Traffic on this blog has been very high of late.
I have noted (and those who read the comments on this blog will also have noticed) that my blogs in support of government spending — which is the only (and I stress only) way to avoid depression in the UK and other economies - have not gone down well with the libertarian community. They think that all tax is theft; all government activity is bad and those who win a mandate for government spending from democratic electorates are ‘statists’.
These people — who wish to undermine society as we know it and who would end all social security, state pensions, public health services, state education and much more besides — want to overturn society as we know it. As one said recently — we should rely for support on our families churches, synagogues or mosques — but not the state.
This ignores the fact that many are simply outside those communities of support. For them I suspect the workhouse would beckon.
This Victorian concept of grudging charity is what these people promote — with the consequence of a random lottery of survival — and destitution for many.
I do not believe in this callous, self interested view of life. It offends my Christian beliefs that suggest we have a duty as a society to fulfil the instruction — present in all major religions — but not in libertarianism that we love our neighbour as ourselves.
Of course that requires that we love ourselves and that means we have rights — and that they should be respected. But there is no way on earthy civilised society can ignore the needs of others — and tax is the way we meet this need in our modern, complex society in which expectations of medical and social support are high —and the cost of meeting them as high.
Those who say otherwise are not offering an alternative within out society — they are suggesting we tear down our society and replace it with another. In doing so they show complete contempt for many, some (most, I suggest, by far)of whom are in the positions they are through no fault at all of their own. One on this blog has called those in need ‘an underclass’.
I make clear I think this as repugnant as racism.
I would reject this language from a racist. I would reject a call from the far left to over throw society.
Why is it then that this vicious, self interested and, might I suggest inherently socially violent group are allowed to make this sort of contribution — as they do all over so many blogs where those with real concern for society, from across the mainstream political spectrum, seek to discuss issues in an open, rational and respectful fashion?
I would love, for example, to see far-right libertarians thrown off the Guardian bogs as a matter of course — which might improve their appeal to many others as a result.
It is time we named these people for what they are — as being amongst the enemies of civilised society.
I am happy to do that. It would be good if others would do the same — and fight them as we do racists.
NB: Comments from known libertarian abusers will not be allowed on this blog entry, or any other on this site.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
This is interesting Richard, and it’s good to read a full-throated defence of the state. I wouldn’t go so far as throwing all libertarians off blogs though (although if your blog has been under attack recently I can see how you’d come to that opinion). The real problem with sites like CiF is the dreadful, boorish rudeness and abusive language – which does seem to come more from the right-wing posters than from the left-wing posters, but is not exclusive to the former by any means. Site moderators should take more trouble to set guidelines for tone: demand moderate language, a minimum level of respect for other posters. Then we might all be able to get on and have a constructive conversation. It is useful to debate with those we disagree with, after all, if only because it allows us to hone our arguments. Anyway, I’m enjoying your blog, as always!
Respectfully, Mr Murphy, vilifying your political opponents — in this diatribe you have described libertarians as “repugnant”, “vicious”, “violent” and the “enemies of civilised society” — undermines your own credibility, making you appear extremely intolerant of dissent and, dare I say it, somewhat immature in your conduct.
For sure, the concept of society the purist libertarians propose is wholly unworkable, and I should not wish to live in a state without government services funded by taxation. As a mainstream right-winger, I agree with you entirely that taxation is the price we pay for living in a civilised society — the argument for me is whether particular governments are delivering value for money on the tax take (an entirely different argument from whether the public sector “adds value” — of course it does).
In my view, “tax value” has declined significantly in the UK since the present government came to power — the tax take has increased enormously whilst public services have declined significantly in many parts of the country (except, notably, for areas regarded as Labour-voting strongholds). You disagree with me, believing that taxes should increase further, especially for higher earners, to bolster government spending and create a more redistributive system. Your argument is no more or less valid than mine.
Therein lies the rub with your attack on the libertarians — I am a firm believer in Voltaire’s stance (“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”). Of course, this is your blog, and you are ultimately entitled to decide who gets to post here and who does not, but suggesting that those from the right should, for instance, be banned from responding to “Guardian” articles disturbs me enormously. Aside from the civil liberties issues, what would the result be — sterile “debates” conducted among the centre-left who broadly agree on everything but argue about minutiae?
