The Nazis versus libertarians
Dear libertarians,
Regular readers of my blog will know that once in a while I stumble across a story which I think strikes at the heart of libertarian values. Like many other Conservatives (big and small ‘c’) I want the state to play a much smaller role in our lives than it does now, but I still think the state is justified in intervening in the activities of individuals in some circumstances. Yesterday’s news reports of a far-right group being banned in Germany after allegedly organising activities that promoted racist and Nazi ideologies to children raises some difficult questions that appear to expose the dangers of laissez-faire government.
The German interior ministry stepped in after they found evidence that the Homeland-Faithful German Youth (HDJ) was teaching children as young as six that foreigners and Jews were a threat to the “German nation”. Police also raided the offices and houses of the group’s leaders in connection with the ban. The HDJ said it was a “youth group for environment, community and homeland” but at its special holiday camps, children were taught elements of “racial ideology”, including the “purity of blood” and “the continuation of the German race”, with the aim of forming a neo-Nazi elite, according to the government. “With today’s ban we’re putting an end to the nauseating activities of the HDJ,” Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said. “We will do everything in our power to protect our children and youth from these Pied Pipers.” The interior ministry said the HDJ had several hundred members and was a cornerstone of the far-right movement, with ties to the National Democratic Party (NPD). NPD leader Udo Voigt went on trial in Berlin last week charged with racial incitement and defamation. He and two other key members are accused of questioning the presence of non-white players in Germany’s national squad ahead of the 2006 World Cup.
This whole situation seems to be at odds with libertarian values. Libertarians believe that the state should merely uphold the law and do little else. Unfortunately in the UK, our authoritarian government are seeking to outlaw free speech so it is likely that the HDJ would fall foul of our legislation, but presumably all libertarians want to repeal laws on inciting religious and racial hatred as they restrict liberty. So, assuming that if libertarians had their way then these laws would not exist and the HDJ were therefore not breaking the law, I figured that libertarians would have no problem in the HDJ pushing their views on children. Their ideology is nationalist in the extreme, but in an environment where free speech reigns supreme and in the absence of evidence that the HDJ are harming anyone financially or physically with their beliefs then surely libertarians have no grounds for putting an end to the HDJ’s activities? My immediate instinct was to support the German government on this issue. While I believe that free speech is crucial, children do not have the same ability to distinguish between different viewpoints that free speech fosters and are therefore vulnerable to some extent – hence the need for some protection.
The fact that the Interior Minister described the HDJ as “nauseating” shows that free speech is not relevant as far as they are concerned and their motives are likely to be political. Nevertheless, situations such as this raise some difficult questions about the role of government in a truly liberal society. Recent incidents in the UK have led to fierce debates over who should be allowed to say what and when, and I’m not expecting any politicians to go near this particular news item. Libertarians can argue for a small state as much as they want, but when it comes to protecting vulnerable individuals, Conservatives seem much better placed to do somethiing about it than someone who doesn’t really believe government has a mandate to intervene.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
UPDATE: The Nameless Libertarian, a member of the UK Libertarian Party, has responded to my letter on their blog.
“…in the absence of evidence that the HDJ are harming anyone financially or physically with their beliefs then surely libertarians have no grounds for putting an end to the HDJ’s activities…”
There’s the crux of the matter, surely? If there’s no evidence of harm, on what basis do they act?
Ideas themselves aren’t dangerous. Until they cross the line into action, or encouraging others to action.
It was a 1997 edition of HIGNFY, I think, that reported discussion in Germany as to what should be done with Hitler’s bunker, discovered intact in Berlin after the fall of the Wall. As reported, some Neo-Nazi groups wanted to be able to meet there. Others thought it should be blown up. HIGNFY’s suggestion – Why not do both?
Julia is right in principle, but I suspect that indoctrinating children is evidence enough.
The Germans have an, understandable, aversion to Nazi ideology. They clearly don’t trust themselves with it (neither do the Austrians), banning books and songs as well as symbols (such as the Swastika) from that era. Considering the number of people killed last time they listened to that particular strain of thought, as a libertarian, I’m happy enough to see them make whatever exceptions they need to in order to keep them (and us) safe from where those ideas directly lead.
