Things can get worse...

“Things can’t get much worse in this country” a friend said to me recently. They were speaking from a socialist perspective, and lamenting the spending cuts and the fact that the coalition is not quite as spendthrift as its predecessor. The validity of these justifications are not my main concern today – I think anyone who reads this blog regularly will know where I stand on such issues – but the notion that things can’t get much worse in this country is not unique to the left. It can be seen in some in the right. It can be seen in statist and in libertarians. And it is, of course, bollocks.

While things ain’t grand at the moment, it could get much, much worse in this country. You can look elsewhere in the world, to countries like North Korea, to see just how bad things can get with ever increasing state intervention. Likewise, you can look to various war-torn African nations to see what happens when the state collapses in on itself and effectively disappears. Yeah, you might be paying more tax than you would like (I know I certainly am) and you might be sick of paternalistic types tutting at you when you enjoy a drink or a cigarette, but you aren’t dodging bullets in a civil war or avoiding the secret police in an authoritarian regime. Things could be worse.

Because one of the things we still have in this country despite the continued erosion of our civil liberties by successive statist government is the right to bellyache about it all. You can protest – in writing, verbally or in person. Sure, you might not like the fact that the state attempts to control your protest (and again I don't) but you can still do it. And you can protest about anything you like – it doesn’t even have to make sense. So you can have a pop at the government about spending cuts, even though they have precious little choice but to decrease the rate at which government spending rises. You can also have a go at nonsense conspiracy theories like the currently fashionable idea of the domination of “cultural Marxism” (a spurious concept that seems to be an attempt to add an ersatz veneer of respectability to the old claim of “it’s political correctness gone mad!”) While we have the right to protest, things can get much worse. And history has shown us just how bad things can get. The worst case scenario isn’t social shunning of the non-comformist or even legislating against them; it is the death camp for that non-conformist.

And the wonderful yet terrifying truth about our current situation is that what happens next remains, to a large extent, in our hands. It’s wonderful because we can potentially shape a version of tomorrow where we are freer. It is terrifying because we might not take that opportunity or fuck that opportunity up. But we should always remember, no matter what our frustrations are in the here and now, that things can get much worse. And that can be a motivator; to make sure that they don’t.

Shop an Anarchist, say Police

And the police continue their slow transition into the thought police with this sort of illiberal bullshit:

This was the surprising injunction from the Metropolitan Police issued to businesses and members of the public in Westminster last week. There was no warning about other political groups, but next to an image of the anarchist emblem, the City of Westminster police's "counter terrorist focus desk" called for anti-anarchist whistleblowers stating: "Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local police."

The move angered some anarchists who complained that being an anarchist should not imply criminal behaviour. They said they feel unfairly criminalised for holding a set of political beliefs.

And anarchists should complain because they are being criminalised for their political beliefs if this sort of thing becomes standard practice. But the rest of us should also be very worried. This is a clear point on a very slippery slope to where any non-conformist thoughts is considered a matter for the authorities. Not non-conformist behaviour, mind. No, here we are talking about non-conformist thoughts.

Furthermore, look at the language used to call for whistle-blowers (a term surely being abused here - state snoops would be a better description): anarchists believe that the state is a problem; therefore, they need to be reported to the state. The unspoken, unquestioning devotion to the concept of the state is inherent within these words. The implication is that questioning or resisting the state should be reported to the police; therefore, such behaviour is criminal.

We live in a world where all sorts of groups aspire to commit terrorist atrocities, where MPs rob us blind, where the media our invade privacy with police facilitated impunity and mindless violence is the reality on the streets on most Friday and Saturday nights in some cities. But forget all that - the real problem is people holding anarchist beliefs. Yeah, the police should *definitely* focus on that. And you should definitely help the state by snooping on any anarchists.

And the irony is that through such statements the state shows precisely why it is not a benign entity, and should be resisted, reduced in its size and scope if not dismantled completely.

Quote of the Day and Another Rant About Conspiracy Theories

From Longrider on yet another post at OoL expounding dubious and unconvincing conspiracy theories:

I have to say that conspiracy theories really undermines what we are doing here. When we point out genuine, provable malfeasance on the part of those who would steal our liberties, our opponents will point straight back to the conspiracy theories and laugh.

Couldn't agree more. While I absolutely believe that James Higham et al should have a right to publish what they want, especially on a site co-run by Higham, I have to say the conspiracy theory guff does nothing for the cause of liberty and will probably end up harming it. We don't need a conspiracy theory about 9/11 to show that the Patriot Act was wrong, and we don't need a conspiracy theory about 7/7 to show that all the attempts to increase the detention periods in this country were wrong. All those conspiracy theories create straw man arguments that our opponents can easily bat away, making themselves look right in the process. And the worst thing is, in articles like the one linked to above, we create those straw man arguments, not our opponents.

And I don't understand why we have to create these largely unprovable and, in my humble opinion, false ideas that cultural Marxism has taken over the world, or that Obama is closet Marxist, or that Christianity is being undermined by arguably the most incompetent organisations in the world (namely, local governments). We're not dealing with opponents who are generally very subtle about what they do. There's no great attempt to hide the fact that the DNA of innocent people is being kept on the DNA database in what represents a massive u-turn and a real concern to anyone interested in championing civil liberties in this country. They're doing it, right now, down in London. We don't need to fight members of the Frankfurt School who have been dead for decades when Clegg and Cameron are doing tangible things to damage freedom in the here and now, right in front of our noses.

But anyway; enough. Fighting conspiracy theorists is a waste of time and effort. I believe in freedom and that belief encompasses the freedom of conspiracy loons to spout their paranoia on any platform they see fit. But that same freedom allows me to point out that what they are doing doesn't help the cause of freedom and actually hinders it.

