No. No! NO! (for @davechiv1)

Far be it from me to want to cause dissent with the ranks of libertarianism, but I have to pick a fight with this:

States are motivated less by values and ideals, and more by a narrow set of objectives and interests.

Really, this is where the argument fails, in a nutshell. The implicit assumption here is that the objectives and interests of the state are the objectives and interests of the people that the state leeches off. But this is inherently wrong, because if that were the case, there would be no such thing as libertarianism or anarchism.

There are some more basic fallacies here:

Once you acknowledge what motivates a country’s actions, international relations become comparatively predictable. It is a zero sum game of medium to long term power and influence

To paraphrase Maggie, there is no such thing as a country. What motivates the state that defines the foreign policy is different to the wants of the people that are subjugated by the state.

Furthermore, I would contest that interaction is always a zero sum game. It may be that there are narrow markets of influence where there is a zero sum game to be played, but I am not even sure of that.

Influence and intervention takes many forms. The British government has excellent ties to the government of Saudi Arabia. As a result of this, the Saudi government places orders with British companies to manufacture military equipment, as well as legacy contracts for spare parts and maintenance. Does this relationship sometimes get too close? Probably. But do British jobs depend on it? Absolutely.

Ah, the good old British job. You could quite reasonably argue that we should have a massive state surveillance system because it keeps people in jobs. We should have patrolled curfews because it keeps people in jobs and crimes off the street. We should be encouraging repressive regimes to brutally repress their citizens using our weapons and technology, because it keeps British people in jobs.

The British job, damn, isn't that a wonderful thing? More important than anything else in the world!

Another example is foodstuffs. Successive British governments, via a variety of means (both fair and foul) have secured trade agreements with African states. Our farmers are free to export subsided food to Africa, but African food sold here face tariffs, making it more expensive. So British farmer benefit from a secure market at home, and a valuable market overseas. Is this practice fair? No. Do British jobs and companies depend on it? Absolutely.

This is a facepalm-level Economics 101 failure: British farmers benefit, but what about the rest of us? There are roughly 500,000 farmers and farmworkers and 60,000,000 people in Britain. So the farmers "benefit" but 120 times as many people (many of them desperately poor) pay over the odds for food that could be cheaper if the British government wasn't working "in the national interest".

I'm sorry, there may be arguments in favour of an interventionist foreign policy, but nothing in this blogpost stands up to even basic scrutiny.

Snide

There are many things to like about living in Britain. The history, scenery, diversity and a largely benign environment are wonderful as are many other things.

But the thing that seems to irritate me the most is the depressing attitude towards achievement. This tweet sums it all up:

Oh, that would be amazing RT @colm_ryan: Or the gold medal note could be "Well done you, but it's not like you cured cancer or something".

Not everybody is interested in being a cancer researcher. Not everyone is a towering intellect, capable of curing cancer (something I note that neither Richard Wiseman or Colm Ryan have done either.)

 And don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Olympics - it's a massive corporatist money-grabbing operation and I wish London hadn't won the 2012 Olympics. As far as I can see, it looks like there is certainly the appearance of massive opportunities for fleecing attendees, sponsors, governments and probably the athletes as well.

 But given that there is a forum for people who are motivated by their sports to compete and achieve things, the one thing that I cannot abide is the constant shitting on their achievements, or indeed anyone else's achievements.

Just because you have a set of interests and priorities does not give you any right to sit in judgement of someone else's. As long as someone is not harming someone else, I really don't care what gives them a buzz, and if they do exceptionally well at it, well, good for them.

I might not give a shit about how fast you can run 100 metres, but if you can run it faster than anyone else on the planet, well, good for you! Well done for trying to be the best at something, even if it's not going to cure cancer. And the same argument applies to any other kind of achievement: legally made lots of money? Good for you! Won a crossword competition? Aces! Won the Champions League? Great! 

