United Kingdom

The British Youth Are Classical Liberals

|

Credit: London Stereoscopic Company/wikimedia

A recent article from The Economist highlights the fact that the British youth are classical liberals, being more socially tolerant and less likely to support increased welfare spending than their elders. Not only are young Britons more liberal than their elders, they are also more liberal and entrepreneurial than their peers in Europe.

From The Economist:

Young Britons' broad liberalism, their suspicion of state interventions of most varieties, not only contrasts with the views of their elders. It also makes them unusual internationally. Britons between 15 and 35 are more relaxed about the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis than are young people in the EU as a whole. Another Eurobarometer study conducted in 2011 showed that Britons in that age group were more likely to have set up their own business than their counterparts in any other large European country.

Unfortunately for young Britons the current political system offers no party that is sympathetic to social liberalism and a smaller state. The Labour Party is led by a self described socialist and the Liberal Democrats, the product of a marriage between the Liberal Party (a party that was actually sympathetic to classical liberalism) and the Social Democratic Party, remains committed to the European Union, "fairness," and investments in green energy.

The Conservative Party remains divided on social issues and is hardly sympathetic to a limited government when it comes to economics, despite their rhetoric. Some British libertarians have been misguidedly attracted to the eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). I have written before about how UKIP are not a libertarian party. The then-chairman of UKIP's youth wing responded to my criticisms of UKIP. This was before he was kicked out of the party for supporting gay marriage and his opinions on drugs.

Although politics offers few options for British classical liberals the Economist article highlights the fact that some young Britons of the classical liberal persuasion seem keen on the fan of "ruled based anarchy" and current mayor of London, which could make what happens within the Conservative Party in the next few years very interesting and certainly worth keeping an eye on.

Advertisement

NEXT: Former Pot Smoker Mayor Bloomberg Calls Medical Marijuana a "Hoax," Opposes Recreational Legalization

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. UKIP is probably the best of the bunch, but they do have the benefit of never having to rule (yet).

    1. Well their immigration stance falls short of open borders, so obviously they don’t meet the libertarian purity test.

  2. In other news, UK voters would also like their guns back

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..guns-back/

    Who knew the Brits were such gun toting red necks. It is almost as if gun control causes harm or something.

    1. I wonder how many non-Brits (read: Americans) voted in that, though. I’m guessing like 84.53% of respondents.

  3. I’ll just leave this here.

    Boris Johnson says his ideal form of government would be something like “rules-based anarchy.” But the libertarian-leaning mayor of London concedes that wouldn’t work, because as much as he hates to admit it, people actually need strong government. Which is one of the reasons Johnson admires New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

    1. An ideal government would be no government, that is once we have transformed the proles into beings that are worthy of such at thing.

      Why do fuck heads like Johnson get called “libertarian leaning”?

      1. Because straw men are easy to tear down.

        1. Like “Lincoln freed the slaves, man”.

          In my view, the genocide of native peoples is the biggest stain on American history. Then slavery, which, of course, includes the way the slavery question was resolved. Then empire and its attendant bankruptcy and mass murder.

          1. How do you feel about the genocide the tribes practiced on one another?

            1. Probably as bad as the genocide on them from Europeans.

              One does not excuse the other.

              You are really fucking stupid, arent you?

              1. But the fact that the native Americans would have gladly done the same thing to the Europeans and in fact did the few times they had the power to do so, does put a bit of context on it.

                Liberty Mike is all about context and nuance when it comes to slavery. But when it comes to this subject it is about the evil white man killing all of the Red men. Context and nuance only seem to matter when excusing white slave holders for some reason.

                1. What John said, sort of.

                2. But the fact that the native Americans would have gladly done the same thing to the Europeans

                  The only reason they didn’t give it a try is because they lacked boats to get over there, steel, guns, horses, and other more advanced weapons of warfare that the Europeans had.

                  Both the Aztecs and the Incas were massacring and enslaving their own countrymen just as much as any other empire building nations throughout the world.

                  This fantasy that the mean ol ‘white’ Europeans came over here and just beat up on the innocent and peaceful natives, is just that, fantasy.

                  1. While true, that’s only really a relevant point if someone was arguing that white Europeans were/are uniquely evil. I don’t see how that makes the actions of Europeans towards the natives any less immoral. Just because Stalin was a massmurdering maniac doesn’t mean Hitler’s actions against the USSR were any more justified or less immoral.

