A bloggertarian did that? One would have thought they wouldn’t have much of a stance on Israel (being all laissez-faire and all). Anyways, what a scummy thing to do, regardless of the reason.

Libertarianism does seem to attract some unsavory people.

Wow. Mandelsonian dirty tricks? These guys should join ZANU-Labour. They’d fit right in.

That’s no a Mandelsonian dirty trick, that’s called being a crazy dickwad.

Sunny:

[They are all the same]

I agree with Sunny.

For the love of John Stuart Mill and the entire pantheon of people who actually deserved to have the word ‘liberal’ appear above their writings, stop abusing the meaning of the term ‘free speech’!

Free speech does not mean ‘say what you want and I will not care or be offended by it’, it means ‘say what you want and I will not legislate against you doing so’. Nobody is proposing legislation. Therefore your use of the term is entirely misguided. Please stop doing this

Put another way, I can entirely admit that you have a right to free speech, but I can vehemently disagree with you, insult you and call upon others to do the same. Neither side here is denying the free speech of the other. Only if one side were seeking to use the law to silence the legitimate expression of the other would there be a ‘free speech’ issue.

There are sanctions (other than legal sanctions) that have a powerful influence on freedom of speech and thought.

Concepts like ‘political correctness’ propagate mood so that tacit or indeed explicit messages result in a certain kind of ideological orthodoxy.

Many of the so-called right wing bloggers (a term they often reject, by the way) refuse to accept these conventions – yes, a great deal of what they say is a bit near the knuckle but even the most elementary understanding of Freud tells us that repression of unpleasant, or unacceptable thoughts only intensifies emotion.

It has always been a mystery to me why so little is said about our ’emotional’ world, a force many times more potent than even our most well developed cognitiative abilities – ask anyone ever given the boot by a long term partner.

So what’s the name?

Difficult when you have to be accountable, isn’t it?

#8 – entirely right. The only problem is that ‘free speech’ has a very specific meaning. There are plenty of other ways to discourage people from saying things without violating their freedom of speech. Political correctness is an example of this. Free speech means that you’re allowed, by law, to break these conventions, but that’s all that it means.

Hypocrite:

https://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/11/19/having-fun-with-the-bnp-list/

Touche chavscum!

Rob Knight,

Put another way, I can entirely admit that you have a right to free speech, but I can vehemently disagree with you, insult you and call upon others to do the same. Neither side here is denying the free speech of the other. Only if one side were seeking to use the law to silence the legitimate expression of the other would there be a ‘free speech’ issue.

No, legislation is not a prerequisite for interference with speech.

If you have been bullied or harassed to the extent that you feel you can no longer freely express yourself, those who have bullied or harassed you have interfered with your freedom of speech (and government is obliged to protect your freedom of speech).

Human rights / civil liberties legislation does not only exist to protect us from the government and its legislation but also from each other.

That’s no a Mandelsonian dirty trick, that’s called being a crazy dickwad.

Yeah! Mandy is way more creative than that!

I think this episode might push me over the edge into not renewing my LPUK membership.

It was a member of the Libertarian Party, which Devil’s Kitchen is a member, which abused his privacy in this manner too.

“Many of the so-called right wing bloggers (a term they often reject, by the way) refuse to accept these conventions – ”

…and substitute their own equally irrational set, such as “thou shalt not criticize Israel or you’ll be for it, matey”. “Political Correctness” is something every group has, although the exact content varies

Right, left – when you behave this way, there is little difference. The real difference is between the top of barrel (Old Holborn), and the bottom (Obe the Clown et. al.).

On issue at hand: I don’t think anyone has a fundamental right to privacy (that would conflict with freedom of speech). I just think revealing private details is a rude and nasty use of free speech that is rarely justified, that ought to be reserved for showing powerful people like politicians to be hypocrites.

I think the irony is that someone who wants to remain anonymous himself outed a “competitor” blogger to the baying mob.

