‘Bloggertarian‘ is a piece of shorthand that I’ve found very useful recently. I pinched it from Pootergeek a while ago. But I’ve looked around and not found any definition of it anywhere.

The good thing about it is that - even though it’s a new word - when I’ ve used it, people seem to know what you mean instantly. My definition here is partly based upon the conclusion to an argument that I had with a particularly ugly version of this breed earlier. I’d stand by it as a template definition - you know, to help the OED out when they need it.

%%%%%%%%%%

A bloggertarian is a self-styled libertarian that can be found in weblog comment boxes and - occasionally - with their own weblogs - thus the name. There are plenty of decent libertarian bloggers around who have studied the subject and understand what it is, but they are in the minority of those who call themselves libertarians.

There is a much larger number of incoherent self-styled libertarians. The writing style tends towards the misanthropic. They are often keen to personalise historical processes and attempt to identify particular prominent public figures with those processes. Once this is done, argument can be replaced with personal abuse for those individuals. According to one spectacular genius of the genus for example, almost every government minister is a ‘cunt‘.

That elected governments have almost no legitimacy goes without saying for the bloggertarian. Both the right and left variety are keen on variations on ‘direct democracy’, but don’t waste any time trying to find a bloggertarian attempting to outline a model that would be likely to be accepted by any significant sub-set of the general public.

When politicians make decisions that are influenced by electoral considerations, this is either a scandal, or it isn’t acknowledged. Politicians are never described as having proposed policies that the bloggertarian disagrees with. Instead, almost any government policy that has an impact upon the individual is described as….”they’re lubing up to fuck us in the ass yet again” - or in similar terms.

It’s fairly pointless to accuse them of poisoning public debate because there is a slightly unformed (but surprisingly common) view that the application of reason is fairly futile and that markets are much wiser anyway. Of course all political standpoints have sweary advocates, and this - in itself - does no real harm to political discourse (indeed, it sometimes wakes it up). But with the bloggertarians, the profanity is instrumental.

The bloggertarian exists primarily to criticise. They will almost never present a policy proposal of their own. If they do, they will not offer one that anyone would be able to advocate in the context of an election.The bloggertarian will often tell you that this is because the electoral system is “fucked” and that it provides them with no space to impose their minority views on anyone else. But they are never able to outline a suitable electoral system that any bargaining unit of the general public would ever accept. With a bit more book learning, the bloggertarian could become formally anti-democratic instead of just being objectively so.

For the bloggertarian, the term ‘libertarian’ is little more than a flag of convenience. It is a useful one as it is a position that appears to require no evidence in support of a statement.When bloggertarians are confronted with the consequences of a particular libertarian position, they will often rapidly retreat to either a standard set of Conservative Party prejudices, or occasionally, to the slightly ahistorical position of a lumpen intelligentsia Guardianista.

For the avoidance of doubt, the bloggertarian rarely has any real commitment to libertarianism. It’s common to find a particularly flexible notion of what a liberty is. It is almost unheard of for a bloggertarian to acknowledge the tension between particular liberties and democracy, or to present any ideas on how ‘liberties’ can be improved. Generally, they only get as far as demanding that a government stop doing whatever it proposes to do. It goes without saying that almost every government decision that impacts upon civil liberties is the final brick in a completed totalitarian wall. For many bloggertarians, there is no distinction between a social democrat and a Stalinist (or a Nazi). They are all the same.

As an example of this, it wouldn’t occur to the bloggertarian that a privatised replacement for a particular state function may establish intrusive restrictions of it’s own. For the bloggertarian, without government, there would be no such thing as CCTV and there would be no coercive forces that could intrude upon your privacy.

There are journalists and other public figures that provide thought leadership and are acclaimed by this grouping.

And this is where to you come in, dear reader.

Can you provide us with a list of examples of our greatest bloggertarians, their heroes and their inspirations? Put them in the comments box - where else?

And - reading this back - I’m prepared to accept that this looks like I’ve created a massive Straw Man here. But I can think of a dozen sites that I’ve visited in the last couple of days that would tick almost all of the comparison points outlined here. Not just a cluster that have a number of points in common. And just click on a few of the links to the personal blogs of the commenters under this post if you’d like an easy start in your quest.

Nigel Hastilow, the former Tory Parliamentary Constituency Candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, was hastily (heh) coshed and buried under the floorboards last Sunday, although it doesn’t matter how many brightly coloured rugs they pile over the corpse–we’ll still be able to smell the stink. As reported in the Guardian, Hastilow

last year accused Muslims of using terror attacks to ‘issue demands’ for their own bank holidays and schools [and] wrote of special treatment offered to immigrants. He wrote that ‘we [Britain] roll out the red carpet for foreigners while leaving the locals to fend for themselves’.

We can safely disregard Hastilow’s ridiculous remark about bank holidays. Whatever–apart from extreme narcissism–motivated Mohammad Sidique Khan, it wasn’t bank holidays. I would like to know more about this ’special treatment’ afforded to immigrants–not to mention the ‘red carpet’, because I think I’ve missed out big time. Slime like Hastilow are ever ready to deflect the attention of those curtain-twitchers who seek convenient scapegoats for why their life is not ‘just so’–there may be someone getting something somewhere and it’s not me, not me, no it’s those immigrants, it’s those ‘chavs’. Hastilow is preaching to the choir–they want to believe–and furthermore, never having been migrants themselves, they have no counter experience to disabuse them of their delusion prejudice.

