Wednesday, April 01, 2009

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.

Labels: , , ,

15 Comments:

At 3:01 pm , Blogger Letters From A Tory said...

A fascinating read, thanks for the insight.

On my letter, I didn't actually support the ban per se. My instinct was to support some kind of government action, but I don't mind admitting that I wasn't sure how best to address this (assuming that there is indeed some way of addressing it).

That said, I really don't think education is enough. You can't discuss rational thinking, political ideology or racial prejudice with a 6-year-old, yet these children are being deliberately targetted by those seeking to implant horrible prejudices in their minds at a young age. That is a dangerous situation to leave be when it comes to achieving an integrated, cohesive and 'well oiled' society.

That is why I think some form of government action might be the only option - education is not enough and it is, in my opinion, a little naive to think that education can put an end to people with these sorts of motives and methods.

 
At 3:32 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

It may be naive to think that education can stop these people; I'd argue that it is also naive to think a ban will stop this way of thinking, and stop kids being indoctrinated with this mindless racism.

The crucial point for me is not so much the point that education is the answer (it may or may not be, my personal jury is out on that one mainly for the reason you outline) but I don't think that state restriction of the freedom of speech is the answer, and we should be very careful of falling immediately back on government action as the default answer to all problems facing society.

TNL

 
At 5:30 am , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which of Geert Wilders' views are abhorrent, and why do you consider them to be so?

 
At 7:34 am , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

From an previous comment I made on this blog:

Wilders is attempting to paint the whole of Islam as a dangerous, violent and power-hungry. Sure, parts of the Koran and elements of Muslim society meet all of those criteria, but they are very much the fundamentalist minority. To tar the whole of Islam because of a few passages and a few extremists is just the same as damning the whole of Christianity because of the more demented passages of the Bible and the actions of the Christian fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics.

Wilders is entitled to his opinion; the joy of free speech is I can tell him he is talking arse.

TNL

 
At 8:27 am , Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That said, I really don't think education is enough. You can't discuss rational thinking, political ideology or racial prejudice with a 6-year-old,"

Yes you can!!!! I've got one, questions come up we answer them. You can discuss it in the home at school, if they are home educated and the Gov or others are worried parents are indoctrinating them they can take out telly adds, discuss it on Newsround, put adds on buses, make flyers etc.

There are a million ways to speak and argue without limiting people's freedom.

"yet these children are being deliberately targeted by those seeking to implant horrible prejudices in their minds at a young age."

Seems everyone is looking for ways to implant their ideas in children's minds. We need more trust that they will develop their own good ideas.

"That is a dangerous situation to leave be when it comes to achieving an integrated, cohesive and 'well oiled' society."

Won't masses of free speech and decent argument be the best way to educate our children properly?

"That is why I think some form of government action might be the only option"

Can this be done in a way that does not reduce free speech and decent argument?

" - education is not enough and it is, in my opinion, a little naive to think that education can put an end to people with these sorts of motives and methods."

Decent education is about opening people up to their own rationality not simply filling their brains with views so it would put an end to such irrational motives and methods.

The problem is much education is simply attempts to fill heads with information and views.

 
At 9:10 am , Anonymous TDK said...

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.

This is hardly the argument for Libertarianism. The difference between LFAT and yourself is merely degree, not principle - you both advocate using the state to achieve a better society. Neither of you take the baseline assumption that good ideas will out in the free interaction of people. That's shocking for a Tory, let alone a Libertarian.

LFAT is right in that Libertarian priciples demand that we support the right of the HDJ. He is wrong in libertarians would have no problem in the HDJ pushing their views on children.

There's an underlying falsehood in LFAT's argument. That's the idea that the state can and should protect us from silly ideas. LFAT uses the code word "vulnerable". This is a purposedly loaded worded designed to advance a social interventionist agenda. It shares with "social justice" the adaptability for all sorts of state actions.

All children are vulnerable to silly ideas. Every generation thinks it has a monopoly on sensible ones. If we have a free society then all ideas get an airing and over time the silly ones fade away. Ideas (such as those of the HDJ) will meet opposing views in a free society. Either they will win arguments and add supporters or they will lose and detract supporters. Assuming they will win support implies that LFAT either thinks the ideas are good or that people are stupid and need to be protected.

If the state mandates the sensible ideas then what guarantee have we that silly ideas are never forced on people. It's not like history isn't fully of silly ideas held by the educated elites.

There are two actors in this story. One is some fringe neo-Nazi grouplet who will never amount to anything except an annoyance. They can be defeated in open debate and they always are. The second actor is the state who now are to be granted the power to place limits on what can be taught.

What is more scary?

 
At 11:14 am , Blogger Roger Thornhill said...

I would say that the way the State can educate young people as to why the views of the HDJ are wrong is not to say "HDJ are wrong" specifically but to say what is right.

When kids have the basic reasoning, logic and concept of freedom and equality before the law (as in not the fake "e-kwallidiee" nonsense they are fed now) in their minds, the ideas of the HDJ should invoke dissonance just as any repugnant teaching will.

 
At 3:31 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

TDK said:

"Every generation thinks it has a monopoly on sensible ones. If we have a free society then all ideas get an airing and over time the silly ones fade away."

