Dear Lord George, Dear Lord

Rightwing libertarianism recognises few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others. In the UK it is forcefully promoted by groups like the TaxPayers\’ Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Policy Exchange. Their concept of freedom looks to me like nothing but a justification for greed.

As I do/have written for two of the four I think it\’s safe to assume that I\’m one of those being talked about here.

And I\’m afraid that\’s a characterisation which makes me rather angry. For the reason that it\’s bollocks.

If you look through the tens of thousands (yes, it is that many, from the formal here to the informal on this blog etc) pieces I\’ve done over the years one of the major points I make is that there are rights that conflict and the question is how do we balance those conflicting rights?

Not whether we should, not an insistence that the rights of the powerful should trump those of the less so. But what mechanisms do we use to sort through which rights should prevail?

Monbiot is talking cock basically.

10 thoughts on “Dear Lord George, Dear Lord”

  1. A recently emerging indicator of a certain mindset is the making “right wing” into one word (CiF passim). I am surprised that it has reached Monbiot though – he is usually at least semi-literate.

  2. Oh, do remember, “balance” now means “one person or source that agrees with me” and, depending on the forum for debate, either a straw-man, as here, or a clearly raving whack-job.

  3. More projection from the Left. If anyone knows about “few legitimate constraints on the power to act” it is them.

    Their entire philosophy is based on State power. Law for them is a weapon, not a constraint.

  4. My favourite part is the “a fully sourced version of this article is available…” when four out of the seven “sources” are links to Moonbat’s own blog posts. I despair, I really do.

  5. He’s just a communist at heart:

    “In The Fallen Elm, John Clare describes the felling of the tree he loved, presumably by his landlord, that grew beside his home. “Self-interest saw thee stand in freedom’s ways / So thy old shadow must a tyrant be. / Thou’st heard the knave, abusing those in power, / Bawl freedom loud and then oppress the free.”

    The landlord was exercising his freedom to cut the tree down. In doing so, he was intruding on Clare’s freedom to delight in the tree, whose existence enhanced his life. “

    There should be no private property, comrades!

  6. “libertarianism recognises few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others”

    There he is missing the entire point in that one simple sentence. The ENTIRE point.

    Every single “libertarianism 101” article or essay that I have ever seen starts off by saying that people should be free as long as they do no harm others. This is the central plank, the whole ethos, the complete intellectual starting point that everything else flows from.

    It’s a bit shocking that even Moonbat would write the opposite and use it as a straw man.

    Well alright, it isn’t shocking at all.

    But it is disgusting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *