We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Boris Johnson, just another dreary authoritarian

If anyone ever had any hopes that Boris was any different to the dreary authoritarians who populate the system, this should lay such notions to rest. He is very much ‘one of them‘.

He purports to have ‘libertarian instincts’ and yet thinks the role of the state should extend to telling people at gun point what they can eat. To hell with taking a moral position and respecting self ownership, says Boris, what are the utilitarian arguments?

A vote for this man was sadly a vote for more of the same regulatory statism that spews out of the political class.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

9 comments to Boris Johnson, just another dreary authoritarian

  • Yes, well, all true. However, mostly I think, a vote for Boris Johnson was a vote against Ken Livingstone, and Livingstone is so vile that it was still probably worth it.

  • lucklucky

    He always have been a big Right Socialist.
    He also went for censorship recently because some “anti-gay” spot.

  • Simon Jester

    As I recall, Bozza’s first act as Mayor was to ban drinking on trains. He’s about as libertarian as Tony Blair / David Cameron.

    If the Labour party had been bright enough to run almost anyone other than Red Ken against him, he would probably have lost the last mayoral election.

  • NickM

    He is also fat.

  • MarkGreen

    As far as drinking on trains goes, as a libertarian it’s my opinion that, as the de facto owner of the trains, he can decide whatever he likes about what happens on his property.

    I assume you were obliquely objecting to state ownership of the trains, which is a completely different question.

  • PeterT

    “As far as drinking on trains goes, as a libertarian it’s my opinion that, as the de facto owner of the trains, he can decide whatever he likes about what happens on his property. ”

    I disagree with this, as a libertarian it is my view that if we are stuck with public property we must be as open about its terms as use of possible. Banning drinking on trains is in there with the smoking ban in pubs as an illibertarian measure. Quite a lot of coercive action can be justified by claiming that what is an open resource is private really, just owned by a bunch of people collectively. What is not to say that we could not say that the UK is the private property of its subjects (although I suppose this means it is owned by the Queen), and where would this leave libertarian arguments for free immigration for example? This is why I am not of the property rights school of libertarianism.

  • 'Nuke' Gray

    I think that the owner of property, or the proper agent of owners (like the public, as we ‘own’ the railways) can bar or licence activities on public venues. Therefore Boris would not automatically labelled as ‘authoritarian’ for this one act. You have to look at his whole record. Are there any good points in it?
    (By the way, I think that railways, like roads, could be owned by the using public, whilst trains and locomotives could all be privately owned. Airlines and airports get by under such a system, so it could be done.)

  • Simon Jester

    Boris doesn’t own the trains. The tube is owned by the state (I agree with PeterT about its terms of use), while the overground train operating companies are privately owned (as far as I know).

  • Johnathan Pearce

    The issue with trains is that the owners of them should set the rules, including behaviour. Otherwise you get a sort of “tragedy of the commons”. Bans on booze, tobacco, spitting, loud noise and rudeness strike me as things that an operator of a train service should be able to impose.

    Liberty does not mean abusing basic civility.