There's nothing wrong with someone else achieving, other than it may make you look at your own lack thereof. And if you don't like what you see, don't blame people who get off their arses. They don't do it to make you look worthless, you do that all by yourself.

What is the state? (for @legalaware )

This is actually quite a good question, and I'm sure there is a textbook somewhere that describes the state, but from a libertarian perspective, I'd say that it is any grouping or section of society that seeks to monopolise violence. Everything else (wars, "justice", taxation) that the state does, stems from their hold on violence.

If you think about the power of the state, it stems from the fact that we all think violence is icky and don't want to sully our hands with it. And it's true really, nobody sane wants to confront a burglar with a baseball bat or a shotgun. So having a group in society that is prepared to take this unpleasant chore from us sounds like a great deal.

And to keep us sweet, the state also offers us "services" like gimmicky health care and "education", specifically education that is tailored to making the state seem like a good idea.

The problem with the state is that once it has obtained that monopoly in violence and inculcated us with a belief that the state is the only proper wielder of violence, it is then quite easy and natural for the state to increasingly turn that violence on us. For example, you notice how "crimes" against the state get punished strangely harshly, while repeated crimes against individuals or property get a ludicrous slap on the wrist ... unless those crimes threaten the violence monopoly of the state.

One of the great burdens of responsibility that comes with the freedoms of anarchy is the responsibility to defend yourself, to protect yourself against crime and to exercise violence when it is needed. But as a wise man once said, "with great power comes great responsibility". And the power to live your own life to its very fullest must surely be the greatest power of all.

This may not be the definition you might expect of the state, but from an anarchist position, I think it's a valid one.

Collective Libertarians

One of the fallacies that I encounter about libertarians is that we're all selfish bastards who can never work together for "the greater good", whatever that might be. But the truth of the matter is that libertarians are absolutely sold on the idea of voluntary cooperation.

And one of the best examples of excellent voluntary co-operation on a libertarian basis can be found over at Anna Raccoon, who has gathered some excellent authors and accepts posts from total weirdos from time to time.

Her blog has been rewarded with a number of prizes at the Total Politics awards, including one of the "best group blogs" awards, an interesting challenge to the well-funded and/or political-machine-backed group blogs like ConservativeHome or LabourList. And Anna herself has also been rated as a top political bloggess in her own right.

It just goes to show that libertarian ideals can provide a viable alternative to clapped-out, boring, yah-boo-sucks tribal politics. Well done, Anna!*

*I'm not remotely jealous of the fact that the boot-faced old harridan thoroughly kicked my arse this year. Honest.

School punishment (for @danoprey )

Earlier this week I had one of those frustrating conversations on Twitter where I wasn't expressing myself clearly but I also came to realise that I was maybe holding on to some lazy assumptions.

The discussion revolved around whether it was necessary to beat children at school or not. I grew up in an environment where getting beaten by a teacher was nothing exceptional. Daniel felt that this was going to teach children that violence was a valid way of life.

My gut reaction was "for fuck's sake, it's not violence", but actually, of course, it is.

The whole situation in which I was educated was completely different: parents were much stricter and there was a general consensus that parents expected teachers to maintain strict discipline and that if you got punished, you deserved it. In fact, if you got punished at school, you'd almost certainly wind up getting punished again at home.

But there's more than one aspect to this violence. Firstly, it was not dished out casually. You had to explicitly transgress a fundamental rule. Teachers would always give ample warning. I never once got a beating or saw anyone else get a beating where I thought "that was patently unfair."*

Female teachers were obviously not going to administer corporal punishment, so you got sent to the headmaster, which was another level of scary.

It all took place in a spirit of respect and fairness. The teachers knew that the school was populated by testosterone-charged teenagers and that sometimes things would happen. Discipline was appallingly strict compared to what my daughter sees today, but I never felt like it got in the way of my education or my development as a person. (Maybe it did, but I didn't feel like it did, and that's what mattered to me.)

