Taking Liberties

Upon hearing about newly-elected London Mayor Boris Johnson’s plan to outlaw alcohol consumption on public transport, I couldn’t help but think that the capital’s shift in Sultan rated as a clear-cut case of “Meet the new boss -same as the new boss.”

So a little drunken revelry rates as a “minor crime” in his head? I shudder to contemplate what else does….

While I wouldn’t go anywhere near as far as to say: “Come back, Ken – all is forgiven”, I do start to suspect that BJ may just be another synonym for cocksucking.

Of this I’m certain – I’m so fucking glad I defaced that ballot paper of mine on May the 1st!

Nevertheless, as much as I may agree with many points in Brendan O’Neill’s scathing critique of our Newly Elected Commandant, I shake my head in profound dissent at the following:

Now, Boris has joined the Blairites in declaring war on youth. He announced that young people who commit even minor misdemeanours on public transport will have their travel passes confiscated,and they won’t get them back until they carry out some form of community service. Like a Stalinoid, he’ll deny internal freedom of movement within London to any youngster who fails to behave in a Boris-approved fashion.

Ummm, maybe I miss something here, but isn’t “free” youth Oyster travel funded at the expense of every other London Transport customer? The astronomical price hikes for non-Oyster users under Komrade Ken would certainly suggest this! In effect, this means that adult non-Oyster users get charged extra for the unique privilege of being harassed, abused and glared-down by the freeloading youth contingent – marvellous!

Don’t think I advocate BJ’s position on this though – in his post, I’d go one better and eradicate the “free” travel scheme altogether. After all, £2 is a piss-take for a ride on a London bus and the tosser teenagers who use public transport would pay for acting the twat – quite literally. A lesson in both cause-and-effect and the value of money for those arseholes; a shrink in bus fares for the poor fuckers who travel alongside them; and no endorsements for wretched “community service” schemes.

Yet, in that event, I suspect O’Neill would brand me – rather ironically – an Evil Totalitarian Oppressor; a natural consequence when you self-label as “left libertarian”, I guess; putting all the stress on a single wing causes the whole plane of thought to fly in a lopsided fashion – if not crash and burn!

Between Brendan, Boris and the bus-passed bratpack, the relatively benign boozers stand no chance – less so liberty!


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

2 Responses to Taking Liberties

  1. ubermensch says:

    the problem with most “left” flavored anarchists and libertarians is not any lack of legitimacy to such a concept as such, properly done. stirner would surely side with them against modern corporations , which I suspect he might well analyse as a “spook”, just like church or state, peddling the same false normatives of “god” and “human” in hopes of deciding what is and is not supposed to be your concern. and rand, we have to remember, has a very strict and precise definition of what capitalism proper is, and modern “capitalisms” are so farcically deviant from this standard, that one can sarcastically say that a “libertarian socialism”, would be hard pressed to be less randian, than the “capitalisms” we know and see today.
    nope, the problem with left anarchists and left libertarians is a different one:
    they arent.
    and the ones who are, dont advertise themselves as such.
    and the ones who do, these people arent what they say they are, not even close
    people who self identify by these labels or variations of them like “libertarian socialism” almost invariably propose a whole lot of leftism, and no libertarianism whatsoever. doctrinally these persons appear as perfect doppelgangers for the “statist leftists” they insist they oppose, even while citing their every point to argue against your every point.
    their hypocrisies are glaring. it becomes very obvious from talking to these persons that they are shills, liars, covert propaganda prosyletizers who hope they can convert you to their brand of bullshit by mislabeling it and hoping you dont notice the difference. leftist libertarians and leftist anarchist are just plain leftists, falsely representing themselves so as to seek out those persons who might lean towards the competition, and confound such men into their own camp. it would be like if jehova’s witnesses tried to pretend to be stirnerites or lavey satanists in hopes of bait+switching you gradually (or over to their god
    (whose name they pronounce with almost blasphemous inaccuracy, I should note. how “YHVH” becomes “Jehova” is still beyond me. servants so servile they offend even their master — HA!)
    like an a man who says things like “why I am an anarchist….. because I want to ban the automobile before it further pollutes the earth”
    ummm, banning implies a state or state like coercive mafia with which to do the banning, you fucking hypocrite.
    and the enthusiasm enthusiam aroused within these wolves by the thought of slaying corporate or financial elites, juxtaposed with the near comatose

    • MRDA says:

      Looks like you got cut off there, Rob! :p
      But yes – I pretty much see left libertarians/ socialist libertarians as something of an undercut to libertarianism for the reasons you cited.
      I think that O’Neill may well be sincere in his defence of social liberty, but the Marxist sentiments send his good intentions arse-over-tit rather effortlessly. Back to the think tank for him, methinks!

Leave a Reply