I’m sorry, I do have better things to do than eagerly and constantly refresh this page to see if anyone has replied to something I’ve said. Re: global warming, I’m not going to rise to that bait except to say, at least I go and look for evidence, rather than supping up what anyone wants to feed to me.

Ashok, I don’t think that anarcho-capitalism would work (or not well), which is why I am a minarchist and not an anarchist. I think that one has to have a massive faith in the inherent sensible and decent nature of humans to be an anarchist, and I don’t have that.

DK

Just a question for DK: Under what conditions, do you think, anarcho-capitalism is feasible?

You’ve got to love him.

Consdier how “Policies” are determined.

Consider the effects of those who participate in determining “Policies.”

Consider those ingredients of the “Policies” cake.

Eat bread!

GF is a player in the game, but when he starts to dig away at the rest of our democratic infrastructure he oversteps his mark and is imposing a world-view based on the self-fulfilling prophecies of his own political philosophy and is trying to assume a role bigger than that which he is competent or capable of completing, thereby contradicting any claim of gentlemanly adherence to fair play.

I take it that he’s just conflicted by his jealousy of the reach and influence of the journalistic commentators in the established and accredited MSM, while angst-ridden by his inability to work under an editor with the attendant strictures of professionalism that he’d be forced to comply with.

His fun is a practical outlet for his frustrations (which contributes to the overall mix), but it’d be a different blog with a very different audience if he actually advocated something positive.

GF: one of the best amateurs, but still an amateur.

“From my perspective — in other words, that of a free-market, minarchist libertarian — this is precisely what is wrong with politics: politicians should be able to do so little that they can do no harm with their policies. You, no doubt, would argue that then they could do no “good”. In return, of course, I would argue that they never have.”

Just a question for DK: Under what conditions, do you think, anarcho-capitalism is feasible?

He does it he says because he has a ’suspicious mind’ and because the louder you hear a politician bleat about how normal they are, the closer you should clutch your wallet.

No, Guido doesn’t say that at all. He said [emphasis mine]…

… The louder they claim it is because they “want to make a difference”, the tighter you should grip your wallet.

He is quite correct, because the main way that politicians seem to think that they can make a difference is by spending more money. Since the state — and, by extension, politicians — has no money but what it takes from us in taxes, a politician promising to do good usually means to take more cash from our wallets.

Because its my case that even if politicians are as venal and horrible as Fawkes says, that doesn’t matter so much compared to the harm that they do with their policies.

From my perspective — in other words, that of a free-market, minarchist libertarian — this is precisely what is wrong with politics: politicians should be able to do so little that they can do no harm with their policies. You, no doubt, would argue that then they could do no “good”. In return, of course, I would argue that they never have.

But, of course, I am far closer to Guido’s politics than you are (else you wouldn’t be writing here). Guido has, by the way, replied to you.

DK

The fact that, over at LabourHome, they’re even *debating* whether he should be on their sidebar or not is equally amusing: *of course he shouldn’t*. Just ignore him.

Like many people, I regard GF as a odious prat with a massively exaggerated sense of his own importance/influence and a rather tedious paranoia about the mainstream media.

But please don’t fall into the trap of decrying the scandal sheet. It’s been around since pretty much the dawn of the printing press and is an important part of a fully functioning polity (and, more latterly, democracy).

The analytical stuff is important too, hence the place of pamphleteers (think Paine and Burke) in our discourse. But twe should have both of these forms of scrutiny, rather than be obliged to choose.

I wish you had raised more explicitly the question of why it is we want to believe those we disagree with are corrupt. On the surface, it seems easy - if people are wrong, well, they must be morally wrong!

But that’s not how we conduct ourselves in private life - au contraire, we usually have friends whose values diverge sharply from ours.

There’s something about the public sphere, something about the way ideologies are mass marketed nowadays, that’s giving credibility to Guido’s sort of claim, where anything that goes wrong is criminality, so if you eliminate the criminality, then all is perfect.

If you’d comment more on that, I’d be much obliged.

The new ‘counter-terrorism phrasebook’, with its inane examples of the ‘correct’ language to use when talking to [not 'with', of course] Muslim communities, is typical and would be laughable if the topic weren’t so deadly serious.

What we want, as this post says, is new policies - not yet more NuLab gobbledygook. This sad crowd long ago ran out of useful ideas, but they can’t stop churning out inane drivel.

Their arguments are specious and shallow and lacking REAL veracity. They are opinion. Just like many of our newspapers.

Having said that, since I started blogging (and I have a particular, some might say “peculiar” interest) I have come across some well-researched blogs, though usually from the USA.

And they write better English!

And here we can’t depend on intelligent people to rise above the gutter sniping. For example, I just came across a blog by someone who says he is a Lincoln’s Inn barrister. This is how he finished his “article” after piling abuse on Tony & Cherie Blair (”embarrasssingly a member of my Inn”) :

“Why oh why oh why oh why can’t the useless rag-head pillocks in Al Queda assassinate him? It would be great PR for them: many of us would revise our low opinion of them if they could do us this one small service. Their ineptness is proof that the terrorism ‘threat’ is laughable.”

Is there ANY hope for the British blogger, when this is thought acceptable?

http://www.whatifweallvoted.com

This stuff with Hain was a farce, and at worst showed what we already knew, that people do stuff that perhaps is a conflict of interests because there is a lack of transparancy. Conway’s shame is a little more because of the public money involved but it doesn’t change the fact he wouldn’t have been able to do it in the first place if it wasn’t one big old boys club with rules for themselves and others for the rest of us.

I agree totally with the sentiment of this post, I really, really hope I’ll see the day when the underlying issues are addressed rather than the (un)glitzy celebrityesque angle.

The problem is with political journalism itself too I’d say. Blogs just take that one level further.

The challenge for journalists and others including people on this site is not to find out who is more corrupt but to provide us with accounts of why the conventional wisdom is wrong, what answers it fails to give and how it can be improved.

Well said.

This is a better reference:

http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/01/to_donal_blaney.asp

http://www.bloggerheads.com/

This is, I would hazard, a selective view of our evil masters. When they pass laws you can use against others, use them. When they don’t pass laws that suit you, castigate them. Quite the little libertarian? Not really.