The Near Impossibility of President Ron Paul

Now the rest of the GOP field has peaked too early, people are adopting that predictable position - through nothing more meaningful than a crude process of elimination - that maybe the Republican nomination is Ron Paul's for the taking. This I doubt; what I find even more doubtful is that Paul would be a credible contender in a straight contest with Obama.

Before I explain why, let me explain my own thoughts on Paul. Yeah, he's dead right on some things - and I've been very impressed with his reasoned and non-bellicose approach to foreign policy, which is a great thing coming from a (nominal) Republican. I have little time, though, for his anti-abortion stance or for his apparent god-bothering. But hey ho. No candidate is perfect, and he's the best of a truly atrocious bunch. So while I wouldn't go so far as to say I want him to win - such passion over a deeply predictable contest that I will not be able to vote in strikes me as utterly pointless - but I suppose I would prefer him to. So why am I so dismissive of his chances?

Well, quite simply (and really rather obviously) what I want does not impact on reality in any meaningful way. Reality does not conform to my wishes. And the reality is that the deck is stacked against Paul to a massive extent. He is unlikely to win the nomination for his party, since even if he does win some early upset victories then the Republican establishment will intervene in favour of a much more mainstream and middle of the road candidate. I reckon there will be a replay of the 2004 Democrat primary campaign, where the genuinely interesting (although possibly a little barmy) Howard Dean was swiftly marginalised by the much more pedestrian yet mainstream John Kerry. The nomination will probably be Romney's; he's a safe pair of hands who will not damage the party too much even as he hands victory to Obama.

But suppose Paul did get the nomination - what then? Well, Obama would crush him. The Democrat electioneering machine would spend all of its time telling the American people that Paul is some sort of dangerous radical who would leave innocent people to get ill and die without health insurance. Hell, they could even outflank on the issue of security. Yeah, those charges might be false, but so what? Since when have presidential elections been about taking the high road? The Obama campaign would do everything they possible could to make Paul into a Goldwater for the new millennium, while simultaneously painting their guy to be solid, dependable and statesmanlike for the cameras.

Perhaps a truly great communicator could make libertarian ideals appeal to the American masses; the problem is that great communicator is not Ron Paul. Sure, he manages to avoid sticking his foot in his mouth most of the time, but that is not enough to win enough Americans over to what is potentially a radical realignment of the nature of government and state in their country. Plus, he's up against Obama, whose pompous speaking style manages to add gravitas to even the most anodyne and meaningless of pronouncements. Again, yeah, you can argue that this is unfair, but it is also reality. A Ron Paul presidential campaign might be enough to provoke a misled American people into handing a reluctant landslide to Obama.

Paul's best hope for next year is that his stance and policies in some way influence the Republican programme; in other words, that the long process of explaining his version of libertarianism begins. Then the next time a libertarian runs for the Republican nomination, these ideas are more mainstream and people are more likely to understand them and get behind them. It could be enough to get a Republican libertarian nominee in 2016 or 2020. It will certainly help to wrest control of that party away from the Christian fundamentalist path that Bush Junior put it on. But President Paul remains deeply unlikely to the point where it is basically an impossibility. It might comfort some libertarians on both sides of the Atlantic to pretend otherwise, but unfortunately it remains a pipe dream that helps them to escape from a political reality that remains stubbornly immune to the penetration of libertarian ideals into the political mainstream.

The (False?) Phoenix of LPUK

Over at their website, whoever is running LPUK these days is arguing that the party is rising from the ashes of the scandal and infighting that befell (and damn near destroyed) it earlier this year. They do so in a poorly written, misspelled and completely unsubstantiated post. It does make me wonder who is still supporting that party and precisely why they are doing so, given everything that has happened this year. Still, each to their own, I suppose. But I can't help but think that Libertarian Home represents a far better destination for former LPUK members than whatever hollowed out shell of that party still exists.

Garry: Still failing to defend the death penalty

Over at the curiously named Politics on Toast, James Garry takes exception to one of my posts on the death penalty. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is this post that provokes his article; the one that takes him to task. There is a lot in his article, and the vast majority of it I do not care about. However, there are some points that demand rebuttal and clarification. This first is Garry’s attempt to overcome my objection that some criminals commit their crimes without really considering the potential consequences on the grounds that they do not expect to be caught. He writes in response to this assertion:

Nonsense. TNL seems to suggest that criminals can only know the consequences of their actions after they are caught.

Nope. I suggest that criminals are not thinking about the consequences of their actions because they do not expect to be caught – a position that is intuitively plausible given how many people commit crimes that carry hefty sentences.

I think very few criminals are so boundlessly optimistic or boundlessly stupid not to impute the legal consequences of their illegal actions. We are all potential criminals. I am a potential criminal.

Yes, Garry, you are a potential criminal. We all are. But there are degrees of potential criminality, aren’t there? And there are degrees of the potentiality of all of us to actually commit crimes. Just as there are differences in the extent to which any one of us believe we will be caught for any crime that we might commit, and there are varying degrees to which we all understand the consequences of any potential crime. To argue otherwise is to deny the nature of the individual. Which, surely, Garry does not wish to do. Oh, wait:

I know the possible consequences of any given criminal action. I don’t see how actual criminals are any different.

Yeah, Garry. You are representative of all actual criminals. They all think in the same way you do. They all know the consequences of their actions. Except there is no-one quite like James Garry, and different individuals will have different motivations and perceptions.

