaps, but they ought to be made between individuals, in private settings. Not for the state to decide that A or B is the unilateral position.

    //Otherwise we shall have no freedom at all.//

    I do not see how that follows. If we had the Freedom of Speech, Property, and Self, then we have all the freedom there can be. Indeed, if you start adding the freedom to not be offended, then you are reducing other peoples freedom.

    How does someone smelling, threaten my right to life, my liberty, or my property?

    Tell me, if a Muslim women is wearing the burka in a public street, and a feminist is offended by that, and asked the Muslim women to remove the burka, and the Muslim women gets offended by that request, because it is someone telling her what she can and cannot wear, would you support the feminist’s right not to be offended, or the Muslim women’s right to her own body, her religion and her conscience? Clearly someone is going to have their “human right” not to be offended stepped on, but why prefer one right over the other? Either way, someone is going to be offended, and therefore have their rights violated, so why prefer one over the other? What difference does it make it the Muslim or the Feminist has their rights stepped on – no-one wins. You may as well toss a coin, for all the moral value your ultimate choice has.

    Now, you could extend that. Add many people. If it is one feminist telling ten Muslim women to remove the burka, is the right not to be offended cumulative, in your system? So, the Muslim offence is now 10x the offence of the feminist. Does that now make it correct to tell the feminist to shut up? However, what if the feminist is 10x as offended as each individual Muslim? Would that not mean that the 1 offended feminist is now more offended then the cumulative offence experienced by the 10 Muslim women.

    Now of course, you could just say whoever has the most number of offended people on their side should prevail. In which case the 10 Muslim women would win. However, now the feminist has been joined by her equally offended friend. That means the 2 feminists are twice as offended as the 10 Muslim women. In a democratic system that would still mean the Muslims would win, however the result would not accurately reflect the actual level of offence experienced, because it would only measure the number of people offended, rather than the degree to which they were offended.

    You see, your system of “the right not to be offended” is inherently ridiculous. It leads to conflict of rights that never happen with negative rights.

    Libertarianism offers a better, more consistent, way.

  34. Jim Baxter says:

    Who is talking about ‘forcing people together’? That’s all in your febrile brain.

    ‘Are they not intrinsic to humans?’

    No.

    ‘Also, who decides what someone has to do to “earn” these rights?’

    The same people who would decide when and what behaviour was harmful to others under your idyllic system.

    ‘How thin skinned would someone have to be to fear such ephemeral things!’ I know. I saw a very thin-skinned elderly Asian couple in a state of some fear just because a feral young piece of, er, ‘European’ trash, out of his face on heaven knows what standing in the street making monkey gestures and noises at them. It’s the old story. There’s never a runaway bus around when you need one.

    As for projectile or other vomiting in the street because of alcohol, or urinating in gutters – well, as long as it’s in the gutter that’s OK.

    I’ve known quite a few thin-skinned people of different ethnic, religious, and other origins who face daily cycles of verbal abuse and threats on their way to and from work as others exercise their inalienable right to free speech. I take it you don’t mind what must be for you the daily shouts of ‘spotty fat wan**r’ which follow you wherever you go. Fair enough – but others are more fragile and their fragility should be put ahead of your ‘right’ to verbally abuse them or to upset them by fornicating in public, your ‘right’ to leer and gesture at them when out of it on coke, etc., etc.. But no – the fragile must either shape up or ship out under your system where it is not even ‘most regrettably necessary in extreme cases’ but ‘perfectly acceptable’ all the time to murder the most innocent people of all. Hat-tip to English Viking.

  35. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxyer,

    //Who is talking about ‘forcing people together’? That’s all in your febrile brain.//

    I was making a wider point about libertarianism. Things like anti-discrimination laws do force groups to accept people they do not want – look at the BNP being forced to accept non-whites.

    //‘Are they not intrinsic to humans?’

    No. //

    Ahh, okay. I think they are.

    //The same people who would decide when and what behaviour was harmful to others under your idyllic system.//

    Well, I think, I said that it should be self-evidently true what restricts liberty. Violence against the individual for a start.

