Special, Entitled, Front of the Queue - the Parental Fallacy

Afternoon - thanks to the half dozen or so people who endured my thoughts on the subject that follows the other day.

There is often a scramble for time off work during certain periods of the year, with some invariably being disappointed and having to come in over Christmas, during the kids' school holiday or at another time when it would better suit their living arrangements not to. What actually prompted this piece was a comment I heard on that general theme last week, namely that those with children should get priority in this regard over and above individuals who have no offspring or dependants - i.e. if there are two people asking for the same block of time off work and only one can realistically have it then Mum or Dad are at the front of the queue and the childless can go hang. Interesting.

We live in worryingly collectivist times, where the manufacturing of 'grounds for special treatment' is proving to be one of the few areas in which we can safely say that a skills crisis does not exist. With that in mind it's probably unsurprising that 'support for parents' (often dressed up as looking after children) is just the latest in a long line of 'more stuff for me' moments that have typically been on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, having had a sex change or simply being in either the majority or a minority. To say "that person over there can only have the time off work that I don't want" is a self-identification of oneself as some sort of special case, that much is clear.

We could always go further down fantasy avenue and suggest that working Mums and Dads receive more holiday time and/or are paid a higher basic salary than those serfs who have never been impregnated or impregnated somebody else, be that through good fortune, misfortune or deliberate design. Actually this happens to an extent already, with "sorry the kid's sick" being used by some to claim an impromptu day off or 'work from home' (a laughable scam that is routinely abused and employers should have more tools to clamp down on). As far as remuneration goes, a story from my late teens remains illuminating to this day, even if it makes for uncomfortable reading.

When I took my first 'proper' job at eighteen I'd replied to an advertisement that pitched the salary at precisely ten thousand pounds a year (it was there - salary = £10k in clear and unambiguous print with no asterisk next to it). Upon being deemed 'the successful applicant' I head off for a meeting with my new boss and am told "seeing as you've come straight from college we'll be paying you nine grand". Now, understanding the power dynamic in play I recognised there was basically nothing I could do, but it smacked of 'false advertising' and was an ominous portent of certain naughtiness that would follow further down the line (probably one for Patreon and not here).

Anyway, I resolve that 12 months of hard work and 'proving oneself' would remove the excuse of inexperience and see me paid the proper 'adult rate' for the job I had. Not so - despite an above average performance review I get the two per cent increase that had been applied across the board. Still aware of who was calling the shots here (or at least most of them), I decide to frame my enquiry along the lines of "please tell me what I have to do in order to make myself worth more than I'm currently on", as opposed to coming over as somebody making demands. The response I got to this question didn't really answer it at all and, on reflection, was absolutely astonishing.

Amongst the fluff, blurb and non-response that I got was an observation that "oh well, you'll just have to put up with your parents nagging at you for a while longer". Now the need to mention something like this serves as a real insight into the genuine motivations for the employer's penny-pinching and flat-out refusal to honour the content of the job advert more than a year earlier. Since I still lived with Mum and Dad, rather than having built a life with significant other and kids elsewhere, somebody had clearly rationalised that I didn't need the money as much as certain other people who had different living arrangements, so it was only 'fair' to pay me less than them in line with this.

In reality there is nothing 'fair' about this ugly form of paternalism at all - living alone is probably the 'lifestyle choice' that incurs the greatest costs of living but to suggest that I'm therefore 'owed' something over and above what I'm prepared to work for as a form of compensation would be infantile and absurd. That's entirely my problem and I have to find my own way of working it out - similarly, demanding 'free stuff for me' on the grounds of parental status (regardless of how effective a parent he or she might be) is just another variant on the collectivist silliness that appears to have engulfed modern society. If you can't afford to support a 'big family' then don't have one. Simples.

The British welfare state has always looked after parents under the guise of supporting children. One of the areas in which people on my wing of the political/philosophical thread vary wildly is that regarding the treatment of young people, and I'm actually a bit of a Statist in the realm of 'UBIs for kids' although that 'help' comes with caveats. A free education up to 18? No problem, including something that resembles the 'pupil premium' to help the poorest. Free school meals? On balance I'm more for that than against it. Free uniform vouchers if your kid's school is fashion prescriptive? Ok - I'm open to just about anything that moves benefits away from parents and to the kids themselves.

