shuggy's blog
Quality post.
I think I love you. Like man to man love. That sort of love.
I know plenty of liberals, and more than a few libertines, but not anyone who would describe themselves as a 'libertarian'
Paul Anderson.
I'm a Classical Liberal, a.k.a. "Libertarian". You're right about the link with anarchism though. I had a strong youthful "appreciation" of anarchism, but even as a child I couldn't see how anarchism could be made to work to the benefit of the whole of society unless we also had the Rule Of Law. Hence being "libertarian".
But you seem to be under a misapprehension of what that actually means. It *doesn't* mean extreme individualism, (although that does tend to come with the territory). Rather it is a belief in a society that self-organises from the ground up rather than having its structure imposed from above.
Libertarians don't object to society, or organisation, they object to the idea that one organisation "the government" has a monopoly right to violence, theft (taxation) and morality (e.g. drug or sex laws aimed at consenting adults).
Oh, and just for the record. I have 3 dependent children, I went to a Comprehensive School, my children are attending the local state schools and I have an interest in History. You need to make some libertarian friends, you seem to have a very narrow view of what it means. 
Libertarians don't object to society, or organisation, they object to the idea that one organisation "the government" has a monopoly right to violence, theft (taxation) and morality (e.g. drug or sex laws aimed at consenting adults).
The libertarians I've encountered tend to confuse the freedom of individuals from the state with the freedom of large corporations to exploit those individuals.
They expect to become very rich if only the government will get out of their way. Much like sheep expect to get lots of grass if only the farmer will take those wolf-proof fences out.
But you seem to be under a misapprehension of what that actually means.
Possibily. On the other hand, it's getting a bit like the concept of liberalism itself, in that it seems to have gained a certain elasticity.
they object to the idea that one organisation "the government" has a monopoly right to violence
Hmmm - any political science undergraduate knows giving a satisfactory definition of the state is quite difficult. A modification of what you say here - the state claims a monopoly, not over violence per se, but over the legitimate use of violence - is Weber's definition of what it actually is. There's a few problems with it but it's about as good as any, as far as I can remember. I take it you disagree?
You need to make some libertarian friends, you seem to have a very narrow view of what it means
You may well be right. Where do libertarians hang out then?
While my comprensive school was alright that doesn't mean it couldn't have been much better though.
Of course no socialist ever went to private school...
(Oh, and I've never had the slightest desire to take drugs and my wife loves me. Doubtless you were expecting these sorts of statments but it had to be said.)
I dare say there are plenty of libertarians "in the real world", it's just that they are unaware of a special term for their position. My mum came out as one on that world's smallest political test thing some time back.
A useful shorthand is that what we Brits would call a classical liberal (like me perhaps) is what the Americans would call a libertarian.
Not quite accurate as you still have the real loonies (Lew Rockwell, Objectivists etc) as well, but close enough.
Can you be an economic hardline socialist and libertarian in your attitude to personal freedoms? That's roughly where my natural bias lies, but its quite a hard one to reconcile with reality
The great merit of the Classical Liberals is that they don't start by just assuming that The State, in its modern, all-interfering guise, is inevitable, natural and right. So even post-Humian scepto-empiricists like me can find a lot of interest - and merit - in what they say. I particularly like their wee slogan "The government is not your friend". They would also, usually, have the balls not to be bullied into silence by your (uncharacteristically) lame point about the NHS. They would, I think, not only ask you to consider those done to death by that organisation, or nastily abandoned (consider the plight of the poor loonies), but ask you to consider whether you really think that the only rational choice is between the NHS that we happen to have, and nothing at all.
From my in-depth analysis, I reckon that the terms "Libertarian" and "Whining Sack of Self-Righteousness" are more or less synonymous.
The Libertarian prescription for society - "I don't want to pay any taxes, and I'll kill any man that touches my stuff" - is truly the radical position that all the cool party animals adopt.
The 'libertarians' in the comments here do a good job of reminding me why I hate the fuckers to such an extent I'd gladly see them imprisoned in the feudal shithole they would undoubtedly be in if their stupid, pig-ignorant ideas were ever made concrete (which will never happen of course, because they are thick ignorant idealist pissants). Anarcho-capitalism? Kindly keep your invisible hand on the keyboard where we can see it you fucking wankstains. Libertarianism? All the freedom that money can buy. Personal property? Array of objects apparently owned, rapidly depreciating in value, purchased on credit, stored indefinitely (for no rent) within one's living space. Rational to the core (not).
In short -- go and fuck yerselves you tosspot mutherfuckers with above average technical skills. Politics is not what you stupid dicks think it is.