That said, in the UK, I’ve always opposed so-called ‘no-platform’ politics. I opposed it at university and I oppose it now. Free speech, directed by and to adults, should not be restricted. Brainwashing children with ideologies, be it Roman Catholicism, Islam or Nazism, is wrong. You let people speak and then you counter their arguments (or beat them to death as some recent religious Muslim fascists almost found in Luton…).
O/T With Shearer and Obama arriving on the same day the BBC are in Messiah overdrive and sound so excited the presenters may gush themselves to exhaustion.
Aren’t ideas dangerous, Julia? We’re talking about children here (who are relatively impressionable), not vaguely rational adults.
Shaun, brainwashing children sounds wrong but how can anyone who claims to be libertarian allow the government to put an end to it when it’s not breaking the law?
Patently, what is indoctrinating children evidence of? My point is that it’s not really evidence of any wrongdoing in legal terms – hence why libertarians would have to sit on their hands and do nothing.
Bill, you’re probably right – the BBC website won’t be much fun today. And it wasn’t that off topic, seeing as the BBC spends a lot of time indoctrinating children with biased rubbish as well.
I would agree that parents do not have a right to do whatever they like to their children, who are not yet capable of forming their own opinions. Of course, you’ve got the problem of an overmighty state deeming certain things unacceptable. I would say that the best solution is for the state education system to foster critical thinking, as it has shamelessly failed to do.
The assumptions that people from certain “communities” have should be challenged in school. Lessons about such subjects as the Holocaust & the origins of the world provide an excellent opportunity for nonsense to be confronted with evidence. Few would choose to believe in this sort of tat if they had access to all the evidence. There is simply no need for brainwashing, which is a tactic used only by those who know their ideas won’t withstand scrutiny.
That is the first & most obvious thing the state can do. Now I can see the rationale behind this ban: whether or not to support it is another matter, but it should not be condemned out of hand as the more foaming at the mouth bloggertarians would as it is impressionable childre who are involved.
I do agree with Shaun Pilkington that free speech should apply to adults. The relevant countries should repeal the ban on Mein Kampf, which serves no valid purpose I can identify. The Wilders affair was also one in which people disgraced themselves as he should have spoken & been subjected to critical analysis & response from others.
We should ask ourselves why these ideologies are popular & confront the source of their popularity, which surprisingly often has to do with the state, for example the state’s role in the housing market contributing to ethnic segregation of areas.
Of course, this would require a self-confident secular liberasl democracy such as is not being offered by any party. I believe we can win the battle of ideas because the majority of people, of all races & cultures, want a free life. If it seems otherwise, it is generally because in some cultures the majority are denied a voice, a situation which could & should be abolished. This is why I am an internationalist.
I remember my own university’s No Platform policy. My attempt to have it repealed was one of the most depressing experiences of my whole life. It gave me my loathing of students, especially the ones at the bottom of the university food chain.
I have to say focussing on one aspect of the core Libertarian philosophy, against a modern backdrop, then of course it will fail.
Unfettered free-speech in a society which outsources responsibility to the state, and offers all kinds of justifications – and in some cases rewards – for bad behaviour is a dangerous mix.
In Libertopia such schools of hate would first have to purchase property, or find someone willing to allow such brainwashing on their property.
Secondly, they’d have to find people willing to send their children to such schools.
Thirdly, they would have find some method of income in order to survive. Either through fees – which would mean advertising their curriculum of hate, otherwise that’s fraud – or via work, and if they want to preach loathing of some of the more productive members of Libertopia and maintain a healthy income, well, good luck with that.
And finally, if they wish to enact out their philosophy, then singly or in small groups, they’ll obviously not have been taught well about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which with minimal weaponry and supplies managed to fend off annihilation for almost a month, and so will be unpleasantly surprised when people of the same stock educate them on how they can defend themselves with a much meatier inventory. And if they want to try in large groups, they’ll find Libertopia’s police and military happy to eradicate them.
In short, such philosophies can exist in a Libertopia, they just won’t find themselves very successful.
“Aren’t ideas dangerous, Julia? We’re talking about children here (who are relatively impressionable), not vaguely rational adults.”
Which ideas?
And who gets to decide which ideas are dangerous…?