And the teachers respected us as much as we respected them. I don't for a moment imagine that beating someone inspires respect, but I respected my teachers as teachers, not because of their ability to beat me. I still remember them fondly, and regard them as inspirational, amazing people and I wish that all children could experience teachers like that.

But they don't, as we now have an environment where teachers feel it's appropriate to be "down wiv da yoof" and banter with the kids as equals.

You may well argue that we are all equal, and that's a valid perspective, but why the hell would you pay the blindest bit of attention to your "mate" when he tries to chastise you for your inappropriate behaviour?

So, as much as it's discriminatory, I can definitely see the logic in teachers being aloof, rather than trying to be all matey-matey. But aloofness, a strict (if commonsense) code of conduct and respect from teachers can only do so much to maintain discipline.

If a student is being disruptive, there is a need to restore order. If you reason with them, or point out that they are disruptive and they still carry on, the teacher has to have an effective sanction.

And here I get a bit lost as a libertarian. Currently, it seems like a student can be sent out of the class. That's great, but it means that the student misses the lesson.

@danoprey would rather see the disruptive student excluded from the lesson, and it being upgraded to excluded from the school if necessary. This will mean the student being sent to the office (which they may or may not do, unless accompanied, which means more disruption). Then there has to be some sort of appeals process to ensure that teachers are being reasonable. Then there has to be some sort of reasonable escalation process before someone is completely excluded to make sure that someone is given sufficient chance. And somebody has to keep completely accurate track of this.

This is all possible, I suppose, but I can see it becoming a lot more disruptive and time consuming overall.

I would rather see a swift punishment administered that means that focus can be regained and the class can continue with a minimum of disruption and that the offender is not prevented from learning.

And assuming all the other things are in place, like the code of conduct and mutual respect and all the rest, I can't really see what, other than a couple of smacks with a cane, will fulfil that role.

*I did once get a beating that was completely undeserved. But even at the time, as the "crime" was happening, I could see why the teachers thought I had transgressed, plus, I'd have had to snitch on a classmate to protect my arse. And that was beyond the pale.

Anarchy and the death penalty

Everybody has been banging on about the prospect of resurrecting (as it were!) the death sentence in the UK.

And just to get it out of the way, like every right-thinking person, I'd be absolutely in favour of killing some brutal mass-murderer or child-killer if it was cut and dried that they'd done it.

But the truth is, it's almost impossible to find a case where its cut and dried who did it and why they did it and that there were no extenuating circumstances. Even a voluntary confession is by no means conclusive, and despite all the crap you see on CSI, most crime scenes are nowhere near as conclusive. DNA isn't conclusive either. And even CCTV and so on can be misleading or tampered with.

And that's before we even get on to the dozens of miscarriages of justice that have been waved through British courts over the centuries.

Be honest, even if you were absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that someone was guilty of a heinous murder, would you still want their death on your conscience? Would you, personally, actually be able to flick that switch? I wouldn't.

So, we are at a point where there is no fucking way I'm going to endorse the death sentence anyway.

Furthermore, it goes without saying that I have massive reservations about the state deciding not only who should die, but which "crimes" deserve the ultimate punishment. (One that had me wondering about the sanity of the person saying it was "cop-killer". Why is killing a cop worse than killing anyone else? And why should someone who is quite happy to enforce blatant bullshit laws for victimless crimes be regarded as anything but a thug in the service of other thugs?)

The state is happy to go to war, happy to funnel money from taxpayers to large corporates, clamp down on our freedoms "for our own good", and so on. Given the glorious judgment shown by the government in deposing Saddam Hussein (and elsewhere!) do you really want them deciding which crimes deserve to have the ultimate sanction?

Thoughts on the "demise" of LPUK

After the furore caused by Anna Raccoon two months ago, it seemed fairly clear to me that LPUK was either dead or severely wounded and unlikely to recover, despite the goodwill and efforts of a number of minarchists and libertarians to steer the ship to calmer waters.

