Thursday, November 04, 2010

The 'Libertarian Blogosphere'

Let me tell you a little secret about the Libertarian blogosphere. It doesn’t exist. Seriously, it doesn’t. Indeed, the idea of a united corner of the blogging world devoted to libertarianism is nonsense – there are few people as individualistic, willful and downright stubborn as libertarians.

Of course, when you read the phrase “libertarian blogosphere” it is not always alluding to some sort of homogenous libertarian conspiracy on the internet. It is a form of shorthand, a way of referring to certain types of blogs that are linked through ideology. Except this too is nonsense. You only have to look at the broad range of blogs that are dumped together under the tag of “libertarian”. Guido is presumed to be a libertarian blogger, but he is a right-of-centre muck-raker, whose occasional attacks on the Tories cannot hide the fact that his preference very much lies with that party. Likewise, Old Holborn is resolutely anti-statist, but the extent to which he is a Libertarian is open to question since his stance is one of naked misanthropy, more often than not. You can argue that he is negative libertarian, but to me his ideological position is far simpler than that – he just wants to be left the hell alone. There is no clear libertarian blogosphere, and those who are often lumped in within it are not themselves libertarian.

The same is true of pretty much classification on the internet. The left-wing blogosphere can encompass the mercurial ramblings of Liberal Conspiracy, the demented world-view of Terry Kelly and the occasionally engaging work of Tom Harris. Likewise, talking about the Tory blogosphere involves a broad canvass of bloggers, from the mad, mad world of Nadine Dorries, the preening, self-regarding Iain Dale and the often critical ConservativeHome. The broad categories are meaningless; they deny the vast range of blogs available.

But it isn’t the existence of the categories that bothers me – it is the way in which vast vartieties of blogs can be dismissed using these categories. Take this article – it attacks certain libertarian blogs, and in doing so dismisses the whole of the libertarian blogosphere. To do so is curiously effective, yet also crass and completely unfair. It is a sign of ignorance to lump people together based on a crude prejuidice – yet this is typical of the tendency to define blogs not by their content, but by a broad label that may or may not be applicable to the individuals concerned. In a sense it is bigotry, and I’d argue it should be treated accordingly.

Labels: , , ,

4 Comments:

At 1:53 pm , Blogger DJ Flagship said...

To be fair TNL, I think you might have slightly misread what was being said in the article by Steven Baxter/Anton Vowl. He was saying that a declination of Libertarian blogs and popularity was bad for political diversity, as it would/could lead to the same bland consensus that we have in parliament and politics off the blogosphere.

In a sense, he's actually right that many (not all) of the Libertarian bloggers seem to be less irate since the Con-Dem coalition took place, which, I guess is up to them, but perhaps not a wise decision of priorities, for a reason you stated on your blog: Libertarians need to be just as much concerned about social libertarianism, as well as economic, and as it stands, the Con-Dem coalition still has us sleepwalking into the nightmare of the War On Drugs, the numerous anti-terrorism legislation, and other populism...

 
At 9:18 pm , Blogger cartermagna said...

"there are few people as individualistic, willful and downright stubborn as libertarians."

Aint that ever the truth and long may it be so.

I didn't think the article was that bad. A bit wimpish perhaps, but some good points if you are also of a sensitive nature and easily offended. It was difficult to disagree with his assertion that with Labour out of office, the instant bile that built upon sighting the Snot Gobler and pals, is almost absent now and it's hard to find a muse.

But bigotry? That's quite a strong term TNL. Hating Robert Mugabe because he's black would be bigotry!

Labels are going to be attached, no matter what. Obama will forever be known as the first black president. Maybe, in many years to come he'll be known as the first black Democrat president. Doubtful but hey, I never thought I'd cut my hair short, give up the guitar and play golf.

I will say though, Guido will always be a prick and is as Libertarian as it takes to get him blog stats.

 
At 1:12 am , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

See, I don't think that those who have given up blogging or toned down the attacks on the government are necessarily Libertarian - the statist enemy is still there, it just has a different face and a difference taste for the illiberal. Sure, some Libertarians might be facing a feeling of fatigue at having to explain this all over again to a new government, but I suspect that many of those who went under the Libertarian tag were actually Labour haters first and foremost rather than genuinely Libertarian (if there is such a thing as a a genuine Libertarian).

And yes, labels will be used. They will always be used, and there is bog all I can do to change that. But that doesn't mean I - or anyone else for that matter - has to meekly accept those labels and their implications.

As for bigotry, well, I maintain that it is pretty bigoted to dismiss vast swathes of people who belong to a certain category because you disagree with a few of their number. The analogy is not so much hating Mugabe because he's black, but hating black people because of Mugabe. Being a Libertarian blogger doesn't mean you're like all the other bloggers classed as Libertarian.

TNL

 
At 5:52 pm , Blogger cartermagna said...

"Being a Libertarian blogger doesn't mean you're like all the other bloggers classed as Libertarian."

I quite agree with that and I think that's why it's such a rich seam of ideas, arguments and, well, fuck it, flame wars!

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home