3 ms·

> Peter Bone, a veteran Conservative MP, says: “I wholly welcome this. It goes down the route of personal responsibility. It’s spot on.” Personal responsibilit

> Peter Bone, a veteran Conservative MP, says: “I wholly welcome this. It goes down the route of personal responsibility. It’s spot on.” Personal responsibility does mean you get to decide when to put others at risk, for example by going near them without a mask. Now, we might argue that there is a trade-off between respecting individual sovereignty on the one hand and lowering the friction of society on the other, but to frame this as a "personal responsibility" move is absurd. The Conservatives should read their intellectual heroes more carefully. Last I checked, Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle.

beardyw 5y ago
BBC News - Covid-19: Dutch PM Rutte 'sorry for easing restrictions too soon' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57811538 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57811538
jlokier 5y ago
I agree with your comment. But I'd like to point out that the Conservatives in the UK are nothing like Libertarians. There are a few perhaps, like the MP in the article, who would like to think of themselves that way. But the Conservatives as a whole are Authoritarian bordering on Totalitarian, and they are the most Authoritarian of all the big parties (more than the left). You just have to look at their "hostile environment" policies to see the difference: It is the law that all landlords (even for someone staying in a spare bedroom of someone's home), banks and health services must verify a person's documented right to rent, open a bank account or have healthcare. Every major party is against those policies except the Conservatives. As many people in the UK lack or can't obtain documentation even when they do in fact have legal rights (the Home Office in charge of such things routinely breaks the law and is ruled against by the courts), and many don't find out about their restricted status until they turn 18 years old then find out they aren't allowed to go to university after all, and some lose status without knowing because we have a rather opaque system which does that to people for capricious and secretive reasons, we have rather a lot of people affected by those laws, who were either born in the UK or entered legally at the time they entered. This is why the Windrush abuse by government was so damaging, as many elderly people who had been in the country for some 50 years were suddenly affected by the hostile environment policy and had their lives ruined. No true libertarian would condone those policies, as they are directly opposed to personal freedom between individuals to make small, private transactions. Renting is a private transaction between one individual and another, yet it is illegal under these policies. And preventing the doctor from providing services so that people die when the doctor is perfectly willing to help is also rather unlibertarian.
- de_keyboard 5y ago
  > But I'd like to point out that the Conservatives in the UK are nothing like Libertarians. There are a few perhaps, like the MP in the article, who would like to think of themselves that way. But the Conservatives as a whole are Authoritarian bordering on Totalitarian, and they are the most Authoritarian of all the big parties (more than the left). I agree, however the media insists on talking about Johnson's "Libertarian instincts" and the "Libertarian wing of the party". I don't see them as very Libertarian at all! See also drug policy, protest bill, internet surveillance, housing market interventions...
- alastor2020 5y ago
  Describing them as borderline totalitarian isn't helpful in the debate. It's OTT, hyperbolic and undermines the point you are making. Requiring someone to prove their legal status in the country isn't "totalitarianism" or even "authoritarian". Agree windrush was a total shambles and shameful, but that was largely down to incompetence and not malice. Anyone who genuinely is in a life threatening condition can receive treatment at NHS A&E hospital - like any tourist visiting from overseas.
  - jlokier 5y ago
    I disagree. Describing them as not borderline totalitarian is making them out to be milder than they are towards the set of people I've highlighted. They demand severe subservience by those people who face severe consequences otherwise, and that is the definition of totalitarian. Requiring someone to prove their status for a private, low value transaction between individuals is a strongly authoritarian state. Requiring ordinary people to act as police for the state is also strongly authoritarian. I don't believe that is a hyperbolic view. And "requiring someone to prove status" means a lot of different things. If the issuing of status is itself done abusively, and without regard for the law (the Home Office routinely breaks the law and is routinely found to have behaved abusively), that phrase sounds much more reasonable than it is. You would not think this unless you have witnessed the distressing multi-year effects on people of ambiguous status who are still trying to get a straight and justifiable answer out of the system designed with rejection quotas in mind, irrational decisions at times, and horrible consequences for some individuals. (Note I said "ambiguous", not "without". There are so many cases which ultimately end up resolved as "ok you're fine" after a few years fighting unlawful judgements). The result is obvious: There are people sleeping rough because it is, essentially, the law that they must be kept homeless until their status is resolved. There are many more currently sleeping in dangerous accomodation, and in abusive relationships they cannot leave. And there are people living with life-threatening, curable diseases, where there is nothing they can do but slowly die. I also think requiring people to earn significantly above the median wage before they can live with their own spouse is also, in my view, authoritarian. To be honest I was shocked when I discovered that. I always assumed any decent state would at least allow genuinely married couples to be together. And in fact, EU law does allow that - it's considered a fundamental human right (the right to a family life). But it's not a human right in the UK.

