Richard Murphy: the Midas of Merde

It's the smug, self-satisfied pout that gets me going. Then it's the unreconstructed busted-flush Keynesianism which intensifies my ire. Now we have this. Murphy on Libertarianism, but as it's Murphy, that word must be turned upside-down, back-to-front and, with his Midas-like curse, turned to shit.

The imposition of the individual over the collective - and the denial that the collective exists - as Thatcher suggested – is what is threatening our society, destroying trust, undermining democracy, increasing fear and seeking to destroy the well being of the majority in the interests of a minority.

That’s what Polly is saying we need to rebel against. And she’s right.

And let’s not forget – it’s a libertarian act to rebel for our collective rights. Positively libertarian. In itself a word the left need to reclaim – with precisely the connotation I put on it.

So, what's going on here?

Firstly, we must consider that Murphy is playing to his audience, made up of two main groups; cringing sycophants on one side and people who think he's a dick on the other. This latter group is usually dismissed by Murphy as 'neo-liberals'. Murphy, no doubt aware how much his site's popularity is due to those who read it for 'the wrong reasons', will know how this will stir up his anti-fan club.

Secondly, Murphy may be picking up something of the Zeitgeist, later than most, around the term 'libertarian'. He has no interest in the word's meaning, but like a good marxoid, with a quick redefinition it will serve his purpose, which may be:

to help trash the ideas represented by the word, by associating them with his own brand of hyper-statist Keynesturbation.

to help destroy rational discourse, by employing Humpty-Dumptyist 'words mean whatever I want them to mean' tactics.

Also we find, unsurprisingly, the favourite canard of the liberty-hating left: the 'positive' versus 'negative' liberty bollocks. I have always found this concept grating, especially as the nomenclature is so misleading. What those like Murphy try to pass off under the cloak of 'positive liberty' is usually socialistic welfarism and a centrally-planned economy, wheras what is dismissed as 'negative liberty' actually is the correct definition of liberty. So, translated into English (from his sinisterist dialect), when Murphy says; "I am a positive libertarian", it means; "I am a socialistic welfare pimp with deep-seated hostility to individual liberty and a hard-on for state interventionism".

I hope that helps clarify matters.

Hat tip: Tim Worstall

UPDATE: Credit where credit's due: Mr Murphy has actually allowed some comments from me through the gauntlet of moderation. Hmm. Maybe he's loosening up.