The right to remain anonymous is something New Labour are spending BILLIONS trying to eradicate. Unless it concerns who they employ as secretaries of course.

This is nothing to do with New Labour! This is about the Libertarian Party, if anything, but in fact it’s about one foolish blogger & those who fail to condemn him…

What’s interesting to me isn’t the just the personal vendetta issue, but also for a bunch of libertarians who supposedly care so much for property rights and personal autonomy, they (the pro-Israeli lot) don’t seem much to say much about the Israeli occupation or the blockade.

One would think that would go against the fundamental principles of libertarians. But hey, who cares when its Muslims involved eh?

ukliberty @13 wrote:

If you have been bullied or harassed to the extent that you feel you can no longer freely express yourself, those who have bullied or harassed you have interfered with your freedom of speech (and government is obliged to protect your freedom of speech).

I agree with most of what you say, but in the specific instance I’m not sure that you are correct. Bullying and harassment can be a violation of rights, but these are separate rights from those of free speech. For example, if you say something that I do not like and I take offence at this and then violently attack you, I’m not violating your right to free speech, I’m violating all manner of other rights. The point here is that it’s not about what my intentions are, but what I actually do. My reasons for attacking you (that I want you stop saying something) are irrelevant, the question is whether I have violated your rights in the <em<manner of my response. In the example of an assault, there is a clear violation of your right not to be assaulted. This is a separate right from that of free speech.

I don’t think that bullying and harassment are violations of free speech per se, they would have to be violations of other rights. After all, bullying is wrong no matter what the intent behind it, whether it’s to silence someone’s speech or any other reason.

Maybe they just don’t believe Israel is killing anyone. I mean a lot of them don’t believe in global warming, and there’s much more accumulated evidence for that…

Sunny @21, I’m really quite puzzled by your post. Now, I’m in no way a member or an affiliate of the UK Libertarian Party, but they do have a post up on their blog calling for an immediate cessation of hostilies and expressing condolences for the loss of civilian life. They also express disapproval of the BBC allowing IDF spokespeople to speak on air whilst not allowing the same to Hamas.

tbh, your own post looks like a slur against a group (libertarians) basically accusing them of racism (‘who cares when its Muslims involved’) whilst citing no evidence to back it up. You’ve posted a lot better stuff than this in the past.

tbh, your own post looks like a slur against a group (libertarians) basically accusing them of racism

Rob, I should have been more specific – I was referring to the pro-Israeli lot like Devil’s Kitchen, Obnoxio the Clown and all those libertarians who were on a warpath with Old Holborn when he made these points (though I don’t agree with OH on all the points he made).

Nick, if by ‘fundamental’ you mean ‘absolute’, I’m not sure it’s reasonable to have absolute freedom of speech (i.e. they can say anything they like however they like about anyone they like) or absolute privacy (i.e. they can keep anything hidden they like). What one should consider is whether it is reasonable in the exercise of one’s freedoms or rights to interfere with another’s freedoms or rights (and, if it ever comes to court, whether the interference was necessary and proportionate).

Rob, if I am genuinely and reasonably afraid of expressing myself because of actions that you have taken or may take in the future, you have interfered with my freedom of speech. This doesn’t mean that you have done nothing else wrong, and isn’t mutually exclusive of other forms of interference: if for example you made me afraid of expressing myself by attacking me every time I disagreed with you, you would have interfered with my freedom of speech as well as committing physical assault, in itself an interference with my freedom to go about my business without interference (which all freedoms seem to boil down to).

As a real world example, some people who attended Climate Camp claim to be reluctant to attend future protests because of the police presence and the treatment they received from the police. The police therefore interfered with the freedom to protest at the time and in the future, as well as (allegedly) harassing, intimidating, and assaulting protesters.

