How states set bad examples of behaviour

David Davis

I don’t follow foot ball, and I have had to be told who John Terry is. But this keeps on cropping up on my screen.

It is not for a State to decide what people can or cannot say, or think. Even I, who’d like to muzzle GramscoFabiaNazis – because they are _objectively_ wrong, not just misguided – cannot justify doing it, even under the auspices of the War Secretariat.

People ought to be free to think or say, things that might be offensive to others. There are Natural Rights: but there is no right to not be offended if someone says or thinks something that offends you – or worse – “may offend” third parties not even present at the time. This is utterly ridiculous.

Oh, and YOU MUST NEVER use the phrase “political correctness gone mad”. Doing that legitimises “political correctness” as a credible way of dictating the terms of public discourse in a liberal civilisation. You must not do it. Ever. (I know that no readers of the Libertarian Alliance would ever do such a thing, but you must tell others. We’re wasting our breath and time otherwise.)

The poor bugger will probably go down for £2,500, and then we will be forced to watch the media-managed-show-trial in the Circus-arena, where his wife and children are forced to watch while he is torn to shreds by the BBC and the massed mobs of howling GramscoFabiaNazis, and their hordes of Daily Mail “readers”. These will be moralizing over “how an icon of youth”, a “family man” and a “role model”, was “tainted by racism”, and has fallen eternally beneath contempt, and that “it’s hard not to realise that his sporting career, hitherto so promising, must now be over”.

You and I know in our hearts that we could write the script now. I bet you 5 p that at least two of these phrases will appear, and that you’ll find at least two somewhere in the text of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”.

8 thoughts on “How states set bad examples of behaviour

  1. According the the Telegraph, “Riddle must decide whether the Chelsea captain intended to offend Ferdinand when he used the words “f—— black c—” . Well, presumably he did intend to offend, but I am confused as to which words are considered offensive. I assume the problem here is that the accused allegedly referred to his victim as ‘black’. If that word is indeed offensive, then should it be repeated in a family newspaper? Surely they should have said “Fucking b___ cunt” instead?
    There was a similar case a while back, when some football manager got himself into hot water for yelling at a player during practice “come on you lazy fucking black bastard”. Once again, the word that got him into trouble was the only one which was inoffensive.
    It’s a funny old world when calling someone a ‘lazy fucking bastard’ is fine, but referring to an obviously black man as ‘black’ is not.
    What is most depressing about this is that the average man in the street sees nothing odd in this.

  2. This case basically supports my assertion that the fundamental underpinning of PC/progressivism is not marxism, but moralism. Marxism and other pathetically wrong theories simply provide a justification.

    What the magistrate (wot, no jury?!) is asked by the law to decide here is not the fact of the case, but to render a moral judgement. Progressivist laws are characterised by this. Under the Common Law, corpus delicti requires that there be a crime committed, and then the court’s pure job is to decide whether the person in the dock did it. That is, there is no doubt about the fact that somebody has been murdered, what we want to know is whether Fred Bloggs is the murderer or not.

    Progressivist law is moralist law, and thus the court stands in judgement over the morals of the defendant. There is of course no certain defence against such a system. If the magistarte or jury, on their own whimsical judgement, decide you have been “racist” or “grossly indecent” then you are guilty. No society can stay free under such laws. Which is why the Progressives want them- they do not want a free society, they want a “free to do as we think you should do” society.

    Of course, the marxist derived theory is not unimportant; the justification that certain abuse types represent a mechanism of class oppression has been central to justifying this destruction of the Common Law. But what it boils down to is that we have allowed ourselves to become ruled by a “Moralist State”, and freedom has been obliterated as a consequence.

Leave a Reply to Dr Sean Gabb Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s