                3. John, slavery was all about the evil white man holding the black man in bondage. It was horrible and ghastly and reprehensible. Period.

                  You do see that I listed slavery as the second worst stain.

                  Thus, your post, is not about context and nuance.

              2. I have suspected for a couple of days now, that Kay is Mary, back on her meds.

                1. It was obvious from the first post I saw. And she’s already being deleted.

                2. It was obvious from the first post I saw. And she’s already being deleted.

              3. Aw, Robc haz a sad.

            2. However you feel, it doesn’t justify more genocide. And the tribes that stopped that sort of thing got fucked over anyway. I agree with LM’s assessment on that issue, anyway.

              1. I agree with LM’s assessment on that issue, anyway.

                I disagree. Slavery was much worse. The Indians always had the option of quitting the tribal life and joining the rest of society. Indeed, millions of them did. The war as not against Indians but against Indian nations. Blacks in contrast were never given such an option. They were enslaved from birth and all of their children were enslaved.

                1. Not to mention the often covered-up fact that Indians had no qualms about slavery. They practiced it upon other tribes, as well as captured white folk.

                  DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT CONDONE SLAVERY.

                2. I disagree. Slavery was much worse.
                  I’m not terribly concerned about ranking the horrible things that people have done. It’s all horrible.

                  The Indians always had the option of quitting the tribal life and joining the rest of society. Indeed, millions of them did.

                  And lots of them got totally fucked over and had their land stolen and their lives destroyed anyway.

                  1. Some did Zeb. But lots didn’t. And lots of white people got fucked over. Life was very hard back then.

                  2. Define ‘their’ land. Remeber, tribal nations are illegitimate.

              2. However you feel, it doesn’t justify more genocide.

                Who says it does?

              3. True, they did, but the Native Americans, by and large, were not exactly innocent bystanders either. Some of them did some pretty atrocious things to peaceful settlers as well.

                Not that genocide is ever justified, but it’s not as one sided as some would have you believe.

                1. Sure, it is.

                  Do you think that the number of Indians who killed, murdered and raped other Indians was even in the same ballpark as the number of who were Indians killed, murdered and raped by white folks between 1620 and 1890?

                  How about from 1776 to 1890?

                  How about from 1850-1890?

                  1. Do you think that the number of Indians who killed, murdered and raped other Indians was even in the same ballpark as the number of who were Indians killed, murdered and raped by white folks between 1620 and 1890?

                    How about from 1776 to 1890?

                    How about from 1850-1890?

                    Yes to all of the above.

                    1. Better watch it, Cyto, or else Dee Brown will Bury Your Heart at Wounded Knee where the spirit of Russell Means will force you to watch him rape Ayn Rand.

            3. Libertarians have matured past “how do you feel” and instead ask and answer questions like “what do you think.”

              1. My comment about feelings was a direct response to a post that is now gone.

                1. Or are you responding to the same disappeared comment?

                  Damn confusing threaded comment system.

                2. My comment about feelings was a direct response to a post that is now gone.

                  I know. Seems Kay Pasta disappeared down the memory hole.

                  1. I know. Seems Kay Pasta disappeared down the memory hole.

                    I don’t know why. He didn’t say anything that bad.

                    Did they figure out that it was one of our historic trolls that had already been banned?

                  2. I suspected Mary from the get-go, but then not sure.

                    Who has the authority to disappear people now? Seemed a little soon for Kay, to me, unless there was additional proof I’m unaware of.

                    I’d hate for H&R to get the reputation of thwarting speech we don’t happen to agree with.

                    1. I’d hate for H&R to get the reputation of thwarting speech we don’t happen to agree with.

                      Kay wasn’t making any arguments to agree or disagree with. All it had was personal attacks.

                    2. Mary used to do a character we called anono-pussy. It’d finger wag at the commenters and Reason exactly like Kay and had a slightly tulparian perspective.

                    3. Yeah, but let’s not pull the trigger too early based upon a guess.

                      Better that 100 Mary comments go free than to flush one legitimate commenter down the memory hole.

                    4. Unless they are particularly abusive or offensive, I wish they’d just leave the comments and delete the account. Or at least delete the responses to the comments too. Removing the context makes a lot of the responses look a lot stupider than they are.

