Log in

No account? Create an account
UK Libertarians [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The UK Libertarians

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Liberty under New Labour [May. 23rd, 2007|03:32 pm]
The UK Libertarians
There is what looks to be a rather good documentary out on the 8th June called Taking Liberties (see the Samizdata review of it here).

I am going to be headed to watch it with a few interested friends the opening weekend (*gasp* even some of them being filthy collectivists), any of the London based minarchists fancy joining us for a watch and a pub based natter afterwards? Preicse date, time & location still TBD.
link1 comment|post comment

(no subject) [May. 10th, 2007|07:56 pm]
The UK Libertarians
LOL Libertarianism contradicts itself, bloody organized anarchy.
link1 comment|post comment

David Miliband [Mar. 30th, 2007|08:25 pm]
The UK Libertarians
For those of you who follow the news you will know that David Miliband may end up becoming the next PM in the sted of ol' iron fist Brown. For those of you unfamiliar with him he is Secretary of State for Environment and one of the most responsible for the nasty watermelon environmentalism policies the government has been putting in place of late, although I am not sure a gentleman who got a D on his physics a-level is in a particularly good situation to even understand what is going on let alone speak authoritatively about it like he does.

In an article in New Statesman he has set out his vision for the future. I can't say I am particularly enthused about his vision, much of it is the New Labour BS we have come to know and loathe but with much more emphasis placed on "community", "integration" and "social responsibility" then I have seen come out of anyone from the Labour camp in a very long time. This is also the man who thinks we should eliminate anonymous paper money and instead have carbon cards so that our carbon usage can be centrally rationed.


I very much enjoy it when an article like this reminds me why I am leaving this nasty collectivist parasite of a country :-)
link1 comment|post comment

Hunting Endangered Species [Jun. 23rd, 2006|08:24 pm]
The UK Libertarians
What is the premise for banning the hunting of any animal? What philosophies and what ideas underpin this notion?
Fundamentally it comes down to if you believe individual animals or entire species have a right to exist.
Many profess that there is a great difference between believing that an entire species has a moral right to exist and the belief that every individual animal has the right to life. In other words it is the difference between thinking it wrong to kill a single animal and thinking it wrong to wipe out an entire species.
True enough there is a difference that seems vast to people on either side, however both are based upon applying rights where there are none.
No species has a right to exist, not even mankind. Existence is a state of being and has to be earned everyday and every moment, it is facilitated by evolution.
Animals learn to adapt their environment or die; mankind is special in that we adapt the environment to us.
Over 99% of species that have ever existed have become extinct. Why should the lion, tiger or whale be any different?
The argument has been made that extinction by the means of nature (“natural predator” or “natural disease”) is intrinsically good but unnatural causes (manmade) is wrong. You’ll often hear claims that we are “disrupting the natural order”.
But by what rational and for what reasons is mankind not natural?
We are the outcome of natural selective evolution; we are nature’s grandest achievement.
Animals can and have been forced into extinction by direct cause of natural forces.
Humanity is the greatest natural force. Humans have and can cause extinctions.

If animals have rights similar to our own then us killing them is wrong, but why do we have rights and can they be applied to animals?

The basis of our rights is that we can decide things for ourselves. We can choose to live or die. We can create things that were never possible before from the efforts of our minds independent of our biological constraints in pursuit of happiness. We can act against our biological imperatives and make choices, as such our choices over ourselves and our property are to be respected and deemed moral. With our rights comes the duty to respect and protect those rights in others, anything else would be immoral.
Animals are unable to choose death or subsequently life. They are ruled by base biological impulses. They are neither capable of resisting those impulses nor of even understanding they exist. They have no choice ergo they have no right to make decisions over their own bodies or the things they produce for their survival.
Animals have no rights.

I will not debate the mindset of those who seek to hunt animals for pleasure. Happiness is the goal of human life and each person has the right to pursue that goal, so long as it does not take away the rights of any other person.

So, what harm could there be in legislating to protect animals and ensure their survival Why not make laws protecting them? Many gain happiness from the animals being alive.

The laws protecting animals, like all laws, would rely on violence. Violence against other people in the pursuit of happiness for yourself violates human rights and is an immoral act, as no species has a right to exist nor do animals have any individual rights the only reason to protect them is for personal pleasure.
The laws set up a bizarre reversal in the relationship between animals and man where rights are being taken away from people and ascribed to animals.
The whole process is irrational and immoral.
The cause of the problem and the solution is ownership. The animals and the lands they inhabit are in the public domain, managed by the state or intergovernmental bodies. As such no one person or group has responsibility for the animals or the land nor do they have any personal attachment. This lack of financial responsibility has produced poor if not non-existent management.
People will over hunt because they have no cause to fear financial hardship if all the animals die off. If they had to buy the land and/or the animals the burden of cost would be placed upon the hunters. The animals being the main draw for customers or resource would be an investment upon which they could earn money. They would have to protect their investment in order to earn back the initial cost of the land, and then earn back the costs of maintaining and protecting their investments. The environment would also be preserved and maintained as not only is it a draw for customers but a vital part in keeping their animals alive. Health and population maintenance of the animals would also be crucial if the owners wouldn’t want to make a massive loss.
After the owners have earned back the initial and upkeep costs the land and animals start producing profit and provide greater reason to be maintained.

