Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • A slightly different take on liberty from most libertarians


    by Sunny
    13th August, 2010 at 3:22 am    

    A friend went to Manchester this week to meet a woman, an Ahmadi Muslim woman from Bangladesh (Ms B). She arrived here over five years ago and has a young daughter who goes to school. The daughter has a Mancunian accent is well settled in, except that sometimes the kids tease her because they’re so poor. During this time Ms B has been here, the government has not granted her the right to stay or work - she has to live on meagre benefits.

    They’ve now rejected Ms B’s application to stay in this country and planning to forcibly detain her. This might involve separation from her child (who will also be detained) and then they’ll be deported to Bangladesh. Given Ms B ran away from her husband - she has no family support back there, no money or business, and no way to live. It’s likely she and her daughter will fall into deep destitution.

    This is just one examples of hundreds, if not thousands, across the country where the government is forcibly coercing people out of the country and knowingly driving them to destitution.

    I bring up this anecdote in response to Mr CivLib, who wrote a long-explanatory blog post about libertarianism to explain the point that libertarianism is a diverse ideology (as is socialism, which he accepts, though most libertarians don’t). Anyway, I think him for having the courtesy to engage properly.

    What annoys me about “libertarians” is that most of the belligerent ones online are only concerned about themselves. They get angry about smoking bans, about speed cameras or about taxation because it affects them. Devil’s Kitchen, who shows similar faux outrage, was only concerned about free movement of people after it affected him. Is there a better example of hypocrisy?

    I went to a debate earlier this year on civil liberties mostly comprising of right-wing civil libertarians (Alex Deane, Henry Porter and a few others). The subject of anti-terrorism legislation and its use against Muslims didn’t come up. Neither did immigration or open borders. When one of the panelists, Rowenna Davis, talked about how poverty restricts people’s liberties, some of the audience snickered. Only one person brought up how corporations restricted liberties (mostly through courts: libel, not paying for environmental damage) - that person was me. Henry Porter is quite good on libel reform and anti-terrorism legislation but most of the people couldn’t care less.

    These issues are also about civil liberties but most libertarians rarely talk about them (apart from perhaps Alex Massie). I’ve already mentioned Devils Kitchen’s stance on immigration a few times. Tory Bear calls himself a “conservative Libertarian” - and goes on to support Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestine and tight immigration controls. I simply can’t take that level of selfishness seriously.

    Lefties also care about state coercion: but for them that takes the form of the government trying to restrict protests, passing grotesque anti-terrorism legislation, saving destitute asylum seekers from being deported, trying to help people out of poverty, allowing women the right to abortion and creating a society where people have access to a healthy, safe environment (renweable energy etc). Most libertarians rarely bother writing about or get angry about these issues. But they’re also about personal liberty, are they not?

    Most people on the web who call themselves libertarians don’t really believe in liberty for all - they just like the label because it can be shoehorned into their selfishness. If these people are libertarians - is it any wonder the ideology gets such a bad rap?


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Civil liberties






    50 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. sunny hundal

      Blog post:: A slightly different take on liberty http://bit.ly/9QkzC2


    2. sunny hundal

      @mrcivlib Thanks for that long post earlier. I've replied here: http://bit.ly/9QkzC2


    3. Sarah Jackson

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: A slightly different take on liberty http://bit.ly/9QkzC2


    4. mrcivlib

      RT @sunny_hundal: @mrcivlib Thanks for that long post earlier. I've replied here: http://bit.ly/9QkzC2




    1. Simon — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:50 am  

      The term “libertarian” has always been philosophically naïve, as it entirely ignores the role of the state (through institutionalised violence) in creating the conditions for liberty.

      You can’t have a free market economy without a newtwork of coersive state bodies to enforce its prefered property norms.

      Most “Libertarians” don’t want to see the state abolished or reduced, just privatised.

    2. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 8:21 am  

      “The term “libertarian” has always been philosophically naïve, as it entirely ignores the role of the state (through institutionalised violence) in creating the conditions for liberty.”

      What colour is the sky on your planet? I suppose the next thing you’re going to tell me is that by violating property rights, the state is the only means by which you can enforce property rights.

    3. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 8:39 am  

      Obnoxio The Clown,

      Libertarians are full of shit.

      Discuss.

