As Sunny Hundal notes on Liberal Conspiracy:
A weekly briefing by the City of Westminster's ‘Counter Terrorist [sic] Focus Desk' (see here— PDF file) calls for al anarchist activities and events to be reported to the police.
Next to an anarchist symbol, the briefing states:
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local Police.
As Sunny then notes on Twitter:
I'll only accept this if they arrest Tory libertarians first. They believe about the same and present a far bigger danger to society.
I'm a long, long way from being an anarchist and have no sympathy with the underlying logic of their philosophy. Given that I'm at the computer today working on my new book, 'The Courageous State', I think that's pretty obvious. But Sunny is right: those left-wing anarchists who the police are focusing upon are not a major threat to society. Again, let's be clear - I do not condone any violence, and some anarchists have undertaken it in the last year, but a shop window or two, whilst reprehensible and worthy of punishment is behaviour about equivalent to that of many yobs on a Saturday night, and cannot be considered a serious threat to the state.
On the other hand, on the Tory right there are many organisations that are actively going out of their way to suggest the state is a bad thing. As I noted recently, I spoke at a supposed All Party Parliamentary Group meeting in the House of Commons last month sponsored by three organisations that seem to have outright opposition to the state at the core of their purpose. They are the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Adam Smith Institute and the Cobden Society. At that meeting the audience, drawn very largely from those organisations and certainly not representing All Parties or even Parliament (which is unsurprising, this Group - which is new - appears to be yet another right wing Tory front) lapped up the comments by one speaker - Mark Pennington - who argued that the state does not have the legitimacy to create law and only the market does. Now that I call a serious challenge to the state - but it was readily apparent that it was popular with some Tories present, including sitting MPs.
And if we are talking about threats to democracy I have long argued that the four largest organisations that pose a serious, coordinated, threat to democracy are the Big 4 firms of accountants. They are, after all, largely responsible for legitimising the activities of tax havens or secrecy jurisdictions as I prefer to call them*, and use them in coordinated fashion (detailed here) to ensure that their clients pay less tax than the democratically elected governments of major states think is due to them as a result of their activities. Is there any better way to undermine democracy than to deny a government the tax revenue stream it requires to fulfil the mandate it has been given by its electorate? I can't think of one that's likely to be more subtly effective.
We do face threats to democracy, our way of government and our way of life right now: very serious threats indeed. But it seems the police aren't able to identify them. And perhaps that is one of the most worrying things of all.
* Secrecy jurisdictions are places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain. That regulation is designed to undermine the legislation or regulation of another jurisdiction. To facilitate its use secrecy jurisdictions also create a deliberate, legally backed veil of secrecy that ensures that those from outside the jurisdiction making use of its regulation cannot be identified to be doing so.
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:
With all due respect, as an anarchist, I would identify your ideology, which puts in pride of place institutions of coercion and privilege as the sole guardians of virtue in society- to be the greatest threat to humanity. History- the twentieth century alone, not to mention the rest- has shown the immense damage the State causes. Poverty, war, an economic system of injustice- you pride yourself on supporting all of these.
And yet, as someone who’s central tenant is non-violence, I do not see it appropriate to take any form of State action to silence or punish you. You clearly do not offer others the same respect.
And with the greatest of respect – I see no chance of human society existing without the state
Because it sometimes fails does not mean it’s wrong
And as someone with strong Quaker leanings I’m far from advocating violence – against anyone
What I was saying was that libertarians threaten the state at potential massive cost to most in society – and that the police have got it completely wrong to think anarchists are the big threat to society
Would you like to, peacefully, think again?
“Because it sometimes fails does not mean it’s wrong”
I’m quite sure when the failure is routine, and prolonged, it constitutes a failure.
“Because it sometimes fails does not mean it’s wrong”
And yet, almost every action the State enacts has its roots in either the use, or the threat of the use of, coercive force. It is not unique to the State, but the State is an institution that uses force against those who fall “under its jurisdiction”.
“What I was saying was that libertarians threaten the state at potential massive cost to most in society”
And I am no fan of the form of libertarian you refer to- and you are correct the police are mistaken- but ultimately, the State has historically been the source of all those privileges and institutions that cause wealth to be distributed upwards. As a few examples off the top of my head (based on Tucker’s big Four): absentee land ownership, intellectual property, “the money monopoly”, and regulatory cartelization. But your solutions do nothing to address these problems- it is for this reason I regard your ideas as driving forces of the status quo.
Sure
I’m a social democrat
I believe in parliamentary democracy
The rule of law
And yes, property rights
Including the right to tax
So yes, I’m bang in the middle of what used to be thought the mainstream of British politics as now threatened by the right
It’s imperfect, but the best we’ve ever done
I can live with being accused of sustaining the best we’ve ever done
And trying to improve on it
But you have no methods of improving on it; you merely with to entrench and further those privileges.
I would also argue the world is not as rosy as you picture it; of course, that’s why I abandoned mainstream politics that you define- I wish to improve the world. And I wish to do this not by dishonest political practices, but by striking the root of injustice.
Respectfully – I am seeking to improve it
If you haven;t noticed that’s your problem, not mine
Nobody on the ‘Tory right ‘ says the state is a bad thing, it is the sheer size of it that is questionable.Are you going to, in future, refer to the’ Labour left’, to balance up your obvious bias against elected MPs and pressure groups with whom you do not agree?
I am sorry to disagree – but they do say precisely that – and it’s reprehensible that they do
And yes, of course I am biased – this is politics. Haven’t you noticed?
william’s comment is incorrect. Many in the US do consider the state to be, of itself, undesirable & that ideaology is spreading across the atlantic.
A few months ago there was a debate on R4 where a Tory activist argued strongly for council tax cuts & refused to accept there would be any consequential need for reduced services. This is a v dishonest, underhand & unpleasant form of politics that the US right have pioneered. Their view is that tax is theft but that most people gain from that theft so there is no hope of them voting against it. The best way, therefore, is to encourage the voters to vote for tax cuts without reduction in outgoings. Obviously this results in bankruptcy &, hey presto, you’ve abolished the state without anyone voting for that result.
I have noticed ‘this is politics’.Have you noticed that legally paying less tax is ,urgh, legal?The state sets out rules,I obey them ,qed there is no crime.To postulate that obeying the law with my group of companies, all over the place, employing 8497 people in 12 countries, is somehow ‘a threat to democracy, our way of government, our way of life’ is silly, if that is not too strong a word for you.
Actually – your argument is just wrong
Because we have a benign states choice is given – and abused
And much avoidance is anyway about abusing the relationships between states not the choice in states
So respectfully your argument shows a lack of understanding – but I would not call it stupid, just misinformed or misleading – I know not which
You seem to have it in for the big 4 accountancy firms but never seem to mention magical circle law firms when talking about this. Following the prudential legal privilege case aren’t these the guys pushing the avoidance schemes as they don’t have to disclose their advice to hmrc whereas the big 4 do? You keep going on about transparency but arguably the big 4 are more transparent in the eyes of hmrc than the law firms are as they hide behind client lawyer privilege the whole time
Agreed
Good point
Trouble is I see the world through the eyes of an accountant
I wonder if any mp has asked how many times the chairmen of the magic circle law firms have met hartnett?