Dammit, if you use the real definition it is very clear I am a libertarian. I consider myself to be so - I genuinely want to provide the individual with the opportunity to make choice.
Dude, what the fuck?
Can this really be the same person who, in his comments policy, says:
For a comment to be published I must be satisfied that:
6. It is not questioning the fundamental tenets on which this blog is based.
This last point is important. Those who wish to argue that tax havens / secrecy jurisdictions are good things may do so, but not here. Likewise those promoting neoliberal economics may do so, but not here: propagating the delusion that an economy can be accurately modeled using counterfactual propositions about its nature is not something I wish to partake in, and will not allow.
Seriously? In other words, you're a libertarian that won't hear a word from the Austrian school or anything other than your own?
Fucking hell.
But just as the far right in Germany claimed the word socialist as their own - wholly inappropriately - so have the right claimed libertarian as their own - wholly inappropriately because the programme they promote is clearly intended to deny choice to mist by providing privilege to a few
In the process they claim to have no desire for social engineering - when that is their very obvious aimAnd most who seem to be libertarian also seem incredibly keen on restricting immigration - whilst promoting the free flow of capital
Wrong, you fucking bell end. Free movement of people and free movement of capital are a fundamental policy for any libertarian. You, on the other hand, are quite happy to restrict the free movement of capital while calling for the free movement of people.
This does not make you a libertarian. Along with your comments policy, this makes you a fascist cunt.
15 comments:
"Censorship is an essential part of freedom" http://bit.ly/9udNTZ (via Tim Worstall) Richard is a Dick
It is easy to spot him
"I genuinely want to provide"
who is he to "provide"? That is quite different from saying one wants to remove barriers or dismantle monopolies. No, RM wants to "provide", and we know that his benificence will only "provide" the "choices" he deems fit.
RM is a condescending Authoritarian.
He's right though.
"The right" have claimed Libertarian for their own. See Daniel Hannan, Glenn Beck etc. And they all want some level of Immigration restriction, and want to force the welfare state (especially in healthcare) only on "the poor", while allowing the Utilitarian benefits of a free market on the privelleged few.
Thank god we don't sit on either side of an arbitary and bigotted 2-dimensional scale.
@Anonymous:
“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
Richie can be right about some on the Right claiming the Libertarian crown, and still be a bell-end.
That's because he's missed the point about Libertarianism - that the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis is orthogonal to the Left-Right axis.
Just because some fascistic right winger claims they are a Libertarian, it doesn't make them one. They can claim it three times or more. But if they restrict free movement of people they are Authoritarian not Libertarian.
Nor can a left-wing union-supporting retired accountant (who claims the right to restrict your personal choices in more ways than space here allows to list) claim to be anything else but Authoritarian.
Pedantry note: As a Libertarian, I note Ritchie can make whatever claims he likes.
It doesn't make him right though.
Ah, the word game. Comes up over and over. Left/right/socialist/progressive/libertarian, these words mean very little; nobody can agree on a definition because all the possible definitions are biased for/against the concept being advocated.
RM does manage a nice little troll here though, equating libertarians with Nazis. This is how history is rewritten; perhaps in a few decades we will all be expected to believe that Hitler was all about free minds and free markets, rather than (correctly) as the Stalin variety of socialist. Did you know that Hitler's hatred of the Jews was motivated by anti-capitalism? Or that many of Hitler's supporters were former Communists? Or that Hitler was much admired by the Fabian Society? Or that British Communists opposed WW2 as an "imperialist war against our Bolshevik allies"?
Never mind, RM, no need to let facts get in the way of your Progress. Libertarians are racists, Hitler wasn't a socialist, war is peace and freedom is slavery.
Incredible
As Tim shows, you could devote a lifetime to this...
All sorts of usual suspect control freaks, being good at what they do, have sniffed the wind, spotted the trend and tried to co-opt the libertarian meme. I've noticed a lot of them stamping their little jackboots and insisting that they are the only arbiters of what it constitutes.
It's time to introduce a Law (of nature). I suggest that a persons libertarianism is in inverse proportion to the vehemence, frequency and number of words he uses to proclaim it.
In other words if someone has to tell you that they are libertarian, they almost certainly aren't.
I can be any sort of Libertarian I want to be, can't I? I don't mind you being whatever you think you are.
If words have defined meanings, they serve the purpose of communicating information and ideas. If they don't they can be used to mislead, confuse and mystify. Clarity of thought is the enemy of socialism and all its kindred fallacies, so they create a fog of confusion by subtly subverting language and use emotionalism rather than rationalism.
He wants to 'provide' people with a choice. Any colour you like as long as it's black....
It's sad that somebody can claim to be a libertarian, but to not have had the brains to pick up a dictionary and look at the definition. I find this to be a major hurdle to intelligent conversation these days. So many people try to argue a point but they don't actually know the meaning of the words they are using.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper. At least we know who the hollow men are.
As much as it appeals to me (freedom and common sense rule OK) the formation and existence of a truly Libertarian society is nothing but an idyllic unworkable dream, just as it has been proved that the existence of a truly communist society/state is also an idyllic unworkable dream, this is just one of the reasons why the EU is in a mess and doomed to failure. I would like to think that I am a Libertarian even if my comments put me right of centre in the Libertarian camp. The fact remains that certain ‘pockets’ of any society will always need guidance and/or subjugation by organisations such as a police force or an army, the real problem with this in any society is just who decides the standards and guidelines that individuals are to be ‘policed’ to? At this time ‘Man’ is in a disastrous and frightening situation, not just here in Britain, but throughout the World. It is with frustration, disappointment and sadness that I realise our problems cannot be solved by individuals, equality, governments, money, political correctness, charities, health & safety, organisations, war, discussions etc., nor or anything else short of a magic wand! All we can expect for the future, as history repeats itself yet again, is a severe ‘right wing’ backlash from some source or another.
I've been having a similar problem and as Roger says - he's easy to spot. He won't allow a comment which disagrees with him?
It's scary that government apparently listens to this guy.
Where on earth does he get the bit about libertarians restricting free movement from?
Good grief.
'fubkin peoples front of judea? Fuck off! We're the judean's peoples front!
'fubkin peoples front of judea? Fuck off! We're the judean's peoples front!
Post a Comment