      My sky is a surprising shade of blue today. Unlikely I know…

      It ought to be overcast and gloomy. As it has been all summer long.

    4. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 8:46 am  

      Seems to me that the entire idea of excluding asylum seekers from gainful employment just plays into the concept that they are scroungers.

      If you are not allowed to contribute to our society through work, and you aren’t, then we have a self fullfilling lunacy.

      Anyways, Obnoxio, etc, will clear this all up with the profound wisdom of Libertarian thought processes.

      Maybe.

    5. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 8:49 am  

      “During this time Ms B has been here, the government has not granted her the right to stay or work – she has to live on meagre benefits.”

      My take on this is simple: coming here gives you automatic right to work and no benefits.

      People aren’t incensed by filthy foreigners coming here and taking our jobs, they’re incensed by (probably overblown) claims of queue jumping and (probably overblown) claims of huge sums of benefits being dished out to foreigners that locals aren’t entitled to.

      But then if I had my druthers, locals wouldn’t get benefits either.

    6. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 8:50 am  

      Sorry, that should read “incensed by”.

    7. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:01 am  

      “What annoys me about “libertarians” is that most of the belligerent ones online are only concerned about themselves. They get angry about smoking bans, about speed cameras or about taxation because it affects them.”

      I get angry about the smoking ban and I’ve never smoked in my life, nor do I allow people to smoke in my home.

      I get angry about speed cameras although I’ve never been done for speeding in my life.

      It’s true that I get angry about taxation because it affects me, but it’s more because the government pisses my money out on spurious things that don’t improve anyone’s life.

    8. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:02 am  

      No Obnoxio @ 5,

      That is not right. Ms B is prohibited by the state from looking for gainful employment. Her asylum appeal would be adversely effected if she did look for work. Could you address the real world rather than the one that you construct?

      For your world is not the world the rest of us live in….

      Ms B is a victim of the state. I’d have thought that was obvious, even to a Libertarian.

    9. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:07 am  

      And Ms B is not alone in having this Catch 22 applied to her. What has been highlighted here is the worst of the states intervention in the lives of individuals. And it does it, just because it can. Just because no-one cares about it.

      The way we treat asylum seekers is the way the government would like to treat us all.

      Least, that’s what I think.

    10. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:13 am  

      “Lefties also care about state coercion: but for them that takes the form of the government trying to restrict protests, passing grotesque anti-terrorism legislation, saving destitute asylum seekers from being deported, trying to help people out of poverty, allowing women the right to abortion and creating a society where people have access to a healthy, safe environment (renweable energy etc)”

      I have blogged about government trying to restrict protest; I have blogged about the invasiveness of anti-terror legislation (and I have blogged about the invasiveness of CRB checks from the get-go); I believe that state welfare traps people in poverty and have blogged such; I haven’t blogged about abortion because as far as I can tell, women have the right to an abortion in a reasonable time frame and I have enough to be going on with — open to persuasion on this; I have blogged on the apparent irrationality of our emigration system; and finally, I really don’t see what business it is of the state to define “a healthy, safe environment”, especially in light of current renewable energy, which is absolutely incapable of delivering what we need to maintain our current lifestyle.

      There is definitely a huge difference of opinion between “the left” and “the right” or statists and non-statists about AGW, but we can have that debate on another thread, I guess.

    11. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:15 am  

      Re: point 8 and 9, I don’t understand, Douglas. I absolutely agree that Ms B is the victim of the state and I think it’s a terrible, wrong situation.

      I’m really not sure why you think I disagree with you?

    12. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:24 am  

      Obnoxio the ‘Angry’ Clown @ 7,

      Well, what is your answer then?

      You have come on here, all guns blazing, about an alleged affront to the Libertarian philosophy, and you have ended up more or less mainstream.

      Perhaps you will now agree with me that categorising yourself as a libertarian bampot does you no favours whatsoever.

      :-)

      And I really do hate clowns.

    13. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:34 am  

      How am I “mainstream”? I don’t believe in the state at all. I think you’ll find that the things you and I agree on are entirely congruent with an anarchist society.

      What I don’t believe in is that this mysteriously sanctified thug, which is allowed to extort money with menaces, will ever get anything right, except by accident.

