I had an article on The Conversation website yesterday that elaborated my thinking on the sale of student debt, already rehearsed on this blog earlier this week. I stress, the article was commissioned, based on that blog post. And on The Conversation there are editors who make demands of an author.
It's been interesting to note the reaction in the comments section. Seemingly orchestrated by Tim Worstall (who seems only able to write about me in the last day or so), many of those who regularly populate his Alt-Right comments section, which is notable for its aggressive offensiveness, have taken to maligning, squealing in their delight at being able to do so and highlighting the fact that I routinely block far-right, usually male, deeply offensive aggressiveness from the comments section of this blog precisely because my belief in fees speech makes it a necessity to do so.
Bullying and freedom cannot co-exist. It is something they have not noticed.
Others have though. I was discussing the phenomena of online aggression with an MEP yesterday. They said online aggression was something they had been forced to get used to as a result of their work, but it made it no less unpleasant. They also wondered if awareness of such aggression put many off standing for office. I think it might. In that case these people's fight against freedom and liberty may have a deeply undesirable consequence. And that just reinforces my own determination to give them no air time. My deeply libertarian instincts demand that I don't.
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:
Belief in free speech and deeply libertarian instincts are things to cherish and entirely consistent with rigorously moderated comments.
Useful to compare notes with an MEP accustomed to hate and I hope this encourages you to stand for office as you would be an ornament to our public life.
Public life would suffocate me
You’ll be making Worstall and his unsavoury disciples angry calling yourself a libertarian, Richard. But you know that don’t you. Interestingly, when I stuudied at the Cooperative College way back in 1986 my politics tutor always argued that he was libertarian socialist. At the time I’m not sure I understood how he squared that circle but I do now.
I do not think they have any claim at all to be libertarian
I have
And so do you
I don’t care if it provokes them: they are consistently wrong in just about everything
Political terminology (framing) is a minefield. As Noam Chomsky said – Neo-liberalism is neither new nor liberal. ‘Liberal’ and ‘Libertarian’ are two words that mean different things to different people. All very confusing for the general public and usually misused intentionally by the MSM.
It’s fun to take the political compass test – which I do at intervals to check if my values have changed – https://www.politicalcompass.org/test. When I first did it I was a little surprised where I was on the grid!
I am always libertarian left
Hide behind your rather unusual and unpopular left wing version of Libertarianism all you like but no one believes that is the reason for your comments policy :-
Comments are blocked for two reasons :-
1) You cannot stand anyone disagreeing with you, left wing, hard right, it makes no difference……….if they don’t agree with you then they are wrong, possibly immoral and should not be allowed to post.
2) Your planet sized self righteous ego demands constant affirmation and reinforcement, that is why the only website you can work with is one you control. Its also why no group, political party or charity can work with you for long.
I note your evidence free argument
Please also note I posted it
I am admit I deleted the one from the person claiming to be S Bannon
You just proved his point – right on cue – well done.
If nothing else your lot do unintended humour really well.
Richard, you prove Richard Murphy’s point.
Had to laugh heartily at (not the host) Richard’s totally self unaware post above.
Reading a whinge from a libertarian calling someone else ‘self righteous’ is like drowning in irony.
And if there is another small, unpopular clique less tolerant of opposing views than Libertarianism I’ve yet to find one.
Richard you don’t give us any facts to back up your opinions. For example, regarding the “unpopular” quality of Mr. Murphy’s Libertarianism, my personal observation is that it is shared by most people I know. I admit I do not work in the fields of either politics or journalism. That is why I base my comments only on my personal observation. What I will not do is make sweeping claims about anything without the evidence to back it up.
I wonder if anyone has done proper research into the underlying patterns of offensive comments and trolling. My impression is that those from the right tend to be far more sexist, violent, xenophobic and just plain offensive. Also they do tend to hang about centre and left sites. The left tends to offer more political abuse (Blairite, Red Tory etc) and stick to its own locations (too busy fighting each other…?)
Is that just my subjective impression? Anyone know of research in the area?
It feels right to me
The left are abusive to their own side
The right more aggressively to the other side
I am afraid sexism and other prejudice happens all too often everywhere
The use of Libertarian rather than Liberal is interesting.