And while I think Mr Ferguson's approach is very sensible and important, I don't think I'll be renewing my membership of the LPUK, despite his good intentions.

The fundamental problem that I see in the UK is that "social democracy" is drilled into people from the outset. There is no serious tolerance of the idea of NOT amortizing the bad consequences of your actions across all of society. The nett takers of society and the masses who have been convinced of the horror of accepting said consequences will not forgo their security blanket.

The Green Party has moved from being an electoral nonentity pressure group to a party with parliamentary representation, precisely because their agenda dovetails so precisely with the idea of amortizing bad things.

This is entirely the antithesis of libertarianism, even if you are some sort of classical liberal or minarchist who believes in some limited government. The idea of libertarianism is that you have to bear the consequences of your decisions. If they're good decisions, you do well. If they're bad decisions, you suffer.

There is no place in a social democracy for the ideas of individual responsibility, everything revolves around the "greater good", and if you want to be the bloke who defines what the greater good is, you have to get elected to power. And because this country is an increasingly intolerant social democracy, the only way you will come to power is to be a social democrat.

This inherent contradiction between British politics and any kind of libertarian ideals means that unlike the Greens, LPUK will almost certainly never become relevant unless the entire social democratic structure is destroyed or collapses under its own weight.

And even then, or perhaps especially then, the loss of security will almost inevitably lead a fearful populace to seek a similar comforting safety blanket as the new social order.

I wish those who would revive the LPUK well, I really do. And I hope my assessment is wrong.

But I'm pretty sure it isn't.

I don't think I'm a heartless bastard

One of the most frequent accusations levelled against libertarians in general and me in particular is that we're selfish, heartless bastards who only want to keep all our money for ourselves and everyone else should just get to fuck and starve.

I find this a particularly confusing charge, because these people inevitably argue in favour of tax as a way of making "society" better, always ignoring the fact that the poorest lose the greatest margin of their incremental income to tax. In other words, the very mechanism that they are advocating as the way to help the needy is the the exact mechanism that hurts the needy the most.

In other words, not paying taxes is the single biggest "benefit" we can give to people who are earning money on the breadline. When you're earning a hundred grand a year, paying an extra three grand or getting an three of grand a year means very little. When you're earning £1000 a month, getting a extra £250 a month is HUGE.

So yes, I would be getting more money, but the incremental benefit to me is not nearly as much to me as it is to someone who is poor. How does this make me heartless?

My biggest problem with tax is actually how it is spent. If every penny of it was spent on providing severely disabled people or the homeless or the genuinely needy with care, it would be very fair indeed to describe me as a heartless bastard if I moaned about that. But the fact of the matter is that in a very, very efficient government department, only 50p in every pound actually reaches the mythical front line. It is not uncommon for only 10p in the pound to actually reach the front line.

So, a couple of things that government does really, really wrong, that don't benefit society:

PFI: Everybody will be aware of the Private Finance Initiative, or PFI. This is a scam whereby the government pays over the odds to have services badly delivered by greedy corporate business. There is an additional bonus for the government : PFI activity can be held off the balance sheet. This means that the government can pretend that it doesn't owe as much money as it does. PFI is not the government taking our money and paying someone to have a non-job, this is the government taking our money and funnelling it straight into a business's bank account. How does this benefit anyone?

War: I have no problem with a vigorous defence of the homeland, but countless billions have been poured into utterly pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No benefit has been served to the UK. And even if you accept that Iraqis and Afghanis are somehow better off, what about the extraordinary and continued cost in human life that is being paid there?

Foreign Aid: Foreign Aid is actually very rarely anything of the kind. Most of it just winds up funding various UK businesses to deliver arbitrary "services" somewhere else in the world. Most of these are, of course, ludicrously overcharged, but crucially, very little of this money actually winds up benefiting the needy abroad.

"OK, but what about the truly destitute, the homeless, the severely disabled?" Are you saying that if the other 99.5% of society wasn't threatened with the deprivation of its liberty*, not one single person would care enough to try and resolve this? Really? I mean, sure, not every one of the 99.5% in question would care, but I'm damn sure that enough people would care to sort it out.

