Public and private, and the poverty of bloggertarianism
by Jura Watchmaker, 8 November 2007
Paulie’s post on bloggertarians is well worth a read. The focus of the piece is on a particularly obnoxious sub-species of homo blogiens thoroughly deserving of a textual kicking. Critics might object that Paulie has chosen easy targets. Maybe so, but it must be fun, and I certainly don’t begrudge him that.
Paulie should, however, be careful when describing people as misanthropes. Some of his targets may well be genuine sociopaths and misanthropes, but the term is levelled also at grumpy old men such as myself who like for nothing better than to ridicule all politicians. That doesn’t mean we hate people, or believe there is no distinction between social democrats, Stalinists and Nazis. We look beyond professed political philosophies to the behaviour of the individuals concerned, and wonder how we’ve allowed such people to get into positions of power and influence.
That said, I do largely agree with Paulie. For a start there is the political and economic naiveté of right libertarians, and their simplistic distinction between the public and private spheres. Private corporations routinely collate databases containing the personal details of citizens. Often, but not always, in the guise of market research. Also, much of private industry is parasitic on the public purse. In the aerospace sector, for example, private industrialists are totally reliant on public money, and private industry has in general shown itself incapable of innovating on a large scale.
One of the biggest failings of right libertarianism is its uncritical acceptance of the notion of corporations as persons. This is nonsense, as corporate entities are invariably greater than the sum of their parts. That applies at all levels, and there is in reality no rigid distinction between public and private, just as there is no sharp boundary between individual and community.
There is also a lack of perspective on the part of bloggertarians when it comes to the surveillance society. After reading a large number of articles on the National DNA Database, CCTV cameras, ID cards and like, I had published in Comment is Free a piece highlighting some of the contradictions in the debate. Comparing and contrasting the UK with other western European countries with which I’m familiar, I discussed the benefits of living in an “e-society”, and the need for a certain amount of regulated information sharing. These are complex issues, and seemingly beyond the ken of many bloggertarians.
But what strikes me most about bloggertarianism is its stifling uniformity. Libertarianism is supposedly about the primacy of the individual and the creative self, but I fail to detect this in bloggertarian writing. Perhaps I’m not looking in the right places.
Thursday 8 November 2007 at 17:03
” Paulie should, however, be careful when describing people as misanthropes. Some of his targets may well be genuine sociopaths and misanthropes, but the term is levelled also at grumpy old men such as myself who like for nothing better than to ridicule all politicians.”
True of most bloggertarians.
” That doesn’t mean we hate people, or believe there is no distinction between social democrats, Stalinists and Nazis. We look beyond professed political philosophies to the behaviour of the individuals concerned, and wonder how we’ve allowed such people to get into positions of power and influence. “
True of most bloggertarians. What’s your point?
“Private corporations routinely collate databases containing the personal details of citizens. Often, but not always, in the guise of market research. “
And the relevance of this to the argument is… what? Can these private organisations fine or imprison you if you don’t provide this info?
“Also, much of private industry is parasitic on the public purse.”
And it is precisely this that bloggertarians object to. Giving the state more power and more money makes this problem more likely, whilst any action to reduce private organisations’ attempt to get at it harms everyone except, usually, those intended.
The difference is that bloggertarians would stop this nonsense at source by reducing the power of the state and its funds.
“and private industry has in general shown itself incapable of innovating on a large scale. “
Laughable.
The CiF article I’ll need to review before comment, but generally there is a HUGE difference between a verifiable ID card ONLY and more or less everything else this govt is doing on this front: especially CCTV, the ID database etc.
Thursday 8 November 2007 at 22:13
The difference is that bloggertarians would stop this nonsense at source by reducing the power of the state and its funds.
The base problem with libertarianism is that states are powerful and it is better to have a powerful state than a weak state. If you have a weak state, all the other states that have not given up on the pursuit of power will exploit that weakness.
Thursday 8 November 2007 at 23:53
It would be nice if some socialists turned up now and again in the comments here (apart from me and Hak) and told these total fucking pricks to go fuck themselves.
I have stamina problems.
Friday 9 November 2007 at 0:05
Yeah, Will. But the people who are taking the most stick are people like Francis and me - the ones who actually take an interest in left libertarian ideas.
Methinks this is an indicator of the quality of understanding going on here. And I am joining you on the stamina front. Time for a lie down, a stiff drink and to contemplate my risible blog. But in the spirit of solidarity I shall lube up in full support of you and Hak:
Oi tossers! “Go to the unprintable and unprint yourselves”.
Friday 9 November 2007 at 0:26
Oh come on, I have a (not very) secret anarchist past. Yes, you and Francis aren’t that sort of libertarian. Unfortunately the word ‘libertarian’ is in need of reclamation from ‘anarcho-capitalists’.