I tend not to frequent alt-right sites and to be honest even the Daily Telegraph which I used to get sometimes is on my banned list. I admit it is important to know what the enemy is doing so should pay more attention.
I have been following the climate change “debate” for many years and the difference between reality and perception. Wearing my Physicist hat I can sat that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming despite the hundreds of millions of dollars pored into right wing think tanks to generate doubt. Michael Mann discusses some of their tactics in “The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars” including the Serengeti strategy of isolating and picking off your opponents one by one.
Robin is right the alt-right are much better in going into enemy territory and believe if “you can’t get the ball get the man.” The problem may be cultural; I find such attacks completely counter-productive – to me the argument is already lost if one uses such tactics. I agree however that the use of such terms as “Blairite” by the left is equally offensive.
As perception further recedes from reality we need a counter-strategy as clearly there is a section of the population that appreciates passionate intensity.
Robin this view may not seem welcome to some but the reason that progressives don’t visit conservative websites is that wouldn’t occur to them to do so. Its as if to say “well, what would you want to do that for?” They (we?) can tend to regard the other side as inferiors that you wouldn’t give the time of day.
Another reason concerns the fact that a lot of rightist websites are so heavily moderated and censored that you couldn’t get on to them anyway. Exceptions nonetheless occur. For example there is apparently a fetish among some for going to the Daily Mail and sneering at Piers Morgan and co.
That’s what invading leftists contribute to conservative websites on those occasions — derision and disdain. Because they want to and because you can
sometimes sneak that past the censors. When rightists invade progressive sites they tend to be more about anger, aggression, righteous indignation
and platitudes (which are then subject to derision and disdain). Sometimes its almost like Groundhog Day.
Heavy censorship on conservative websites can reduce them to being an endlessly agreeing echo chamber. From my extensive anecdotal experience I have found that
the right-wing invaders usually fall into one or more of the following 3 categories:
1. Those who become tired of the echo chamber in their own forums and would rather have an argument.
2. Those who are just trolls looking to offend and have no real interest in politics or discussion
3. Those that are organised and/or professional —these guys:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/06/troll-armies-social-media-trump-russian
A pretty good summary thanks Marco (slow response as the im travelling off the beaten track…)
I follow the likes of CPS, CapX, Spectator, Torygraph and anecdotally it is striking how little trolling there is from the left. It’s the nature of the trolling that also interests me as there do seem to be some very dark under currents on the right which might bear investigating
Though Charlie Brookers Black Mirror series offers as fine a critique of where social media could be heading as anything else I’ve seen or read
Robin, I’m still a member of the PSA’s media and politics group though I haven’t written anything along those lines for over a decade, but I’ll have a look and get back to you. For what it’s worth about six or seven years ago I was an active reader/commentor on the Guardian’s CiF strands. My experience there was that on almost every occasion they were overrun by right wing trolls within minutes of comments opening. I happened to look at those for a Monboit and a Toynbee article just recently and it looked as if the same situation still applies. From my occasional observations of comments on right wing media sites it certainly seems that us progressives don’t bother much. Then again if you think about it why should we: I don’t read any Murdoch owned paper (except when I have to when I go to my barber’s) or the Daily Hate/Mail, and I know many people take a similar view. Similarly, I can’t imagine that people of a right wing persuasion would chose to read The Guardian. Therefore my conclusion then and now is that right wing trolls deliberately target articles – particularly by the likes of Polly Toynbee and George Monboit, but nowadays Owen Jones and John Harris I’d guess, no only to slag the authors off, but also to disrupt and discourage other commentors who want to genuinely engage/discuss the argument being made.
15 minutes or so spent looking through a search of academic literature didn’t throw up much except this article – also found via Google. Interesting stuff on the psychology of trolls (and certainly very much a right wing psychology in my experience).
https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/sep/18/psychology-internet-trolls-pewdiepie-youtube-mary-beard
The advice seasoned Guardian journalists gave me when writing for CiF was to never read the comments and never engage with the commentators
They never do
My blog is exceptional for actually having the author engage with those who do not agree
Thanks Ivan and Marco – a year or two back I was at an event on the subject of the very mixed impact of social media on the Arab Spring. One of the speakers who I talked to afterwards ran the Telegraph website. He was talking about the difficulties of moderating sites and getting the balance between free speech and hate speech. He said then that whatever you saw in the comments had already been heavily moderated and that they were seeing some pretty nasty stuff. I suspect it will have hit much worse since then.
