America's Tea Party Coming To Britain
by Ian R Thorpe.
CREATIVE COMMONS: Attribute, non commercial, no derivs.
KEYWORDS: liberal, libertarian, libertine, left, politically correct, politics, socialist, human, rights, minority, minorities, gay, sexual, race, racist, freedom, philosophy
Many commentators are saying the terms right and left are no longer relevant in modern politics. There is certainly plenty of evidence to support this view from the Labour government recently ejected by UK voters with their authoritarian attitudes, obsessions with surveillance and control of information and their penchant for passing legislation on matters of personal choice, behaviour and morality to the U.S.A's Obama administration and their determination to ram down the throats of a hostile majority laws that while claimed to be about minority rights are aimed at giving minorities privileged status.
In the United States of course words like socialist and left belong to the politics that dare not speak its name. So America's authoritarian left refer to themselves as 'liberals.'
This brings me, a lifelong classical liberal, to the point of most personal concern, the devaluation of the word liberal. When was liberalism anything to do with the political techniques of Josef Goebbels or the policies of Josef Stalin? When did liberalism, the political philosophy founded on the ideas of John Locke and developed by thinkers such as Thomas Paine, Mary Woolstonecroft and John Stuart Mill ever have anything to to with big government, the constant expansion of the public sector and the creation of a dependency culture among the lower orders?
To discuss this, one must first define what what 'liberal' means. is. Some would content that in these days of free markets in language and meanings of words being variable at the whim of solipsists 'liberal' is just a synonym of "libertarian". Nothing could be further from the truth. Although it is possible to be both a liberal in the traditional sense and a libertarian these things are very different although the difference is perhaps too subtle to be understood by those who confuse libertarianism with libertinism.
If we stay with true libertarians for now these fall into two camps, the ultra-individual, "don't tread on me" types, often the shrillest advocates of the "all tax is theft" mantra while being simultaneously the noisiest advocates of maintaining big military capabilities. These people are truly libertines, they demand total personal freedom but do not accept that others should have the same rights. The more positive and more interesting libertarian position however is that of the people who, while considering all tax is a monstrous imposition accept that taxation is necessary and who desire the greatest amount of freedom possible but understand that freedom comes with responsibilities.
The problem we have is in seeing where the line is drawn between libertarianism and anarchy, not anarchy in the popular sense but in the true sense. Think of the relationship between these words, monarchy, oligarchy, anarchy.The exception is democracy or to be correct timocracy because what we have in the developed world is not government of the people, by the people, for the people but government by those who control the flow of money.
The belief that has always kept me a liberal and a libertarian is that although when the word is now used by Obama supporting, hate mongering Democrats in the USA or Labour supporting neo-Nazis in the UK it becomes an insult to every true liberal principle, in the end I believe in the ability of individuals to decide for themselves the best course on which to set their lives in order to pursue personal fulfillment.
To put it in simple terms I am a liberal not through moral or philosophical dogma, but because I believe that a liberal nation, a libertarian nation rather than an authoritarian state is the best way to achieve, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "The greatest good of the greatest number."
How does the populist authoritarianism of politicians like Tony Blair and Barack Obama fail that test then, how do they fall so far short of achieving the greatest number that one has the impression they must have been deliberately aiming for the worst outcome for everybody.
First there is the replacement of political philosophy with marketing psychology. Look at the language they use. The words 'fair' and derivatives such as 'fairer' and fairness' are so overused by politicians that realists reach sick for the sick bucket every time we hear them. Not so the supporters of populist authoritarianism, they cap their hand gleefully and sigh ecstatically.
"Fairness, who could not agree with that, who could support unfairness, only the truly mean spirited and curmudgeonly could be against fairness," they tell themselves.
Were that the case there would be a massive majority of mean spirited curmudgeons in every democracy. In fact through misuse and overuse fair has become as meaningless as 'liberal','left' or 'right'. I think Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal Democrat party illustrated the point perfectly during the General Election campaign earlier this year. In a speech he gave at a hospital Clegg told his audience if he became Prime Minister under his government Britain his government would make Britain a fairer place.