On Dogma

Let’s begin by sketching an imagined, but I would say wholly realistic, debate between a Christian and an atheist. The atheist might reject Christianity on the grounds that it has been responsible for much bloodshed over the course of its history – and just the thought of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the years of bloody conflict in Northern Ireland support this case. The Christian might respond that secular movements have also got a lot of blood on their hands – and it would be ludicrous to deny that something like Stalinism was not responsible for immense death and suffering.

Of course, either one of the participants in our imaginary debate could deny that their particular view is responsible for the slaughter. A Christian might point out that it is only a corruption of their faith that could allow for something like the Inquisition – after all, didn’t Jesus talk about the most important commandment being that you should love your neighbour? Likewise, a secular Marxist could point out that Stalinism is a gross distortion of Marxism. Now, I’d argue that both positions require highly selective readings of their sources. Just a cursory flick through the Old Testament will show you a God happy to smite as well as offering a vertiable myriad of regulations designed to control many aspects of life, often backed up by the threat of death. Likewise, Marx may not have intended to create Stalinism, but it is difficult to really see “the dictatorship of the proletariat” ending up as anything other than, well, a dictatorship.

There might be more merit in a secular libertarian like me pointing out that the Christian has, to some extent, created a straw man to fight – after all, not all secular beliefs are like Stalinism (libertarianism being a good example). But this is to miss the point the Christian might be trying to make – that slaughter is not unique to religion, and therefore the root cause of that sort of slaughter needs to be located somewhere other than in religion.

I’d be inclined to agree. The problem isn’t the belief in a god or the teachings of a secular thinker per se, but rather the way in which that belief manifests itself. The problem comes when a belief becomes a dogma, and those who follow that belief see their view as an unassailable truth that must be protected at all costs. It is a short leap from that position to the idea that anyone who does not share your beliefs is a problem, and either needs to be converted or silenced (with all the menacing implications that the latter concept has). And it is here that an atheist can be just as dangerous as a Christian, and there is far more common ground between the two views than might at first be expected.

This is why I can’t stomach someone like Richard Dawkins. Yeah, I agree with him that God does not exist. I see no reason to believe in a benign being in the sky watching over us than I do in a benign being living at the North Pole and having an impossibly busy night once a year. But I don’t care too much about what other people believe. As long as they don’t proselytise their faith, they can believe exactly what they want. Which is precisely where Dawkins fails for me – he wants to convince the God-botherers that their views are delusional*. I don’t care what beliefs they hold just so long as they bother God rather than me.

And the dangers of dogma is one of the key challenges facing any thinker genuinely interested in liberty, in part because sometimes the beliefs you hold will be changed by others into a dogma. There are many who believe whole-heartedly in liberal democracy – but when this becomes a dogma that the most powerful nation wishes to force on other countries through violence whether they like it or not, it becomes a concern.

It is the challenge of the liberally minded to always question the extent to which a view has become dogmatic, and whether other views – regardless of whether a liberal likes them or not – are being allowed to be heard. It is not religion that is the problem; it is a dogmatic religion that refuses to allow dissent that is the problem (or religious fundamentalism, to put it another way). The problem is dogma, and the solution is a commitment to critical thinking that challenges any “truth” that is blindly and unthinkingly held, especially if that “truth” is intolerant of the views and beliefs of others.

*A curious tactic to take, I’d argue, when you are trying to win over other people – always difficult to build up rapport with someone after you have attempted to destroy someone’s belief system and then called them mental for having those beliefs in the first place.

Christanity, Conformity and Freedom

Over at the Orphans of Liberty, luikkerland seems to be proposing something really rather illiberal - conformity to Christanity. While the bulk of the article is a long and not especially interesting story of his/her encounter with the sort of unthinking moron we're all aware of but try to avoid contact with, the first paragraph is alarming in its implications. Let's take a look:

I was interested to see Mr Higham’s piece on writing a constitution as a task in a process to right the country. I don’t disagree, but having a constitution by itself is not enough. A constitution becomes unstuck if the people are too corrupt, distracted or fearful to uphold it. What is required in the first instance is the instruction of the people (and I actually feel that people have gone short of being preached to) so that they can tell the difference between what is natural and what is the constructed elaborate fake. A constitution should be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but too many Britons don’t know what the obvious is. Look at this example of confusion, for instance: some people believe that the death penalty is barbaric, and that abortion is civilised. Look at how many do not understand that Liberty comes from the prohibition of corruption and vice – the means by which society is undermined and manipulated by those encouraging and introducing it – applied equally across all parts of society.

First up, constitutions. I can see the appeal, and think they do represent a potential tool in the fight for liberty. But they are also open to interpretation at the same time as being very much snapshots of the period in which they were created (a point that further broadens the potential for biased interpretations). Furthermore constitutions can just be shams whatever the rhetoric contained in it, such as the 1936 constitution of the Soviet Union.

So, in a sense, luikkerland is right - constitutions need the backing and proactive support of the people. And that people needs to be intelligent, engaged, committed to liberty and to tolerating those who do not share their viewpoints. Which is where luikkerland falls short in his analysis. The only real tolerance (s)he allows for is a tolerance contained within their own Christian prejuidices. Which is almost by definition illiberal.

But let's unpack this a bit - let's look at why luikkerland's ideas are illiberal. First up, there seems to be the suggestions that we should be preached at. This seems extraordinary to me given we're only just getting over 13 years of Nu Labour rule where we constantly preached by the son of a priest and by a Christian Prime Minister. But, no doubt, that won't count for luikkerland - even though Blair has now converted to Catholicism. What's the reason behind this need for preaching? The fact that people need to understand the "bleeding obvious" rather than the "constructed elaborate fake". Unfortunately, the bleeding obvious seems to be predicated on the deeply divisive and not at all credible idea that we are "the ultimate creation of God". Which is, of course, a "constructed elaborate fake" for many people in this country.