Although my first choice would be to do away with 'uniforms' of all kinds - that's for another day.

When I was growing up the next door neighbour was busted for circa £40k worth of benefit fraud, including falsely claiming disability and payments based on her husband having 'fled the scene' when he most certainly hadn't. I remember reading about her court case in the local rag and, in an attempt to avoid a custodial sentence, her solicitor had offered up the "she's got kids" defence in the hope that the judge would show leniency (to his great credit he didn't). It's an interesting concept that a Mum or Dad could rob a bank or stab somebody 24 times but get off with a slap on the wrist while the childless serve several years behind bars. So much for 'equality before the law' eh?

We're all familiar with the graduate who stabbed her boyfriend but was spared jail because she was 'supremely talented' and could go on to achieve great things, or the Anthony Joshua 'possession with intent to supply' case in which his undoubted ability as a boxer was offered as a mitigating plea. Sorry, but surely somebody in that situation should weigh up what they are potentially throwing away before embarking on their chosen course of action? Once you start affording leniency on the basis of factors that have nothing to do with the case then are you not letting down the victims of crime while giving those possessed of 'potential' or 'talent' a relatively blank cheque?

And...just as "but I'm so talented" should not detract from the facts of a case, surely the 'defence' of "but I've got kids" ought to have zero effect on the outcome?

I'm also interested and amused by the use of the "have you got kids?" line to 'win' arguments, as if merely becoming a parent represents some moment of epiphany or profound truth - out pops the kid...and Karen from Telford spontaneously turns into Tolstoy or Shakespeare. It is of course complete bollocks but I've run into something along the lines of "but if you had kids you'd think differently/agree with me" so many times that it's clearly something that a lot of otherwise sane and rational people genuinely believe. In reality it's what I've previously referred to as a 'legitimate outlet', used by those seeking to unleash their 'inner shit' and justify all manner of authoritarian nastiness.

Off the top of my head - I'm one thousand percent against any call to restore capital punishment and cannot foresee a situation in which I'd even consider changing my mind. While it goes without saying that adults knowingly having sex with kids or gorging on childporn is absolutely, completely wrong (and stick the perps in jail if there's evidence of anyone having done this) I refuse to join in with the current 'nonce-catching' hysteria which strikes me as having unpleasant motivations of its own while demeaning all of us. Torture is inexcusable, invariably yields misinformation and cannot be justified in any circumstance. Apparently if I were a parent, I'd feel completely differently about these issues.

Speaking of torture I remember an episode of Questionable Time several years ago, during which a complete bastard called Hugh Hendry stated openly that if you needed to torture somebody to get valuable information out of them then you should definitely do so. When pressed about this by a member of the audience he justified his stance by saying "Hugh Hendry's just a guy with two kids who lives in London", as if parenthood had at least clarified and maybe even radically altered his would-be answer to the question. No, Hugh Hendry supports the use of torture for the previously stated reason, because he is a complete bastard. Parenthood was just a semi-legitimising vehicle.

I haven't even got onto the curious 'parental right' to inflict GBH on their offspring in the name of 'correction' or 'discipline' - be assured we'll cover that subject separately and elsewhere.

So surely the mere status of being a parent should entitle an individual to precisely nothing. No new rights, no 'free stuff' or cash benefits over and above or at the expense of others. I'm aware that it's a difficult job (one I was probably never cut out for, although I wish many others possessed that kind of self-awareness) that most who take on do so with the right intentions and a desire to take it seriously. Hey, some people really enjoy being Mums and Dads for all the right reasons and good for them - if you're one of those people then I sincerely hope you don't take what you've just read as a 'hit piece' or anything like that. There's no ill-will intended towards you here.

It's just..."I'm a parent" is no stronger a claim on preferential treatment than one's race, gender or sexual orientation might be. After all, once somebody is a special case then everybody is.

I'll be back midweek with something on racism or the destructive effect of 'fake families' - please vote now if you have a preference.

In the meantime here's Big Audio Dynamite - thanks for reading.

Collectivism is Selfish

Afternoon - be assured that if this is a roaring success I'll be calling out other writers for some sort of 'blog-off' on a winner-takes-all basis. Write me a cheque for a pound if it's no good...