My conclusions are much the same as yours Ivan. So I wonder what we might do. If this really is the case, how might one get that story into the public domain. I’ve had enough of the ‘were not racist but…’ brigade. Some pretty nasty stuff has crawled out from under it’s stone and we have to call it out. Even if I have lost a few friends as a result
Ivan,
I don’t doubt your experience but, as a seasoned Guardian reader myself, I think that “overrun” is a bit of an exaggeration. From what I have seen in recent times there was only one opinion forum that I would describe as being literally overrun by trolls and it was this one:
“The big white men of Brexit are a throwback to Britain’s imperial past” by Ian Jack
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/28/white-men-brexit-britain-imperial-past
In this case I was not particularly surprised as the 13 word headline had managed to combine Brexit, race, gender, national identity and historical controversy in one provocative hit. With reference to the author, one commenter, a progressive, observed that: “He’s discovered agitating click bait”. Which may be unfair to the author if he did not write the headline. The commenter may have a point nonetheless.
This now brings me to an observation in the article that you had linked us to in your reply to Robin.
https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/sep/18/psychology-internet-trolls-pewdiepie-youtube-mary-beard
The author notes that, “There is often a thin line between wanting to drive traffic and enticing trolling, so content editors and site managers must act responsibly and beware of the consequences of pushing for too much controversy.”
For those who have the time, the forum in the ‘white men of Brexit’ article is an almost hilarious example of how ludicrous internet opinion and trolling can become. The forum was undoubtedly invaded by organised trolls. Arriving and leaving in groups, commenting, sometimes with the pretence of replying but rarely engaging other commenters (even those who attack them), short platitudes and opinionated remarks — nothing long or well explained – and the dead giveaway that appears when ALL of them have a laughably high and statistically improbable number of upvotes. Those are just some of the characteristic traits.
By the time that the forum had closed the trolls were the only ones left, not because they had discouraged others, but because it been left open for so long and there weren’t that many genuine readers who were interested in commenting on the Raj in Calcutta. With that being the case the trolls hadn’t disrupted much and the joke was on them as they had merely swarmed in and driven traffic for the publication. Most of the article’s readers wouldn’t have looked below look below the line anyway. They never do.
Thanks
And good comment
Appreciated
I’m a new visitor to this site, and don’t know Worstall so have no knowledge of whatever goes between you.
But I have had a look at your article. All the comments looked civil enough. They criticise your points but surely that is the point of a Comments section, and presumably an essential part of a website called ‘The Conversation’.
But from the perspective of someone with no axe to grind on the issue, I don’t think you make much attempt to address the issues raised. Not convincing.
There is of course no obligation for you to respond at all. But if you do, I’d think you should at least make some serious attempt.
Maybe you looked after moderation deleted quite a number
Some described me as a Nazi before that happened
You will note the moderator has a comment up now
Thanks. I don’t recall seeing the Nazi thing so it must be gone. I don’t want to dwell on such abuse online – it is indeed ugly.
I lose track of who and what is leftwing and who is rightwing. But isn’t calling someone a Nazi a term of abuse from the hard left? People on the extreme right tend to be Nazis themselves, so don’t regard it as abuse.
I am not defending anybody and am just speaking from observation, not personal experience.
No big deal, just curious. that’s all.
An interesting fact from the TV show “Q.I.” (the first episode with Sandy Toksvig as host). The Nazis never called themselves “nazis”. Expatriate Germans who were fleeing Hitler came up with that term.
I think the same principle applies today. No one calls themselves ‘neo-nazi’ or ‘neo-fascist’. Hence we have the clumsily inarticulate term, “alt-right” which sounds like it was coined by the same people that up with people that came up with ‘EFTPOS’.
‘Fascist’ is probably going to stick though because the historic analogies are strong enough, its easier to say and they don’t like it.
That’s a bit harsh on the label Alt-Right. It seems to be fairly universal and pairs up against Ctrl-Left.
For that matter “Nazi” was merely “National Sozialisten” in abbreviated form in the same way that “Gestapo” served for “Geheime Staatspolizei” and had nothing to do with expatriate Germans. “Vopo” or “Volkspolizei” (meaning People’s Police – a term which brings back memories of brave frontier guards)was a more recent “Abkürzung” from a Germany that had few expatriates.