                    5. I think we should lean harder on those who insist upon the free exchange of ideas for failing to live up to that which they proclaim to be and less reflexively supportive of the proposition that “its their board, they can do what they want.”

                    6. I’m thinking that they have evidence that it’s the same person. She may try going to different places to post things and try from old IPs that they have on record. It’d be easy to set up a system that would alert the tech guy that she’s posting from a known IP.

                    7. How many people have fixed IP addresses?
                      Most internet providers have a pool from which customers get an available address whenever they connect. If you’re hosting something then you likely have a fixed IP, but that’s not the norm.

                    8. I think that your next IP isn’t randomly generated for a lot of people. They’d just ban 696.69.69* which could theoretically capture an innocent person.

                      I know very little about this and would appreciate any insight that more knowledgeable Reasoners could provide.

                    9. I know very little about this and would appreciate any insight that more knowledgeable Reasoners could provide.

                      Internet providers have ranges of IP addresses. Generally fewer addresses than customers, since not everyone is online at one time. When you log on you are given an unused IP which is released back into the pool for someone else to use when you log out.
                      So about the best a good IT guy could get from an IP address is the service provider. Like Time Warner Cable of New England for example.
                      Now if you host a website or your own email server, you need a fixed IP so others can initiate contact with you. When you’re just surfing you don’t need an fixed IP since you the one doing the initiating.
                      That’s about the best summary of my Networking class that I can do for you off the top of my head. If you want to know more there is this nifty tool called google…

                    10. I get the impression that FiOS and other fiber networks give you essentially static IPs, they’re technically dynamic and could change, but are very unlikely to.

                    11. I didn’t think of that, but I suppose if you’ve got a bundled package and keep the cable box on all the time, you would keep the same IP. Interesting.

                    12. Thanks for the reply. I didn’t know why they changed people’s IP addresses.

                      Using google for finding out networking/coding stuff has always been tough for me. I either find the really easy stuff or the really advanced stuff.

                    13. I either find the really easy stuff or the really advanced stuff.

                      Maybe you’ve discovered a new market! You could call it For Dummies or something clever like that!

                      Seriously though, I know what you mean. I’m trying to learn myself about database connection pooling and I’m not having an easy time for reasons you just mentioned.

          2. In my view, the genocide of native peoples is the biggest stain on American history.

            To be fair, a large portion of that genocide was the result of plagues that the Europeans had no idea they were visiting upon the native people.

            That’s not to excuse any war crimes or the murder of civilians, both of which undoubtedly occurred, but I don’t think you can argue that it was purposeful genocide.

            1. What Irish said.

            2. There were 2 intentions, by two different groups. One group just wanted their gold. The other wanted to ‘save their souls’.

              Later on would come the more peaceful ones, that just wanted their land.

              But you are right in a sense, the Europeans certainly did not genocide the native Americans any more than the native Americans were already genociding each other, if it hadn’t been for smallpox and other germs that the natives had no defense for.

              1. Thus, it would appear that you think that the number of Indians killed, raped and murdered by other Indians was approximately the same as the number of Indians that whites killed, raped and murdered between 1620-1890?

                1. How many whites were killed, raped and murdered by indians? Who started it? Who was the aggressor?

                  Impossible to tell. It was a clash of cultures, completely at odds with one another. Evil was done on both sides.

              2. It is also very interesting to consider how differently natives were treated by Catholic and Protestand colonizers. Especially when it comes to interbreeding.

                1. But, there is no empirical support for the notion that the number of Indians killed, murdered and raped by other Indians equals the number of Indians who were killed, murdered and raped by whites between 1850-1890 or between 1776 and 1890.

                  The argument that Indians were just as bad as whites is a classic false equivalency. It is just non-sense unsupported by the facts.

                  1. The more one analyzes the proposition that native americans were equally reprehensible as white folks regarding such matters as conquest, contracts breached, duplicitous intentions and motives, forcible relocation, mass murder, rape and theft, the more one realizes that those who argue as such need to see the medicine man.

                    How about mass hanging? Lincoln, no stranger to mass murder, gave the okay for the mass hanging of Little Crow and the Santee Sioux of Minnesota.

                    How about the forcible relocation issue? Remember, the long marches were not limited to the Cherokee.

                    How about the treaty of 1851, signed at Laramie? It was not the red man who broke the treaty.

                    How about the treaty of 1868? Again, it was not the red man who broke this treaty.

