I took part in the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 yesterday, having been invited by them to join a discussion on Christmas parties. My opponent was a person called Richard Taylor, who is a vehement anti-vaxxer and supporter of Laurence Fox.
As Jeremy Vine noted when introducing me, he was aware that I have a cautious approach to Covid. He is right. The likelihood that I will be at any Christmas parties this year is very low.
Trying to project the reasons for this view against a person who used every trope in the book was hard, and I was very aware that I had the opportunity to put the case for reason to maybe 7 million people when my opponent was proposing utter recklessness and irresponsibility.
I rather suspect that I was invited to appear because the producers of this programme know that I am used to standing up to the likes of Mark Littlewood from the Institute for economic affairs, and do not suffer right-wing nonsense lightly on air. I did not on this occasion.
I happily spoke over Richard Taylor to say that what he was suggesting was untrue whenever I thought that appropriate.
I also questioned why the BBC would even give a platform to a person proposing his opinion, I think appropriately. That did upset him, but I thought it needed to be said.
And I challenged his logic, seeking to demonstrate that precautionary principles are normal within our society precisely because we do accept the obligation to care for each other and to minimise both the risk and the cost to society resulting from reckless activity, whether that be driving without a seatbelt, or smoking in a public place, or any other examples you might choose.
What I do regret not saying was that there is a fundamental difference between the position of a social liberal, which I am, and a libertarian, which he clearly is. The libertarian thinks that they have the right to do whatever they wish, whatever the consequence for someone else. The social liberal supports personal freedoms to the greatest extent possible but recognises that when they impinge upon the rights, freedoms or protection of others then limits are both necessary and desirable.
In that case it is not undemocratic to require Covid restrictions. Nor is it undemocratic to constrain the rights of those who refuse to take vaccines, creating in the process an enormous cost on society. This I did discuss in the context of those who have suffered from cancer because their care has been compromised by those using hospital resources when they would not take vaccines.
Usually I find broadcasting easy. I just ignore the fact that others might be listening and enter into a conversation. This, however, was not an easy broadcast. Partly because of the sheer illogicality, verging on stupidity of my opponent, and partly because of the weight of responsibility I felt to stand up for reasonableness, sanity, care and compassion for others this one was hard work. However, there was almost no negative feedback on Twitter that I saw, so I hope I got something right.
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:
The essence of your position was here: “What I do regret not saying was that there is a fundamental difference between the position of a social liberal, which I am, and a libertarian, which he clearly is. The libertarian thinks that they have the right to do whatever they wish, whatever the consequence for someone else. The social liberal supports personal freedoms to the greatest extent possible but recognises that when they impinge upon the rights, freedoms or protection of others then limits are both necessary and desirable.”
This is important. Where I would differ from you is in terminolgy. I think you give authoritarians too much room to use the word “libertarian”, when they are not libertarian. They are only interested in establishing the limiltess reach of their entitlement. They are not ‘libertarians’, but entitlementarians. Nobody should have or can have the ‘liberty’ to use that’ liberty’ gratuitously to exploit others, impose on the liberty, or seriously affect the wellbeing of others.
A nice line
There is a simplistic attraction to a libertarian position – everyone should be free to do what they want – but the inherent problem with that is what to do when rights conflict, as they inevitably will. Your right to drive at 90 miles an hour down my road conflicts with my right to peace and quiet at home, or indeed to cross without being run over. So who wins?
Particularly as people do not start in an equal position, and so don’t have an equal ability to actually do what ever they want, for all sorts of social, political, economic, environmental, and other reasons. Might (or money or privilege) makes right?
Wearing a mask, and indeed reducing social contact beyond small groups, is such an easy thing to do for a temporary period. It beggars belief that some people object to it so strongly, and it is self-defeating, as it also increases the risk that even stronger measures may be required in due course,
Agreed
That said, I still have some doubt about the wisdom of COVID passports. I’ll just repeat a comment I made earlier this year:
“The suggestion that the ability to participate freely in society (to visit venues, get a job, etc.) might be dependent on having some sort of official certification or badge – a “pass law”, if you will – would as things stand lead to a sort of vaccine apartheid which disproportionately affects people in more deprived economic groups and/or non-white ethnicities within the UK. Or indeed people with disabilities: it noticeable how vaccination rates were trailing for eligible people with learning disabilities or mental illnesses.
Are we ok with that?”
(Clearly things have changed since February, not least a very large number of people have been vaccinated or infected, but as far as I am aware the incidence of vaccine hesitancy and refusal still correlates with various factors such as race, deprivation, disability, and I am wary of limiting a minority’s rights to participate in society in case that might inadvertently reinforce existing privileges and prejudices.)