It does seem to the unitiated that libertarianism is a label which allows you to cobble any set of beliefs you like together and claim them as a coherent whole. Sometimes they are coherent, but most of the time just barmy.

ukliberty – your examples are all highly subjective. Nothing wrong with that, because we’re all subjective beings by definition. But it can be difficult to argue that a right has been violated merely because someone ‘feels’ intimidated. I think it’s important to draw a clear distinction between ‘you made me feel bad’ and ‘you actively violated my rights’. I don’t think that making people feel bad for saying things violates their right to say it.

Well I suppose DK can explain it himself, but it might have something to do with the Israeli government having some respect for individual rights (certainly of its own citizens), a commodity in short supply in the Middle East. Pallestinians enjoyed greater institutional protections under Israeli occupation than they have under any other regime. Which is not to say that libertarianism could endorse state occupation under those (or any) circumstances.

“Nick, if by ‘fundamental’ you mean ‘absolute’, I’m not sure it’s reasonable to have absolute freedom of speech (i.e. they can say anything they like however they like about anyone they like) or absolute privacy (i.e. they can keep anything hidden they like). What one should consider is whether it is reasonable in the exercise of one’s freedoms or rights to interfere with another’s freedoms or rights (and, if it ever comes to court, whether the interference was necessary and proportionate).”

Well I suppose I take freedom of speech to be fundamental and complete, but alienable. You can agree to give up certain rights to freedom of speech by joining an organisation or institution consensually. The only question is whether you can be compelled in certain specific circumstances. Can a jury member be banned from talking to the press? (but that might have more to do with whether someone can be compelled to serve on a jury than anything else)

“It does seem to the unitiated that libertarianism is a label which allows you to cobble any set of beliefs you like together and claim them as a coherent whole. Sometimes they are coherent, but most of the time just barmy.”

Well I would suggest you get initiated as there is a huge body of well developed work on what libertarianism is: http://www.libertarianism.org/ (just for starters)

It is hardly surprising that libertarianism, like every other political label, does not determine one’s views on Israel/pallestine because in that case, the facts are so much in dispute and the whole thing is a mass of ideological and historical confusion. The interesting question is not why there is so much ambiguity over who is right and who is wrong (that is true of every conflict), but why everyone concentrates so much intellectual effort on this one small conflict.

Pah.

I’m losing patience with the libertarian crowd.

Most of ’em were pro the invasion of iraq, and now they trouble themselves with defending Israel. Quite why the Israelis get a pass with DK is beyond me.

I once got into a confab at Samizdata over Iraq. Perry was explaining to me the Libertarian justification for invading a foreign state which posed no real threat to the UK. After he had tied himself up in knots, I agreed we’d just have to disagree on that one.

Rob @28, I think a clear distinction can only be drawn in the specific case, not the general case. I did say that “if I am … reasonably afraid of expressing myself because of actions that you have taken or may take in the future, you have interfered with my freedom of speech”: I don’t think it would be reasonable to claim you have interfered with my freedom if you merely disagreed with me, but I think it would be reasonable to claim you have interfered with my freedom if you disagreed with me and posted my personal details, photos of my family etc, or embarked on a systematic campaign of posts attacking me personally, exercising your freedom to the extent that it makes me feel that I do not want to exercise my freedom any more (if the man on the Clapham Omnibus, put in the same position, would feel the same way). To put it different way, robust discussion is one thing, bullying quite another. Of course, whether the interference amounts to something actionable is again a matter for the specific case.

. Pallestinians enjoyed greater institutional protections under Israeli occupation than they have under any other regime

What? Like blockades? Like being denied electricity randomly? By having checkpoints everywhere? And this is a self-described democracy doing all that, not some despotic regime like the Saudis. Is this the standard libertarians have for democracies?

Sunny, why do you characterise libertarians as all the same, based on the opinions of, what, three bloggers who claim to be libertarian?

What’s interesting to me isn’t the just the personal vendetta issue, but also for a bunch of libertarians who supposedly care so much for property rights and personal autonomy, they (the pro-Israeli lot) don’t seem much to say much about the Israeli occupation or the blockade.

