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]
|
New kid on the bloc I have been alerted to the existance of a new website called Conservative Liberty.
For those of you who regard the words ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberty’ as oxymoronic, I should add that it does appear to be genuinely ‘devoted to representing the under-represented voice of Libertarian Youth within the Conservative Party’, and is therefore worthy of a welcome.
Looks like a blog, though, doesn’t it?
[My thanks to Sean Gabb for the alert]
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Gee their site is damn unreadable though. Italic text, yellow background… what were they thinking?
These are conservatives – not noted for aesthetic sensibilities.
I wonder how this story relates to this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2507393.stm
Julian,
I don’t think the new group you refer to in the BBC article are the same thing. They have a website called New Party for Britain which, as far as I can tell, consists of nothing more than a list of disjointed grumbles and an attempt (yet again) to be all things to all me.
What is significant is the sudden appearance of all these breakaway groups. My guess is that is heralds the end of the Conservative Party as an institution.
The last line of the first paragraph should read
“…all things to all men”
Apologies
Just to say I entirely agree with Scott Wickstein, comment number one above. I want to read this thing, but frankly, I can’t.
I suppose it is good news that some young(er) Conservative Party people have perfect eyesight. But please, gentlemen, if you want any links from me … Seriously, I haven’t read any of it, and I won’t if it stays like this. At least lose the italics.
If they don’t change it, I guess it will be just another manifestation of Sod’s Law of the Conservative Party Now: Whatever They’re Doing These People Will Find A Way To Screw It Up.
I read a few of the articles and they boiled down to: we are libertarian and we support Tory policy.
Although, on touchstone issues like EU, they were in favour of withdrawal.
Hopefully, this will provide a forum for some of their younger members. Isn’t the Parliamentary party the youth wing these days?
I am at a loss to see how anyone could believe conservatism and liberty are inimical.
The key test for such a group is are they prepared to argue for cutting government spending.
If the group is just going to fall into the trap of just saying “we want to reform the public services” (i.e. the people can have government services that work well – barking cats) then it is a waste of time.
Not “choice and diversity” but cutting govenment spending and taxation is the only sensible policy. That is the real “choice and diversity” – people spending their own money on what they wish to buy.
Okay, for those who can’t read because of the italics, I suggest clicking on “Comments” under each post, which takes you to a copy of the post which is identical but for the italics.
The site generally seems alright: another blog that may or may not do well, although I must say the writing on it is not up to scratch. I haven’t seen that many capitalised nouns since I did German.
In terms of general philosophy, the page seems rather bleak and simplistic. It takes the silly viewpoint that there are only two issues in politics: economics and “social policy”, with two possible positions on each. Of the four possible combinations of them, those who favour “liberty” in both cases are libertarians. Taking no account of foreign policy attitudes, viewpoints towards the constitution, tradition, or often even the level of taxes.
I would say it also misses the point greatly in promoting liberty, seeming to associate libertarianism with political correctness. For example, the page says disparagingly:
“Thatcher also used rhetoric which might be taken as rhetoric promoting certain lifestyles over others.”
What on earth is wrong with that, from any standpoint? Does the mere fact that it might make some people feel bad make it wrong? It certainly isn’t an intrusion into liberty to point out that kids growing up without a father fare miserably later in life. Presumably they would have no problem with a Prime Minister declaring that single mothers can raise parents just as well, the father being totally superfluous. Apart from being completely untrue, this sort of moral equivalence is certainly not any less an intrusion into liberty than the contrary (true) advice. It’s advice, nothing more.
I can respect libertarianism based on an honest conviction that the state cannot do good, or does more harm than good. But not the sort based on an adolescent moral equivalence between every way of life and every action. Liberty is dependent on honest people being able to tell one another where their behaviour is destructive and self-harming. If the gentle nudge of warning or friendship cannot guide people towards the sort of behaviour that sustains society and order, the iron hand of the state has to do it for them – and sadly now does. There is all the difference in the world between giving someone good advice and enforcing that good advice through government. Liberty is certainly threatened by the latter, but it is entirely dependent on the former. I hope these Conservative Libertarians come to see that in time.
All those comments on their italic and yellow website!
Oh dear – then my grey-on-grey website must be truly horrible for the eyes.
Silly me. Belated apologies to anyone who got a headache trying to read my weblog then. Sorry everyone….
Remember that people who label themselves “conservative” have differing ideas on what the term means. Hence, we get all sorts of funky labels like “neocon” and “theocon” and “paleocon.” The real question is whether the policies that share the conservative umbrella complement liberty.
Hi. I’m the webmaster from the web site. Just to let everyone know that there have been significant changes to the site making it far easier to read articles and the colour scheme has been changed.
Nice article