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…
Scratch a liberal… It’s like criticising hippies.
To be honest I don’t think that there is that much we disagree on here, LR. I understand the editorial policy and agree that it fits in with the desire to foster freedom of speech, and I get that freedom of speech means that you end up with opinions that you don’t like. However, I do find it counter-intuitive and sometimes a little surreal to read posts on this site that actually have little to do with liberty.
I guess it does come down to they way the site is perceived; James Higham makes the point at DK’s place that your editoral policy leads to “viewpoints from conservatism to leftism but the connecting thread is always liberty.” And there is a subtle, but probably crucial, distinction between a website discussing liberty and one advocating it. Which then leads to the further irony that a liberal editorial policy will get you illiberal posts, whereas posts solely advancing a pre-agreed definition of liberty can only be achieved through an illiberal editorial policy.
Still, I guess this is why I feel happier posting at DK’s place these days. While he has a very similar editorial policy to you (I think all he has ever done to any of my posts is change the formatting for the blockquotes) he is a far more passionate (and yes, that is meant to be slightly euphemistic) advocate of liberty than some of the writers here at OoL.
Julia, LR and I have widely diverging opinions on many issues but we’re at one on freedom, on liberty and on people’s right to say whatever they damn well want, associate with whom they please and generally let things go along calmly and pleasantly.
Of the three, I’m the most provocative but that’s my thing. No one has to read me, I’m happy to be taken apart [though I don't think anyone has yet but we'll let that one go for now]. What I do know though is that if we’re libertarian, we have to allow liberty, don’t we?
DK wrote that we are a site which allows libertarian comment, not a libertarian site. Sorry, that’s a false nicety, a bit naughty of him. By the very fact of our allowing free speech – and how many sites do you know which do that, truly do that – then we are as libertarian as any. I’d say more so if he would restrict a site to only one decreed viewpoint.
And we at OoL assert no editorial control.
I’m not fussed particularly about what people think of OoL beyond it putting up discussable posts but I am a bit peeved at the way they had a go at LR. They had a go at me too but I deserve it.
To say that LR writes more at his place and therefore he only tolerates OoL out of some misplaced loyalty is tosh. Hell, Julia and I write vastly more at our own sites. Do you really think LR would hang about where he didn’t want or would not come out and say what he wanted? You don’t win a bloody dagger for nothing.
So Sackers put up something most of us disagree with – so what? You don’t have to read it or if you do, you don’t have to agree. If he’s talking rubbish, then tell him so. That’s the whole point of a forum run as a blog. Yes, there are centre-right people who agree with some things I say. Again – so what?
The site itself stands for liberty. It tends to be anti-State control and by definition, is for government butting out of our lives and if it has to do something, government, then it can start getting industry going again [but that's just my point of view, the latter].
TNL speaks of DK’s passion – that’s his thing and fine. We tend to be more restrained but not all the time. DK himself is welcome to post here. So are you.
If that’s not liberty, I don’t know what your definition of liberty is.
I think you misread him. I believe if you re-read it, he was saying the opposite of that.
Update – maybe I was reading him wrong and he was being sarcastic.
Again, I don’t think there is any real disagreement here. The problem lies in the fact that allowing freedom in editorial content means you will get illiberal articles, whereas if you try to restrict the content then your editorial policy ceases to be liberal. So I’m happy enough accepting that this site has a libertarian editorial policy even if (as a result) the content is not (always) libertarian.
And the main thrust of the post at DK’s place is telling the author of the drugs post that he’s talking rubbish.
Perhaps you should have told him here?
That’s actually where the post came from; originally it was going to be a comment on the drugs post. Then it escalated (as these things so often do) and became a full post, and possibly deserved a wider audience than it would necessarily get as a comment on an already controversial post. So, given all that, I put it up at the blog I write for these days.
Just had an email asking why TNL did not cross-post. As I’m not au fait with all which has gone on, I can’t comment myself.
Erm, I didn’t cross-post it here because I don’t write for this site (beyond the occasional testy and/or provocative comment) any more. Plus, I didn’t really feel any need to do so – the post responding to Sackerson is in the public domain on a leading libertarian blog for anyone to read if they so desire. If people on this site wanted to engage with it, then they could always do so. As LR has.
Didn’t even know I’d been mentioned by a grandee like DK.
Actually, it was little old me writing on DK’s site. He did comment on the post, though. Mainly, I think, to have a pop at some people…