So, as I was asking, where’s my ’special treatment’? I am a migrant–for the second time. I have a stamp in my passport which says I’m not entitled to any public funds, my flat is privately rented, and I can’t even get a proper bank account–where’s my ’special treatment’? I can only conclude that the ’special treatment’ and ‘red carpet’ are figments of the rather limited imaginations of unpleasant racist morons–or, if you prefer, lies.

Coda: perhaps clinicians should study the Tories, as they may have evolved a sort of mass contagious OCD–it seems they can’t stop themselves.

[A] newsletter, which was sent out [by Tory activists] in Dudley, details how the Government had “lost all control of immigration and asylum”.

It cites a forecast by Migrationwatch, the right-wing thinktank, which claims 7.2 million immigrants will come to Britain in the next 20 years.

Under the headline “NHS queue jumping” it quotes a newspaper report that patients who cannot speak English are sent to the front of the outpatients queue, meaning that at busy times English speakers are “shunted back”.

…..

It adds the warning: “If you go abroad on holiday, check your suitcases before you come back!”

There is a reactionary left that - consumed with hatred for the democratic Western order - allies with fascists, fundamentalists and terrorists. But there can also be a progressive left. Through abandonment of the destructive nihilism of ‘anti-capitalism’, ‘anti-Westernism’ and ‘anti-imperialism’, a new, progressive left-wing politics can emerge. There is a great revolution worth fighting for, one that - unlike the failed revolution of the Marxists - is rooted in the real world.

Marko Attila Hoare at his new blog, via David T.

I generally wake before the Today programme starts but this morning I woke a little later and these three consecutive items floated past me in a half sleep. I think I dreamt them.

Jeremy Bowen talks about Syria. What he says is that he has just been to a Syrian house to a party, dancing and all, women and men, to western music. He asks the people there whether they are Islamic fundamentalists, and they reply, Good gracious, of course not. He then asks them whether they are nice people. Of course, they reply. We are nice people. Prepared to be nice even to those impossible Americans? Yes, even to those horrible Americans. We are that nice. Could you be our friends, asks Jeremy. Yes, of course we could be your friends, if only it wasn’t for those horrible Americans (not to mention Israelis, because we don’t mention them.) We are, after all nice people. Jeremy Bowen concludes: Syrians are nice people. If only we could get that through the thick hateful heads of those who doubt that, we could all go for holidays in Syria and dance with nice people at nice parties. Because that, after all, is what Syria is. I have seen it with my own eyes. Nice.

This is followed by an interview with a Syrian spokesman, who confirms the fact that Syria is nice people, unlike some others we could mention. When he is asked about what it was that Israel bombed so mysteriously on 19 September, like could it possibly have been a nuclear site, he replies, Of course it wasn’t a nuclear site. It was vacant, utterly vacant, nothing there. That was just the Israelis being the usual bullies. Internal reasons. What would you expect? But in that case, the interviewer mildly presses, why not show us photographs of it, since all we have are satellite shots of a place that has been freshly and neatly covered up? Let’s get back to basics, replies the spokesman. Fair enough, says the interviewer, sorry to have asked. Back to basics. So would you sit down at peace talks that involved you recognising Israel and its right to security? Wow, hang on there, spokesman replies. That’s, like, so-o-o hypothetical. We don’t do hypothetical. But you are for secure borders, asks the interviewer, in a general principle sort of way? Of course, purrs the spokesman. Secure borders. We are nice people after all and nice people need secure borders.

The item that follows this is Thought for The Day, and Martin Palmer’s thought is that usury is bad. Usury (Usura, usura… as Ezra Pound that well known left-liberal poet wrote). Three great religions have been against usury, he says. They are Christianity, Taoism and Islam. No one missing there then. Sad to say, he adds, Christianity picked up this vice during the Reformation, until then it had been cleaner than clean and only truly horrible people charged interest. The fact that Christians barred those horrible people from other trades so that they could do their usury for them is a minor glitch in the story that should most certainly be overlooked. The Medici bankers were clean. Their money practically glowed with goodness. And look he says, repeating the names of the three religions, how successful the Islamic banks are, growing faster than anything in the galaxy, and they charge no interest. They grow out of sheer goodness.It would be fair to call it holy wealth. Greed is bad. Islamic banking is the dog’s bollocks. Look how fair Islamic societies are, how evenly the wealth is distributed. Nice people. Not like the you-know-who. Supported by you-know-who. You know it makes sense.

And then, somehow, I didn’t wake up. Or I did. I can’t remember now.

Yes I know — this sort of shit is pointless — however, this involves one of us (solidarity plays its part).

The magnificent Paulie has a go at the utter fucking moronic fuckwitted loony Kitchen dumbfuck.

Read and enjoy.

You have to scroll down because the ignorant filth that has the blog can’t even work out how to let people link directly to his comments. ‘Wanker’ doesn’t even do the fuckwit justice.

The thick piece of shit, and the barbarism of the past grape-from the arse sucking cunt, takes on the wrong person at the wrong time.

Relatedly: How much do you despise bloggertarians?

I want to shoot them and bury them in unmarked graves.

Any other suggestions?

Shoot and bury in marked graves? Is that it?

More glib one-liners from me.

So sorry — I should come up with better. Maybe if I move to Canada and snufflle in amongst the snow like a soft as fuck snuffler.

Fuck off.