It is pointless to ask Christians for proof of their beliefs - quite rightly, they point to the notion that their religion is based on faith, so if proof was forthcoming then faith would be fatally undermined. But they also need to understand that fate is not something you can turn on and off. I cannot choose to have faith in God; on balance, using my faculties of reason and critical thinking, I see no way in which God can exist. So to expect me to subscribe to the notion that liberty is about the "prohibtion of corruption and vice" is deeply troubling, especially if the concepts of corruption and vice are seen through an explicitly Christian lens - since Christianity is far from tolerant.

A Christian viewpoint might see homosexuality, sex outside of wedlock and blasphemy as examples of corruption and vice, yet for me there is nothing wrong with any of those concepts. Furthermore, even on issues where there might be a wider consensus of what constitutes vice outside of the Christian faith - such as the use of prostitutes or people having extra-marital affairs - what right does anyone have to suppress actions between consenting adults based on the long, contradictory teachings of a book written millenia ago? True tolerance, true liberalism should allow people to conduct themselves in whatever way they like as long as that behaviour dies not fall foul of the Harm Principle.

Luikkerland cites the "confusion" people have over the death penalty being a "barbaric" and abortion "civilised". This is quite a common Christian fundamentalist simplication of these two highly complex moral issues. As someone who is pro-choice, I believe that in certain early stages of the pregnancy a woman should have the right to choose whether or not they terminate that pregnancy. This does not make me pro-abortion or into a believer that abortion is civilised - rather, it subscribes me to the thoroughly liberal view that the state should be restricted as much as possible when it comes to our bodies and what happens to them. Which is why I am also opposed to the death penalty, which is perhaps the ultimate example in states physically intervening in the lives of their citizens. There is no confusion here, there is consistency - it is about limiting the state's right to interfere in the lives and choices of its citizens. You might argue that the state should interfere in these circumstances and control both whether a woman has a baby and whether a criminal is murdered by the state - that's fine, but such arguments have little to do with liberalism.

And there is a splendid irony in luikkerland decrying the perceived manipulation of others at the same time as advocating preaching to spread the word of his/her own chosen dogma. The whole concept reminds me of the notorious assertion by Rousseau that people should be forced to be free. Luikkerland is fine with you being free, but just to clarify - freedom means conforming to what (s)he believes in.

Liberty is about tolerance. It is about finding ways in which differing conceptions of the good can live in peaceful co-existence with each other. It isn't about conformity, whether that conformity be to a socialist or Christian dogma. Don't get me wrong, I think that luikkerland should be able to write what they want where they want, and I don't see any problem with such illiberal bilge being on a website at least nominally committed to liberty. But I do think that those of us genuinely committed to the cause of liberty should not be afraid to call this for what it is - social conservatism drifting toward the reactionary, with a healthy dose of Christian fundamentalism thrown into the mix. Freedom it most certainly is not.

Update: Longrider says something similar over at the Orphans of Liberty; unsurprisingly, I agree with what he says - especially this:

Liberty does not need religion to survive. Religion does tend to rely on liberty though.

Big Society, Big Government

Cameron's been defending his Big Society programme in The Guardian (of all places). It is, much like its author, anodyne and pretty bland. The only people it could truly work up are those who believe, like some sort of tedious cultists, that cuts are bad. To everyone else, it is a bland repetition of a case that already isn't convincing anyone.

For me, though, it is all about looking for those telling little signs that Cameron isn't actually all about smaller government. And you have to sift through pretty much the whole article to get to the crucial point. But, just so you don't have to, here it is:

But we understand that while the opportunity lies in the future the local authority cuts are happening now. So this week we are launching a transition fund to help charities prepare to bid for these contracts and a big society bank to provide some working capital when they're awarded them.

Or, to translate from Cameronspeak, the government will still fund various organisations, and make those organisations vie for funds. The difference between what has been happening and what will happen under the Big Society is a little lost on me: the government still takes money from its people and redistributes it to organisations of which it approves. Which is not so much Big Society as Big Government.

Which is the big problem; this isn't about reducing government control over society, it is about redefining government control. Paternalism rather than centralisation seems to be the order of the day. Which is fine if you are a paternalist; any true liberal, though, should be feel pretty despairing when faced with the Cameron vision of a Big Society.

I don't doubt some will latch onto the word "transition" in quote above, and argue that this is all a stepping stone to a genuine redistribution of power between government and society. They may yet be shown to be right, but at the moment that requires a leap of faith that I just can't make. The Big Society is still an exercise in central government control - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Good. One piece of control-freak, illiberal legislation down, about a billion to go.

More like this, please, Con-Dems. A lot more like this. And quickly.

The Coalition's Progress

The coalition came to power promising a new politics; a common enough aspiration, and it is easy enough to understand why the Con-Dems would want to distinguish themselves from the completely compromised failure that was the Brown administration. But, as Obama has so clearly demonstrated in the US, it is far easier to talk about change in politics than to actually implement it. So how have the Con-Dems got on thus far?

