Muddle-headed neo-liberals
A neo-liberal is one who thinks that people should have maximum freedom of action, unconstrained by the state or institutions. This sounds entirely laudable, until you realise that it undercuts any rule of law ("unconstrained by the state"). A neo-liberal is not a liberal (a person with liberal views), and we mustn't let the similarity of the two terms confuse us. A liberal believes in freedom of action within the existing law.
Clearly, then, a battleground arises over what is allowed and not allowed by the law. Neo-liberals want to wear away the constraints of the law, to give themselves more freedom of action, whereas liberals want to use the permissions they already have - embodied in law - to further the interests of their community. It was absorbing, therefore, to hear two fully committed participants, one on each side of this argument, debating Jeremy Corbyn's proposal to make empty property available to those made homeless by the Grenfell Tower disaster.
The liberal, Richard Murphy (google him!), who spoke first, put forward the obvious arguments (which I have to say I personally find irrefutable - we have to do this): the legislative instruments exist, other countries do it under "state of emergency" legislation, we've done it in wartime. The neo-liberal put forward his obvious argument (of which more later) that the state has no right to take away the things that a person owns. But then he sidestepped the whole question by arguing that the proposal was immoral, was ill-focussed, and would lead to disastrous consequences. This was a conspicuously utilitarian rant, devoid of any notion of morality, and showing not even an elementary awareness that the argument is about the conflicting rights of different segments of society. And then, as if to demonstrate that he *really* wasn't getting it, he dashed right off the field, describing Richard Murphy's viewpoint as a typical "hard left political idea".
WRONG, ANDREW LILICO! - it doesn't diminish View A to say that it's also held by Scumbag B. Scumbag B can be a pot of intellectual turd, but View A can still have legs and power and be worthy of consideration by all rational participants in the debate. At that point (53:12 in the podcast - debate starts at 49:19), for me, Andrew Lilico threw his toys out of the pram. He was arguing ad hominem; he was playing the man, not the ball. And when the other side does that, you know they're scared of losing.
Neo-liberals are fighting a losing battle anyway. They argue for "full liberty" for the individual, but such "full liberty" makes no sense unless it's underpinned by a rule of law to keep the thieves and welshers out of the picture. At the very least, a profit-making corporation that's freed from all social constraints needs to enforce its contracts, or else it's going to hell in a handcart. It can't be the case, to quote Margaret Thatcher, that "There's no such thing as society".
More and more transparently, as revealed by Andrew Lilico's ad hominem excursion, neo-liberals are motivated only by greed, and seek only to bend the law to their own advantage. They have no morality, no sympathy, and no love for anybody but themselves. We need to decide which side of this divide we stand on. We also need to think about whether we can handle these misguided tossers in an independent Scotland.
Clearly, then, a battleground arises over what is allowed and not allowed by the law. Neo-liberals want to wear away the constraints of the law, to give themselves more freedom of action, whereas liberals want to use the permissions they already have - embodied in law - to further the interests of their community. It was absorbing, therefore, to hear two fully committed participants, one on each side of this argument, debating Jeremy Corbyn's proposal to make empty property available to those made homeless by the Grenfell Tower disaster.
The liberal, Richard Murphy (google him!), who spoke first, put forward the obvious arguments (which I have to say I personally find irrefutable - we have to do this): the legislative instruments exist, other countries do it under "state of emergency" legislation, we've done it in wartime. The neo-liberal put forward his obvious argument (of which more later) that the state has no right to take away the things that a person owns. But then he sidestepped the whole question by arguing that the proposal was immoral, was ill-focussed, and would lead to disastrous consequences. This was a conspicuously utilitarian rant, devoid of any notion of morality, and showing not even an elementary awareness that the argument is about the conflicting rights of different segments of society. And then, as if to demonstrate that he *really* wasn't getting it, he dashed right off the field, describing Richard Murphy's viewpoint as a typical "hard left political idea".
WRONG, ANDREW LILICO! - it doesn't diminish View A to say that it's also held by Scumbag B. Scumbag B can be a pot of intellectual turd, but View A can still have legs and power and be worthy of consideration by all rational participants in the debate. At that point (53:12 in the podcast - debate starts at 49:19), for me, Andrew Lilico threw his toys out of the pram. He was arguing ad hominem; he was playing the man, not the ball. And when the other side does that, you know they're scared of losing.
Neo-liberals are fighting a losing battle anyway. They argue for "full liberty" for the individual, but such "full liberty" makes no sense unless it's underpinned by a rule of law to keep the thieves and welshers out of the picture. At the very least, a profit-making corporation that's freed from all social constraints needs to enforce its contracts, or else it's going to hell in a handcart. It can't be the case, to quote Margaret Thatcher, that "There's no such thing as society".
More and more transparently, as revealed by Andrew Lilico's ad hominem excursion, neo-liberals are motivated only by greed, and seek only to bend the law to their own advantage. They have no morality, no sympathy, and no love for anybody but themselves. We need to decide which side of this divide we stand on. We also need to think about whether we can handle these misguided tossers in an independent Scotland.
Comments
Post a Comment