For TNL’s argument to have a kernel of credibility then every single murderer would have to be completely blank about the consequences of his actions. If that were the case then we could agree that capital punishment is worthless because the criminal is impervious to its threat. Plainly this isn’t so. Some murderers may be so far removed from reality that they are oblivious to the promise of the noose, but most murderers are rational and aware of the law and of the consequences of their actions.

Nope, this is toss, I'm afraid. For my argument to “have a kernel of credibility” there has to be just one killer who does not take into account the potential consequences of their actions. Which, as the example of Ian Brady in my original post, demonstrates is possible. But Garry sort of acknowledges in his article, before going on to write:

There are no doubt others still who would not be deterred by the death penalty from murdering. I am not a Utopian. I do not believe in a perfect world of perfect solutions. If we did not use human systems because they were imperfect, we’d never use any of them. TNL, and people like him, do not understand this point:
We do not use deterrents against people who cannot be deterred. We use deterrents against those who can be deterred. To abandon the use of capital punishment because it does not deter the Ian Bradys of this world is as bit like not fitting your car with airbags because airbags are not 100% effective. I wonder, with the use of this easy-to-understand analogy, TNL might grasp this very simple point.

Oh, how I do love to be condescended and patronised by someone who thinks that they know better than me with no real evidence as to why they might actually do so bar their own stridently expressed opinions. I do understand that we have to use imperfect systems – not being a total fucking idiot makes understanding this point really rather easy. But it is one thing not to use an imperfect system and quite another to endow an imperfect political system with the right to take the lives of innocent citizens after going through the imperfect system of a jury trial. I’ll try to resist the cheap jibe that this sort of simple argument seems to be beyond Garry and his ilk.

Unfortunately, the analogy does not work as there is no real connection between airbags and an innocent person being hanged. It is a classic straw man argument, and deserves to be treated largely with contempt.

I don’t see how it is nonsense. It does make me angry when people say that capital punishment is wrong because it involves the State murdering its own citizens. It makes me angry because TNL – probably without much thought – gives parity to the murderer and the murderer’s victim.

No I don’t. This completely misrepresents my opinion and what I have repeatedly said. I give parity to the innocent killed by a murderer and an innocent killed by the state on the grounds that both are, well, innocent. The central point is the innocence, and until someone can provide a system whereby innocent people won’t face the noose, then this remains an essential point and a highly convincing rebuttal to those who favour the return of the death penalty.
And, for the record, I have given a lot of fucking thought to all aspects of the death penalty while researching and debating it across decades. This sort of cheap gibe from Garry really pisses me off. It is exactly the same as when he says that people have not read what he has written or not understood it. It is the fascinating arrogance of a man who assumes that he is right and that others cannot have an equally valid position. It runs the risk of making debating with him compellingly pointless.

The Nameless Libertarian’s ultimate objection to State execution is a libertarian one – that the State should not be vested with the power to murder.

No, my ultimate objection to state murder is a moral one – as explained here. But as an add-on, yeah, I don’t think we should give the state the right to murder their citizens.

I do not understand libertarians. They automatically think the powers of the State must be limited.

Nope. We argue that the state should be limited based on the fact that it has been historically shown that the state is more often than not inept, bureaucratic and inhuman.

Well, I believe that the State should be limited but I also accept that the State must have some power to do certain things some of the time. As much as I hated nannying New Labour, I think the only good thing they did was to implement the smoking ban. Of course, this is a State intrusion and many, including Claire Porthouse, think it is a horrendous act of State intrusion. Maybe it is. But I wonder if the ban extends into the future, that we might realise the goodness of this act of State intrusion in a hundred year’s time or so.

Of course, it is completely inappropriate to compare the potential state murder of an innocent person with the smoking ban. As for that ban itself, it is possible that in the future people do look back on the smoking ban as a great step forward, especially if biased history books present it as such. That won’t change the reality of the situation – that people are told that they cannot choose, despite being responsible adults, to smoke in certain places. It won’t change the fact that this policy seems to be almost intentionally trying to make the people of this country more bovine than ever. And there is a terrible irony in someone advocating the potential prolonging of the lives of some through the smoking ban at the same time as embracing the concept of the noose for some innocent people is good.

Giving the State the power to execute criminals who ruin the lives of innocent people is good.

But that is not the point, as surely Garry knows. The point is that innocent people as well as criminals will be executed. Is that OK? Of course it isn’t. But it is a fundamental point that Garry's sweeping statement ignores.

Why assume that all State power is bad?

State power is, for most libertarians, a necessary evil. Therefore, as an evil, it needs to be restricted as much as possible. And it certainly does not need to be extended to give the state the right to potentially kill innocent people if the right legal loopholes have been jumped through.

If that is so, why bother voting?

Err, to support the party offering the least state intervention in our lives?

Why bother supporting the political parties who become and organise the State.

I don’t support any party, but I’d imagine it is for the reason mentioned immediately above.

Why even bother pretending to be a “libertarian”? Just become an anarchist instead.

Because being a libertarian is different to being an anarchist. In fact, I’ve written about this in detail here. But put simply a libertarian sees minimal state intervention as a necessary evil. An anarchist sees the state as an unnecessary evil. This really is basic political theory. And to conflate a refusal to support the right of the state to execute innocent people with anarchism is a crude and ultimately unconvincing rhetorical position.