When I listen to the tribal battle being played out in the mainstream and on social media my reaction is a sort of mix of amusement and bewilderment. The terrain Left vs Right, Labour vs Tory, Leave vs Remain, Native vs Foreigner and Majority vs Minority is something of a dead end for all concerned. It's a bit like watching two bald blokes fighting over a comb or a couple of cats taking swipes at each other while simultaneously chasing their own tails. That so many otherwise sane, rational people not only partake in this garbage but allow themselves to become emotionally invested in it means that division and destruction are the logical consequences. No good comes from such nonsense.

As I've outlined previously the real battle lines are not between one form of authoritarian collectivism or the other, but on a whole raft of other axes where the 'right' side (at least as far as I and presumably many of our readers are concerned) are taking something of a shellacking. In the arenas of Reason vs Emotion, Responsibility vs Victimhood, Respect vs Mudslinging and Opponent vs Enemy we're seeing an 'endarkenment' within our times as Toddlers of both persuasions continue to increase their profile in terms of both volume and sheer number. Crucially, both are emphatically on the side of 'the collective', way over and above that of the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Everybody apart from those inclined towards victimhood-driven 'identity politics' should be concerned by this slow death of the individual within our public discourse. Anarchists aside, all of us on the 'lone ranger' side of the argument acknowledge the need for some sort of balance and that the collective has to prevail on occasion, at least to some degree. This may include a need for the State to dispense law, order and justice, defend us from invasion or provide some sort of safety net to prevent people from falling into abject poverty (be that in the form of a 'reduced fat welfare state' or universal basic income). Some of you may strike that balance in a slightly different place and that's fine.

This is important as pretty much any defence of the proverbial lamb against two wolves discussing what to have for lunch is frequently depicted as selfish, mean-spirited, grasping and unreasonable by those aggressively pursing a more collectivist worldview. Now it's true that full-blown anarchists and their pseudo-intellectual cousins known as Anarcho-Capitalists cross over into a somewhat unhealthy and potentially dangerous 'survival of the fittest' zeitgeist which makes no attempt to grasp a multitude of complicated realities. However, while this mentality is both inherently selfish and philosophically bankrupt, its ultra-collectivist equivalent is equally so.

One of the few positives to come out of the recent poisoning of the well is a raw expose of this dismal modus operandi for what it is. This shouldn't be necessary as history has taught us the required lesson many times over, but perhaps the biggest lesson of history is that we are doomed to either learn the 'wrong lesson' from it or precisely nothing. Be it Trade Union maniacs in the 1970s and 1980s, militant feminists, whining men's rights activists, racists regardless of colour or creed, nosy 'socially conservative' homophobes, LGBT lunatics, Nazis, Facists, Communists, big government types of all persuasions, the moral is the same. Collectivism has nothing to do with fairness or genuine equality.

While the 'struggle' of various identitarians has gathered pace the historical claim that "all we want is a fair shake" has basically been parked in favour of more outright calls for special treatment and/or an insistence that the issues of their group are somehow so much more important than everybody else's. Once you start demanding that we talk solely about subjects relating solely to black/white, women/men or straight/gay then you are by definition putting down a marker that equitable treatment before the law and in terms of civil rights is not what you're actually talking about. Where such genuine inequalities exist I am of course as keen as anybody else to end them immediately.

At the heart of all collectivism is a piece of rank intellectual dishonesty, the pushing of a generic 'group experience' over and above the reality that individuals live diverse, complicated and wholly unique lives. While I'm not exactly president of the Margaret Thatcher fan club, I've always found the attitude of many interested in 'women's issues' towards her somewhat interesting. Rather than holding up the first ever female Prime Minister as a ray of hope that not all is lost, that she achieved what she did seems to perturb a great many politically minded women who I've heard complain, amongst other things, that "she did nothing for women did she?". It depends what you mean.

Being not only a woman but a grocer's daughter surrounded by the old boy's club that was the High Tory establishment, it can be argued that regardless of what you think of her record, the achievement of first becoming leader of her party and then staying in office for a decade transcended 'issues' not only of gender but of class as well. Alternatively, while I don't dispute that some encounter closed minds and closed doors on account of what they are rather than who they are, it's quite likely that Thatcher wasn't one of them. Just because you're part of some 'historically oppressed' group doesn't mean that you will experience exclusion and inequality of opportunity on a personal level.