The podium from which he spoke was placed outside a Children's cancer ward. Even Clegg's worst enemy could not have picked a more inappropriate location for talk of fairness than a place that more than any other illustrates life will never be fair and to make it so is way beyond our abilities.
The conundrum then is how does a liberal government go about creating a system that protects the weak and vulnerable from "the heartache and the thousand shocks flesh is heir to," as Hamlet put it without encroaching on personal liberties?
It should be easy but the public sector always performs extremely badly at the tasks assigned to it. Why do public servants perform badly? Simply because they have an incentive to do so. There is no end product, revenue from sales does not have to fund wages and if, for electoral reasons, taxes cannot be raised to cover shortfalls, money can always be borrowed to cover the deficit. Thus there is no brake on the creation of labyrinthine bureaucracies in which none of the departments seem capable of even communicating let alone collaborating. Parkinson's first law of ergonomics states that the volume of work expands to fill the time available to do it. In this era of de - industrialization with a constantly expanding pool of workers for whom the private sector (the wealth creating sector) has no need it is inevitable that the bureaucracy will expand.
And with the authority of the law and the power of the state behind them it is also inevitable that the state's servants will want to reach into and regulate every aspect of our lives. They have already made great advances in taking over the raising of our children, turning them into homogenized little conformists instead of the bright, confident, sometimes smart-mouthed individuals most of us hoped our children would be, they have taken over workplace relationships and are trying to regulate personal relationships. The UK's hate law, which did not go through under Labour and is likely to be thrown out by the Conservative / Lib Dem Coalition or, more likely, quietly dropped by its sponsors contained a clause to the effect that if a person of a minority felt they had been abused there could be no defence. Accusation would have been proof of guilt. So people could be dismissed and prosecuted for racial, gender or religious for saying "Good morning" in a way a minority member did not like.
No liberal would ever deny anybody a fair hearing whatever their offence, no liberal would ever support a law that effectively takes us back to the days when "the word of a gentleman" was enough evidence for a commoner to be convinced of a serious crime. The only difference with the modern law is that now it is not the word of a gentleman but the word of any identity politics player.
The real problem for traditional liberals, those whose ideas are based on the teachings of Locke, David Hume, Thomas Paine, J. S. Mill and other enlightenment thinkers rather than on Lenin, Goebbels and Mao Tse Tung is how in a world that increasingly makes a virtue of selfishness and rewards self interest does one reconcile the demands of modern living with the principles of liberalism or libertarianism.
I personally am not anti-state but I am anti-big-state, I believe the government had no business spending taxpayers money on telling people what they should eat, how much alcohol they can drink without fear of finding essential medical services (for which they have paid through taxation) being withdrawn or where and when they can smoke a cigarette if they so desire. I am also increasingly appalled by the obsession with minorities that consumes those most illiberal of people, the progressives. These people like to call themselves themselves liberal to disguise their innate authoritarianism but are very eager to impose their prejudices on the whole of society.
In a truly liberal society everybody should be equal in the eyes of the law, everybody should have equal opportunities in education, to succeed on their own terms in life (this might be described as "the pursuit of happiness", to live peacefully, to be fairly rewarded for their work, to make their own choices relating to lifestyle and to exercise their right to privacy. Beyond that the state should not interfere by asserting the rights of one group above another, should not initiate 'affirmative action' programmes as a way of redressing perceived injustices and should not involve itself in matters of morality by imposing the moral prejudices of one group on others who may find themselves forced to accept that which they find abhorrent.
A case in point is the current demand from the gay community (or gays,lesbian, bisexual and transgender community thought whether the mutual loathing of those groups qualifies them as a community is questionable) that the right of same sex couples to be married be enshrined in law. Not satisfied with the civil partnerships sanctioned by the state the loathsome whiners who claim to speak for these minorities are now demanding religious groups be forced to conduct same sex religious marriages. Personally I don't give a damn. If a couple can find a church minister willing to officiate, it's fine. I don't care. What is wrong with this demand and the backing given to it by the authoritarian 'progressives' is that it concerns itself so much with being politically correct and being seen to be progressive it tramples on the feelings of members of certain religious groups whose faith involves disapproval of homosexuality. The proposed law requires that the state places more importance on the feelings of homosexuals than on the feelings of churchgoers.
