Libertarians skewered

Um, I may be lying to you. Or not so much lying, as omitting to mention the fact that I will not, obviously, do a Marina Hyde-style takedown-in-detail of the faults of all libertarianism EVARR. I also miss the French language, so prepare for my inserting it at random in a pretentious and untidy manner (I would quite like to skewer and lightly roast some libertarian ass, but all the wafting scent of deluded privilege would probably make me forcément rediscover my former vegetarianism de nouveau).

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 illiberal

The 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 illiberal

In 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 illiberal

In 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 illiberal

It 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!

Cultural Relativism: Fuck It.

As Raphael Saadiq once falsettoed urgently: People! Somebody's gotta tell the truth (ooh-ooh-ooh).

(Except it was more like 'Pih-pul!').

The lady-goddess that is sonia left some absolutely awesome comments on a Pickled Politics thread that radiated so much emotion to me, I almost developed a headache. Hoo boy, it was ugly.

Seriously, she was so sterling, I wanted to print off what she said and stick it up somewhere, to fill my brain full of good thinky-juice whenever I feel tired and slightly insane, like right now at almost 03.22 a.m. as I type, high off of menstruation and wearing a pyjama top over a dress.

Er... anyway. There is a hell of a lot of cultural relativism around these days, y'know. I have noticed it before, but I thought it was starting to become less fashionable, especially given the increasing awareness and condemnation of things like 'honour'-based violence, forced marriage et al. If nothing else, the work of the Forced Marriage Unit has brought about important and very useful changes in the law. It's REAL empowerment - now, if a person is perceived to be in danger, almost anyone can request a FMPO (Forced Marriage Protection Order). That means friends, teachers, lovers - some sort of involvement has to be demonstrated so that it's not just for busybodies to intervene, but it is a life-saving change.

Hence y'see, I was getting some bona fide hope. Thankfully, sonia reminded me that there is work to be done in combatting cultural relativism. She also reminded me, unintentionally, of something I've been vaguely aware of for some time now, yet unable to express.

Cultural relativism, as we generally understand it, 'is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of his or her own culture.' Thanks, Wikipedia! From what I can see, scrolling down a little, 'many anthropologists began to criticize the way moral relativism, in the guise of cultural relativism, is used to mask the effects of Western colonialism and imperialism.'

Stop press. STOP PRESS - we have the winning phrase: 'moral relativism, in the guise of cultural relativism.'

It is good to have an awareness of the place of a person within wider society, yes? Undoubtedly. As social animals, we live this way by default. A good alternative way to think of it is as context. It's the anthropologists' way of saying: 'Hold up, context. Everything happens for reasons.' This is both commendable and necessary.

What is dangerous, is when this attitude is grossly misunderstood and misappropriated by non-anthropologists. Then, as remarked, we have the wolf of moral relativism that lurks within, all too often. It is lazy, illogical and downright fucking dishonest.

I mean, come on. Let's square the logic of that: 'It is good to understand the importance of context... ergo, I am not going to judge something because it's not 'of my culture.'

What the fuck??!!

I am Asian. I am also British. Indian culture interests me greatly. Let me make a distinction here, which is a necessary one: I like Indian CULTURE. CULTURE, as in music, books, films. SOCIAL TRADITIONS are a different thing altogether. I feel that those can, and should change.

The lazy shorthand that is often used for 'social tradition,' is what...? That's right, you guessed it - 'culture.'

It's probably OK for anthropologists to use the word 'culture' more generally, because they understand it fully. They're aware of all its meanings and applications. We lazy modern plebs, however, are not. By describing a social tradition as 'culture' in this day and age, you are doing something very dangerous indeed. You are saying that it is a product of a society. That people of a particular society produce it, as they would literature, cinema or music.

Does anyone see the flaw in that logic? Timid people, afraid of putting a foot wrong, don't want to pass judgement on 'other cultures' out of fear of racism, accusations of neo-colonialism/imperialism/etc. Yet ironically enough, when you employ moral relativism, you are doing exactly that. You are playing God, you are effectively saying 'I have the power to make a difference here, but this appears to be a product of the people, this social tradition. They obviously want it, because it goes over there. Why should I intervene?'

I am very much aware of the need for collective individual responsibility in challenging modes of thought. However, that doesn't change the fact that we grow up, and enter into a world that is almost always made for us. The traditions of the society I inhabit are hardly a product of my beliefs; they pre-date me, and I choose whether or not I fit with them. So, my choice is already slightly restrained - I cannot make the world as I wish through wishing alone. Do you see the disingenuousness of 'culture-as-product-of-society'-constrained thinking?

This also betrays a deep ignorance and, you might even say, a sense of superiority. If you assume that culture reflects society, you are thinking democratically. You are thinking in terms of your world, where life for the most part reflects art. Where, for the most part, you can behave as you like. Whereas obviously other places aren't democracies. Saudi Arabia, to give a great example. When I say 'superiority,' I doubt that it applies to all people who have indulged in moral/cultural relativism. However, for some this is true... maybe, just maybe somewhere in them, they believe that things are 'like that' 'over there' because secretly, they deserve it. Being inferior.