If however an owner would have no intention of ever hunting the animals it could be maintained as a preserve. Force would even be acceptable in defending the animals from attack; defending your property is a moral right.

The problem of over hunted animals was caused by overactive governments, the solution won’t be found in asking the government to do more.
linkpost comment

Howdy [Sep. 29th, 2005|11:56 am]
The UK Libertarians
Just joined so making the obligatory hello post.
link8 comments|post comment

Good Books [Jul. 16th, 2005|07:15 pm]
The UK Libertarians
[music |St.Stephan - Searfin]

Hello everyone (as I write this I think that is directed at all three other members).

I’ll be trying to promote this community a little bit more from now on.

However for now I thought I’d recommend a few books you might find useful in understanding the practicality of Libertarian philosophy and/or hearing a more libertarian friendly stance on issues which are usually only presented as one sided by the media (such as Global Warming, Globalisation and Global Resources).

“Open World: The Truth About Globalisation” – Philippe Legrain
An interesting book that lists the benefits of Globalisation and Free trade, which seems to be written from the point of view of a social democrat. The author defends government intervention, but generally his advocacy of globalisation is genuinely useful for any political creed. This book is essential if you want to read a well thought out rebuke of Naomi Klein’s “No Logo” book.
ISBN 0-349-11529-X

“The Skepitcal Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World” – Bjorn Lomborg
The Author being a former member of Greenpeace gives an interesting account on the environment as he claims it is. It’s excellent if you’re interested in the environment but want to hear and honest account free from the doomsayers that are everywhere, an opinion that relies on science not “common sense”. The media and most environmentalists have been proclaiming that “the sky is falling” for at least 30 years, this book explains how things are actually getting better but endeavours to point out what needs to be improved on and what changes must be made. The book is also harshly critical of certain environmental groups and the appalling errors they have made in the past.
ISBN 0-521-01068-3

“The Ultimate Resource 2” – Julian L. Simon
This is by far the best defence against the doomsayers and zealous environmentalists who proclaim the world to be heading forward into a cataclysm for many reasons.
Simon argues simply that overpopulation is a myth, and that there can never be enough people in this world, that we will never run out of the most valuable resource which actually increases as the population does – the Human Mind.
He attempts to prove using science, statistics and forecasts that as population has grown so too has mankind’s prosperity and that over time resources have not only become cheaper but more readily available too. He explains how he started his research into overpopulation and its effect on the economy, environment and natural resources believing the common opinion that the world was becoming dangerously overpopulated and that something needed to be done about it. He then explains how he eventually came to the exact opposite opinion because of his findings and then makes his case on his research that the world has been and is in a state of constant improvement and that barring any unforeseen circumstances this trend will continue.
The argument extends to the environment and global warming. Even if you are confident in your stance on the environment and overpopulation I recommend this book. It’s certainly an alternate opinion to that of the one you’ll hear on TV, read in the newspapers or be told during education.
ISBN 0-691-00381-5
link3 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Jun. 25th, 2005|12:19 pm]
The UK Libertarians
[mood |annoyedannoyed]

Further Labour crackdowns on personal freedom in the news today:

Psilocybe mushrooms are to become Class A substances

As an advocate of legalising all behaviours which are of concern only to the individual (in that they have no/negligable effect on others), I find increasing the classification of drugs, especially one of this sort which is relatively safe, abhorrent.

What will this law achieve? Well;

- It certainly wont stop people taking mushrooms.
- It will criminalise some of the UK's native fungi.
- It will likely result in more people going picking rather than using grow kits or buying from head shops, resulting in more cases of (potentially lethal) poisoning by people picking the wrong species of mushroom.
- It will put more money in drug dealer's pockets.
- It could increase other forms of (potentially more dangerous?) drug taking.
- It puts a non-addictive, relatively low impact substance in the same league as heroin and crack cocaine.
- It will increase the number of "criminals" in Britain, and add to the prison problem.

I don't use mushrooms, but I'd like to think that if I made that choice it would not make me a criminal, after all, I woudln't be hurting anyone, would I?
link6 comments|post comment

A post to get this started. [Jun. 19th, 2005|11:13 pm]
The UK Libertarians
Whilst looking up some photo or another to represent this community, (which I’ll keep looking until I find a better one) I searched the phrases “freedom” and “Liberty”.
A large amount of the photos I found were military related. This disturbs me slightly as the image of guns held by masked armoured men engaging in war does not appear to me to be synonymous with Liberty or Freedom.
This isn’t to say I don’t understand they are often used as tools to create greater Liberty in a corrupt state, but generally I view it as a tool to oppress liberty. Armed forces are all about control and force, not tolerance and reason.
What do you think? Is it a proper tool for Liberalism? Is it right to hold our armed forces up as a symbol for liberty and freedom?
link5 comments|post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]