United Kingdom

U.K. Euroskeptic Doesn't Think German Wife Is Taking British Job

|

The Euroskeptics of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) had a couple of hypocritical embarrassing moments in the last week.

At the launch of UKIP's European election campaign earlier this week Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, interviewed UKIP's leader Nigel Farage, who has warned about Europeans taking British jobs. Farage is married to a German who is also his secretary. When asked by Robinson if his wife had taken a British job, Farage said "no" and went on to say, "I don't know anybody that would work those kind of hours."

Read Robinson's account of the encounter with Farage here and watch a video of the conversation below.

UKIP's European election campaign includes posters, some of which are below:

The posters convey much of the sentiment you expect from Euroskeptics, but they also contain another example of UKIP hypocrisy.

The actor who appears in the poster warning of "unlimited cheap labour" is Irish.

That UKIP would feature a non-British actor in a campaign poster warning that "British workers are hit hard by unlimited cheap labour" has unsurprisingly being called hypocritical by the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party, however some have pointed out that the Irish have been free to move to the U.K. since before the U.K. joined the European Union.

More from Reason on UKIP here.

NEXT: Infamous: Second Son Lets You Smash Seattle's Anti-Superhero Security State

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. Ah yes, the eternal question of European politics. Do we vote for the internationalist socialists, or the racist/nationalist socialists?

  2. To be sure, I doubt German labor is at all what they mean when they decry “cheap” labor.

    1. Now if she were Polish….

      Poland is like Britain’s Mexico, except Brits hate Poles with a nearly universal fervor that Americans just don’t seem to have for Mexicans.

      1. “Don’t laugh…you’re next!”

        “Stand back, honey, I don’t know how big it’s gonna get!”

        Then he lost betting on the instant replay.

      2. Any idea why the Brits hate the Poles so much?

        1. Yeah, I never got that. If anything, it should be the other way around; WWII and Cold War Polish-British history being what it was.

    2. They could be referring to the Turks who live in Germany and who have EU work permits. Germany has long employed turkish “guest workers” to work in auto plants, etc.

  3. It must be awkward to be a British voter. The anti-immigrant stuff seems…over the top, but then, what other party wants to hold the line against the UK being sucked into the ravenous maw of the Eurocratic Sarlaac?

    1. Sarlacc

  4. Purity Test fail. Is UKIP worse or better than the alternative? Or, maybe Feeney thinks UKIP is fascist in disguise, like lefties on this side of the Atlantic think all libertarians are?

    1. I know, a majority of voters have the right to organize their community as they wish, amiright? And if they do not want furriners in there…

      1. There you are old buddy! It’s been awhile since you circled back to that to re-confirm your supreme douchiness and retarded logic. Good to see you are still alive and kicking!

        1. Retarded logic? It was you that said that line, not me.

          One does not have to be an Arbiter of Libertarianism to see your beliefs about how majorities of voters in communities should be able to order them as they wish, restricting voluntary transactions they disapprove of, as the antithesis of it.

          1. The Arbiter has spoken! So let it be written, so let it be done!

            1. Here it is!

              https://reason.com/blog/2013/12…..gn#comment

              Of course ideally the casinos would be allowed to open by the state and local government and would have a minimal or no tax burden, but what these locales are being urged to do is prohibit them from operating their businesses altogether. You support that?

              reply to this

              Restoras|12.3.13 @ 1:38PM|#

              Do I support it? If you are asking if I lived in that particular locality and had a say, how would I vote? I would vote in favor.

              I also support the power of a local community to organize itself
              as it sees fit.

              1. I am humbled by the Infallible Logic and Pure Wisdom of the Arbiter!!! This is the day of my Pure Libertarian Re-Birth!!! I can feel the Pureness of The Arbiters Wisdom douching my Impureness into the void!!! All Praise the Wise and Powerful Arbiter!!

                1. Restoras|12.3.13 @ 1:00PM|#

                  To the extent that local voters wish to bar certain activities (providing they don’t infringe on the Bill of Rights) it is their community and they should be allowed to organize it as they see fit.

                  https://reason.com/blog/2013/12…..gn#comment

                  1. I am humbled by the Infallible Logic and Pure Wisdom of the Arbiter!!!

                    This is the day of my Pure Libertarian Re-Birth!!!

                    I can feel the Pureness of The Arbiters Wisdom DOUCHING my Impureness into the void!!!

