That’s not how I read it, it looked more like a criticism along the lines of “what’s the point of wasting time/money doing x when you won’t do the basic thing of y”.

Admittedly either interpretation is possible on a dry reading of the text. Without being able to hear how he said it it’s not really possible to know which is right.

I suspect which interpretation people favour (on both sides) comes down to bias rather than fact.

In essence he appears to be saying that the government is spending too much time “building a police state” (and that phrase suggests it’s not a good thing) when in his view the government’s priorities should be elsewhere, i.e. Border control.

I don’t think Charlie Elphicke was actually talking about building a police state, it’s just a dig at the policies of the Labour government, which the Tories always painted as overly authoritarian and weak on immigration control.

It’s not beyond the Tories to think about or to implament measures to create a police state. Frankly many would be happy to live in one.

Difficult to tell.

No praise, though, for the Tories on the following?

Damian Green: I can announce that the Government will not be seeking to extend the order allowing the maximum 28-day limit and, accordingly, the current order will lapse on 25 January and the maximum limit of pre-charge detention will, from that time, revert to 14 days. We are clear that 14 days should be the norm and that the law should reflect that.

No criticism of Ed Balls for his pathetic and illiberal response?

I was watching the debate live when this came up and I can assure you that it sounded like support for the concept rather than a jibe. That’s why I wrote about it and tracked down the quote on Hansard to check it.

You don’t have to be Tory to be libertarian you know. The World is three dimensional, not one. I am financially centrist but libertarian. Try out The Political Compass.

#7

Technically, the political compass is two-dimensional, not three-dimensional.

One of the many problems with the political compass is that it says the liberal-authoritarian axis is just as important as the left-right axis. Shouldn’t each participant decide how important each axis is to them? Perhaps the liberal-authoritarian axis should be shorter than the left-right axis, or perhaps it should be longer. Perhaps everyone’s compass should be a different shape – some more square, some more rectangular.

So too by including one extra axis arbitrarily and not other axes it accords a false priority to the liberal-authoritarian axis over, say, religious or other philosophical divisions, or even emotional differences. I can understand why it appeals to liberals, but it is no more objective a tool than the traditional left-right spectrum. Perhaps it is worse, because it claims an authority that the left-right spectrum doesn’t.

I recall preferring Chris Lightfoot’s Political Survey to the Political Compass – how it works.

I doubt any MP (of any party) is going to publically support a police state – and a throwaway reference to a common meme cannot be taken as support.

Of course, I could be wrong – in which case Mr Elphick belongs in the ranks of the authoritarians (a group found in all parties, except possibly the Libertarian Party (one hopes…)). My limited knowledge of him suggests he is not such, but worth watching.

As someone close to being both Conservative and Libertarian, my response is actually to note this and state unreservedly that if taking a quote out of context like this really indicates an authoritarian streak, to oppose in unconditionally. But before I raise my voice in protest, I’d like something that would be usable as evidence (i.e. not something that he can quite conceivably and believably turn round and say ‘I didn’t mean it like that’ about).

@7 & 8 – the problem is more just our inate human desire to rank things, parcel them up into easy toi understand categories and then think these categories match reality.

Each of us picks and chooses which policies and preferences we have on each issue, and then we average ourselves out to ‘left’ or ‘right’.

Even a 3d (or 4d?!) compass wouldn’t be suitable for most of us as the point would never find the right spot.

Back to topic, it doesn’t sound like he is calling for/supporting a police state. And I disagree, I think it would be quite un-Tory to do so?

“a group found in all parties, except possibly the Libertarian Party”

When it comes to immigration…………

I agree with Dan,he said that it was no good building one

Cyncial/realist,

Back to topic, it doesn’t sound like he is calling for/supporting a police state. And I disagree, I think it would be quite un-Tory to do so?

But that goes against the good tradition of internet political debate where both sides automatically assume the other is authoritarian and wants totalitarian powers for the state, despite a total lack of evidence…

To be fair, there have been some Conservatives who seem to have wanted to use the police as a political tool, but then there have been some Labour folk who feel the same – the idiots exist everywhere.

Planeshift,

I fear you may be right – but then again many Libertarian party members apparently think that carrying guns should be allowed (with all the implications for personal ability to coerce others) so perhaps it is fair to question whether they really understand all the implications of the belief to which they’ve signed up.