“I would say that the best solution is for the state education system to foster critical thinking, as it has shamelessly failed to do.”
Agreed. You have to ask why they don’t, though…
I’d love to think that state education could foster critical thinking, but we are talking about primary school children here, not even teenagers.
Julia, the ‘ideas’ that I was referring to are from the story – the idea that Jews need to be watched, the idea that Nazi ideology is the way forward etc. As far as impressionable children are concerned, these kinds of ideas could be extremely harmful. Adults can bat them away as stupid, children less so. In terms of who decides what is dangerous and what is not, it’s a really difficult question but one that libertarians appear to avoid completely. Drawing any definitive line on what is dangerous is nigh on impossible, but plying young children with ideas that might genuinely threaten society and cohesion is surely crossing the line?
Obsidian, thanks for the observations. Not sure how their funding is channeled. Whether the parents knew what was going on would be an interesting little add-on to this story…..
Before we ask whether there is ‘a problem’ we have to ask whether there is anything ‘the state’ can do to help.
Yes, I find such brainwashing of children just as awful as Muslims brainwashing their own children, but you just cannot stop it. If you somehow prevent these people meeting up in semi-public, then they’ll just brainwash their children at home.
So in the absence of a solutionm, there’s no point looking for a problem.
The parents of these children sent them to these camps and by the sounds of the article they knew exactly what was going on. So by the time they go to these camps they will already be believing their parents’ views and ideologies. It is not until late primary school or early high school that we realise that our parents do not know everything and that we can have conflicting opinions.
So although I don’t like the idea of these camps – it seems there going to get it from their parents anyway – and no law can stop that!
“Julia, the ‘ideas’ that I was referring to are from the story…”
And I’m sure we’d all agree these people are cuckoo-bananas.
But if we decide that ‘these ideas are beyond the pale’, what’s to stop someone saying (for instance) ‘hey, what about these ultra-religious Muslims, preaching to their children that Jews are the descendants of pigs and monkey? We should stop that.’
And then someone says ‘hey, what about the Catholics and that ‘homosexuals are going to hell business?’
And then the greens get in and say ‘global warming deniers? Not on my watch!’.
And we’re off to the races…
when it’s not breaking the law?
But that’s the point. Nazi stuff IS ILLEGAL in Germany because of their history prosecuting that ideology with extreme violence across Europe…
I think all children are “brainwashed” to a certain degree at home by their parents.It is a natural thing to hope your offspring will grow up to be and think like yourself.My parents were not racist but were class concious against the well off but not rabidly so.Once I was old enough to think sensibly I formed my own opinions but can understand very strict parents indoctrinating their young.
Most of the state educational system is so left biased I’m suprised we have any right thinking younsters from that sector.
Mark, the question of what the state could do is a big one. The German government have taken one approach – ban them and try to shut them down – and I’m not sure there is much else a government could do. Half-hearted criticisms would just fuel publicity, which the BNP enjoy on a regular basis.
Julia, you’re absolutely right. It’s a very serious problem for a government, but my reasoning is that libertarians wouldn’t address the problem at all and would just let the summer camps and indoctrination with potentially harmful ideas continue. Whether disagreeing with homosexuality is on a par with telling children that Nazi ideologies are the way forward is debatable, I guess.
Candid, I would assume that the parents weren’t completely clueless.
I think Obsidian makes some good points although referring to ‘Libertopia’ makes my skin crawl. The idea that they have to fund themselves and get permission at every single stage does act as a serious limit on their power.
But this post is about one of the key critiques of liberalism in general – liberalism suffers illiberal ideas to exist. The wisdom of that might be in doubt but it does seem to work – What we’ve seen is the BNP being self-limiting because their success is in the very worst areas – fascism and chavism are inseperably linked – which seems to be acting as a social brake on their progress.
But this whole area of the state making decisions about whether or not a parent is adequately meeting their duty of care over their children is a nightmare – it’s the second time you’ve invoked children as a ‘problem’ with libertarianism isn’t it?
Well remembered, Charlotte. I think the whole area of child protection, social services and ‘vulnerable’ individuals is one of the biggest weakness in libertarian philosophy. The government sticks their noses into too many aspects of everyone’s life, we all know that, but protecting vulnerable children and adults is something that arouses many people’s moral instincts yet doesn’t seem to fit with libertarianism at all.
