WHO HOLDS THE LIBERAL TORCH IN 2010?
Libertarians, Lib Dems or the “liberal elite”?
Tuesday June 29, 2010
Chaired by Mark Littlewood (Institute of Economic Affairs), speakers include Julian Harris (chairman, Liberal Vision), Chris Mounsey (leader, Libertarian party), Brendan O’Neill (editor, Spiked!), Paul Staines (aka blogger Guido Fawkes), James Delingpole (writer, journalist and broadcaster), Mark Pack (co-editor, Liberal Democrat Voice) and Michael White (assistant editor, Guardian)
What was interesting was that no one attempted to answer the question at all: WHO HOLDS THE LIBERAL TORCH IN 2010?
No one mentioned anti-discrimination thoughtcrime legislation or the EU.
No one mentioned anti-discrimination thoughtcrime legislation or the EU.
Surely it is impossible to consider oneself a libertarian if one wants to remain in the EU?
This would be a clear case of preferring security to liberty and therefore deserving neither, as Benjamin Franklin said.
It was first the BNP and then UKIP who proposed repealing all thoughtcrime anti-discrimination legislation. Even the Libertarian Party does not in their manifesto mention repealing any thoughtcrime legislation.
I did try to point out to several people that proposing the end of indiscriminate universal suffrage and limiting the franchise to taxpayers only would do the trick.
This would immediately disenfranchise most parasitical single mums, which would be a good thing and a big step towards small government.
Britain is a country now ruled by Mumsnet values of whingeing, asking for more handouts and more nannying legislation.
It is of course parasitical women who want the nanny state and their public sector non-jobs. They cannot be ignored, for constitute half the electorate.
The way to achieve small government is therefore to disenfranchise these women, by rejecting indiscriminate universal suffrage in favour of a narrower taxpayer-only franchise in a one-party state whose constitution protects the rights of individual members against the leader and his cronies.
It can be done and indeed has been done in China - a country that is paradoxically more Libertarian than the West, if we would but accept this truth.
The Chinese can say offensive things to each other without ending up in court or losing their job after being accused of racism. Chinese Communist Party members have a recognised procedure if they get into trouble with the Party, and do not get summarily demoted or expelled by the leader the way Powell, Mercer and Duncan were, just for speaking their minds. They would have a right to be tried before a formal tribunal. What they had to endure during the time of Chairman Mao has ensured that members' rights are better protected now than during the time of Mao.
This would immediately disenfranchise most parasitical single mums, which would be a good thing and a big step towards small government.
Britain is a country now ruled by Mumsnet values of whingeing, asking for more handouts and more nannying legislation.
It is of course parasitical women who want the nanny state and their public sector non-jobs. They cannot be ignored, for constitute half the electorate.
The way to achieve small government is therefore to disenfranchise these women, by rejecting indiscriminate universal suffrage in favour of a narrower taxpayer-only franchise in a one-party state whose constitution protects the rights of individual members against the leader and his cronies.
It can be done and indeed has been done in China - a country that is paradoxically more Libertarian than the West, if we would but accept this truth.
The Chinese can say offensive things to each other without ending up in court or losing their job after being accused of racism. Chinese Communist Party members have a recognised procedure if they get into trouble with the Party, and do not get summarily demoted or expelled by the leader the way Powell, Mercer and Duncan were, just for speaking their minds. They would have a right to be tried before a formal tribunal. What they had to endure during the time of Chairman Mao has ensured that members' rights are better protected now than during the time of Mao.
In short, repealing all anti-discrimination legislation - as UKIP and the BNP propose - would be a necessary start on the long arduous journey towards smaller and more rational government.
In return for the women agreeing to dump feminism, they can be offered a higher chance of finding a husband who will provide for them so they can be the wives and mothers most of them want to be.
Sorted.
In return for the women agreeing to dump feminism, they can be offered a higher chance of finding a husband who will provide for them so they can be the wives and mothers most of them want to be.
Sorted.
No comments:
Post a Comment