Also, I am for some inexplicable reason quite upset. It has a lot to do with a runaway, organic, nearly-fuckin'-THREE-POUND Stilton. Not even bought for myself - I would've been less upset if it had been! Getting thoroughly soaked, and then travelling like a Tube-bound pancake, may also have contributed.
For a laff, I went to the online home of what sometime-commentator here asquith hilariously refers to as 'LURPAK'. Although I must say, that would do Lurpak's firmness something of a disservice. Battling back the cattiness (oh, so nobly!), I took LPUK's 'Are You A Liberal?' test and sat back, lips quivering, in anticipation of the result.
It was oddly fitting - apparently I am '50% liberal'. I read through the sanctimonious breakdown of the results - green ticks for where I was liberal and 'right,' and red crosses for where I was illiberal and 'wrong.' Let me make it clear to anyone who may have been fooled - I didn't actually care about the results and what they apparently said about me, I was more interested in what it said about LPUK. The results did not disappoint!
Take this gem:
We should get rid of the minimum wage?
Your answer was illiberalThe minimum wage is an illiberal restriction on free trade. It also places an artificial value on the cost of labour which makes it more difficult for low skilled workers to find work, and therefore gain experience and training.
Now, I know that SOME libertarians have suggested replacing minimum wage with a Citizens' Basic Income, which sounds good to me. Otherwise... what the fuck? Ensuring that people who do the shittest of the shit jobs get paid a fair wage 'makes it more difficult for low skilled workers to find work'? If they mean that it makes it harder for businesses to employ whoever they want at shit rates, and that this is somehow bad, then they ought to say that.
Maybe they mean that the minimum wage is somehow bad for immigrants, because it denies them the opportunity to undercut local people? In which case I must say: darlings, most of the immigrants don't undercut them because they want to - they usually do it because they are at a racial disadvantage, desperate for money and there's no other way.
Et puis:
It should be illegal for members of the public to own guns?
Your answer was illiberalIn a liberal country people can protect themselves as they see fit. Remember if someone owns a gun it does not mean they will murder anyone. In addition it is very dangerous for a people to allow their state to have a monopoly over weaponry and therefore force.
What about accidental injuries sustained through use of firearms? What about children and firearms? See, I would have no problem with introducing guns if there was some way to educate people about how to store firearms responsibly (or somesuch), so as to avoid incidents like these. Somehow, though, I imagine such a suggestion would not sit too well with LURPAK - sorry, LPUK, as it would be 'authoritarian' or 'assuming people are inherently bad'. Or something.
The state should make people change their behaviour to tackle climate change?
Your answer was illiberalIn a liberal society the state will not force any law abiding person to behave in a certain way as this is an infringement on freedom of thought and action. This is an especially acute issue when you consider there is still great debate about whether climate change is caused directly by human action. People should note that the state have a lot to gain in terms of social control from climate change catastrophe. Along with large corporations who will find it easier to cope with environmental regulations than their smaller competitors.
This is really laughable, since the state doesn't really do much to 'tackle climate change' as it is. Maybe once we face that scenario, we can judge better. I personally feel that getting people to sort their recycling and generally give a shit about the planet on which they exist and the generations ahead of them (as well as those in other countries likely to be sooner affected by climate change, such as Bangladesh) is hardly an infringement of their human rights. Maybe if the state beat them up for not doing so... but it doesn't, and I find it unlikely that it would. Meanwhile, large corporations can use libel suits and professional intimidation to silence critics and whistleblowers. Unjust, much? However, I have just spotted the denier dog-whistle:
there is still great debate about whether climate change is caused directly by human action
Er, maybe among the LURPAKers. The more sane and reasonable and unselfish among us have moved beyond this kind of debate-halting stalling tactic and on to trying to do something about the stuff that IS happening right now, like the retreat of the polar ice sheets. I'm no hardcore greenie, I'm sure I waste energy and have committed environmental crimes, but I am genuinely trying to STOP MYSELF DOING IT.
In the tradition of rhetoric, the third and final head-'splodey bit:
It is wrong for democratic nations to overthrow foreign dictators?