Mr Warren has nailed the libertarian lie – thank you. And much more succinctly that Mr Mirowski IMHO.
“I did discuss in the context of those who have suffered from cancer because their care has been compromised by those using hospital resources when they would not take vaccines.”
“Nor is it undemocratic to constrain the rights of those who refuse to take vaccines, creating in the process an enormous cost on society. ”
Absolutely right.
But what’s your view on people who have lung cancer because they choose to smoke? They take up hospital resources.
What about obese people who take up hospital resources because they choose to eat too much? Indeed obesity is a major factor in whether hospitalisation will be needed if you catch Covid.
It’s also a proven fact that regular exercise greatly reduces the likelihood of long term illnesses – and the seriousness of covid infections. Anyone not doing regular exercise is much more likely to take up hospital resources than someone who does.
Would you advocate constraining the rights of people who refuse to stop smoking, refuse to eat properly or refuse to take regular exercise? These all create an enormous cost on society.
The reality is that care is restricted to the obese already – some treatments are denied – the claim being they are too risky
Cancer care is not – but every effort is being made to reduce them
And as for car accidents – you did not mention them – insurance is now claimed against on occasion
These are all big issues to consider
I can’t bear to watch TV these days seeing these loud mouths on it talking rubbish.
Daytime TV is an open sewer in my opinion and an enabler of agnotology.
I don’t know how you did it.
The BBC? What to do with them. You cannot have two masters. I’ve been very angry with them but they do seem to have an impossible task.
“Partly because of the sheer illogicality, verging on stupidity of my opponent,”
Bonhoffer had a great deal to say about the stupid person – extract below. Perhaps one way forward with the stupid is: ridicule – which Voltaire used to some effect. Show them to be the fools they are.
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”
He was very wise, and it was a tragedy that he was shot by the Nazis just days before the war ended
Mike Parr mentions stupidity. As an examples it’s worth watching this 10 minute segment from Rachel Maddow’s show yesterday on the various ‘treatments’ being used by anti-vaxers in the US, including ‘dirt’. You can also remove the nanotechnologies that are contained in the vaccines by adding borax to your bath water. I joke not!!! Marvel at this:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Staggering……
Ah, Mr Parr; the very man. This is yet another digression, for which I am culpable, but unapologetic. In my convoluted way I made an observation about the electricity supply, after our last discussion, where I was looking for your sage opinion on the matter; but you did not read that thread, or declined to comment. In my annoyingly persistent way, I am still seeking your opinion. The thread wa 26th November, ‘Normal service will be resumed’. I should explain that I was hit by Strom Arwen, and lost power for around two days. I was surprised by the tortuously unsatisfactory nature of the whole system that was, in consequence revealed to me. My criticism was not of the network provider (whose engineers wre out trying to fix the problem) so much as my “supplier”, who did nothing and was responsible for precisely nothing to do with my actual energy supply.
I have discovered that I have a claim against the network distributor, under the OFGEM regulations. This is absurd, because under conventional sale of goods law, I have no contract with the network operation. The regulations set the law on its head. At the same time the supplier with which i have a contract to provide a service it not only does not provide, but is incapable of supplying it, can do nothing to fix it, does not even know what is happening; and has no responsibility to render it to me. The whole mess is a farce, but it isn’t funny.
This is a function of a complete phoney market being created out of a natural monopoly; spuriously created by neoliberal obsessed Government and supplied effectively by “suppliers” who have created what seems to me a pure financial market; part banking operation, part hedging opportunity. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the effective and efficient provision of utilities. The “supplier” could be selling anything. they are pure financial market-makers; marginal profit middlemen. They are completely redundant in a utility.
There is a great deal of hostility being directed against the network operators for the failure in service, although they have had to contend with the damage from an exceptional 90mph winter storm; it is their engineers who have the tough job; restoring the service, sometimes rebuilding the power lines from complete destruction, under service pressure.
The “suppliers” are sitting with their feet up (if they are not actually bust, because most of this phoney market are proven to be rotten hedge managers): ‘nothing to do with me, guv’. The ludicrous part of this phoney market is that the Government have created their phoney market on such a scale, that nobody knows who their operator is; when you make a claim you are asked to key in your postcode, so you can find out. The network operators have been left out of the light; no wonder a bunch of engineers are not best at consumer communications in a crisis. Nobody is supposed to know they are there; because when you know how things actually operate, you discover the whole “market” is a phoney operation. The irony is that almost nobody knows who is actually providing their power. When you check with the network provider website it will tell you to key in your postcode, so it can tell you who your provider is. The provider has been excluded from public notice, because it scarcely fits with the way the “market” has been set up.