If you look at those who have been successful in the spheres of sport, business, politics, the arts or whatever else there seem to be two common reactions amongst those pushing the narrative of a 'generic experience' based on group identity. One is to say nothing other than to hope that their new 'champion' will do something for their denoted brotherhood/sisterhood. The other is to pontificate about their 'triumph over adversity', as if the individual must have faced ostensibly insurmountable obstacles and smashed them through talent and sheer force of will. The possibility that no such obstacles really existed (at least for the person in question) is simply not an option up for discussion.

Meanwhile the reaction to one form of collectivism in recent years has been what can only be described as the same bad taste joke in reverse polarity. The Toddler Right of Make America Great Again, Take Back Control, Men's Rights Activism and silly toytown Angry Nativist movements is simply 'another side' joining in what they perceive as the same zero-sum game, battling for control of the narrative, resources, kudos and group recognition. Instead of the 'historically oppressed' we now have the perpetually pissed-off white working class, a 'silent majority' that never shuts up, whining manchildren complaining about being 'forgotten' and how "nobody ever listens to me".

My heart bleeds - the poor lambs. Anyway, swiftly moving on...

While some of the criticisms that both sides might have of each other are valid on the surface level, how they get to that place and propose to 'fix' things are basically two sides of a highly authoritarian and anti-individualist coin. Moreover, it's this lie about 'generic experiences' that serves as fuel to both - while bad things are done by and are done to individuals of all races, genders, sexual orientations or whatever else, a manifestation of the age old maxim that "shit happens and life isn't fair" should serve as compelling evidence that this 'generic experience' narrative is bankrupt and fraudulent. This silliness even fails on its own terms when put under the slightest scrutiny.

Instead, both sides cherry-pick and wheel out material as Exhibit A for the prosecution, with the wrongdoers of 'their side' dismissed as isolated bad apples while the reverse is held up as an embedded confession to some social/institutional/systemic bias to which 'rigging the game' is the only solution (and anyone suggesting otherwise must be some sort of 'bigot' themselves and therefore part of the problem). In reality there is no Utopia and there will always be idiots possessed of dumb, immature and unpleasant attitudes towards all sorts of questions for all sorts of reasons or even none. No amount of 're-education' or 'social pressure' is going to change what people think or how they feel.

Far from being liberating, collectivism crams people into highly restrictive boxes based on a single aspect of themselves and creates a wholly false sense of obligation. I might be white, British and heterosexual, but the notion that I therefore 'owe' something to complete strangers who happen to share these traits is illogical and absurd. Beyond promising not to turn aggressive or steal their possessions I have no higher or lower obligation to such an individual as I would to anybody else. It was Ayn Rand who nailed it when she said that "at the heart of all collectivism is the pursuit of the unearned", correctly identifying the use of identitarianism to disguise crude selfishness as solidarity.

The antidote to this is not to set up your own 'rival group', advocating special treatment for itself and demanding 'free stuff' from the State, but to reject militant collectivism entirely and embrace at least some sort of balance that deals in individual liberty. If you're interested in localism then the promotion of the smallest locality there is (namely the individual) should be on your agenda. If you want to protect minorities against majority tyranny then take care of the smallest minority of all (the individual again), protect his or her rights consistently and rigorously, and punish anyone who attempts to infringe them. Once you've looked after the individual, 'groups' take care of themselves.

I'm off now to contemplate whether to write a book from scratch on topics covered here in the last 3 months, or release some of this stuff as a book (perhaps an e-book) of its own. If you have a view either way on that then please let it be known - we're all for freedom of expression on these pages.

In the meantime I'll leave you with some great music from Joy Division (RIP Ian).

Thanks for dropping by and I'll catch you midweek.

Telltale Signs of an Authoritarian

Evening - it's Saturday night, just hope everybody is alright for fighting.

One of the key subjects I cover on here is the ongoing battle (currently being lost) between libertarianism and authoritarians of both the Toddler Left and Toddler Right persuasion. It is important to understand that both, far from simply being political/philosophical ideas, are manifestations of wider mentalities, mindsets and ways of life. What follows is a short and sweet breakdown of the 'bill of materials' for that classic authoritarian mindset - if you notice an individual engaging in too much of this stuff then be sure to ration your contact with them as authoritarianism is indiscriminate and, by its very definition, no respecter of your individual wishes.