Finally, I disagree with your argument that far-right libertarians are dangerous for one simple reason: nothing they say matters very much. There is not a developed country in the world that operates along the lines they suggest. Ultimately, their views are purely academic, and they might as well be initiating debate as to how many angels may fit on a pin. In contrast, the BNP are disturbing because — thanks to Labour’s meddling in the electoral system for its own advantage — they now have European parliament seats and a voice in the political mainstream.
My small voice is right behind every word of this blog. Now I must, and will try to, find a way of making even a small voice heard because lots of small voices might just add up to a meaningful way of tackling those who seem to want and refer to the “underclass”.
Big, big strawman there. Possibly the biggest ever. Did you get a grant from the government to build it?
Richard,
Surely we can only pay for what we can afford. At the moment, for every £3 the UK takes in tax it spends £4. That suggests to me that at some point either the tax take has to rise sharply or the tax spend drop sharply.
In any event, we are reliant upon borrowed money to fund ourselves. And ultimately, we have to repay that borrowed money. Which will, in itself, cost a vast amount. And my big concern is whether China will be happy at us using Chinese money to fund a system of social welfare that is higher than that in China? It seems that is the elephant in the room.
Or do we just default on our gilts, on the basis that nobody can do much about it?
I fully agree though that we are in an intergrated global society and if we are to survive the next century it has to be through a massive change in our mindsets and our definition of what society should be geared towards (and the answer is clearly not growth and inequality).
But my fear is your policies could lead to just that, with a few geographic regions being ultra wealthy as the rich converge there and the rest being utterly destitute.
Richard can you please reconcile
“as they do all over so many blogs where those with real concern for society, from across the mainstream political spectrum, seek to discuss issues in an open, rational and respectful fashion?”
with
“I would love, for example, to see far-right libertarians thrown off the Guardian bogs as a matter of course — which might improve their appeal to many others as a result”
The problem with your ideology is that by nature it requires authority from someone at the top – ‘elected’ or otherwise, to make their plans happen. Much of that authority goes hand in glove eventually with suppression of free speech (as that authority cannot tolerate dissent), an end often achieved violently.
It seems you don’t really want debate, but rather, comments from those in agreement with you.
Dear Mr Murphy,
In my opinion left libertarian are NOT against “all social security, state pensions, public health services, state education and much more besides”. And they are not necessarily against tax.
I think the common trait of libertarian thinkers is the aspiration to direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy.
Please refer to the following link for an “authoritative” view on the issue: http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f24r1.html
Yours sincerely,
Emanuele
Forced charity is worse than being robbed by a masked assailant, at least with the assailant one has the option of attempting to keep what is rightfully theirs.
Teaching society that the Federal government will take care of the less fortunate allows the communities and the people with-in them to ignore the issue as “it is someone else’s problem”. The legacy of the charitable programs with-in the government is the problem. When a program ceases to be effective outside of the government it is most often quickly defunded by the general public and thus ceses to exist, however when a program ceases to be effective in the federal government it is blamed on being “underfunded”, so we throw more money at the agency and then we have another unassailable program for the “less fortunate”.
I do beleive that a local or even state government can and if they wish to, should enact health care legislation, banking legislation etc, I just dont believe it is the Federal government’s role. The states should be independent and be able to seek their own solutions even if it is not the “preferred” way. They could be innovative and effective… remember that no solution to any problem ever came from government, it came from the innovative mind of Man.
Tax is a good thing but not when it is primarily levied on wages, which transfers the burden on to employers who then try to get by with as few workers as possible.
Tax on windows = bricked-up windows
Tax on work = worklessness.
Thank you for this blog…it puts the views of the haves in perspective – their unrelenting ‘strggle’to get rich at all costs and beggar they neighbour.
In South African we’ve moved from the black-and-white of aprtheid to a new form – the green-apartheid where money is the ultimate…yet 40% of our people (all human beings) go to bed at night with an empty stomach, where parents will steal to fill the bellies of their offspring, are willing to do menial hard labour to ensure their kids get an eductaion and never end up in the sort of predicament they have ‘survived’ over the last 15 years of the new SA.
Go from stength to stength as the prayers of the poor are heard by a growing mass of good people who refuse to stand by and do nothing.
Michael Sandel in his Reith lectures pretty much demolished the Neo Liberal ‘greed is good’ mantra. He pointed out that whilst the market has it’s place, it cannot be used to solve real moral and political issues – those of the ‘common good’. For example ‘what is the value of a human life?’It simply doesn’t work, you cannot value a life.