You may pause to scoff, blowing your tea or whatever out through your nose with derision. I will only say that the depths to which irrational prejudice can submerge itself, would surprise anyone. After seeing 'religious' people frequently damn victims of natural disaster to their fate with the rejoinder that 'they must have done something in a previous life,' I am not discounting the superiority. Remember, if fear is present, superiority is very likely present too. You don't know what 'they' are like. What if 'they' are like you? What would that say about you? Why should you know about them anyway? It's about being the better person... but maybe you are the better person. That'll teach them to scare you with their weird differences!

The worst thing is when you see moral relativism employed towards ethnic groups who are of the same nationality. When people react uneasily to events occurring within their own country, and decide that they won't pass judgement because 'it's not my culture.'

I'm sorry? Since when did we start living in giant, fenced-off glass domes? If we share this country, we share this country. We're all responsible. It would be far more honest to take the apathetic angle, than the relativist angle: 'Frankly, I don't know about it/them enough to understand it/them, so I don't really care.' Relativism is often little more than a blend of cynicism and laziness. Yet it tries to claim some sort of moral high ground for itself, by wearing the clothes of cultural relativism? RUBBISH. Call time on it, now!

Personally, I think moral relativism is generally the defence of those who don't quite have the courage to admit their ignorance out loud. It is a ploy to make oneself look tolerant and liberal; what I really think lies behind it, in many cases, is fear of the mirror.

Because, as any fule kno, we do not live in a perfect, equal society. There is just as much suffering and injustice in 'enlightened' Western societies as there is elsewhere, and things like championing of 'human rights', tolerance and education often happen in spite of, not because of, the majority. If you're Jenny or Johnny Conformist, the sort who blithely laughs at a sexist joke here and there, or occasionally agrees with something 'un-PC' without thinking about it - you are compromised already. Your moral compass is reeling, and you know it. Though we are all, of course, compromised to some extent. You can criticise Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or whatever, but somebody will strike back at you before long. Then, you won't be able to win the argument. No more point-scoring. No more winning, because from then on you live on the knife-edge of sensitivity, always reflecting, always on jealous guard of your newly-discovered integrity.

Unless, of course, you're Paris Hilton.

This, I think, is why Daily Mail readers (and the BNP) hate Islam (and Muslims) so much. They're like kin under the skin in quite a few instances. Both disapprove of homosexuality, both are dubious about feminism (to say the least), both are uncomfortable about the visibility of sex and nostalgic for times past, both believe in the values of violence as a punishment as well as a deterrent... Naturally, this doesn't apply to all interpretations of Islam, or all Muslims. However, the enthusiastic Failite will view all Muslims as though they are derangedly conservative reactionaries, whilst fundie Muslims will view all Westerners as loose infidels. The Fail (and other outlets of the MSM) choose the ad-hominem line of attack for the most part, taking on Muslims rather than engaging critically with Islam itself. Fundies, equally, will disseminate angry rhetoric about over-sexualised society, baby-killers (the Luton protest, remember?) and the like. At the most extreme end, they blow themselves and others up. Attacking, yet again, the person (although in a direct physical sense) rather than the system or the institutions to which they ascribe so much of their anger.

Clearly, a very honest discussion of race, religion and history is long overdue in this country. In the meantime though, I will say this now: things like basic respect for women are not 'moral relativism.' A pox on anyone who tries to make out that they are. The rage over MPs' expenses has resurrected a notion of which I am dearly fond, and which had suddenly slipped peoples' minds previously. Public service.

Public service. What we want from our politicians. What we want the BBC to do. What our libel laws so often work against. There have always been lies on sale, but since Thatcher made it OK to be greedy, things are reaching a serious point. I don't hold Thatcher personally responsible for all that came after her; that would be ridiculous. It must be said though, that by legitimising the idea that everyone can - and should - pull themselves up by their bootstraps, she effectively endorsed a particularly ruthless and isolationist view of others.

Living and working in an area filled with people who originate from other countries - like me myself - I see how stupid and destructive that idea was. No-one's advocating a socialist utopia, but at the very least in a democracy, there must be engagement. Public service, right? The public broadcaster and the public servants should work to reflect the interests of the people?

It hasn't happened. Getting more black/brown faces on, what has it done, apart from give Fail readers more reason to complain? It is 2009 and we are facing an actual threat of increased BNP support here in Britain - in London - even though the National Front was supposed to have died in the '80s.

The truth must be told. History must be laid bare. The BBC can just bloody well dumb down some of it and/or work it into an episode of Eastenders. Put it in as a series of subliminal messages. Put it in the news. Suspend secondary school 'Citizenship' lessons - for at least once a week - and make the truth known. Drive down the fucking streets with a loudhailer and blare it into people's plate-glassed office cubicles.

A party that wants to deport me is looking to gain power. Its London Assembly member has been invited to the Queen's party. ON MY BIRTHDAY. You want me not to take this personally? Too late. I'm sick of the Oppression Olympics. I'm sick of the lies. I'm sick of hearing how other people actually have it worse because they're more thick-fucking-ignorant than me.

PUBLIC SERVICE. THOSE WHO CAN - TEACH.

Thanks to The Libertarian, I am now obsessed with a song about a dove. God, even the short clip of Sonam Kapoor with aforementioned dove is cute enough to make me want to cry.