Liberty Alone

From Index on Censorship I hear that five students gaoled over jihadist literature have had their conviction quashed.

This is good news. In absence of any evidence of involvement in a terrorist plot these students were persecuted for what amounts to thought crime, an act which probably further radicalised others around them.

I do not doubt that there is a terrorist threat, but such an assault on freedom of speech, expression and thought is not the way to deal with terrorism.

Which is worse for the evironment?

Which do you think takes a bigger toll on the environment, owning a dog, or owning an SUV? My bet would be on the dog. I’m thinking of all of the resources that go into dog food.

I agree, it probably is the dog.

The comments point out that a dog has many positive side effects, people enjoy having dogs. What they miss is that the SUV also has many of the same positive side effects, people like their SUVs and sports cars.

The argument that a dog extends human life - from a strict look at the environmental impact alone works against the dog. Increased life span leads to increased emissions. This is not the point though, we are primarily concerned with human well being (most people are, outside a few misanthropic hardcore greens).

This highlights two things, firstly, as we already know, a lot of environmentalism is romanticism and anti-technological puritanism.
Secondly, and more importantly for policy makers, everything involves a trade off. The externality which is some forms of pollution occurs because there are no property rights associated with some things (and I find it difficult to see how to assign them). If property rights could be assigned or a substitute (Pigouvian taxation usually) then people will make value judgments on these trade offs. Many will accept the ownership of an SUV even with the higher costs. Others will move to more fuel efficient vehicles. Some will give up keeping pets, others will keep them even with higher costs of food.

The liberal must accept these value judgments. They may not be the same as yours, but it is not the place of another to interfere in the value judgments of others.

I’ve just read this article describing Christmas in a polygamous family in the second half of the 20th Century.

It tells of times when the family could not be together because they were being pursued by the state for the ‘crime’ of polygamy.
Personally, I know I couldn’t cope with polygamy (or polyandry or whatever other arrangements there are) (the conclusion the author makes for herself), but I can see no reason for it to be outlawed.

The thing which really struck me was the harm that the legal intervention did. It fractured the household, it nearly got the children taken from a loving (if unconventional) family and given up to the state - something which today would do incredible harm, 40 years ago I shudder to think of the consequences for the children.

This story strengthens my belief that marriage should just be a private contract, entered into as people see fit, devoid of any state sanction or rules. The Church can refuse to bless anything they see as wrong, it would be up to the church.
People can publicly acknowledge their love for each other and their commitment to each other however they wish on terms of their choosing. If that be multiple husbands or wives, so be it. Why should the state care?

I hope this is right:

Using these figures:

93% of children currently in the state sector and this costs £69.4 billion. Extending this to cover 100% of children would then cost:
(7/93) * 69.4 = £5.2 billion extra. Less than the costs of ID cards, probably less than the Olympics will cost and for immeasurably higher benefits.

Parents who were paying school fees will now be taxed more on savings and purchases as well, making up a small amount of that.

The improvement in quality of education, across the board, will also make this well worth it in my opinion. Extending the choice the privileged few have to the many makes it worth it. Giving people power over their own lives, enfranchising them makes it worth it.

I find it strange that people who are often willing to spend a lot of money on things like free care for the elderly will shirk away from spending it on our young, on those who will care for us in our old age.

The whole reason for my arguing for choice, be it through vouchers or another way, is that it improves the chances of the poorest and most vulnerable in society. That it offers opportunity and hope to those who lack currently lack it.

Freedom and liberty should be the aims of our party. Choice gives both those and improved standards. What more could we ask for? (apart from a complete eradication of all suffering…).

It seems everything is depressing for liberals at the moment.
We have the smoking ban infringing on property rights.
We have the EU advocating internet censorship and looking towards China for ideas.
The new Criminal Justice Bill seeks to make ‘offensive images’ illegal - no matter how they were created. This is now well into the realms of thought crime.
That beacon of freedom, the USA, is sliding ever more towards authoritarianism, following our descent.
The US congress has failed to back opening up immigration more and is adopting an ever more protectionist stance (more proof that the Democrats are no more liberals than the Republicans).
There’s the usual calls for ever more power to detain without charge and suspend habeas corpus.
There’s an increase in intolerance and bigotry even within the Anglican Church.
Not to mention long term concerns about ID cards, state surveillance through traffic cameras and road charging, the ever increasing state and its increasing theft of money through taxation and regulation.

About all that is going right is that we’re not in France, Russia or Zimbabwe.

The principle behind the smoking ban is profoundly illiberal. It is predicated on a vision of government as having a duty to protect people against themselves and their own actions or that people are incapable of exercising choice in what they do with their time.

If the government wishes to ban smoking from all government property then fine. They can do that. As the property owner that is their prerogative, but to tell others that they cannot allow smoking on their own property is a violation of their rights.

I am not talking about any right to smoke. You have no positive right to smoke where you wish, that is up to the owner of the place you are in. You do have the right, should you wish, to pollute your body with whatever you want.

The argument that you must protect people from passive smoking is false. People are free to choose whether they go to a smoky environment, or if they work in a smoky environment. Are we going to prevent people from throwing food which smells in the bin because it may offend bin men? Or ban miners from working because of the health hazards? Am I to stop posting to this blog because I may get RSI? Everything we do poses risks, we choose to accept them however. In the workplace we expect more money for a risky job. In other things our pleasure outweighs the risk.