Friday 9 November 2007 at 0:38
They are amazingly intolerant these libertarians - and isn’t that a teeny bit of a contradiction?
Friday 9 November 2007 at 10:01
“They are amazingly intolerant these libertarians - and isn’t that a teeny bit of a contradiction?”
Which ones?
I’m objecting to your intolerant and misleading characterisation of bloggertarians. Or is that form of disagreement not allowed?
“If you have a weak state, all the other states that have not given up on the pursuit of power will exploit that weakness.”
Umm…. How exactly? Reducing the power of the state to interfere with the lives of its citizens and businesses will help that country to thrive. It becomes harder - not easier - for inefficient statist-types from other countries to exploit.
Friday 9 November 2007 at 16:20
Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, I’m the one who’s gone to the trouble of defining ‘bloggertarian’ so I’m claiming sole authority in explaining the term.
And it *doesn’t* mean ‘libertarian who blogs’. It means Tory / UKIP / Negativist who pretends to be a libertarian.
Friday 9 November 2007 at 16:38
Reducing the power of the state to interfere with the lives of its citizens and businesses will help that country to thrive. It becomes harder - not easier - for inefficient statist-types from other countries to exploit.
Who will stop them? You and whose privately funded army that hasn’t taken over your country in the absence of a state military?
Saturday 10 November 2007 at 2:01
Well if there are benefits to living in an ‘e-society’ then I should be free to opt in, not forced at the point of a £2,500 fine or the denial of public services. Tesco’s doesn’t want to criminalise me for not having its loyalty card. As it happens, aren’t I already a part of ‘e-society’ by virtue of participating in this debate.
Saturday 10 November 2007 at 2:26
Well if there are benefits to living in an ‘e-society’ then I should be free to opt in,…
Actually, yes, I think you should be free to opt in to the e-society, just as you should be free to opt out of being a tax-paying citizen. But how that could work out in practice is another matter.
I’m not sure if this is still the case, but in the Canuckistan province of Alberta one could choose to opt out of tax-paying society, but then you would have to pay to clean up your own shit, and make n>>1 contracts with public and/or private service providers to do all the stuff needed to survive.
I say go for it, if that’s what you want. Me, I’d rather be part of a community that demands that I do my bit for the good of the group, and at the same time respects my autonomy. In the end we all depend on each other for survival.
But just for the record, since you talk of £2500 fines, I’m opposed the ID card scheme proposed for the UK. I just think that LibDem leadership contender Nick Clegg is a bit of a tosser for his “Yer, I’m not paying, you can send me to prison!” oral flatulence. Yes, I can just see Comrade Clegg a lockin’ and a loadin’ his M4 behind the civil liberties barricade. Not.
Saturday 10 November 2007 at 11:05
Since so many of our taxes are regressive non-income related taxes it is in fact extremely difficult to avoid paying tax no matter how low one’s income.
A bit of civil disobedience wouldn’t do this country any harm at all. I suspect however that you are right that Clegg would not go all the way with his protest, but then how many of us who are opposed to this daft scheme would accept total ruin. However it may well not come to that. The project is already faltering under the weight of unrealistic timescales and vast scope. The latest news is that the IPS is considering ‘contracting out’ the capturing of the fingerprint biometric to post offices and travel agents. So much for the ‘gold standard’ in identity.
I would have no problems with a voluntary card that was not locked into the National Identity Register. But of course it is the NIR that the government really wants. The physical card is in the wet dreams of ten thousand racist policemen but is not high on the agenda of government. Having the master index to all of our state records is.
Saturday 10 November 2007 at 12:50
“The base problem with libertarianism is that states are powerful and it is better to have a powerful state than a weak state. If you have a weak state, all the other states that have not given up on the pursuit of power will exploit that weakness.”
Not any longer they aren’t. Superempowered groups are the new states. Take a look at the writings of John Robb.
Tuesday 20 November 2007 at 21:43
So after the cretinous fucking shambles of today are there any sheep here who still want the National Identity Register? Bleat now or forever hold your peace.
Tuesday 20 November 2007 at 21:48
Why on earth are you asking that question here? This ain’t exactly the Polly Toynbee Appreciation Society.
Tuesday 20 November 2007 at 22:03
Now that takes me back. I haven’t read the Guardian in 20 years. Is she still alive?
Tuesday 20 November 2007 at 22:05
Stephen Thomas — yet another fucking cretin — they’re everywhere of late.
Tuesday 20 November 2007 at 22:15
Why am I a cretin?
Tuesday 20 November 2007 at 22:35
Work it out fuckpig.
oh — sorry - you can’t because you’re a cretin.
Tuesday 20 November 2007 at 23:06
[dozy dipshit — talks crap — bye bye fuckwit]