Liberty Alone

Recently people have been commenting on the political compass style quizzes and how unsuitable they are.

The same applies to the quizzes now going around to see which presidential candidate matches your views best. For example I’ve just come across this question in this quiz:

How do you feel about marijuana legalization?

• It should be legalized and regulated similar to alcohol.
• Criminal penalties should be reduced and/or medical marijuana should be explored, but no full legalization.
• It should remain illegal in all forms, period.

This question does not give my position which is to legalise all drugs and to remove the regulatory regime from alcohol. I don’t want drugs regulated as they are for alcohol, especially not the US style regulation which encourages drinking to excess amongst young people (through prohibition) and penalises parents who wish their children to be able to drink responsibly under supervision.

The business vs. workers question is also far too restrictive. What is good for business is not necessarily good for workers, but it is regulation which brings this about. Regulation generally favours big business, especially those with political clout.

The list goes on. I am firmly against a US nationalised health system, but tweaks to the current system are also not satisfactory. It needs to become a truly free market system, not the current nepotistic government-business alliance.

(For what its worth the best quiz I’ve found is this one. It seems to take into account more viewpoints. It gives me the now withdrawn Libertarian candidate Kent McManigal as top match and Greens as the least (one of them on 3% match - showing their anti-liberal bias) and a mix of Republicans and Democrats in the middle).

The artwork on Soviet propaganda posters is often very striking and powerful as well as chilling.
I’ve recently come across a great blog which is just these posters and some information about them.
The author also has two other blogs. One is dedicated to Cuban propaganda posters and the other contains videos of strange musical instruments

All are interesting and well worth a browse (now where are the fascist, right wing and western propaganda posters? Or election posters…)

In my wanderings around politics I’ve come across many concepts. I can understand how many are theoretically meant to work and why.
I can understand the appeal of totalitarianism (and oppose it all the more because of that).
I have a rough idea how anarcho-capitalism might work, the same with mutualism and other individualist anarchism. I see the theory of socialism at a state and a voluntary level.

Everything I’ve come across makes some sort of sense with the exception of socialist or collectivist anarchy.

That is something I simply do not understand. How will it succeed in removal of the state? I do know one collectivist anarchist, but he’s arrogant and obviously deems my inability to understand a sign that I’m not worthy to have it explained to me.
So, how on earth does it work in theory? Is it really based on a naive view of humans as all lovely and cooperative beings who will all voluntarily put the collective above themselves despite all evidence to the contrary?
When I look at collectivist anarchy I see the replacement of one state with another (one coercive body with another) differentiated by the people in charge.

So can anyone out there explain where I’m going wrong? (Or if I’m right…)

There’s a huge problem in politics. Its the relationship between people and politicians and our expectations of politicians and what politicians want to do.

It’s best described as the ’something must be done’ syndrome. People have a tendency to demand results from politicians and politicians encourage this as it grants them more power.

The first port of call for something you see as being wrong is government. We have a culture of government dependence which just gives the state more power. This is fundamentally opposed to liberalism.

The Liberal Democrats are all to guilty of this. The urge to meddle is just as strong. To carve out the liberal ground we should start looking to avoid legislation. Unfortunately (from the view of minimising legislation) LibDems care about things, and as Ayn Rand observed, people seek to regulate those things they care about.

There are very few cases where state intervention is absolutely necessary. Often the markets will cause those actions which you disapprove of to drop out of use given more information. Look at the fur trade - real fur is much less common after the campaigns against it.

Finally, state intervention is not democratic. Small numbers of people with the right connections can cause a policy change to conform with their ideals. The market is truly democratic. If people decide not to buy a product then demand reduces making the product unprofitable, or if demand is high enough, things will happen to enable it. Market failures are also far easier to recover from than governmental failure. Markets are robust, but bad intervention is horrendously difficult to undo.

Unfortunately, in politics today it is incredibly difficult to resist calls for something to be done as a government. It is how parties compete with each other. We need to try and change the whole culture of politics. We can do this at a local level - LibDem councils should reduce what they do and encourage communities to work together to solve problems. It will hurt, but once people are weaned off the state they will be in a far better position to control their own lives.

There is not in politicks a more established rule, than, That when a corrupt and wicked ministry intend to pillage a nation, they make use of vile and contemptible instruments, to gather in their plunder, and allow the miscreants part of it; and when the cry for justice becomes strong and universal, they always hang up their faithful rogues. By this means they stop the people’s mouths, and yet keep the money.

Cato’s Letter Number 8 -Thomas Gordon, December 24, 1720

The only thing to add is that the politician will do their best to disguise their plundering as for the good of those they are meant to serve.

Slashdot has an interesting post about visitors to Hate My Tory.

The sites owner notes that when linked to by Guido, the number of visists from Linux users rose and when linked to by Harry’s Place, the number of Mac usesrs rose.

So, does the right use more free software?

Given Guido is not a typical Tory (if he can even be called a Tory) and his readers are a variable bunch I wouldn’t put too much stock in this annecdote, but given Guido’s libertarian leanings and that of some of his readers I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a higher level of linux usage.
Microsoft likes to attack Free Software as ‘communism’, but I see it as far more libertarian. The whole movement is based upon voluntary cooperation and freedom of contract.

Personally, I use Linux at work (our servers are all linux, its far easier to develop on than Windows (the other choice)). I use a combination of Mac and Windows at home with a Linux mail and database sever. Next computer will probably be a high-spec PC with Windows and Linux though (Macs are pretty, but not that special in my opinion).

My philosophy is to prefer free software, but to use the software which is best for the job. Sometimes that is a Microsoft product. Sometimes its open source. Let competition flourish :)