And I agree that chavs are helping put the brakes on the BNP, but when the middle classes start listening then we are all in serious trouble.
I think these discussions make the universal error that used to be the preserve of Liberals and Marxists . It some societies for the maximum freedom wealth and happiness some things should be banned ( Germany and Nazi indoctrination springs to mind ). In others other rules will work as well and its not a problem here .
In this country we should openly admit that the established Church of England may freely encourage children into our culture but Islam is not at Liberty to do the same . This has a direct impact on schooling where the process of freeing education has been held up by the possibility of alien indoctrination
Think of it this way ,in some countries you can drive on the right , in some on the left . It all works . You cannot do both.
As for Libertarians they would make sense if the world enjoyed eons of freedom prior to governments . In fact it enjoyed ages of slavery , so basically they talk **** and usually get about as rebellious as writing a ‘controversial essay’ anyway.
You want someone really prepared to tell whoever is applying rules they can **** themselves ask a Conservative . Ask me .
Well remembered, Charlotte. I think the whole area of child protection, social services and ‘vulnerable’ individuals is one of the biggest weakness in libertarian philosophy.
I completely disagree. Libertarianism effectively grants rights to competent adults, together with duties not to abuse people, competent or not. It also works from the basis that people are, on the whole, not evil and that bad people are the minority for whom the majority should not be punished. Thus if a tosspot gets leathered on 12 pints of
wifebeaterStella and thrashes his kids, he has comitted crimes which he should be punished for. Drinkers at large are not penalised and access to alcohol is not restricted for the vast, vast majority who don’t beat their families.Where individuals commit crimes, be it against children, animals or the disabled (people/creatures who for whatever reason have no or vastly diminished rights) they should be prosecuted. Saying that does not violate my libertarian credentials. Were I to go on and say that the state should invade the lives of every single family in the UK to endeavour to thwart that rare, aberrant, minority behaviour, that would be egregiously illiberal as it would impinge on the freedoms of people who have done nothing wrong.
To try and argue that libertarianism (Which at the thin end simply requires the State to butt-out of the lives of people in general unless specific, limited, circumstances arrive that threaten the life, liberty – perfect or, for children, imperfect – or property of others) is seeking to give a free pass to child abusers or wife beaters is at least as much of a Straw Man as saying that Islam is a ‘religionofpeace’.
Shaun, what LFAT is getting is that certain things might not be ‘a crime’ under a strictly libertarian society – so do children and other vulnerable people require special legal protections? Who gets to decide what constitutes ‘harm’ and what consitutes a ‘crime’.
Thank you Newmania, always a pleasure to have your forthright perspective
Shaun, it’s the issue of ‘vulnerability’ that doesn’t fit with libertarianism – apologies for not making that clear. Social services operate on the basis of assessing ‘risk’ – they have the uneviable task of stopping children from being hurt before it happens. Ultimately it’s an impossible task and mistakes are made, but I still believe that social services perform an important function. The same issue applies to this far-right party. Assuming that no law was broken and no crime was committed, libertarians would remain rooted to the spot when it came to manipulating young children and turning them against other people. As a Conservative I believe that some children in some circumstances need protecting from that, although determining what the protection should be is very hard to answer.
My point, tho, is that a crime WAS committed. It is an offence in Germany to possess, display or espouse certain Nazi things – from the swastika to denying the holocaust. There is a fairly sound historical reason for the free German people to cling to this law out of fear of what they may do otherwise.
And…
libertarians would remain rooted to the spot when it came to manipulating young children and turning them against other people
This is also not entirely accurate. As a libertarian, I don’t think its right to brainwash children as they have no CHOICE in what they are subjected to. Children have diminished rights in a society compared to adults (and this is matched by diminished criminal responsibility) – they MUST attend school, they are forbidden from work, from sex and so on – but still enjoy the principle ones of a right to life and be free from assault and so on. I would argue that religious education, political indoctrination and so on all constitute an intellectual assault against a person who cannot consent to or demur from what is being done to them.