But that’s enough on Garry and the death penalty. It should be clear where Garry and I stand with regard to this issue, and I personally have better things to do moving forward than rehashing the arguments in my posts on the death penalty thus far. The death penalty is wrong and any attempts to bring it back should be rigorously fought.

Be a Politician? No Thanks.

A question (well questions really) posed by Simon Gibbs over at the Libertarian Home website:

My question to Pavel, which I will repeat, is what other challenges prevent you, dear reader, from standing on your own behalf to fight a campaign? Is it the absence of a positive Party brand? The official paperwork? Publicity? Is it solely a lack of resources such as time and money?

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but the problem isn’t so much the lack of an effective party structure or the lack of relevant resources. It is that I have no inclination to run any sort of campaign, let alone a campaign for office. It isn’t so much that I wouldn’t win – but obviously embarking on a thankless quest almost certainly destined to end in failure won’t appeal to most. Rather, I’d be afraid of winning. Put simply, I have no interest in holding office within the political structure of Great Britain. I do not want to immerse myself within the massive bureaucratic nightmare that is the British state, and I do not want to expose myself or my loved ones to the public spotlight and our intrusive media that has no respect whatsoever for the privacy of any public figure. Above all, I don’t want to be a politician. I lack the arrogance to believe that I know best and that my opinions should be forced onto others.

Furthermore, I think we have adopted a very narrow sense of what constitutes politics in this country. We see politics as increasingly synonymous with government; local, regional or (mainly) central. We see those who stand for Parliament as the real politicians, backed up by lesser politicians in those who make up the party structures. However, I would argue that there is very little that is genuinely political about MPs who become lobby fodder in the House of Commons or those party functionaries and unthinking supporters who spout a party line about issues rather than engaging with those issues and reaching their own conclusions about them. There is more politics happening in a debate between open-minded, politically aware people in the pub than there is in a “debate” in the Commons. The tragedy is that the debate in the pub evaporates into the ether just as soon as the final beers are supped whereas the drones making laws in the legislature can affect each and every one of use.

Of course, this leaves us in a perfect Catch 22 situation; the only way we can change the system is by engaging with it – but, by engaging with the system, we run the risk of becoming apolitical as we conform to the restrictions of that system. I don’t know the way out of that conundrum, but I do know where I stand in relation to the political system in this country; resolutely and happily on the outside.

So why don’t I run a campaign on my own? Because I don’t want to be a politician. And I suspect I am not alone in that.

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.

The Norway Attacks

The terrifying and tragic events in Norway are still being played out. I would be surprised if the death toll does not continue to rise, and if by the end of the rescue operations more than a hundred haven't lost their lives at the hands of what now looks like being one evil man*. As such, any comments made may well be contradicted by what happens in the near future. Nonetheless, I'd like to make some observations of the events that started to unfold less than 24 hours ago.

Like most, I suppose, when this first happened I thought that it would have been an attack (and then attacks) perpetrated by Islamic Fundamentalists. Indiscriminate mass slaughter has tended to be the watchword and the calling cardss of the Muslim militants. A couple of things nagged at me, though. Because while the terror attacks of Islamic Fundamentalists tend to be abritrary on the surface, certain key things do emerge as themes when you study them. Firstly, when al Qaeda and its myriad of off-shoots and tangentially linked jihadists attack the West in the West, they tend to attack ordinary people. As such, they tend to attack mass transport systems. They also tend to time their attacks for the morning rush hour - in part to kill as many as possible and in part to get their attacks at the top of the media cycle and therefore in the faces of the public for as long as possible. This was an attack later in the day against the PM, the government, and the ruling party in a coalition. So the fact that this appears to be the work of one right-wing, Christian fundamentalist is not a total surprise. This may be Norway's Oklahoma City bombing rather than their 9/11 - although I have no doubt that this distinction will offer scant comfort to the newly bereaved.

After any terror attack, there is that burning temptation to blame certain freedoms for allowing it to happen. Any such actions - especially since it tends to end up in legislation - needs to be left until a calmer time for Norway; for a time when the initial panic, rage, fear and deeply felt loss are all a little less raw both for individuals and the mass psyche. There will be a temptation to adopt something like the Patrior Act or 42 Days Detention in the aftermath of this slaughter for some in Norway; the country as a whole would do well do resist that temptation. Good legislation happens after debate and thought, not after the jerking of a knee.

Likewise, there is the temptation to stigmatise the (more often than not minority) groups who are associated with the crimes. Witness the rise of Islamaphobia in the West after 9/11 - a rise that missed the point that it was not Islam that committed that crime, but a small bunch of Islamic fundamentalists with a clear political as well as religious agenda. So again there may be a temptation in the aftermath of these attacks to stigmatise conservatives, Christians, individualists, libertarians. Any such stigmatisation is likely to misrepresent all four positions. Furthermore, and far more importantly, any such stigmatisation is like to increase the radicalisation of affected minorities, and make further attacks more, not less, likely.

Finally, it is easy for those watching this drama from afar to get caught up in the political ramifications and the hysteria around it. However, this is not just the political - this is personal as well. Because with nearly 100 people dead, there are hundreds of people now in mourning. Family and friends, spouses and lovers, brothers and sisters have all lost someone through the brutal attacks of yesterday in shocking circumstances. So as fingers points and people pontificate, let's try to remember the appalling personal tragedies that also occurred yesterday, and the heart-breaking grief that so many must now be feeling.

