Please don’t tar us honest Libertarians with the Blaney brush…

DK

Unity does use the terms “racist” and “fascist” in his post, but Blaney has added “homophobic” as something he is supposedly accused of. You almost get the feeling that Blaney wanted to be labelled as such, Unity ducked out, so Blaney just had to add it back in for good measure. No doubt in Thatcherite/Libertarian circles this is seen as a great wheeze, intellectual riguor is not a quality very much prized by their ilk. Personally these “liberty lovin’” clowns do little for me, and I doubt that they exert anywhere as large an influence as they often (boastfully) proclaim.

Also, having attempted to discuss various issues with Iain, his opening line looks very much like one of his standard diversionary tactics. He does this a lot when he’s got no real point to make. As septicisle says, in the end it’s not about how Blaney writes but about what he writes and how he engages with others.

The fact remains that whatever you think of his views he is a better writer than you (or indeed I) will ever be.

Well that’s fairly depressing, because anyone who writes a post in which they wish to avoid coming across as a pompous whinger shouldn’t start with

This morning I was rudely awakened from my slumber

Er, what else would you have been awakened (or woken) from, Mr. B? A coma? Narcolepsy?

Then, in his response to Unity, after getting up a head of steam with the shrill

It says a lot about these people that they are desperate to import negative motives into the actions of those with whom they disagree. Not only does it show intellectual weakness on their part but it suggests they are deeply unhappy, insecure and lonely people

– a diagnosis which might be applied to itself — Mr. B continues by lamenting that

All too often those of us who dare to have a differing worldview will allow themselves
to be bullied into submission…

Us? Them? Make your mind up, sir; are they us or we them, or … no, sorry, my brain’s melting from the good writing.

Anyway, you’re misrepresenting to a small but crucial degree when you talk about rights and rules. Here’s a super-short general version. When too many people abuse their rights to act selfishly, government intervention is more likely. When people treat others with respect, government intervention is less likely. As a Conservative, I imagine you’d prefer more of the latter; people regulating their own interactions sensibly without need for state intervention.

In blogging terms, there are currently many people abusing their rights and acting selfishly. And, importantly, what they do can have a significant impact on others. For example, falsely but very publicly accusing someone of being a paedophile could have very serious consequences. That’s why “Guido’s” beloved “my house” analogy is so misleading. The world can’t see what’s written on Paul’s walls.

There’s an irony in all that which I won’t bother to spell out.

In this specific case, the fact is that Blaney has made a big deal about “honest debate” and has accused others of refusing to participate in it. My attempt to enter into any sort of debate on that post have not been very fruitful so far. And now he appears to have decided not to allow any honest debate on his own blog. Subject to confirmation, this is starting to look like the very definition of hypocrisy.

I’d add that having the comments off is an improvement in a way; at least it removes the false impression that honest debate is allowed.