Liberals: the new far right.

A big H/T to Tim Worstall for this:

For a comment to be published I must be satisfied that:

1. It is legal;

2. It is polite;

3. It includes an argument that adds value to readers;

4. It appears factually accurate;

5. That the commentator is genuine;

6. It is not promoting an opinion usually associated with the far right political fringes (for these purposes the UK Independence Party and beyond within the UK domestic environment);

7. It is not posted by a person I consider to be usually associated with the far right of the political spectrum

It’s the new comment policy for Richard Murphy’s blog.

On top of which we have this:

This is to ensure that the political mainstream – in which I belong if you define it as being all of our mainstream political parties, many of whom (bar the right of the Tories) welcome my work – can enjoy comment free of harassment from the far right – to which you very clearly do belong – and to which harassment the very weird form of liberalism to which you belong seems to be dedicated

H/T to Paul Lockett- see his comment on Timmy’s post.

Hmm. So it seems “liberals”- which given the context, he seems to mean classical liberals, libertarians, and so on- are “far right” now.

Oh really, Ricky boy? Far right? As in, the wing of politics associated with social authoritarianism, big government (as is the statist left) and an irrational fear of change and progress?

I think you’ll find that the libertarianism of modern days features none of those things. Social authoritarianism, as well as economic authoritarianism, is well out. Big government? Good God, no. Fear of change and progress? Entrepreneurship and risk taking are the very tools of improvement and progress, we sure don’t fear them. Oh, I get it: Richard, you’re scared that libertarians don’t fit into your outdated, illogical left-right paradigm. We don’t go around bitching about pornography or why we should bring the paddle back to classrooms, thus robbing you of any chance of bringing out the “Lawl, look at the socially progressive tories!” argument (as Paul also points out in his comment).  Because, it’s not as if he as any others. This is far from the first time he’s done this:

Why is it then that this vicious, self interested and, might I suggest inherently socially violent group are allowed to make this sort of contribution – as they do all over so many blogs where those with real concern for society, from across the mainstream political spectrum, seek to discuss issues in an open, rational and respectful fashion?

What a disgusting man. As someone who holds non-aggression as a key ethical principle, the “socially violent” comment makes we laugh, then cry, then go “huh?!” in confusion. He also doesn’t seem to (want to) get his head around concepts such as charity and voluntary collectivism. Ah, I see your problem. It’s the same problem all statists have: you can’t see your ideals in any way other than being enforced from above. You utter cretin.

I can’t help but notice comments have all but dried up since that post. Nice going, Rich.