    //I know. I saw a very thin-skinned elderly Asian couple in a state of some fear just because a feral young piece of, er, ‘European’ trash, out of his face on heaven knows what standing in the street making monkey gestures and noises at them. It’s the old story. There’s never a runaway bus around when you need one.//

    The man was a knob head. But, was he threatening them with violence? Hmm, perhaps if the man had been unconscious due to drug use, in his own home, then they would not have been subjected to such behaviour?

    //As for projectile or other vomiting in the street because of alcohol, or urinating in gutters – well, as long as it’s in the gutter that’s OK.//

    Well, again this is the problem of public, state-owned, property. Why should they not do those things, if they have in part paid for it?

    //I’ve known quite a few thin-skinned people of different ethnic, religious, and other origins who face daily cycles of verbal abuse and threats on their way to and from work as others exercise their inalienable right to free speech.//

    It is disturbing, I grant you, however does not mean that the state should use violence against people. If there was little to no public property, these problems would not exist, would they?

    //Fair enough – but others are more fragile and their fragility should be put ahead of your ‘right’ to verbally abuse them or to upset them by fornicating in public, your ‘right’ to leer and gesture at them when out of it on coke, etc., etc..//

    Hmm, so do you also condemn newspapers, columnists and bloggers that jeer and laugh at politicians? That mock their blind eye, their balding heads, their sagging skin, their crooked teeth? Or, do only members of the “public” have a right to not be jeered at, mocked etc?

    //But no – the fragile must either shape up or ship out under your system where it is not even ‘most regrettably necessary in extreme cases’ but ‘perfectly acceptable’ all the time to murder the most innocent people of all//

    If they lived in gated communities, were on private trains, in shopping malls, anyone being vile could be ejected. However, the problem is that if people put money into something, they have the right to use it how they wish.

    Could you say a few things about how you operate your “right to not be offended” system? You avoided that in your post.

  36. indigomyth says:

    Stewart Cowan,

    I just want to establish what you actually “think”:

    You want to make illegal saying that homosexuality is natural, good, normal, and perfectly acceptable to engage in. And that IS NOT a curtailing of speech, in your mind.

    Other people want to make illegal saying that homosexuality is unnatural, evil, abnormal, and absolutely unacceptable to engage in. And that IS a curtailing of speech, in your mind.

    And you cannot see how those positions impossible to maintain, in relation to “free speech”. Despite the fact the both people want to prohibit speech that they disagree with, only the other persons position is a restriction of speech?

    Turning to the OED for a moment – a restriction is defined as a limiting condition or measure. You want to limit speech to that which is negative of homosexuality. That you have admitted frequently. Therefore, according to logic, and the common definition of the words and terms you use, you want to restrict speech. If you have a logical objection, provide it, which you have not. Now, “free” speech is, by logic, rationality and reason, speech which is not restricted, not limited. Therefore, you CANNOT be in favour of free speech, because you do not favour non-restricted speech. This, again, is logical.

    Perhaps you need to provide your definition of “free speech”, because at the moment you don’t have a single consistent thought. I suspect your definition of “free” speech is something along the lines of: speech that is limited and restricted to those topics and opinions that I, Stewart Cowan, consider to be good and right. Which is a useless definition, because you can easily substitute “Stewart Gowan” for anyone, and they would still be able to claim, using your “logic” that they support free speech.

  37. Stewart Cowan says:

    Indigo,

    Punitive taxes on tobacco mean it doesn’t cost the NHS anything. Sex isn’t taxed (yet).

    “Do you believe in non-restricted speech?”

    Yes, when it leads to children being abused with lies about perversion.

    “And your behaviour is deviant, therefore we can be intolerant of it!”

    In what way have I displayed deviant behaviour?

    “You have failed to understand my arguments”

    I understand. I don’t agree (clearly).

    “So, what INDIVIDUAL, does homosexuality actually harm, as in restricts the liberty of.”

    Is that all you measure things by? What about denying your own parents a daughter or son-in-law and grandchildren? It’s not all about your own selfish ‘liberty’. You have other people to consider, including your own family.

    “So, you would arrest Jim, if you had the chance, the power? You would authorise state violence against him, because he has said something you do not like? Be utterly honest here.”