*Although whether it is logistically possible for one man to carry out such slaughter is still understandably being questioned by some.

If you live in Uttoxeter, or just want to see (and perhaps help) a genuinely libertarian leaning candidate contesting an election in this country, then head over to Gavin Webb's website. I don't know how likely Webb is to win this by-election, but it is always good to see candidates standing who do not follow the banal, pointless consensus politics of the three main parties.

Can you be a libertarian and a conservative?

Before we start, let’s get a couple of things clear. The question is not can you be a libertarian and a member of the Conservative party – of course you can be, although quite why you would want to join or proactively support Cameron’s mob is utterly beyond me. Likewise, I would not deny that there is much to be gained from libertarian/conservative alliances – temporary or otherwise. Indeed, one of the few rays of light in the dark, depressing Brown years was the ability of libertarians and conservatives to put their differences to one side to point out the numerous shortcomings of Britain’s worst Prime Minister in living memory. Rather, what I want to consider is whether there are inherent contradictions in the idea of a libertarian conservative.

Of course, there are immediate problems with definitions here. “Libertarian” and “conservative” are big terms that could potentially encompass many different definitions. So for the purposes of this discussion I’d call someone who wants to maximise freedom as much as possible is a libertarian (someone like Hayek, for example) and someone who resists attempts to transform or plan society according to an idealistic blueprint is a conservative (such as Burke or Oakeshott, for example). No doubt some people would contest these definitions, but that’s the very nature of both politics and political philosophy.

Immediately, there are points of agreement between libertarians and conservatives. Economic freedom would be one of those points. A libertarian wants to reduce the tax burden and to limit government intervention in the economy because both are encroachments on individual freedom. A conservative might use similar rhetoric to justify their own resistance to state control of the economy – I also suspect that they would point out that state intervention in the economy is a relatively new phenomenon that denies the basic conservative truth that humans are fallible, and therefore their interventions in the economy will be equally fallible. Indeed, one of the points of agreement between the two political mindsets during the Brown era was that man’s hamfisted and utterly counter-productive attempts to manage the economy.

There is also a certain pragmatism inherent in both libertarian and conservative positions. Both proactively engage with reality to the extent that they accept that real life is messy and often involves uneasy compromises. This is clearly distinct from many socialist or anarchist positions, where the argument is that the creation right set of circumstances will lead to either a better form of humanity and/or a better society. Conservatives and libertarians do not slip into the idealistic utopian trap.

Yet there are clear points of departure. Firstly, libertarians offer a radical political position. They talk about a fundamental redress of the balance between state and individual power. A genuinely libertarian state would be a radical departure from any political settlement that has gone before. Conservatives, however, would be more likely to argue for a return to a previous political settlement – one where state intervention in some aspects of life was more limited.

Another, and perhaps the most fundamental, difference between conservatives and libertarians is in the realm of the private rather than the public. Here conservatives tend to look towards traditional views when it comes to issues such as gender roles and sexual orientation. A libertarian, however, would ignore such traditional ideals and leave what is private to the individual concerned, perhaps within the limitations of a very loose reading of the harm principle. Therefore, a conservative might buy into a campaign such as Major’s Back to Basics, whereas a libertarian would almost certainly tut at yet another example of a government attempting to tell us how to live our lives.

So can you be a libertarian conservative? Personally I struggle to see how, unless you are such a liberal conservative that the word conservative starts to lose all of its meaning. For me conservatism offers only a limited attempt to extend freedom, and misses the point that the purpose of maximising economic freedom is to maximise freedom in as many other areas of life as possible.

Single Acts of Tyranny

From the outset, let me declare an interest - Stuart Fairney sent me a free copy of his book in return for a review. It hasn't affected my objectivity and, I suspect Fairney would be a bit disappointed if I didn't give my honest opinion on his work. Which means that this review will be pretty honest...

Single Acts of Tyranny is a brief, easy read, and in a sense reminded me of the work of Agatha Christie - not that Fairney is writing a mystery story anymore that Christie was a Libertarian writer. Rather, the point is that both authors make their work accessible and seem to understand that if you want to reach a large audience, then you have to write in a way that will appeal to that large audience. I doubt many literary critics will be raving about Fairney's book any more than they do about the work of Christie, but equally I can see people reading Single Acts of Tyranny as a way of relaxing while on holiday in a way that you couldn't do with, say, Atlas Shrugged.

The plot in itself is fast-moving and leaves the reader with little time to stop and evaluate it. Whereas this would normally hide a multitude of authorial sins, here it seems to be more that the author has a lot to say and is affording himself little space in which to say it. But that's fine - this is part political thriller, part love story, part political tract. Say what you've got to say, and then leave it. The point seems to be to get the reader to think about politics, and here I'd imagine the book will be a resounding success - for anyone not immersed in Libertarian theory, there is the potential here to be reading a really rather revolutionary and radical book that still conforms with intuitive common sense.

So we have here a light, yet politically astute, read that is deceptively simple. What could be improved?

Firstly, proof-reading. I know that the author of this blog criticising another writer for errors in their writing is the pot calling the kettle black, and the errors aren't too distracting, but for more pedantic readers it might become a problem. Secondly, the counter-factual background to the story didn't quite convince me. While I no issue whatsoever with the idea that the North might have won the Civil War, I seriously doubt that the South would have given up slavery and segregation that easily. Yeah, I understand the idea that slavery/racial segregation are economically counter-productive and it is irrational to pursue those objectives, but I also believe that when it comes to racial politics rationality often has a small (at best) part to play - as the example of Apartheid South Africa so brutally shows. Of course, I could be wrong, but that is part of the joy of the counter-factual - it provokes debate.

