Largely agree with you that their aim should be to adopt the second approach. No value in trying to appeal to a radical liberal agenda given the suburban/rural white middle class nature of the party’s support. Too much of the voters they need are simply not radical liberals and do work in the public sector or indeed don’t much care about or for letting their own teenage kids take drugs.

However,

Even if they manage a successful local campaign – most of their MPs will have been ministers – so the usual lib dem tactic of saying utterly contradictory things from one doorstep to another is much harder. It is much harder because any hint that they campaign on a “I’m one of the ones who didn’t like the coalition’s policies” will tend to be met by a bunch of labour or tory leaflets (depending on the constituency) showing what they actually voted for in parliament and thus calling them, with evidence, liars.

Which will lose them lots of votes.

As for the tories benefiting – the “split vote” against the tories in 50 seats where the tories might get in ahead of a collapsed lib dem party will make little difference to Labour – at least not in comparison to the “less plit vote” of all those 2010 lib dems who have switched to labour in a lot more constituencies that are Labour v Tory.

“‘the party that you really like can’t win here…’”

Lib Dems lie about this in local politics.

Personally, I find there are few forms of politics I like less than this sort of “radical liberalism”, which is more like conservative liberalism, since it ignores developments in liberal politics since 1900. It’s a politics for rich people who don’t like workers who dare stick up for their rights.

Welcome back, Don.

Anyone who has worked with Chris Rennard knows that when he talks about “community based campaigning” he expects it to be “liberal”. The argument is always that community politics is about empowering people; one role of a community politics councillor or MP is to push authorities to recognise citizens’ concerns.

Electoral campaigning is a separate matter. Credibility is important. Campaigners should not proclaim a “two horse race” if it isn’t going to happen. It ain’t rocket science to work that one out.

Any discussion of split votes should not ignore the effect of UKIP on the Tory vote. The Lib Dems are also more likely to be seen as Tory-lite after the coalition. Labour positioned as a good leftish centre-left should find this fertile ground on which to fight as they would have little competition.

The Lib-Dems are monstrously, massively, colossally and stupendously fucked on a scale previously unknown in the modern universe.

They have supported the government that’s destroyed social security, the NHS, education and everything else that’s irrelevant or irritating to overprivileged toffs and corporate raiders. Clegg has gone from supporting free education for the young to compulsory workfare for them. The Lib-Dems only way out is the purging of Clegg, Beaker and the rest of the guiltiest men and a name change for the party in the hope that the public will forget the Lib-Dems ever existed.

Even Judas had the decency to hang himself.

In my experience (based, in fairness, on a grand total of two electoral seats), they’ve been following Rennard’s advice for awhile now. Standard boring local MP stuff (“Here’s a photo of me standing next to the blokes installing that new bin you always wanted!”) with a dash of liberal politics to remind you what they stand for.

There are worse ways to fight an election, which is why Labour and the Tories do the exact same thing.

Oh, and regarding the bigger issue: I don’t like the sound of “radical liberalism”, because it sounds like it means “soft-spoken libertarianism”. I would, in theory, like to see a party that stood for social liberalism while defending socialist values. But I take your point that it might not be a good idea under our ridiculous FPTP system.

5. Schmidt

The Lib-Dems are monstrously, massively, colossally and stupendously fucked on a scale previously unknown in the modern universe.

Even Judas had the decency to hang himself.

Actually I agree with Schmidt. The Lib-Dems were always the Party that could never win. So they could promise anything to anyone and everything to everyone else. Which they did. Their politics defined the word irresponsible. But being in power means you have to choose. Clegg is responsible. His voters hate that and will never forgive him for doing it.

The LibDems will probably go home from the next election in a single taxi.

“He emphasises community based campaigning”.

