Wow, what an eye opener.

I'm too often negative on here. But then there's a damn sight more to attack than there is to defend in this world if you ask me.

I'm normally very hard on religion, or at least religious organisations, but on this occasion I'm going to cut a bloody huge length of slack.

I've been enjoying the series run by Channel 4 on a group of Amish teenagers who have been over in the UK on an activity which apparently plays a very important part in their culture. At first I thought this was going be another mawkish freak-show, but the Amish youngsters have been portrayed in a very good light, and I've found the series (the third episode of which was this evening) to be very thought provoking.

I think the point of the show, which is available on 4OD for those of you who may have missed it, is to give us an idea of how someone from an alien culture views our society. The Amish are ideal for this purpose, they speak English but are about as far removed from our culture as you can get without having to rely on people who spend their time ranting and raving on the street about demons whilst burning flags and throwing shoes at people.

But what has struck me has been the Amish themselves, rather than their views on us. They don't go into too much detail about the Amish, the usual, no electricity, no TV, big families, funny beards, horses, but nothing of any great substance.

What is clear is that here is a community which is completely at peace with itself. Crime is almost unheard of (barring one fairly major incident recently), the respect between neighbours is remarkable, and in the case of barn raising, it would seem the Amish really like their barns, the whole community will turn out to help out with the raising and have a bit of a party, as much as being Amish allows a party, to celebrate.

The kids are schooled within the community in their own schools, or at home. It is obvious they love one another and are completely devoted to their families. The result? From what I've seen of the kids on the TV show, educated, compassionate, friendly, honest and thoroughly decent people.

These are the sort of people you would love to have move in next door to you, they seem generous and willing to help, without knocking on the door every ten minutes and they certainly don't seem to pry into others' lives.

The one thing I do have an issue with is the whole religion thing. They set great store by the bible and their submission to God's will. I've no time for organised religion, I've stated before that if I were God, then those who claim to speak for me would be first in the line when my smiting trousers came back from the dry cleaners.

But that being said, whilst it is obvious that their faith is the single most important thing in their lives, there doesn't seem to be any desire to stamp their feet and demand rights or special treatment. You don't see Amish preaching on street corners or knocking on doors trying to convert people to their truth. Not once has one of the Amish youngsters been judgemental about those they have been staying with, and only once or twice expressed alarm or unease over what they have been exposed to, and that in voice over rather than on camera.

Their isolationism appears to give them a refreshing view of the world. They may not know who Marilyn Monroe or John F. Kennedy are, they may be completely divorced from the politics of the country they live in, but it just doesn't matter to them. They have their own community and leave everyone else alone.

I've often heard them described as being secretive. But I don't think that's fair, this sounds like a name to slight them, make them seem as 'other', don't trust them. They don't want to be around us. I've not seen anyone secretive, I've seen people happy to discuss their way of life and beliefs, they're just not about to scream and shout about it. They don't mind if we take an interest or not, it doesn't matter to them. They don't care about our way of life. They're not making a judgement on us, it just isn't important to them. All that is important is surrounding them.

As far as organised religion is concerned, the Amish faith is probably the least organised one I've seen. I don't mean they're some kind of bumbling amateurs, it just seems to me that the practice of the faith is left to the individual church, family even person.

And then the clincher, before the kids are baptised into the church, they are told to bugger off, see the world and decide if their baptism is really what they want. What other religion does that? Which other sect asks those about to be baptised, 'are you really sure this is for you?'

This sounds like the most Libertarian religion I've ever come across, existing in a community which displays many classic examples of Libertarian community living. Their habit of eschewing technology, alcohol and tobacco would drive me up the bloody wall, but from what I've seen the Amish have a very enviable life.

But of course, the Amish would point out very politely and gently, and only if I asked them their opinion, that envy is a sin.

The One That Is Back. . .

Life, both personal and work has been the order the day recently. With that and the World Cup, blogging time has been scarce.

The other problem is that we are still in the honeymoon period of this new government, the dropping of clangers sounding like a Disaster Area opening chord have been noteable by their absence. It makes facepalming blogging that much difficult. Don't worry, they'll make an arse of it before long.

Or will they?

I've just finished reading 'The Plan' by Carswell and Hannan. A fine prospectus and one that I heartily recommend. There's a few things in there that I don't agree with, but on the whole I'm of the opinion that if the suggestions contained within were implemented we'd be a damn sight better off than we are now.