A genuine Libertarian believes in absolute open borders anything less is fake libertarianism. Although open borders need not be porous borders open to any criminal. This belief in open borders sifts out the wheat from the chaff and shows up as fake the modern types who tend to be reactionary right-wing and laughably claim to be Libertarian. A genuine Libertarian is liberal in all views and I can’t imagine why one would be in any type of conservative party.

Richard W,

A small correction: A genuine Libertarian is liberal in all views should be a genuine libertarian is unconcerned about what other people do, regardless of their own personal views. There is no inherent contradiction in being a devout muslim and a libertarian for example – one is how you live your life, the other a disregard for how others want to live theres except for how it directly affects you (i.e. you might not kiss in public, but unless someone comes up and kisses you, you have no concern about others doing so, even if it is something you would prefer not to happen in your heart of hearts. You can have reactionary libertarians – people who personally want to live in the 1950s or whenever the golden age was meant to be, but allow that others may not. In fact the only sort of beliefs that are necessarily antithetical to libertarianism are collectivist or statist – which by definition impose views and behaviour on others regardless of what they want. This does actually include most forms of socialism (and clearly includes communism, facism and the like) and to a fair extent also European Christian Democracy (in so far as that can be defined as anything other than something that is statist but non-socialist). You cannot legitimately claim to be in favour of state control of economic resources for example and also to be a libertarian…

“A genuine Libertarian ………”

Not again. How many more times? There are no real libertarians. There are only fake libertarians. As someone above said…. a real libertarian would not have any border controls. So that rules out all the pretend right wing libertarians.

As for the police state. No surprise that the tories love a police state. Brownshirts always love men in uniforms.

Building a police state would be a total waste of money when they’ve already inherited one from the last government.

‘In fact the only sort of beliefs that are necessarily antithetical to libertarianism are collectivist or statist – which by definition impose views and behaviour on others regardless of what they want.’

How is somebody who submits to supernatural forces ‘libertarian’?

‘You cannot legitimately claim to be in favour of state control of economic resources for example and also to be a libertarian…’

You don’t need to be in favour of State control to be a socialist either. Labour is no less alienated under State communism than capitalism.

Brownshirts always love men in uniforms.

Given what actually happened to the brownshirts, I’d have thought they’d have learned to be rather wary of the police.

@ Watchman

Well I am not a Libertarian. Just plain vanilla liberal with a heavy dose of utilitarianism does me. The idea of a reactionary Libertarian is an intriguing thought. Personally, I’ve never met a reactionary who did not want to impose their beliefs on others. I will take your word for it that such a creature exists. Strangely enough I have also never met anyone with conservative or social conservative views who do not wish to impose their outlook on others. I mean conservative in the widest terms they exist in all parties and none. I make no distinction between left wing conservatives and right wing conservatives. Conservatism from the latin conservare- to preserve. Since there is no libertarian society on earth a libertarian would not want ‘ to preserve ‘ they want to change society to a libertarian society not conserve it. That makes them the antithesis of a conservative. Although, they often do align with various conservative parties when they are out of office because of their small government rhetoric. Then the conservative politicians get into power and shaft them by increasing government.

Richard,

Whilst not outright libertarian, a lot of older Conservatives have reached a stage where they are personally quite reactionary but they are less concerned by other people’s actions – I would not be surprised if there were a few who combine reactionary views and libertarianism (actually there seem to be a few in the libertarian blogosphere as well…).

I agree that most social conservatives and reactionaries are clearly not libertarian, but this comes from believing their views should apply to others, which is not inherent in their viewpoints any more than it is inherently absent from liberalism as a philosophy (only social liberals can claim exception from that…). My point was not about actual libertarians, but about the fact that the philosophy is often misunderstood – either by the idiots who seem to assume it is right wing (I am happy that there could be socialist forms even – just not in accord with the statist form socialism has normally taken) or those who assume it denotes personal liberalism – it is an overarching concept which by definition allows different beliefs amongst its adherents.

“A genuine Libertarian believes in absolute open borders anything less is fake libertarianism.”

I’m aware of this. There are also numerous debates amongst trotskyists over what genuine socialism is, and accusations of fakeness are also sprinkled regularly.

Its usually better to think of a particular philosophy in terms of a spectrum of opinion with a range of viewpoints on some issues. So you get your anarcho capitalists who would replace the police force with market provided security companies and then you move up to the minarchists. At somewhere on that spectrum you start to be able to make a logical case for immigration controls that is consistant with the rest of the philosophy.