I have lived in the same constituency for 26 years, during that time I have never seen a Liberal/Labour or Conservative candidate/campaigner on my doorstep – or indeed on anybody else’s doorstep.
Fact: our broken democratic process means that voting in ‘safe’ seats is largely irrelevant.
There always seem to be enough donkeys casting their ballots to return a Labour/Tory M.P., even though sometimes those voters have been dead a few years.
Fact: political parties are only interested in winning marginal seats, wherein lies the balance of power.
Fact: politicians are only interested in power, for with it comes influence and personal wealth.
Fact: like Mitt Romney (who at least was honest enough to admit it) our politicians could’nt care less about the 47%.
The difference here? I guess the figure would be closer to 90%.
The evidence of the last 26 years suggests they certainly don’t have a care about me.
Whilst indulging in the sort of ‘prattle’ that we read above, politicians concentrate on delivering the ‘message’ and ignore the consequences of their actions.
I imagine they are too preoccupied booking their holidays/refurbishing their latest second home or emailing their broker.

@ Chaise

I don’t like the sound of “radical liberalism”, because it sounds like it means “soft-spoken libertarianism”.

Let’s forget about labels.

From the OP

“backing free schools, taking on the vested interests of public sector workers on public services and the forces of conservatism on social issues, supporting civil liberties, relaxing drugs laws, fighting for civil liberties and lowering taxes on ordinary people.”

Nothing wrong with those policies.

I would, in theory, like to see a party that stood for social liberalism while defending socialist values.

Ah. You like the socialist values but, by implication, you don’t like the authoritarianism required to impose the creed?

I kind of know what you mean, but it’s not a tenable position.

@ 10 pagar

“Nothing wrong with those policies.”

There is with three of them:

*Backing free schools (unless this means universal education). I don’t want education to be appropriated by uninformed weirdos and political brainwashers.
*Taking on the vested interests of public sector workers on public services (sounds ok as written, but in reality probably means attacking workers’ rights).
*Lowering taxes on ordinary people (making policy around a spectacularly poorly defined group: simply dishonest).

“Ah. You like the socialist values but, by implication, you don’t like the authoritarianism required to impose the creed?”

Sigh. Could you specify which canard you’re using? Are you broadening the concept of authoritarianism so much that it includes taxation, or is this going to be another fucking “OMG U LUV STALIN!!!” argument?

“I kind of know what you mean, but it’s not a tenable position.”

I manage to ten it.

“taking on the vested interests of public sector workers on public services”

What “vested interests”, FFS? Wanting to do the job we’re here to do (which – like it or not – you’d be fucked if we didn’t do) and to be paid a fair rate for it?

I don’t see a way for the Lib Dems to escape destruction. I’m all for radical liberalism, but it won’t appeal to most of their voters or indeed party, and the radical liberals aka libertarians out there are unlikely to either flock to the Lib Dems’ standard or make up for the stampede in the other direction.

@ 11,

“I don’t want education to be appropriated by uninformed weirdos and political brainwashers.”

Hayek warned me about your type.

Excellent piece. There is indeed a tension between my call for national ‘air war’ positioning and the construction of coalitions in particular constituencies. I don’t usually comment on pages like this, but your piece really made me think. From a political perspective, the dilemma you portray is the real one.

@ 15

“I don’t usually comment on pages like this,”

Are you calling us plebs?

@ 14 Richard

“Hayek warned me about your type.”

Really? What did he say?

@ 17

rather than answer that, I’d rather point you to 0:49 in this youtube clip, and see if this is what you’re concerned about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yvt2Pt6LRA&feature=related

@ 18 Carey

“rather than answer that, I’d rather point you to 0:49 in this youtube clip, and see if this is what you’re concerned about.”

That’s not the only thing I’m concerned about, but it’s a good example. Chidren’s education being appropriated by people who want to push their views on kids by lying about reality. Hayek warned you about rationalists, did he?*

*I’m assuming you mean Friedrich Hayek. If you’re referring to Salma Hayek then apologise, Salma, and I thought you were great in Dogma.

So they are trying to blag that being Socially Left wing but Fiscally right wing is ‘Radical Liberalism’. Nothing radical about that mate, it is the Neoliberalism that has been dominating for 40 years. When are they going to stick up for normal salaried people. When will they start backing socially progressive capitalism such as Cooperatives and Mutuals. I hate it when Liberals try to pass off being economically right wing, but socially liberal as ‘Progressive’.