A few points contained within have been introduced or announced already, perhaps Libertarian thought has more sway in the Conservatives than we've be led to believe. Time will tell. The whining from the Guardianistas is most comforting. Less so the BBC who just don't seem to understand that the election has resulted in a change of government. I was amazed yesterday (actually, I wasn't amazed, it's still nice to know I can rely on the BBC for my morning dose of 'Oh, fuck off.') to see an article on their news channel about children feeling scared because parental units might have a glass of wine of an evening. I don't have kids, but I'm betting that asking them what they did at school today would result in me drinking myself into a stupor. Today I've half caught a story about the dangers of letting a five year old ride a bike.

I digress.

I'm going to pass on my copy of The Plan to a friend of mine. This friend of mine is a lefty, but the more I speak to him, the more I get the impression that he's far from happy with what the left represent. The fact it is written by two Tories will upset him. Once the mention of Thatcher would have the veins standing out in his neck, now it is just a shaking of the head. I'm of the opinion that Carswell and Hannan are in the wrong party.

Maybe not. Perhaps they're in the right party. Perhaps they can bring around the ground shift that Blair, Brown and Smith brought about in the Labour party? Only it would be an improvement, not a destruction of what the party stands for and a betrayal of those they claim to represent.

Here's the rub, and it is explained in a far better way by Hannan and Carswell than I could ever manage, the logic is deeply, deeply flawed; Everyone accepts that X is a problem. Y is proposed as a solution. Those not agreeing with Y are lambasted as wanting X to continue, or not giving a toss about those suffering as a result of X. When what those who disagree with Y really want is Z. Solution Z is probably simpler, cheaper and quicker.

In a nutshell, Hannan and Carswell draw the following conclusions:

• We rely far too much on the opinons of 'experts' who have a vested interest in any policy.
• The State is not very good at providing for people, it is impersonal, officious, unfeeling and expensive.
• People know what is best for them, and if given responsibility for themselves will gleefully take it up, saving money for the State (which they pay for) as they see a direct connection with the taking of taxes and how those taxes are then spent.
• The centralisation of power is bad for democracy, bad for services and bad for politicians.

The fact that Carswell and Hannan are Tories does not mean they are wrong. I hope that when I pass my copy of The Plan to my friend, he will accept it in the spirit it is offered and read it with an open mind. I think he'll be surprised at what it has to say, and even more surprised at his reaction to it.

When Neil Clark, or whatever his name is, talks about restoring our freedoms and asking us about bills to be put before Parliament, there's only one that I want to see. We can fiddle around with smoking bans, hunting bans, environmental legislation as much as we like. We can hold as many referenda on the electoral system as we can shake a stick at, we can cut the number of MPs to 45. It won't make any difference. The only act that needs to be repealed in the first instance, and that is the European Communities Act 1972. If we are to bring around the changes that I believe we need in this country, then we simply cannot remain a member of the EU.

As Carswell and Hannan point out, there is a basic misunderstanding of what the EU is for, and every PM since Heath has been guilty of the misunderstanding, has ignored it, or has supported the EU's purpose. Clegg is in the latter camp, and it is duplicitous of the residents of the support camp to talk about participation on our own terms. The phrase 'Ever closer union', is no idle ideal, it is the primary driver of the EU and can only have one outcome.

The EU is set up to remove power from the electorate, as we have this annoying habit of making the 'wrong' decision as evidenced by the Irish vote on Lisbon. We need to ask a different question; not 'what is our role in the EU,' but 'do we want to be a member' and 'if not, what will our relationship be with it?'

I may be in the minority, but if I am, it is a significant minority. I don't want to ride roughshod over other's opinions, that is what the fascist EU does. Let's have a referendum on our continued membership, that is, of course, the action proposed by Clegg over the Lisbon Treaty. If people vote to stay in, then that's democracy.

Is the EU fascist? I belive so. That doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands will be transported to death camps - that isn't fascism, that's genocide. What is fascism? I'll leave you with what I think is a pretty good definition from Jonah Goldberg:

'Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the 'problem' and therefore is defined as the enemy.'

That sounds like where I live now.

Once you get past the fact that facism is a hateful, unthinking removal of someone's individuality, the main problem is that the State is administered by flawed, imperfect humans like you and me. Just sitting in a office with a plaque nominating you as minister for whatever does not mean you will not make bad decisions that either wilfully or accidentally hurt others.

I just want the opportunity to make my own decisions. If I get it wrong, the number of people who get hurt will be limited to single figures. If a Statist politician gets it wrong, the hurt can number in the millions.

The One That Wishes He'd Thought Of It . . .

