Published in “FREE LIFE” (British Libertarian publication)
Dr. Sean Gabb thought fit to print two items I sent him in this issue. The Internet truly is a wonderful place… how else would I become a part of the dialogue within the libertarian community in Britain? :)
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
FREE LIFE
A Journal of Classical Liberal and Libertarian Thought
Issue 45, 22nd April 2003
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/freelife/
Contents
Editorial: Agreeing to Disagree - by Sean Gabb
The Lessons of History - by Sean Gabb
The Lessons of History: Reply to Sean Gabb - by Ken Nebel
American Casualties of the War - by Thomas Leavitt
Patriotism and the War: Two Weeks On - by Sean Gabb
Patriotism and the War: Reply to Sean Gabb - by Judith Hatton
Patriotism and the War: Reply to Sean Gabb - by Sam Pope
Patriotism and the War: Reply to Sean Gabb - by Francis Woerling
Patriotism and the War: Reply to Sean Gabb - by J. Neil Schulman
Patriotism and the War: Reply to Sean Gabb - by RDM
Patriotism and the War: Reply to Sean Gabb - by Paul Rhodes
Patriotism and the War: Reply to Sean Gabb - by Jan Narveson
Patriotism and the War: Reply to Sean Gabb - by Randal
The Pride of Mr. George W. Bush - by Stephen Howd
Why Tony Blair Must be Destroyed: A Conservative Case - by Sean Gabb
Why Tony Blair Must be Destroyed: Reply to Sean Gabb - by Sean Fear
Why Tony Blair Must be Destroyed: Reply to Sean Gabb - by Toadflax
The War: Won but not Over - by Sean Gabb
The War: Won and Ended - by John Greeley
The War: A Brief Debate on Corporate Responsibility - by Neil Lock and
Sean Gabb
The Value of Education - by Sean Gabb
The Value of Education: Reply to Sean Gabb - by Thomas Leavitt
The Value of Education: A Comment - by Brian Micklethwait
Review of a Book on Neville Chamberlain and Appeasement - by Sean Gabb
Editorial:
Agreeing to Disagree
Sean Gabb
This war has divided just about every movement of which I am a member. It
has divided libertarians, conservatives, and Eurosceptics. To be fair, it
seems also to have divided every other movement that pays any regard to
politics, not to mention, families, friends, neighbours, and colleagues.
In all my life - and it has now been reasonably long - I cannot recall an
event that had so peculiar and sometimes painful an effect.
The reasons for this are various, and I cannot list all of them, nor boast
that I even understand them all. One, though is the realignment of
politics that Steve Davies and I have been discussing for the past few
months. Before now, the cement holding together the structure of political
debate was too strongly set to allow the fragmentation we have just seen.
Another is the medium available for expressing disagreement. I was equally
opposed to the first Gulf War in 1991, and I had friends who supported it
as strongly as they have this one. In those days, however, we saw each
other hardly once a fortnight, if that; and we could choose to discuss
other matters. But we are now joined almost permanently together by the
Internet, and this is a medium that compels debate while denying us the
personal contact that would otherwise moderate the force of debate. It has
also allowed me to outline my grounds of dissent from my friends more
fully than would have been possible for me in the past. Unless I had had
the luxury of a column in a daily newspaper, there would have been no
point in my writing so many words on the war, both as it approached and as
it was played out.
It is a trite but just observation, that we live in an age made strange by
new technology. I believe that the technology has enriched us, and will
continue to do so. But we need to bear in mind that it does place strains
on relationships that would once have been unthinkable apart from within
small communities or within those with privileged access to the media. We
now all have such privileged access, and are all brought into small
communities.
The debate, of course, is not over. There are fundamental differences of
opinion, and these will continue to be expressed for the remaining time of
the war and its more visible consequences.
This being so, those of us on what is loosely and inaccurately called “the
right” of politics need to remember that there is still more to unite than
to divide us. Whatever we may think about the American alliance, and the
reality of the danger allegedly presented to us by the Government of Iraq,
or whatever, we do still believe in personal freedom within a
constitutional order separate from that of the European Union. Some
dangers to what we want may have been lessened by the war. Others have
increased. We must never suppress our differences over the rightness or
wisdom of what has happened during the past few months. At the same time,
we must not allow them to reduce our effectiveness in other, perhaps more
important, issues.
I do not think I have expressed any personal rancour to those within the
Movement with whom I disagree. Certainly, I have not heard any expressed
to me. But if I have uttered words that anyone has found offensive, I
apologise now. One of the benefits of a true education is that it enables
people to disagree while never losing sight of deeper communities of
interests and ideals.
My friend and proprietor Dr Tame will issue a pronouncement in the next
issue of Free Life, clarifying the lack of any set position on the war or
on any other aspect of foreign policy, and on the undesirability of any
such line. Though he has not yet made his pronouncement, I will use the
remainder of this Editorial to welcome it. Free Life Commentary is mine,
and contains my own opinions and nothing but. Free Life, on the other
hand, is the journal of the Libertarian Alliance. As such, it is open to
all opinions. It always has been, and I hope always will be.