    Of course I wouldn’t. If I wanted to deny him or anyone else his right to express his thoughts I would moderate his comments or ban him altogether.

  38. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jim,

    Maybe we should arrange a mass scrotum nailing in Parliament Square and refuse to budge until Gordon Brown resigns. Actually, it would be excruciatingly painful to try to budge.

  39. Stewart Cowan says:

    Indigo,

    “You want to make illegal saying that homosexuality is natural, good, normal, and perfectly acceptable to engage in. And that IS NOT a curtailing of speech, in your mind.”

    No, but I don’t want children indoctrinated. You can call it “a curtailing of speech” if you want. I call it common decency.

    I’m very interested to know how you came by your beliefs. Who are your main influences? How come you think the way you do? Have there been major incidents in your life to make you think this way?

  40. indigomyth says:

    Stewart,

    //Punitive taxes on tobacco mean it doesn’t cost the NHS anything. Sex isn’t taxed (yet).//

    It does. The NHS is paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers also buy tobacco. So, in fact, the NHS is “paid for” twice. Once by the taxpayer, once by the taxpayer that buys tobacco. Both mean money goes to the state, to be used as it wishes.

    And, of course, that does not answer the essential point that people with STDs have also paid for the NHS, and therefore can use it any way they like.

    //Yes, when it leads to children being abused with lies about perversion. //

    And you do cannot open your mind, 6 inches, to the possibility that other people do not think it is a perversion? And that they believe that you are abusing children with the lies that it is perverted? You may say that they are wrong – they will say you are wrong. It is like Northern Ireland – not one of you is prepared to compromise. Both advocate violence (though in this case, it is the state being violent).

    //In what way have I displayed deviant behaviour?//

    Some people would claim it is deviant behaviour wanting to make homosexuality illegal. Some people would even claim it is deviant to not be okay with homosexuality. Now I know what you will say; oh well, they have just been brain washed. And they would say the same about you. In any case, it does not matter what you believe, all you have to do is understand that other people believe different things to you, and respect that. But you do not even have the decency to permit them to say those beliefs, and want to resort to state violence, brutality, in order to stop things you do not like. Hell, in your ideal world, you would arrest me for even arguing with you! You want to get the state to use violence against your political opponents, because they believe different things to you (that homosexuality is normal)! Indeed, I do not understand how democracy could work under your system, because as soon as anyone said something that you construe as tolerant of homosexuality, they would b arrested! Democracy is founded on debate and discussion, however how can you have a discussion if you are going to arrest and brutalise the person disagreeing with you? How on Earth can it work?

    //No, but I don’t want children indoctrinated. You can call it “a curtailing of speech” if you want. I call it common decency.//

    Finally we have an admission that it could be called “curtailing of speech”. We are making progress.

    Your claim is the same as militant atheists trying to stop faith schools, complaining about “indoctrination”. The state has not the authority to declare what is and is not indoctrination. Somehow, you think that you do.

    And, you do not think that making illegal the indoctrinating children with the idea that homosexuality is abnormal, can be made illegal, and not be called “curtailing of speech”?

    Also, you ignore the fact that your law would make positive portrayal in newspapers or television of homosexuality, also illegal. So, not just in schools. It is quite sick the level of control you want to have over speech and press, all on the basis of your beliefs. How can the expression of an idea in the public forum be construed as “indoctrinating”?! Indoctrination surely involves the use of force? How can that be the case in a public expression of an idea? Tell me, do you think that BNP is indoctrinating people with racism? No, it is merely expressing a (quite stupid) ideology. Do you also think that racism and racist speech should also be made illegal?