One would think that would go against the fundamental principles of libertarians. But hey, who cares when its Muslims involved eh?

Yeah I can see that, it always amuses me how they’re so against the abuse of state power then do an about face when it’s their favourite states involved…

There’s a five-point list of do’s and don’t’s on this site just below where it says ‘Post a comment using the form below’.

I don’t know any site with genuine free speech: Georgy Girl has boasted about the numbers of respondants she has banned from CiF.

Alan Thomas wrote:

“A bloggertarian did that?”

No. Old Holborn falsely ‘claims’ the other blogger did that… but in actual fact he merely linked (briefly) to a 4 year old topic where Old Holborn’s credibility was previously being questioned. Ironically, many of the clues within to OH’s identity were posted by himself, including photo’s of his kids. Ironic, I know!

The sensible caveat lector; is not to believe everything you read on the blogs… and especially so from one who appears to have previous form.

The controversy concerning Gaza, Israel, blogging and Libertarianism is moot… its purely been drawn into the argument because it suits a certain stroppy one’s desire to inflate his own self-importance and make himself look like a martyr.

Apologies for my intrusion.

By the way Sunny, who was it who published a photo of a Muslim protester on Harry’s Place asking for commenter’s to help identify him?

I remember thinking it was a bit Red Watch for my liking and definitely put the protester at risk, thereby effecting his right to free expression.

(And this on a site where Orwell is quoted in the masthead and yet where correspandant’s throw a hissy-fit over a pizza topping)

Sunny – actually, if you’ll exit the goldfish bowl of mainstreaim political commentary for a second, I am referring to life before the first intifada: http://emperors-clothes.com/israel/karsh-occ.htm

“During the 1970’s, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world — ahead of such “wonders” as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew some what more slowly, the rate was still high by inter national standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $ 165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan’s $1,050, Egypt’s $600, Turkey’s $1,630, and Tunisia’s $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria’s, more than four times Yemen’s, and 10 percent higher than Jordan’s (one of the better off Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent.

Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.

No less remarkable were advances in the Palestinians’ standard of living. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars.

Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, during the two decades preceding the intifada of the late 1980’s, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102 percent, and the number of classes by 99 per cent, though the population itself had grown by only 28 percent. Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990’s, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 per cent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria.”

I am not endorsing the institutions of occupation under operation then. The pallestinians still lived second class lives. But second-class under Israeli rule just happened to be better than almost anywhere else in the middle east at that time. And yes, actually, many libertarians are highly sceptical about democratic institutions, except as one way of checking state power and discouraging rights violations. It works in some places and at some times but has often failed.

Sunny, why do you characterise libertarians as all the same, based on the opinions of, what, three bloggers who claim to be libertarian?

Well, ok, DK only claims he’s like the true libertarian and works for LPUK. I would assume he is pretty representative… no?

By the way Sunny, who was it who published a photo of a Muslim protester on Harry’s Place asking for commenter’s to help identify him?

That was a case whereby this guy felt “threatened” by an Iranian guy who was protesting for free speech and set the police on him, to get him arrested. I remember asking who he was but didn’t make any threatening comments.

Old Holborn falsely ‘claims’ the other blogger did that… but in actual fact he merely linked (briefly) to a 4 year old topic where Old Holborn’s credibility was previously being questioned. Ironically, many of the clues within to OH’s identity were posted by himself, including photo’s of his kids.

Right… so this all just another bout of the Praguetory’s then…

I must admit that I was finding it a little difficult to feel too much sympathy for OH given that he led that charge in naming the principles in the Baby P case even though there was a another case pending and a court had ordered the names withheld in order not to prejudice the upcoming proceedings but if he was that careless to begin with then he should have been a bit more mindful of the adage about living by the sword…

Beyond that I’m really not clear as to quite why libertarianism is considered to be relevant here, particular when I know for a fact that DK has found himself on the wrong end of someone posting his personal details and is extremely unlikely to take anything other than a fairly dim view of anyone who pulls such a stunt, even if they are a member of the LPUK.