Your answer was illiberalIt is illiberal, and a sign of gross arrogance, for one state to impose their will on another in this way. These issues are for the people of said state to resolve themselves with their leader(s).
Pardon me while I have my Exorcist moment, and spit in French. Que c'est facile à dire pour vous! If we think of this in terms of Iraq - well, I agree entirely. That was totally illiberal. However, what about when the said dictator was installed with the help of 'democratic nations'? What about when the local people WANT outside help? Putting those two aside - what about when the people 'of said state' are in no position to resolve the issue with their leaders? An apparent case in point being Iran. This whole bit smacks powerfully of cultural relativism.
Obviously, one needs to be careful in such situations. What will you do, for example, if a certain state treats its citizens so badly that lots of them leave and make a bee-line for your state? I hate making this argument, because it veers into classic racist territory, but it is a genuine question. It's the whole current 'deserving VS undeserving' immigration debate summarised and I'd like to see the LURPAK's answers. Some of them are going to have trouble integrating and want to be recognised as different. Not even treated as special, just acknowledged as different but equal. What then, eh?
This is the beauty of being a libertarian. It's tailor-made for rich white middle-class types, men in particular. You can shrug your shoulders and repeat platitudes about seeing the good in people and believing in meritocracy. You can argue, de votre certitude béate de suffisance, insupportable, that to intervene in the affairs of another nation in any way is unthinkable.
Sadly, it doesn't change the fact that a load of white, mostly rich and mostly male people went around the world and exploited the people and resources of other countries for the benefit of their own countries and themselves. Hell, the slave trade turned people into resources. I would really like to believe in a lot of the nonsense that libertarians spout. However, I always have the urge to ask them to do one tiny little thing. Go to failing inner-city-London schools and tell them that we live in a meritocracy. Go to the mother of a teenager who has been killed in a gang attack and tell her:'Remember if someone owns a gun it does not mean they will murder anyone.' And, let us consider the Forced Marriage Act and its application in other countries, as in the case of Dr. Humayra Abedin. Without it, she may have died; Lord knows if she could have escaped alone.
It's all just so laughably naive. You can almost smell that it's coming from the perspective of people who have had either class, gender and race privilege, or the first and last if not the second. I can imagine many libertarians would go 'Yeah, but we're not disagreeing about the FMA...' or 'Well, gang murders only prove that guns should be legal, because they'll always find their way onto the streets...' However, I just want to laugh and go 'Well, of course you don't dare to disagree with this. However, why has the Libertarian Party never highlighted solutions to these? Why does it acknowledge, but not engage with, such things as forced marriage? Forced marriage is surely one of the greatest affronts to one's personal liberty. As is rape.'
And that is where the humming and hawing would start, because if you ACTUALLY wanted to address such problems as forced marriage (and rape), you have to act. Forced marriage in particular shows the callousness of the 'shrug my shoulders, if it's not MY personal liberty being threatened, then I don't care' philosophy. Rescuing women is not a 'public good,' why should people be taxed to pay for it? Also: poverty. If more libertarians actually saw that many ethnic minorities have to work twice as hard because of racism, they might understand why their ideology has such limited appeal. If libertarians really gave a shit about poverty, they would have to ask why (for example), there are so many poor Bangladeshis. Are they just racially genetically inferior? Are they not trying hard enough? Or *shock horror* might they be forced to acknowledge that racism and snobbery still exist in force, and that waiting around for the 'natural good' of white (middle-class) people to emerge, just isn't going to cut it for many people?
My own Libertarian is inherently quite sensible and generally diverges from the magical thinking of the others on a lot of these issues. Still, I thought that a blasting of libertarians was long overdue. I often rant about how most of them are simply deluded conservatives to him (which is patently obvious to most people), but really, the privilege overload I got today just had to be addressed. Dear Lord, deliver me from the day when I care more about 'illegals taking my tax' and 'the illiberal restrictions on free trade, that are ensuring decent conditions for workers.' Seriously, let me be run over by a Chelsea-tractor-driving, LURPAK-subscribing delusionary before I do such a thing!
No comments:
Post a Comment