Meanwhile the deeply paranoid Scottish Conservatives are attempting to turn an energy market problem that is the plaything of the Conservative Government Westminster, into the responsibility of the Scottish Government by deflecting attention to the symptoms of the problem, rather than the causes. The power market is a fake and a failure. The public is being conned.
Some of my commets here are repeated from the other thread; please forgive the repetition. May I ask you to share any insights you may have that are germane?
Frank Zappa observed that hydrogen was supposed be the most plentiful substance in the universe.
He disagreed and said that the most plentiful substance in the universe was stupidity.
And I agree.
As for our gas and electricity supply market, it’s the same as in any privatisation – synergistic and cooperative operations providing a service become isolated profit centres whose aim is to maximise rent for investors. The supply of cheap, safe, reliable energy to end users becomes not even secondary in this situation. More and more actual service delivery is on a wing and prayer (a good weather).
You have more an artificial separation between ‘infrastructure’ and ‘shipping’ elements – artificially created by accountants interested only in billing and reducing costs of sales and externalities.
Privatisation is one of the biggest lies foisted upon society by Neo-liberalism. You’d think that it would be enough to end the political dominance of the Tories.
But New Labour failed to deal with it, and boy aren’t we paying the price.
This is a bit off topic (given the subject matter of the blog) but I will respond briefly. The network operators are contractually obliged to keep the voltage for electricity supplies to residential customers within specified limits. They are not obliged to provide a supply. This has been the case almost since the year dot (even when the network was nationalised).
Most network problems occur on rural networks where I worked as a power engineer. In fairness to the DNOs, they have made efforts to avoid spurious outages. Sadly, there is not much you can do with respect to storms like Arwen. The three most dangerous jobs in the UK: miners, trawler men and those that work on overhead lines. I consider it an honour to have supervised such men.
In this context, and given the monopoly nature of all electricity networks, privatisation has no meaning. I have already passed comment on electricity generation (where competition is possible – at the time the generator is built). For the rest (who bills customers), I see zero improvement since the days when I worked for MANWEB.
My father spent ten years as a transmission engineer before moving to design
In the 50s he fell off a pylon in a storm. Thankfully he survived the injuries. If not I would not be here.
Einstein once observed “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Thank you Mr Parr. I think very many of the people who suffered power loss have great appreciation of the engineers out there trying to restore the service. I understand there is nothing much to be done when a storm hits (although claims are being made maintenance levels – clearing the tree line etc., have reduced in recent years).
I reserve my blame for the stupidity of a “market system” that means consumers are dealing with a supplier who supplies nothing at all, bar a price; and do not even know who is really supplying their energy (and barring a catastrophe, are not supposed to know). It is little comfort to know that only a neoliberal Conservative government could come up with something so crackpot.
When it comes to people like Richard Taylor and all the other anti vaxxers who refuse to wear masks or get vaccinated, I’m afraid I take the position many others do which is that when (as often happens) their lives are claimed by covid, Darwin has been proved right and the ‘stupids’ are busy eliminating themselves. The fewer of them around, the better for the rest of us.
Sadly, I feel it very difficult to have any sympathy, especially given the effect their stupidity and selfishness has on the rest of society. I read recently of one such case in the US, of a broadcaster and presenter on one of those ghastly ‘Christian’ TV shows which has a depressingly enormous worldwide audience. He finally regretted his anti vaxxer stance on his deathbed.
No doubt I should try harder to be sympathetic.
No doubt a lot of these people are in a sense victims of the agnotology PSR talks about spread by social media and its blasted algoritihms, as were a lot of the (idiot) Leave voters here.
Where is it possible to get the BBC to account for its highly differential approach to interviewing pro government , as oppoed to independent or opposition interviewees?
Radio 4 Today yesterday allowed Minister George Freeman to say our covid record since July was a triumph of freedom compared with W Euorpe – with not even a mild reminder from the interviewer whether thousands of extra deaths was a triumph.
Yet today’s Today interviewer pushed back and counter questioned again and again the Scottish Green spokesman who thought that the new oilfield should not go ahead. The interviewer challenging again and again with all the fossil fuel lobby’s tropes that the new field had to be opend up.
You could say this was good challenging interviewing – but the previous day – wasnt an interview as such – just a platform.
How can they be allowed to get away with it? This is how people get ‘informed’. Could lead to something very nasty.
“Libertarian?” Can someone please explain to me the difference between a Libertarian and an Anarchist, other than a Libertarian sounds more like a right wing ideologue whereas an Anarchist has connotations of more left wing ideals?