I think all of our details are out there on the web somewhere. I don’t think it was very Libertarian to point someone’s out to everybody

I also think it’s quite Libertarian to point out that a State has a Stateless people of 1.5 million coraled up on a piece of useless land and is bombing the shit out their kids.

Sunny, why do you characterise libertarians as all the same, based on the opinions of, what, three bloggers who claim to be libertarian?

Well, ok, DK only claims he’s like the true libertarian and works for LPUK. I would assume he is pretty representative… no?

I don’t know whether he is “pretty representative” of libertarians any more than he is “pretty representative” of white people or graphic designers, nor do I recall him claiming “he’s like the true libertarian” – he claims he is a libertarian, that’s all.

And DK has said of this specific case that “Lest there is any doubt, I do not condone this action in any way: what is done in the blogosphere under pseudonyms should stay in the blogosphere under pseudonyms.”

particular when I know for a fact that DK has found himself on the wrong end of someone posting his personal details

Oh, DK has no problems posting up pictures of people and trying to smear them… or even use snidey racist remarks when doing so. He just gets precious about it when it involved himself. He suddenly develops principles when other people are doing it to him.

Saying that, I’m not defending Old Holborn in all this or holding a candle to him. But at least he was straight-forward and open about his bigotry.

I don’t know whether he is “pretty representative” of libertarians any more than he

There’s a lot more white people than there are people in the libertarian party. There’s what, five people in the LPUK? Anyway, sarcasm aside, I take your point.
I just find libertarians usually quite confused and contradictory.

Running to the police falsely claiming to feel threatened is loathesome but calling for him to be identified is no different than identifying him yourself. The intention certainly seems to be to provent others from making such claims in future.

Are you sure you wanted to set a precident where anyone who reports a feeling of being threatened to the police can be identified over the internet?

There’s a few hundred of us.
The rest of us who aren’t DK, and Obo are friendly and tolerant.

Also, the idea libertarians supported Iraq is a myth. Neolibertarians, who are basically Neocons, maybe. But I don’t care them them, and neither do the party.

Obo and OH were being idiots, and somehow, the party itself got involved. Totally wrongly.

If libertarians are confused on free speech I’m assuming authoritarians are putting up a united front?

Yes. It’s “Shut the hell up, we can run your live better than you”.

As is always the case with authoritarians. *Glances over to opposition benches, then back to labour benches*

What if you’re not affiliated to Labour or the Tories?

The intention certainly seems to be to provent others from making such claims in future.

Not necessarily, it was at the time to find out whether a specific Muslim organisation was running a campaign to stop people from protesting for their free speech.

That reminds me – Guido Fawkes, aka Paul Staines, is also a big hypocrite who takes people’s personal photos and publishes them on his blog without any rights to do so.

Is it any surprise I think most bloggertarians are hypocrites? The evidence doesn’t offer much cause for confidence.

But in doing so you made it more difficult for those who have genuine cause for fear.

If I was threatened by a mob (and that’s not unlikely as I do campaign for free speech – including against religious censorship) I would be less likely to contact the police if I knew I would be photographed and be put up on the net.

Your response was not one of principle, it was one of anger.

I agree that Fawkes is a hypocrite for posting photos and personal details but how do you stand on the police’s increasing use of confiscation of cameras where innocent tourists or train spotters are taking photos in public places and these might include images of members of the public.

Should photos only be published with permission?

I msyelf have problems with GF’s blog, although hypocrisy? Not sure where that one comes in.

If I was threatened by a mob

Nothing vaguely threatening was written about the guy. Frankly that’s absurd, given I’m constantly threatened by religious nuts and yet people put up my pic on their blog all the time when they write about me (incl Iain Dale, GF and DK). Should I assume every time a mob is going to threaten me?

Yes I think people should use pics with permission only… and FYI that pic wasn’t in the public domain because Guido didn’t take it at an event. It was someone else’s pic he stole. That’s right – he stole it. Libertarian my ass.