Old Holborn has been sloganeering and has come up with the following slogan to describe the essence of Libertarianism. It is a thing of beauty:



Do as you want, or do as you are told.

Perfect.

He then follows it up with this:

Think wisely when you have your chance to vote and always ask the question:

"Will they let me do as I want, or will they force me what to do what they want?"

I have nothing to add to this.

The One That Is Asking Himself A Question . . .

In light of yesterday's Norwich North bye-election result, there has been quite a bit of soul searching (some would say navel gazing) over at the LPUK blog.

I've been asking myself the following question:

Do I want a government with a Libertarian bias running through it, or do I want an LPUK government?

The only answer I can come up with is that I joined LPUK because I want a Libertarian government, I don't particularly care who provides that. LPUK are the model that reflect most closely what I would like to see, at present. If another party started displaying the qualities that LPUK demonstrate, then I would be delighted.

It is the nature of the policy that is important to me, rather than any particularly named party delivering it.

As unlikely as it seems, if Gordon Brown woke up tomorrow morning and said 'Wait up people, I've been thinking about this, we've got it all wrong and what we need to do is what these guys are up to', then I'd be delighted.

In a way we've seen this happen to an extent, and we may see it continue. Labour have started trying to sound a little like the BNP with all their (futile) talk of British jobs for British workers, although this seems more like a cynical attempt to stop the drain of Labour voters to the BNP rather than a real change in the policies which are driving them to the BNP's door.

The Tories have been at it too, after about 20 years of fairly fruitless campaigining the Greens are now finding that a version of their policy is finding favour in Tory central office. An attempt to reverse the party's fortunes? Quite probably. Will it be succesful? Who knows, we all know that governments lose elections, and it doesn't really matter what the Tories say between now and the general election, the buggins rule is in full effect. Interestingly the policy which seems to most closely reflect the wishes of their natural constituency is firmly off the menu, which is why UKIP look so strong at present. I believe the Tories would be stronger if they took up the Eurosceptic line again, and they may well do so if Brown is booted out after the conference season and Labour start to recover a little ground.

Do I want us to leave the EU? Yes. Am I bothered about whether this withdrawal is brought about by UKIP, LPUK, Conservatives, BNP or the English Democrats? Not in the slightest.

I guess the question I'm asking is 'Is it more important for US to be in power, or for us to influence and change those who are in power?' I think it is the latter, not that the former wouldn't be great.

The One That Is Stealing Other People's Stuff. . .

But I'm not claiming it as my own.

The following comes from Leg-Iron, and in case you haven't seen it, is as good a definition of Libertarianism as I think you're likely to get.

Great stuff:

Disclaimers first.

1) I am not a member of anything. I don't speak for the Libertarian Party and even if I join, I won't be speaking for the party because if they have any sense they won't let me near the reins of power. I like to press buttons just to see what they do. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I'm not sure I want to join any club that would let people like me in. Joining something is, for me at least, a big decision. I once joined a union and that didn't work out too well, so I have to think long and hard before committing to any group.

2) This post has been sponsored by non-approved and soon to be illegal quantities of Glen Grant.


Right. This is what I think libertarianism means and it's not based on anything other than my own random thought processes. Party members are welcome to correct me.

There is some fear of the Libertarian movement among the big three parties. I base this conclusion on labels like 'xenophobic' and 'far right' and 'BNP-like'. They are scared. With good reason. So there is a lot of talk of 'libertarian=anarchist' and 'they'll just let everyone do whatever they please' and so on.

To an extent, yes. But it's not libertinism. You can do pretty much what you please but you must accept responsibility for your actions. There can be no 'it was my upbringing' or 'it was my culture somewhere else' or 'it's a fair cop, but society is to blame'. You did it, you deal with it.

So if you want to build an extension that looks like something from 'A Series Of Unfortunate Events', go ahead. If it falls over and smashes your neighbour's shed, you'll be liable. Not the planning committee. Not the builder. Not the architect. You. You will have to compensate your neighbour. If someone is hurt, you'll go to jail and pay compensation too. it'll take a few years to sink in, but once people work out that they won't get off with excuses any more, most will start to act with some responsibility.

Libertarianism does not mean the absence of law or the disbanding of the police. It means fewer and simpler laws that are easy to understand and follow. It means a policeman would give you a ticking off for dropping litter rather than fining you, taking your fingerprints and DNA and recording all your details on five miles of paperwork. He won't even need to ask your name. All he'll ask is that you pick up your own crap and deal with it yourself. Like they used to in the old days. He'll still have authority and if you want to kick off, he'll have the power to deal with that. But it won't be his automatic response and if you just pick up the crap, he won't even have to report it back at the station.

