Samizdata

I followed a link I spotted for ‘great science hoaxes‘… and imagine my surprise when it turned out to not be about Anthropogenic Global Warming!

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.

I see that the swear-blogger with a nice turn of phrase, Obnoxio The Clown, has developed a love for Malta. Good observations he makes, not least about the lovely ladies of said island. Indeed – I am married to one of them. Anyway, in a week’s time from today, yours truly will complete his scuba diving course – done with the PADI organisation – in the island of Gozo, just to the north of Malta. Weather conditions should be good. I will not be allowed to dive more than a certain level in my course – you have to do more training to go much deeper – but the views promise to be spectacular.

The seas around Malta are very deep, so I don’t know whether I will get to see any wrecks. One of the grim aspects of that part of the world is how much stuff was sunk during WW2. There must be loads of bits of old RAF and German aircraft down there as well, I would imagine.

I always thought gleaming, European or US wooden motorboats were the height of cool. One can imagine David Niven, Cary Grant or Sophia Loren behind the wheel of one of these beauties. Yes, I know that in technology terms, some of the modern stuff is much better, but never mind. All I need now is my private Italian lake, and I can use one.

(You can tell I have been out of the country for a few days and my mind is not entirely on TARP, Gordon Brown’s mental health, taxes, ID cards…..)

Bryan Appleyard, who writes a whimsical blog, likens the wondrous Barcelona FC forward Lionel Messi to the doomsterish intellectual, John Gray. I mean, what the f**k?

Considering how thoroughly Mr Gray has had the tar kicked out of him by this blog and a few others for his less-than-convincing opinions, I fail to see the connection. A certain trickiness, perhaps, a slipperyness? But in a footballer, trickiness in defeating a defender and goalkeeper is a skill to be admired. In Mr Gray, an ability to say six contradictory things before breakfast betokens a certain deficiency, a lack of rigour. But as Brian Micklethwait has pointed out, Gray is actually consistent – consistently pessimistic. He’s an Eyeore come rain or shine.

Time Rice has said that to write a great pop lyric you need to “fall in love with cliché”. Shahid Malik MP, who is one of the smartest and most personable of the younger New Labour generation (full disclosure: I know his brother, who is a brilliant computer scientist and an IT entrepreneur), has had a go at repudiating accusations about his parlimentary expenses. He says his allowance claims were “a million percent within the rules”.

If that is a deliberate attempt to package in a soundbite the suggestion (1) that he is intensely distressed to have been traduced, with the hidden message (2) that he is insufficiently numerate to have been conscious that the figures might look a bit odd, then it is an impressive subordination of cliché to the political purpose of asserting his honesty. It comes across as demotic and with the right tone of shock at being singled out. As long as Mr Malik is not subsequently proved to have done anything seriously wrong, he will be one of the winners out of this political crisis.

It is a weird world. A political career can be built on or destroyed by a few words. And the words need not be obviously rhetorical. It is all the smarter if they are not.

Update: [& typo corrected above.] He’s “stepped down” as a minister while suggestions that he has broken the ministerial code are investigated. That too strikes me as a smart damage-limitation move. Some commentators seem to assume I am defending him. I am not. I don’t have any opinion on the allegations. I’m admiring his chutzpah and musing on how subtle the game of media democracy is.