‘Old Holborn’ was going around merrily revealing identities of people that were restricted by court order, including by commenting on other people’s blogs – which put them at risk of legal action. I have no sympathy for his predicament.

Most of us are amateurs and choose to remain anonymous because even if our safety is not at risk, our livelyhoods might be. Free speech requires privacy: for that reason I condemn the ‘outing’ of bloggers whether by self-styled ‘libertarians’ or by the authoritarian ‘left’. I suspect there are far more libertarians who agree with that starement than authoritarians.

You have chosen this one example to damn all libertarians as hypocrites despite the fact you have also used political blogs to identify those you disagree with.

Oh, and if ‘stealing’ the photograph is the issue, that’s a copyright matter: do you really want to attack libertarians based upon 18th Century notions of property rights?

what’s the “authoritarian left”? and how is that more cohesive a group than ‘libertarians’, who you choose to throw a quotation mark around?

do you really want to attack libertarians based upon 18th Century notions of property rights?

Isn’t believing in rule of law central to libertarianism? Or is it a matter of – they’ll choose what laws they want to believe from whatever century?

I thought that it was only libertarians who found libertarians to be interesting. Glad to see that Sunny cares as well.

James,

Dunno if ‘interesting’ is the right word. But they do have comedy value.

If you check my punctuation, Sunny, I put speech marks around the word ‘left': the ‘authoritarian ‘left” denoting those who have adopted the role of state censor previously the province of the right, e.g. ‘religious hatred’ laws to defend superstitious bigotry from criticism, anti-porn feminism indestinguishable from Victorian prudery, an obssession over what we do with our own bodies, etc. as well as increasingly intrusive state surveillance, ID cards, laws against legitimate protest and the like which have all met with more protest from libertarian groups than those who identify themselves as being of the ‘left’.

My mention of property rights were not to defend them (copyright infringes on free speech: I’m not an economic libertarian, I’m a social libertarian) but to illustrate how quickly you will fall back on libertarian notions where they suit your purposes.

And just when did the law become central to libertarianism? The libertarian right embraces the law only where it protects their property, the libertarian left (a tradition you ignore entirely but which runs from Kropotkin to Chomsky) question even that.

shatterface, I’m not even sure what the point is of your line of question. This back and forth is moving into even more obscure areas.

religious hatred’ laws to defend superstitious bigotry from criticism, anti-porn feminism indestinguishable from Victorian prudery, an obssession over what we do with our own bodies, etc. as well as increasingly intrusive state surveillance, ID cards, laws against legitimate protest and the like which have all met with more protest from libertarian groups than those who identify themselves as being of the ‘left’.

That’s primarily because the ‘libertarians’ like to simplify things and pretend the world is after them.
1) There was no law to protect religion from criticism. There was an attempt by Muslims to protect Muslims as a group against hatred, so as to classify them as a race as how Sikhs and Jews currently are. This got whipped up into some idiotic tablody hysteria that religion would be protected from criticism. Please try and read up on stuff before you use it against me. You let me know when you find some lefties advocating for it.

2) anti-porn feminism covers a wide spectrum, not all of it supported by the left or even all sections of feminism. Not sure what your point is here. So some women want to ban porn. I don’t agree with it. end of story. Its got little to do with prudishness and more to do with sexual exploitation of women, which remains endemic in society.

3) ID cards, laws against legitimate protest and the like which have all met with more protest from libertarian groups than those who identify themselves as being of the ‘left’.

This is just outright bollocks. The hardcore loyalists might have but none of the writers for LC do, and nor do most of the broader left. Its the small c Daily Mail conservatives who buy that shit, not “us”. In fact LC is going to be one of the major partners of an upcoming ;Convention of Modern Liberty’, organised mostly by lefties but encompassing other groups including No2ID to campaign against precisely these issues.

