I'm fascianted to the reaction to one of my blogs this afternoon.
I noted that rather surprisingly Jesse Norman MP (a Tory) and I had sided against the far right in a debate yesterday.
The reaction of one commentator - who I confirm was there - was so typical of the right. First he resorted to sophistry - asking me to define terms (it's a standard trick of the far right - they hate common understanding of terms expressed in plain English comprehensible to all, which is what I was using).
Then there was denial ("I'm not an adviser even though I sit on an advisory panel").
Throw in a touch of dissembling after that - "I'm not a right winger - how dare you say so? I'm a free marketeer" type of thing.
So let's use plain English.
That I know of there is no one on the left who says the role of the state must be restricted as far as possible and that the market must be left to resolve all issues. So it follows that free marketeer = right wing.
And then let's note that arguing that democracy gives no legitimate right to the state to regulate - a right that should apparently be left to the market without interference - is a) anti-democratic and b) way into the fringes of free market thinking and yet it was being openly endorsed yesterday at a meeting sponsored by and largely attended by members of the IEA and Adam smith Institute. That's extremism if ever I heard it, and exceptionally dangerous extremism too if I might say so (and as you're libertarians you really can't deny me the right).
So it follows you're 1) right wing and 2) extremists.
I might rest rest my case there.
But let me add that if it so happens people of this persuasion populate the IEA and Adam Smith Institute well, you can see what follows on...it's not hard to work it out. So if they don't want the label, expel the thinking. That's an easy solution for you.
If not live with the fact that I'm right to say you oppose democracy. Because as far as I can see and hear and read that's what you do.
And much as I hate racists I find that opposition to democracy as repugnant because you share with racists a goal of oppressing people whether on grounds of ethnicity or on the grounds of wealth (or lack of it). And both are an assault on the dignity of all human beings who I believe are, and have a right to be treated as equals irrespective of such issues and gender, sexual orientation, belief, disability and more besides.
You're challenge that principle - and I name that as extremism. Right wing extremism.
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:
Anyone who’s familiar with the concept of the Overton window can see the value of seeking to define your own views as “the middle ground”, rather than admitting that they lie to one side of the spectrum (where the spectrum is unregulated-free-market/regulated-market/planned-economy). And anyone can see why it’s convenient for Evans to pretend to be an impartial expert who just happens to write “for” certain organisations like you might write “for” a newspaper, rather than the shill he really is.
Richard, I imagine you sometimes feel ground down as your work is subject to the same transparent lies and gambits repeated over and over again, but please rest assured that to the interested layman, it’s very clear that you are committed to telling the truth, while the other side is promoting self-serving dogma.
Ben – I don’t understand your point. Note that Richard is painting himself as middle ground here and I am not denying holding extreme views. The key point is agreeing on what the spectrum is. If you define the spectrum in the way that you do I am fairly left wing, and Richard is centre right. We can come up with infinite spectrums, and we can all find ourselves at the left, right, up or down. Fair enough. But to then start labelling people “far right” given the conventional understanding of that term is, I think, deeply uncharitable.
Also, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I don’t really think I’ve written “for” the IEA – they have published some of my work, but so have a number of organisations. I have never felt that allowing an organisation to publish ones work endorses that organisation. In some cases I have written for organisations precisely because I disagree with them. Note also that I most of my op eds have been published by The Guardian.
Finally, I don’t think I’m “pretending” to be an “impartial expert”. I’m not impartial (although I am independent), and I’m not really an expert.
Ben
I think we can safely dismiss all the above as sophistry
Disingenuous sophistry at that
So typically far-right if I might say so – a world where Orwellian language is normal
Richard
Is the issue that there are, if you like, different types of ‘right wingers’. When I hear ‘extreme right’ I think fascism.. I think about the BNP, the EDL. I don’t think Libetariansim.. and the BNP and the EDL are not Libetarian. That isn’t to say that a Libetarian is not someone on the extreme right.. it’s just a different type of extreme right. I can see why someone of that ilk would not like the language, because they consider it is loaded and associates them with something that they have no stock with.
