But then I only looked at the attack for a few seconds before “Counting Cats” went down.

I thought it was your name on the attack – but, clearly, it was not.

So, again, I apologise.

You do not like facts.

You ranted at me when I typed some out on another blog.

You accused me (I think) of wanting to cut your pension.

And compared me to Marxists who want to build Heaven on Earth.

Just to be nasty I think I will repeat the facts that sent you off the deep end.

Government spending is NOT under control. Certainly some British government departments have had their budgets reduced but TOTAL government spending….

Government debt is INCREASING (even as a percentage of GDP).

Indeed one could cut government spending by about a third and it would still be at the level (again even as a percentage of the economy) as it was in fiscal 1963.

I suggested a series of government spending cuts (with the aim of balancing the budget and ending the practice of Bank of England fianced deficit spending).

Yes they were radical (by pathetic modern standards – getting rid of the overseas budget [indeed budgets - Overseas Aid, E.U., U.N., IMF, World Bank....], ending Corporate Welfare [Trade and Industry subsdies] and returning roads, rail, the universities and the arts to civil society) – but they did NOT include cutting pensions, or cutting education for the children in schools (although I do not regard universities as schools for children – different budget)or income support.

In short I was hopelessly weak (bent over backwards) and may well have suggested far too little in terms of cutting government spending.

And all I got from you was abuse (which I have repeated above).

Plus “you never give sources for your statements” (as if you could not have checked anything I typed in a couple of minutes).

That is calling me a liar – and doing it in a cowardly way.

I was quite hurt.

Sensitive soul that I am.

There were almost tears.

Of course the joke is that there is no chance what-so-ever of big government spending cuts happening.

So the present system is doomed.

Oh dear, how sad.

Oddly enough I am quite sincere when I say I would like to save the system – which, I suppose, makes me a traitor to hardcore libertarianism.

But there is no chance that people like me will win – none.

The system will go down. Our suggestions to save it will be rejected.

And then that pension you are hopeing for……..

By the way – I did not think you were British based anyway.

Sorry but a “libertarian person” is just a “person who is a libertarian” – naught more.

One does not even have to prevent someone else violating the nonaggression principle (as a Randian Objectivist would), just as long as one does not commit injustice one’s self (or suggest it, or support it).

If someone is attacked in front of you, it is not “unlibertarian” to refuse to help them.

Contrary to what some say, only aggression (against bodies or goods) is a violation of the nonaggression principle (the libertarian principle of justice).

Someone (out of cowardice of pacifist principle) can stand by and watch millions being killed – without commtting any crime (as a libertarian understands “crime” – i.e. a violation of justice).

Just as someone can (because they are miser or whatever) sit counting their (thousands and thousands) of gold coins whilst watching people starving to death – without committing any crime (any injustice).

Such a person lacks the virtue of benevolence (mercy – charity), not the ice cold virtue of justice.

In other words – a just person (a true libertarian) may be utterly vile in many other respects.

Being just (being libertarian) is not enough, if one wants to be a good person.

“Paul not a word of the above is original – you cribbed it all from thinkers, some of whom go back thousands of years”.

Errr – guilty.