And further, a complete lack of regulation would also make it easier for people to care and to act on their care. Got a severely-disabled person in your community? Grab a bucket and go collecting. No registering with the charities commission. No permissions to get. No health and safety hi-viz jacket required.

"Oh, but charity isn't enough and it isn't organised enough." Sure, but even with the massive state apparatus that we have now, people slip through the cracks. Do we really need to pay for everything that we currently do, to have the failures that we currently have? Is it heartless of me to say that we could still have that 0.1% of people slip through the cracks for less money? And that the remaining 99.9% of people might all be slightly happier through being wealthier? At what point do we have to justify the decrease in wealth for 99.9% of society for the 0.1% (or whatever it is) that are going to fall through the cracks whether we have a massive state or not?

In fact, I'd argue that having actual, individual people caring about other individual people would make it less likely that people would fall through the cracks than they do now, because some bureaucrat is more interested in some spurious centralised target than caring about actual, individual people.

Look at Baby P -- a massive state organisation exists specifically for situations like that. Yet Baby P was still murdered. Nobody was really accountable for it. This was after all the "lessons were learned" from Victoria Climbie as well.

Another objection I have to the state is the question of how the state should spend its (our) money. Pragmatically, I don't really have a problem with the state funding (say) basic healthcare. The problem is, my definition of basic healthcare is not the same as the next guy. Or the one next to him. And what the state delivers is also not aligned with anyone's definition of basic health care. So, everybody pays (whether they use it or not) and nobody gets what they want. So, rather than try to deliver a state that will make everyone happy (which is impossible to achieve) it's entirely simpler to argue instead that we don't need the state.

Is it heartless of me to believe that people will do the right thing, will care for those is need, without the threat of a jail sentence? I've travelled in Africa where there really is genuine poverty, not the notional "child poverty" crap that we have in the UK, but frightening, depressing, terrifying poverty. And yet those people, who have nothing, manage to take care of their disabled, their dispossessed, their even-more-unfortunates somehow. I cannot for the life of me see why other people would be any different.

"Ah yes, but we're selfish and have a different culture." Sure we do, but the truth of it is that it's in your selfish interest to care and contribute to your community, because without the safety net of a blind, money-spending state, your community is what is going to have to take care of you if things go wrong for you. It is just another case of rational self-interest making the world better for everyone.

It is not heartless to believe in the benefits of self-interest. Self-interest and caring for your own is a fundamental part of any society, it is apparent in all social animals. It does not exclude caring for others. It is folly to pretend self-interest doesn't exist, or to try and crush it under some sort of loftier "common good" ideal. It makes far more sense to let our natural behaviour work for the benefit of all of us.

I don't believe that the absence of a government would cause people to stop caring. Just as now, different people care about different things at different levels. But the absence or presence of a government has no bearing on that, and overall, people will still care just as much as they did before. In fact, I think that people would care more, because they wouldn't have the sop of "I gave at the tax office".

I don't believe that the state achieves no good for society. It would be difficult to do as many things as the state does and not get at least something right. But I don't believe that we need to pay extortion money to a bloated, overbearing, bullying thug to achieve those good things and many more beside. I also believe that we can achieve all of this more efficiently, allowing more resources to go into useful things that will cause humanity to progress and develop faster.

I believe that not having a state will not cause society to descend into Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. The overwhelming majority of us do not require a gun to our head to get along fine.

And I really don't see how any of the above makes me a heartless bastard.

* It fucks me off when I point out that the state's extortion with the menace of depriving of your liberty would be illegal if an individual behaved like that, I invariably get accused of being over-dramatic. But how is it over-dramatic? If I threatened to lock you in a 6'x4' cell for 7 years for not paying me half of your earnings, you would call me an extortionist, wouldn't you? How is it suddenly sanctified because the state is doing it?

