There is a bizarre article over on liberalconspiracy (liberal as in “not-liberal-in-any-way” kind of liberal) called “Are all libertarians so childish?“, whose category error starts in the title, saying ‘mean things’ about a fringe Tory party conference outfit called The Freedom Zone.
The theme of the meeting was ‘the bully state’, and the panel included Roger Helmer, the MEP for East Midlands. Mr Helmer made a gallant defence of his rights to get pissed, stuff his face, pollute his lungs, and ruin the atmosphere by driving as fast as he likes in a great gas-guzzling monstrosity. People were sick of being told how to live, he said. The state should butt out.
Fair enough. But then, after making this impassioned defence of the rights of the individual, he jumped seamlessly to the rights of decent English sorts to tell travellers (”we’re not allowed to say gypsies any more”) to piss off. He told a story about how villagers in Bedfordshire had objected to proposals for a travellers’ encampment, because of what it would do to their quality of life. Ninety percent of those complaints had been disregarded, he said, because the powers that be considered them to be racist. This was an outrage. The state should be on the side of the people.
Is anyone else detecting just a hint of hypocrisy here?
[…]
Things don’t work like that, of course. Society has rules, to make sure that by exercising my freedoms I don’t crap all over yours.Those rules don’t just apply to people we don’t like. The laws that stop Mr Helmer from getting pissed and going joy-riding in an SUV have nothing to do with a deeply felt desire to restrict his freedom, and everything to do with stopping him from buggering things up for the rest of us.
Now these are very reasonable observations, but the steaming pile of elephant poop in the middle of this pool table is that the people in question maybe Tories… but they are not in fact libertarians.
My reply in the comment section was:
I always laugh when I see the phrase “libertarian” and “Tory” anywhere near each other. And probably best not to conflate society with state when you talk about rules (and mean laws).
Rational libertarians understand that the “freedom” to get drunk in your SUV is trumped by my freedom not to have you impose clear and present risks to life and limb on me, but hardly anyone on the Stupid Party, sorry I mean Tory Party, are *any* sort of libertarian, let alone the rational kind. If a few souls are trying to move them in a libertarian direction, well power to them, but I don’t fancy their chances.
But regarding gypsies, really it just comes down to property rights, which are something very few Tories support any more than you do, as asking them questions about gypsies are indeed a wonderful way of showing: the issue highlights the fact they are not libertarians (people who support several liberty), they are (gasp) Tories (people who support “people like them”). It is simple: if the gypsies rent property from the legal owner, they have a right to be there and too damn bad if the neighbours object to their mere presence. End of story. If said gypsies then nick stuff and trash adjoining properties, then action should indeed be taken against those responsible. Also end of story (and it is a different story to the first one).
Nevertheless listening to you discussing the failings of libertarian thought, with some Tories as examples, is a bit like listening to two members of different religions discussing the failings of atheism. Entertaining but not very enlightening.
Well said, although “people who support several liberty” is likely to confuse us Americans, for whom “several” as meaning ‘individual’ or ‘distinct’ is an archaism.
I’m not clear on whether Mr Helmer’s proposal was to do all of those simultaneously, or merely separately.
Getting pissed is OK. Driving an SUV is OK. Getting pissed driving an SUV is something else.
I would agree with you on the gypsies, but as I can’t find what was actually said, or what was being proposed that the locals objected to, I’d be cautious about whether the quote is being taken out of context. Authorised Traveller encampments are not simply rented from a landowner, they are “allocated” by the local council, in accordance with Circular ODPM 1/06. This was as an attempt to prevent the unauthorised camps, in which they just set up on somebody else’s land, which takes weeks of court manoeuvring to get them evicted from, whereupon they move a mile down the road and start the whole process over again.
So even if the landowner gets paid, I’m not entirely sure how much choice they get in the matter, or whether it is the travellers or the taxpayers that pay it. I’ve an idea that central government funds the councils to provide it. On the other hand, the travellers sometimes did buy the land, but without planning permission, which was often then refused.
See also this question in Hansard.
Anyway, the group seems to have been set up by the ban-the-smoking-ban people at FOREST, and Mr Helmer’s main concern in his own speeches and articles seems to be climate scepticism. Immigration is mentioned (it is unfortunately a hot topic with the general public), but Traveller’s don’t seem to be. I don’t know.
Perhaps the critics of the libertarians could be directed toward the essay by John Stuart Mill entitled On Liberty so at least they might have a basic idea of what it is that they are critcising. It reminds me a little of anti-evolution types who say things like ‘If people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?’
This is a very sloppy article. There is no “Tory outfit” called the Freedom Zone. The Freedom Zone was a two day alternative conference, run by The Freedom Association, in Manchester. The other participants included the The Taxpayers Alliance, Progressive Vision, FOREST and the Free Society.
The Freedom Association is independent and has no party affiliation. Chris Tame worked for TFA before setting up the Libertarian Alliance. Although TFA is Chaired by Roger Helmer MEP, TFA’s members include several UKIP MEPs. Its council includes Lord Stoddart, a Labour Peer.
This event was set up to use the Tory Party Conference as a vehicle, so clearly it was associated with the Tory Party Conference, even if not officially.
I have edited it to “a fringe Tory party conference outfit”… happy now?
But this article is not actually about the TFA, it is about a lefty claiming that a Tory speaker was presenting a libertarian political objective.
I am all for moving the Tories in a more libertarian direction and away from the ghastly Cameron, as I said, power to the people trying… but the thrust of the “liberal conspiracy” article was about “libertarian views” which were not at all libertarian.