So, you’re not only simplifying issues in an attempt to hit the so-called “authoritarian left”, you’re shooting blanks. The authoritarian left exists in the minds of the libertarians, not here. And lastly, the only people calling for tighter state surveillance are the “pro-war left”, who want to use those powers against Muslims. Most LC writers are not of that background.

And on the issue of photographs – my point was not that I’m falling on libertarian notions when they suit me, but that self-styled libertarians who say they believe in the rule of law don’t follow or respect property rights themselves.
Goodnight.

The rule of law in libertarian thought is used in contrast to rule by arbitrary power – it doesn’t have specific implications for following any one law or not. It basically describes the importance of having institutional protections of persons and property, without which people have little ability to engage in individual longterm planning such as working to accumulate capital or promising someone you will meet them next week (it thus has both social and economic implications).

This does not apply to a great many laws in this country. For example, my choosing to take an ecstacy tablet doesn’t have any real social or economic impact on others (except to a drug dealer, who consents and benefits from my custom, so not a problem). The question then is whether intellectual property (such as a photograph) is a real property right or not. I tend to say no but I believe Tim Worstall, for example, disagrees. So I don’t think this issue has any particular implications for how libertarians should behave as individuals:) We aren’t any more morally obligated to follow the laws set out by states than anyone else.

Its got little to do with prudishness and more to do with sexual exploitation of women, which remains endemic in society.

Actually Sunny, having spent much of the night reading what the radfems have to say on the matter, I’m actually not convinced.

So far as I can tell it’s a minor issue compared to the large ones (elimination of rape, anyone?) even if you agree with them that the best way to abolish the binary is some absurd separatism and solidarity within one of the constructs that they (and I) argue is entirely fabricated, and that the best way to organise the elimination of gender concepts is to have a small group of women writing for a slightly larger group of women in such a fashion that pretends that women are the only ones who ever suffer.

Yes, even then it makes little sense.

Why? Because largely porn is a symptom. Even once you imagine it to be something purely based around degradation the only way that it could possibly exist is for there to be a large enough current of misogyny within society for the institutional structures to be established and maintained profitably. In short, as much as it may promote or misogyny, pornography will always require it far more.

Otherwise it simply would not exist.

Now that’s all fairly obvious. Anyone with a very basic grounding in economics (and that’s all I have) could tell you that. So why the continuing, overriding fixation? Despite having read this:

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2009/01/06/porn-part-9-the-opposite-of-dudishness-is-not-prudishness

The only answer I can come to is “Prudishness”. For all their efforts to break women free of what is expected of them, radical feminism has simply become a new manifestation of the “Women as pure/pious” meme that seemed to have died in the 1960s but now lives on in a new, yet more twisted incarnation. Radfems want to stop women being “degraded” by the foulness of sex more than anything else. And why? Because they’ve lapped up the anti-sex elements of our culture and channelled that absurdity into a position so distorted that there can be nine lengthy essays written on it by a superb writer without us getting anywhere near a justification resting upon an anti-binary framework.

This debate has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with tribalism. It’s pretty fucking pointless, even by the abysmally low standards of blog comment threads.

Can I suggest the institution of something a bit like this?

Meanwhile, in Samizdatland:

http://www.samizdata.net/mt/93uhdy736.cgi?entry_id=12160

I’m sorry if you are finding the arguent difficult to follow, Sunny, but that’s because you obviously have no idea what the term ‘libertarianism’ means and your attempts to define it seam to be increasingly weird.

Can we have a link to the source of your claim that libertarians desire stronger laws because all the definitions I can find see it axiomatic that libertarianism (left or right) demands a minimal state – in which case I’m wondering where these laws will come from?

James, have you ever read Mad Bunty over at CiF? Her views on sex and pornography are barely distinguishable from the Taliban.

“Yes. It’s “Shut the hell up, we can run your live better than you”.”

Well, judging from this incident, that is in fact true of a lot of you.

Which is odd, because, having read over the entire incident again, I can find nothing that suggests such a thing.
I mean, it’s a conflict between two people. The very fact that the LPUK was dragged into it in the first place is idiotic.