beardyw 5y ago

BBC News - Covid-19: Dutch PM Rutte 'sorry for easing restrictions too soon' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57811538 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57811538

jlokier 5y ago

I agree with your comment. But I'd like to point out that the Conservatives in the UK are nothing like Libertarians. There are a few perhaps, like the MP in the article, who would like to think of themselves that way. But the Conservatives as a whole are Authoritarian bordering on Totalitarian, and they are the most Authoritarian of all the big parties (more than the left). You just have to look at their "hostile environment" policies to see the difference: It is the law that all landlords (even for someone staying in a spare bedroom of someone's home), banks and health services must verify a person's documented right to rent, open a bank account or have healthcare. Every major party is against those policies except the Conservatives. As many people in the UK lack or can't obtain documentation even when they do in fact have legal rights (the Home Office in charge of such things routinely breaks the law and is ruled against by the courts), and many don't find out about their restricted status until they turn 18 years old then find out they aren't allowed to go to university after all, and some lose status without knowing because we have a rather opaque system which does that to people for capricious and secretive reasons, we have rather a lot of people affected by those laws, who were either born in the UK or entered legally at the time they entered. This is why the Windrush abuse by government was so damaging, as many elderly people who had been in the country for some 50 years were suddenly affected by the hostile environment policy and had their lives ruined. No true libertarian would condone those policies, as they are directly opposed to personal freedom between individuals to make small, private transactions. Renting is a private transaction between one individual and another, yet it is illegal under these policies. And preventing the doctor from providing services so that people die when the doctor is perfectly willing to help is also rather unlibertarian.

de_keyboard 5y ago
> But I'd like to point out that the Conservatives in the UK are nothing like Libertarians. There are a few perhaps, like the MP in the article, who would like to think of themselves that way. But the Conservatives as a whole are Authoritarian bordering on Totalitarian, and they are the most Authoritarian of all the big parties (more than the left). I agree, however the media insists on talking about Johnson's "Libertarian instincts" and the "Libertarian wing of the party". I don't see them as very Libertarian at all! See also drug policy, protest bill, internet surveillance, housing market interventions...
alastor2020 5y ago
Describing them as borderline totalitarian isn't helpful in the debate. It's OTT, hyperbolic and undermines the point you are making. Requiring someone to prove their legal status in the country isn't "totalitarianism" or even "authoritarian". Agree windrush was a total shambles and shameful, but that was largely down to incompetence and not malice. Anyone who genuinely is in a life threatening condition can receive treatment at NHS A&E hospital - like any tourist visiting from overseas.
- jlokier 5y ago
  I disagree. Describing them as not borderline totalitarian is making them out to be milder than they are towards the set of people I've highlighted. They demand severe subservience by those people who face severe consequences otherwise, and that is the definition of totalitarian. Requiring someone to prove their status for a private, low value transaction between individuals is a strongly authoritarian state. Requiring ordinary people to act as police for the state is also strongly authoritarian. I don't believe that is a hyperbolic view. And "requiring someone to prove status" means a lot of different things. If the issuing of status is itself done abusively, and without regard for the law (the Home Office routinely breaks the law and is routinely found to have behaved abusively), that phrase sounds much more reasonable than it is. You would not think this unless you have witnessed the distressing multi-year effects on people of ambiguous status who are still trying to get a straight and justifiable answer out of the system designed with rejection quotas in mind, irrational decisions at times, and horrible consequences for some individuals. (Note I said "ambiguous", not "without". There are so many cases which ultimately end up resolved as "ok you're fine" after a few years fighting unlawful judgements). The result is obvious: There are people sleeping rough because it is, essentially, the law that they must be kept homeless until their status is resolved. There are many more currently sleeping in dangerous accomodation, and in abusive relationships they cannot leave. And there are people living with life-threatening, curable diseases, where there is nothing they can do but slowly die. I also think requiring people to earn significantly above the median wage before they can live with their own spouse is also, in my view, authoritarian. To be honest I was shocked when I discovered that. I always assumed any decent state would at least allow genuinely married couples to be together. And in fact, EU law does allow that - it's considered a fundamental human right (the right to a family life). But it's not a human right in the UK.