I trust Q.I. with the claim that nazis didn’t call themselves ‘nazis’. It also seems to fit with the other non-fictional material from the time.
As for the Alt-Right, I am glad that they have given themselves a clunky name.
Describing oneself as libertarian dodges the perception that an anarchist favours chaos. It seems to me that strands of anarchism in Europe are generally collectivist and favour localism, independence and peace.
In the US, anarchism is also opposed to war which is seen a the favourite state project. From that point on there is little common ground. The label libertarian is more frequently the adopted self description and the main concerns are individualistic, the rights of property are foremost and the state is regarded as an illegitimate thief of taxes.
Whilst few would want a domineering and over mighty state, I see the state as a collective protection against corporate rule, private security, gangsterism and abject poverty – basically a civilizing entity. I regard the typical self described US libertarian as a useful idiot who as he rails against the Feds and the IRS tends to delegitimize government and the social enterprises that stand between us and the barbarism which would result from the untrammeled license of the rich and powerful.
But if it is about liberty the left are wholly entitled to claim the term
Marco, I read somewhere that ‘Nazi’ is a term to describe Catholic Bavarians. Not sure whether it is intended a slur or a term of endearment but it doesn’t have much to do with the National Socialists.
It comes from a derivation of the word ‘Ignatius’ – the 2nd syllable being pronounced like ‘nazi’.
Something I read, don’t know if it is true
Hmm.
“Liberalism is about freedom. Libertarianism has no time for it unless you are one of the privileged few.”
Paraphrased: “95% of libertarianism overlaps 95% of belief in plutocracy”
“Liberalism is about freedom. Libertarianism has no time for it unless you are one of the privileged few.”
“…I think libertarians are a threat to society”
“The dangers of a libertarian view”
So glad you’ve clarified your position.
The term libertarian has largely been appropriated by the right: I was referring to that use
I am reclaiming the real meaning of the term
That’s an argument
You are just offering abuse
Richard,
What do you define as the ‘real meaning’ of libertarianism?
A belief in the freedom of the individual to live within and as a member of a community in accordance with their own identity protected from those who might wish to abuse them
I might refine that when I spend more than thirty seconds on the subject
Reclaiming ‘Libertarian’?
I wish you well with that: but that is a prayer to St. Jude, for the ‘brand’ is irremediably associated with economic illiteracy and the ravings of Ayn Rand. Further, the unruly herd of self-described Libertarians online have worked very, very hard indeed to establish their reputation for incivility and weaponised stupidity; and there comes a point whereafter I must say that they have earned it, and they own it, and they’re welcome to it.
Which is to say: you risk damaging your credibility by carrying a brand-identifier of unpleasant fools.
On the other hand, appropriation is a devastating weapon in a culture war. If you win, they can retreat and claim the term ‘alt-right societarian’; and I can help them out by popularising the label ‘economoramus’, and sticking it upon them by judicious use of bots and troll farms and a journalist or two.
Or ‘Idiot’, in the sense applied in ancient Athens of a man who is entirely ‘for himself’.
Meanwhile, keep up with the moderation on the blog: it’s working, and it’s worth it. Free speech isn’t free of cost, and the chore of moderating comments is a cost-effective way of maintaining the value of free speech.
Thanks Nile
Sometimes moderating js a pain (not often, and only because of volume) but it’s worth it
Hi Richard,
I’d be really interested if you would refine it; in particular I’d love to hear how you think such a community would work in practice.
It’s what many have striven for
I genuinely admire you Richard and those who subscribe to similar views to yourself.
I think at one time that I too was a libertarian in the sense that it was before it was appropriated by the Right.
But recently – in fact for some time – I would actually call myself a revolutionary by instinct and from the internal dialogue I have with myself.
I’m not proud of this at all but I can seek a tincture of redemption by being self aware enough to see the pitfalls of my mind set and how close it may take me to the behaviour of those I oppose.
However, I do feel that in my inner conundrum if you like, there is a truth that may need to be grasped if we are to free ourselves from a world increasingly dominated by raw, unaccountable financial power.
There are lessons from history to this effect – and hard ones they are.