                    All Praise the Wise and Powerful Arbiter!!

                    1. If I had slipped and said something so silly, I would fall into puerile silliness too.

                    2. It’s just disappointing to me and very lame of you to bring that up after I acknowledged to you directly that you did and do have a valid point on that matter and it made me think about it more. I consider that a good thing. I am here in part to reconsider my views on many matters. Instead of moving on graciously with the knowledge that you maybe somebody think a bit more about something, you instead rub my nose in it every chance you get.

                      So, go fuck yourself you little shit.

                      And, for what it’s worth you disingenuous twitweasel, just because people are opposed to illegal immmigration does not mean they are opposed to all immigration, or even having more open borders for that matter. As always, that subtleness is totally lost on your puny one-dimensional intellect and idiotic Purity Test.

                      But, after all, that is why you are The Arbiter.

                    3. “Instead of moving on graciously with the knowledge that you maybe somebody think a bit more about something, you instead rub my nose in it every chance you get.”

                      And your attack on Freeny was?

                      Let’s remember how your slip occurred, you were attacking me for supposedly being a secret leftist for posting about SoCons campaigning to restrict gambling. Of course it had less to do with any leftism on my part, but rightism on your part as our discussion later showed. You were throwing stones while polishing your glass house.

                      Now, look, fine. Constitutional conservatives and right leaning libertarians are fine, and even just those libertarians who feel that they have to sacrifice some principle for pragmatism and align with or defend people like SoCons, are all good, I probably agree with you on 95% of issues.

                      But when you start attacking other libertarians for trying to stick to principle, well, of course they might mention ‘hey, of course you are ready to chuck principle since you seemed to have a rather sketchy idea of them in the first place.’

                    4. You were throwing stones while polishing your glass house

                      The Graciousness and Magnanimity of the Arbiter is Boundless and Without Limit!!!

                      I love you man.

                    5. ” just because people are opposed to illegal immmigration does not mean they are opposed to all immigration, or even having more open borders for that matter”

                      What would you say about someone who said ‘I am for the right of consenting adults to possess, sell and use drugs, but as long as it is against the law I oppose those things?’ I think it would be hard to say that person really has the position first stated.

                    6. I hope to god you never practice law.

                    7. With such stellar rebuttals you might want to refrain from it yourself.

                    8. What would you say about someone who said ‘I am for the right of consenting adults to possess, sell and use drugs, but as long as it is against the law I oppose those things?’ I think it would be hard to say that person really has the position first stated.

                      Why? This is the same thing as saying that I am opposed to abortion, but since it is the law of the land, I will abide by it, is it not? Can I not be opposed to something that has been deemed legal, and vice versa? Are I not free and at liberty to do that?

                    9. “This is the same thing as saying that I am opposed to abortion, but since it is the law of the land, I will abide by it”

                      I do not think that is the same since ‘abide’ could just mean ‘will not actively interfere with.’

                    10. The Witchfinder General has spoken – let it be so.

  5. …however some have pointed out that the Irish have been free to move to the U.K. since before the U.K. joined the European Union.

    Yeah, I was wondering about that one. Also, Farage could have pointed out that “wife”, like “husband” is a pretty specific role, and nationality is pretty low on the list of characteristics you care about when filling it.

    1. Yeah, sandwich-making abilities rank much higher.

      1. Like this woman:

        http://nypost.com/2013/09/24/i…..-sandwich/

    2. I don’t know. If you were really worried about foreigners coming and taking over, I’d think marrying one might be worse than hiring one. More permanent anyway.

      1. The permanency depends on what the people are like. Come to think about it, so does the part about them taking over.

    3. And businesses do (generally) value nationality when filling positions?

  6. If the BBC is going after UKIP like this, you can bet it’s not because they’re insufficiently libertarian.

    1. The BBC was arguing in favor of some Politico trying to kill “Zero-Hour Contracts” aka – employment agreements without minimum hours of work attached, which allow the employer to separate from the agreement with less hassle. They’re fairly standard these days because the alternative is the French problem – can’t take a risk on an employee because you can’t get rid of them.

      1. Isn’t the “French problem” syphilis?

        Except I’d take that over several years of unemployment.

    2. I know of at least one libertarian thing the BBC did. One of the absolute best written Dr. Who Episodes.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_Below

  7. No British woman would want to do the work of shagging Farage. Just like no American would want to do the work of reading an article without alt-text.

