my previous post was out of sorts for my usual fare. i tend toward the theoretical and the radical. the relatively trivial minutiae of the supposed 'real' world are at best a distraction and at worst an endless source of infuriation. i merely passed on a piece of news from a US blog that i follow (mises.org), to a hardworking blogger that i used to follow. i knew that that kind of news reporting was best left to those who focus upon and excel at such endeavours. i feared this tid bit of information that i would normally pay little notice would pass unheeded in the uk and so i passed it on and hoped it might be of value to some. my own unedited stream of semi literate venting was almost as bad as the rest of the writing i put out but fortunately anna raccoon did exactly what i had hoped and turned out a sterling article. ive long despaired of the uk 'libertarian' blogosphere but i expect too much of people. even youngsters raised in a relatively more liberal social environment are still horrifically statist so it should be no surprise that the uk blogosphere, which i believe probably has a fairly high average age, are not committed individualist anarchists, coming as they do from a different time and place. almost everything in the uk used to have the prefix 'British' or 'National'. you name it we had it nationalised. there are plenty who pay lip service to being anti state but still get watery eyed at the nostalgia of empire and the nationalism of antiquity - bogus history of the elite.
anna raccoons piece was cross posted at ian dale's blog which is getting pretty far from anything that might identify as libertarian as i understand the term. the commenters at anna raccoons seemed to be of the old fashioned autonomous vein and decried the property grab on the basis that they were perfectly able to take direct responsibility and roll their sleeves up when push came to shove. fair play to them - they dont need the state and so they dont want it providing that service to them - they are not the object of my scorn. as a fan of anarcho capitalism i consider the personal responsibility that is concomitant with individual freedom to be something that can be voluntarily delegated. i do not imagine that sans tyrannical fascist sewerage agencies i would necessarily be left with no option but to unblock my own drains. if that be the price for freedom then bring it on - ill shovel as much shit as it takes. but obviously the specialisation of the free market means that it is best for myself and society as a whole if clearing drains is left to the experts. for example the dentist or grocer is at his most productive, useful and contributary when doing what he does best. for him to be unblocking his drains makes no economic/praxeological sense. but as i say most of the uk libertarian blogosphere come from a time when husbands would often plumb in their own gas central heating or service the brakes on their family car. this was a time of relative freedom and responsibility. perhaps this is why some of the uk right have become drawn to this exciting new word from the states - libertarianism. they dont quite get it entirely but that is through no fault of their own.
anyways - to the point of this unintentionally insulting piece - some of the comments at ian dales blog were of a sort i probably should have expected. 'mountain out of a mole hill' 'whats so bad about that' 'id be glad of it' etc. these same people feel the emotive reaction against the state limiting their nicotine or alcohol or earnings  but have never been exposed to the illuminating theories of libertarianism. all opposition to oppression of consumption (booze n fags) should be based in property rights. the bar is privately owned. your body is privately owned. the substances are privately owned. so there is no room in the equation for a coercive third party.
sometimes this uninvited bully will offer 'services' which will be gratefully accepted by the commenters as seen above on the basis that this removal of troublesome responsibility is completely free. what harm could possibly come from taking such charitable gifts?
well its coercion that ruins all the fun. without having to serve customers well enough to ensure continued voluntary trade the bully can do as they damn well please. now perhaps you can understand why people throughout modern history and across the western world all scramble madly to sign up for 'socialised healthcare'. its free - whats the worst that could happen?
i dont have the time to educate the ignorant (perhaps entirely due to no direct fault of their own) on the theoretical basis of freedom. anyone who rails against government or who desires freedom should realise that without a sound understanding of the theoretical underpinnings youre just another statist clamouring for a slightly different flavour of oppression.
i focus on principles that can be applied universally and without compromise. if you are happy for the government to take a part of your property you deem inconsequential the you have no basis for objection when they take something you do value - your earnings for example. either you have property rights or you do not. there is no compromise. you cannot have an inviolable right to some property but not to others. you may choose to VOLUNTARILY give away some property - for example charity in place of welfarist-taxation. you may CHOOSE to VOLUNTARILY relinquish responsibility for your sewerage in a commercial trade. if you want to pay thames water to deal with that then fine. however IF IT ISNT VOLUNTARY ITS CRIMINAL. additionally it will probably be horrendously expensive and lousy service too as there will be no competition and no incentive to serve you.
there is a sound consequentialist economic argument against this that some fools fail to see. this is the more 'normal' point of view and so if they cant get their heads around that then we're all doomed. the main argument is the unarguable axiom of self ownership and thusly derived property rights.
i despair that people could feel they have any rights at all without total and uncompromised property rights. at least the downright wrong total communist anti-propertarian has some (totally false) principle he claims - everyone between us self owning individuals and those tyrannical criminals is nothing more than a confused directionless fool.