                    How about the incarceration of the Indians on reservations?

                  2. But, there is no empirical support for the notion that the number of Indians killed, murdered and raped by other Indians equals the number of Indians who were killed, murdered and raped by whites between 1850-1890 or between 1776 and 1890.

                    What does that have to do with anything? I never claimed Indians weren’t killed, murdered and raped by whites.

                    My point is that both sides were transgressed upon by the other. They went to war over those transgressions. The whites won.

                    Are you claiming that the whites were at fault because they won? Are you claiming that when attacked you do not have the right to defend yourself.

                    I’m quite certain that both sides felt they were morally in the right at the time, based upon the aggressive actions of the other. So it all boils down to who started it. Who can tell? I’m sure it was a slow escalation with no clear instigator.

                    Now, of course, I’d argue that the whites went too far in many instances, and most definitely made the mistake of grouping ALL indians together (much as folks want to do with Muslim extremists today).

                    So, my point is, that it wasn’t JUST whitey who was responsible for the American Indian wars. There is plenty of responsibility on both sides.

                    1. Your position is one of false equivalency.

                    2. I dunno about that. If the Chinese landed ships full of people and started actively displacing Americans while remaining loyal to China, we would start panicking, if there were fights, and China steamrolled American settlements, we wouldn’t justify the Chinese incursion because Americans were asking for it by picking fights with an invading force.

                      Just for funsies.

                    3. Americans were asking for it by picking fights with an invading force.

                      Point taken.

                      Indians didn’t “own” land as the Europeans understood it, and I’m sure from their (the whites) perspective they weren’t stealing it. SO here you are, a homesteader, who believes he’s doing nothing wrong, minding his own business, comes in from the field to find his wife and family butchered and raped in the front yard. Such a person may develop an irrational enmity for those who committed such a transgression. No?

                      The noble savage could have just come and ask the homesteader to get off the land, but that’s not how Indians do things. The homesteader doesn’t understand the Indian ways and his Christian upbringing leads him to assume the Indian (all Indians) are evil… Big medicine paleface leaders in Washington believe evil must be eradicated from the face of the earth, because, God. So the Army comes to the aid of the settlers…

                      As I said up-thread. Clash of cultures. What happened, while not right in my book, was probably inevitable given the circumstances.

                    4. The politics of the time lead me to disagree with you. Part of Colonial dissent with the British was that the British had put a limit on westward expansion in order to not provoke Native Americans.

                      On first encounter there was certainly a clash of cultures problem, but we’re talking about 1607 (founding of Jamestown) to say the mid-1800s (Indian Removal Act [1830] and eradication of buffalo [1870s]), so I don’t think your average white settler was unaware of what was at play by the late 1700s/early 1800s.

                    5. The noble savage could have just come and ask the homesteader to get off the land, but that’s not how Indians do things.

                      Or to take things a step further from my earlier analogy. The Chinese believe individual property ownership is barbaric, they claim the fertile plains of wherever they’ve landed for the PRC. You may now either assimilate or leave. Would you ask them politely to leave?

                    6. Contrary to LM’s bullshitting, there is lots of good reason to believe the Indians were no better to each other than whitey was to them.

                    7. What is the bullshit?

                      Was there no massacre at Sand Creek on November 30, 1864?

                      Was there no massacre at the Washita in 1868?

                      Were not the Santee Sioux held in a concentration camp and forcibly removed from Minnesota after 303 were tried for murder and rape, without the benefit of counsel and without translators and with trials lasting as little as 5 minutes?

                      Were not 38 Santee Sioux hung on December 26, 1862 after their executions had been approved by your boy, dishonest Abe?

      2. Because, although they do everything the statists do, they feel bad about it.

      3. It’s where he fits within the British political spectrum. Kind of like how Trotsky was a libertarian next to Stalin.

        1. Leo Trotsky, famous Libertarian leaning Communist. I like that Kay.

        2. Just about anybody is libertarian when standing next to Stalin.

      4. Why do fuck heads like Johnson get called “libertarian leaning”?

        I like Boris for reasons having nothing to do with his politics or record as mayor. Still, I’m sure that anything other than Red Ken is an improvement.

        They probably meant that he was livertarian-leaning, from his drinking habits.

        1. They probably meant that he was livertarian-leaning, from his drinking habits.

          Then I must be a Bourbon.