    //I’m very interested to know how you came by your beliefs. Who are your main influences? How come you think the way you do? Have there been major incidents in your life to make you think this way?//

    I started out being more “neo-liberal” (so supporting things like the minimum wage, anti-discrimination laws etc. Though I was never that neo-liberal, I joined UKIP for a year). Then, I started reading some really great online blogs, like Devil’s Kitchen, Very British Dude, Heresy Corner, and got introduced to libertarianism. The logic of self-ownership, that every person owns themselves, changed my entire world-view. Suddenly I saw the evil that was Hate Speech laws, anti-discrimination laws, drug laws, all designed to control people, to dictate their behaviour, even when they had done nothing to nobody else. The idea that businesses have the authority to hire and fire who they want, based on whatever criteria they want; skin colour, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, whatever. The logic of the libertarian arguments hit me like a lightening bolt – now my rallying cry is “Life, Liberty and Property”. I used to belief in the state controlling things, now I see the only role of the state to be to protect our freedoms and liberties, and to punish those that violate them. Now I actually read books on politics, about Libertarianism!

    //Is that all you measure things by?//

    It is the only sensible thing to measure things by. I provided you a quote on a previous thread about why it only makes sense to talk about individuals having rights, about the freedom of individuals. Not collectives, not groups, not even families. Individuals. You would punish individuals, for what other people would do.

    //“So, you would arrest Jim, if you had the chance, the power? You would authorise state violence against him, because he has said something you do not like? Be utterly honest here.”

    Of course I wouldn’t. If I wanted to deny him or anyone else his right to express his thoughts I would moderate his comments or ban him altogether.//

    But, that is you have been arguing for! You have admitted that you want to restrict speech to that which is critical of homosexuality! Speech is the articulation of thought. So you want to restrict the articulation of the thought that homosexuality is entirely normal, natural and correct – that is just true. So, for you now to say that don’t deny anyone the right to express their thoughts, completely goes against EVERYTHING that you have said previously. It is like you claiming to support non-restricted speech, when you support restricted speech. You are like a parrot – you say these words and phrases, yet they have no meaning for you because you do not actually understand them.

    So, tell me where you draw the line? If I write a blog post, saying that society should accept or even just tolerate homosexuality, would that then, in your ideal state, mean that I would be subject to state brutality (imprisonment). What about a newspaper column? What about a television show? Do you want the internet regulated to excise everything you find abhorrent? What about denial of the Holocaust? Are we now to see that level of repression of speech, in your world? You are authoritarian of the very worse kind – the sort who says that they are not authoritarian. At least the Muslims protesting have the decency to be honest in their aims “Death to Freedom” is their overt message. Yours is more insidious, more terrible, because it involves double-think – under your regime, slavery is freedom, peace is war.

    // What about denying your own parents a daughter or son-in-law and grandchildren? //

    Yes, but that should be MY choice. Not yours, not theirs, not the states. It is MY body, MY genitals, MY money, so why, oh why, should my parents be able to use the state to try and coerce me into having children, or to make other ways I may want to live, illegal? If my parents cannot convince me by appealing to family loyalty, reason, or humanity, then they have no right to resort to state coercion. I do not understand why you think that the state should “encourage” people to act according to what other people want? Surely it would be equally moral for the state to coerce grandparents not to want grandchildren?

    Or, do you believe, that I, Indigomyth, partly own YOUR body, YOUR genitals, YOUR money, and can therefore tell you what to do with them?

    //It’s not all about your own selfish ‘liberty’.//

    Well, as I said above, it is MY body, MY money, MY property, MY genitals. So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to be utterly and totally selfish. Now, I may wish to oblige my parents, I may wish to give away my property, but tell me, what authority do you or the state have to make me, to try and coerce me, by threat of violence, to do as other people want.

    // You have other people to consider, including your own family.//

    Yes, but they are things for ME to consider, as I want. Not you, not the state, not Gordon Brown. No one can use violence against me, and not the state either. You, effectively, are trying to use the government to make people consider each other. That is abhorrent. People will consider others as they want – that is what mutual consenting voluntary agreements are all about. But you would replace those arrangements with a violent, intrusive, all powerful state, that intercedes in every aspect of peoples private life, in order to make them “considerate”. Curious that you do not think it uncivilized for a state to intrude in the lives of individuals. It is totalitarianism at its worst. You want a social version of North Korea, where everything must be done for the benefit of the state and society. It is repugnant, and all freedom loving peoples would be appalled by your sentiment. The desire you show to control people, organisations, parents, businesses, the press, the media, is like something out of an Orwell novel. The telescreens telling use to be thoughtful and considerate, won’t turn off.

