It’s still totalitarianism!
Harry Barnes, ex-Labour MP, who yesterday earned the ire of Freeborn John, Matt Wardman, and myself for his inconsistencies in his Normblog profile.
Effectively, he advocates Totalitarian Socialism [read my post yesterday for the background].
Today, he has kindly responded to us, saying that
For (if I had the influence provided in Norm’s questions), I would naturally pursue and then sustain my objectives by entirely democratic and anti-totalitarian methods.
Even if I am thought of as being foolish and wrongheaded, at least I have been entirely consistent. Consistently wrong possibly, but never ever inconsistent.
Totalitarian measures achieved through democratic methods are still totalitarian!
Freeborn John’s comment on Harry’s reply sums it up:
It depends what you understand totalitarianism to be. Here are three mainstream definitions:
Wikipedia: “Totalitarianism is a term employed by some political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.”
Webster’s: ” 1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority 2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority ”
Encarta: “Totalitarianism, in political science, system of government and ideology in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and spiritual activities are subordinated to the purposes of the rulers of a state.”
Your first two proposals fit these definitions, I’m afraid. You lay claim to control of the totality of my being, especially with respect to the transport proposal. It makes no difference that you say you want to achieve totalitarianism by democratic means.
Precisely.
To ban private transport is a totalitarian measure; it infriges on civil liberties - my right to freedom of movement is massively impaired, and subordinated to the routes and times that the state has decreed that I may travel. This is true whether or not it has been “democratically agreed” that private transport should be banned.
Harry Barnes is inconsistent. He claims to oppose totalitarianism, despite having proposed a totalitarian motion just a breath or two previously.
This debate in the end boils down to this: Harry is either
-
stupid,
-
senile, or
-
practising doublethink.
Or, of course, all [or a combination] of the above.
As Freeborn John says: “some totalitarians dislike being called totalitarian. That’s too bad.”
He wrote: “never ever inconsistent”
Well, that in itself is inconsistent, as “never” and “ever” are exact opposites.
Hard luck, Freeborn John has already given ground and is opening up the possibility of a proper debate on the issue on his thread - as long as he puts up my latest comment!
Harry, your claim that “logically” your claims are compatible in wrong, because LOGICALLY they are absolutely not.
If you are anti-totalitarianism yet pro-totalitarian [or at best 'merely' authoritarian] measures, you are LOGICALLY inconsistent.
Thus, if you truly believe both, you must - logically - be employing doublethink.
The difference between us is that I am libertarian and you are statist. I believe in letting the individual doing whatever he or she wishes, so long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else, and you believe in controlling from the centre - even if through the prism of some “democratic” method.
Um, no I haven’t given ground. Not that I wouldn’t if I were presented with a good argument.
Thanks for the links, Thunderdragon.
ThunderDragon: You can argue that my positions on transport and the UN have totalitarian implications; although I would dispute this. You can’t, however, establish that my positions can be dismissed without any assessments of their empirical and evaluative backings. Definitions and attempts at logic chopping just arn’t enough. I will place the empirical and evaluative cases for my views on Freedom John’s blog and leave you free to plough your furrow.