Skip to main content

Getting it about the war on terror, UK style

Our friends in the UK Libertarian Party have opened up a new blog for business, and if the first week or so is any indication, it will be a must-read.

In Jenkins Nails It, there is a comprehensive (and absolutely correct) discussion of the War on Terror having devolved almost completely into a mechanism for social control.

Excerpts:

Under the guise of 'security', freedoms and liberties gained over the centuries are being consigned to the dustbin of history in our country. The main political parties, and a complicit mass media (who know that 'fear sells', regardless of how overblown and ridiculous the supposed threat -- avian flu, anyone?) are telling us that there is no alternative, that only by giving up our basic rights to the state will we be safe.

But surely we know that the threat is both real and grave? After all, every time that television programmes run a story about Islam or Al-Qaeda, they serve us up some demented Muslim cleric -- undoubtedly pledging death to the infidels -- as a representative of the 'Muslim community'.

As the British-Iranian comic Omid Djalili points out, that's rather like Al Jazeera wheeling out the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan as a representative of the white, Christian community.

So, if not to keep us safe, why are our liberties being taken away and the threat of terrorism so overstated? Sadly, the answer is simply that a fearful and controlled public is a docile and compliant public. The government doesn't think of us as individuals; we're merely 'units of production' in Brown's next Five-Year Plan. And it's not just the government -- all of the Westminster parties constantly harp on about 'hard-working families', as if anyone that has other priorities in life -- like actually spending time with their family, and enjoying their life, or anyone who isn't actively involved in producing the next crop of willing state workers, is irrelevant.

Well, we're not irrelevant. The right to live your life as you best see fit is a core tenet of Libertarianism. For some, that might mean engagement in entrepreneurial activity that benefits the wider economy. For others, quality family time may be their priority. We are all individuals, and the state has no right to try to engineer our lives -- those lives are ours to lead as we see fit.

Libertarians will always oppose unnecessary state interference in people's lives, of which the ongoing 'security' related measures are but the latest sad example.


Worth checking every few days.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...