  41. Jim Baxter says:

    The telescreens telling use to be thoughtful and considerate, won’t turn off.

    Really! This is too much. ‘Use’ is spelt ‘youse’ where I live.

  42. Jim Baxter says:

    Stewart,

    You’ve given me a better idea. All the ‘men’ in the Cabinet, including the PM, should have their cobblers nailed to the Cabinet table. Not conditionally in any way, they just should. Harriet would happily do the needful I’m sure.

  43. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    You are being inconsistent. You say that the sexually promiscuously sick have already paid for the NHS in high taxes and are therefore entitled to use it at will, but do not wish to see alcoholics, who contribute vast sums in extra tax on alcohol, receive treatment for their dependency on the NHS. Well, which one is it? You seem confused.

    PS, If you feel like you want to post a reply, just a couple of lines will do fine, I haven’t got the time to read your encyclopaedic replies.

  44. indigomyth says:

    English Viking,

    Hmm you havn’t manage to find where I have said that the speech of Cowan and Carvath should be restricted, have you? Wonder why? Perhaps because I never proposed such a thing, as you insinuated

    //You are being inconsistent. You say that the sexually promiscuously sick have already paid for the NHS in high taxes and are therefore entitled to use it at will, but do not wish to see alcoholics, who contribute vast sums in extra tax on alcohol, receive treatment for their dependency on the NHS. Well, which one is it?//

    I do not think the NHS is a good thing. I do not believe socialised, mandatory, health care is a good thing. I believe that people should not be forced to pay to support people stricken with sex related diseases, drug related diseases, alcohol related disease, even smoking or over eating diseases. In fact, ideally, none. I think that no-one has the right to medical treatment. However, if they have been forced to pay for it, they ought to receive treatment, because i recognise that they have paid for it (albeit unwillingly).

    So, my ideal would be no NHS, and instead private health insurance, or charity medical provision. Druggies, the syphilitic and alcoholics should be allowed to die, if they cannot get people to voluntarily pay for their support.

    There is no contradiction in my view. People should not be forced to pay for something that they do not want. However, if they have been forced to pay for something, they have part ownership over it, and therefore it is their right to be treated on the NHS.

    Do you understand?

  45. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    //’The telescreens telling use to be thoughtful and considerate, won’t turn off.’

    Really! This is too much. ‘Use’ is spelt ‘youse’ where I live.//

    Yes, I am sorry about that. My typing skills are not the best. I was aiming for “us”, of course.

  46. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    Patronisingly asking if I understand your inane world view as though I am somewhat mentally defective is doing little to convert me. I understand, I do not agree.

    There is a contradiction in your view. You made a very lengthy (and rude) objection to the money that you considered wasted on the treatment Stewart required to free him from alcohol dependency, even though he paid inflated taxes to obtain his alcohol. You then you say that as he (or any other person) has paid for the NHS twice over he is entitled to use it. The reason for the contradiction appears to be that you don’t really know what you are talking about, you just make it up as you go along and cannot remember what you have posted previously.

    I have not ‘insinuated’ that you wish to restrict the speech of Mr Cowan and Mr Carvath. I said ‘You seem very keen on the freedom of speech, unless people say things that you don’t agree with and cannot disprove. If a person wishes to express his desire to see buggery outlawed, I thought a libertarian would applaud his exercise of freedom in saying so. Obviously there are conditions to the ‘freedom’ you so falsely espouse’.

    The above is not an insinuation (ask Santa for a dictionary), it is a plain statement of opinion.

  47. indigomyth says:

    English Viking,

    //There is a contradiction in your view. You made a very lengthy (and rude) objection to the money that you considered wasted on the treatment Stewart required to free him from alcohol dependency, even though he paid inflated taxes to obtain his alcohol. You then you say that as he (or any other person) has paid for the NHS twice over he is entitled to use it. The reason for the contradiction appears to be that you don’t really know what you are talking about, you just make it up as you go along and cannot remember what you have posted previously.//

    No, what I was arguing was that it was wrong that people are forced to pay for alcohol recovery programs, by state taxation. However, since Stewart himself paid for it as well, through taxation, he had a right to be treated. That does not mean that I think it right that he was forced to pay for it.