One the other hand, If the Lib Dems moved to to right it would further split the right vote and aid Labour and the Greens.

I think Lib Dems should shed Nick and Pact with Labour under Vince and get PR instated and Lords reformed. They can do this if they aid a Labour minority. And then once they have done this they can run as a respectable party with kudos for having driven reform.

This Tory attack on Demand and the nasty Rent Seeking behavior of our feral elite, will be the decline of us!

The Tories need to be punished by having Planning restrictions in the home counties neutered to start a housing boom which would bring in the Plebs!

@ Chaise,

the Hayek comment was a joke in response to your ‘OMG U LUV STALIN’ remark. I don’t think it worth arguing all the way to first principles and back, but:

“Children’s education being appropriated by people who want to push their views on kids by lying about reality.”

My view is that it is far better to trust to the division of power, through competition and consumer choice, than to a unitary, comprehensive, state-run school system, in order to prevent what you wish to prevent, as this does not put all the eggs in one basket. Also, ‘reality’ is to an extent subjective. The policing of the line which divides objective reality and subjectivity is, as above, best left to competition and choice, rather than a state bureaucracy. I suppose I fear false ideas being imposed from above more than false ideas seizing hold from below. I think it is easier to neutralise the effects of the latter than the former.

In the article by Richard Reeves, I learn:

“The population is increasingly socially liberal and anti-ideological. There remains a Blair-shaped hole in British politics.”

Talk about farting in an elevator …

“I would, in theory, like to see a party that stood for social liberalism while defending socialist values.”

Isn’t this what the Labour party is meant to do?

@ 21 Richard Carey

“My view is that it is far better to trust to the division of power, through competition and consumer choice, than to a unitary, comprehensive, state-run school system, in order to prevent what you wish to prevent, as this does not put all the eggs in one basket.”

The problem with not putting all the eggs in one basket is that kids get different educations, which will probably be of wildly different quality. So you could end up having no prospects because your parents decided to send you to a school that would lie to you to indoctrinate you further into their religious or political camp, rather than actually teach you things.

“Also, ‘reality’ is to an extent subjective.”

Well, it’s not. What is subjective is the level of probability at which we start calling things “true”.

“The policing of the line which divides objective reality and subjectivity is, as above, best left to competition and choice, rather than a state bureaucracy. I suppose I fear false ideas being imposed from above more than false ideas seizing hold from below. I think it is easier to neutralise the effects of the latter than the former.”

If I thought the state and free schools were equally likely to indoctrinate, I’d probably agree with you. But they’re not. I’m not saying the state doesn’t have a motive to brainwash people, but there’d be outrage if it turned out that the National Curriculum included lessons on why the Tories are awesome, for example. I mean, there’s outrage when the curriculum mentions that gay people exist, and that’s just reality.

The state is accountable to the people. Free schools would only really be accountable to the parents – a self-selecting group who would be in cahoots with the school, so to speak. A school advertising itself as teaching about “the lie of evolution” is unlikely to have kids whose parents object to their kids being fed creationist bullshit.

And that’s the other problem. If parents pick their schools along these lines, they’re probably feeding their kids that crap at home too. So every authority figure in the kid’s life is lying to them. There isn’t a safety net.

More generally, I think the fault-line in this debate is that some people see parents as the service-users of the school, and others see the children as the service-users.

@ Chaise,

“More generally, I think the fault-line in this debate is that some people see parents as the service-users of the school, and others see the children as the service-users.”

No, it’s who decides, the parents or the state? It’s who can be trusted with the best interests of the children, the parents or the state?

A libertarian must answer; the parents. A socialist sees it differently. He won’t say; the state, he will dress it up with the collective ‘we’ – as in ‘we can’t allow parents to decide’.

