Reply to David Selbourne

In response to Mr. Selbourne's article in the Guardian:

Is the writer truly suggesting that the real danger lies in extremist terrorists dividing up the world and impose a true police state on the world? That argument may fly with some, but I find it impossible to ignore the present costs of mainstream, state-sponsored terrorism perpetrated or tacitly accepted by powerful nations. Even if we aren't counting the bodies everyday at home, we'd be naive not to treat the domestic political battle as seriously as an open conflict.

Don't 'bemoan' my freedom or speak to me about moral authority. Those of us who do study history know that any ism is easily hijacked, including socialism, patriotism, communism, and capitalism (managed).

I do agree with one statement, however:

"no civil society can rest upon the possession of rights alone"

How true. Rights are transient and illusory. Truly civil society must strive to be free.


Some other important comments were also made...

redfoot said:
Bravo, no rights without responsibilities, etc etc. Great, but what exactly is the author talking about here. I've been away from the country for the past 7 months, has anyone raised anything concrete yet? Incidentally am living in a country that doesn't really recognise rights, but is bang on with duties. Except, of course, each non-compliance with "duty" is in theory punishable by a fine, imprisonment, corporal punishment, or in cases of opposing the g'ment, being bankrupted so you can't ever do it again. And in this carefully managed environment, you still get fast food containers in the river, casually thrown there for someone else to pick up, and signs all over the place reminding people to flush toilets. Guess it works, eh? So, are we going to couple every right with a sense of moral responsibility, backed up with a fine/mandatory sentence/ village stocks? I'd come back to see the politicians have first go.

crabapple said:
The left are espousing vacuous notions of liberty? I did read it several times and am still afraid I may have had a brainstorm and misinterpreted something. I was under the impression that this leftist government is actually eroding our liberties. I'll go back and read it again,

peteran said:
My keyboard was awash with tears as I read Mr Selbourne's piece. Who would not be moved by the thought of the poor, defenceless little state pleading with its citizens, begging them to fulfil their piffling duties while all the time the mean-minded plebs screamed for more and more rights?

And then I thought about it. How often has the state failed to exert its 'rights' by forcing its people to fulfil their duties? The entire bodies of both our criminal and civil law are designed to make the people fulfil their duties to the state and each other. You don't feel like fulfilling your duty to pay tax? You don't want to fulfil your duty to go off to war when parliament's enacted conscription? You can't afford to fulfil your duty to pay your TV licence? The poor, defenceless little state will beg you to do so... and then lock you up if you don't.

The state has always exerted its rights and ruthlessly imposed duties on its citizens. Some of us are arguing that it's time that the people be granted formally just a few inalienable rights. The Human Rights Act was a start - which presumably is why so many on the right hate it.

But the idea that some pendulum has swung too far towards indulging citizens with too many rights is frankly ludicrous.

ordinary said wryly:
The writer is correct in two respects.

First, left and right are, and in modern times have always been, a sham. The "strategy of tension" that is the argument between the radical individualism of the collectivist left and the radical individualism of the anti-collectivist right sucks in all uncritical minds, and leaves moot in public understanding the fact that kinship, or connectedness, is the true measure of human concern.

The second respect in which MR Selbourne is moving in the right direction is his understanding, scarcely stated, that Leviathan is rising. I would expect all serious-thinking Guardian readers to understand this.

The question which begs is: Is the ethnic and cultiural mess that requires a security solution created for that purpose?

and QuincyME said adroitly:
What a vacuous article. I was looking forward to reading a robust critique of the libertarian position, but I didn't get one.

If you're going to make sweeping generalisations about what 'the left' thinks/does, or the illusory nature of libertarian arguments, you need to provide some examples.

Let me do some of this work for you by naming just a few of the things people - including me - are unhappy about. The banning of protests near parliament. Sweeping new powers of arrest for police. 28 day detention without trial. A national ID card and biometric database. More CCTV per person than in any other nation in the world. Intrusive 'health and safety' regulations. ASBOs.

I could go on. The point is that every single one of these recent innovations is a serious restriction on liberty. If you are going to argue that this doesn't matter or is overegged, you need to explain why, using examples. You do precisely none of this. Instead you just assert, aggressively, your apparently baseless point of view.

I hope your book reads better than this, or I wouldn't hold out much hope for paying out that advance.