Rejoice. Hope you guys will allow this token nonwhite libertarian in your private property tyranny!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/ukip-conservatives
Funny how the author doesn't provide his definition of "freedom"...
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I guess his notion of freedom will be the new bill of rights by FDR.
This is a common opinion I see from marxist labour supporters in the UK. They all went through the British government school system and now are anti-capitalist, environmentalist, liberal-marxist who believe in the power of the state over anything else. These guys actually think that the state is for the working class people and they can gain power through the state and the corporations are the evil fascist than want to control them. While the state is some how "the people".
I stopped reading the guardian when they started deleting my comments because they disagreed with them. Now i am on a pre moderated group of users where each comment is held back until approved.
The author is simply not correct in what is paramount to libertarians. He wrote:
Both strands converge on the view that individual freedom is paramount, is synonymous with the defence of private property rights and best flourishes when forms of collective, democratic and/or state intervention (such as regulation or taxation) are minimised.
This is not correct. Libertarians believe that Non-Aggression is paramount and private property rights are the means to determine instances of aggression. Furthermore, the libertarian definition of private property may not be as sound as one would like but is certainly better than the current alternative which is for an agent with a monopoly of force being able to determine what property is and how much of it the agent can steal.
The author is also wrong when he states that people who receive stolen property are more free. They are in reality more chained as they depend on some third party agency for their survival.
But where the author really goes wrong is when he said that libertarians are for "radical social inequality". The author is himself also for radical social inequality as is everyone else. The author makes a line at the labor of the person OUTSIDE the human body to say that taking from this is promoting social equality, but what about the poor people who need kidneys, or eyes, or ears, or ... A true person against "radical social inequlity" would have to give basically every redundant body part to a person who needs one.
Obviously this Ukip outfit is not libertarian in any sense as it does not even respect private property rights and has no mention of the Non-Aggression Principal. This author is trying to bad mounth the Ukip and it should be bad mouthed but this really lame attempt to promote it as libertarian is just a lie.
Your comment about social inequality sparked a thought: If someone is enforcing social equality, is that not unequal itself? Someone has to be socially dominant in order to enforce social equality...It can't be done!
Why? To give you some context, it is the only borderline libertarian political organisation in the UK. Their argument against immigration is that it imposes a huge burden on the British populace due to the open access welfare state. They aren't perfect libertarians (although some of them, like Godfrey Bloom, are), but they are the only voice of opposition to the Establishment here who stands any chance of success. They're moderate libertarians a la the Cato institute, but when you realise how socialist Britain is, it is still amazing.
I think Nozick has already dealt a knockout argument to the whole notion of "equality". So has Anthony de Jasay, and others. Their arguments simply have not percolated yet into the mainstream, nor do they stand much chance of doing so in the socialist academic stranglehold within the UK. Egalitarianism is nonsense upon stilts. How this fetish still survives, with no real appeal to it aside from references to other moral virtues or principles, is beyond me.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
The state is going to save us from fascism. hahah, i can't contain myself, hahahhaha.
Sounds like the UKIP could also be considered close to "paleoconservatives" in the U.S, based on their immigration stance.
And isn't the article's cherrypicking of Mises and Hayek's positive comments on fascist regimes along the same lines as saying Keynes was a Nazi because he admired Hitler's economic policies?
No one ever said he is a Nazi. Austrians have, however, pointed out a major statement of his regarding the applicability of his economic theory.
@Jon
Correct, I didn't mean people say Keynes was a Nazi (though if he had said what he did today he might be called one), but I was pointing out the dirty media tactic of pointing to Mises and Hayek's positive comments about fascist regimes in order to imply to the casual reader that they should be roped together in the same category - that libertarianism is a fellow traveler of fascism. Similar to when they've tried to smear Ron Paul with the "anti-semite" accusation because he happened to like someone who is believed to be an anti-semite. Just an annoying tactic of the media I keep running into.
When approaching issues such as progressive taxation, trade unions, welfare and economic regulation the libertarian will present all of these things as threats to individual liberty [...] All of these measures, in fact, can be regarded precisely in terms of the expansion of freedom – for employees, the poor, the unemployed and so on
This quote is correct if you substitute "freedom" with "power", since this is the author's implication anyway. Rothbard talked about this in Ethics of Liberty:
This truth will be obscured if we persist in confusing “freedom” or “liberty” with power. We have seen the absurdity of saying that man does not have free will because he has not the power to violate the laws of his nature—because he cannot leap oceans at a single bound. It is similarly absurd to say that a man is not “truly” free in the free society because, in that society, no man is “free” to aggress against another man or to invade his property. Here, again, the critic is not really dealing with freedom but with power; in a free society, no man would be permitted (or none would permit himself) to invade the property of another. This would mean that his power of action would be limited; as man’s power is always limited by his nature; it would not mean any curtailment of his freedom.
It is true that social-democratic policies further the power of employees, the unemployed etc. at any given moment. The libertarian argues, however, that this expansion of momentary power comes at the expense of the long-term wealth and freedom of everyone, including the privileged groups, because it gnaws away at the free enterprise foundation on whose surplus production the ability to extend such power ultimately rests, and it is also apologetic for unchecked government expansion, which is bound to hurt even the privileged groups in some way as time passes on.
It is clear that the author of this article thinks of economic relations as a zero-sum game in which warring groups struggle for domination over resources and that libertarians are on the wrong side of this war. He displays no understanding for the dynamic effects of government redistribution. Hence, his analysis fails.