    1. Alt-text only applies when it’s an article image and not an image that’s effectivly part of the text.

      1. This statement is so retarded that I think Buttplug might be sockpuppeting you.

    2. C’mon. The right way is: You know what other job Brits won’t do…

  8. You Know Who Else tried to distract from domestic problems by calling his opponents a bunch of racist hypocrites?

    1. The original Jezebel?

    2. Jesse Jackson Junior. No wait, Senior.

  9. I think the wife shows that he’s not actually a hyper nationalist. I don’t think he’s worried about foreign women making it too difficult for british women to become brides.

    Likewise the Irish actor. He’s not trying to isolate the UK from Ireland. The objection is to political entanglements. Or, the Irish actor proves he’s right about foreigners taking British jobs.

    Maybe UKIP was prevented by labor laws from discriminating against the Irish.

    Regardless, it’s pretty asinine to argue “Rule from Brussels is OK because German wife.”

    1. Bingo

      1. The mainstream parties know they won’t be able to defend their policies to the voters, so the thing is to mock and scaremonger the party which opposes their policies.

    2. Freedom of movement and association for my brides, but not for thee!

      1. The Arbiter has spoken the infallible words and pure logic of No True Scotsman! So let it be written, so let it be done!

        1. He’s sent here by the Chosen One?

          So a Jew?

  10. I’ll take a few hundred Nigel Farage’s over any of the shitty politicians we have here.

    Why the worship for the Central State, Feeney?

    1. Because immigration laws are enforced by local voluntary associations with persuasion!

      1. hurr, the Witchfinder General has spoken.

        1. It is nice to try hide the fact that you called out Freeny because, unlike you, he wants to hold even ‘lesser of evils’ to a consistent libertarian standard, by engaging in such childishness (‘confusing pointless, tedious, and ultimately inapplicable sniping with a good argument’ IT?).

          You want to sacrifice principle for pragmatism, fine. But if you are going to come onto a libertarian website and call someone out for not being willing to do the same, expect some criticism.

          1. yeah… like you know jack shit about my beliefs, douchebag.

            I for one, don’t mind open borders, provided there isn’t a welfare state too. So go fuck yourself.

            1. “I for one, don’t mind drug legalization, provided there isn’t a welfare state too”

              “I for one, don’t mind no restrictions on corporate speech, provided there isn’t a crony capitalist state too”

              Etc.

    2. Feeney has been auditioning for Will Wilkinson’s old job as “Most Punchable Cosmotarian” ever since Wilkinson came out of the closet as standard issue liberal.

      1. Will Wilkinson doesn’t do much for me but he’s not a “standard issue liberal”; in fact he self-identifies as a classical liberal.

        1. Interestingly, so do some others that lurk these boards.

          1. Indeed — I know I do.

      2. Ah, calling the author a cosmotarian for taking the traditionally libertarian position. Never gets old.

      3. It’s either that or he desperately wants to bang Shikha.

      4. HURR DURR DEY TOOK UR JERBS

  11. So, just about a dozen comments in, and so far most taking Reason to task for criticizing a government official and party hypocritically engaging in labor protectionism. I would expect that on a Tea Party America discussion board, but what has made Reason a magnet for this? Reason has a pretty long reputation in the libertarian world for being of the Cato, Volokh, Nolan approach but lots of their regular commenters are significantly to the right. Did some Libertarian Republican discussion board or magazine go under recently?

    1. aww… imagine people having differences on policy. Holy shit, not pure… not pure.

      You’re a douchebag of the highest order, Witchfinder General.

    2. Its not simply labor protectionism within the UK context (the way it would be within an American context).

      UKIP stands against the increasing governance from Brussels more than simply for labor protectionism. Hell, I wonder if the labor protectionism thing isn’t more about finding an issue that will galvanize support, especially among the working-class Labour constituencies in the north.

      1. It’s certainly true that UKIP is about a lot more than labor protectionism, or that that is the sole motive for their policies on this issue, but that doesn’t change the underlying fact that they are supporting labor protectionism.

    3. taking Reason to task for criticizing a government official and party hypocritically engaging in labor protectionism.

      What I saw was somebody being taken to task for “hypocritically” engaging in separation from the EU.

  12. Farage is married to a German who is also his secretary. When asked by Robinson if his wife had taken a British job, Farage said “no”

    …wait, that’s it? Pretty weak tea as far as… well, anything. She’s his wife, you dumbass.

