Monday, 12 November 2007

Liberal Conspiracy

I got involved and waited a while before commenting here on this site to see how it developed.

Well, I have not been kicked off yet, if anything, I have become somewhat noted. Most people seem to be able to argue in good temper, even if we disagree. The mods did appear to get a "raid" from various juveniles, but, although I saw nothing of it, the mods seem on top of it. I think it is good to have a place where "Left Liberals" can hear that their desires to ban public schools, far from being "Liberal" and "progressive", are actually authoritarian. People need to have their ideas challenged, although some want to avoid that. I must say I find the term "Left Liberal" an oxymoron, a tautology even. Lets see.

I believe I am fairly pragmatic in my Libertarianism - e.g. I recognize we cannot dismantle everything overnight and some things are the least worst option - e.g. a Swiss style healthcare system - until people and the economy is developed enough to cope with more self-reliance and philanthropy. The difference between my view and some on LC is that I know sometimes when I am bending or suspending the ideological rules - I do not pretend that some things I support are actually "pure" Libertarian at all.

5 comments:

Saltburn subversives said...

That Zohra Moosa article is funny.Funnier in its way, than the sneering and pompous drink-soaked trots.

Here's David Thompson's take on it, in case you haven't seen it already.

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/11/so-very-tired.html

Peter Horne

Roger Thornhill said...

Thanks, Peter,

David does a good analysis.

I do hope Zohra does not descend into labelling me as some heartless right winger, as we are near the edge with regards the "poverty" aspect. Just because I do not want to divert state funding into something, does not mean it does not exist. I suppose to a Statist, NOTHING exists unless it has State funding!

Saltburn subversives said...

Socialists have two problems.The first is that socialism does not work.The second, some would say,is that socialism is a religious "meme".

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1.html

The first of these problems they are aware of but are unable to admit. The second hasn't crossed their minds.It could be argued that in their non-theistic theology "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" have been replaced with fuzzy buzzwords like 'Social Justice', 'Equality' and'Eliminating Povery.'

So what do they do when reality raises its unwelcome head?

Redefine the language to make dissent impossible. Relative poverty becomes "poverty",

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article377399.ece

Liberal becomes Illiberal, Liberty becomes "positive liberty", etc

http://inversions-and-deceptions.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-labour-new-liberty.html

And libertarians become right-wing nut jobs. The idea is to stifle debate and claim the moral high ground. The warm fuzzy feeling of righteousness is far better than facing facts.

Peter Horne

Roger Thornhill said...

Socialists are indeed trying to claim the moral high ground by calling themselves "left liberals" and getting rather confused, lets say, when their positions are exposed as authoritarian, yet they think the positions are liberal.

I hold what could be argued as authoritarian views - e.g. on health - yet I know consciously that this position is not Libertarian or Liberal, but just pragmatic. Some of the Left cannot distinguish between ideology and pragmatism (or in their case "expediency"!) just like some cannot distinguish between Party and Government.

Liberal Conspiracy said...

Roger, can you email me on lcwatch@gmail.com , I can't seem to find an address for you