Nonsense

It seems that the time has come to state the obvious: I am a liberal.

Not a Liberal Democrat.

Nor a neoliberal.

But a liberal.

This means that I believe that my neighbour is as important as me.

Nobody does believe that. We might insist that they’re ass morally important, equally one of God’s Special Little Snowflakes. But absolutely no one does think their neighbour is as important as they themselves are. We’s all be around next door cooking their breakfast if we did.

Saying that makes clear the third aspect of being a liberal. We must have a criteria for determining what is just, meaning that it requires defence. My logic is that justice is blind. Something is right when it would be considered just from whoever’s perspective it is viewed.

Isn’t that cute? So, 80% tax levels. Doesn’t seem just from the point of the view of the person being taxed. That’s why they all bigger off when we try it. Therefore it’s not just to have 80% tax rates as it’s not, considered from the perspective of the person being taxed, just.

Gosh, this moral logic stuff is fun, isn’t it?

That is what law is for in a liberal society: to define the boundaries of the freedoms that we can enjoy.

Err, no, that’s the definition of illiberality. A liberal society is one where the law defines the boundaries of what we may not do.

29 comments on “Nonsense

  1. He’s obviously suffering from heatstroke. The worlds only liberal who wants to control and monitor what you can spend your own money on as the money all belongs to the state. Can this fuckwit get any more deluded?

  2. If he really believed that he’d do his neighbour a favour & move.

    (I wonder if his neighbours know they’ve a closet fascist living in the street?. A public spirited person might slip a selection of his writings through their doors)

  3. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

    Most of us read 1984 as a warning. Ritchie reads it as a guide.

  4. 3 things:

    1. I don’t see a link to wherever the quote you use comes from. I have no idea who said it.

    2. “define the boundaries of the freedoms that we can enjoy.”
    Err, no, …. A liberal society is one where the law defines the boundaries of what we may not do.


    Those two assertions are exactly the same. The things “we may not do” are precisely those that are beyond the boundaries of “the freedoms that we can enjoy”.

    3. “,,,neighbour is as important as me” Whoever said it means “as important as I”. The locution used is beyond the boundary of “the freedoms the we can enjoy” and therefore falls into the category as one of the things “we may not do.”

  5. @pss – tim doesn’t link to the potato’s website. He’s referring to richard murphy who writes a blog called tax research. Richard murphy is an idiot who thinks he’s the world’s greatest economist/taxation expert/humanitarian. He’s not. He’s a blowhard. Try disagreeing with the potato on his blog and he’ll ban you before you have finished typing. Ragging on Ritchie is tim’s way of pointing out the absurdity of the potato’s (murphy) positions.

  6. The clue to where it comes from is the section of the blog it is in. Don;t worry, everyone else knows what that means.

    “Those two assertions are exactly the same. The things “we may not do” are precisely those that are beyond the boundaries of “the freedoms that we can enjoy”.”

    No, it’s an essential philosophic difference. Also rather the difference between Common and Roman law systems. Freedom is, in the Common Law system, everything except what is expressly forbidden. In a Roman, that which the law says we may do. These are not the same thing. Being able to do only what is permitted, or being able to do everything than is not banned, these are philosophically quite different concepts.

  7. He is the least Liberal person you could imagine. He clearly has no understanding what the word means.

  8. Actually my neighbour is as important as I. That does not mean that I should fail to look after myself. That tedious safety rigmarole on an aircraft says that adults should always apply their oxygen mask before applying one to the child sitting next to them.

  9. “Those two assertions are exactly the same. The things “we may not do” are precisely those that are beyond the boundaries of “the freedoms that we can enjoy”.

    There are no boundaries to the things we can do. Things we can do includes all possible things. Even those haven’t been thought of yet. Literally infinite.Compared with infinity, those small islands of restriction the law enforces are trivial..Indiscernible from zero.

  10. He’s liberal in the Same sense the ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’ is a democracy. Utterly ludicrous and as Longrider points out, about 2 years ago and numerous times previously he declared he was a libertarian. There’s only one thing certain – he’s a grade Z cretin who is easily the most ignorant person extant in cyberspace today.

  11. ‘This means that I believe that my neighbour is as important as me.’

    So much so that he would give them the shirt off your back.

  12. @ Gamecock
    I don’t think my shirt would fit her – which is yet another reason why his ideas are worse than idiotic. Maybe the running socks that my wife shrank …

  13. Spud likes to do this sort of thing now and again.

    “I stand for freedom and justice. Freedom and justice are the things I say they are. If you disagree with me, you are against freedom and justice.’

  14. @Peter S. Shenkin June 30, 2019 at 5:20 pm

    2. “define the boundaries of the freedoms that we can enjoy.”
    Err, no, …. A liberal society is one where the law defines the boundaries of what we may not do.


    Those two assertions are exactly the same. The things “we may not do” are precisely those that are beyond the boundaries of “the freedoms that we can enjoy”.

    Wrong; there is a massive difference between:
    Only permitted to do what law allows
    vs
    Permitted to do anything unless law forbids

    An example being why Industrial Revolution happened here (UK) rather than Austria, France, Germany etc

    Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpQOGEVpfvg&list=PLcvEcrsF_9zKqyQOhbNL-eB9e7EkX4Yef

  15. @John77
    @ bis
    Except in totalitarian states

    Only temporarily. Why they always collapse. There’s always something outside of them. The future of the possible leaves them behind.

  16. Weekend Funnies – To Cheer you Up On Monday

    Along with millions of others, I watched the England women’s football team trounce Norway 3-0 to make it through to the World Cup semi-finals. Hurrah. The only thing I can’t work out is, if the enthusiasm for the women’s beautiful game is so great, with tens of millions watching it worldwide on TV, why were there so many empty seats?

    .
    The British Medical Association voted to refuse to charge people who are not British and do not live here for NHS care. Doctors say it’s ‘racist’ to bill health tourists and they’d be ‘complicit in the oppressive regime’, whatever that means.

    What blinkered arrogance. Perhaps before these medics make such claims, they should consult the millions of Brits from black, Asian and ethnic minority groups who have lived here all their lives, paid their taxes and — like all of us — can’t get to see a GP inside three weeks.

    .
    A sobbing Yewande Biala broke down, after being booted out of Love Island, claiming she didn’t realise how hard it would be to find love on the reality TV show. Crikey, the girl’s a scientist — it doesn’t take a Mensa intellect to work that out.

    .

    Karen Bradley:NI breakthrough – Unionists and Republicans in agreement

    The Northern Ireland Office summer party for politicians from across the political divide could have been a highlight of the year.

    But last week hapless Northern Ireland Secretary Karen Bradley was forced to cancel it because no one was going to turn up.

    When she was appointed in 2018, Bradley foolishly admitted she was unaware of the the most elementary fact of Northern Ireland politics: ‘that nationalists did not vote for unionists and that unionists did not vote for nationalists’.

    Ruth Dudley Edwards, the distinguished Ulster commentator, said: ‘In her 18 months in office, she [Bradley] has united all the parties in the view that she is the worst and most ignorant Secretary of State ever.’

    Karen Bradley looks thick, she has a vacant empty head face – was she a Cameron CCHQ imposed woman candidate on a safe seat?

  17. @Gamecock

    Projection there; I didn’t say Karen Bradley was fat – thick aka stupid

    However, some may say she is thick, fat and stupid.

    There seem to be a lot of fat, smoker & alcoholic MPs who project and punish/tax us for their sins. A boat ride down Styx awaits.

  18. @Tim “in a Roman, that which the law says we may do.”

    As someone who practises law in a system known as Roman-Dutch (admittedly, with a lot of Common Law precedents), i don’t recognise this description of Roman Law. It might apply to the codified systems of continental Europe, but in South Africa, we wouldn’t see our system as you do.

  19. @BC
    It’s better described as ‘Napoleonic’ rather than ‘Roman’ law (on which the Code Napoléon was based). But it isn’t, for largely political reasons.

    I’m unfamiliar with the law system of the RSA, but I expect it had a large degree of British influence. Certainly Gandhi set off to practise there, after qualifying as a barrister in London.

  20. It seems that the time has come to state the obvious: I am a liberal.

    Not a Liberal Democrat.

    Nor a neoliberal.

    But a liberal.

    It isn’t just the content but the absurd pomposity of the layout. For God’s sake.

  21. My understanding of the word libertarian was that it had to be invented when the word liberal started to be used to describe people who were the opposite of liberal.

  22. @Chris Miller Indeed, Napoleonic would be a better description of codified Continental law than Roman and you are correct that there is a large British influence, especially in the court systems which are adversarial with a supposedly neutral judge. However, Roman-Dutch jurists have been attempting to minimise the common law influence for some time.

  23. @Stonyground, that was my understanding. Then illiberal idiots such as Murphy tried to hijack that as well. Remember that moron Julian Le Grand and his paternalistic libertarianism? Another illiberal arsehole who tried to hijack the term.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.