The neo liberal bloggers do come out of the woodwork with a remarkable regularity (and rabidity) when anyone in the Guardian and other daily’s, seek to put citizenship before consumerism. Some days it’s hard not to believe that this is orchestrated in some way?. Censoring the fascist elements that sometimes appear, seems to me as legitimate as boycotting those companies that avoid their social responsibilities by tax avoidance. Every time I see a dilapidated lower school, or a broken down old pensioner I think of Barclays, Tesco’s, and Wal-Mart. When I see a rabid blog desiring ‘an underclass’ I think of Mussolini. Ban them.
Richard
I have total sympathy with your stance on the libertarians, although I do derive a lot of amusement from surfing their kneejerk, hackneyed comments. They are, for the most part, fifth-rate hacks with a half-read copy of “The Road to Serfdom” in one hand and The Economist in the other. Even when you get someone like Alistair who makes the effort to make a post longer than one paragraph, there’s still precious little content or analysis in it.
You should set up a page somewhere on this site where you post the worst excesses just for kicks.
What I can’t understand, really, is why these guys are contributing to the discussion in such large numbers. Do they really think they’re going to convince anybody from any other portion of the political spectrum – that their worldview is the way forward?
p.s. Fantastic typo – “I would love to see libertarians thrown off the Guardian bogs” – I had visions of a gang of dodgy right wingers hanging around the toilets in the Guardian offices, probably looking for somewhere to have a smoke, because don’t ya know, it’s a free country man… but then the alarm goes off and they all get chucked out. Shame!
It offends my Christian beliefs that suggest we have a duty as a society to fulfil the instruction
No, as a Christian you have a personal obligation, but Christianity does not preach a societal obligation. Forcibly taking money from a third party in order to perform your personally preferred act of charity is not an act condoned, let alone encouraged, by Christian theology; either Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant.
You miss the mark in not understanding that libertarianism is about non violence and non coercion. As a libertarian I recognize that I have no right to use violence, or the threat of violence, to impose my viewpoint or preferences on anyone. This is not pacifism, it does not mean that I may not respond if me and mine are threatened with violence, but it does mean that I may not be the one to initiate it.
Libertarianism, based as it is on the requirements of consent, self ownership, personal responsibility and non violence, is not, and cannot be, what you describe here. Compassion and Christian charity not only are not precluded, but the libertarian view of these is much closer to the message of the Gospels than the violently enforced expropriation which underlies the modern welfare state.
Contrary to your claim here libertarianism is neither right wing, nor left, and it is both. What it is, is non statist, as opposed to socialism, communism and fascism which are all of them statist – ie, dependent on at least the threat of violence by the State, which is reasonably defined as that body which arrogates to itself the monopoly on the use of violence.
Counting Cats
Entirely wrong
Christianity explicitly supports the payment of tax – not once, but in the Gospels and in Paul
As for the idea that Christianity is personal not social – have you ever read any Christian teaching?
Start with the Pope’s latest encyclical – and I’m not a Catholic
But please be aware of facts before commenting
Richard
Are you serious? Libertarianism = Racism???
Since when was fighting government waste, propaganda and its increasing attempt to be involved in every aspect of our lives an evil thing?
Why is it just that my taxes are spent telling me how to live – how to eat, how to travel, what to do with my waste, how to spend my money? This from a group of people who changed the laws so they pay less taxes…
I don’t know where you get the idea of violently overthrowing society.. unless you’re confusing libertarians with anarchists?
And suggesting all this is in conflict with Christianity is absurd – we all have a duty to our fellow neighbours – but whether this is through government or through personal giving is surely something that can be debated? For instance, do government or NGOs do a better job of helping people – or can we not discuss that because underneath I am as evil as a racist?
Do you think in countries with high tax rates that there is a high rate of charitable giving?
A
😆
I think this ‘Christian’ should read some Gary North – who explains that biblical economics are, in fact, libertarian ones. Is the bible, therefore an enemy of civilized society? Was laissez-faire Victorian Britain an enemy of civilized society? Was laissez-faire 19th century America the enemy of civilized society? No, quite the opposite actually.
The state, on the other hand, has been the cause of trgedy since the beginning of civilization. Man was enslaved by the state to build the pyramids, was put into battle by the king against the Muslims, or by the Sultan against the Christians, or by the Fuhrer against the Communists or by the dear leader against the Fascists.