    The actor who appears in the poster warning of “unlimited cheap labour” is Irish.

    I don’t know that the Irish count as “cheap labor” any more, or that *all* cheap labor is anathema to UKIP’s stance on immigration given their stated desire to import more workers from Commonwealth countries like Pakistan and India.

    What is the point of this article?

    1. I imagine the point is the point of nearly every Reason article: to argue libertarian points of view. Here they take an opponent of freedom of movement and association to task, on other posts they take opponents of freedom to keep and carry firearms to task, in others they take opponents of the freedom to engage in peaceful, voluntary transactions to task, etc.

      1. Calling out a ‘furriner’ as a wife and an Irish actor in place of a British one is pretty weak sauce, even you have the intelligence and good sense to admit that.

        Was the Irish actor from Northern Ireland? Anyone know?

        1. According to the BBC, he was not.

        2. The party has supported immigration restrictions repeatedly. A long principle of libertarianism, especially the strain that Reason has long been affiliated with, hold that to be a fundamental liberty (it was in the original Nolan test). While the leader of that party wants to ‘take back the borders’ he married an immigrant. Certainly that kind of hypocrisy is the kind of thing Reason reports regularly about foes of liberties they value.

          So it is not for a Reason author to explain why they would take this stance. The really odd thing is this: why so many of the commenters here would object? (Well, we know why you would, with your ‘majorities of voters have the right to organize their communities how they see fit’ brand of libertarianism).

          1. I am humbled by the Infallible Logic and Pure Wisdom of the Arbiter!!! This is the day of my Pure Libertarian Re-Birth!!! I can feel the Pureness of The Arbiters Wisdom douching my Impureness into the void!!! All Praise the Wise and Powerful Arbiter!!

            1. Restoras|12.3.13 @ 1:08PM|#

              Remember, there is a heavily disproportionate of the NY population downstate. Where they have casinos.

              Are you suggesting that people that don’t want them shouldn’t be allowed to bar them? That smaller, rural localities far removed from the NYC megalopolis should not be able to organize their communities according to the wishes of their voters?

              https://reason.com/blog/2013/12…..gn#comment

              1. I am humbled by the Infallible Logic and Pure Wisdom of the Arbiter!!!

                This is the day of my Pure Libertarian Re-Birth!!!

                I can feel the Pureness of The Arbiters Wisdom douching my Impureness into the void!!!

                All Praise the Wise and Powerful Arbiter!!

          2. Except that it’s not hypocrisy.

            UKIP is not against all immigration, and it is not against all “cheap labor” immigration; it is in favor of control of such. Thus evidence of employing “cheap labor” from another country (which is not even in evidence here) is not an example of hypocrisy. It would be like “catching” someone in favor of drinking in moderation sipping on a beer and calling it a gotcha — the principle in play doesn’t preclude the action.

            1. Look, IT, with all due respect the last time we discussed the UKIP you were defending them about several charges saying you had no evidence about it, and then I supplied it and you essentially said, ‘oh, oh, well ok, that is not good.’ At the risk of doing that again:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..345943.jpg

              UKIP Billboard, Featuring Sir Winston Churchill, it reads “Say no to unlimited immigration. Take back control of our borders”

              So yeah, that kind of covers wives too.

              1. Ah the old some==all fallacy. I guess they don’t teach that in law school anymore.

              2. Say no to unlimited immigration =/= have no immigration

                It means that UKIP is in favor of national control of immigration, and of *less* Eastern European immigration than is currently the case. However much one may disagree with this policy stance for whatever reason, it is not hypocritical to employ or marry an immigrant and to hold this position.

                1. So, it is OK for him to advocate using force to prevent people from coming to the UK to escape oppression and engage in economic activity in the name of control of borders, but he can take an immigrant wife? That strikes me as, at the very least, in the same vein as a minimum/living wage activist found to be employing an ‘off the books’ undocumented immigrant nanny for much less than the going rate of nannies in the area.

                  1. Bo, I though they made you take syllogisms in the LSAT. some A are B, all B are C therefore:
                    1)All A are C
                    2)Some A are C

                    Pick the right one. Stop trying to prove how smart you are, people might actually like you.

                    1. You do not think it is similar to someone who, say, advocates a crack down on heroin and meth use being found to regularly smoke hash?

                  2. So, it is OK for him to advocate using force to prevent people from coming to the UK to escape oppression and engage in economic activity in the name of control of borders, but he can take an immigrant wife?