I'd like to agree with this statement...but I think that history would suggest otherwise. Can the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany be based solely on the failure of the Weimar Government to manage Hitler, and, Nazi violence?

What are your thoughts on this?

 
At 5:31 pm , Anonymous TDK said...

I think that history would suggest otherwise. Can the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany be based solely on the failure of the Weimar Government to manage Hitler, and, Nazi violence?

I presume the question is directed at me.

The subject at hand is educational freedom. I know of no study that suggests that teaching played a part in the rise of Hitler. Of course once in power the Nazis enforced education about racial purity and encouraged membership of the Hitler Youth. But these were post success changes; they didn't create the victory.

I think you need to establish that failure to stop children being taught pro Nazi material was a key factor in bringing about his success.

 
At 6:01 pm , Anonymous TDK said...

Let me add this.

You conflate two different issues

1. Allowing certain things to be taught to German pupils in the period before 1933
2. The failure of the Weimar Government to manage Hitler, and, Nazi violence?

I've dealt with (1)

Our expectations of what they should have done should be based upon what they knew at the time and not on hindsight. The Weimar government did imprison Hitler but only for a short period. The Nazis were violent but their violence was directed against people who didn't command popular sympathy. In particular the communists, who shared the street violence and who most people thought a deserving target. It's worth comparing the inaction of the Weimar government faced with violent process with others. Do we imprison the leaders of violent movements? Or their apologists?

Do the G20 protest leaders expect to be imprisoned? Will those Imams that appeared on Dispatches get arrested?

If Nick Griffin tells his followers to beat up Asians then he deserves to be imprisoned.

I'm sure the Weimar government had similar laws. Perhaps they lost their nerve.

 
At 6:32 pm , Anonymous TDK said...

And a third thought.

Since we are discussing the 1920s, let's look at some ideas that were generally thought to be respectable at that time.

Eugenics was a movement that had make great progress in both America and Europe. Many American states were already sterilising unfit adults as were Scandinavia countries. In England eugenics measures were promoted by many people including Shaw and Wells.

Given the popularity (or the respectability) of Eugenics where would the impetus to ban promotion of Eugenics originate?

Second the idea of White Man's burden was on the fade then but still respectable and still widely held.

These two ideas were not confined to the far right. In Jack London we find a socialist who embraced both.

It is absurd to assume that teachers in the 1920s could or would have been able to treat these ideas as being extremist. Many of the teachers shared these attitudes. They were common amongst the intellectual elite.

Those people thought they had sensible ideas and they certainly wouldn't have banned them. However they might have banned something else.

That's the thing that should be at the back of your mind as you imagine a modern ban. Every age assumes it has the truth. Tell me what popularly held views today will be regarded as ridiculous in 100 years time?

Hitler rose to power in an era when he held views that were not atypical. That's not true of modern neo-Nazis.

Should there be a next dictator, he will also emerge with views favoured by the intellectual elite.

 
At 8:27 am , Blogger Longrider said...

...That said, I really don't think education is enough. You can't discuss rational thinking, political ideology or racial prejudice with a 6-year-old,

Yes, you can. You underestimate childrens' ability to think rationally or to reason. I was of a similar age when my father explained the principles of free speech to me and just how important it was to allow everyone no matter how ideologically repugnant, to have their say - for all the reasons mentioned on this post.

 
At 9:08 am , Anonymous John said...

You can't discuss rational thinking, political ideology or racial prejudice with a 6-year-old"

In which case, what are we worried about? If a six year old can't comprehend the political argument, he's hardly going to be dedicated to the political ideology of HDJ.

You can of course you can discuss these things with a six year old, but even if you had to wait until they were 8, 10, 12 or 14, would it really be too late to disabuse them of notions which are so demonstrably false? (I speak here only of those ideas for which there is clear evidence of falsehood).

 
At 9:47 am , Anonymous Anonymous said...

TDK's arguments seem to be well thought through. I wanted to say that I concur almost fully. There was a time when slavery was considered 'correct' and justifiable. In time that argument was defeated by rational and considered thought. I believe that in any society where there is actually free speech or something approaching it, then there is a long term drift towards understanding and compassion. That is not to say that the stocks of compassion cannot go down as well as up on that journey, but over time things drift towards an increase in understanding and compassion. Stopping people talking about any political belief will always make it more attractive to some people and obstruct that drift. Juxtaposing neo-nazism with 'old-style' nazism can only do permanent harm to a nazi philosophy. This to me seems so darned self evident that I find it difficult to understand the logic behind any counter-argument, though I really try.

And you certainly can discuss practically anything with a six year old, a four year old and I would argue that even a two year old has far more capacity for reasoning than seems to be being given credit for. The notion that you cannot betrays a complete lack of understanding of the capabilities of a young human. I was amazed that anyone could suggest that an average six year old does not have an ability to understand reasoned argument. The six year olds I have known certainly had that capability.

 
At 10:33 am , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to back up TDK. Try watching 'The Soviet Story' on you tube and hear George Bernard Shaw talking about how you will have to justify your existence to the state.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home