The simplest definition is that:
Liberalism is the freedom to do whatever you want as long as there are no impacts on other people,
Libertarianism is the freedom to do whatever you want regardless of the impacts on other people.
Liberalism is freedom from, Libertarianism is freedom to.
I disagree
Good morning. From the above comments it seems like you’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest of semantics. We know who we are – irrespective of terminology. But labels are helpful for others in terms of quick identification.
It would seem that the word ‘libertarian’ has been high-jacked by the American Tea Party and has more political relevance over there than here. Personally I’d call myself a libertarian socialist – along the lines of this definition: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Libertarian%20Socialism. My bench-mark social philosophers are Noam Chomsky and Ernst Schumacher. And I usually find myself agreeing with most of what you write.
More important than labels are policies and the fundamental values that underpin them. I say ‘fundamental’ because I find increasingly I have to scratch quite hard beneath a veneer of ‘reasonableness’ to identify a person’s true moral compass. For the sake of brevity, some topics that are likely trigger this are ‘racism’, ‘immigration’, ‘welfare’ & ‘tax’ to name just 4.
Of course, a basic understanding of modern macro-economics is always somewhere in the mix. Have a great weekend!
I admit to doing this quite deliberately
I make mistakes
My use of this term was not one of them
George Monbiot has long written about Libertarians here is one example from about 10 years ago: “Libertarians are the True Social Parasites” http://www.monbiot.com/2007/10/23/libertarians-are-the-true-social-parasites/
George is someone whom I regard as being on the same side as you in general terms. Might be worth a separate blog “Reclaiming Libertarianism” or something similar?
Will muse on that
To me it’s about believing in collective responsibility but individual freedom.
I feel I veer from orange book liberalism over the need for greater corporate responsibility.
It’s why I always come out in the bottom left of the political compass. Indeed, pretty much on the green party marker when I checked it yesterday.
Right wing libertarianism is an abuse of the idea of Liberty because it is indifferent to the liberty of others
From a left wing perspective the need to reconcile the absolute reality of conflicting aims is apparent and mechanisms for doing so are recognised to be necessary
Which is why left wing libertarianism is the only true form of the idea because the right wing form is actually an excuse for abuse
“A belief in the freedom of the individual to live within and as a member of a community in accordance with their own identity protected from those who might wish to abuse them”
One of the recent issues that has tested the liberal/authoritarian lines was the case of the Christian bakers who refused to sell a cake endorsing gay marriage.
Your definition above would seem to side with the bakers, whose predominant community and identity is linked with their religious beliefs, and was (from their perspective) being ‘abused’ by the customer demanding the cake, and taking the case the way they did.
Is that the side you take in that dispute?
The people in question did not act as individuals per se: they acted in the course of a tease
As individuals they clearly had the right to hold their views
If the wished for the effective licence to operate that any business required this imposed different obligations on them, which they breached
You are right – it was a tease. The plaintiffs in this case were not acting in good faith – possibly a form of abuse of bakers who had never bothered them and who were serving their community.
We know they breached that licence. That was the outcome of the case.
The question is whether your definition of libertarianism is consistent with very existence of this obligation in the first place.
If the decision were yours, given the views you hold, would you impose this obligation on those bakers?
I am not asking for your own views on gay marriage. I am asking on the protections for these bakers who hold the views they do, and which are presumably unchanged by the outcome of this case.
I thought u had made my answer clear already?
I think that the licence to operate required their agreement not to discriminate so the case was rightly decided
You seem to be saying that “if you don’t like the rules, don’t open a bakery”?
But presumably in this case, the rules changed when the bakery had been going for many years?
In which case the choice becomes “shut your long-standing family business because the state has added a legal clause that you may never fall foul of”?
Isn’t that asking rather a lot?
There is no duality at all in what I am saying
Keep going Richard. These are dark times and your blog shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark!
But would YOU impose that condition on that licence, if it were up to you?
It is clear the bakers wanted the ability to earn a living in their community whilst having their identity protected from abuse – your definition of libertarianism.
Your own definition of libertarianism would seem to afford them that protection, something which the current law does not.
Otherwise, you are just saying some people’s identities need protecting, not others.
