I can’t accept dogmatic adherence to narrow party ’singularity’ - where has it got you in terms of representation? what are the implications for understanding the dynamic nature of political debate? I also am in disagreement with the inferred tendency towards using regulation as a means of prohibiting.

All in all it is fine for a faction of liberalism.

Now reading if you let me get back to reading my history again, what did happen…

ARTICLE 2
(1) Members of the Party are to act in the National Interest.

(2) Members of the Party are at all times ordinary citizens. Party members must not seek personal gain or privileges, although the relevant laws and policies provide them with personal benefits and job-related functions and powers.

ARTICLE 3
Party members agree to the following:

(1) To interest themselves in the theories and practices of good government throughout the ages and throughout the world while suspending any cultural, religious, social or political prejudices they may have.

(2) To implement Minimum Government by which is meant the fewest laws and the lowest possible taxes necessary for Justice to subsist.

(3) To use these minimum laws and taxes in service of the greatest good of the greatest number.

(4) To practice personal responsibility while encouraging others to do so.

(5) To strive for the economic, social, cultural and educational advancement of the Nation.

(6) To speak out and address an issue that he perceives to affect the National Interest, even if it goes against the current orthodoxy (whatever that may be).

(7) To rigorously analyse the logic of any argument used or the truth of any statement relied upon.

(8) To act in accordance to with the highest standards of ethical behaviour that is consistent with Truth, Justice, Reason and the National Interest.

(9) To uphold the Party’s solidarity, unity and singularity by resolving disagreements through debate, a thorough investigation of the issues and voting.

(10) To be open to discussion, whether in defending one’s views or questioning another’s.

(11) To maintain close ties with non-member citizens, informing them of Party policy and thinking, consult with them when problems arise, keep the Party regularly informed of their views and demands and defend their legitimate interests.

(12) To approve only laws that are proportionate to the evil to be addressed and in the National Interest, which are necessary to prevent crime, nuisance, damage to property and other ascertainable and provable evils. (For example, smoking in a public house or smoking in a public place is not a “provable evil.” Citizens dying sooner as a result of smoking-related diseases that are self-inflicted is not provably harmful to the Nation.)

(13) To repeal any anti-discrimination “thought crime” legislation in existence that limits the citizen’s freedom of association and contract.

(14) To NOT

(a) use legislation as a means of favouring one group over another, such as apartheid, or

(b) use legislation to prevent citizens from discriminating against any groups, such as legislating against age, sex, race, sexual orientation and disability discrimination.

(15) To urge what is good and forbid what is evil, after due consultation and debate.

(16) To accept the truth of the following propositions in a speech made by Abraham Lincoln in 1865:

“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help them permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

ARTICLE 4
Party members enjoy the following rights:

(1) To attend relevant Party meetings, read relevant Party documents, and benefit from the Party’s education and training.

(2) To participate in the discussion of questions concerning the Party’s policies at Party meetings and in Party newspapers and journals.

(3) To make suggestions and criticisms regarding the work of the Party.

(4) To criticise any Party organization or member at Party meetings, to present information or charges against any Party organization or member concerning violations of discipline or the law to the Party, to demand disciplinary measures against such a member, or call for dismissal or replacement of any incompetent or corrupt member.

(5) To participate in voting and elections and to stand for election.

(6) To attend, with the right of self-defence, discussions held by Party organizations to decide on disciplinary measures to be taken against themselves in the appraisal of work and behaviour; and call on other Party members to bear witness or argue on their behalves.

(7) In case of disagreement with a Party decision or policy, to make reservations and present their views to the Party, provided that they implement the policy while it is in force.

(8) To put forward any request, appeal, or complaint to the Party and be entitled to a substantive response.

(9) No Party member or organization has the right to deprive any Party member of the above-mentioned rights.

ARTICLE 5

Party oath to be sworn by members:

“It is my intention to implement the Party’s programme of Minimum Government and work in the National Interest. I believe that the National Interest is best served by a meritocratic political system where there is no representation without taxation under which citizens practise personal responsibility, self-sufficiency and are educated, open-minded, ethical, versatile and rational in their decisions in the exercise of direct democracy.”

Would any of this appeal to Libertarians?

I agree, minarchism is a debating position that was outmoded and outmanouvered in the middle of the 19th century, before being subsumed into the more mainstream threads of liberalist thinking. As with libertarianism, neither has a claim to first principles and therefore neither can claim to be a general independant area of political philosophy - which is why any party that forms around those ideas is only a sign of a shift of the political barometer, not of anything fundamental or new.

There are many self-proclaimed members of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ who can accurately ascribe to libertarianism and your distaste for certain fellows only highlights the incoherence and artificiality of it as a self-contained system.

