Liberty, equality, fra… what? No, not you, rich boy.

If there is one word-in-context in the whole of the blogosphere which never fails to make me laugh out loud, it’s the Liberal in Liberal Conspiracy. I mean, do you really think they really think they are really, you know, liberal? Really?

I think they should be stopped. Liberal Conspiracy is a handful of people with a particular political viewpoint, pushing their own agenda and trying to influence opinionWhy are people so worried about limiting that? 

Oh look, a woman at Liberal Conspiracy agrees with me. Kinda.

If a rich man can buy a newspaper to push his own agenda do you not think he will? why are people so worried about limiting that? 

She really needs to ask? Seriously? Yes, she does.

Would the same apply, in her self-righteous lefty fantasy world, to a not-rich chap, let’s call him Chap A, starting to publish stuff (let’s call it, oh, a ‘newspaper’) which lots of people like to read and want to pay him for? Would she stop him writing what he thinks about how other people ought to think, whenever he wants to write it? Like pretty much every writer throughout the ages and like, erm, she does herself?

My, my. The world’s full of conundrums.

Or is her bile reserved for another bod, let’s call him Chap B, who, just like Chap A, wants to publish ideas, but who doesn’t need to bother with starting his own newspaper because Chap A already did it?

Yes, it is.

And yet the only difference between Chap A and Chap B is that Chap B has more money than Chap A, which fact alone must, ipso facto, cause the tribunes of the people to limit Chap B’s freedom, making  him a second-class citizen. Simply because he’s got more money than someone else. Meanwhile on another part of the planet, the Tribunes have set up an Equality Commission to… no, wait… I think I’ve spotted a  flaw…

So, if her Tribunes, in a moment of madness, allowed Chap A and Chap B to do as they wished with their private property, Chap A selling his newspaper to Chap B for instance, would They – the Tribunes – reserve to Themselves the power to tell Chap B he could only publish what They permitted and when?

  • Which they never did with Chap A because he didn’t have the sort of money which fired up their wrath. And of course, he was careful only to publish ideas acceptable to the Tribunes of the People.
  • But how could I say such a thing? The lady is a doughty defender of free speech – for everyone except people with money. But I digress. Actually, I don’t. This is the whole bloody point, written en clair for the benefit of the stupid, hate-filled and delusional lefty reader who calls himself a freedom fighter but wants to control the press, you, me and – let’s not beat about the bush – the entire planet.

So, getting back to the plot, would they single out rich Chap B to be instructed what he could publish and when? Why, yes, they would.

No-one’s suggesting the journalists should be restricted, oh, that’s all right then ] just the power of a corrupt handful to influence opinion

Sigh. Define ‘corrupt’. How about someone for whom 50,000 people around the world, you know, work, as opposed to following her own career.

But those wanting things to stay the same are simply enforcing a bias that on the whole suits them. If you doubt me, imagine the bias was in Labour’s favour and tell me Conservatives would not be spitting with white fury, totally convinced that the system was unfair.

Gotta love that ‘imagine’, eh?

Doesn’t get out much, does she? I suspect too much time spent in dingy Labour Party Committee rooms but one can’t be sure, and Labour may be too, you know, bourgeois/establishment. After all

As for those who claim Newsnight or Ch4News are “leftie” just confirms everything I said even more. Our press is so right wing, even a balanced programme offends

Define ‘balanced’. Ah, ssh… forget it.

h/t Tim Worstall

Something spookily like this post but spattered with more, um, liberal expressions, appears at the writer’s own blog.



4 comments for “Liberty, equality, fra… what? No, not you, rich boy.

  1. July 16, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    I’ve never accepted the politics of envy where covetous glances are cast sideways at anyone with a certain income unless:

    1. they gained it through a quango or obscene salary;
    2. they ripped people off.

    By the latter, I don’t mean that “the bosses exploit the workers” – I mean specific cases where someone was done out of actual cash.

    Other than that, if they made that money through working, then it’s theirs, not for some leftist to come along and ask if it’s equitable or not. Herein lies the fundamental difference between yours and my politics, Prodicus and those of the left.

    • Voice of Reason
      July 16, 2011 at 11:25 pm

      James – you might like the used car dealer who bought the Tribune Group (including the Chicago Tribune and LA Times), using the pension fund of the workers for collateral, then ran it into the ground, making oodles of money in the process?

    • July 17, 2011 at 6:11 am

      “Other than that, if they made that money through working, then it’s theirs…”

      Or if their parents made it through working? Or through clever investments?

      Either way, it’s still theirs.

  2. Voice of Reason
    July 16, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    In the US, the word ‘liberal’ now includes anyone who uses facts and reason. This appelation is by the right wing here, who don’t like thinking.

Comments are closed.