I am saying that everything is conditional (because it is: let’s not bother arguing otherwise)
So, if they wan to trade they have to comply with the requirements for doing so
They did not
I would impose that constraint
All business operates within constraints. It cannot, again, be otherwise
Out of curiosity Richard, If you believe that the bakers had to supply the cake, contrary to their beliefs, do you think that the various performers (All of whom are available for bire) were right to refuse to perform at Trump’s inauguration or should they have been forced to against their beliefs?
I would have thought the two situations to be the same but would welcome any subtle or tortuous nuance you can think I of to separate the two.
Talking of which,haven’t you said you have refused offers of work from the Murdoch media empire because of your beliefs? No doubt rightly so. So it would be useful to see how you differentiate your situation from those bakers.
I cannot see the similarity
The performers would have had to go to Trump for a start: the bakers made themselves open to all comers as I understand it
Then there’s the issue of reasons. The bakers could simply said they were busy. They chose to give reasons
And society has deemed that discrimination on grounds of politics is acceptable (and I agree, and I do it) but on grounds of sexual orientation is not
That was why they crossed boundaries
And maybe you should think your examples through before you offer them
Are you saying:
1) you can avoid providing a service that would otherwise breach anti-discrimination law by simply saying you are busy? Those bakers have missed an obvious trick that would have saved them a lot of heartache.
2) religious people should keep their views to themselves to secure the protection of their identities and communities that your form of libertarianism offers?
Anyone may decline to contract: that is a right. The discrimination was in saying why they declined. Isn’t that obvious?
Of course there are times in any system of liberty when people are not allowed to express their opinion. That’s not just religious people. In any situation where opinion has the consequence of being discriminatory or is incitement then it is contrary to the principles of true liberty. If you suggest otherwise you are not promoting liberty.
Remember that wise chap who said you had to love your neighbour as yourself? Have you noticed the checks and balances in that simple statement? And that it was a rule for living in community? And of delivering freedom for another, of course. If in doubt check out the story that it followed.
Fascinating Richard. So here it is just the law that matters and not morality.
Although of course the performers would not go to Trump. They are open to approaches from potential clients.
And would this mean a travelling outside caterer would be different than the baker?
As for the criticism that I should think my examples through before offering them, I am attempting to learn. I am only 18. I do hope you are kinder to the students you teach who do not have the years of semantic experience that you have.
First I make it quite clear to my students when I think they have things wrong
And I have answered the point re discrimination: all the answers were in my last comment
Please read it
“Anyone may decline to contract: that is a right. The discrimination was in saying why they declined. Isn’t that obvious?”
No, not at all. You cannot decline to contract if it breaches the Equality Act – giving a reason is not an essential requirement. Section 13(1) of the Equality Act says
“A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”
So if they told the person requesting the gay wedding they were busy (as you suggest), and then accepted the order for the next person in the queue (who may have been in cahoots with the person requesting the first cake), they would have been easily done for discrimination.
Clearly you don’t feel these bakers, who have a clear identity and community, deserve protection in how they live their lives and earn a living.
Peter Tatchell, who would probably share little in common with these bakers on this subject, thought this case went the wrong way on the grounds it breached the bakers’ freedom to associate.
I disagree with Peter Tatchell
And clearly if the bakers were entrapped they would have been in the wrong
But I do not think anyone was trying to do that
I maintain by pragmatic position
Keep trying the pedantry though, but I presume you do know I get bored with it?
Your position is confusing.
First you want the individual to live within and as a member of a community in accordance with their own identity protected from those who might wish to abuse them. This is your definition. OK, fair enough.
Then, when presented with a real life example, you say that if a particular community’s identity is not of your liking, the pragmatic approach is to advise them to keep quiet (under a mistaken belief this would have saved them), and if they don’t they should be excluded from their livelihoods.
You don’t seem to agree with your own defined position above.
I am not inconsistent
I am arguing they have a right to an opinion
But not when breaching the implied licence to trade
Thanks.
But where does the ability to ‘live within and as a member of a community in accordance with their own identity protected from those who might wish to abuse them’ come into it (your own words)?
You don’t seem to want to protect them at all. They have to keep to themselves.
Anyone who does not want to actively promote gay marriage (or euthanasia, or abortion, or any other topic that contradicts religious principle) if asked by a customer cannot be a baker. Or a graphic designer. Or a greeting card maker.