No targets. Also, no limits. If several months go by where nobody in an area causes a problem, the police don't need to make arrests. If a ruckus kicks off because some bunch of idiots want to clawhammer someone, the police can arrest them all. You are free to do whatever you want in Libertarianism as long as it hurts nobody else. Cause trouble and the proverbial ton of bricks comes into play.

Should you steal, rape, kill, or otherwise damage someone else, expect a long prison sentence. Prisons will have room for long-term inmates because they won't be occupied by people who grow a bit of weed for their own use, or shout a bit of abuse across the street. Sticks and stones, prison. Words, no real harm. Like the old days when the British were real people rather than the professionally offended infants they have been made to be now. Libertarianism, to me, is forcing the country to grow up. It's time, don't you think?

Pause and think for a moment. Recall the news you've read recently. How many complaints to the police, how many charges, how many court appearances, how many prison sentences can be described as 'SIr, Sir, the naughty boy called me a bad name'? The police are obliged to respond. The courts are bound by the law. They enforce something that real people grew out of when they were nine.

I don't agree with every Libertarian out there but that's not a weakness in the party. It's the point. People are individuals. If every Libertarian toed the party line, they'd be like the drones of Labour, Tory or Libby Dimmies. The party is forged on concensus, not blind obedience. I would never join authoritarian parites like the big three, the Greens, the BNP or even the Monster Raving Loonies because to do so, you must accept the manifesto as it stands . You cannot argue. No discussion is allowed. That's the rule book you signed up to, now follow it. Sod that.

Take drinking and driving. Some Libertarians maintain that there's no harm done as long as you make it home safely. I don't agree with that but I do think that drunk driving, as oppposed to driving over some arbitrary limit, is wrong and should be stopped. When you're in charge of a big metal box on wheels, capable of considerable speed, you increase the risk to others when you impair your own reactions and judgement. By a lot. It's not about how many milligrams of alcohol you have in you, it's about your ability to control your death machine.

Some people I know would be able to drive over the current limit with no problem. Others would not be safe to drive even under the limit. One, at least, isn't safe sober. So I would go for a test based on the individual's ability to control their vehicle rather than a breath test. A breath test treats us all as clones. We are not. First offence, lose your licence for a year. A second offence within that year, prison. No piddling about with points and re-education classes. But it's not based on milligrams in your blood, it's based on whether you have control of the vehicle you're driving. The risk is not to yourself. it's to other people.

With seatbelts, that's your problem. You don't want to wear a seatbelt, fine, it's you that goes through the windscreen in a crash, not me.

Speeding is not so clear. If your car does 90 and you're confident of handling it, and there's nobody about, off you go. If you're tailgating or cutting in or out, the hell with you and it's licence shredding time. On an empty road at 3 am, speed cameras are just silly.

Immigration. The love that dare not speak its name, as Oscar Wilde once said about something else entirely. My thoughts? I don't care at all. I don't care whether you're white, black, brown, green, blue, turquoise or puce. I don't care whether you're Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Church of the Militant Elvis, Satanist, Atheist, or even if you think the entire universe was sneezed from the nose of a being you call the Great Green Arkelseizure. I don't care. All I care about is '"Why are you here?"

If you're here to improve your life by becoming One Of Us, great. In you come. For a year at least, it might not be much improvement.

If you came here to sponge, then leave, or die of starvation. We are not feeding you.

To add to the quotes, here's a P.T. Barnum (I think). "There is no such thing as a free lunch".

Libertarian is not libertine. There is no racism or xenophobia. Nobody is forced to leave. Stay, follow the simple rules, you'll be fine. Your gender, race, religion or sexual preference is irrelevant, we don't care.

But libertarianism is not anarchy. There are stringent rules.

Just not very many.

The One That's Had A Go . . .

A few people have tried their hand at this, so I thought I'd give it a whirl:

My Political Views
I am a center-right social libertarian
Right: 2.62, Libertarian: 6.98

Political Spectrum Quiz


I'm actually more Libertarian than I thought, and not as right wing as I thought.

My Foreign Policy Views
Score: -4.19

Political Spectrum Quiz


My Culture War Stance
Score: -4.8

Political Spectrum Quiz



Interestingly my foreign and cultural policy leanings are almost identical to the averages. I think this says less about me and the average and more about Bush, Blair, Brown etc and how out of touch they are.

The One That Knows Who He Is. . .

