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.

Friday, January 9, 2015

Je Suis Charlie – My (Quick) Take.

For the record, my view on Islam and multiculturalism are given in this earlier post.

I'm an atheist, thank God, attempting to live a life defined by reason and humanism. My morality comes solely from man qua man, necessitating self-responsibility for one’s actions and peaceful co-existence with one’s fellows and fellowesses. Voluntarism.

But the reportage I have read, as with social media, regarding this latest act of terrorism in France, applicable to free speech, only, largely misses the point. My position can be simply stated.

1.      The free speech issues deriving from this have nothing to do with Islam, offence-making or umbrage-taking per se.

2.      The question is regards the role of the state to police non-violent offence-making or umbrage-taking.

3.      The question then becomes how are offence-making and umbrage-taking defined, and by whom?

4.      Worse, the question becomes once you’ve set society along this totalitarian route of the censor state - totalitarian because we are now dealing with issues which are correctly stated as otherwise being ‘thought-crimes’ -  where do you stop defining offence-making and umbrage-taking, and who gets that choice/power? With the corollary question of is containment of the state even possible once this function is voted to it by a democratic mob?

Plainly - read my blog - I don’t believe the state can have this role if it is to be the free society that I believe is all of our birth rights. That’s irrefutable on definitions alone.

Just as there is no ‘in-between’ regarding capitalism versus command economies, so there can be no free society where the state is powerful enough to hold this function.

Note I publish this post voluntarily choosing not to publish an image of the fabled Mohammed-man , or any of the contentious cartoons, though following the logic of my argument, and thus my principles, I would (metaphorically, possibly in actuality) die fighting for my right to do so without the intervention of the censoring state.

My next post may well, however, cause offence. Working title: Retrieving the Corpse of Roger Sutton from the Cross of Shesus. Next week …


  1. Hi Mark

    Nice to have you back posting, refreshed from your holiday, and with (presumably) a full beer fridge once again.

    You know that for most things we are more aligned than opposed, however I have a question for you. Assuming the following statement is true (and I believe it is)...

    "A liberal immigration policy that entails importing lots of illiberal people will necessarily mean the end of liberalism.”

    How does the Libertarian deal with this practical weakness in their philosophy of open borders and the free exchange of people and cultures, when it ultimately leads to the death of everything they stand for?

    1. I once said to Linz Perigo, whom I consider one of my mentors, ... "but what if 'greed' means that some of our fisheries are destroyed?" (Sorry, I'm dropping all context here.)

      His answer was that freedom has a price.

      Look forward to chatting through 2015, Brendan :)

    2. Mark, you faced a similar challenge on SOLO one time before. It went something like this.

      "A libertarian tax policy entails that paying tax is voluntary which might mean that a libertarian government cannot fund its core functions and shuts down leaving the kind of vacuum that man in the state of nature abhors."

      How does the libertarian deal with this practical weakness in his philosophy of voluntary taxation, when it ultimately leads to the death of everything he stands for?

      "Freedom has a price" is the wrong answer!

      I blogged the right answer here. :-)

    3. Afraid I can't accept Romans 13 as a solution Richard. I'd not seen that post though, so thanks for linking.

      Regarding the question of tax, I do think that works voluntarily: I'd certainly pay for core minarchist services, for the same reason I pay insurance.

      Regarding this question, I also apply the 'sell them coke cola argument'. Children who are brought up in a prosperous Western culture will some generation or other drop the superstition. Problem is the Left are buggering up the prosperous in 'prosperous West'.

  2. I had a chuckle about your "I am an atheist, thank God". It reminded me of a bit of Kremin of the Star Corp when Kremin asked Carla why she was an atheist. She said she didn't know, it was just the way God made her. I'm not sure I can take you seriously after this.


    1. How very astute of you.


    2. If your initial comment was lost on him I am sure your reply will be too. But maybe we laugh with him (or her).