Without the state

What's wrong with UK libertarians?

As you might excpect from the blog title, I have something more than just a passing interest in the idea of libertarianism. I don't claim to be libertarian, or anarchist, but I do believe the state is far too intrusive. So, over the years I've followed a number of libertarian or libertarian leaning blogs.

For some reason however, I find that most of the UK based blogs degenerate after a while into illiterate hysterical paranoia and conspiracy theories, nastiness, misogyny and worse. I'm not going to name names, I don't want to have to spend hours deleting abuse and threats from the comments, but spend a few minutes looking around and you will see what I mean.

So, if you can recommend somewhere that isn't just rants about Marxist Obama, please include a link in the comments. Any abuse that does sneak through will be deleted, and the offender will be barred without warning.

Lunacy compounded...

Republican Congressman Todd Akin seems to have some peculiar ideas. Asked whether he would like abortion to be banned even if the pregnancy was the result of rape he replied: "It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that is really rare.  If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Quite what he means by 'legitimate rape' I'm not sure, but even setting that nonsense aside this seems a clear demonstration of the scientific ignorance of the religious right in the US. No doubt we can expect more nonsense like this from Romney and Ryan as the presidential election progresses. 

Libertarianism and the environment - revisited

I recently came across a brief review (in The Philosopher's Magazine) of a book by the philosopher Roger Scruton, Green Philosophy in which he claims (I haven't read it yet) to be setting out a green conservatism.  According to the Publisher's blurb this is based on the premise that the environment has up till now been the undisputed territory of the Left. I don't necessarily agree with that, but even if it were true, that is because the Right has abandoned the field. (I hate these simplistic labels, but for now Right and Left will do).

Back in 2006 I asked myself why so many Libertarians hate environmentalism. At the time I came to the conclusion that faced with the possible need for substantial state action, they preferred to simply deny there was an issue of concern in the first place.  Scruton's book appears to be an attempt to reclaim some of that ground. 

If this is to succeed, then there needs to be an end to the absurd hyperbole that calls Rachel Carson a mass murderer, Richard Attenborough a hater of humanity and which denounces  Greens generally as evil (while without a trace of irony complaining bitterly when similar claims are made about 'climate change deniers'.)

I'm not holding my breath...

Related articles

• This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of opression (guardian.co.uk)
• Why libertarians must deny climate change (guardian.co.uk)
• Environmentalism poses a problem for libertarian ideology (mattbruenig.com)
• How conservatives can help to tackle climate change | Roger Scruton (guardian.co.uk)

God is love they tell me...

These are from the Fox News Facebook pages after they interviewed an atheist. This last quote I suppose demonstrates knuckledragging stupidity more than it does Christianity, but all the comments listed here bear a striking resemblance to the sort of stuff we see from Islamic fundamentalists all the time. I don't think they are being ironic though...

(via Butterflies and Wheels)

Atlas Shrugged the Movie...

I freely admit to have never read Ayn Rand's doorstop of  a book 'Atlas Shrugged' . To be honest the  sheer repellent awfullness of 'The Fountainhead' was enough to make sure I never went near anything by her again. I was thus, underwhelmed to say the least, by the idea that anyone would waste good money on making a film from anything she had written.

I know it is possible of course to make good movies out of bad books - and believe me even if Atlas Shrugged is 10 times better than The Fountainhead it is still a bad book - but the reviews don't seem encouraging. The Randites of course love it and pop out of the woodwork to heap venom on any critical reviewer.

I still think this is probably a good summary though:

‘There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.'

Men from the Moon walk amongst us!

The ultimate TSA stupidity

Over 300 National Guardmen carrying M4 Carbines, M9 pistols - oh, and the gunners had M-240B machine guns.

What do the TSA confiscate? Nail clippers...

Image via Wikipedia

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/

The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Image via Wikipedia

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.

Yet more loonery

"I can't think of anything about the "green movement" which I support. It's a giant fraud, a scheme to seize more power."

I have been banned from Samizdata (on which more later - if I can be bothered), so can't respond to this directly, but it is typical of the conspiracy theory ridden mess that the comments are becoming.

Home Owner's Associations but without homeowners

If I talk about something called a Home Owner's Association, would you expect that to be some sort of grouping of home owners? That's logical surely? It seems it isn't quite so simple...

"The HOA directors in all five neighborhoods and the real estate partners who developed the neighborhoods are the same people: Bagwell's wife, Susan; Bagwell's longtime business partner, Southlake investor Dale Crane; and Bagwell himself.

Two other people sit as members on all five HOA architectural control committees. They work for Bagwell companies. The all-important architectural committees have the power over homebuilding plans and homeowner plans to improve their property.

In their lawsuit, the homeowners assert that Bagwell and his associates run the HOAs in an arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory manner. The structure doesn't allow homeowners to participate in any HOA decisions..."

According to the article in the Dallas Morning News:

1. There are five separate HOAs covering five separate neighbourhoods, all controlled by the same six people. None of those own homes in the neighbourhoods
2. Bagwell's [the developer]  real-estate partnerships, which own vacant lots in the still-developing neighborhoods, are the only property owners who have voting rights in the HOAs. That means homeowners have no way to participate.
3. Homeowners are not allowed to select their own homebuilders, pool contractors, roofers, irrigation companies, fence builders or landscape architects. Instead, Bagwell and his associates require them to select those contractors from an HOA-approved list.
4. Covenants, conditions and restrictions that govern the HOAs' structure and activities "contain provisions which vest Bagwell with the putative authority to amend or abolish any aspect of the CCRs, in his sole discretion, at any point after their filing," .... Bagwell calls all the shots and his rules amount to a constantly "moving target," according to the suit [filed by a group of homeowners].
5. A fee – ranging from $50 to $600, depending on the issue – must accompany each building plan or exterior-modification design submitted to the architectural committee. If the committee rejects a plan, resubmissions require another fee. This creates "the obvious incentive to deny submitted plans and proposals on an arbitrary and capricious basis to force homeowners to pay additional review fees with each additional submittal," according to the ...lawsuit.

So, yet again in the land of the free we see capricious rules, bureaucracy, abuse of process - but hey - that's OK because this is the private sector right? Cobblers! Abuse and oppressive behaviour is still abuse and oppression when carried out in the name of property.

Mice with Human Brains - aka Politics in the USA

Potential US Congresswoman Christine O'Donnell in 2007. See about 4 minutes in where she claims US scientists have already created mice with 'fully functioning human brains'.