Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

That’s It; I’m No Longer A Feminist. The Debra Hill-Cone Test. Why This Issue Of Quotas Is So Important.

If feminism now holds to a man-ban on political office so that women ‘must’ always be fifty percent of, in this case, a political party, then I resign from being a feminist.

Labour is poised to introduce new party rules to ensure half of its elected MPs are women by 2017 and would allow individual electorates to run "women only" candidate selections.

The proposed rule changes, to be decided at the party's annual conference in November, would force the party's list selection committee to ensure caucus would be 45 per cent woman in 2014 and 50 per cent by 2017.

Positive discrimination  hurts the ‘special’ group being favoured. Such a policy in this case must always cast doubt on every woman MP that will be selected by Labour, as to were they selected due to their drive, ability, and conceptual grasp of policy, or are they making up the numbers. Every reputation and career therefore cheapened, and even opening the selection process, surely, to claims of venal politics and corruption. Labour is now seen for the PC joke that the Left politick, and this equality communism always devolves to.

And a question for those who agree with this policy: what was your position on Debra Hill-Cone's now infamous column? If you were vehemently against that, then do you understand the contradiction; because you flayed her on the flaming pyre of it? Surely she was saying that a woman can't make it on her innate ability, having to rely on her sexuality instead? To have put her in the public stocks for saying that, yet now support quotas, seems to go beyond a contradiction to hypocrisy and something much less savoury.

I will from this time keep to the only tag that remains comfortable, under which women are truly my equal (see comments for context): Libertarian. Free the individual, and you free women, and men, alike.

I realise this is not yet Labour policy, it's just up for discussion, and a party is free to choose whatever policy it wants for itself, and the electorate can vote on that: but it's also important because it shows the thinking of some important constituents in that party were they to win the general election next year. If this faction wins, then with the incessant mooting over the last three years for equal women representation in private sector boardrooms, I am taking it as granted that policy would be made law under this Labour government - and that's when the notion of a private sector becomes a moot point also. The last Labour government shot themselves in the foot telling me what type of light bulb I was allowed, and the pressure the of water coming into my house: yet even compared to that, this one coming, has me really scared: as always with Labour, this is about the size of government. More in my next post where I deal with Tyler Cowan's great stagnation thesis.

Update 1:

I keep forgetting the political right, and also conservatives, are at times quite removed from libertarians; though that said, I don't know where to put Fran O'Sullivan anymore, who has come out in support of a quota.

One thing Fran does confirm, however, as I surmised above, is that under a Labour government, the feminist component will certainly be pushing for mandatory quotas in the private sector - (meaning, it won't be a private sector any longer). This debate is ultimately about the size and intrusiveness of the state. An interesting discussion with Fran, and confirmation as below:





  1. under which women are truly my equal

    oh for fuck's sake: the whole point of libertarian is that noone is anyone else's equal

    In terms of Labour party members, by definition, you are vastly superiour to all of them! Constitutions and governments must recognise that a few truly excel, and most are scum --- and must promote and reward the excellent few.

    1. Well, I thought context explained it :) 'Equal' as in 'doesn't need to be patronised by programs of positive discrimination'.