Longrider

I know I’ve discussed it before, but a brief exchange with notsaussure causes me to revisit just what I mean when I label myself a libertarian. Notsaussure states that he is not a libertarian but then goes on to describe himself thus:

…not because I’m a libertarian (I’m not) but because I hold to the view that we’re all of us happiest when left to get on with our lives as seems best to us and that government should only intervene when — as inevitably will happen — conflicts arise from us all of us pursuing our individual courses and we can’t amicably sort out our disputes between ourselves.

That is pretty much how I describe myself. As with any ideology, there are degrees. I am no more an “American Thatcherite on steroids” now than I was anything like councillor Kelly when I was a paid up member of the Labour party. Mind you as an aside, I’m not convinced many other members are quite as bad as that – someone who thinks Fidel Castro is a jolly good egg isn’t firing on all four.

Libertarians suffer the same repeated misrepresentation as do atheists. Christians frequently refer to non believers as sad or angry people without meaning or morality in their lives. That this is patent nonsense is beside the point; the myth continues. So, too, do the myths about those of us who value liberty. We do not foam at the mouth, we do not seek to reduce society to lawless anarchy where everyone grabs what they want and damn the consequences. Really, we don’t.

Even during my Labour days, I had libertarian tendencies. I resented unnecessary government interference in my daily life. As far back as 1981 when I was actively involved in rider training, the Thatcher government started poking about with motorcycle testing and licensing (and made a horrendous botch of it). I was aggrieved – not because they sought to improve road safety, but rather because they sought to be seen to be doing something and motorcyclists were a useful target. Creating awful legislation rather than doing nothing seems to be a hallmark of all governments. Certainly it appeared that way at the time and the botched legislation that followed simply served to confirm my beliefs. The Michael Howard proposal for smart identity cards in 1995 brought the libertarian in me to the fore. His pernicious* proposals are reprised in the Frankenstein’s monster of the Blair product. All of it designed to serve the apparatus of the state, not the electorate that the state is supposed to serve.

Like many libertarians, I want to see less government. Why do we need a government department for sport, the arts and culture? Yes, we need policing, judicial process, foreign policy and defence, for example. But the arts? There’s one department that can and should go and make an instant saving. Not that I’m expecting a tax rebate, though…

The state is necessary for those things we cannot manage individually and even libertarians are a part of the overall community and are content to accept that collective behaviour has its place; just not too much of it, please.

I consider myself a reasonable man. I believe firmly in the principle of law and order. I believe in a just and principled system of government that operates in the best interests of the electorate. Okay, okay, so I’m a hopeless idealist. I know, I know. Anyway, carrying on… I don’t have any ideological objection to the state providing education and health care, for instance (just so long as we get value for our tax pounds). Neither though, do I have any objection to private alternatives for those who wish to opt out. In general, I prefer the markets to operate with minimal interference from government as, I believe, they will operate more efficiently for it. That, to many, makes me right wing. Yet my lack of objection to the state providing health and education makes me left wing. Therein lies the problem with labels. I am neither. I take my stance according to the issue at hand. The issue at hand at the moment is the gross erosion of personal liberty we face from our government, the US government and the EU. Given that I object to the rank authoritarian approach by these “benevolent” bodies, that must make me a libertarian. If I am to have a label, then that is one I can live with.

*I trust this meets with approval – I could have used egregious, but refrained.

The Telegraph leads with another story of paranoia driven snooping:

Britons flying to America could have their credit card and email accounts inspected by the United States authorities following a deal struck by Brussels and Washington.

By using a credit card to book a flight, passengers face having other transactions on the card inspected by the American authorities. Providing an email address to an airline could also lead to scrutiny of other messages sent or received on that account.

Excuse me? Ex-fucking-scuse me?! Just what the fuck? Where does Brussels get off striking a deal like this? The correct and appropriate response to such a request is “fuck off and mind your own business run along and don’t be so cheeky”. But no, Brussels (and just who the fuck do these people think they are?) hands our private details over like a whipped puppy fawning before a cruel master. The “bureaucratic hurdles” they decided to sweep aside were there for a good reason; to protect our privacy. Privacy that the apparatchiks in Brussels value as worthless.

Not only will such material be available when combating terrorism but the Americans have asserted the right to the same information when dealing with other serious crimes.

Oh, spare me the bollocks, please. Of the millions who travel, just what percentage are going to be guilty of criminal or terrorist activity? Yet, all will be treated as suspects in Uncle Sam’s paranoid world. Not me. Never. If that is how the USA is going to treat its visitors, I will simply refrain from going there. I am not guilty of criminal or terrorist activity and I am damned if I will bare my soul to prove it. What goes on in my financial affairs is between my bank and I, my emails are… er… private… Yes, I know, emails aren’t that private, but PGP is looking more and more attractive.

Shami Chakrabarti is once more the lone voice stating what should be the obvious:

Sham Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights group Liberty, expressed horror at the extent of the information made available. “It is a complete handover of the rights of people travelling to the United States,” she said.

Hers should be the voice of the masses. Why isn’t it? Why do people just lie back and take it?

What else do the Americans what to know?

Much of it is routine but some elements will prove more contentious, such as a passenger’s email address, whether they have a previous history of not turning up for flights and any religious dietary requirements.

And why, exactly should that be any of their business? Still, they reassure us:

The US government has given undertakings on how this data will be used and who will see it.

Really? So why am I not in the least reassured by this? Nope, the USA is off my travel list. Pity, I always wanted to hire a bike and ride around the old west…