In terms of spending cuts, they’ve obviously made a start – although the caveat about a reduction in future spending not being the same as an actual cut in spending is ever present and ever relevant. However, where the Con-Dems have completely failed is in the battle to dominate the discourse when it comes to spending “cuts”. Rather than making the case for spending cuts, and thus reducing the size of the state, they have treated cuts as something nasty that they are being forced to do. A bit of empty, half-hearted rhetoric about the Big Society is not enough to make the case for a smaller state and a freer, but more responsible, populace. Plus, the Con-Dems have completely failed to punish Labour enough for making these cuts inevitable. Every time Ed Miliband opens his stupid mouth to spout spurious nonsense about the “cuts”, the coalition should be responding with “well you and your party caused them!” There is an opportunity here to keep Labour out of power for a generation, but that will only happen if people truly understand the cost of Labour’s incompetence during their thirteen years of misrule.

The coalition has also made a small start with civil liberties. It is great that the ID card scheme has been scrapped, but that is simply a reversal of one of Labour’s most egregious attacks on our civil liberties. It is not the start of a genuine move towards a freer society in any meaningful way. And the much vaunted commitment to civil liberties from the coalition is not materialising in terms of practical politics. The state can still spy on us to a massive extent; landlords are not allowed to decide whether to allow smoking on their premises or not; protest is still draconically policed; we are all still “nudged” towards the sort of behaviour the state wants from us. If there is a distinction between the coalition and the last Labour government, then it is in a commitment to paternalism rather than overt coercion. Thus, we’re in a better state of affairs than we were under Blair and Brown, but there is still a hell of a long way to go.

The area where the coalition has had its most success is in maintaining what is a fragile and unlikely union between two different parties. Sure, there have been grumblings – particularly from the Lib Dem contingent, but generally speaking the coalition has defied cynics and managed to hold itself together, even through deeply divisive issues such as the rise in tuition fees. It is well within the realms of reality to now predict that the coalition will serve a full five years in office – something that, on paper, never really appeared possible even in the first flush of the new political union last May.

But this is somewhat depressing; the most effective the coalition has been, according to this analysis, is in clinging onto the reigns of power. In other words, by acting for itself. The self-interest that has dominated so much of recent political history is present and correct in the “new politics”, rather sadly. And the progress of the coalition thus has not been impressive; at the moment, the very best that they can claim is that they haven’t been as bad as Labour. But if they genuinely what to do something new, and create a decisive break with the past, then they have to spell out a decisive vision for a smaller state and at the same time turn their rhetoric in civil liberties into something meaningful and practical. Forget the Big Society; the coalition can be genuinely ground-breaking if it speeds up the pace of change and gives us a free society instead of the status quo.

Nudge Off!

The coalition, no doubt as part of the dubious and strangely familiar "New Politics", is looking to control how cigarette manufacturers package their wares. Basically, they want bland packages. For the sake of the children, of course.

To a large extent, this is a case of "what's new?" At least until I read this:

Dr Alan Maryon-Davis, professor of public health at Kings College London, said: "It's a very welcome statement from the health secretary and a good example of how the government can help people choose a healthier way of life by 'nudging' rather than nagging."

"Nudging"? Oh, Sweet Jesus Christ and all the baby orphans. This is not nudging, nor is it nagging. It is something all the more dangerous and illiberal. It is telling private businesses how they can and can't operate on utterly spurious grounds. It isn't about the people and their spawn; it is about the government flexing its muscles and using its power.

And the worst thing? It won't work. Those who like to smoke will continue to do so regardless of the packaging. Those who want to give up will not suddenly stop because their favourite brand of fags are now indistinguishable from all the other brands. And the kids... well, want to stop them smoking? Then enforce the fucking law that already says that kids are not allowed to smoke, rather than restricting freedom further in this country.

This isn't a "nudge"; it's yet another patronising and paternalistic restriction of freedom from a government who - on this most crucial of issues - looks almost indistinguishable from the last one.

Liberty's Blind Spot

To me, there are two components to freedom - and you need to have both in order to be truly free. The first is probably the non-controversial one; at least to Libertarians. It is the idea that you need to be economically free in order to enjoy liberty. Or to put it another way, you should be able to decide how you spend your money rather than the government deciding for you.

This simple view is the sort of thing that has motivated people across the world to fight for freedom, especially given governments have lost sight of the fact that tax money is not actually their own money - it is money they take from their citizens under duress. You can see an example of such a campaign in the Tea Party Movement over in the US. Whatever you might think of them, those guys are fighting for economic freedom from an ever-growing, money hungry state.

But there is a second component to liberty that is just as essential to meaningful freedom. And that is the freedom to live your life how you want to live it (within the constraints of something like the Harm Principle). And it is here that many supposed champions of freedom and those claiming to be Libertarian start to struggle with the practical reality of liberty. Because to actually embrace liberty means you are happy for people to have beliefs other than your own; to live alternative lifestyles and to do things that you would never do. Sure, you may not approve of what others do. However, if you are a true friend of liberty, you have to allow those people to live their life the way they want to even if their choices are completely alien to you.

And it is here that something like the Tea Party movement departs from a genuinely Libertarian agenda and drifts towards social conservatism. You only have to look at the views of one of their current media darlings - Christine O'Donnell. Her views on abortion, for example, are utterly illiberal. She would deny females the right to choose what happens to their own bodies - something that is completely alien to the concept of freedom. This seems to be fairly typical of many of the leading lights of that movement. It doesn't matter whether their views on abortion are down to deeply held religious beliefs or down to pragmatism in the search for votes from the Christian right - they are still illiberal.

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't genuine Libertarians in that movement. Rather, it is trying to point out the danger (which Libertarians so often fall foul of) assuming that your enemy's enemy must be your friend. You may not like much of what Obama does, for instance, but that doesn't mean that the natural recourse is to trust, and therefore back, Sarah Palin. Likewise, in this country a hatred of Gordon Brown does not make you a Tory. Nor does it make David Cameron and the rest of his party Libertarian.