      You will find that the areas where we agree are when *you* think it should be up to the individual and not up to the state. The areas we disagree are where *you* think the individual should not be allowed to to make their own mind up and that your belief in the “prevalent narrative” means that you are comfortable with the state running roughshod over people who disagree with you.

    14. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:37 am  

      Obnoxio,

      Sorry, I am - deep down - an anarchist. You Johnny come lately libertarians annoy the heck out of me.

      It is simple. I believe in the general worth of humanity, and for an example, I find most people that comment here to be my sort of people.

      To go back to the point of this thread, it seems to me that Ms B should be treated with some degree of respect by the state. She is not a fucking fiction to be passed from pillar to post on a web site. She is a real person with very real aspirations. And, perhaps, state induced poverty.

      Just why the state want’s to evict her is just because they passed a law, and they can.

      Arseholes.

      We should all think about that.

    15. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:54 am  

      Obnoxio,

      You will find that the areas where we agree are when *you* think it should be up to the individual and not up to the state. The areas we disagree are where *you* think the individual should not be allowed to to make their own mind up and that your belief in the “prevalent narrative” means that you are comfortable with the state running roughshod over people who disagree with you.

      Care to give some examples? It is me saying that Ms B ought to have some rights, after all. I am not at all clear where we differ on that.

      I’d agree that the state running roughshod - a great word, btw - over idiotic alliances of nutters isn’t what they ought to do. That is not a suggestion that libertarians ought to be banned, it is to suggest that the likes of the BNP ought to be rejected by us, not the state. And we generally do, don’t we?

      For, in blatant terms, people are better than the state they live in.

      Seems to me…

    16. Rumbold — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:00 am  

      Douglas:

      Libertarians are arguing that she should have had the right to work.

      I think Sunny has a point (as noted in the piece by Mr CivLib), that libertarians think too much about negative liberty (freedom from, e.g. freedom from detention without trial), and not enough about positive liberty (freedom to, which Rowenna pointed out in the debate above.

      Libertarians do need to do more to demostrate how a libertarian state would help the weakest in society. As a libertarian myself I feel the main purpose of the state is to protect the weakest.

    17. MaidMarian — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:05 am  

      Sunny - It is not a civil liberty to pitch up on the border and demand that immigration laws don’t apply. Civil liberty is not a cover for agendas like open borders by the back door.

      This argument about a civil liberty issue would carry more weight if the government locked every foreigner up/refused permission to work etc. They do not, they just do not indulge those who have no right to be in the country.

      Presumably the civil liberty of those who feel that there should be no rewards for breaking the law don’t matter?

      douglas clark - We are not the ones who are presenting this woman’s case as a talkboard curio.

      Out of interest, am I a, ‘victim of the state,’ because I can’t, say, drive at 200 mph? Or are you another one who thinks that immigration law is just one big inconvenience?

    18. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:26 am  

      MaidMarian, what is wrong with open borders?

    19. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:31 am  

      “Out of interest, am I a, ‘victim of the state,’ because I can’t, say, drive at 200 mph?”

      Yes. It’s perfectly feasible and very easy to get used to travelling at very high speeds (typically 155 mph, because that’s what cars are artificially limited to … by the state) when other people are used to driving at that speed.

      The fact that you feel that you aren’t a victim of the state because you can’t drive at 200MPH just shows how completely brainwashed you are.

    20. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:32 am  

      “Care to give some examples? It is me saying that Ms B ought to have some rights, after all. I am not at all clear where we differ on that.”

      Sorry, I typed this before you confessed to your anarchism. By “you”, I mean “the typical commenter on this board” — and Sunny Hundal for sure.

    21. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:36 am  

      Rumbold,

      Libertarians do need to do more to demostrate how a libertarian state would help the weakest in society. As a libertarian myself I feel the main purpose of the state is to protect the weakest.

      Well, that is my point about libertarians, is it not?

      They don’t seem to care about the folk you, rightly, care about. As you know from all sorts of discussions on here, I am with you on that. It is sad that fellow libertarians seem to have missed the obvious.

      Just saying…

    22. BenSix — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:43 am  

      “Lefties also care about state coercion: but for them that takes the form of the government trying to restrict protests, passing grotesque anti-terrorism legislation, saving destitute asylum seekers from being deported, trying to help people out of poverty, allowing women the right to abortion and creating a society where people have access to a healthy, safe environment (renweable energy etc)”

      Most state action is coercive. Whether one accepts, say, redistributive tax as justified, it isn’t given up voluntarily. Otherwise the state would be irrelevant!