It’s just a shame that many libertarians are unable to see the same degrees and range of policies within other belief systems. The tendancy to label everything from genocide to government funded anti-smoking campaigns as “authoritarian” simply diminishes the term and suggests a rather juvenile attitude (similar to Sally’s use of brownshirt). Shatterface above provides a great example of it:

“Building a police state would be a total waste of money when they’ve already inherited one from the last government.”

You see, to anyone who thinks a bit about what a police state is, this is simply hysterical nonsense. Whilst we may disagree on the details, I think most of us would regard a police state as one in which citizens are moitored excessively in real time, arrested and jailed (or worse) for being critical of the government, and banned from undergoing sexual relations with people they choose. Ok, so we can look at the growth in CCTV and databases and mark that as a negative (despite most of it being done by the private sector), and yes new labour had a worrying tendancy to adopt excessively strict security measures. But against this their legislation also meant that Homosexual, disabled and ethnic minority people could be sure that the police would have to take attacks on them seriously, and public organisations could not discriminate against them. Moreover, despite the fact consider the decade also saw the largest ever protests against government policy from both right and left, the fact is that not a single person was imprisoned for being critical of policy. I think most of the worlds population would not regard us as a police state. Yes New Labour was authoritarian in some aspects, but if anyone seriously thinks its antics constitute the creation of a police state then they should visit china.

What libertarians call “authoritarianism” is thus such a large spectrum of practices and behaviours that it loses all meaning. Ditch the term and use something else.

Shatterface,

How is somebody who submits to supernatural forces ‘libertarian’?

Because it is their personal choice, and so long as they do no more than encourage others to convert (I believe proletyism is not anti-libertarian, in the same way as protest is not) and do not seek to impose their religion on others, they can be libertarian – all that is required is to accept ‘I am like this, but others can be however they like (so long as they do not cause harm to others)’.

You don’t need to be in favour of State control to be a socialist either. Labour is no less alienated under State communism than capitalism.

I said most forms of socialism (i.e. most of the ways it evolved through the statist twentieth-century) are inimical to libertarianism. I am happy there can be socialist non-statism (indeed, one of my reasons for posting around here is to hopefully spark thoughts in that direction in one or two people’s heads, since left-wing far too often seems to mean blind statism), and I suspect socialist libertarianism would be quite simple to conceive (at least for people who unlike me regard socialist tenants as important) – although it would mean socialism would be limited to those who wanted to partake (actually, that strikes me as a more ideal socialism, since socialism’s greatest flaw has generally been reliance on compulsion…).

Its usually better to think of a particular philosophy in terms of a spectrum of opinion with a range of viewpoints on some issues.

Spot on. Libertarianism is a tendency, not an ideology.

‘You see, to anyone who thinks a bit about what a police state is, this is simply hysterical nonsense.’

If what the Tories are *proposing* is a ‘police state’ – as the OP claims – then what Labour *practiced* was a ‘police state’. If anything the early-release schemes they have proposed are far more liberal than articles against it I’ve published here claiming its better to keep people locked up because there’s no work for them.

‘Spot on. Libertarianism is a tendency, not an ideology’

Same, basically, for conservatism, which can cover anything from ‘traditional values’ to conservation, or socialism, which includes everything from state communism to anarcho-syndicalism.

‘Spot on. Libertarianism is a tendency, not an ideology’

Same, basically, for conservatism, which can cover anything from ‘traditional values’ to conservation, or socialism, which includes everything from state communism to anarcho-syndicalism.

Probably worth pointing out that you can conceivably combine all three ideologies – they are all so broad that they are not exclusive of each other.

@ 3

it’s just a dig at the policies of the Labour government

Yeeeeees……. at least somebody gets it.

Sunny, I’m amazed that you – of all people – didn’t twig that Elphicke was jesting. You do it so often yourself. Bad sense of humour day?

May providence preserve women folk from police intervention:

“ALAN Johnson is determined to rescue his shattered marriage despite wife Laura’s affair with his [police] bodyguard, friends revealed last night.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/01/22/alan-johnson-hopes-to-rescue-marriage-after-wife-s-fling-with-his-bodyguard-115875-22866584/

“Jim Boyling, who carried out covert surveillance for five years while undercover as eco-activist Jim Sutton, was accused of engaging in sexual relationships with targets. It emerged this week that Boyling had married an activist and had gone on to have two children with her before divorcing two years ago.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/21/police-spy-married-suspended-duty

The Tories worked very hard, in the 80s and 90s, to lay the foundations for a police state should it prove necessary or desirable to have one. The notion that the Conservative party had abandoned its traditions and fundamentals and could somehow take-up the libertarian mantle that Labour dropped under Blair and Brown, was always ridiculous.

