Letters From A Tory, Libertarians and Free Speech

Letters From A Tory has written a letter to Libertarians; as a member of the Libertarian party and as someone who goes by the moniker of the Nameless Libertarian, I thought I would offer some thoughts in response to some of his ideas.

LFAT sums up the situation here:

Yesterday’s news reports of a far-right group being banned in Germany after allegedly organising activities that promoted racist and Nazi ideologies to children raises some difficult questions that appear to expose the dangers of laissez-faire government.

No; they expose the limitations of government intervention when it comes to free speech. No Libertarian would advocate the indoctrination of Nazism into kids; but they would also be very wary of using the state as a means of suppressing these views.

Make no mistake about, the views of this group are particularly abhorrent:

The HDJ said it was a “youth group for environment, community and homeland” but at its special holiday camps, children were taught elements of “racial ideology”, including the “purity of blood” and “the continuation of the German race”, with the aim of forming a neo-Nazi elite, according to the government.

It sounds ghastly; clear example of racism and Anti-Semitism. Also sounds similar in style to Jesus Camp. Or to the more militant wings if Islam. Are we looking to ban all those who might advocate other ideas that might harm children? Are we going to cancel You’ve Been Framed because it might encourage children to do dangerous things? Are we going to hide our children away from anything that is not government allowed, neutral ideas? Where does it end?

The messages and ethos of the HDJ have no place in the minds of children; is the most effective way of stopping that from happening really banning them? LFAT and the German government clearly thinks so:

With today’s ban we’re putting an end to the nauseating activities of the HDJ,” Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said. “We will do everything in our power to protect our children and youth from these Pied Pipers.”

This government, in keeping with power hungry governments all over the world, is keen to use its power. And it is keen to use its power to the max. By banning stuff. But there are other, subtler and (I’d argue) more effective ways of combating the HDJ. Like educating young people as to why the views of the HDJ are wrong – both through state education and through other means. It is also about encouraging parents to take responsible attitudes towards their children, and enabling them to make up their own minds and discover their own routes to rejecting the HDJ.

Libertarians believe that the state should merely uphold the law and do little else. Unfortunately in the UK, our authoritarian government are seeking to outlaw free speech so it is likely that the HDJ would fall foul of our legislation, but presumably all libertarians want to repeal laws on inciting religious and racial hatred as they restrict liberty.

Can’t speak for Libertarians everywhere, but I certainly would want to repeal those laws. You cannot punish people for holding views; it is their right as an adult. You cannot stop people from expounding those views. What you can to is take them on and face them down with the rational, coherent, inclusive argument. As soon as you start banning parties and prosecuting people for their views, you make martyrs of them. Nick Griffin becomes a champion of free speech when you don’t let him talk; Geert Wilders gets a far higher profile for his abhorrent views because he’s not let into the country. And the HDJ will get far more publicity for their views because they are banned; some people will be intrigued to find out what views are so extreme that they have to be banned by the German government.

Libertarians argue for freedom; the right for people to be wise and sage in their opinions, which also involves the flipside. The HDJ illustrate the flipside nicely; the fact that they are evangelical about their abhorrent views doesn’t mean the only or most effective way to combat them is through a ban.

So, assuming that if libertarians had their way then these laws would not exist and the HDJ were therefore not breaking the law, I figured that libertarians would have no problem in the HDJ pushing their views on children.

Sorry, that just doesn’t follow. You could reverse the argument, and state that the Tories have no problem with banning any view that is not 100% in line with the thinking of David Cameron because LFAT backs the banning of HDJ. Speaking as a Libertarian, we do have a real problem with the HDJ forcing their views on children; we just disagree with the idea that the best way to combat this is through banning them and attacking free speech. Tell the kids why it is wrong, explain what is so ghastly about the HDJ. Don’t just ban it and hope the kids never get exposed to the seedy underbelly of racism within society.

Their ideology is nationalist in the extreme, but in an environment where free speech reigns supreme and in the absence of evidence that the HDJ are harming anyone financially or physically with their beliefs then surely libertarians have no grounds for putting an end to the HDJ’s activities?

We wouldn’t want to put an end to their activities through the law; rather, I’d like to see them broken through real debate within society. I don’t want them banned, and forced underground to continue these activities through other means – I want to see their views utterly discredited in the public eye. Sure, that will be a difficult thing to do. But it is worth a go, and it involves people who oppose the HDJ positively and proactively using free speech, rather than attacking free speech to harm the HDJ.

Besides, who says that banning the HDJ will stop their activities? You going to stop people thinking these thoughts? You going to stop them telling their children about it? You think a ban will do that? No, it will just drive these views and this party under ground, where it will be next to impossible to figure out what they are and aren’t doing. It will make it impossible to put the counter-argument to the HDJ’s view into the public mind and into the minds of kids. You aren’t stopping the views of the HDJ; you’re restricting your ability to counter them.

Libertarians can argue for a small state as much as they want, but when it comes to protecting vulnerable individuals, Conservatives seem much better placed to do somethiing about it than someone who doesn’t really believe government has a mandate to intervene.

And this neatly sums up the difference between the Libertarian and the Tory mindset. The Tories see a problem, see a threat to the nation’s youth so they have to legislate and ban. They have to restrict free speech. The Libertarian mindset is to first of all look at other ways in which these awful views can be dealt with, and whether the state actually has to intervene or not.

Sometimes, legislation is the only answer. Child porn would be a good example. But those cases are the exception, and not the rule. And as soon as you start setting up the government as the decider of what is and isn’t an acceptable view, you start allowing for arbitrary and deeply illiberal moves by that government. There may be some Conservatives, like LFAT, who applaud the German government’s decision and would want a Tory government to follow this example. But let’s not forget that it was a Tory government that attempted to suppress homosexuals, in order to protect the nation’s youth.