Why Libertarians Should Support the Intelligence Services
I posted on the security service's questioning (and alleged harassment) of Communist League activist Annalucia Vermunt.
Anon and my old anarchist sparring partner Sam Buchanan, took exception.
Anon
Once again your libertarian hypocricisy stinks. You obviously support this politically motivated harassment despite supposedly supporting the right of individuals to choose whatever political ideology they want.
Stop calling yourself a libertarian your quite obviously a right wing conservative.
Sam Buchanan
It's not that Trev's not a libertarian, it's just that right-wing libertarianism has decided that 'freedom' is defined as 'right-wing libertarianism'.
Therefore if you disagree with Trev, you are an enemy of freedom, and therefore a legitimate target of state harrasment, persecution and violence (Trev says he's against violence, but he doesn't count state violence as violence - at least, not when it's used against people he doesn't like).
Or possibly Trev simply defines words differently from everybody else - his whole political project could be an interesting linguistic experiment.
I'd like to clear a few things up here.
Firstly-what is a libertarian?
To me a libertarian is someone who believes that every individual should be free to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
That is-no stealing, murder, rape, fraud, breach of contract, libel, slander, assault, blackmail or coercion. No crime, in other words.
To guard against these threats, libertarians, are willing to support a state run justice system and a police force.
There is a third legitimate role of the state-security of the nation. That consists of armed forces to protect us from foreign invaders, pirates, fish poachers etc.
That also means that the state has a right and an obligation to establish some form of intelligence service.
The role of intelligence is to monitor foreign armed forces, terrorists, spies, subversives, armed radical groups etc.
I have no objection to the security services monitoring Annalucia Vermunt and was pleasantly surprised that they took her seriously enough to check her out. If this was done inappropriately, that is another matter and she has every right to complain.
I would have no objection to the SIS, or other services monitoring Sam and his mates, Tame Iti's Urewera "terrorists", Kyle Chapman's weekend warriors, Student's for Justice in Palestine, Save Happy Valley Coalition, Paul Bruce, Julie Webb-Pullman, Jeff Sluka, Geoff Karena etc etc etc.
Likewise, I also have no objection to the "spooks" checking me out.
The intelligence services are an essential part of any free society. Every free society has its enemies, just as it has criminals.
Those who think it is OK to conspire against the freedoms of others, or to use use violence to advance political ends, should be monitored by the intelligence services. Where appropriate, evidence gathered should be turned over to the police for approriate action.
I am a libertarian. I support your right to believe or do anything you like as long as you don't hurt anyone else, threaten our freedom, or damage the security of this great nation.
If you do either-lookout.
The full force of the state is about to descend on your unworthy head. As it bloody well should.
Anon and my old anarchist sparring partner Sam Buchanan, took exception.
Anon
Once again your libertarian hypocricisy stinks. You obviously support this politically motivated harassment despite supposedly supporting the right of individuals to choose whatever political ideology they want.
Stop calling yourself a libertarian your quite obviously a right wing conservative.
Sam Buchanan
It's not that Trev's not a libertarian, it's just that right-wing libertarianism has decided that 'freedom' is defined as 'right-wing libertarianism'.
Therefore if you disagree with Trev, you are an enemy of freedom, and therefore a legitimate target of state harrasment, persecution and violence (Trev says he's against violence, but he doesn't count state violence as violence - at least, not when it's used against people he doesn't like).
Or possibly Trev simply defines words differently from everybody else - his whole political project could be an interesting linguistic experiment.
I'd like to clear a few things up here.
Firstly-what is a libertarian?
To me a libertarian is someone who believes that every individual should be free to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
That is-no stealing, murder, rape, fraud, breach of contract, libel, slander, assault, blackmail or coercion. No crime, in other words.
To guard against these threats, libertarians, are willing to support a state run justice system and a police force.
There is a third legitimate role of the state-security of the nation. That consists of armed forces to protect us from foreign invaders, pirates, fish poachers etc.
That also means that the state has a right and an obligation to establish some form of intelligence service.
The role of intelligence is to monitor foreign armed forces, terrorists, spies, subversives, armed radical groups etc.
I have no objection to the security services monitoring Annalucia Vermunt and was pleasantly surprised that they took her seriously enough to check her out. If this was done inappropriately, that is another matter and she has every right to complain.
I would have no objection to the SIS, or other services monitoring Sam and his mates, Tame Iti's Urewera "terrorists", Kyle Chapman's weekend warriors, Student's for Justice in Palestine, Save Happy Valley Coalition, Paul Bruce, Julie Webb-Pullman, Jeff Sluka, Geoff Karena etc etc etc.
Likewise, I also have no objection to the "spooks" checking me out.
The intelligence services are an essential part of any free society. Every free society has its enemies, just as it has criminals.
Those who think it is OK to conspire against the freedoms of others, or to use use violence to advance political ends, should be monitored by the intelligence services. Where appropriate, evidence gathered should be turned over to the police for approriate action.
I am a libertarian. I support your right to believe or do anything you like as long as you don't hurt anyone else, threaten our freedom, or damage the security of this great nation.
If you do either-lookout.