The focus on what these neo-Nazis are doing seems to miss the point. Let me remind everyone that once upon a time the Germany state forced every child to be taught about racial purity. The freedom to educate as one sees fit is not to support neo-Nazis but to oppose ideological conformity.
We know that if the state allows people to have freedom then some very stupid people will use that freedom for teaching their kids things that we disapprove but that’s a cost we have to bear to ensure that the state doesn’t obtain a monopoly on determining socially acceptable teaching.
In Britain my sons get taught all sorts of nonsense that is deemed correct. The eldest is learning in economics about the great successes that were the New Deal and the Great Society. Are there any critical voices? Don’t bet on it. My younger son learns some green tosh virtually every day. Planting for paper = bad. Planting for biofuels = good.
This is the cost of state mandated curriculum. The current obsessions become de-facto truths. Far better to have a market place of ideas.
The idea of Muslim radicals teaching their kids makes me very nervous but I reassure myself that they are a minority of a minority. The bigger worry is the dominance of the politically correct idea that I cannot challenge their nonsense lest I offend them. If we could challenge them without fear of being called racist then I doubt their credo would last a week.
The same is true of the other neo-fascists grouplets. They never amount to anything and like Pauline ? in Australia, once debated, their arguments soon fall apart.
@ patently:
And someday Christians will be— once again– executed for the crime of “indoctrinating children.”
Allowing government to criminalize certain beliefs because society currently finds them repugnant merely lays the foundation for them to declare OTHER beliefs to be “thought crimes….”
Let their beliefs stand, and be either praised or damned, accepted or refuted by other rhetoric, in the marketplace of free ideas. Let their actual DEEDS be the only thing for which they are punished, lest they be made martyrs.
The Homeland-Faithful German Youth group weren’t doing anything different to what many other ethnic groups do. Of course there might be people who tell me that other ethnic groups do not teach their children to mistrust certain pther ethnic groups. To which I would state: poppycock. What about the jews and the palestinians? What about the indians and pakis/indians and sri lankans?
Is anyone seriously going to tell me that it is only white people who teach their kids to defend themselves?
I still think the state is justified in intervening in the activities of individuals in some circumstances.
Because you were brainwashed as a child into believing this.
I admit that this is a thorny issue, because it is very easy to brainwash kids like this.
With all that being said, I notice you are not raising the issue of how Libertarians should address the equally thorny issue of kids being brainwashed into believing that they should blow themselves up or hate gays or whatever because their particular sky fairy demands it? Or that evil jews control the world? Or that total state control of everything is the best way forward for society? Or any number of other dangerous or stupid beliefs out there?
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of dangerous (or at least bad) ideas out there which have fairly common currency. Does the infinite wisdom of LFAT know where to begin and where to stop as to which ideas should not be instilled into children? And what happens if someone else disagrees with your view? Who is right and who is wrong?
Obnoxio and M Anderson, you both have interesting takes on this. That said, I wasn’t brainwashed into believing anything as a child. I’ve spent a lot of time following politics and looking at how and when governments should step in, as it’s an area that continues to separate me from both authoritarians and libertarians. The HDJ was indeed the tip of the iceberg when it comes to filling children’s heads with ideas, but I’d like to think people can see there is a difference between telling a child that there is a god sitting in the sky and telling a child that Jews should be hated and that Nazi ideologies are correct.
The reason I support educational freedom isn’t because I want extremists to be able to teach nonsense to their kids, it’s because their freedom is a cost I have to pay for having my freedom. Once we say that the state has a monopoly on determining what is the good we are lost.
You assume that the state will always be manned by benign people who will not go too far. Good luck with that.
We have far more to fear from an encroaching state than from any grouplet of fringe nutters.
If the children were taught whatever the HDJ was preaching against the children’s parents wishes, then by all means intervene; but if the parents do not have a problem with it, I do not see why the State should. Children are in the care of their parents, NOT the State; and the State deciding what parents can or cannot teach (or let it be taught) to them is as evil an indoctrination as what the HDJ was doing.
@ LFAT:
Extremists of all shades are only dangerous if they act on those beliefs and commit acts of violence (eg. terrorism, beatings etc) in which case the existing law is sufficient to deal with them as they are a small minority.