Remember, remember, the 5th of November

So, all the libertarian blogosphere is marching on Wastemonster again, hoping to draw attention to the plight of liberty and freedom.

I, on the other hand, am at the other end of the country, rogering a delightful young lady senseless in front of a log fire, followed by her feeding me champagne and nibbles.

Where are my priorities?

Making a case for Tax Evasion

There are three kinds of tax behaviour: compliance, which means you do things strictly in terms of the tax code; avoidance, which means you do things in accordance with the tax code as far as not not explicitly breaking the law, but taking advantage of "gray areas"; and finally, evasion, which is flat-out breaking the tax law.

And actually, given the amount of contempt I hold the business of the state in, I actually do not care if people "don't pay their fair share". They are simply not consenting to the extortion of their money with menaces.

Tax evasion, tax avoidance -- these are not immoral or criminal acts. They are, in fact, hugely moral rebellion against an arrogant, violent and unaccountable state. I would actively encourage you to fight every tax bill that comes your way, cheat every penny you can.

The state is not your benefactor or a protector or a distributor of largesse to the needy. It is a bloated, thuggish parasite that should be starved in every possible way.

Deny the arrogant, thieving scum their "entitlement" to the fruits of your labour.

Sex workers against feminism

Laudanum has the details.

Advertising Libertarianism

Well, if you're going to do it, don't fuck about!

The answer is "yes"

The Appalling Strangeness has an essay here that I heartily commend to you.

Wikio Top 10 Libertarian Blogs August 2010

The numbers in brackets mean (Wikio Ranking this month, Wikio ranking last month, libertarian rank last month)

1. Anna Raccoon (15, 23, 4)
2. Old Holborn (18, 15, 1)
3. Devil's Kitchen (19, 21, 3)
4. Charlotte Gore (27, 19, 2)
5. Obnoxio The Clown (28, 32, 6)
6. Dick Puddlecote (29, 35, 5)
7. Samizdata (61, 60, 8)
8. Captain Ranty Freeman (85, 93, 13)
9. Underdogs bite Upwards (67, 73, 9)
10. Al Jahom's Final Word (68, 74, 10)

Beyond the top 10:

11. Constantly Furious (77, 66, 8)
12. Mark Wadsworth (80, 97, 14)
13. Rantin' Rab (81, 77, 11)
14. Fausty's Libertarian Blog (93, 78, 12)
15. Boatang & Demetriou (100, -, -)

Comments, additions, deletions and qualifications welcome, as ever.

Oh, and another thing ...

... most AnCaps argue for structures that look like what the state offers because those structures are what the state took over from being privately run in the first place.

Look around you, Kingbingo. Look around you.

Defenceless AnCaps

I am, I must confess, getting a bit irritated with my resident troll for claiming that an AnCap society would be defenceless against predatory criminals.

The first thing that I'd like to point out is that an AnCap society would inevitably a better armed society and states in the US that allow "carry" have lower rates of violent crime than states that do not. Although the murder rate is high in the US overall, it's high because "non-carry" states have very high rates.

So, individuals would be much better equipped to defend themselves against criminals than they are now.

The second thing that I'd like to point out is Kinbingo's own admission that AnCap advocates often create structures very much like what the state offers for our protection, only privatised. So they'd be cheaper and more responsive.

In what way does this leave an AnCap society defenceless?

Look around you, Kingbingo. Look around you.

The Private Law of Gypsies

The ASI has an intriguing note here about a current society that functions without a government as such, and yet still somehow manages to enforce a legal code.

And I sincerely hope that the well-read Kingbingo will be happy to read a rather compelling demolition of the idea that a government is necessary to create, administer and enforce law. Or, indeed, necessary at all.