    Let us review what I said:

    //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.//

    Note: ‘And let them all know that the state will never interfere to save them’. Nothing inconsistent between that and the views I have shared here. I still believe that the state should not intervene, however, as a moral point, if the state has extracted money from an alcoholic to support the NHS, then they should be given treatment, because the alcoholic has exchanged money for service. However that does not mean that it is correct for the state to take money from people to pay for the NHS. The initial taxing of the alcoholic was wrong, however, once their money has been taken, there is a moral obligation to provide service to those that have paid.

    And
    //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?//

    Now, I admit I performed an assumption here that may not be true. If Stewart was a taxpayer, then he would not have been taking money from other people to pay for his treatment. I was making the assumption that he was not paying tax, and therefore not a contributor to the NHS, and therefore did not deserve to treatment paid for by other peoples money. However, that still does not mean that there is a contradiction between saying the taxing people to pay for health care is correct, and that people who have been forced to pay, should be treated by the services they have paid for.

    In the same way, a prostitute or drug taker may have paid taxes, and therefore be a contributor to the NHS. Therefore it is correct that they are treated by the NHS. However, that does not mean that it is correct that they were forced to pay in the first place.

    So, the state should not intervene to support drug addicts, alcoholics etc, because it is wrong to force people to pay for a service that they may not use. However, if they have been forced to pay, then they should receive whatever treatment they need / want. Of course, this can apply equally to cosmetic surgery – if someone has contributed to the NHS through taxation, they ought to be able to receive whatever work they want. However, that does not mean that they should have been taxed in the first place.

    //The above is not an insinuation (ask Santa for a dictionary), it is a plain statement of opinion.//

    Yes, however it is an opinion based on absolutely no evidence. I have not stated or claimed, or even insinuated, that there should be any conditions to speech, have I? So it is no sense “obvious” that I support conditions on free speech. I am critical of what people say, however, that does not mean that I wish to curtail their speech. As I said, do you understand the difference between criticising what someone says, and saying that you want to stop them saying it? You can do the former without the latter, which is what I have been talking about.

    I would not applaud a racist for saying racist things, however I would not deny their right to say those things. I would be grateful that we lived in a society that permitted those things to be said. However, that still would not mean that I could not utterly condemn what was said; the use to which the racist had put their freedom to speak.

  48. indigomyth says:

    I apologise to Stewart for making assumptions about his contributions to the NHS. That was wrong of me.

  49. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    You are trying to move your ground, and I won’t let you.

    You say that the sexually immoral who contract STD’s and who have paid tax are, by virtue of that tax, entitled to use the NHS. You say that smokers have contributed twice and so therefore, by virtue of their contributions, they are entitled to use the NHS.

    You have previously said – ‘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?’.

    People who buy alcohol pay taxes and yet you object to their using the services they have paid for and then try to shift your argument to being one of a disagreement with your taxes being spent on the NHS or anyone but yourself. There IS a contradiction.

    BTW, what happens (in your world) if a person does not earn a lot of money but requires many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of medical treatment? Do we just let them die because they never managed to become millionaires? Please don’t point to insurance or the US model, which does exactly as I have suggested to those who cannot get insurance or who cannot afford to pay.

    One more thing, why did I pay taxes so that you could be educated, innoculated, entertained and trained, amongst other things, during your time at school? I have never met you, yet I have part funded your journey through the education system. If you can swim, you should thank me. If you have a grasp of Maths or Physics, thank Dr Baxter. You like Literature? Thank Stewart. We paid for things that you have received, at a loss to ourselves, in the hope that you stumble across something that would better our society, a medical breakthrough or a scientific one, perhaps. It was done in the hope that, should no breakthroughs come from yourself, they may come from others, and that those who did not contribute to the betterment of society through medicine or science would recognise that they were taking far more than they returned, and would be willing to make a financial contribution themselves for the continuance of this system, so that they and others could prosper. Can I have my money back please?

    ‘Yes, however it is an opinion based on absolutely no evidence.’ – So is that statement.

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>