Sorry, no time
I leave it to others if they wish
It is an irregular noun, isn’t it?
I am a libertarian and lover of personal autonomy and freedom.
You are a revolutionary, working to overturn the social order.
He is an anarchist, promoting mob rule and a Hobbesian war of all against all.
Anarchism means without a head or leader. It means that society should be run in the interests of its members, not by elites whether capitalist or soviet style. For anarchism to “work” requires a lot of careful thought and self-organisation by those taking part – a cooperative venture not a competitive one. It is idealistic but the only successful examples of anarchism on any scale in practice were in the Spanish republic 1936 – 9 that was brutally crushed by Franco’s fascists and soviet backed communists. Anarchists now are involved in any social or political resistance movements that try to improve the lot of humanity, contemporary examples – David Graeber and Noam Chomsky. Anarchism can come in various strands such anarcho-syndicalism -workers control of companies and enterprises, anacho-pacifism etc. There is quite a volume of historic writing on the subject such as Proudhon, Bakunin, Malatesta, Kroptokim etc. if you are interested In the UK there used to be a regular publication called “Freedom” .
Libertarianism is really a completely different kettle of fish. Modern forms in the US and UK have high jacked the term from anarchism for their own completely opposite objective – preserving the selfish prejudices of the rich and supporting the status quo and negating or ridiculing any form of thought that tries to improve the common good.
Thank you
You really were right to ask why the hell the BBC would platform an anti vaxxer – its back to the 30 years of platforming Climate Change deniers.
Surely this should be against their charter or the human rights Act – or something?
So long as there is a ‘view’ – it has to be given the same weight as the truth.
This is really scary.
Agreed
I suspect they do it because they know it lies at the root of the ERG (now CRG) cult. The BBC see it as their duty to reflect the entire spectrum of their licence payers (and to stay on the right side of the Government their licence payers elected).
Why aren’t these self-styled “libertarians” given a description which matches their views – selfish? That was the difference between him and you.
And while you may find the BBC frustrating, what is the broadcast organisation you find better? I worry that you have been sucked into Murdoch’s (and other’s) agenda to undermine an organisation which is far from perfect but does sometimes at least try, unlike others.
Not me
For all its flaws I defend the BBC
Good to see the distinction between liberal and libertarian being discussed. We could add in the neo-liberals, neo being the operative term as the last thing they are is liberal . It’s Instructive that Liberal is used as a term of abuse by both the further left and further right as both tend to an intolerance for any views but their own. On the libertarian right we have the view that they should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences for others. At the other end of the spectrum, an all powerful authority of the kind Orwell wrote about decides what we should think and how we should behave.
Contrary to lazy, received opinion, liberalism is not some kind of half way house, trying to compromise between the two, but is different to either. For those who have not read it, Id strongly recommend Ian Dunt’s book on the subject. All political parties drift around and at times forget where they are ‘centred’. Ian Dunt does a great job of summarising what ‘liberalism’ could/should mean and how it evolved. I suspect that anyone not at the more extreme end of politics would appreciate it.
It is well worth reading
Libertarians are an odd group. I happen to know two of them in the USA …one is an old classmate of mine, the other a man I worked for in a single-owner business. Both identify as Libertarian. In fact, my old classmate is a card-carrying member of the party.
The thing is, they are both really good people. Both are pro vaccination (by choice, not compulsion), wear masks, take care of others, etc. They believe if folks are left to their own devices and ‘government’ doesn’t interfere, that everybody will rise to the occasion and be good, as humans are inherently Good. Right? It’s government interference that makes people Bad.
OMG. This kind of Libertarian is very very hard to reason with.
I hasten to add, both of these people are highly intelligent, and see themselves as philosophers, in a way. Both are personally generous, kind, and very concerned for humanity. One of them is Christian, the other is a non-Believer. So religion isn’t the key. They don’t rabbit on about ‘personal freedom’ in the same sense as your man in the debate. The problem isn’t WHAT they approve of, but who they blame for the presence of Bad.
Where on earth they got the idea that ‘people’ are inherently good to the extent that government and laws and restrictions aren’t necessary to create some semblance of order in society is beyond me. It’s like there’s a crucial thinking gene missing. Some kind of wilful blindness.
I’ve given up trying with both of them, as they are truly good people, and shining examples of what people could be like if their reasoning was correct. It’s quite a weird situation. Bizarre.
However, they are still of the persuasion “if everyone was like me …” which is inherently illiberal, authoritarian, exclusive, etc. so hardly “good;” more like holding a position which can never be tested but which exudes virtue and superiority, whilst personally benefiting from the massive inequality that is the USA today. Another kind of “cakeism” … ?