If they are so successful in spreading their ideas that they get their hands on the levers of power of a powerful controlling State then the libertarian position on freedom of speech is moot since whatever party or parties has created the over-powerful state has already created the machinery for the extremists to use. Neo-nazis always seem to gain support in Britain when there is a Labour government which inevitably disappoints its working class supporters. More laissez-faire governments create conditions which undermine support for extremist groups.
This reminds me of a quote from The Road To Serfdom-
“Long before the Nazis, too, the German and Italian socialists were using techniques of which the Nazis and Fascists later made effective use. The idea of a political party which embraces all activities of the individual from the cradle to the grave, which claims to guide his views on everything, was first put into practice by the socialists. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who first thought of organizing sports and games, football and hiking, in party clubs where the members would not be infected by other views. It was the socialists who first insisted that the party member should distinguish himself from others by the modes of greeting and the forms of address. It was they who, by their organization of “cells” and devices for the permanent supervision of private life, created the prototype of the totalitarian party. By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it.”
All ideologies seek ways to spread their message, particularly to the young. We have church schools, we have muslim madrassas, we have the Young Conservatives and Young Communists and all manner of anti-human environmentalist indoctrination of children. Communism is undoubtedly an evil as grotesque as National Socialism, and yet any attempts by the state to suppress it are considered a “witch hunt”. If we are to ban national socialist prosletysation, why have we not banned communist proseltysation? Who is to choose which ideas are poisonous, and which poisons may be allowed to be spread in society?
Ian, very nicely put
As I suggest in my reply at my blog you probably ought to read Ezra Levant’s book “Shakedown” to see where your paternalism will lead.
So you are happy to restrict free speech as long as it is you that can decide on which subjects it is restricted.
Worse than this, you are not happy to impose your views on people by actually convincing them that you are right but you are actually suggesting that you make it a legal requirement to have a certain world view. If one has an opinion that is “illegal” then you may not speak it aloud.
Marvellous.
Maybe this site should change to “letters from Brushnev”.
Many men and women died in the world war 2 to defend our long held freedoms – including speech.
I do not see how abandoning the 800 year old British instutution that is our constitution for some progressive/paternalistic “must act” nonsense is in any way “Conservative”.
You have lost the plot. Have you not seen what Labour have done to our freedoms in the last 10 years using the exact same arguments that you use here??
You know, sometimes I really do wonder whether people read my posts in full and read through my subsequent comments before commenting. It can make things tiresome on occasion. I did NOT suggest that everyone should have a certain world view, I did NOT say that the government must act in this instance, I did NOT say that the HDJ should be thrown in prison (as Devil’s Kitchen try to portray this morning). Honestly, can we focus on what I actually said….
I said that Conservative governments will always be better placed to protect vulnerable people than libertarians. This is because libertarians only intervene when the law is broken, which I don’t believe is always is sufficient (see my post on Baby P for a discussion of this). I am honestly not sure how a government should react to people planting ideas in children’s heads and, yes, I believe that there is a line that should not be crossed. Perhaps the HDJ are not a serious issue but what if something more serious was taking place? For example, if a group of parents were training hundreds of children in the glories of suicide bombing and therefore directly threatening society, libertarians would do nothing and I would do something. Good luck with trying to make me feel guilty about that.
Also watch ‘The Soviet Story’ on you tube.
I suspect that DK’s reaction – effectively screaming at LFAT for being ignorant – as amusing and entertaining as that style of writing is – doesn’t actually help the libertarian cause.
If someone considerate like LFAT is asking these questions – and isn’t able to get an answer he likes – how are inconsiderate unthinking dolts with fingers in their ears and underpants on their heads going to be pursuaded?
I said that Conservative governments will always be better placed to protect vulnerable people than libertarians. This is because libertarians only intervene when the law is broken, which I don’t believe is always is sufficient (see my post on Baby P for a discussion of this). I am honestly not sure how a government should react to people planting ideas in children’s heads and, yes, I believe that there is a line that should not be crossed.
The problem is, you’re not focussing on the hard part of the problem, but then accusing libertarians of not having an answer to it, which is kind of having it both ways. The easy part of the problem is “what to do with frightful people”. You can arrest them, shoot them, deport them, put them in a gulag, anything you want. That’s the easy part. The hard part of the problem is how the society will distinguish the frightful people who deserve such treatment. Libertarians argue effectively that there is no way to do that until they have broken the law, in which case they will be punished for their lawbreaking. Before that, they are just people exercising their right to think and communicate in a free society.