Invoking the emotive language of fighting libertarians like ‘racists’ is intellectually bankrupt. Racists are collectivists like you and institutional prejudice can only be enacted on a large scale by a statist society.
I am a libertarian. I don’t know if my comment will be welcome here; but it is your blog and you are free to delete it.
You’re mostly right about how I would structure society. But I’m not callous. Believe it or not, I think that all people would be better off in a libertarian society: there would be fewer poor people and more *willing* charity for the remaining few in need.
Why are you constantly comparing Libertarianism to racism?
Libertarians are generally opposed to racism, fascism, totalitarianism, statism, and any other doctrine that refuses to allow people to get on with their lives.
There are those who prefer Big Government and Big spending. There are those who prefer a less intrusive government which promotes liberty, freedom and justice for all. Why can’t these two promote a civil dialogue based on open discourse?
“I would reject this language from a racist. I would reject a call from the far left to over throw society.
Why is it then that this vicious, self interested and, might I suggest inherently socially violent group are allowed to make this sort of contribution — as they do all over so many blogs where those with real concern for society, from across the mainstream political spectrum, seek to discuss issues in an open, rational and respectful fashion?”
Mostly because, unlike racists and the far left, they don’t advocate the worsened quality of life for those whom their movement opposes. Racism directly seeks a worsened quality of life for the target race. A call from the far left to overthrow society ignores the will and want of those who they disagree with, often to a point where they would be willing to indiscriminantly murder successful capitalists, etc.
Far-right Libertarians just tend to believe that more government results in less freedom — and in many cases (War on Drugs, US Department of Education, Economic Stimulus BS) it has a very poignant point. Some Libertarian ideas are good ones — but people like you continue to enforce the stereotype that Libertarians are just crazies with extreme solutions that would never be practical in everyday life, despite never having tried these solutions and insisting that the status quo is good enough (in spite of all the problems we face today).
But that’s okay, it’s your right to voice that opinion. Just as it is the right of Libertarians to voice theirs — because unlike racists or revolutionaries, they believe fundamentally in the idea of “Live and Let Live.”
This blog attracted over 50 comments
I deleted more than half – most were deliberately offensive and contained not a hint of an argument
I have allowed on all those who tried to argue – but how appalling is the response!
Why did I say libertarians are akin to racists? Simply this: as is clear from a majority of the comments, libertarians are extreme in their views, and their expression of them. I really don’t mind being the butt of that – although out of respect for other readers I delete offensive material. But I do mind when libertarians (all from the right, I note, in the examples I see) describe many in society as an ‘underclass’ or worse.
When any political grouping (and although of course libertarians could not participate in the state they are nonetheless political) create a narrative of that sort they remove the humanity of those they so describe – so inviting others (always others, I am sure) to then attack them – not just politically, but also – and I am sure this is the intent – actually.
This is the way right wing thuggery is created. The aim is to ensure that a ‘causal group’ is identified on whom venom can then be loaded (Jews, gays, the poor, benefit claimants, immigrants, coloured people – it matters not which to the person creating this situation – the aim is to target violence, in language and practice) and into the resulting vacuum fascism can then be inserted.
If libertarians are not aware of this they are fools.
Those of us who think rights do on occasion need to be curtailed in pursuit of optimal freedom for all (for total freedom cannot be created – as any thinking person knows) will be happy to see those who incite hatred – as libertarians do of those who cannot, for any reason, provide for themselves a reasonable standard of living at any point in time – being banned from promoting their cause which can only lead to the undermining of society.
That’s not an extreme view – that is the view of the democrat – essentially a person who knows compromise is always needed – when faced with the extremist – and that is what libertarians are.
It is time many more said so – because they blight some forms of political debate in this country – and that is a loss to the rest of us.
Let me be unambiguous – in the cause of liberty for those who cannot protect themselves (and it is they that libertarians pick on) the right of the thug, bully, aggressor, and person who suggests that by claiming benefit they steal from others – must be curtailed – or we all lose.
And I will not stand by and see that happen.
If people do not stand up to the far right then they get their way, too often
It’s time we all said no to libertarians – for good – for they seek to destroy our society and all it stands for. And they seem proud of it. Which seems to prove my case.