As for opposition to democracy.. in a democracy everyone is entitled to have a voice and to campaign in the hope that the people will listen and, through democracy, endorse people who share that view. One becomes ‘anti-democracy’ when one refuses to accept that the people have made their choice, and to abide by the collective will of society. To what extent do you consider that these people on the right are doing that any moreso that people of other views? I do understand, of course, that one of the primary ideas of Libetarians seems to be that the state has awarded itself powers without a democratic mandate to do so. It routinely does, of course.. the current government is busy doing things nobody voted for.. but each new election is a referendum on what the government did, and our chance to demand a government which will reverse those things. We rarely do that. Perhaps the issue with Libetarianism is not that it’s anti-democratic per se, it’s that it just doesn’t think that the electorate is up to the job.. but, looking at the current population of the Palace of Westminster… do you?
You could, and probably do, take the view that if one avoids tax against the spirit of the law, then one is anti-democratic. I can accept that view. The people have elected a government to make tax law, after all. But the accusation has to extend to anyone who breaks a law, or engages in disobedience. Where is the line? If the people, to pick a current topic, believe that teachers should pay more towards pensions, and elects a government who enacts that policy… are the teachers then ‘anti-democratic’ if they withdraw their labour? I am not saying that they are, but it’s an accusation that could be made. They’re not breaking the law, of course, but, as we know, neither are the tax avoiders.
Neatly argued, but wrong.
There is a legitimate right to strike.
There is no legitimate right to get round the law as tax avoiders do
Not the same thing at all
“There is no legitimate right to get round the law as tax avoiders do”
There is a long tradition in this country, and elsewhere, that if something is not specifically illegal then it is legal.
Therefore your talk of “legitimate right” in relation to tax avoidance is wrong.
That’s actually the rule in Partington’s case (1869, I think)
But you have to prove it
And the reality is far too many wing it
So it’s a pretty dodgy basis for your claim
@ Lee T
I think your first paragraph hits the nail on the head.
But then – I’ve explained that and of course you don’t like it being suggested that your promotion of exploitation be expressed as discrimination designed to oppress just as racism is – but that’s what I consider it to be none the less
And for those who want to know the sort of corrupt thinking I’m describing, look at this in which AJE argues that insider dealing should be encouraged – so that those in the City can exploit ordinary people even more http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/14/banking-recession-regulation
This is not just sickening, it displays, in my opinion, an amorality (in my kindest interpretation) that is beyond the comprehension of most people – which makes it akin to all far right behaviour since it is akin to, as I have already noted, arguing all that is rightly considered wrong is right so that a few can exploit the many.
I don’t seem able to reply to Richards comment directly so I’ll put it here. I hope readers follow the link and see for themselves what I was arguing.
The reason I argued against crony capitalism is because (i) you must be naive in the extreme to believe that insider trading doesn’t happen currently; (ii) insider trading laws arose primarily to maintain the cosy relationship between executives and large institutional firms, at the *detriment* of smaller investors outside the City. Regardless of whether you find this account historically accurate or theoretically plausible (look at the work of Henry Manne for details), my motivations are the *opposite* of what Richard suggests.
And almost no one will believe you
Your version of neoliberalism is designed to make an elite wealthier at cost to the rest in society
How convenient that finding an excuse fo abolishing laws against insider trading advances that cause.
Your argument is also crass – on this basis the fact that the law against murder has clearly not worked in that it still happens would be sufficient reason to argue it should be allowed at will
As I have said – that’s extreme amorality – but then that’s libertarianism
And almost no one will believe you
Possibly, but I’ll let them think for themselves.
I think we have enough to disagree on without inventing arguments! Murder is a violation of individual rights, therefore to a libertarian it is wrong, pure and simple. You won’t find any libertarian suggest that murder should be legal. The argument with insider trading is whether it violates any rights. I’m suggesting that it doesn’t, therefore we can’t base analysis on the knee jerk assumption that it is simply “wrong”. We need to think about it a bit more.
I also found it interesting, although I didn’t entirely trust myself to type any polite responses. The comparison with the BNP is an apt one, at least as far as the purposes rational debate are served. As I understand it, the so-called libertarian stance on Somalia etc. is that a storm-tide of chaos is preferable to the establishment of a state because some East African states are repressive and/or illegitimate. As far as I’m concerned this goes in the same bin as Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy nuttery and so on: not worth dignifying with an articulate response or elevating to the level of serious argument.