My argument is predicated on the general principle that parents want what’s best for their kids, and that we shouldn’t trust the state to impose a better result via bureaucracy and control. Yours is that parents cannot, fundamentally, be trusted, and therefore the state must dictate, and this is combined with a trust of government and a belief, apparently, in your own ability to judge for us all what is objectively true and what false.

You also presuppose that the religious parents give their kids a bad education, whereas they actually do quite well, certainly in America where home-schooling is more widespread.

“I mean, there’s outrage when the curriculum mentions that gay people exist”

Only in the case of sex education for primary school children. Perhaps you think that there is an objectively derivable answer to the question; at what time should a child be educated about sex, and in what manner? Even if this was so, and you had discovered the answer, you must acknowledge that not everyone will agree that you are right.

The best way to solve such disputes is as I said; competition and choice, not state-imposed omni-solution.

@ 25 Richard

“My argument is predicated on the general principle that parents want what’s best for their kids, and that we shouldn’t trust the state to impose a better result via bureaucracy and control. Yours is that parents cannot, fundamentally, be trusted, and therefore the state must dictate, and this is combined with a trust of government and a belief, apparently, in your own ability to judge for us all what is objectively true and what false.”

You were doing fine up to the last comma. Objectivity isn’t about opinions. If you want to know what’s objectively true, you find out. Through observation and testing and so on. You make your best estimate based on the evidence, put an appropriate weight of confidence on it, and call it good till more evidence turns up or you discover a flaw in your reasoning.

You seem to be treating objectiveness as if it’s the same as subjectivity. It’s not. If two people disagree on an objective fact, at least one of them is simply wrong. Someone can go around claiming the moon is made of cheese all they like, but it won’t change the moon. This is not a case where all opinions are equally valid.

I’ve no idea where you’ve gotten the impression that I’m saying I’m awesome at objectiveness and everyone should defer to me, by the way.

Incidentally, I’m picking up a subtext here of “you think you know more about education than parents”. Well, obviously I think I’m morally right – I assume that everyone agrees with their own opinion – but I’m not saying I’m the guy you want designing a curriculum. What you want is an expert in education, who will know more about education than nearly all parents.

Finally, having children doesn’t magically make you omniscient and perfectly benevolent. Some parents don’t care about what’s best for their children. Others do, but screw it up. Ultimately all children should have a right to a good education and nobody should be able to take that away from them.

“You also presuppose that the religious parents give their kids a bad education, whereas they actually do quite well, certainly in America where home-schooling is more widespread.”

No, I presuppose that some of them do, which happens. Isn’t there some Muslim school where Islamic beliefs, including antisemitism, are taught as fact? Does that sound like a good education to you? If every parent could pick their dream school, do you seriously think none of them would have their kids taught that evolution isn’t real?

More to the point, I presuppose that teaching kids lies about Jesus/Mohammed/Krishna/whoever is a waste of valuable learning time, even if the school is otherwise good. Especially if the school is good, in fact, because that means the time being wasted is more valuable.

“Only in the case of sex education for primary school children.”

Nope: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/11/09/church-leader-opposes-gay-school-book/

I checked out that book and it doesn’t look like sex ed to me. And as a different example, people get pissed off when characters with foreign-sounding names appear in school maths books (Tom, Dick and Harry become Tom, Mohammed and Sally). Apparently reality is political correctness gawn mad.

“Perhaps you think that there is an objectively derivable answer to the question; at what time should a child be educated about sex, and in what manner? Even if this was so, and you had discovered the answer, you must acknowledge that not everyone will agree that you are right.”

Firstly, this is at a complete tangent even if we were discussing something specific to sex ed. I never said anything about when sex ed should first be taught. Secondly, my whole “people get outraged about admitting gays exist” thing was just to illustrate the fact that many parents will complain if they disapprove of their kids’ learning materials. I’m not sure why it’s suddenly a central part of the discussion.