          1. I’m a Gineral, with Tequilatarian leanings.

    2. the libertarian-leaning mayor of London

      And

      one of the reasons Johnson admires New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

      ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER.

      1. Yeah, I know. Still Boris does show some libertarian leanings and he’s not a sleazeball like Bloomberg.

      2. It’s almost as if words don’t have definitions in Britain.

      3. It’s also important to note that libertarian-leaning still falls into the not-libertarian category.

  4. 15 years of ASBOs is enough to change the perspective of a generation.

    1. I just found out what an ASBO is and my head damn near exploded. It really is 1984. I had no idea it was that bad in the UK.

      1. Things that qualify for an ASBO

        being rude to members of the public
        abandoning cars
        arson
        begging
        defecating/urinating in public
        drug dealing/consumption of controlled recreational drugs
        dogging (theatrical public sex)
        drunken behaviour
        fare evasion
        intimidation
        littering/fly tipping/dog fouling
        loitering
        noise pollution
        racism
        spitting

        stealing/mugging/shoplifting
        urban exploration WTF?
        vandalism/criminal damage

        1. Urban exploration.

          Intimidation could be legitimate, although I share your skepticism.

        2. urban exploration

          Urbex is big in Europe (and Japan), but often involves a lot of trespassing. The photographs are often awesome.

          1. I thought I was the only one.

    2. Sucks to your ass bow.

      1. +1 conch

  5. Unfortunately for young Britons the current political system offers no party that is sympathetic to social liberalism and a smaller state.

    Thanks the stars we don’t have that problem here in the States.

  6. Rule-based anarchy, huh? Is that like freedom-based fascism?

    1. It’s the only way they can get it to work.
      Kind of like registration at Hit & Run.

    2. Anarchy is not an absence of rules. It comes from “no archon” as in “no central authority to enforce the rules.”
      There are many rules of society that people follow that are not legislated, but strangely people follow them anyway.

      1. Unless they don’t.

    3. Well then you’re not gonna like the more popular term: ordered anarchy.

      1. Emergent order.

  7. I believe it was the sight of that old fool Gladstone, standing in the pouring rain holding his special constable’s truncheon as though it were a bunch of lilies, and looking even more like an unemployed undertaker’s mute than usual, that made me think seriously about going into politics. God knows I’m no Tory, and I never set eyes on a Whig yet without feeling the need of a bath, but I remember thinking as I looked at Gladstone that day: “Well, if _that’s_ one of the bright particular stars of English public life, Flashy my boy, you ought to be at Westminster yourself.”

    -Flash for Freedom

  8. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..cusations/

    This FBI thing is really weird and fucked up. The guy lunges at you and you just shoot him? That doesn’t pass the smell test.

    1. STOP RESISTING!!!

      1. I love how the story says he was “killed in a stand off with police” in the first paragraph like he was holed up with a rifle or something only to reveal several paragraphs down that he was in fact in a room with two cops writing a statement. It is downright freighting how the media propagandizes for the cops.

        1. First he had a knife. Then he didn’t. First four shots were fired. Now it turns out there’s seven holes in him, one in the back of the head.

          Whatever. It’s not like anything else will happen.

          1. Don’t be ridiculous. The FBI is taking very seriously the allegations that the FBI executed one of the FBI’s prisoners. Once Eric Holder gets done investigating the high ranking DOJ official who approved spying on a Fox reporter, I’m sure he’ll make sure the FBI gets those bastards in the FBI.

          2. Look, the agent’s gun suddenly discharged! You can’t possibly hold him accountable for something in the passive voice.

          3. It is just me, but whenever someone attacks me and I have to shoot them, it is a pretty big event in my life. It is not something I forget easily. So, I generally get the big details of such events correct. Funny that.

            1. Generally? Like, this has happened often enough you feel you can reasonable make generalizations about it?

              I think generally decent people, in such a case, might remember things in a light that lets them go on believing they are basically decent people. Evil people, well, they’ll just lie in the belief that they won’t be punished, and they’ll be right.

              1. I forgot the sarc tags. And the point is that basic facts like how many times the guy was shot, if he had a knife and such are going to be known from the moment it happened. So the fact that these things have changed is a pretty good indication they are lying about what happened.

                1. So the fact that these things have changed is a pretty good indication they are lying about what happened.

                  Doesn’t matter. The guy was a terrorist. He had knifed three people to death. This heroic FBI agent just saved us a ton of money now that we don’t have to take the kid to trial and incarcerate him. More law enforcement should be like him.