Loved the comparison to two religious groups and athiests. Look at any political rally, protest, convention,
and compare it with a religious “revival meeting” . Or,
football games. The mass behavior is much alike.
Daniel DeFoe (original name “Foe”) was an agent provacateur, who wrote propaganda for both sides,
under different names, in debates, for the effect of
confusion.
Americans baffled by word usage are usually baffled otherwise.
“He told a story about how villagers in Bedfordshire had objected to proposals for a travellers’ encampment, because of what it would do to their quality of life. Ninety percent of those complaints had been disregarded, he said, because the powers that be considered them to be racist. This was an outrage. The state should be on the side of the people.”
A total misrepresentation of the facts.
The villagers object not because their ‘quality of life’ is ruined [which it is] but because there is one law for gypsies and another law for villagers.
Try laying a few acres of concrete and tarmac in a green belt area and see how plod treats you.
“but the thrust of the “liberal conspiracy” article was about “libertarian views” which were not at all libertarian.”
Sure. But were these “libertarian views” generated by the lefty, or the Tory? I don’t know.
So, Americans not baffled by word usage are usually not baffled otherwise? Thankee kindly!
;^)
Nor do I, but as they were being purported to be “libertarian”, I thought the original author needed to be disabused of this error, wherever it lay.
And just to make it clear, I have no view on the assemblage he was criticising, and I am a great admirer or the TaxPayersAlliance, but I will not sit still when a lefty starts yammering about “Libertarian Tories” (he did not content himself to say “libertarians who are trying to influence stories”).
“Nevertheless listening to you discussing the failings of libertarian thought, with some Tories as examples, is a bit like listening to two members of different religions discussing the failings of atheism. Entertaining but not very enlightening.”
You’ve pretty much got it backwards there.
Progressives of various sorts simply cannot discuss libertarianism, or any sort of moderate to advanced individualistic philosophy (classical liberalism to anarcho-capitalism, minarchism etc.) in any way except the way an atheist talks about religions and religious people. Look at the way many on the Atheist side talk about anyone who isn’t a rabid atheist. They cannot accept that rational people MIGHT look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. They cannot admit that maybe some people put more weight on OTHER evidence. Given that they will not accept that, he doesn’t just present the strongest possible case for his position, they also winds up misrepresenting the people they are opposed to.
Not my experience, but then I am a born-again atheist who admires Aquinas and lives with a catholic.
A good post – property rights are indeed the key.
As Murry Rothbard (please do not scream – he was right about some things) put it in an essay “Human rights are property rights”.
There is no “right” for people to camp whereever they feel like, and there is no “right” for other people to ban people they do not like camping near them.
What matters is who owns the land – do they agree to the camp. And do the people who camp violate the property rights of other people near by (by dumping rubbish, or stealing, …..) if the landowner approves of the camp and the people in the camp do not violate the property right of any other person – well then the matter is (or should be) settled.
Billy,
Atheists often understand the reasons for belief quite well, although their theories as to why believers come to the conclusions they do would no doubt not be appreciated by the believers themselves. Probably best not to bring that up now, though. I enjoy arguing it, but it’s impolite to go so far off-topic with somebody else’s bandwidth.
As for totalitarians commenting on libertarians, I am fairly sure this case is one of deliberate misrepresentation. There is an increasing dissatisfaction in society with leftist totalitarianism that they fear will draw support towards various minor-party liberal positions, especially on the right. So he took a (for all we know, perfectly sensible) speech and deliberately misunderstood and distorted the views, claimed them to be ‘libertarian’, and thus trashed the position in the ears of the like minded.
Perry was quite right to point out that the positions set out are not libertarian. But in claiming them to be the views of a Tory, I got the distinct impression he may be doing Helmer an injustice. For example, Helmer did not appear to be advocating he be allowed to get pissed behind the wheel of an SUV, as was accused. He advocated for the right to get pissed (contrary to all the health-zealots’ calls for drinking to be banned) and to drive SUVs (contrary to the global warmenistas’ calls for them to be taxed out of existence). To mutate this into support for drink driving is simply bizarre.
It’s possible the lefty simply cannot distinguish one sort of ban from another, and thinks that calls to repeal bans on ‘irresponsible’ behaviour (as they see it) are calls to repeal all bans, including ones libertarians would support. But more likely it is just the usual straw man tactic.
I haven’t taken the time to read all of Helmer’s speeches and articles, so I could be wrong, but I don’t see any evidence here that he isn’t genuinely libertarian in his views (although obviously a Tory by affiliation as well). Certainly, gypsy camps are a far more complicated subject than would appear at first glance – sufficiently so, that I wouldn’t leap to judgement – and the rest of the accusations are on the face of it just silly. But I’ve made the point now, and there’s no profit in belabouring it.
I do not really take much of a view on Helmer at all, rather I was pointing out to the lefty author of the article that what *he* was suggesting was a libertarian position was in fact not, and in any case, he is talking about Tories, not libertarians, so his article was a fallacy wrapped in a misrepresentation, i.e. (to quote one of the other comments there, very full of FAIL).
I am a libertarian.
I am not a racist.
I am not a nationalist.
I am not a homophobe.
I am not anti European.
I am not anti immigration.
I am not afraid of feral youths.
I do not consider myself middle class.
I prefer binge drinking to dinner parties.
Because I have some contact with other libertarians I know that they are not mostly right wing middle class businessmen motivated by policies that mean thay will pay less tax.
We must work hard to combat this stereotype.
I have met Roger Helmer several times.
He is a bit too trusting, he tends to believe what people tell him and does not carefully check their past and their associations (odd in a man of his age and experience), but he is a decent sort.
I hope the above helps people who wonder “who is this Roger Helmer person”.