Here’s an example from the US too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/30/story-gay-parents-school-book-fair

@ Chaise,

it’s always the same argument between the libertarian and the socialist. I say; work from the presumption of individual responsibility, and you say that we can’t trust people, we must instead use the state to impose the right solution, and I point out that the state is made up of the very same people you don’t trust, and so it’s better not to gather all the power into few hands, but rather to disperse it, so that if it goes wrong the harm will be much less.

I don’t deny objective truth, but the never-ending disputes in education and schooling are not ones that can be settled by this. There is no right answer to whether a randomly-selected child should have a formal, academic education or a more practical one, or whether kids should wear uniforms, or if single sex schools are better than co-eds, or what age a child should receive sex education etc., etc. Let people agree to differ, and if there are extreme examples, then deal with them as exceptions and not a justification for a blanket, state-imposed, bureaucratic system.

@ 28 Richard

“it’s always the same argument between the libertarian and the socialist. I say; work from the presumption of individual responsibility, and you say that we can’t trust people, we must instead use the state to impose the right solution”

Do you? Are you, for example, in favour of repealing murder laws on the assumption that people will take the personal responsibility of not killing each other? Or are you happy for the state to impose something approaching the right solution there?

If people were super-responsible, we wouldn’t need laws or taxes. Fact is, they’re not and we do.

“I point out that the state is made up of the very same people you don’t trust, and so it’s better not to gather all the power into few hands, but rather to disperse it, so that if it goes wrong the harm will be much less.”

I’m fully aware that the state is made up of those very people I distrust. But it’s accountable, in a way that parent’s aren’t accountable for their kids’ education beyond ensuring that they go to one school or another. And it’s unlikely to push anything extreme because of the moderating effect of democracy (Rule 1: don’t piss too many voters off).

You didn’t say what you think about kids sitting down for Jews Are The Devil 101.

“I don’t deny objective truth, but the never-ending disputes in education and schooling are not ones that can be settled by this. There is no right answer to whether a randomly-selected child should have a formal, academic education or a more practical one, or whether kids should wear uniforms, or if single sex schools are better than co-eds, or what age a child should receive sex education etc., etc.”

Certainly, although it can inform these debates. Say you support uniforms because they improve concentration. Then someone does objective tests and find out that this isn’t true. Presumably you would then update your belief.

“Let people agree to differ, and if there are extreme examples, then deal with them as exceptions and not a justification for a blanket, state-imposed, bureaucratic system.”

Without blanket, state-imposed bureaucratic systems, how are we to deal with these extreme examples? Unless you want a torch ‘n’ pitchforks mob to sort out dodgy teachers, you’re gonna need legal regulations (aka blanket, state-imposed bureaucracy) or you’ll have no form of recourse.

@ Chaise,

“Are you, for example, in favour of repealing murder laws on the assumption that people will take the personal responsibility of not killing each other? ”

Of course not, and I am sure you know this. The libertarian position is that the necessity for laws precedes the state, so even without a state, murder is a crime. The state does not create laws, but is itself created in order to enforce them.

This is a philosophical point btw, not a historical one.

“If people were super-responsible, we wouldn’t need laws or taxes. Fact is, they’re not and we do.”

Yes, but my argument is not that people are, or should be treated as ‘super-responsible’, but rather that we should ‘work from the presumption of individual responsibility’. The word is ‘presumption’, as in ‘the presumption of innocence’. This latter doesn’t mean we think no one is ever guilty, only that the default position is innocence, until proven otherwise.

“I’m fully aware that the state is made up of those very people I distrust. But it’s accountable, in a way that parent’s aren’t accountable for their kids’ education beyond ensuring that they go to one school or another.”

If you don’t trust the parents, I don’t see how you can claim that the state is accountable, because this relies on the parents holding them to account. Besides, surely you accept that if responsibility rests in a particular matter with the school, rather than somewhere in a bureaucratic hierarchy, it is easier held to scrutiny and accountability?

“Certainly, although it can inform these debates. Say you support uniforms …”

Fine, but let the debates take place in a free market of ideas. Let the contentious issues be decided at the lowest level not at the top. Let there be diversity. You believe in diversity, don’t you?