Richard, having read through the above libertarian comments, and knowing at least one person whom I like a lot who calls himself libertarian, I think the issue which divides us is our understanding of economics. The ‘good’ libertarians in my view are the georgists who understand about land and believe that you can extracted all land rent and give it back as a citizens dividend and that there is no other function for govt because everything else will work fine. I, on the other hand, believe that land rent should be extracted to fund public goods and services but would be unlikely to meet all demands for such. I also believe that the georgists do not understand the mechanism whereby the owners of capital are stealing from workers. Only govt can correct the land and capital market dysfunctions. But it is unlikely that we will get such a govt democratically elected (as it must be) in my lifetime.
Richard,
It’s not really on point, but the following article from the BBC is very interesting and when you have broadband access I’d sggest you give it a thread of its own: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8151355.stm
What it clearly shows to me is that, as a society, we have become completely atomised with large numbers having no idea how the majority live. This cannot be helpful and I don’t know what the answer is. Perhaps it was always thus, but I dobt it: inequality seems to be increasing and nobody benefits from that.
I am unclear how arguing that a smaller state will benefit poor people is inciting hatred of the poor.
Why is it that the extreme right wing are poised to label any new regulation or change in taxation as immoral and ‘the politics of envy’?
Because the fundamental principle of the extreme right is the politics of self-interest.
Would the most vociferous libertarian support deregulation of laws over property? After all it just gets in the way of entrepreneurial behaviour!
There appears to be something of a generalisation here.
It seems that certain libertarian bloggers have given libertarianism a bad name.
I understand your opposition to extremism, but please consider that some are moderate, or as one comment pointed out, left-leaning.
Many libertarians, such as myself, believe that government should provide free and universal healthcare and education, as well as benefits or basic levels of income. However, we are still freedom-lovers, trying to conserve civil liberties and freedom of speech, wanting all to be treated equally before the law, wanting the economy to be run with a minimal intervention where possible, wanting the state to ensure property rights and defend us, and in some cases (such as those of moderates such as myself and left-leaning libertarians), to ensure freedom from sickness, freedom to learn, and freedom to live (which in many cases, basic welfare achieves).
As for taxation, some extreme libertarians see it as theft, and some, again such as myself, see it as a necessary inconvenience to provide the things I’ve described above.
So please, do not generalise so. You would not describe all socialists as if they were Stalinists, or all social conservatives as fascists, so please do not describe all libertarians as if they were anarchists.
It’s all about balances, and many libertarians see things as liberty, which sometimes comes with risk, versus security or state control, which often tries to reduce that risk. It’s why libertarians complain about the ‘nanny state’ – they feel that we’ve gone slightly too far away from freedom, to where decisions that can be taken by sensible adults are being taken by the state instead, necessarily taking away that freedom to choose.
Obviously, when we get to extremes on the balance, we lose sight of things – for example extreme pursuit of security would necessarily result in loss of both freedom and the security as the state takes over lives and treat people as near-worthless – just as tyrannical dictatorships do. The same probably happens when we take the pursuit of liberty too far.
An observation about Libertarians:
They always claim to be in favour of freedom. They further claim that the presence of the state levying taxation is a block to freedom.
Yet their conception of freedom is curiously narrow. For imagine I am poor, destitute, jobless and sick, lying in the side of the road by the gutter. No charitable institution wishes to help me, and as in Libertopia there is no welfare state to speak of I am left abandoned and alone.
Yet the Libertarians declare to me “you have freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to keep all the products of your labour without the state stealing them!”
It’s funny, isn’t it, how these sorts of freedoms are pretty useless and meaningless, if one is jobless, destitute and crawling around in the gutter? But it’s hardly surprising. Freedom requires background conditions to be actualised, i.e. to be more than just notional and instead be actual.
Those background conditions are, roughly, security and health. Without them, freedom will not follow for many, many people. Yet Libertarians want a world in which those background conditions are denied to vast numbers of people, on the grounds that they are poor.
And they say they are in favour of freedom? What a funny way of looking at the world.
[…] on my blog, and often remains more polite and courteous than I manage to be). But many will not. Richard Murphy recently attracted Libertarian wrath, and had delete half of the comments he received due to their vicious nature. After writing about […]
“For example ‘what is the value of a human life?’It simply doesn’t work, you cannot value a life.”
Really? Gosh. So what is it that NICE is doing when it states that the NHS will not pay for a treament that costs more than £30,000 per quality adjusted life year?
Classical liberals like me would say that was putting a value on human life…..