I am also concerned about the proprietorialism you exhibit over who discusses the preferred or exact size of the state (I’ve taken the liberty to paraphrase for accuracy) - don’t you think this is something everybody has a stake in and a different perspective on?

Finally I am particlarly concerned that you attempt to concieve of existence and it’s percieved experiences as the product of theory rather than as something real which is lived - maybe you do need to get out more.

Minarchism is far from a dogmatic position, it recognises that some government is desirable but that it is both a waste of resources and something that goes beyond its intended function if it grows too large. The exact size government should be is routinely debated among minarchists with a variety of positions.

I find your “they’re all nutters / murderers / religious fanatics / infantilised idiots” argument not only inaccurate but pathetic. I understand all too well that there is no shining vision of a perfect state that we can reach, that does not mean that it is impossible to recognise areas that can be improved in specific ways. Nor is Libertarianism some bizzare “back to the soil” cult.

As for apparently calling yourself a liberal because you believe the term has no meaning, FFS go and read some philosphy and political theory. Whatever you believe it will help you shape and understand your views.

‘Libertarianism’ is fine for hermit survivalists (loner web geeks?) who’ve been infantilised by exposure to the nannyish state and want to return to the womb before becoming ‘born again’ (evangelical and pentecostal christians etc), or commit ultimate political rebellion (class-confused establishment dynasts a la Tony Benn) or make bold desperate attempts to set the world to rights in one grand act (Michael Ryan, Timothy McVeigh, suicide bombers etc), but the absolutism that lies at the heart of it is ultimately incoherent and threatening.

I understand there is an appeal to escape the dirt and confusion of modern society to become purified and cleansed, but the radicalism of all absolutist positions mirror each other in their abstractions, absurd parallels and rejectionist tendencies, whether libertarian, communitarian, authoritarian or whatever.

Maybe a contract of trust was broken and the disappointment of it causes you headaches, but you’ve got to get over it and understand that perfection isn’t a reality: mourn and move on.

Why tie yourself to imperfect definitions of political philosophy when you can be free?

I call myself a liberal for your benefit because I don’t see that liberalism is a philosophy - it is being. I don’t think I’m always right and you are perfectly entitled to pull me up - I hope you can, because I want to learn. In the meantime I’ve got to go and get my funny-bone tickled.

Getting back to the thread, IMO the pro-establishment bloggers will attempt to be absorbed by the new establishment, while those which are rejected will feel scorned and retreat, or join in with the chorus of dissonant voices to fight back.

Oh what a happy merry-go-round!

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

You reject that idea, you’re not a liberal, left or otherwise.

Libertarianism is focused on the primacy of Liberty, (yes, negative liberty rather than the authoritarianism that calls itself positive liberty).

Quite where you get fundamentalist, reactionary and extremist from I have no idea but I would be interested to understand just how you became so misinformed.

Anyone else care to give a better definition?

*laughs*

Doesn’t libertarianism variously describe different aspects of the profusion of fundamentalist, reactionary and extremist tendencies within liberalist thought?

This is not to deny that Libertarians are not partisan, (we do have our own Party now), but illiberal measures will be greated with the same vitriol, regardless of where they originate.

I am also the Creator and Operator of http://www.1party4all.co.uk - an opinion-polling direct democracy website.

Thanks Ben

It was before your time, LFAT.

‘92 was a high turnout for a damn good reason. ‘97 was less so as it was a foregone conclusion—next GE won’t be a conclusion on that level. Tories haven’t been in a position to win since ‘92. They’ll turnout this time—the London results prove that.

And congratulations are due, Adam. This article is the fourth best thing on the web, if the Guardian is anything to go by: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/index.html

> I suspect that the majority of them would not describe themselves as “left”

Fair enough, it’s an unprovable as far as I can tell. A quick look at Tories’ numbers would suggest, though, that what’s happening isn’t switching one to t’other but disaffection with “our man”.

1997: 9.6m
2001: 8.3m
2005: 8.7m

So, dunno. But, yes, some of those lost Blair voters were probably disaffected Tories. I’d still be surprised of a majority weren’t self-described left, though. Or at least a plurality.

One question that no-one is considering is what will happen to the blogosphere if Brown remains PM.

I’m also not so sure about the fault-line between partisans and independents. I’m pretty partisan, but have been known - horror of horrors! - to think for myself from time to time. I’ve even been quoted on Conservative Home for criticising the Labour party.

Part of the problem is thinking in strict left-right terms. You could say that both Neil Clark and Chris Dillow are very left wing, but they have very little in common. An ascendency for Cameron might affect the part of the blogosphere that supports him - perhaps they’ll be quiet to help ‘their man’, perhaps they’ll demand concessions - but the effects on those that are not particularly happy with any of the offerings from the main parties might not change that much.

xD.

This is exactly my thinking too.