“Unless you want a torch ‘n’ pitchforks mob to sort out dodgy teachers, you’re gonna need legal regulations (aka blanket, state-imposed bureaucracy) or you’ll have no form of recourse.”

There are many independent schools, and I’m sure they deal with substandard teachers without recourse to lynch mobs of angry villagers.

Yet again, we get an indication of the internal contradiction of your position: the people, taken individually, are savage, superstitious, pitchfork-wielding peasants, hell-bent on ensuring the continuing stupidity of their children, but through the magic of a powerful state and the occasional vote, these simpletons become an informed electorate capable of holding the state to account.

@ 30 Richard Carey

“Of course not, and I am sure you know this. The libertarian position is that the necessity for laws precedes the state, so even without a state, murder is a crime. The state does not create laws, but is itself created in order to enforce them.”

Fine, but this rather dodges the issue. If you’re in favour of the state enforcing some laws, your objection to other laws can’t be because you think personal responsibility is so reliable that laws are unnecessary.

“Yes, but my argument is not that people are, or should be treated as ‘super-responsible’, but rather that we should ‘work from the presumption of individual responsibility’. The word is ‘presumption’, as in ‘the presumption of innocence’. This latter doesn’t mean we think no one is ever guilty, only that the default position is innocence, until proven otherwise.”

Law doesn’t contradict this. A murder law doesn’t infringe on anyone responsible enough not to commit murder, and so on. I’m still not seeing what distinction you’re drawing here between “reasonable law” and “infringement of liberty”.

“If you don’t trust the parents, I don’t see how you can claim that the state is accountable, because this relies on the parents holding them to account.”

Because of the aforementioned moderating effect. Several million voters are going to average out as less extreme than the most extreme parents. A school system that’s trying to keep everyone happy-ish would not teach that creationism is truth, that Jews are evil, or that God is a myth. As indeed the National Curriculum shows.

“Besides, surely you accept that if responsibility rests in a particular matter with the school, rather than somewhere in a bureaucratic hierarchy, it is easier held to scrutiny and accountability?”

It rests with the school either way. If, say, teaching antisemitism were illegal, it would be schools that would take the blame if found to be breaching the law. My system just means that different people enforce that responsibility.

“Fine, but let the debates take place in a free market of ideas. Let the contentious issues be decided at the lowest level not at the top. Let there be diversity. You believe in diversity, don’t you?”

I’m not 100% sure what “believe in diversity” means. I certainly believe in a free market of ideas, just not in lying to children during mandatory educational time. Just like my belief in freedom of speech does not mean I think kids have an inalienable right to chatter in class when the teacher’s talking.

“There are many independent schools, and I’m sure they deal with substandard teachers without recourse to lynch mobs of angry villagers.”

And when that whole school is substandard, teaching kids that evolution is fake and Jews are evil? Don’t say it’ll be killed off by competition: it’ll fill a niche sought by parents with those views.

“Yet again, we get an indication of the internal contradiction of your position: the people, taken individually, are savage, superstitious, pitchfork-wielding peasants, hell-bent on ensuring the continuing stupidity of their children”

Oh, for fuck’s sake. No I don’t. If you can’t discuss this in an adult fashion then there’s no point talking to you. Try responding to what people say instead of making up crap inside your own head then attributing it to others.

The “mob” thing was just me trying to come up with a way to enforce quality on schools without law. And if you STILL can’t tell the difference between “some people are stupid” and “all people are stupid” then that’s your problem, quite frankly.

“but through the magic of a powerful state and the occasional vote, these simpletons become an informed electorate capable of holding the state to account.”

There’s only so many times I can use the phrase “moderating effect”. If you’re just going to ignore it, then it’s your decision to talk at cross-purposes.

You’re generally quite an interesting commenter but you seem to be devolving into childish straw-man attacks at this point. Get back to me if you get a grip.