The point is this - if you claim to be Libertarian, then don't fall foul of Liberty's Blind Spot. Social freedom is just as important as economic freedom, and if you truly feel the need to support the Conservatives or the Republicans, make sure that you do so with a full awareness that, at best, they support just about 50% of what is actually needed to make people free.

Health and Safety

This is the sort of news I welcome - the government apparently preparing to give some responsibility for the lives of its citizens back to those citizens. This is the sort of thing that should be celebrated - particularly after 13 years of grinding, illiberal, controlling politics from Nu Labour.

Now, I'm not the sort of person who gets worked up about individual examples of what is termed "the nanny state". I cannot get excited about the banning of a cheese-rolling event in Gloucestershire. Both the event and the banning of it seem pretty idiotic to me, but that's it. But what does bother me is the impact that all these little bans and controls have on us. They make us unwilling to take responsibility for ourselves. They make us dependent on the state. We end up not being able to think for ourselves. And that is a very dangerous state of affairs, because then we cease to be a nation of adults capable of making decisions for ourselves and without government guidance.

Of course, when installing health and safety guidelines and laws, the government can appear benign. They are making rules, they are restricting freedom, in order to stop people being hurt or worse. What better thing could a government do? Except this notion - the idea that the right combination of regulations and laws will eliminate risk from society - is just not possible. Part of being alive is being at risk - and also essential to live is making calculated risks.

Then we get the claims that the government is trying to make children safer - the age old cry, now hackneyed beyond belief, of "won't someone think of the children?" Well, yes, someone should. Their parents. Seriously, if you are going to have kids, then take some responsibility for them. You're their parent, not the government. So if you don't want your kids, for example, to play conkers, then don't let them. If you're actually going to be a parent, then you should do some parenting, rather than expecting the government to do it for you.

Because can you really blame the government when they say you shouldn't smoke, or drink, or be anything other than an optimum weight given the culture of abdication of responsibility in this country? Can you really blame the government when they decide that your children should only hear certain words in their school, or when they decide you're not fit to be a parent when the government has been allowed to control so much of what constitutes parenting in this country? Every meaningless or pointless restriction that appears, by itself, not to matter actually does matter - it is a sign to the state saying we want them to take responsibility for us.

As a nation, we should welcome the idea of restricting government intervention on the grounds of health and safety. And we should push it to do far more in order to give us our freedom - and therefore our lives - back. And we should also grow the fuck up and remember we are adults. Everyone in this country needs to take responsibility for ourselves and any offspring we bring into this world.

Health and safety? Your health, your safety. Act accordingly.

Miliband Minor and Freedom

Over at The New Statesman, a wonderfully stupid comment about the illiberal voting record of Ed Miliband on the day he decided that he does kind of like civil liberties after all. It's from someone who (presumably ironically) is calling themselves Rebellionkid:

It's important not to take individual pieces of the voting record out of context. He was elected in 2005 so we only have one parliament to go on, and for most of that time he was in and around cabinet. He did not rebel on any vote and turned up to most of the more contentious ones. Almost all party members that senior or above will have an identical voting record including unambiguous support for the "anti-terror" disasters. It's important not to assume this reflects his opinion, simply how he had to vote to get on.

Right, so we're supposed to excuse Miliband Minor's poor choices when voting on legislation that affects every single person in this country because he needed to vote that way to get on. That seems fair enough, doesn't it? Britain was made a less free place in part through the votes of that Pob-faced cunt but we shouldn't worry about that, because it helped him get where he is today. That's fine, isn't it? No, of course it fucking isn't.

Don't believe me? Well, let's take a controversial piece of Tory legislation. Section 28 springs to mind. Now, in order to get ahead in the era of Section 28, a Tory politician would have to vote for that vile piece of policy. But, dontcha see, it's ok to back that homophobia, because it allowed them to make headway with their career. Same logic, see? There we have it - backing homophobia is ok, and Rebellionkid would have to agree. Except it isn't - never was, and never will be. Just like shitting all over civil liberties for careerist reasons really isn't ok.

Ultimately, we're left with two scenarios. Either Miliband Minor backed the attack on liberty in the last government against his better judgement for reasons of expediency, or he voted for the legislation because he believed in it and now is jacking in those beliefs to try to outflank the ConDems. Either way, Miliband Minor is no friend of freedom. Quite the opposite - he is the very definition of a Nu Labour politician, where cheap political gestures are far more important than real ideological commitments. Ed Miliband - fuck 'im, and his false claim to now be a champion of freedom.

Democracy: a Threat to Freedom?

One of the biggest threats to freedom that is emerging in today’s society is democracy. That is not to say that democracy is in some way fundamentally illiberal – rather, the fact that democracy, which is a means rather than an end, has become an unchallenged synonym for freedom is a key problem. Democracy may play a part in a free society, but democracy itself is not freedom, and can be detrimental to freedom in some respects.

Democracy gives power to the people to choose their leaders; it does not, however, guarantee that the leaders chosen will respect freedom. Democracy, at least in the modern sense of a political system based on open elections, gives people the freedom to choose, but it does not follow that people will automatically choose to be free. The 2004 US Presidential election illustrates this contradiction; in a free election, the people choose to re-elect George W Bush – a President who brought in the deeply illiberal Patriot Act and who backed state torture of terror suspects. In this case, democracy worked against freedom; it allowed the re-election of a man who eroded the civil liberties that are so essential to a free society.