Re ” I hate the fuckers to such an extent I'd gladly see them imprisoned
Woah Will! So - do you advocate imprisoning anyone who you disagree with politically? Just those who you really don’t like, or everyone who you disagree with for any reason? Oh and would that be with, or without trial?
Oh and speaking of the NHS “if they'd had the experience of someone they loved being saved from disease, disfigurement or death because of the existence of this 'Stalinist' NHS”
How can we fix it? Because I have personally had the experience of someone I was very fond of be treated like they were of no consequence, get lost track of , catch MRSA and be desperate to get away from hospital.
How can we fix it?
Pfff! Not by privatizing it, that's for sure. See - two of the things I have a problem with re what a lot of libertarians write is that they are often a) pretty ahistorical, b) rather other-wordly. For instance, in the piece from that wacky American outfit (can't remember their name but appparently they get loads of hits) I linked, Natalie Solent was going on about what if the Virginia gunman had had the option to opt out of education at 12. We already know what happens when 12 year-olds opt out of education. We already know what a privatised health care system looks like. We already know what choice in education looks like. While they have some advantages, in the aggregate they suck - and not in a good way. Tghe completely free-market: the great untried utopia. Let's not try it - it'll go the way of all others, of this I am certain.
I hate the fuckers to such an extent I'd gladly see them imprisoned in the feudal shithole they would undoubtedly be in if their stupid, pig-ignorant ideas were ever made concrete (which will never happen of course, because they are thick ignorant idealist pissants).
It'll never happen because the libertarian core idea is that they abhor the coercive power of a state, therefore they are never going to be in a position to challenge the power of a state as that would mean becoming the thing they abhor- a coercive power. Libertarians - mostly harmless.
In short -- go and fuck yerselves you tosspot mutherfuckers with above average technical skills. Politics is not what you stupid dicks think it is.
Will, you have style.
Shuggy, The question was: How can we fix it? - Not how can we not fix it.
Because frankly I would just like to see it, if not completely fixed at least working as well as it seemed to in the 60s.
You appear to have actually answered a question that I didn’t ask, but to be fair the underlying theme to the thread may have led you to it.
Clearly extra money does not do it on it’s own. Maybe getting rid of most of the managers and admin might do it.
I must admit I have no real idea how to address the problem. All I know for sure is that there is a real problem to address and if it is not dealt with it could destroy the NHS.
Libertarianism is anarchism for chaps with butlers.
Heh.
Libertarianism, or Classical Liberalism, is a genuine threat - intellectual and moral - to socialism, which is why you instinctively dislike it and descend to what is just an ad hominem attack.
It's good to see it setting your agenda, though.
"We already know what choice in education looks like."
Indeed we do, the free market hell hole that is Sweden (a pure voucher scheme for the entire education system since 1992).
Indeed we do, the free market hell hole that is Sweden (a pure voucher scheme for the entire education system since 1992).
So, what should we make of the fact that only 4% of pupils in Sweden attend private schools - compared to 7% in the voucherless UK?
"So, what should we make of the fact that only 4% of pupils in Sweden attend private schools - compared to 7% in the voucherless UK?"
Perhaps that true competition in schooling raises the standards of the publically provided schools, making private provision less necessary or desired?
Well I'm both a libertarian and a historian so a truly rare bird according to Shuggy. I think there are far more libertarians around than you imagine - you do need to try meeting more of them. Personally I don't like the term 'libertarian', I prefer 'classical liberal' or 'individualist' but we're stuck with the word because in the US the word 'liberal' now means 'social democrat' and so classical liberals over there need to come up with another term for themselves.
I think that here in the uk the typing of libertarians as Conservatives who like hedonism as well as free markets has a lot of truth in it but it isn't universally true (doesn't describe me for example). There's lots of issues where a conversation between a libertarian and a conservative soon becomes pretty strained - immigration for example.
Is schooling really the same thing as education and is it a good thing (as Shuggy clearly thinks it is)?
"Apparently missing for them (maybe not, perhaps they've just forgotten) is the experience of a place where you might have been bored most of the time, you might have resented your teachers and the uniform they made you wear - but it was still a place where you learned stuff, waded through tedious lessons in order to get the qualifications to do what you really wanted to do, had a laugh, made friends you've kept until this day - the sort of people you got drunk with for the first time, maybe took some drugs, maybe even met a future partner - or if not perhaps someone you lost your virginity to? The kind of experiences, in other words, that are the stuff of communities - the sort of communities that the average libertarian gives the impression of having never lived in."
But why do all these things have to be experienced within the setting of compulsory education? Your "Hey, folks, remember the good times!" argument is at best an unhelpful whitewash of the failings of our education system, and at worst a implied (and spurious) either-or: as though learning "stuff", having "a laugh", and so on simply isn't possible without conventional schooling.
Commenting by HaloScan
