Comments on: What we accept when we accept individual freedom

By: Sue R

Sue R — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:54:45 +0000

I also think that you have a rather Orwellian view of the proles, Dave. Do you remember the bit in ’1984′ where Winston goes to the prole part of town and is horrified to see the way that they behave: drinking, promiscously and vulgarly. He tells himself that if there is any hope for change it lies with the proles, that somehow the Great Unwashed will rise above their conditions. It seems to me that this is Eric Blair’s Eton schooldays showing itself, the middleclass distaste for the working class. I must admit I have been thinknig about this recently because I went to Bournemouth for my hols this year and the place was full of workingclass holidaymakers. The point I wanted to make was that MOST workingclass people do not drink to excess, do not vandalise public property, do not cheat on their benefits etc. In my experience, workingclass people are generally accepting of young ie unmarried people acting hedonistically, saying, ‘it’s only themselves they’re hurting’. It’s the newspaper editors and lower middleclass readers (petty bourgoise) who splutter indignantly at the thought that someone may be enjoying themselves in non-improving ways. Surely, that sort of excessive behaviour is a rite of passage anyway? I don’t drink or take drugs, one of the reasons (apart from health) is that it has been shown that it is funding organised crime and (dare I say it?)Islamic fundamentalism. So it is not an impactfree activity anyway. Returning to the theme of Tracey Connolly…what is upsetting people is not that she was looking at pornsites (although, have you seen them? They are nasty, short and brutal!) but, she was doing so to the NEGLECT of her child/ren. She was also shacked up with a cretinous Nazi and pervert, but would you say that that was important for her individual liberty?

By: Sue R

Sue R — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:40:08 +0000

Libertarian seems to have failed to realise that the point of capitalist ownership is that it commodifies products. The leases that he owns are assets, they are commodities, they can be traded, they do not prove that capitalism is dead. Under feudalism, there was a roll-call of obligations/contracts, known as insubfeudination, Mr Libetaraians possession of various leases is only another form of that. I would also like to point out that Marxism has always allowed for the skilled worker, or ‘labour aristocracy’ in the jargon. Yes, a lot of clever chappies have earned a lot of money through trades such as IT, where one’s capital is one’s brain, but at the end of the day they still need employment, unless they have wisely invested their earnings in property or shares or started up their own firm. As for the old, we all own shares in mega-corporations through our pensions argument. Didn’t it say on the news the other day that many people are worried about their pensions because the stock markets are declining? Anyway, such ownership does not carry voters’ rights, so in what meaningful way do we OWN such companies? Finally, as for the argument that ownership of an asset excludes other people from owning it, I would like to remark that years ago a Town Planner I was talking to told me that land is always more valuable before it is developed because anything could be build on it (ignoring complications such as planning laws). It seems to me that you owning an icecream factory, precludes me from owning the plant and labourforce and using them to produce chocolate bars, which is actually a diminuation of my freedom.

By: SteveHodge

SteveHodge — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:36:50 +0000

Libertarian,

You claimed that capitalism is a fair and equal society and that socialists were incorrect to claim ownership was concentrated under this system.

I provided stats to counter this claim, so how you can say this wasn’t the point of the discussion, god only knows.

Maybe you never went to school, yes that explains it.

By: SteveHodge

SteveHodge — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:33:02 +0000

Libertarian, you contend that capitalism is a fair and equal society, where ownership is widely distributed.

I was trying to show you that under capitalism wealth is concentrated in realtively few hands.

So how you can say this wasn’t the point of discussion god only knows.

Maybe you never went to scholl, yes that would explain it.

By: Mark Victorystooge

Mark Victorystooge — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:04:40 +0000

The somewhat puritanical Victorian British insisted on the right of the Chinese to become addicted to opium. So much so, that they went to war twice over it. Making a profit from the opium trade was the last thing on their minds, of course.