Finally - and this is perhaps the biggest problem - is the characterisations in the book. The leading protagonists and antagonists are not so much as they are ciphers - people designed to fulfil particular roles to advance the plot. In a brief book attempting to communicate a clear message about politics, characterisation does not have to be king, of course. But I just felt that at times it would have been more satisfying if the protagonist had been a little less perfect and the antagonist just a little bit less of a shit.

But these are relatively minor problems and do little to damage overall what is a very good book. So I would definitely recommend it - in particular to anyone who wants to learn a little bit more about a Libertarian political outlook.

Towards a Libertarian Union?

Ok, so, following on from my pessimistic post from the other day, what next for UK libertarians? I’m not going to rehash my arguments about why I think LPUK is screwed. What I will point out is this – the members of and advocates for the party who approach a realistic position are those who, like me, would argue that any real success for that party lies in the distant future. And given the constant encroach of statism and its advocates, the question is pertinent – what do libertarians do while waiting for LPUK to get up and running/do if the party disappears?

We can find a clue in the Rally Against Debt. A grassroots campaign started by two UKIP members has grown massively in a very short space of time. Indeed, its growth is something that LPUK could, and perhaps should, be jealous of. Why has it been so successful? In part, it is about topicality. Debts and spending cuts are at the heart of the debate raging in British politics today. But there is another reason. The rally against debt is not party political, and thus it is not exclusive. It can attract people from the Tories, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, LPUK and independents. Whereas a political party can only really attract those with no other party affiliation, or an affiliation that they are happy to sacrifice. That automatically limits its potential. So topicality and being inclusive rather than exclusive. What sort of organisation could allow for that?

It occurs to me that some sort of Union might be the way forward (or Federation, for those right-wingers who can’t cope with the idea of Unions). An organisation that can offer people membership in tandem with membership of other organisations – just as members of Trade Unions can be (and often are) members of the Labour party. But rather than offering representation in the workplace, this could be an organisation that fights for its members in the pursuit of liberty. As a Federation/Union, it could do things other than fight elections directly. It could offer support to campaigns run by other organisations (like No2ID, the IEA and the Adam Smith Institute) and highlight events like the Rally Against Debt. At the same time, it could run its own campaigns. It could also have spokespersons on crucial issues and topical events – for example, an organisation that might offer Tim Worstall as Economics Spokesperson and Chris Snowdon as Health Spokesperson (or at least debunking the spurious claims of health “experts” spokesperson) would be pretty formidable. And it could do so without demanding they join a particular party. Likewise, it could attempt to attract high-profile libertarian politicians to write for it on occasion.

But where it could be most formidable is through having a dedicated band of volunteers who could work on behalf of libertarian leaning politicians in election campaigns. Politicians like Douglas Carswell, Steve Baker and Dan Hannan. And LPUK, if they ever become credible contenders in elections. On the flipside, it could also campaign against egregiously statist politicians. A host of Libertarian inclined people pounding the streets in Ed Balls' constituency arguing against his re-election could make all the difference, for example. Indeed, the organisation could replicate the influence of the Tea Party in America (albeit without that organisation’s occasional lapses into insanity). Not backing one party or running its own candidates, it could instead offer support to any candidate it perceives to be a champion of liberty.

Of course, it wouldn’t be easily achieved. Getting libertarians is, as numerous people point out, like herding cats. And there would be a need for the organisation to be professional at all times. There’s no point it being a super-swear-blog; candidates should want to be associated with it, rather than embarrassed by it. But a looser organisation than a political party, one more able to choose what battles it fights, might be able to circumvent the inherent anti-small party biases of our political system. A powerful, grassroots pressure group that can make or break candidates in constituencies maybe far more effective than entryism into an existing party or LPUK. The aspiration would be to have a UK based version of the NRA or a major Trade Union (albeit not necessarily with the core beliefs of either). It wouldn’t be easy, but it might just be worth it.

British Politics, Libertarians and LPUK

This post will be long; for that I offer a warning, but no apology.

I haven’t been a member of LPUK for about a month now, and after Anna Raccoon’s devastating post on that party’s current leader, it seems unlikely I will be again. Personal responsibility is crucial to almost every successful formulation of libertarianism, but according to Raccoon’s post, the current leader of LPUK is utterly irresponsible. More than a bit of a problem, I would argue.

Of course there may be those who argue that I’m judging based on only one side of what will probably be a vicious argument. But the facts presented in the post fit the facts as I have observed them, and the whole post has more than a ring of truth to it. And it is a thoroughly depressing truth.

LPUK now appear to have two choices. Either they can ditch Withers and elect a new leader (Christ knows who, and doing so would enhance the perception of a party in crisis) or they can keep him on, and become increasingly like a version of Veritas without the unique selling point of having a celebrity as leader. Neither fate is particularly edifying; it is more than possible to see the Libertarian Party of the UK as entering terminal decline.