Libertarians at least attempt to apply some kind of consistent principles. What you are arguing here is little more than “conservatives will lock up people we don’t like, arbitrarily”. That’s not much of a positive claim really.
Dave Cameron has made many statements in support of the Green Movement, an extremist movement who seek an end to freedom and free markets, who seek to keep the Third World in degrading penury, who would push our society back into a mediaevalist existence, and who use ruthless and relentless propaganda to indoctrinate children. Much of the anti-capitalist movement is quite openly and proudly anti-semitic, using the code word “Zionism”. Why are we only worried about nazis?
Please address the hard problem.
“What you are arguing here is little more than “conservatives will lock up people we don’t like, arbitrarily”.”
That is a gross misrepresentation of what I’m saying. You can apply consistent principles as much as you want, but being consistent doesn’t mean you right. I’m not talking about David Cameron, I’m talking about parents putting ideas in their children’s head that put other people in serious danger. The Green movement does not physically threaten other individuals so it’s a ridiculous comparison to make. Making children think that gays or Jews or anyone else needs to be ’stopped’ is tantamount to inciting violence and apparently libertarians are ok with that because they’re being “consistent” whereas I’m certainly not ok with that.
@ LFAT: I think it may be some of the language you use betraying underlying assumptions. E.g. in a comment on DK’s blog you talk about maintaining a ‘cohesive society’, why is this necessary other than for administrative convenience? Suppose someone does not wish to be co-opted into that society as defined by a non-libertarian? You have not used the term, but ’shared values’ is in a similar vein. It is used as a excuse to intervene by authoritarians but never defined.
Even ‘vulnerable people’ (and I recognise that use use this as an example in the interest of debate) is open to definition by the user.
Your argument that a Conservative government is better placed to intervene as a case for intervention, falls down on its own terms since our system of electing a government ensures that at various times we will not have a Conservative government.
By “cohesion” I meant not attacking each other, not everyone being happy and cheery all the time.
LFAT, how is your hypothetical government going to objectively define what is “tantamount to inciting violence”? I want something algorithmic here, some kind of objective rules that can apply to any ideology, belief or statement, not a list of people you don’t like (e.g. nationalists).
[...] over much depth regarding the point Letters from a Tory made regarding libertarian philosophy in this post. Not least because the Nameless Libertarian has already done so. So too has [...]
@ LFAT:
Do you really think Libertarians haven’t thought and don’t regularly think about where government should or should not step in? The only difference is that our default position is that the state should not step in. If the state does need to step in, we would.
The LibLabConBNPGreen default position is that the state should step in and heavy argument must be brought to bear to stop this from happening.
@ LFAT:
LFAT wrote:
And how are you mystically going to know about these parents? By spying on everybody all the time? Or do you have some magic Tory-powered superknowledge?
Interesting that you should say that Obo, because DK makes it perfectly clear that in his mind a law MUST be broken before the state steps in. I, however, am of the opinion that the state must always consider ‘vulnerability’ and ‘risk’. I know that these are horribly intangible and subjective concepts, but they should still guide the government’s thinking to some limited extent. Sadly, Labour have abused these notions beyond belief but that is not the issue here.
I disagree that the Conservatives default position is to intervene as I think liberalism (economic and social) has become more of a fixture under David Cameron, but that’s for another day.
Both my wife and I are from working class backgrounds but whereas MrsBud was brought up in a very traditional Labour supporting, Tory hating household, I was brought up to distrust authority in all its forms. Neither of us has ever voted for any party (in the UK) other than Tory but for many years MrsBud still retained a basic trust in authority and particularly disliked my ACAB mentality. She is now far more inclined to accept that the state is not our friend and comfortable with my attempts to imbue a distrust of authority in our children and to encourage free thought. It has sometimes caused us to fall out with the children’s schools but interestingly, when the children move on, they are fondly remembered, I think because teachers felt that they stood up for things on principle not just for the sake of being awkward, e.g against the principle of class detentions.