Drug addicts tend not to be rebellious or revolutionary, especially if their master is also their supplier. Far from being an individual act of freedom, indulging yourself may actually cement others’ power over you.

By: Le Midi Reste Rouge.

Le Midi Reste Rouge. — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:16:01 +0000

Anyone who is teetotal and, in particular, doesn’t drink wine is a class traitor and should be expelled from the movement forthwith. Then they can be brought before the appropriate Revolutionary Tribunal.

Declaration des cooperatives – communistes – viticoles du Midi.

Volum Vivre al Pais.

By: ScurvyDom

ScurvyDom — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:30:28 +0000

It’s not about crude libertarinaism but about accepting that somethings are certainly a case of putting the public interest over private freedom, and other’s are a subjective matter of taste.

Binge drinking regularly is certainly unhealthy and I would put forward the argument that it’s in large part because of an economic system that keeps people alienated from the products of their labour, that fetishizes commodities etc that people would choose to damage themselves, to deny their own agency in such a way. I would imagine that people wouldn’t binge drink in a socialist system.

But I can’t say the same about the appreciation of single malts, certainly in an equal society such things wouldn’t be the preserve of middle and upper classes, but I know I wouldn’t want a revolution without whisky.

And I can’t see anything inherently reactionary about dutch courage, are we to argue that after the revolution young adolescents won’t be a bit scared of each other?

And that’s just on the topic of alcohol, which certainly can be used to keep the poor poor etc, but isn’t of itself an evil thing.

Were we to look at prostitution, I think could argue that it’s hard to see an economic system in which selling one’s body isn’t demeaning, but is it not possible to imagine enlightened, progressive pornography which celebrates the human form rather than objectifies it?

I suppose I’m saying, yes, there are many individual liberties that’ll have to go in the name of greater liberties. Fine. But I don’t think the revolution has to eliminate fun.

By: paddy (the puritan) garcia

paddy (the puritan) garcia — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:39:53 +0000

Whats this got to do with religion mod?

Going by your logic, you may as well let employers discriminate against workers on whatever grounds they wish. Abolish speed limits, compulsory seat belts and other sensible health and safety legislation because after all they are examples of authoritarian state control on peoples individual liberty to do as they please. This is where all this crude liberterianism inevitably ends up.

By: modernity

modernity — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:24:27 +0000

The desire to regulate and control the behaviour of others is not a healthy one and is indicative of authoritarian tendencies.

You only need to see the actions of “religious police” to see where that leads, and it is not a pleasant place.

By: paddy (the puritan) garcia

paddy (the puritan) garcia — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:59:58 +0000

I remember quoting Connolly, Larkin, Keir Hardie’s views on alcohol and other vices here in the past, not going to repeat them. Whether they were inspired by religion I don’t know.

What I do know is that there is a proud history of what you call ref puritanism which has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Examples being the Communist initiated prohibition in Sweden in 1922, with the prohibitionists and and non prohibitionists practically split on left/right lines. The capitalist parties being against prohibition as they depended on breweries and distillers for a lot of their funding.

Che Guevara was also teetotal and led a puritanical lifestyle, again nothing to do with religion.

US prohibition, even though the authorities powers of enforcement were a lot less than in the Soviet Union also had the support of some sections of the labour movement there, especially among African Americans. Again this was also combined with radical religious groups such as the Quakers.

A more recent example is the Zapatista liberated zones in Mexico where there is a total ban on drugs, booze, gambling and prostitution.

My point is that “puritanism” is very much in keeping with the revolutionary tradition and has a proud history on the left.

Liberterianism stems from the bourgouis liberal concept of individual “freedom to” as opposed to the socialist collective “freedom from”

And as as a socialist I ideologically oppose it as I oppose all manifestations of free market capitalism. I regard freedom from booze, drugs, gambling, porn, prostitution etc. as important as freedom from hunger, poverty, unemployment, sickness, homelessness and everything else that makes us socialists and very different to the capitalists and their ruling class.