@29: “The Tories worked very hard, in the 80s and 90s, to lay the foundations for a police state should it prove necessary or desirable to have one.”

C’mon. Control Orders and ASBOs were New Labour innovations and so was RIPA – Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000:

“A survey of UK councils has found some are spying on litter louts and people who let dogs foul public places, using laws to track criminals and terrorists.

“Some local authorities have used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) more than 100 times in the last 12 months to conduct surveillance.

“The findings, obtained by the Press Association news agency, come from 46 of the 468 local authorities in the UK.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7369543.stm

“Councils in England and Wales face new restrictions on the use of surveillance powers for minor offences such as dog fouling and littering.

“The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) allows public authorities to intercept phone and e-mail data and use CCTV to spy on suspected criminals.

“But Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has launched a review after fears it was being used for ‘trivial’ offences.

“The Tories and Lib Dems say Ripa has become a ‘snooper’s charter’.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8003123.stm

I’m actually quite heartened that this discussion of libertarianism hasn’t been dominated by the sallyist tendency. I would state the fundamental principles of libertarianism as:

self-ownership (freedom of conscience, freedom of speech etc are aspects of this)
non-aggression against non-aggressors
voluntary co-operation is good, coercion is bad

The importance of private property and opposition to state power stem from the above. The belief in free market economics is obviously connected. Some will argue for the above on utilitarian grounds. Others will take a more principled natural law stance.

There is no contradiction in being a libertarian and believing in God. Some of the greatest libertarians have had profound spiritual beliefs, such as John Lilburne and Anne Hutchinson. Others, especially these days, are atheists. The important thing is that one is free to think as one likes (Anne Hutchinson is especially relevant to this point).

I think libertarians generally do believe in open borders, although some no doubt have reservations for one reason or another.

The problem we have with socialism is mainly: (a) it doesn’t work economically, (b) it requires widespread coercion, and (c) it doesn’t acknowledge the famous maxim of Lord Acton, and attempts to take over the machinery of the state, on the false belief that socialists will use its power to benefit the people, rather than the traditional system of preying upon them.

Our relationship to conservatism is, as someone has pointed out,only really seen when the conservatives are out of power. It’s slightly more tangled in America, where the libertarian ethos is ingrained is some ways, so the two don’t contradict. But no libertarian can have any truck with the neo-cons, for, I would hope, obvious reasons.

@31: “The belief in free market economics is obviously connected. Some will argue for the above on utilitarian grounds. Others will take a more principled natural law stance.”

The first of the Factory Acts – an early recognition by Parliament that unregulated labour markets could lead to unacceptable outcomes – dates back to 1802 and a long succession of interventionist acts followed. In short, Parliament became increasingly disillusioned about the attractions of free market capitalism fairly early on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts

Pretend Libertarian “There is no contradiction in being a libertarian and believing in God.”

What utter drivel. If you believe in God ,you also believe in the religious teaching that comes with that religion. You therefore kiss your libertarian ass goodbye.

Pretend Libertarian “self-ownership (freedom of conscience, freedom of speech etc are aspects of this) non-aggression against non-aggressors voluntary co-operation is good, coercion is bad The importance of private property and opposition to state power stem from the above. The belief in free market economics is obviously connected. “

The usual hooey list of right wing free markets and private property bullshit. And what did this wonderfully system that you so support end up doing? It created socialism, the thing you claim you hate. (non aggression) That would be the non aggression that created the British Empire would it? Or does that come under free markets?

All Libertarians are fake. Libertarianism is a fantasy, a bit like Harry Potter. It is a pretend world that only exists in their minds. As a result they can get rid of all the bits THEY don’t like. Actually there is a worryingly dictatorship quality to most so called libertarians. They wish to have the world laid out according to their views, and if it is not ,they are the first to run to the state to sort it out. Farmers are a good example of this.

@ Bob B

nothing you say contradicts what I’ve said. I’ve not argued that Parliament is a bastion of libertarianism. In fact, Herbert Spencer said it well:

“The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments.”

Sally,

may God give you a more open mind. Amen.

@34
No Gods, No Kings.
Only Man

But we already have a police state! All successive govts have done in my latter life-time is improve its efficiency. & international-ise it! & use small faraway wars & conflicts instead of the concentration camps of the past nazi & soviet regimes to contain & kill!
But in order to protect any “ism”, such measures are needed! viz. catholicism, protestantism, for instance!
Its a conundrum, innit?