Where the odious hypocrisy of the self righteous scumbags who support this campaign is revealed however is while they insist that in the name of equality there must be no exemptions, no special cases for Roman Catholic or Evangelical Christian churches but are quite happy for Muslims to be exempt from the law because 'we must respect their faith'. Oh well, Muzzas are the current fashionable minority for the Politically Correct Thought Police
So in that one thing you see the hypocrisy, duplicity and delusions of moral superiority that typifies the 'progressive movement' exposed. Just to add a little extra flourish, not long ago a British Judge in a case of marital rape brought in a British court by a Muslim wife against her husband ruled that the law, established after a long and often bitter battle, which enabled married women to prosecute their husbands for rape could not apply to Muslims because in the Muslim faith a woman is her husband's property to be done with as he pleases. The progressive left of course see no irony in cheering this verdict as delivering justice for Muslims and then crossing the road to join a demonstration against domestic violence.
These however are the people who support big government, who applaud the proliferation of often contradictory laws that impose the moral choices of special interest groups on large sectors of society. These are the people who have usurped the word 'liberal' and used it to conceal their authoritarian tendencies. It is our civic duty to help them get in touch with their inner Nazi so they know where their true political alliegance lies.
Shakespeare's Proud Loner and The Wisdom Of CrowdsInternet billionaires and trendy, fad following media pundits like to talk of the wisdon of crowds suggesting a mob can produce a better, more intelligent result that a small team of specialists. If we look at a few examples of the widom of cowds however we soon find things are not what they seen to be.
Dr. Pangloss Said All Is For The BestEver been irritated all those exhortations to "look on the bright side"and "be positive" Felt let down by hopey-changey stuff and people who say "lets join hands and sing kumbiya to create utopia" but fail to deliver. This article might be just what you need to read
At Last The Left's Politically Correct Agenda Is Being Questioned - We Can Discuss Poverty, Race and Single PatenthoodWith Germany's leader Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron both recently declaring multiculturalism dead and many commentators starting to question the Politically Correct orthodoxy on issues like race, sexuality and single parent families are we al last smashing down the barrier that has prevented the sensible policies on many social problems being adopted.
American Concerns About British Muslims
US concerns that the UK was having difficulty containing the threat posed by home-grown extremism have been revealed in new Wikileaks cables. One cable said the British government made "little progress" in engaging with the UK's Muslim community after the 7 July 2005 terror attacks in London.The communication was delivered to Washington from the American embassy in London in August 2006.
Identities On ParadeEvery day we hear stories of the idiocies perpetrated by the Politically Correct Thought Police who in their zeal for being fair to ethnic, gender and sexual minorities only succeed in being unfair to everybody. This story of a Britisht army military tribunral and a case of discrimination against a woman soldier it is hearing reaches unprecedented levels of stupidity even for the Politicall Correct idiots ...
Lazy Pupils Exam Guide
For years employers and concerned parents have complained that school examinations are getting easier. Politically correct thinking among education academics aims to eliminate failure. But have new plans gone a step too far ...
Lost WeekendYou are seeking solitude in a small remote hotel. There is only one other guest, the solitude seekers worst nightmare, an evangelical vegan cyclist who wants to lectuire you on healthy food, meat is murder and the five a day campaign, the virtues of green electicity and electric powered personal transport and why you should scrap your car. Is there any way you can escape?
Liberal DilemmaThe progresive left, the politically correct Thought Police, are big on supporting all minorities in their pursuit of their rights and in preaching tolerance and diversity to society at large. But what happens when two of those precipous minorities, say for example Muslims and feminists come into conflict on some issue.
Going Halal In Harrow - Going Gay In RomeAs America divides politically again over plans to build a Muslim centre with prayer room (its not a Mosque OK) close to the site of the World Trade Centre destroyed in 2001 by Muslim Terrorists, Britain has a few divisions of its own brewing on a smaller scale of course. One involves Muslims and Halal meat in schools, in the other the gay rights lobby, famed for demanding tolerance, are showing no tolerance towards Roman Catholic religious principles.