                    Whether it is “OK” or not is a subjective valuation, but it’s not hypocritical for the reasons I outlined. Personally, I think it’s fine since there is nothing in merely desiring an immigration policy outside of open borders which requires any particular belief about the merits of some particular immigrant or even immigration as a whole.

      2. I must have missed the elegant argumentation going on in this article. You being you, I’m not surprised to see that you’re once again confusing pointless, tedious, and ultimately inapplicable sniping with a good argument.

        1. How dare you challenge the Good Intentions and Supreme Intelligence of the Wise and Powerful Arbiter!!!

        2. And I am sure Reason is littered with threads calling out American and European liberals who made similarly hypocritical gaffes and situations, and I am betting you were there criticizing them for being pointless, tedious sniping.

          Yes, I am sure of that.

          1. Yeah, I only did it right on this here thread, Professor.

            Will Wilkinson doesn’t do much for me but he’s not a “standard issue liberal”; in fact he self-identifies as a classical liberal.

            1. That is of course not the same thing.

              1. Yeah!! Take that Immaculate Trouser!! The Arbiter burned you good!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

                1. My, my someone is touchy. And just for repeating your words!

              2. Me from the same thread:

                it is moral and economic nonsense to argue that an employer making a choice on the labor he wants to spend money on is somehow acting illegitimately

                Huh, it’s almost like I, in fact, have no problem criticizing whoever the hell I feel like criticizing, conservative or liberal. I’m so sorry these criticisms do not line up 100% with your own opinions; I do hope that one day I’ll get 92% on the LP purity test like you and PB.

                1. “like you and PB”

                  Hey, it is you and him that claim to be not libertarians, but ‘classical liberals,’ not me.

                  Back to topic, I was talking about threads by Reason writers criticizing similar situations involving liberal pols that take positions traditionally at odds with libertarians (or, if you like, the strain Reason is associated with).

                  1. And I only bring it up at all because, well, if you are going to come here and criticize our host writers for being biased, I am going to point out that, given your express departures from libertarianism, that perhaps the issue is you, not them.

                    1. I’m criticizing “our hosts” (Matt Feeney doesn’t own or supervise Reason, AFAIK) for writing stupid articles, not for their viewpoint.

                    2. There seems to be a pattern to the ones you object to as stupid that correlates strongly with viewpoint, and oddly enough that pattern seems to also track common departures from ‘libertarian orthodoxy’ by right leaning libertarians or classical liberals.

                      And all that is fine, but when you criticize the focus of someone else here, in this case Freeny, expect someone to say ‘well, maybe you find Freeny’s focus to be off because you admittedly do not hew to the libertarian line* and he is trying to.’ So when you or any of the other right leaning regulars here call him on these kinds of things, given this is Reason magazine, rather well known for trying to hew to that line, the oddity is not them here, but you.

                    3. There seems to be a pattern to the ones you object to as stupid that correlates strongly with viewpoint, and oddly enough that pattern seems to also track common departures from ‘libertarian orthodoxy’ by right leaning libertarians or classical liberals.

                      Yes Bo, you’ve cracked the code. Ignore everything I just said and focus on unprovable ulterior motivations — that’ll get you through law school.

                    4. IT, be honest, were you not alluding to unprovable ulterior motivations on Freeny’s part? A little ‘why is Freeny picking on the mote-in-the-eye of the UK that is the UKIP instead of the beam of Labor (or whatever)?’ That certainly has been your take on past Reason UKIP threads.

                    5. Find me somewhere on this thread where I discuss Feeney’s motivation.

                      As far as my opinion on UKIP, I’ve expressed it before and I’ll do it again:

                      Not as (classically liberal) as the UK’s old Liberal Party, but definitely the best mainstream(ish) classical liberal movement there, and not too dissimilar to Ron/Rand Paul over here. I find it baffling that a libertarian would support one of the Big Three over them, but I don’t think it “proves” that they are a closet anything.

                    6. I guess you could have been literally asking ‘what is the point of this article,’ but I think you would recognize that that phrase is often used here and elsewhere to imply the person is unfairly attacking some lesser evil and/or diverting attention from where it should be. I confess that that common use coupled with your past arguments that Reason’s critical focus is misplaced on the UKIP led me to assume that was what was going on.

    2. What is the point of this article?

      As near as I can tell, that Brits should embrace rule from Brussels.