But there’s another reason why I don’t much care about hearing both sides of the story. And it’s this: the accusations about Withers are just the icing on the cake for me. The reality is that it is easy for LPUK to enter terminal decline, and easy for it to wink out of existence. And the reason for this is simple – they have made startlingly little progress since they were formed. The party, when it has contested elections, has done beyond poorly. And this is a crucial, debilitating problem. If you can’t credibly contest elections, then the media won’t care about you. If the media doesn’t care about you, you can’t win elections. And so the vicious circle continues, and LPUK remains a largely virtual entity, incapable of the sort of practical action needed to make a genuine political impact in our deeply flawed democracy.

In fact, LPUK are a standing rebuke to those who wax lyrical about the importance of the internet in modern politics. The internet has a role to play, for sure. But if your party was formed, largely managed and supported through the internet, then you have a problem. In a constituency based electoral system such as ours, you need to have constituency organisations that are building support across years, doing the endless (and endlessly tedious) work of canvassing on rainy Saturday mornings. If you are largely an internet organisation, you don’t have that. In fact, the internet becomes as much a virtual prison as it does a virtual tool. After several years in existence, LPUK have remarkably little to show for their efforts. And for all the talk of a resurgence under Withers (a resurgence surely dead in the water now, if it ever truly existed) the party has a mountain to climb, and seemingly precious little resources to allow it to do so in order to get anywhere. The odds were stacked against the party before this scandal (if we can call something a scandal that precious few people in this country will really care about). Now proper political influence seems further away than ever before.

There will be some who will crow over my acceptance that LPUK are not going to go anywhere; the sort of libertarians who have always argued for entryism into the main political parties now have every right to say “I told you so”. Except their victory is pyrrhic, and their laughter hollow. Because there is no natural home in British politics for the genuinely libertarian.

Anyone who argues that libertarians have a natural home in one of the main parties (by which I mean a party larger than LPUK; a pretty minimal hurdle to overcome) is simply wrong. We can ignore anyone who says that libertarians have a natural home in the Labour party as utterly delusional. The same for anyone who might make the claim that the Greens have something to offer libertarians. Their environmental and economic policies could only ever be implemented through draconian state intervention.

Which takes us to the Tories. So many professed libertarians seem to reside in the Tory party, and I don’t really understand why. The Tories are deeply socially conservative. And there is nothing libertarian about social conservatism. In fact, I have a little litmus test I always use when I think that the Tories are a good idea. I think about whether I could honestly vote for the policies they championed at the last election. Then I think of their National Service plan, and remember why I don’t vote for them.

The same for UKIP. There are some who would make UKIP a libertarian party. Sadly, I think they are in an ineffective minority. And to emphasise that point, I can always remember something like their proposed ban on the burqa to reassure me that they are often little more than the right-wing of the Tories in self-imposed exile.

And the Liberal Democrats? Well, I had hope when Nick Clegg was elected. And it lasted for about five seconds. He’s an apologist for the Tories with, according to his writing in The Orange Book, staunchly Europhile leanings (albeit with a reformist bent). Not an intolerable position, but hardly libertarian either. And his party is fatally flawed in my eyes because, as vast swathes of the party has shown since they gained some real political power, far too much of it is still social democratic, and thus Labour supporters who can’t quite bring themselves to be Labour.

Which leads us back to LPUK. A tiny party that has spent most of its life fighting for survival, rather than for power. And I want to stress this point – the alleged behaviour of Andrew Withers is just the tip of the iceberg. The party is sinking; which is hardly surprising, since it has always struggled to stay afloat.

But whatever. I don’t need to be a member of a political party. In fact, a spell as an independent is very, very appealing. I wish LPUK the very best – and they’re going to need all the goodwill they can get over the coming days, I rather think. But no more money from me; no more links; no more support.

And that’s that. LPUK is done, as far as I’m concerned. Finished.

What’s next?

When "Liberal" ceases to mean liberal...

Longrider rightly laments the corruption of some key political terms. Like the word "liberal":

All of which is all very well, but what about legitimate words that have been thoroughly corrupted to the point where their accurate and original meaning is lost entirely? “Liberal” being one such. Many of those who write for and comment upon the Groan’s CiF call themselves liberals, yet their expressed opinions are decidedly illiberal, indeed, positively authoritarian.

Quite. To take another example of the corruption of the word liberal, we just need to take a look at the website Liberal Conspiracy. Any truly liberal opinions expressed by the writers of that website are the exception rather than the rule. In fact, the only way in which it could be a liberal conspiracy us if the authors are conspiring against liberalism.

And it bothers me - it really does. My blogging moniker involves the word "Libertarian", but in reality I feel far more comfortable describing myself as a liberal. Yet that word now encompasses everything from Barack Obama to Simon Hughes, and leaves precious little room for the genuinely liberal (the likes of J S Mill, for example) within it.

Which is the hideous irony, really. We end up with "liberals" who actually care little, if at all, for genuine freedom.

Elsewhere...

Over at the Liberty Cabal, I go in search of the radical...

Exhaustion

DK’s struggle to comment on what is happening is typical of Libertarian bloggers – we’ve seen so-called change occurring in May, and now have to make the same arguments for liberty for a new bunch of gurning, illiberal idiots.

Sure, the coalition is not the same as the last Labour government – and anyone who claims that it is misses the point. But the differences are outweighed by the massive similarities – in particular, the faith that the state is the answer to all of our problems – it is just a case of getting the “right” party into power.

So we make the same points again, again and again. And the government either doesn’t hear, or doesn’t care, or is simply unwilling to change.

