Libertarian conservatism should attract socialists, liberals and environmentalists too

"All hope for change lies in a rEVOLution fought not with bullets, but with our minds." Jake Towne

On one of the unofficial Ron Paul websites, http://ronpaulrepublican.com/?p=139, is an article by someone running for office in Pennsylvania called Jake Towne. That's where I got the quote above. Yes it's idealistic, but Towne represents many aspects of the properly conservative mindset - constitutionalism, fiscal solidity, defence of liberty and an aversion to unnecessary wars. It won't solve all our problems, but it is a realistic alternative to established politics, which has left us with a democratic deficit, social decay and a bankrupt economy.

Many socialists are initially motivated by distrust of the establishment and opposition to injustice, and have been disillusioned by the Labour party and changemaker Obama bailing out the banks. The Ron Paul revolution offers a government not in hock to special interests like the finance industry. It's a free-market philosophy, but it blocks the too-cosy relationship between government and the banks.

Classical liberals and democrats should reject the Lib Dems' love of unaccountable supranational institutions like the EU. How can a liberal be happy with the EU-wide arrest warrant? Yet Nick Clegg, Vince Cable et al support it, because they believe that the supra-state apparatus of the EU is essentially benign. The Liberal Democrats support central planning also. Modern day liberals claim continuity with John Locke and 19th Century liberalism; however, Paul E. Gottfried in "After liberalism: the managerial state in the age of mass democracy" convincingly argues that modern liberalism is defined by a faith in progress through government planning by experts. This dictatorship of the bureaucrats, often in the teeth of popular (small 'c' conservative) opposition is clearly the antithesis of the 19th Century liberal belief in individual freedom. Only the name survives, so creating an illusion of continuity.

Some useful reviews of Gottfried's book are to be found here. Or use an Internet search.

Environmentalists who blame the free-market for local noise and air pollution should read Simon Jenkins' article about how how Labour Government policy has been captured by the airline industry. At least part of the answer is more Nimbys - i.e. local residents and awkward anti-government planning types - not Big Government.

On the right of the political divide, so-called Conservatives have bought into the central planning as much as so-called socialists and liberals. The way the Federal Reserve and Bank of England have kept interest rates artificially low, thereby creating the credit and housing bubbles, is a an example of central planning by supposed experts at its worst. The rule of experts is the defining feature of the managerial state, and people who call themselves free-market Conservatives have up to now bought into that.

Socialists who support bailouts for the rich; free-market conservatives who support utopian wars, big government welfarism, centrally planned interest rates and managed inflation, a form of theft; liberals who give more credence to the benefits of the managerial state than individual initiative. The participants of the late 19th/early 20th century ideological wars have been replaced by replicas; by keeping the old names though, they can create the illusion that the battleground is the same.

Give the police their due?

Further to my previous post on the police at the G20, is it too glib or naïve to criticise the police for their policing of G20? Let's look at it from the police's side.

We might say that environmentalists are not just peaceful protestors, but provocative agitators, using violent tactics;

Footage of police actions is edited by the environmentalists for their own ends, and gullible journalists fall for that, as does the public when it sees the footage; moreover the very act of filming changes the situation on the ground: there is something aggressive in the very act of filming, especially if they stick the camera close to the police officer's face - police accountability might even be personal vulnerability to attack outside of the job;

You might also say that the sheer nervous tension of a day-long police operation means individual police officers will sometimes lash out in “inappropriate” ways.

But in fairness to the protestors, another way of seeing the filming is to say that having been duffed up the police, the protestors are filming for their own protection; after all, the state are filming them. Defensive and offensive filming look the same. Also, police officers should be disciplined enough not to lash out: it would be understandable if someone is actually hitting the police officer, so he needs to defend himself; but there were no pitched battles going on.

Again in favour of the police, you might say that on the previous G7/8 days, these people wrecked City centres and we should be thankful that the police kept order and preserved property. This is the only objection that carries much weight with me. But there is a controversy going on about tactics and separating the anarchist thugs from the peaceful protestors.

I'll finish with the horror stories told by George Monbiot in Tuesday's guardian. You don't have to sympathise with Monbiot's politics to agree that he has a right not to be duffed up by the people he pays his taxes to protect him. He mentions that the countryside alliance got the same treatment. The use of counter-terrorism powers is also disturbing. I am linking to the article at Monbiot.com rather than the Guardian because there Monbiot provides some links to press and parliamentary comment.

The point about my previous post was to say that good policing is about protecting and respecting the liberty of all subjects of the crown, not just using the law to rectify the supposed injustices suffered by “designated oppressed groups” (see latest from Theodore Dalrymple for that phrase). I had begun to wonder if I was fitting the facts around the G20 demo to this general observation; but actually it could be you or me protesting next time, so police restraint is good.

Police Service brutality

Ironic that after the struggle against "institutional racism", a change of name from the "police force" to "police service", initiatives on community policing, softly-softly, the PC police chief, Ian Blair running the Met, etc, after all this we have policemen assaulting peaceful demonstrators: for me the shield in the face against one young demonstrator was the conclusive incident; but the truncheon on the back of the legs of a woman doesn't look good, nor does the death of a frail bystander after an unnecessary push by a police officer, even if we say that the policemen involved is not responsible for Mr Tomlinson's poor state of health before the push. Then the unprecedented arrest of an opposition MP, Damien Green and the searching of parliamentary offices. So liberty and good policing are not about ticking the politically correct boxes, we can now all agree.

Meanwhile the real criminals can rob and murder with impunity or ridiculously light sentences. I recommend Peter Hitchens' book, the Abolition of Liberty, which argues that security and liberty are not in opposition; that everyday public order is essential to liberty and protactive (bobbies on the beat) policing is essential to safeguard these; that the police have become agents of the state rather than the people, politically correct policing being part of this development.