It was very nice to meet a good number of very decent people before, during and after the little walk today. It was quite bizarre, I don't think anyone knew more than two people and yet we all got along famously.

I don't think any of us had done anything like this before, we were, in the majority, political virgins, driven to do something because we despaired of the situation in which we find ourselves. Our group today included the self employed, high level managers, public school educated people, civil servants and the unemployed. Up until earlier this year, I didn't know about Libertarianism. Had you mentioned it to me, I would have given you a blank look. I knew bloody well what I wasn't - I wasn't one of them. I certainly wasn't Labour, I'd had a brief fling with the Limp Dems as a teen, but fairly quickly figured out that it really wasn't for me, the Tories? I agreed with a degree of what they said, but it was dwarfed by that which I disagreed with. I suppose it is like choosing execution by stoning, crucifixion or poison. I'd choose poison, because at least you'd get some grub.

It was Mac The Knife who pointed me towards the Libertarians, and thank Christ he did, because I saw what they had to say and was relieved. As one of our number said today, 'for so long I was shouting at the TV - I can't be the only person in the world who feels this way - and the feeling when you realise you aren't is marvellous'. It is all down to the blogosphere, so for Hazel 'Nuts' Blears to say this, is Grade A, export quality, Taste The Difference Bullshit.

I am NOT a self appointed political class, no-one is forcing you to read this. I AM AN ORDINARY PERSON. I have been empowered by this fantastic tool, and realise that I am not alone, even if our number is small. The reason Hazel doesn't like it, is because we do not espouse her philosophy, we must therefore be silenced.

Now, a state which silences people who hold a contrary view to theirs, stops and searches people walking down the street for no apparently good reason and treats every member of the population as a potential criminal, has a name. Would anyone care to venture what that name is?

Hazel says that "Politics needs "more people who know what it is to worry about the rent collector's knock, or the fear of lay-off." She's been a solicitor or an MP for the last 30 years, so I'm guessing it's been a while since the landlord's goons have come calling to her for cash in a menacing fashion. Indeed, from where I sit, she looks like one of those goons.

The One That Wants This Printed On A T-Shirt. . .

It'd have to be in pretty small writing, though.

I do not wish to be forced into state subjugation by the stupid, the ignorant and the just plain bastard lazy.

I do not wish to be forced to associate with those with whom I have no wish to spend my time.

I do not wish to be forced to close my mouth for fear of arrest.

I do not wish to find myself locked away without trial, not knowing what I am accused of.

I do not wish to be an indentured servant, half of the product of my hard work stolen to pay for the lifestyles of those who are parasitic on the productive.

I reject this statist evil and I reject the validity of this democracy—this tyranny of the majority—this totalitarianism of the lazy and stupid over those who think and would be free.

I am not interested in democracy, but in liberty. And our democracy is proving, as any system of government always does eventually, to be the enemy of liberty.

As taken from the excellent Devil's Kitchen. Do go and read the whole article.

The One That Thinks David Davis Is A Total Fucking Hero. . .

<--- This is David Davis, and he is a total fucking hero.

When he made his statement this afternoon criticising the new 42 day detention law and the government's 'slow strangulation' of our most important and basic freedoms, it was the first time I have ever sat and applauded a politician whilst watching TV, actually, it was the first time I've ever applauded a politician at all.

I am absolutely delighted that a politician, and a proper heavyweight with some substance about them, has the balls to stand up and say enough. This admiration is matched only by the horror I felt at hearing that over 60% of the population supported the 42 day law. Have things come to this that like turkeys voting for Christmas, we will support moves to curb our liberty? How far does this support go? Do the population support one CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK, the most intrusive ID card scheme in the world, a database containing the DNA of millions of people who have done nothing wrong, just in case? All these issues are linked, and I would hope that the majority of people are against this, if not then perhaps it is us as Libertarians that are out of touch, rather than the illiberal authoritarian political class who hold power as and end rather than a means to an end. If it is we who are out of touch then I could weep rather than shout about the idiocy and short-sightedness of the electorate like those connected to NuLabour.

I hope beyond hope that David wins his by-election at a stroll and a clear message is sent to the leadership of all the political parties that we have simply had enough of this.

Cynics say it is a blitzkrieg against Cameron's leadership. If it is, so what? If Davis is genuine, and he certainly gave the impression of being so during his speech at Westminster today, then perhaps he is the man to save us from this disturbing and odious morass.

And David, if the Tories don't want you after this, I'm sure I can think of one party that would be happy to talk to you.

I congratulate you, Sir.