Yet I still have hope – hope that at some point the people of this country will finally see through the nonsense spouted by statists. But what worries me is just how big, how terrifying the crisis will have to be for the people to finally lose their faith in the statist propaganda. We’ve had a nonsense war on terror, an attempt to bankrupt a country through propping up failed banks, and a continual war on civil liberties and still nothing – people still vote for the statists. What will it take to stop them from doing so?

But given the complete absence of change (or even the desire for real change among the majority), those of us who have been banging on for years about the growth of the state and the ensuing diminishing of our liberty are bound to feel dispirited and exhausted. Yet the case we make still needs to be made and I hope that, despite the weariness many bloggers are feeling at the moment, that there will still be some who go on making that case.

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.

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.

*NEWSFLASH* Rupert Murdoch is not a Libertarian

From the BBC news website:

Rupert Murdoch is a libertarian - against too much state control, and in favour of individuals taking responsibility.

Is he a libertarian? Really? Or is he just an economic liberal? Because there is precious little in a rag like The Scum to suggest anything other than a deep conservatism when it comes to social matters. Indeed, the next sentence arguably shows this social conservatism:

Hence the high praise for Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher wasn't a libertarian. She was an economic liberal in a number of ways, but she was also deeply socially conservative. Furthermore, when you factor in the reality that Murdoch religiously flirts with successful political leaders of all parties in all countries, including the likes of the utterly illiberal Tony Blair, it is difficult to conclude that he is truly interested in anything other than the health of his business empire. That might be why he's a successful businessman; it certainly means he isn't a proper libertarian.

Libertarians need to work hard to stop this association of libertarianism purely with economic freedom. True libertarians (to use a phrase that is almost designed to provoke outrage) are just as much interested in social freedom as they are in economic freedom. To be free you have to be able to spend your money how you like and live you life how you like* - and as far as I can see, Murdoch only really cares about the former. That might make him a champion of economic freedom, and see him leaning more towards anarcho-capitalism. But it sure as hell doesn't make him a libertarian.

*Constrained by something like the Harm principle, of course.

Pragmatism and Politics

Let me state something outright – I believe pragmatism is essential to politics. If you are not pragmatic then guess what? You ain’t ever going to get anywhere in politics. Indeed, one of the reasons why I would not run for power is because I am a stubborn sod most of the time – and that is not a particularly helpful attitude in those who want to win the votes of others.

But let me state something else – pragmatism in politics is important, but it is only part of the political process. You can be too pragmatic or, to put it another slightly more graphic way, you can whore yourself out for a couple of votes and lose the reason why you got into politics in the first place. Don’t believe me? Well, you only have to look at Tony Blair for a striking example of this phenomenon.

So the practice of politics is a delicate balancing act between pragmatism and ideology. Individuals need to work out how to carry out that balancing act, and more importantly, what the line is that they will not cross between being pragmatic and being committed to core beliefs. It is particularly true of those who adopt the strategy of entryism – those Libertarians in the Tory party, for example, who are aspiring (vainly if you ask me) to make that party genuinely Libertarian. The question they need to ask themselves is “at what point do I say enough is enough? What would it take for me to decide this party is not longer tight for me and I should leave it?”* I think former Labour party members found that out in 2003, while a lot of Liberal Democrats found out what their breaking point was in May of this year.

In other words, I get that some people think it is worth being a part of a party that does not represent all of their views but might be, if they are able to get into power, able to make some of their views in actual government policy. Such a position is pragmatic; it is a compromise I can understand. But pragmatism must have its limits lest people want to end up being compromised. So I’ll put the question to those who are a member or supporter of one of the main parties again: “what would be the breaking point – the moment when you decided enough was enough and it is time to take your political allegiance elsewhere – for you?”

*Ok, yes, that was technically two questions.

Individuals, Communities, Society and the State

So I’m an individual. I don’t think many people are going to argue otherwise – at least not credibly. The fact that I am individual is very important to my thinking, and to my political identity as a Libertarian. Yet despite my standing as an individual, I don’t doubt for one second that I am an individual whose life is dependent on being part of society.

See, the shoes I stand up in, the clothes I wear, the house I live in – they are all dependent for their existence on the expertise of others. Likewise, I did not farm the food I eat and did not brew the booze I sup. The computer on which I type was built by someone else, as was the application that allows me to type this in such a way in which you can read it. My life is dependent upon others within society.

The quality of life is also enhanced by interacting with others in society. I’m not the most outgoing of people, but I value my wife, my friends and other members of society with whom I interact. Again, my life is not a vacuum – it needs others to make it worthwhile.

And my opinions also do not emerge from a vacuum – they were created, enhanced and adapted through interactions with others. They evolve, they change as I hear viewpoints of others – regardless of whether I agree with those people or not. Intelligent thinking and opinion-forming is not simply a solitary activity – it is enhanced through hearing the thoughts and opinions of others.

So yeah, I’m an individual. But I’m also dependent upon a community. And so is pretty much everyone else in this country, unless they live as a completely self-sufficient hermit in the middle of nowhere.

Yet I want to be able to choose which parts of society I wish to interact with. I want to be able to choose which communities I wish to participate in. I don’t want anyone else telling me what I should be doing – I want to be able to choose for myself using my own intellectual faculties what parts of our society makes my life better. Which is why I believe in community, and society, but not in the state (at least not in its current form).