So if I understand you correctly, what you approve of = left wing, what you disapprove of = right wing, regardless of its grating with ‘plain english comprehensible to all’? Is that right?
Well by and large, yes
An attuned political antennae can work these things out
But, and I stress it – I might not like all Jesse Norman does (I don’t like all that New Labour did) but he has a political legitimacy that I completely respect
I’m opposed to extremism – and that is what I am talking about here – the extremism of the far right
As the person who Richard is referring to in this article I would like to make a few brief points to his readers.
Firstly, I enjoy attending debates with people offering diverse views, but on many occassions they are frustrating purely because different sides are using the same words to mean different things. I don’t think it’s sophistry to say that a fruitful discussion needs to be based on common terms. Certainly if I disagree with someone, and suspect it’s because we’re defining terms differently, it is worth attempting to make those definitions explicit. This isn’t a rheotrical ploy, it’s a genuine attempt to establish whether, for example, someone is labelling me “far right” because they don’t understand my views, or because they are using “far right” in a different way to how I would. (And in this instance, it’s both!)
Secondly, I am not in denial, I was simply correcting a (relatively minor) factual error. In the comments section to the post I originally commented on I denied being an advisor to the IEA. [http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/07/07/standing-up-with-a-tory-against-the-far-right/]. Interested readers can see a full list of the IEA’s advisors here: http://www.iea.org.uk/about/fellows-and-advisors. As you can see, I’m not on it. I have about as much institutional affiliation to them as Richard does.
Thirdly, regarding dissembling. I do *not* believe that I am “right wing”, I do *not* consider myself to be “far right”, and I am *deeply* offended by being labelled as such (although fortunately not by name).
Richard says, That I know of there is no one on the left who says the role of the state must be restricted as far as possible and that the market must be left to resolve all issues
I don’t agree that this is the best way to define the political spectrum, but let’s go with it. If the left is being defined as large role of the state and right is being defined as restricted as much as possible, then this implies that fascism is a left wing ideology. And if “far right” is being defined as opposing democracy then communism is a right wing ideology. That strikes me as odd. But at best, all Richard has done is argue that I am *not* left wing. Fine. Sing it from the rooftops. But just because I am *not* left wing does not mean I *am* right wing. (Notwithstanding the fact that Richard misrepresents what I actually do believe – I do not believe that that “the market must be left to resolve all isues”).
So I don’t find these definitions helpful, and don’t think they adhere to how the general public view things. My view is that if you asked someone what the “far right” implies to them they would think the BNP, Hitler, and fascism. Since I am repulsed by these things I will object to being associated with them.
And much as I hate racists I find that opposition to democracy as repugnant because you share with racists a goal of oppressing people whether on grounds of ethnicity or on the grounds of wealth (or lack of it). And both are an assault on the dignity of all human beings who I believe are, and have a right to be treated as equals irrespective of such issues and gender, sexual orientation, belief, disability and more besides.
Richard, by writing this you imply that I *don’t* believe humans have the right to be treated as equals. I am happy to enter this conversation with you, but it needs to be based on evidence and courtesy. If you can support this then please do so, because it is just a groundless (and horrible) accusation.
To reiterate, I do not believe that skepticism towards the democratic process and a general support for free markets constitutes “far right” in any reasonable understanding of political philsophy. But even if you are able to convince yourself that it does, it doesn’t alter the fact that you are using that term not in an descriptive capacity but simply to offend your intellectual opponents through negative association.
Thank you for allowing me to respond.
You’re an extreme free marketeer
That’s far right
If you can’t deal with it that’s your problem
We can
And we know it is designed for one goal – exploitation and the creation of immense wealth for a few at cost to the rest
We also know it’s fundamentally anti-democratic because it could not survive in a democracy
It follows all I say is right
And yes, you may not be a racist, I accept that, but you seek to oppress all the same – and that is as loathsome
So I’m not using the term to offend. I’m accurately describing
And you don’t like it
Tough