    23. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:46 am  

      Obnoxio,

      You say:

      Sorry, I typed this before you confessed to your anarchism. By “you”, I mean “the typical commenter on this board” — and Sunny Hundal for sure.

      Heh, my anarchism is a distant and failed philosophy. I’d really like to believe in that sort of perfectionism, but I can’t. None of us are perfect, or perfectable, it seems to me.

      Else there would be no need for a state whatsoever. Would there?

      The point that you make - that the state gets it wrong a lot of the time - resonates with me. For these idiots assume that by making law they make things better. Of that, there is no evidence.

      Which takes us back to Ms B, does it not?

    24. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:55 am  

      Rumbold,

      My friend. Their idea of ‘liberty’ is not our idea of ‘liberty’

      Chris Mounsey is a tit.

    25. Kismet Hardy — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:57 am  

      As someone who believes anyone can do or say whatever the bloody hell they please as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else (and I’m chuffed I’ve been passing the hypocrisy test when it comes to my teenage daughter), I attract many people claiming to be libertarians, humanitarians, and every other hippy arian you can think of (I live in Brighton, must be the hummous in the air), and boy do they love to say the right thing. But while they’ll prattle on about anarcho-capitalism until the chickens cross the road, most of them believe they’re entitled to handouts, lie to every big issue seller they’ve already got a copy and tell every placard wielding fundraiser they’re already signed up, and always, always ask the black man for drugs.

      In my experience, people who bang on about being a anything-tarian are generally full of shit.

      Here’s a little example, courtesy of Action Aid: George Michael has done more for human rights than The Jam, The Clash, that bloke from Boomtown Rats, Bono and Sting put together.

      Don’t hear him bang on about it…

    26. Rumbold — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:23 am  

      Douglas, Sunny and others:

      Now that libertarians have pointed out that Ms. B would have been able to work when she came here under a libertarian system, please can you tell me how a non-libertarian asylum/immigration system, as opposed to a libertarian one, would have allowed this woman to stay.
      I would like a precise definition please.

      The curent system certainly isn’t libertarian, and it failed this woman.

    27. MaidMarian — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:37 am  

      Rumbold et al - The system has failed her to the extent it has said, ‘no, your application is rejected.’

      Granted, even with open borders not everyone in the world would want to come to the UK. Only about 5 billion. You believe in open borders out of libertarian dogma, fair enough. I just think it might pose a few problems in the real world.

      And before you ask - no, I don’t have evidence.

    28. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:37 am  

      Rumbold,

      You say this:

      26. The current system certainly isn’t libertarian, and it failed this woman.

      Sure it did. There is no evidence that a libertarian regieme would have served her any better. It is the case that people look after other people and don’t need state intervention to do so. To that extent, I believe in people. Not philosophies. Not at all.

    29. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:54 am  

      “There is no evidence that a libertarian regieme would have served her any better.”

      Given that libertarians believe in more open borders and less benefit, I’m hardly sure how it could NOT have served her better.

    30. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:55 am  

      “Granted, even with open borders not everyone in the world would want to come to the UK. Only about 5 billion.”

      I think you have a misplaced sense of how desirable the UK is.

    31. Rumbold — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:57 am  

      MaidMarian:

      I believe in the principle of open borders. However, open borders will only work with (a) reform of the welfare state, and (b) and improvement in the economies of other countries. Otherwise Britain wouldn’t be able to cope.

      Douglas:

      A libertarian system would have worked better because she would have been allowed to work, thus building up her money and giving her more choices in life. Hopefully, in my sort of libertarian system, the state would also have provided a bit of support too.

    32. MaidMarian — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:09 pm  

      Rumbold - So you approve of open borders, provided they never actually happen?

      Can I put this another way, and to be clear, I am not getting at you. Mrs B has been through the system and told, ‘no.’ How exactly is that an affront to the civil liberty of all?

    33. Sunny — on 13th August, 2010 at 1:56 pm  

      please can you tell me how a non-libertarian asylum/immigration system, as opposed to a libertarian one, would have allowed this woman to stay.
      I would like a precise definition please.

      A properly left-wing system would just people on their need, their circumstances and their ability to contribute.