Furthermore, the term democracy has also been abused to such an extent that it has become almost meaningless. The Iraq war illustrates this: the invasion was meant to bring democracy to Iraq, and in doing so, bring freedom. Yet the concept of forcing democracy – which is fundamentally about the will of the people – on a nation without consulting the people is as completely contradictory as it is undemocratic. There was nothing democratic or free about how democracy was brought to Iraq; in a truly free and democratic society the people would have chosen what political system they wished to have, rather than having that system chosen for them by an occupying power. Here, “democracy” was neither about freedom or genuine democratic choice.

Finally, democracy itself has become detrimental to political life in many Western societies. Because democracy has become synonymous with freedom, it is assumed that if the people get the chance to vote every four to five years then they live in a free society. Inbetween those elections, politicians are simply not challenged as they should be, and the notion that freedom requires constant vigilance is lost as long as the people get to give the nod to one party or another at regular intervals. As the recent Labour administration in the UK shows, a government can do a great deal inbetween elections to corrode civil liberties in a nation without provoking uproar from the people losing their freedoms. The modern ideal of democracy seems to require only that people vote when they get the chance. Freedom, however, requires a lot more from its people.

Ultimately, democracy has a part to play in freedom, but the modern day reverence for democracy and the constant, incorrect conflation of democracy with freedom represent at the very least challenges, if not direct threats, to freedom.

This post is an entry in the blog contest responding to the new book, New Threats to Freedom edited by Adam Bellow. The contest is open to all and further information can be found here.

Against the Progressive

In some respects, we're all political progressives. After all, only the morbidly depressed or those who are paranoid and reactionary don't want to make some sort of progress towards what they believe is right politically. No, the concept of progression in politics is not something I object to in principle. What really does bother me is what has come to be defined as "progressive" within politics.

Rather like the word "liberal" in US politics, the term "progressive" here in the UK has been bastardised and corrupted for reasons of political expediency. The left have taken the term progressive and tried to make it synonymous with their own views. It is easy to see why. By claiming they are progressive, they simultaneously create the idea that they are the future and those who oppose them are, almost by definition, regressive.

Yet it is worth interrogating exactly what these people mean by "progressive". What, exactly, is making progress? Let's look at an example of the progressive in action - the oft-floated idea of a progressive tax. What makes a tax "progressive" in the bastardised sense of the word? It is if (a) some people pay more tax than others and (b) more money overall is taken from the people in the form of tax. So what is making progress here? The size of the state, the coffers of the state, and the state's control over its people. Which is actually what progressive politics is actually about - the progression, or rather the growth, of the state. The bastardised definition of progressive is statism, pure and simple.

Which is why, for me and many others, what is defined by many as "progressive politics" is actually fundamentally regressive. Progressive politics works to extend the scope of the state. As such, it works to restrict freedom, making it fundamentally illiberal and against freedom. For me, if politics is to be progressive, then it needs to be about maximising freedom. Those who call themselves progressives stand for the opposite with their innate and seemingly unquestioning reverence for the state and for state control.

Part of me wants to try to reclaim the word "progressive" - to try to make it about freedom again, to make it genuinely radical and actually progressive in a meaningful way. However, that is never going to happen. The word progressive has been bastardised, it has been debased, and I think it is beyond reclamation. Instead, I'll make this pledge. Any party who uses progressive as part of their election rhetoric, or who claims to be progressive, will not get my vote. The progressive as we understand it today is fundamentally regressive to liberty, and as such should be utterly rejected by anyone calling themselves a Libertarian.

Genuine Libertarians - Neither Left nor Right

Sunny on Alex Massie:

I say Alex Massie is a left-libertarian. He’s just giving the right an undue good name by aligning himself with them.

Now, that's a phrase I'm hearing being used more and more - "left-libertarian". I suppose on one level it represents a step forward for the Libertarian cause: the left are starting to realise that libertarianism has something to offer. But the undertone is less positive - it represents the left trying to co-opt Libertarians of which they approve, and make them part of their crude and out-dated vision of political discourse. The identification of "left-libertarian" comfortably places anyone branded with that tag on the left side of the political spectrum, and as a result almost immediately negates the radical alternative offered by libertarianism.

That's not to say that I like the concept of a right-wing libertarian anymore than I do the idea of a left-libertarian. Right-wing libertarians are ultimately not libertarian at all. They tend to talk a good game on economic freedom, but end up being social conservatives or at the very least apologists for social conservatives. And it is amazing how many right-wing Libertarians end up becoming Republicans in the US or Conservatives in the UK - and in doing so miss the point that neither of those political movements is actually libertarian in any meaningful way or ever will be.

Put simply, a true Libertarian will simultaneously be right-wing and left-wing. I'm a libertarian, and I hold extremely left-wing views on immigration, LGBT issues, drug legalisation and in a number of other areas. But when it comes to economics, I'm right-wing - I believe in the free market, in lower taxes, and that nationalisation is, in the vast majority of cases, a bad idea. As a result, I automatically reject the terms "left" and "right" when someone tries to apply them to me.

This isn't a case of political schizophrenia - that libertarians like myself cannot make up our minds between the two sides of the political spectrum. Because there is a theme running through my beliefs - the theme of freedom. I take the left-wing views that say that the state should not tell me how to live socially, and I take the right-wing views that say that the state should not tell me how live economically (or, to put it another way, the state should not tell me how to spend my money). Fundamentally, I cannot be left-wing or right-wing since they both advocate intensive control of the lives of citizens, albeit in different ways.

Indeed, the concept of the difference between left and right is actually all smoke and mirrors - there is remarkably little difference actually there. Those on the left and the right vie for control of the state and argue over the best way to run that state. Yet they seldom, if ever, challenge the fundamental assumption underpinning both of their beliefs - that the state, run in the correct way, is a good thing. Genuine libertarians understand that the state is a human construct, and therefore must always be subordinate to its people rather than becoming more important than its creators. Genuine libertarians also understand that the state, as a human construct, reflects many of the flaws of its creators. By definition, it cannot be neutral and it cannot be without flaws. As such, libertarians realise that the state is not automatically benign in its dealings with its people, and history is littered with examples of where states have become actively malign.

