“Unmanly and unEnglish”
by Sean Gabb
(First Published in The Libertarian Enterprise, 26th August 2012)
Having seen what they can do to others, I generally try to avoid personal disputes. I write this article with some reluctance. But, since I am aware of a directed campaign to blacken my name, I feel that I have no choice but to write it. Continue reading
by Dick Puddlecote
A Nanny Looks Forward To 2013 Sorry, I did try but just can’t let this pass without comment.
A government minister has written to magazine editors asking them not to promote post-Christmas “miracle” diets because they pose a “health risk”.
Equalities minister Jo Swinson wrote an open letter asking magazines to “shed the fad diets and fitness myths” in their January editions.
She suggested they “celebrate the beauty of diversity in body shape, skin colour, size and age” instead. Continue reading
The Story of the Mises Institute
[The Free Market, May 1988]
The Mises Institute comes at both economic scholarship and applied political philosophy from a very different perspective. It believes that “policy analysis” without principle is mere flim-flam and ad-hocery—murky political conclusions resting on foundations of sand. It also believes that policy analysis that does not rest on scholarly principles is scarcely worth the paper it is written on or the time and money devoted to it. In short, that the only worthwhile analysis of the contemporary political and economic scene rests consistently on firm scholarly principles. Continue reading
by Kevin Carson
Social Democracy as High-Overhead “Socialism”
Around a hundred years ago, guild socialist G.D.H. Cole argued that social democrats had made a major strategic decision not to contest the way property was distributed or production organized under corporate capitalism. Instead, they would limit their agenda to a (partial) equalization of the way the rents on concentrated property, the output of these institutions, was distributed.
One reason was that challenging the actual ownership of property would be politically impossible. But another reason, Cole suggested, was that the original socialist project of attacking the institutional structures of capitalism itself, and putting labor in direct control of the production process, would undermine the power of the managerial and professional classes who made up so much of the social democratic, Fabian and Progressive movements. Continue reading
by Dick Puddlecote
The ‘Next Logical Step’ For Fake Charity Control It has been more than encouraging to see that government have now embraced the term ‘fake charities’. I’m hoping that the Devil will have something to say about this considering he coined it in the first place.
Longrider has commented on this development a couple of times this week, most recently by referencing an article by Crristina Odone in the Telegraph. His comments are spot on. Continue reading
Statement by Sean Gabb
Director of the Libertarian Alliance
I have had my attention drawn to this comment, posted by Paul Marks on our blog:
“It would, of course, be emotionally satisfying to cut Kevin Carson’s Black Flagger (Black Flaggers like Carson will side with the Red Flagger Marxists – indeed they already are and have for years) throat, or blow his head off with a bullet (although he would be more likely to do those things to me) – but it is the job of politics to AVOID THAT SITUATION.”
The comment, I think all will agree, shows a most alarming degeneracy of character. I am shocked. It is not the job of politics to keep us from cutting the throats of those with whom we disagree. No one of good character is tempted even to fantasise about such things. The next time Paul boasts of his conversion to Christianity, or of his instinctive cultural conservatism, or in general of his spotless moral purity, I for one will remember the malevolent and dangerous beast I have seen behind the smiling mask.
In a normal country, this would be the limit of what I need to say. However, I am advised that Paul has committed a crime under the Public Order Act, and the Malicious Communications Act, and under about half a dozen other of the laws that comprise the Thatcher-Blair police state. Regardless of this, he has put us in breach of the terms of service of the organisation that hosts this blog.
Therefore, I will say that Paul’s comment does not, in its particulars or its generality, represent the views of the Libertarian Alliance, and that it fills us with the same abhorrence that any other reasonable man must feel on reading it. We will take no action against him this time. But we are watching him. We require him to place some minimal restraint on his disgusting passions. We have tolerated, and will continue to tolerate, his inability to refrain from vulgar and sometimes hysterical abuse. But a repetition of these murder fantasies will not be so indulgently received.
Yup. What is a Libertarian for? Why are we here? Why in the face of all this socialism going on about our ears, do we bother?
It echoes what one of my teachers sometime in the 1950s asked us once…“BOYS! WHY are you HERE?” The correct answer was:- “er…to learn how to learn, Sir!” I mean, sometimes, it’s hard to discern what the hell are we trying to do, since comparing pissing into the wind with what can be done against the brilliantly-arrayed forces of the GramscoFabiaNazis*** produces an obvious imbalance.
The situation in those parts of the world where stuff goes on that actually matters much to other humans, is not good.Governments everywhere are falling into the hands of the 60s-generation of neoNazi layabouts.
A GramscoFabiaNazi sadly got elected in the USA in Continue reading