Hate Crime LawThose in politics who like to call themselves the progrssive left or progressive liberals love to talk about fairness and equality. Why themn are they so keen to introduce 'hate crime' laws that will grant privilege to certain groups in a system that depens on all being equal?
Sleeping With Conservatives
Could You Hug A Tory asks a feature in The Guardian some time ago. Several typical Guardian writers describe their feelings of fear and loathing when, purely in the interests of science of course, they hugged prominent members of the Conservative Party. Me? Sex is non political. The last thing I worry about when a woman I fancy smiles at me is her politics
Pity The Poor Binmen
Whether the government in power is Labour, Conservative or coalition their idea of improving public sector efficiency sems to be to stop provinding services to the public but hire bigger and bigger armies of penpushers to administer the non provision of services. Just look what has happened with refuse collection over the years. We have ended up with a situation in which binmen are not allowed to lift or carry a bin for health and safety reasons...
Are You Sitting Comfortably? Then I'll Begin To Patronise You.Everyone hates those letters the government sends out, the ones that purport to be helping you claim what you, as a citizen of good standing are entitled to by way of benefits, health care, education, tax allowances etc. really are subtly bullying you into conformity. The most odious thing about them is the patronising, nannyish tone.
How To Be A BigotGordon Brown's dismissal or a voters concerns about immigration, jobs, crime and government debt as bigoted took the election campaign into a new zone. Now the labour, conservative and liberal democrat leaders can really go for each others throats. Bring it on
(In)equalities BillThe Equalities Bill, passed by the previous Labour government before they were ejected from power becomes law today. This farrago is typical of the imbecilic mindset of the self righteous hypocrites who style themselves the progressive left. Presented as a law in support of equality in the workplace , in this era of pandemic joblessness and perpetual financial crisis it is nothing but an attack on the businesses that provide the real, wealth producing, revenue generating jobs in the private sector.
Bigoted BritainHugh Muir, a staff writer on The Guardian tells us about his friend Jerome, an 'equalities trainer' whocomplains about the closet bigots he encounters in his job. But are these hard working taxpayers really bigots or are they just white English people angry at the though that people like Jerome with stupid non jobs that carry titles like 'equalities trainer' are eating their tax money?
Five A DayA recent survey on our understanding of a portion of fruit and veg shows that 25% of the surveyed adults thought orange squash counted as a portion of fruit. A can of Tango must count as two portions then. Add a portion of lemon meringue pie and you're almost there! Somehow we supect Nanny State's nagging about the health benefits of five a day ae falling on deaf ears
Killing Historyhe government constantly whines that not enough pulips in their later school years take up sciences. The government itself however is pushing history off the curriculum. So as they strip the nation's young people of a sense who they are and destroy the national culture inthe name of diversity and multiculturalism can they complain if those young people feel alienated and do not wish to contribute positively to the national community
Populist AuthoritarianismThe Labour Party may talk of socialism but their Nanny State tyle of ovrbearing governmental control freakery rather than protecting the weak according to the political philosophy of John Locke seeks to suppress individualism and impose uniformity by spreading fear and panic. This approach achieves equality by making all weak and dependent. Unfortunately it debilitates the nation.
Global War On PovertyNick Clegg's war on poverty, which he will launch at a United Nations conference this week is doomed before it begins. Once again the arrogance of western politicians in assuming all the people in the world want to be as materially privileged, as advanced in technology and as indebted, stressed out and unhappy as we in the developed nations gets in the way of actually doing what needs to be done..
Pursuit Of MediocritySATS test, introduced in 1993, were supposed to meaure a pupil's progress through the education system from junior to senior school and ensure every child was fulfilling their potential. Now we see the government constantly lowering standards in order to ensure enough pupils from each school are reaching government imposed targets.
Wellspring Of Human RightsPolitical Leaders like to make grandiose promises especially when thy know they can never be held to them. Thus it was with Barack Obama when he promised under his administration America would be a 'wellspring of human rights.' He meant, as it turns out, for eeryone it seems except white, middle class Americans.
You Just Can't Be Too Paranoid
Boys Games ... (audio: boys games)
Equal Rights For Hetrosexuals
There's A Lot Of It About
Power Of Positive