      What I’d like is a system whereby asylum seekers are allowed to work and contribute to the welfare state. I’d make sure there is a program to integrate them into society (as there is in Canada) and help them become citizens.

    34. Sunny — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:01 pm  

      Most state action is coercive. Whether one accepts, say, redistributive tax as justified, it isn’t given up voluntarily. Otherwise the state would be irrelevant!

      Without the state we’d also have anarchy and development would slow down to a crawl. The weak and the marginalised would suffer the most. How exactly is that liberating?

    35. Niels Christensen — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:01 pm  

      Every western country experience this situation hundreds of times each year, and they are very difficult to handle.
      Is a divorce and a social difficult situation enough to be granted asylum and right to stay ? We have had Iraqi’s who has applicated for asylum because of blood feuds. When asked why he didn’t move to somewhere else in Iraq, he didn’t really answer, and of course not, in Denmark he will be given an apartment, social security and so on.
      One of the reason we don’t have free immigration is of course that it isn’t economically sustainable, there is no way, that Mrs B ever will be able to cover the cost of her stay, even if she get a job.
      The question behind immigration is simply how many people can we afford to take in, who isn’t able to pay for themselves. And thats the basic behind all the rules.
      I can easily agree on the humanitarian reasons to let Mrs B stay, ( and 5 years in waiting is of course an expression of the ambivalence in our system ), but if we takes cases like this, then we have to let others out, or change the rule of the game. One could be no automatic family reunion, or only family reunion, if you are paying ex. health insurance,
      accept no social housing and so on.

    36. Obnoxio The Clown — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:16 pm  

      “Without the state we’d also have anarchy”

      Well done! Stating the obvious there.

      The mistake is to assume that anarchy = chaos. This is clearly not the case.

    37. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:19 pm  

      Rumbold @ 31,

      Well, yes. If we take away the status of an asylum seeker and consider them to be just another human being. That is the case I am arguing.

      Whether we have to engage with the full Bhuna of Libertarianism is a bit moot :-)

    38. Rumbold — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:57 pm  

      MaidMarian:

      I believe in working towards a world where fully open borders will be possible. This is done by freeing up markets.

      Sunny:

      So you agree with us libertarians that she should have been allowed to work then? Great. I am glad you are coming round to our point of view. A sign of political maturity if I may say so.

      Douglas:

      I think we agree on the fundamentals.

    39. abdul abulbul emir — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:00 pm  

      Mrs A asks

      Abdul how is it this poor woman got as far as England in her flight from her husband ?

      Everyone knows that there are much nearer contries to Bangla which can take her in if she seeks asylum.

      The up and coming world power India which is set to overtake tired worn out Blighty for example. Or Turkey mooted by our leader as a great country which must join the EU ? How about this lady goes there.

      What brought her to this sad washed up decadent place anyway Abdul….

    40. Simon — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:23 pm  

      “What colour is the sky on your planet? I suppose the next thing you’re going to tell me is that by violating property rights, the state is the only means by which you can enforce property rights.”

      The state creates the coersive-legal conditions for standard property rights. Without a police force, court system, prison system etc. (and taxes to pay for them) they would not exist. They are not natural in either the normative or non-normative sense, they neither exist in reality independently of a state and neither are they divine ordained as abstract ideals.

    41. Sunny — on 13th August, 2010 at 4:03 pm  

      So you agree with us libertarians that she should have been allowed to work then?

      but that isn’t just a libertarian position - that is also a free market and a humanitarian position.

    42. Sunny — on 13th August, 2010 at 4:04 pm  

      My broader point about how most libertarians only care for certain kinds of liberty still stands (honourable, rare exceptions from Obo and Rumbold aside).

    43. Niels Christensen — on 13th August, 2010 at 6:43 pm  

      #Sunny
      ‘What I’d like is a system whereby asylum seekers are allowed to work and contribute to the welfare state. I’d make sure there is a program to integrate them into society (as there is in Canada) and help them become citizens.’
      Yes, but in general is the Canadian system a lot more restrictive than the British ( or in general western europe) regarding to income.
      And regarding integration programs.
      What do we do with those people who don’t want to follow the programs, throw them out ?
      The experience from Sweden and Denmark where there is very structured programs, is that a lot ( 50%) doesn’t really follow those programs ( young women often by getting pregnant (and pregnant) )
      older by declaring sick.
      And regarding contribution, you don’t answer the question about people, who don’t contribute enough. I now it sounds harsh, but isn’t it necessary to set a limit on the number of people who don’t contribute
      enough ? as they do in Canada.