We have had many instances of smoking being banned on property by private and public entities without government legislation. My office has always been non-smoking. No need for government legislation to make us do that.

These arguments, and others have been hashed out many times all over the media. My main point is that attitudes to this smoking ban reveal whether a person can be called a liberal.

A liberal may appreciate the results of the ban (I count myself in that) but cannot support the ban on principled grounds.
Those who support the ban are more like the US ‘liberal’ in that they view the state’s role as protecting you from yourself and managing your life. That is not liberalism, it is authoritarianism. Either that or they are simply selfish and view the state as a means to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

I simply cannot call anyone who urges state intervention in a private matter a liberal. It goes against the very grain of liberalism. There is not even any justification for it as pursuing positive freedoms or as protecting people from the aggression of others (if I willingly go into a boxing ring I cannot complain that I’ve been hit)

This will be controversial amongst the left-wing progressives, but I can’t help thinking that the progressive movement planted the seeds for the neo-conservative international interventionist agenda.

The core of the progressive movement was ‘new freedom’ or ‘new liberty’ which was a wordplay to reverse the liberal view.
The liberal view is that force is not allowed except in retaliation of the use of force against you or your property. This was the basis of freedom and liberty (not that this was followed all the time by politicians). The change the progressive movement brought about was to allow the use of force against people ‘for their own good’. Force should be allowed to bring ‘freedom’ which is the state brought around by the use of force. (As an aside, this is the origin of the current use of liberalism in the US - force used for a person or community’s own good is thought to be justified).

The neo-conservative international policies can be characterised as interventionism in the affairs of foreign states to bring what they view as freedom.

Where’s the difference between the progressive and neo-con view then? Apart from the area over which force is used? The progressive uses force against the individual and community, the neo-con against another state. The logic and thinking however is the same - force is justified if the end is to be called freedom.

Is it any wonder that Tony Blair, a product of the progressive tradition in the UK, went along with the US in the ill-fated adventure in Iraq? Especially after he’d seen the relative success of intervention in Sierra Leone and Kosovo.

Sean Gabb, director of the Libertarian Alliance has written a very good article attacking censorship in general and specifically the recent attempt at outlawing holocaust denial.
He asserts the purpose of free speech in society very well, both how it allows us to see the debate which leads to discovery of the truth even without us understanding everything and how denial of free speech prevents this process and gives apparent credence to the outlawed view.

Read is here

(hat tip: Samizdata)

I know a socialist anarchist who objects to me making the claim of self ownership as a fundamental right by claiming that it would allow you to sell yourself into slavery.

At first glance this looks like a compelling argument, but when I think a bit more deeply about it I wonder whether it matters.

So what if an adult sells himself into slavery? What form would this take in a liberal world? It would be a contract between the person and his ‘owner’ which was willingly entered into saying that the ‘owner’ would provide for the person’s living and the person would work for them. There may be other aspects to the agreement such as setting out any conditions or what the ‘owner’ is responsible for or what standard of living must be kept to.
The essential fact though is that this is a voluntary agreement to give another control over many aspects of your life (a bit like marriage a cynic might say). This is a far cry from the forced slavery which we quite rightly object to.

The other major distinction is that this agreement only binds the one person. It cannot be enforced upon any children, who until adulthood are the responsibility of the parent, but after then have the right to self-determination and own themselves, they cannot be bound into servitude because a parent opted to.

Of course, this is overly simplified, in real life I can’t imagine any such transaction taking place, which is why we are mostly paid with money, that makes for far simpler contracts.
In the past, being paid in non-monetary ways has caused huge problems, largely because of the imbalances of power involved- the classic example is that of a labourer tied to the land of a particular landowner because he’s paid in housing, but the contract there is unlikely to be entirely voluntary.

So self ownership does allow you to enter slavery voluntarily, but it is a very different form of slavery to what we think of as slavery, as it applies only to yourself, it is strictly voluntary and you have knowledge of the terms of you slavery before you enter it. Perhaps it should not be called slavery after all?

I see that this has already been picked up in the LibDem blogs by Chris Black, although Chris doesn’t give the whole letter, which can be found (nicely formatted) here.

The whole thing originates here.

A quick summary: Ex US Marine and academic Prof. Walter F. Murphy found himself inconvenienced by his inclusion on the terrorist watch list.

Chris picks up on one point - a question asked by a TSA official:

“Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.”

This is worrying for a start - you may protest, but we will then treat you as a subversive.
Chris stops there, but the letter continues ,the professor had not been on a protest as he explains:

I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. “That’ll do it,” the man said.

This is even more worrying, criticism of the government leading to persecution. This is dangerously close to the sedition acts, except its done in an extra-legal manner. This is purely an executive decision, there’s no judicial oversight. This goes beyond the proper functioning of government as a servant of those under its jurisdiction and places the government above individuals as the master.

This is an underhanded attempt to restrict free speech. Rather than attempting to use the legal process as has been done in the past, this uses arbitrary authority to undermine those who criticise, it seeks to treat critics of the government as unofficial suspects and to scare people into submission.