                  /average conservatard

          4. You have to wonder if they were interrogating him in “extraordinary” ways, say, threatening to shoot him in the head, and fucked up. How does a guy in a room get a hole in the back of his head? I suppose that he could have been turning away while being shot from the front but you’d think a competent medical examiner could determine that.

            This is why all police/FBI/etc. interrogations should be videotaped.

  9. Then why do they set fire to half of London over every 0.5% hike in tuition rates?

    1. That’s Paris. London hasn’t burned since the Blitz.

  10. There’s more to being classical liberal that sitting in a quadrant of a very broad two-axis political attitude test.

    1. Yeah, well, that’s the trouble with both the bloggers and the commenters. When it suits them to find libertarianism in the masses, they’ll define it broadly. When they want to find fault with any particular person, they’ll define it narrowly. I’m not sure whether everyone’s a radical libertarian or noone is — or both.

      1. Oh, and of course they tend to find that fault in every individual that comes to their att’n. It’s still as it was in It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand.

  11. Classical liberalism was supposed to emerge here in the states too but the two-party system keeps choking it to death in elections.

    1. Fuck. I agree with shriek. Somebody hold me, I feel faint.

      1. You don’t agree with him. He is a sock puppet posting bullshit to boaster the other bullshit he posts. Even if you agree with it, he didn’t post it to be serious.

    2. Shut up you fascist little freak. No one cares what you think.

      1. Ahhh. That’s better,

      2. You’re the fucking fascist, you right-wing Cro-Magnon. You think you can stifle my dissent here by blathering like a loon but I am about to dig in like a motherfucker.

        Every goddamn post. Watch it.

        1. You are not here to dissent. You are here to fuck up every thread and troll and ensure that no one on the other side ever gets their message out. In a different age you would be throwing bricks through Jewish shop windows or shooting kulaks for the crime of hoarding food.

          You are a nasty fascist brown shirt. And everyone on here knows it. Shut up and stop pretending we are stupid.

          1. You’re a fucking Republican and the one that doesn’t belong here, you stupid dipshit.

            I have posted here six years which is far longer than you have. You would have been here defending Bush if you had any balls or consistency.

            When/if the GOP ever embraces small government they might be worth a shit. Until then I will remain a classic liberal (something you could never claim).

            1. I always love it when the resident lefty trolls pull the “I have been here longer” card. As if coming on here to troll the board and prevent rational discussion is some kind of honor.

              And for the record I have been on here over 10 years. Everyone on here hates you shreek. but you are on here to fuck up the threads and distract people. So I guess you have met your mission.

              1. You’re liar on top of being a Republican. Well, redundant but true.

                1. Shriek STFU

  12. which could make what happens within the Conservative Party in the next few years very interesting and certainly worth keeping an eye on.

    Here’s my prediction: it’s not worth keeping an eye on, and it won’t be interesting.

    1. Conservatives don’t change in the face of evidence. That is what makes them conservatives.

      Witness the Middle East and Islam if you want to see conservatism from a disinterested POV.

      1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuGtxt84wPQ

        BUSHPIG!! CHRISTFAG!!!

        Looks like someone forgot to take their lithium this morning.

          1. Needs more christfag shreek.

          2. Yeah, John is the loon….

            Fuck off shitbag!

            1. Fuck you, you GOP jackoff.

              1. derp

      2. Conservatives don’t change in the face of evidence. That is what makes them conservatives.

        You’re correct, but committing the sin of omission. Politicians don’t change in the face of evidence. That’s what makes them politicians. They only change with the electoral wind.

  13. I met two young Brits last year. They said they couldn’t imagine a system without government-provided healthcare (even though they both had personal stories about some pretty big fuck-ups it made).

    1. You can’t have freedom without massive subsidies forcibly extracted from your countrymen. The science is settled.

    2. Most people hate the IRS but can’t imagine a system without it. How would we pay for ROADZ!?!?!?

    3. Gov’t-provided or at least gov’t-guaranteed health care is inevitable everywhere that’s civilized and democratic, and just about anywhere that’s not. The reason is that people see the lack of such a guarantee as so awful that they’re willing to sacrifice a lot of their own and everyone else’s prosperity and/or liberty to give a semblance of it.