      1. Well, there it is, thanks Mr. Dean.

  13. I think since we’re using language to assume that someone “Owns” jobs …

    …can we at least assert that the person who “Owns” the job is the one who is Paying for it?

    So, when people say, “‘they’re takin’ OUR JAHBS!‘ = they should mean: They themselves made job-offers, and they were accepted by someone.

    Which reminds me of a point made by a socio-political philosophy teacher I had in college, who pointed out that “Middle Class” is a bullshit term: it used to mean, ‘people who owned their own business’. Now it means, “(higher-paying) Job workers” When people moan about Americans “Losing their Jobs”, we should be moaning about Americans who no longer are Job Makers, but Job Takers. That’s the greater loss.

    1. when people say, “‘they’re takin’ OUR JAHBS!’ = they should mean: They themselves made job-offers, and they were accepted by someone.

      Exactly. While I am sympathetic to arguments regarding the political ramifications of such, it is moral and economic nonsense to argue that an employer making a choice on the labor he wants to spend money on is somehow acting illegitimately.

  14. The actor who appears in the poster warning of “unlimited cheap labour” is Irish.

    Yes, but is he Northern Irish and thus a UK citizen?

    I can’t tell, since no source is given.

    1. FTA:

      The man featured on the poster is actor Dave O’Rourke, who moved to the UK a decade ago

      As NI is part of the UK, that would be redundant, as would be the next few paragraphs about “Irish Citizens” and their relation to the UK law. A citizen in NI is a UK Citizen, not an Irish (RoI) one.

  15. My rule is to ignore arguments, like Feeney’s post, that rely only on pointing hypocrisy. Often, just like in this post, I wouldn’t even agree that there was any hypocrisy involved. And even if there’s hypocrisy, it is still a weak argument.

    1. I think pointing out hypocrisy is a great tool for libertarianism, since its opponents are nearly invariably willing to restrict ‘someone else’s’ liberties than those or those they love. So in this instance, the fellow has directly benefited from freedom of movement himself, but wishes to deny it to others, and others that might be similarly benefited by it the way he was.

  16. To me, the baseline libertarian position should be hostility to the EU. Its everything libertarians are supposed to hate, after all.

    I get the distinct sense from Reason posts that the writers are, in fact, pro-EU. Sure, the UKIP has its unsavory elements, but I might point out that the Libertarian Party here in the US does also.

    When you attack an anti-EU campaign because they used an Irish guy to stand in for a British guy, I mean, c’mon. Even the hypocrisy isn’t all that, since I believe the Irish could work pretty freely in England before the EU, and their presence there isn’t really affected by the EU.

    1. The bottom two posters aren’t simply about being anti-EU, and the middle one isn’t even specifying anything about cheap labor. I think it’s somewhat hypocritical to say “We must stop foreigners from taking British jobs!” and then turning around and saying “Oh, but it’s cool if the person taking your job is Irish”

      1. Or “Oh, but it’s cool if the person taking your job is my becomes my wife”

      2. Two of the posters, including the one with the Irish guy, specifically mention the EU. The fact that they give a reason (whatever you may think of it) for being anti-EU means that, yes, they aren’t simply about being anti-EU, but that would be true of any poster giving any reason to be opposed to the EU.

    2. “the baseline libertarian position should be hostility to the EU. Its everything libertarians are supposed to hate, after all.”

      I can certainly see that, but it is not obvious, much like the debate about whether libertarians should be for ‘state’s rights’ or not. On the one hand, centralization is a traditional libertarian concern, but on the other hand history (the obvious ones) and current events (the vigorous actions by federal courts to incorporate and enforce federal standards of liberties on state and local governments) show many instances of liberty being advanced by central governments over the parochial restrictions of smaller units.

      1. Bo, given the trends over the last 20 or 30 years, I think you will have a very hard time arguing that centralized and concentrate government power is net plus for liberty.

        Even in this country, the great example of the federal government advancing liberty during the civil rights struggle didn’t quickly, almost instantly, morph into the federal government massively violating property and association rights.

        In the particular instance of the EU, I think you will find it utterly impossible to argue that the EU is, on net, a plus for liberty.

  17. the great example of the federal government advancing liberty during the civil rights struggle didn’t quickly, almost instantly, morphed into the federal government massively violating property and association rights.

  18. Oh, that’s awkward. You thought there was a gotcha there, but there wasn’t. At all.

    Feeney FAIL

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.