Actually Sunny, having spent much of the night reading what the radfems have to say on the matter, I’m actually not convinced.

James, possibly, but don’t know what that has to do with the “authoritarian left” or whatever else shatterface conjures up.

that’s because you obviously have no idea what the term ‘libertarianism’ means

shatterface, I could similarly say you’re having delusions of an “authoritarian left” that bear no relevance to reality.
All the arguments you made to justify yourself was pointless and not really grounded in reality. I see you didn’t say anything in response to them.

Can we have a link to the source of your claim that libertarians desire stronger laws
err, now you’re just making stuff up. Above, I said an adherence to the rule of law, not stronger laws.

James, possibly, but don’t know what that has to do with the “authoritarian left” or whatever else shatterface conjures up.

See redpesto’s reply to a post on the matter here: http://www.scriboergosum.org.uk/revamp/2136/comment-page-1#comment-9505

Radfems often care more for “protecting” women (from themselves, largely) than safeguarding rights & liberty.

Which doesn’t make their place in the canon of the Conspiracy Theory Right correct, mind, it just makes them valid targets for libertarians, or anyone else who cherishes free expression.

Hmmm, I’m not sure that I can really be bothered to answer all of the charges lobbed at me here, but here are a few points for you…

1) Sunny said “… DK has no problems posting up pictures of people and trying to smear them… or even use snidey racist remarks when doing so.” Sunny, both your name and your picture, as an internet writer and publisher, are in the public domain — not least at Comment Is Free — and you blog under your own name.

Now, I know that you think that I should “take responsibility for what I write” by publishing under my own name; however, given that I don’t want to, one should respect that. Apart from anything else, it would be entirely unfair for my views to impact on the company for whom I work (as happened with John Band’s Shot By Both Sides. Remember that?).

But given that you decided to “out” me at one point, I do find your post above somewhat hypocritical.

2) Aaron, I didn’t give Isreal “a free pass” (although I admitted something of a bias). There is a considerable difference between understanding why they are doing what they are doing — i.e. constant rocket attacks against civilian targets, in the same way as they built the wall to stop suicide bombers — and condoning those actions.

What I said in the original post (the one that sparked off the OH spat) was that if you don’t think that Israel has the right to defend itself, you should say that Israel has no right to exist (where it is).

Personally, I liked Sunny’s take on it of a few weeks ago (lordy!): both sides (plus just about everyone else involved in the area over the last 60 years) are to blame for the situation. However, the wanton stupidity of the Palestinians — or rather, Hamas — does irritate me.

Leaving aside any ideology, Israel has been making some concessions over the last few years, although you are free to quibble about the pace or significance of those concessions. However, if I were the Palestinians wanting my land back, much though it may choke me, I would say, “thank you very much” and then try to show that we would run it well and, most importantly, not chuck rockets at (a much more heavily armed) Israel from those bits of returned land. It’s just stupid.

3) I have never set myself up as “the true Libertarian”. I self-describe as a libertarian, for sure; but then I self-describe as a Consequentialist Libertarian: I want the best possible outcome and I don’t like rigid dogmas (on any part of the political spectrum).

In my writing I do occasionally stray into anarchism but I am aware, alas, that it would not work; in the same way as denying human nature in thinking socialism will work is stupid, so denying human nature in thinking anarchism will work is stupid.

4) That said, libertarianism is a very broad church (it’s why I have more in common with, for instance, Unity, than with most Tories) and policy and direction in LPUK is made by many more people than I. LPUK is, generally, reasonably balanced between Rights and Consequentialist Libertarians and my views are very far from being the dominant ones.

5) On that note, it was OH who chose to drag LPUK into this; I have stated repeatedly that The Kitchen is not an LPUK mouthpiece and that my views are my own personal ones, not those of anyone else (including LPUK), but people don’t seem to be able to get that.

That’s about all for now, cheers!

DK