  14. Finally! Someone made a map with the TRUE names of places in the US. It shows America the way it was before the Holocaust.

    http://unsettlingamerica.wordp…..locations/

    1. It actually looks pretty cool from a historical perspective. I wonder how accurate it is?

      1. Oh I’d totally buy it, and put it on my wall. I just hate how they feel the need to sell it with such victimization rhetoric.

        Yes, the Native Americans of the 19th Century (and before) were the victims of conquest. I’m pretty sure the biggest mistake they made though was thinking that the reservation system was a comprimise worth taking. They would have been better off by assimilating (though perhaps that can’t be said of their culture).

    2. Isn’t “decolonizing” just another word for genocide? What do they plan to do with the 300 million people who will have to leave?

      1. I’m still waiting for the Normans to decolonize Briton.

        1. I’m still waiting for the Celts to de-colonize Britain. While we’re at it, all the damn modern humans should give it back to the Neanderthals.

      2. It’s just a fantasy.

        The whole history of the world is about people colonizing and killing each other.

        This is why people need to stop caring about who their ancestors were. I don’t mean ignore it if you are interested in that sort of thing. I’m interested in genealogy and that. But I don’t think it makes any difference to my place in the world that I am English, Ukrainian and Norwegian. So much violence and suffering in the world is caused by people thinking that that stuff matters and that it matters whose ancestors oppressed who.

        1. Exactly Zeb. The world is such that everyone has blood on their hands somewhere or they wouldn’t be here.

          1. “Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country, takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him. Man has done this in all the ages. There is not an acre of ground on the globe that is in possession of its rightful owner, or that has not been taken away from owner after owner, cycle after cycle, by force and bloodshed.”

            1. Agree with all but this:

              Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country, takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him.

              Many, many animals (and plants for that matter) do the same. Sounds a little too people hatery.

              It is simply life.

            2. However wrote that obviously was utterly ignorant of all other species of animals that populate the Earth.

              Guess how predators transfer ownership of territory in the wild… it ain’t by peaceful means.

              1. Mark Twain knew what he was talking about.

                Man (when he is a North American Indian) gouges out his prisoners eyes; when he is King John, with a nephew to render untroublesome, he uses a red-hot iron; when he is a reli?gious zealot dealing with heretics in the Middle Ages, he skins his captive alive and scatters salt on his back; in the first Richards time he shuts up a multitude of Jew families in a tower and sets fire to it; in Columbuss time he captures a family of Spanish Jews and (but that is not printable; in our day in England a man is fined ten shillings for beating his mother nearly to death with a chair, and another man is fined forty shillings for having four pheasant eggs in his possession without being able to satisfacto?rily explain how he got them). Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals. The cat plays with the frightened mouse; but she has this excuse, that she does not know that the mouse is suffering. The cat is moderate (unhumanly moderate: she only scares the mouse, she does not hurt it; she doesnt dig out its eyes, or tear off its skin, or drive splinters under its nails) man-fashion; when she is done playing with it she makes a sudden meal of it and puts it out of its trouble. Man is the Cruel Animal. He is alone in that distinction.

                1. Not true Twain. Orcas are observed to play with their prey. They’re basically the psychos of the sea.

              2. But, but, anarcho-primitivism. Property is a fibbertarian construct. One11wunANGRY CTRL+V

        2. This is why people need to stop caring about who their ancestors were.

          For sure.

          I don’t remember who, but someone was on the civil war thread being all butthurt about shit the union soldiers did to their family’s farm. First of all, after a few generations, I’m sure that the story is way different from what actually happened.

          Secondly, IT DIDN’T HAPPEN TO YOU!

          So quit it out.

          1. Not only did it not happen to you, but everyone that did it to your family is dead too.

            The idea of inherited guilt or culpability is pure poison.

            1. So what should be done about land seized through eminent domain?

              1. Nothing, if we can’t restore it to its rightful owener.

                Are we supposed to go back and try put the Federal Highway system back in the bottle?

                1. Does “rightful owners” mean the actual owners? Like if the owner dies then can his heirs get the property back or not?

                2. Hell, there are people who think it’s right today to keep certain areas Jew-free because some Gentile Arabs living in the area lost their land involuntarily during or preceding a war. They’re not saying the rightful owners or their possibly-would’ve-been heirs will get that land back if Jews are kept out of it, just that at least whoever settles on it won’t be Jewish, and one Arab Gentile is just like another.