I honestly believe that the radical alternative to the bloated, ineffectual political status quo is being offered by Libertarians. As such, I believe it is important for libertarians to reject those tags that would make them part of the current status quo. Genuine libertarians are neither right-wing or left-wing; their fundamental belief should be in rescuing the concept of liberty from an ever-expanding and increasingly controlling state. The fundamental political question of our time isn't whether you're left or right. It is whether you favour state control or freedom.

Revealing Labour and the Con-Dem attitudes to freedom

This is a very revealing section from a BBC news report on the smoking ban - revealing, that is, of some of the attitudes of the main political parties in this country:

The government has dropped a planned review of the smoking ban in England.

The previous Labour administration had promised it would be looked at again in autumn 2010, but the coalition says it has "no plans" to do so.

Publicans - who feared a review would extend the ban into beer gardens and doorways, damaging trade - backed a campaign to partially lift the ban.

First up, you might have thought that a review of the smoking ban might lead to the smoking ban being repealed, if only in part. If so, more fool you! No, for the Nu Labour government, a review is an opportunity to extend an illiberal, invasive and stupid policy. But that's Nu Labour for you - determined to interfere in your life as much as they possibly can, and then a little bit more.

Secondly, it is very interesting that the Con-Dems are not going to go through with the review. On the one hand, this is a good thing - no review, no extension of the smoking ban. On the flipside, no review, no repeal of the smoking ban. The Con-Dems increasing seem to be labouring under the delusion that if they don't extend the limits of state control in this country then they are being inherently liberal. That is, of course, absolute nonsense. If anything, it makes them conservative. If they truly want to be liberal, they need to roll back the impact of the state on its citizens that so dramatically increased under the last draconian government.

As things stand, it almost feels as if we are meant to be grateful when the state chooses not to further extend its often malign control further into our lives. I'd be far more grateful to the government, though, if it decided to roll back the frontiers of the state. But, as always, I'm not holding my breath.

Biopower and Smoking: Why It Matters

For those of you not aware of the work of Michel Foucault*, allow me to introduce the concept of Biopower. What's Biopower, you may be asking? Surely not something to do with the environment? Nope, it is about control:

For Foucault, biopower, is a technology of power, which is a way of managing people as a group. The distinctive quality of this political technology is that it allows for the control of entire populations. It is thus essential to the emergence of the modern nation state, modern capitalism, etc. Biopower is literally having power over other bodies, "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations" [2]. It relates to the government's concern with fostering the life of the population, and centers on the poles of discipline ("an anatomo-politics of the human body") and regulatory controls ("a biopolitics of the population").

And why mention this today? Well:

Smoking should be banned in all cars as well as in public places where young people congregate, doctors are urging.

The Royal College of Physicians wants England's imminent review of anti-smoking laws to consider such measures to protect the young.

See, some will look at the decision to advocate the banning of smoking in cars and wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, if it helps da kids be healthy, who could possibly object? Of course, that is precisely what the government wants you to think. It is why children are mentioned in the article. It becomes difficult for people to argue against it, and those who do can be painted as people who don't mind da kids getting hurt.

But this isn't about passive smoking; it is about control and compliance. The incumbent government have decided that smoking is A Bad Thing. No, more than that - they have decided that smoking does not fit in with their worldview in any way whatsoever. And as such, smokers are Bad People and their habit needs to be eradicated. We've already seen a man go to prison over the smoking ban in pubs; the message that is sent out now is that smoking is criminal.

Yet why does this matter if you don't smoke? Because the government has an idea of a perfect person in their dystopian brave new world, and that person doesn't just not smoke. He or she also doesn't drink. They don't eat fatty foods. Hell, their BMI is perfect at all times. They comply with a government diktat on what it is to be healthy; they don't think for themselves, or challenge those rules. Just as they don't challenge other things, such as the erosion of the right to protest. Nor do they challenge the behaviour of their troughing political class. Or the erosion of both liberalism and democracy in what purports to be a liberal democracy.

And now someone has gone to prison in relation to smoking, the precedent has been set. Others can go to prison for the same thing. Given long enough, the stage will be set for withholding medical treatment from those who smoke and have smoking related illnesses (despite the fact that smokers are forced to contribute to the healthcare system whether they like it or not). And once that has happened, the same fate can be bestowed on the fatties and the boozehounds. Until we end up in the distressing position where those who do not conform to the government's view of how someone should live is dismissed as less than human.

I don't smoke, but I'll stand with the smoker when the government comes to control them. Because the government isn't just seeking compliance from those who wish to spark up in the car - they are seeking compliance from everyone.

*And his work is well worth reading, even if you don't end up agreeing with him on everything or, indeed, pretty much anything.

An Apologist for Totalitarianism

What better way to commorate the fall of the Berlin Wall than by putting on the rose-tinted specs and pretending that life in the former East Germany was actually something to be celebrated? From The Guardian:

Since the demise of the GDR, many have come to recognise and regret that the genuine "social achievements" they enjoyed were dismantled: social and gender equality, full employment and lack of existential fears, as well as subsidised rents, public transport, culture and sports facilities. Unfortunately, the collapse of the GDR and "state socialism" came shortly before the collapse of the "free market" system in the west.