    44. Devil's Kitchen — on 14th August, 2010 at 11:51 pm  

      Sunny,

      “Devil’s Kitchen, who shows similar faux outrage, was only concerned about free movement of people after it affected him.”

      I do wish that you would stop repeating this lie. It simply isn’t true.

      Certainly, I have changed my view on immigration over the years, in step with the increase in my libertarian views over the same time frame.

      But, certainly, I wrote about it when it affected me—since it didn’t before, it wasn’t top of my list of priorities.

      “My broader point about how most libertarians only care for certain kinds of liberty still stands…

      Possibly. Not all those who call themselves libertarian are. But you really aren’t the person to judge, are you?

      Because, let’s face it, you wouldn’t know what liberty was if it bit you on the arse.

      Your definition of liberty involves stealing people’s property by force.

      You may believe that you are doing it for a good reason, but that is purely your judgement.

      Let’s take a parallel position: we believe that the BNP should not be driven underground through banning them; no, they should be allowed to speak, so that we might ridicule their arguments. In other words, we should persuade others that our position is right.

      But you do not take that high-minded view when it comes to redistribution of wealth. You don’t feel that you should have to persuade rich people to help the poor: you think that they should be forced to do so.

      And that makes you a hypocrite. And, of course, an enemy of liberty.

      DK

    45. Sunny — on 15th August, 2010 at 12:26 am  

      DK - not lied at all - I’m referring to your curious change in position which you admit to.

      Secondly, comparing civil liberties, which are maintained by the state, with progressive taxation is hilarious. You really are a wingnut. You think roads and the police can be funded by persuading rich people to donate money?

      You guys are worse than hippy anarchists - at least their version of society can work because there’s little concept of property rights. Yours would collapse in a mess of contradictions.

    46. Roger Thornhill — on 18th August, 2010 at 2:10 pm  

      @Sunny “My broader point about how most libertarians only care for certain kinds of liberty still stands (honourable, rare exceptions from Obo and Rumbold aside).”

      “most”? Who ARE these people? Most Libertarians I meet care for the fundamentals, with the main sticking points being land ownership and IP over which we discuss endlessly. Apart from that and the usual degrees of Minarchism into Anarchism (splitters!), the Libertarians I meet are very much civil, political, economic liberals through and through focused on the non-aggression axiom, freedom of speech, association, Rule of Law etc. No “teabagger” “neo-con” mindsets unless they keep them hidden when I am around.

      So, where are they, Sunny? Name names. Tweet twitter accounts. Blog the blogs.

      I hope it is not an easy way to dismiss a group that might reveal the more collectivist, authoritarian and illiberal aspects of your standpoint, Sunny.

      p.s.
      Mrs B, IMHO, is an economic migrant, not an asylum seeker. She is fleeing potential destitution, but then again so are a billion others.

      If people think saving and supporting such people is a good idea, then set up a fund for it. Go on, Sunny, set it up.

      You will soon find that you have more applicants than your funds can cover. Very soon you will have to decide who gets funds and who does not. Sooner or later you will distinguish between those fleeing aggression and those just seeking a better economic outcome, though of course you may help some of both kinds. I suspect most will be those fleeing immediate physical danger.

      Once you have this running, it would be a great thing to help those in need. But, what if someone applies to your esteemed organisation and fails? Do you think it is right that they demand an appeal and if that fails just keep appealing and appealing? What, then, if YOU have to pay for their legal costs and housing while this is being resolved? I would think you and your organisation would tell them to go fish.

      How would I do it? Binding arbitration on both sides. So, the applicant must provide proof of country of origin and willingness to accept the decision and leave immediately and not return unless circumstances change (i.e. it is unfair to reject a migrant who previously failed, then, 3 years down the line, is being persecuted by an Authoritarian govt). The State must accept the decision and process without quibble too, unless the applicant is found to be committing fraud in the application. While we have a welfare state, I see no alternative but to have caps or quotas. As a country we are not rich enough to look after those already here easily, let alone newcomers.

      The less welfare entitlements, the freer the movement of people can be.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.