When you hear Cameron talking about the Big Society, or Miliband going all Platonic and talking about the Good Society, you should be very, very concerned. For what they are talking about is not the type of society or community that might arise naturally from people choosing to interact based on what makes life better. They are proposing a top-down “society” – one based on whatever the party in charge believes is best for the people in this country. Society is not, and should not, be a creation of the state – if anything, the opposite is true.

The nonsense of state-created society is that it is predicated on the idea that millions (in this country, over 60 million) people can all be treated in the same way, and that all will have identical concepts of what is good and what can enhance their lives. This is, of course, ridiculous. You will struggle to find a family of four who agree on what is best, let alone a country of millions. So what happens? What version of the “good” or the life-enhancing is chosen? The type that happens to correspond to the idiosyncratic view of the incumbent leader. In its starkest terms, the community or society that you live in and have to interact with is only a personal choice in its most narrow possible definition, in that it is the choice of a Gordon Brown or a David Cameron.

Which is precisely why I want to see the state being reduced to a minimal possible level in order to allow for more organic and natural societies and communities to arise in this country. I’m not an anarchist – I’m not calling for the abolition of the state – but I am calling for a fundamental redefinition of the state to allow people to be freer.

Of course, values and morality will very from person to person, and from situation to situation. This means that there will be conflicts in any group or society – and some of those conflicts will be irreconcilable and will need independent, external arbitration. That is the part a redefined state could play. As political philosopher John Gray puts it:

“...having a life in common cannot mean living in a society unified by common values. It means having common institutions through which the conflicts of rival values can be mediated.”

Now, I do not expect a state limited to this level to be always independent, and I do not believe that it would always make decisions with which I could agree. But a state that allows for a plurality of beliefs and communities is a far better scenario than what we have now – a succession of governments who believe in the impossible: that they will be able to find a “way”, a “truth”, a blueprint for society that will work for each and every one of the millions of people in this country.

I want to be able to choose which communities I live in and interact it. I want to be free to do that. Every flawed, arrogant attempt to build a society implemented by government denies me that right.

The Future of the Libertarian Party

Andrew Withers has published his platform as part of his bid to become leader of the Libertarian Party. There is a lot of good stuff in it, although I don't quite share his faith in constitutions. Such documents do not defend freedom any more than the unwritten constitution we currently have - you only have to look at what the US constitution has been used to justify to see that. However, I think it would be good for the party to have a clear vision in order to develop.

And it also needs a clear plan of attack - something that I feel has been lacking thus far. Whoever the new leader is, they need to ask themselves some crucial questions.

Firstly, where is the party going to stand? Only the major parties are able to stand everywhere; more minor parties (particularly those with limited finances) prioritise certain areas over others. How did Caroline Lucas win in Brighton? Because the Green Party focussed a lot if its resources in an area that was very likely to vote Green in sufficient numbers to return an MP. The Libertarian Party needs to do the same - work out where it can win. Then build up organisations in those areas that can campaign on a weekly basis - getting leaflets out and so on. If I was the party leader, then I would choose 10 constituencies to focus on, based on high party membership in those areas and a general demographic likely to be open to the messages of the party. And then I'd get ready for the long-haul; the party won't win a seat at the next election and, most likely, not the one after. It will be a slow process, and will involve a lot of political grunt work. But that's how seats are won in this country.

Secondly, who is going to stand? The party needs to have credible candidates. Sure, they don't need to be Blair clones - the sort of middle-aged, middle-class PR obsessed clones currently running all three major parties. But they do need to have gravitas, conviction and a certain eloquence. They also have to be personable, since the party can only win locally at the moment - meaning that any candidate needs to be able to win over the locals. Now, I don't believe there are any natural candidates, and those chosen will need the time to develop and hone their skills. But working out who are the most electable candidates to stand is an essential part of the process.

Thirdly, where's the money going to come from? The party members give a lot, but their resources are limited. Instead, the party needs to find a way of getting money not only from existing and new members, but also from other sources. One way I would suggest is to run campaigns and ask people to contribute to those. An example from the past: running a campaign against ID cards could have generated extra revenue - "contribute and we will fight this incursion on our liberties". The money could come to the party - without people necessarily joining.

That said, the single best way to raise money is to get new members. And the best way to do that is through publicity. I don't know how to get that publicity, though - PR is not and never will be my strong point. However, one idea that does spring to mind is appointing/electing spokespersons in key policy areas - people who can fire off curts missives about/deconstructions of statist proposals. I'm not talking about people making policies on the hoof, but rather getting the daily attacks on statism seen throughout the Libertarian blogging world out to the wider media. Start getting attention by showing how the party is different to the mainstream.

Fourthly, who's going to work for the party? Because the party needs to start becoming professional, and that means people working full-time for the party. One of the things that bothers me when I read criticisms of the party is the failure to understand that its leaders run the party and work for a living. But there comes a point when the party needs people working full-time in its interests. Maybe there are people out there who can afford to do so voluntarily; failing that, the party needs to get the resources to employ people. Which goes back to the third question - the party needs to find the money to be able to afford this.

At the risk of being harsh, the party at the moment is the preserve of interested amateurs. Unfortunately, in the era of the professional politician and the 24/7 news cycle, that simply isn't going to work. The party needs to become more professional, more focussed and more competitive if it wants to move up to the next political level. And that involves not just ideological strength, but also organisational and strategic strength.