It is particularly bold to state that there were genuine "social achievements" under the brutal, utterly oppressive totalitarian regime that was the GDR. What with it being the sort of nightmare dystopia that people literally died trying to escape from. If one was so inclined then one could probably find the genuine social achievements of the Nazi regime. Of course, any such social achievements would not stop the Nazi regime being one of the most hideous administrations in twentieth century history. Just as subsidised rent doesn't change the fact that the GDR was a brutal dictatorship that rendered its people as something less than human.

And to talk of a "lack of existential fears", as well as being deeply subjective, is also taking a very limited view on fear. Because even if there were no "existential fears" in the GDR, there was the constant, practical fear of imprisonment for lengthy period for "crimes" such as not agreeing with the state. If it is a choice between having freedom of speech and having subsidised sports facilities, I'll probably pay a bit more to go swimming and go for the former. Except, of course, I won't have to make that choice since most governments in liberal democracies subsidise sports facilities any-fucking-way.

Also, it is worth pointing out that the collapse of state socialism was completely comprehensive - it was rejected both as a political and economic model. The GDR - and the Soviet Union - collapsed under the weight of maintaining their own terrible hypocrisies. By contrast, the "free market" system in the West has never actually been tried; and the mixed economy model favoured in the West is still going strong, despite a major wobble with the latest dip into recession. Neither free market capitalism or a mixed economy is perfect; however, they are not based on a web of paper thin lies and do at least allow the people to critique those systems. Whereas in the GDR, you'd go to prison for doing such a thing.

It is telling that the writer laments the "demonisation of the country I lived in and helped shape." Because, and make no mistake about this, she is an apologist for a disgusting, totalitarian regime. She is defending the indefensible. Imagine if this article had instead appeared in The Daily Telegraph and defended apartheid. There would be a national outcry, with the like of The Guardian screaming about how terrible the article was. Yet there is very little difference between the old regime in East Germany and the former racist regime in South Africa. Both were about the suppression of the people. And the author of this article is no different from the South African who bitterly complains that life was better under apartheid. The only reason why the demise of the GDR is perceived as a bad thing is because it was bad for the author herself. But that doesn't change the fact that, just as the South African lamenting the end of apartheid comes across as a racist reactionary, so the person shedding tears of the death of the GDR is a communist apologist mourning the end of a sickening, totalitarian regime.

Quote of the Day

"There is less to fear now, but the fear is greater. Those who have never heard a gunshot, who live far from the centers of power, fear a terrorist attack. They believe they see enemies on every side. The measures they take to protect themselves place their lives, their liberties, their honor in danger."

Anne Norton

The Government's Got Its Banning Hat On!

Now, if I wanted to suggest an increase in government efficiency and a decrease in the number of ministers, I'd strongly argue for centralising all the government departments responsible for banning stuff. Seriously, you could really thin down the Cabinet and make it more efficient. You could have the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, a Defence Secretary, an Education Secretary and the Minister for Banning Stuff. Your one stop shop Minister for all of your banning needs. It would be a busy ministry, though. Particularly since the Labour government now seems to have abandoned any pretence towards having a legislative agenda, and instead is mistaking the implementation of bans as being the sign of an activist government.

Today sees the announcement of the banning of legal highs (guess the manufacturers will have to think of a new category for their products now). Clearly the rip-roaring success of drugs prohibition has encouraged them to add more drugs to the roster of illegal substances. But, like a lot of the government's knee jerk banning, there is a sob story behind this. Listen to the words of the mother of someone who died from one of these soon to be illegal highs:

"I'm delighted. I think the Home Office is moving in the right direction.

"We need to tell people that GBL plus alcohol can equal death. Hester hadn't had that much alcohol and then later on that evening an old friend of hers gave her half a dose of GBL which he said was safe.

"So the two mixed together just sent her into a coma and she didn't wake up.

"She was studying molecular medicine but she was clearly unaware that it was dangerous and I think that is the key message to get across to young people, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe."

It is obvious that Hester's mother has suffered an appalling tragedy. But that doesn't mean that her opinion - which, quite naturally, will be anything other than objective under the circumstances - holds any more weight that any other citizen's opinion in this country. It doesn't give her specialist knowledge about GBL. Plus, her assertion that this will raise awareness about the dangers of mixing booze and GBL seems an irrelevance since it has now been made illegal. And finally, lots of stuff is less safe after you've had some booze. Including going up the stairs. Yet no-one is calling for a ban on going upstairs after a few beers.

What is really at the heart of this - and why I object so strongly to the banning of a substance I have never used and never plan to use - is the assumption that adults can't look after themselves and the mistaken idea that banning something is the same as educating people about it. Read these words from the Home Secretary - a man who is, lest we forget, an expert in nothing and is effectively just an over-promoted post man:

"Legal highs are an emerging threat, particularly to young people, and we have a duty to educate them about the dangers.

"There is a perception that many of the so-called legal highs are harmless, however in some cases people can be ingesting dangerous industrial fluids or smoking chemicals that can be even more harmful than cannabis."

These legal highs may be dangerous. They may be more dangerous than dope. And maybe you can make a case for educating people about them. But by banning something, you are not educating people about it. Education should allow people to make an educated choice. You remove that choice when you ban something.

That's what I can't stand, and that is what everyone in this country should be protesting about. It isn't just about the banning of these legal highs. It is about the government assumption that prohibition is the same as education, and deciding what the private individuals in this country should and shouldn't have a choice about. All these sort of decisions mean is that someone like Alan Johnson knows better about what is good for you that you do. And I am not dumb or bovine enough to allow such decisions to pass by without some sort of comment and protest. No longer does nanny know best; this modern state presupposes that a government minister - the most temporary of appointments based more on loyalty than competency - knows what is right for you. And such an idea makes me feel utterly sick.