The Nameless Libertarian and I share opinions on many things libertarian. We agree on such things as liberty, religion and all that 9/11 stuff. However, today he takes a pop at OoL over at DK’s and I just have to offer a riposte.
He is taking issue with Sackerson’s post regarding drugs. I agree with him that Sackerson’s position is not only illiberal, it defies the lessons of history and is ultimately unsustainable. The war on drugs is lost, it is unwinnable and, bedsides, it is no one one’s business what we put into our bodies.
No, where TNL trips up is his suggestion that OoL is not a liberal site.
Over at the Orphans of
ConservatismLiberty we have a post entitled “Fantastic news for the drug-addled Libertarian!” Any such title was always going to get my attention, and this was merely compounded by the fact that the contents of the article appear to advocate the failed war on drugs – a somewhat bizarre position for a website nominally devoted to the maximization of liberty (or at the very least lamenting the ongoing incursions on our freedom).
I replied rather briefly over at DK’s. However, to expand a little; no, it is not bizarre at all. It fits neatly with the original objectives of the site – that a motley collection of people would contribute with differing opinions and world views. There would be a common thread running through it of liberty, but otherwise, the editorial policy was always envisaged to be very much hands off. That is, we planned to practice what we preached.
Neither James nor I – and subsequently Julia – saw any mileage in dictating what people write about. If we were to practice what we preach then we accept that sometimes people will write articles that make our blood boil. Is that not the every ethos of liberalism? To provide a platform for those who disagree with us? And that is what we are doing, providing a platform, not dictating content.
Of course, if you present an illiberal argument, then you should expect to have to defend your position and the counter arguments may well be pretty robust.
That’s freedom of speech for you. It ain’t always pretty, but I stand by it and I stand by our editorial approach. Frankly, if Sunny Hundal asked if he could write an article espousing the virtues of social democracy, I would say “yes”. He might regret it, mind…