              2. If it happened generations ago, it’s too late.

            2. It’s not about guilt or culpability, it’s about remembering what happened so it doesn’t happen again.

              It’s about truth, about preserving the actual facts of history, not just bullshit propaganda.

              It’s the same reason the expulsion of ethnic Germans from their homes at the end of WWII should not be forgotten. People died by the thousands, but because it was done to the “bad guys”, no one remembers or cares.

              1. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t remember that things like that happened. It is important to know about history. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter whose side your ancestors were on.

                1. Except it does matter. Thanks to the looting and “foraging” they became destitute, lost the farm, moved to town. It wasn’t like they filed their fucking homeowner’s insurance claim and everything was fine.

                  1. I’m sure the social upheaval caused by farmers losing their land and moving into cities had absolutely no effect whatsoever on race relations in post-Civil War South.

                    1. The population of Atlanta doubled in size from 1860 to 1870. I think Sherman’s scorched earth campaign had a lot to do with that. When your tools and stock and homesteads are destroyed, you can’t farm.

                  2. The point is that as awful as those thing were for THOSE PEOPLE, it doesn’t justify giving their children’s children’s children those lands back.

                    1. The point is that as awful as those thing were for THOSE PEOPLE, it doesn’t justify giving their children’s children’s children those lands back.

                      What, you think I’m in favor of reparations? That’s hilarious. The family farm was sold to a man who came down from the North. It was all legal. Nothing was stolen.

                      But legal and right are two different things. Ask the Indians about that. There’s nothing that can be done to make it right at this point. All that can be done is to remember what happened, to learn from the mistakes of the past. If that’s having “a chip on my shoulder”, then so be it.

                  3. Of course it has some effect on the situation today.

                    It doesn’t matter in the sense that it shouldn’t have anything to do with how you relate to the descendants of the people who did things to your ancestors. IT doesn’t matter in the sense that if you still carry a chip on your shoulder about it generations later, you are an idiot.

              2. Honestly, I don’t think people forget or don’t know, it’s that as you said, they simply don’t care. There may be a few that don’t think that wars are terrible and innocent people suffer, but most know what happens and justify it.

                This is true with just about everything the state does. It’s allowed to operate in an inverted moral universe.

                1. What can never be acceptable is the promotion and acceptance of false equivalency arguments like the Indians were just as bad as the white man relative to how they treated each other.

                  Of course, you and I do not owe a dime to the great, great grandchildren of Black Kettle who, as we know, was savagely killed holding up the American flag as Custer’s brave men attacked a village of the Southern Cheyenne and Kiowa in 1868.

                  1. Sherman was a great man whose brillian scorched Earth tactics should have been emulated in Afghanistan.

  15. So what exactly is this social tolerance reason advocates? Anything beyond Gay Marriage, drugs, sex, illegitimate children and abortion?

    1. Homeschooling comes to mind. And general tolerance of people who want to live their own way if it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

      1. I wonder how many of these socially liberal youths support home schooling, fatty foods, smoking and ending hate speech laws?

        1. I suspect more support the first two over the latter two. Also don’t confuse opposition to anti-smoking laws with support of smoking. I don’t “support smoking” but I am also opposed to laws that dictate how individuals and corporations run their lives and businesses.

        2. You were asking about what Reason advocates.

          All this article is saying is that maybe there is a little bit of hope that Britain might not be quite as irredeemable as it seems, not that all British youth are hard core libertarians.

          1. Sorry what I was trying to say that I wonder what exactly is meant by “social tolerance” in these polls. To a socialist “social tolerance” would mean banning Reason for its intolerance.

    2. Those are a good start.

      I also support legal prostitution.

      1. In the worker’s paradise any time off of working for the People is theft so you are full of it.

    3. A person can do whatever they choose, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

      In general, all victimless crimes should be legal.

    4. Uhhh, don’t forget Raw Milk.

      It’s all sorts of things. Pay attention to the Nanny of the Month short videos they put out.

    5. polygamy

  16. Also the original Social :iberals hated Gladstone. The “social” part meant well socialism.

  17. Some British libertarians have been misguidedly attracted to the eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).

    Sorry Feeney but UKIP is easily the best of the bunch. The stupid social stances can be fixed later. I think the youth of Britain have better things to do than waste time with the three-legged donkey that every Libertarian Party is.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.