The full force of the state is about to descend on your unworthy head. As it bloody well should.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
12/11/2008 11:14:00 PM
14 Comments:
"Therefore if you disagree with Trev, you are an enemy of freedom, and therefore a legitimate target of state harrasment, persecution and violence (Trev says he's against violence, but he doesn't count state violence as violence - at least, not when it's used against people he doesn't like)."
Would you care about if let's say a politician had neo-Nazi/Fascist ties? Why are people like YOU love to give more credit to those whom happen to be involved in far left activities such as being involved with the old Soviet organ World Federation of Democratic Youth?
Apparently, some forms of totalitarianism must be fine to people who think that way.
Sorry, Mah, your grammar has stumped me.
"I support your right to believe or do anything you like as long as you don't hurt anyone else, threaten our freedom, or damage the security of this great nation."
Pretty much what I said - you can do anything you like provided it doesn't threaten 'freedom' this being defined as 'right-wing libertatianism'.
Of course, Trev's policies are only freedom for the rich - you are free to do what you like until you step off your property (assuming you have property) on to the privatised road or footpath which you can use if you sign a contract agreeing to sign away your freedoms (if you think the police are overly zealous enforcing traffic rules now, just wait until they've been privatised and fines are a source of profit). Of course if you don't like the contract you are free to go to a competing comapny (they'll be three or four sidewalks to your house and lots of different roads going to the same place in theis fantasy world.
It won't happen, of course - actually you'll end up with something that looks a lot like a local council - a monopoly company that administers local services for profit, but otherwise is much the same as we have now, only less democratic. Ho hum.
Cheers
Sam Buchanan
PS. Nice line about "slander", Trev, especially after you just admitted attributing quotes to the wrong person!
So I guess to you Sam, if a holocaust denier is willing to have a high seat in government, are you going to be comfortable with something like that?
Why not give the same treatment toward those whom have just happen to be involved in far left/pro-Communist activities?
You need to keep watch on those commies because you never know when they're going to burn down the Reichstag!
What are you on about, Mah? Actually I would be very concerned if Marxists were occupying high positions in government, but they aren't. Neither are holocaust deniers. If you have a point, could you take a deep breath and try and write it in proper English?
Have fun,
Sam Buchanan
Sam-I would never support privatised police. The police force is one of the few legitimate functions of the state. You don't give private companies or businesses the power to arrest people.
Freedom is wealth neutral. All should be equal before the law, from the captain of industry to the humblest labourer.
Criticise me for what I say, not what you project.
"What are you on about, Mah? Actually I would be very concerned if Marxists were occupying high positions in government, but they aren't. Neither are holocaust deniers. If you have a point, could you take a deep breath and try and write it in proper English?"
No Sam, you happily enjoy allowing political extremists of the far left literally get a way with being involved in a seat of government. I compared what the KKK did in the USA as an example of their extensive network in the USA via the Invisible Empire.
America's FBI had to go crack down on the KKK because they were also involved in violating the civil liberties of average American citizens, which also includes agitating for riots and also involved in terrorist campaigns.
The fact that YOU simply turn a blind eye toward far left activities similar to what the KKK has done exposes that YOU simply do not get it. You do not care if there happens to be similar riots in New Zealand or in other parts of the world like what's happening in Greece.
Fair enough Trev. So companies that own roads would have no role in setting or enforcing the road rules? Private companies seem to be a lot of policing activities nowadays. How about employers policing non-output related aspects of worker's lives (dress codes and so on?).
As for equality before the law, I guess lawyers' services will be free? You don't see many poor people taking lawsuits simply because the costs prevent it.
Mah - who on earth are these left extremists that I am supposedly "happily enjoy allowing" to take a role in government?
Cheers
Sam
"who on earth are these left extremists that I am supposedly "happily enjoy allowing" to take a role in government?"
Everytime someone has a blog like this that exposes radical Left fringes, people like you complain about it. While if it were about the KKK, neo-Nazis or Fascists you wouldn't complain. That's the bottom line of your double standard on why you seem to allow extremism to flourish for wish you AGREE with.
Sam you obviously havent been watching the news. Left wing terrorist Barrack Obama has become president of your country.
"Left wing terrorist Barrack Obama has become president of your country."
Yay! I must have a green card coming that nobody told me about. I guess my old pal Barack is rewarding his trusted friends from the Anarcho-leftist-Islamo-Marxist confederation of Green Pinkos. Maybe I can get a job at Chrysler.
Mah - I see you've completely changed tack with your ramblings, so there were no extreme leftists in government, then? You were just gibbering?
Oh, and a Merry Christmas to you Trev,
Sam Buchanan
Sam, you might need to take into account that Mah has tried to exorcise the KKK and neo nazi movements from the right through using revisionist techniques to categorise them as leftist groups.
Nevermind the fact that his favorite president, Reagan relished the support he got from the KKK.
Hope that helps you better understand why he uses them in that manner. It also helps to state that you 'believe in the holocaust' at least 2 times in any comments, it helps quell the mentally unwell side of Mah2009 from lashing out at you if he smells a supporter of the devil Palestinian.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Nevermind the fact that his favorite president, Reagan relished the support he got from the KKK."
Reagan's not my favorite President, and I doubt he was a member of the Klan you liar.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home