The delights of being a libertarian

Amused and slightly inspired by this expression of frustration, I'm amused to point out that being a libertarian means:

• I detest the fact that some men force some women to wear a burkha
• I support the right of women who want to wear a burkha to wear a burkha
• I support the right of people to say that wearing a burkha is an offensive thing, even though I don't think it is
• I support the right of people to say that wearing a burkha is a good thing, even though I don't think it is

Is that all clear?

Wikio Top 10 Libertarian Blogs July 2010

The numbers in brackets mean (Wikio Ranking this month, Wikio ranking last month, libertarian rank last month)

1. Old Holborn (15, 13, 1)
2. Charlotte Gore (19, 21, 3)
3. Devil's Kitchen (21, 18, 2)
4. Anna Raccoon (23, 23, 4)
5. Obnoxio The Clown (32, 42, 6)
6. Dick Puddlecote (35, 33, 5)
7. Samizdata (60, 68, 8)
8. Constantly Furious (63, 56, 7)
9. Underdogs bite Upwards (73, 80, 12)
10. Al Jahom's Final Word (74, 77, 10)

Beyond the top 10:

11. Rantin' Rab (77, 70, 9)
12. Fausty's Libertarian Blog (78, 78, 11)
13. Captain Ranty Freeman (85, 93, 14)
14. Mark Wadsworth (97, 99, 15)

Comments, additions, deletions and qualifications welcome, as ever.

The best way forward to a libertarian society

I, along with Bella Gerens and John Demetriou, have a challenge to blog about whether it's better to get a Libertarian society through democracy or through revolution.

Both of these strategies have advantages and disadvantages. However, I'd be inclined to discount the strategy of a a revolution, because libertarians are disinclined to use force which may harm other people. Although bloodless revolutions are not unheard of, I can't see any way in which a sufficiently large number of libertarian-inclined people would rise up and depose a government.

Co-opting the military into such an exercise is complete anathema to a libertarian, so maintaining "bloodlessness" would be extremely unlikely, as the state would have the weapons and would have a huge motivation to use them.

On the other hand, it would be quicker, whether bloodless or not. But I'm not sure that such a revolution would be permanent. People are generally of a statist mindset and they need to not only be educated about the benefits of liberty, but they actually have to see them and live them.

So I guess we do need a kind of revolution, but it's a revolution in our political class: we need to infiltrate libertarian ideals into the bigger parties, to make them debate whether the default answer to every question is "the state". Once people start to question that, and vote accordingly, we can use democracy to achieve a smaller and smaller level of state interference.

The downside of this approach is that it's going to take a long, long time, and the current "direction of travel" is not in our favour.

However, I've found (anecdotally, I haven't exactly done a scientific survey or anything!) that most people who "aren't interested in politics" are actually quite receptive to the ideas of libertarian politics. These are people who generally have little interaction with the state and have little "skin in the political game". These are often people who don't vote or vote by flipping a coin. They don't question the state's interventions because they don't think about politics much. But they often have grumbles about government incompetence and the cost of taxation.

Most normal people, in fact.

The most general group who have an active support for the state are those who call themselves "political", people whose parties require a state: Labour, Lib Dem, Tory, Green, BNP, UKIP, etc. Political animals who support parties that require a state will inevitably argue that the state is a necessary and benevolent thing.

But I believe that if we can acquire a critical mass to turn the behemoth of state provision around and start on the road of reducing the state's involvement in everything, with every regained freedom, every newly unfettered industry and business, people will gradually acquiesce to the new model and over time demand that the government continues to strive to do less and less until it becomes demonstrably unnecessary.

So, in summary, a revolution would be quick and easy but I really can't see how it would be achieved in a libertarian ethos and I also don't think it would "take." Democracy will be extremely difficult and take a long time, but if it can be achieved in this way, it would definitely last right up until the point where people felt they didn't even need democracy any more.

Update: Rather inevitably, my effort is much more prosaic than, although more or less in line with, Bella's. Demetriou, as usual, has not fucking bothered yet.

Update 2: Guthrum over at the LPUK blog has his say. Still no fucking sign of Demetriou.

The useless cunt.