@ Chaise,

“If you’re in favour of the state enforcing some laws, your objection to other laws can’t be because you think personal responsibility is so reliable that laws are unnecessary.”

you’re bundling up a few things here. Firstly, I don’t view laws as legitimate simply because they are promulgated by the state, but whether they are just. I recognise that if I break a law that I consider unjust, I am still liable to be punished, but I take the view that the state can only derive legitimacy from us, the people. As such, the state cannot legitimately do anything that we are not allowed to do. I cannot murder you, and if I try you may defend yourself. As such, the state cannot murder you either, but it can defend you from a murderer. With regard to education, I cannot force your child to be schooled in the manner that I dictate is the best, etc etc.

” I’m still not seeing what distinction you’re drawing here between “reasonable law” and “infringement of liberty”.”

Do you see it now? A reasonable law is one which protects the individual from aggression and coercion. It derives from our individual liberty.

“Oh, for fuck’s sake. No I don’t. If you can’t discuss this in an adult fashion then there’s no point talking to you.”

Okay, I just got to this bit. I’ll leave it then.

“You’re generally quite an interesting commenter but you seem to be devolving into childish straw-man attacks at this point. Get back to me if you get a grip.”

Thank you, but you brought up pitchforks, and I was only following. I didn’t really want to get into a big argument about first principles. Maybe we can just agree that the majority of people are basically okay, and you can draw the conclusion that; the state + democratic accountability, given the moderating effect of this sane majority is the best system, and I’ll draw the conclusion that we don’t need all that, because, well, the majority of people are basically okay, and we can both rest safe in the knowledge that neither of us has more than a negligible influence over the nation’s education system.

@ 32 Richard Carey

“you’re bundling up a few things here. Firstly, I don’t view laws as legitimate simply because they are promulgated by the state, but whether they are just. I recognise that if I break a law that I consider unjust, I am still liable to be punished, but I take the view that the state can only derive legitimacy from us, the people.”

Agreed with that.

“As such, the state cannot legitimately do anything that we are not allowed to do. I cannot murder you, and if I try you may defend yourself. As such, the state cannot murder you either, but it can defend you from a murderer. With regard to education, I cannot force your child to be schooled in the manner that I dictate is the best, etc etc.”

I’m not sure it’s possible to maintain this principle and have any kind of criminal justice system. I assume you agree that it’s wrong to lock people up against their will. By that logic: no jails. If you disagree with taking people’s money without their consent: no fines.

“Do you see it now? A reasonable law is one which protects the individual from aggression and coercion. It derives from our individual liberty.”

I’m fine with that (well, not on the fiscal side, but that’s an issue for another day), but from my POV a law banning school time being appropriated for pushing an agenda using lies would qualify here. Children are coerced into going to school, after all.

This may be one case of “good coercion” (kids tend to create exceptions here as they’re not fully responsible for themselves), but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be concerned about how that coercion is exploited.

I think there’s a bad habit, mainly on the right, of seeing children as basically the property of their parents. I’m not saying you subscribe to it, and people who act like they do tend not to actually follow through on it. But it seems to inform a lot of the “parent choice” philosophy that mother knows best even if she decides to send you to be “educated” in a salt mine (Hyperbole? Moi?). I find it objectionable.

“Thank you, but you brought up pitchforks, and I was only following.”

Like I said, I was trying to come up with a way of enforcing things without recourse to the law or market forces. It is genuinely annoying to have that creatively misread as “I think everyone is really thick”, with an obvious implied option on “Whereas I am awesome, all bow down before Chaise and his mighty opinions”.

“I didn’t really want to get into a big argument about first principles. Maybe we can just agree that the majority of people are basically okay, and you can draw the conclusion that; the state + democratic accountability, given the moderating effect of this sane majority is the best system, and I’ll draw the conclusion that we don’t need all that, because, well, the majority of people are basically okay, and we can both rest safe in the knowledge that neither of us has more than a negligible influence over the nation’s education system.”

Sure, if you like. It’s a moral/philosophical/what-if point, so we can reasonably agree to disagree here. I don’t think your preferred system is horrendous or anything, it’s just not how I’d arrange things.