Andrew
I really think you should get into a paper bag and have this argument with yourself
That’s about the level it belongs at
Richard
I agree that businesses operate within constraints.
Many are necessary – health and safety, environmental controls and so on.
But I am not sure how THAT constraint fits within your deeply held libertarian views as you have defined them: that libertarianism entails protection of people’s identities within their communities from abuse.
The bakers and their identities within their communities were clearly NOT protected from the outcome of this matter. They are not allowed to ply their trade without their identities being (occasionally) abused.
Maybe you need a new definition of your libertarian views 🙂
The bakers abused the right of others in the conduct of their trade and as such had that trade penalised . They were not told they could not hold their views. Nor were they told they could not trade. They were only told they could not abuse in the ciyrse if their trade as I understand it.
Unless you define libertarianism as the right to do whatever you wish to anyone as you will – which is not a definition of freedom but is instead a prescription for abuse – then of course penalising abusers of others’ freedom from a position of privilege within society (in this case implicit in the effective licence to trade) is a part of libertarianism. If it is not then libertarianism is not about Liberty
Some people on this thread are getting confused over semantics, so I’ll try to clarify things. Firstly, I’ll ignore American uses of the terms where ‘liberal’ is used as an insult meaning ‘big-state socialist’, ‘libertarian’ often means ‘lone gun nut’, and stick to European and British political philosophy. A reasonable position as we are discussing in English on a British blog.
Libertarianism is a belief in individual freedom of action regardless of consequences or obligations to others. Any controlling influences such as the state must be eliminated as much as possible, only existing to ensure that the individual is protected from the consequences of their actions’ impact on others. Any form of control over an individual’s actions is the absolute antithesis of libertarianism, no form of control is justifiable in any way.
Liberalism is a belief in individual freedom of action where it has no consequences or obligations to others. Controlling influences such as the state are required insomuch as they are required to enforce the individual’s responsibilites for the consequences of their actions’ impact on others. Any form of control over an individual’s actions is only justifiable to ensure those responsibilities are acted on.
Authoritarianism is the antithises of both liberalism and libertarianism, but from slightly different perspectives. Authoritarianism is the control of people’s actions. Libertarianism is the complete absence of control of people’s actions. The individual is complete free to do whatever they wish. There is no restriction on their actions in any way. Liberalism minimises any control of people’s actions where that restriction of person freedom ensures a greater degree of other people’s freedom.
Any form of authoritarianism, any control of people’s actions, controlling what people are allowed to think, say, write, do, is incompatible with both libertarianism and liberalism. A libertarian can say or do whatever they like and are protected from the consequences. A liberal can say or so whatever they like but must answer for the consequences.
Some concrete examples:
You cannot have pollution control in a libertarian environment. Any imposition of responsibilities for external impacts is an abuse of the individual’s freedom of action. You can have pollution control in a liberal environment, the restriction in the polluter’s freedom is used to protect the freedom of those he may pollute.
You cannot tax people in a libertarian environment, as the involuntary removal of funds is again an abuse of the individual’s freedom of action. You can tax people in a liberal environment where a lesser restriction of an individual’s freedom is used to protect a greater freedom of others.
You cannot have contracts in a libertatian environment, as contracts restrict the contracting parties’ freedoms. You can only have contracts in a non-libertarian environment.
I do not agree with your definition of libertarianism because it has no practical use and as such is utterly meaningless
Please go and dance on a pin head rather than waste my readers’ time
Liberty is only available to all if all have equality of power. Equality of power is gained through democratic process both inside of central and local government as well as outside in non-state institutions. See Danielle Allen’s book “Our Declaration” for the further theoretical argument. Whilst Libertarians may oppose the involvement of government in our lives using amongst other arguments our ability “to vote” in the marketplace such ability to do so often effectively rests on rights secured through government.
If the US/Right form of libertarianism were ever achieved they would then need to make up rules/governance. In its current form the natural progression would be to corporate feudalism. This is actually a common theme in dystopian future literature.
For me true liberty/libertarianism is only achieved in a balance of state/collective and private where consequences fall upon the individual. To me this is the essence of freedom comes at a price. Then intent becomes a very important issue and lack of ill will, or plausible deniability, no defence.
The baker argument is just another case of people trying to spin a micro position to support a macro one.
Thanks