So...let's crack on with it as I have a radio show to catch in less than two hours. Here are some of the telltale signs that will confirm you're dealing with an authoritarian arsehole. Eyes wide open.

Obsession with rules/authority - authoritarianism is about rules, it is about ruthless and unquestioning obedience. More than anything it is about authority that should not and indeed cannot be challenged at any time, for any reason. Anyone asking 'why?' is a dangerous maverick for whom the course of action is 1) re-educate and 2) if that fails, exterminate - you've been warned. Look out for someone who changes their mind several times over in perfect synchronicity with 'the leader' changing theirs. Speaking of which...

Seek messiahs/great leaders (or indeed believe that they might be one) - subservience by its very nature requires somebody to be subservient to. Authoritarians worship 'strong leaders' (known as demagogues or dictators to the rest of us) and place them on the same altar as the divine. Indeed the authoritarian worldview is a 'religion substitute' to many who subscribe to it. If you see someone who identifies ostensibly as atheist but preaches their political values with quasi-religious zealor then this is exactly what I'm talking about. For your own well-being, run like hell.

Logical inconsistency - typically an authoritarian will claim his or her own rights and fight for their continued preservation. It's the rights of other people that are dispensible in the name of some contrived 'greater good' and not theirs (authoritarians typically support capital punishment as a result of this formulation). For reasons that we'll go into later, authoritarians are breathtakingly inconsistent on the 'logical' level, all dependant upon which 'group' in society you're dealing with. Individualists (who of course don't deal in groups at all) tend not to have this problem.

Advocate group rights - those of us possessed of a functioning brain are aware that groups cannot and therefore do not have rights. However, Toddler Left authoritarians believe in 'group rights' based on historical oppression whereas their Toddler Right equivalent advocate collective rights based on race, where you were born or simply being in the majority (see tyranny of the majority, aka mob rule). This means society descends into a battle between 'groups' bitching at each other, competing for what they see as scarce resources, validation and control of the narrative.

Preoccupation with the past - often as a way of justifying the actions of the present. Toddler Leftists will invariably point to some act of oppression from four score and ten years ago, using the strapline "we cannot let this happen again" to justify their latest draconian measure. The Toddler Right typically believe in a golden age that only existed in their own heads, an era in which everything was so much better and the nation possessed a sort of collectivised 'glory' that it has since lost (see 'Make America Great Again' or 'Take Back Control'). Both are quite literally backward.

Nosy, judgemental, have a poor grasp (or none) of where their opinion of something is (or at least should) be of no value - very much a 'real life litmus test' which authoritarians fail. People may have opinions on the choices or lives of others, but the sane amongst us temper that with a recognition that these are their choices to make, that our point of view should (and hopefully does) count for precisely nothing. Authoritarians are typically nosy, want to know intimate details that are none of their business and gossip relentlessly in 'real life'. They also fail to respect the right of others to view the world differently to them, frequently using 'changing social attitudes' as a paper thin smokescreen for the policing of thought they don't agree with.

Everything is black and white, right or wrong - the presence of 'grey area', nuance or context is never acceptable to an authoritarian, whose palette has precisely two colours within it. We'll go into the detailed reasons for this very shortly.

Divide the world into 'sides' that are for or against - society is in a constant state of warfare when viewed through the authoritarian lens. They demand to know whose side everyone is on, including you and me, while holding no more regard to those of 'no side' than they have for those stood hurling bottles from across the proverbial road. They are Winston Churchill circa 1939 and everyone who disagrees with them is Hitler (see how often 'the Hitler insult' is wheeled out by authoritarians to shut down argument). This ridiculous analogy has also been used on many occasions to hoodwink well-meaning but gullible people into supporting our latest foreign invasion. It's true enough that one lesson from history is that we never learn the lessons of history.

Have designated 'favourite groups' who can do no wrong - the authoritarian lens is not set towards objective reality, but views events through the prism of oppressors vs oppressed and good guys vs bad guys. Toddler Left authoritarians will not hear a critical word spoken of any individual belonging to one of their 'historically oppressed groups' while the Toddler Right reserve special treatment for majorities based on race and/or nationality. This inability to see 'their own' as capable of wrong drives the logical inconsistency described earlier.

Have designated 'scapegoats' on the same basis - the Toddler Left's 'good guys' are the Toddler Right's 'bad guys' and vice versa. Nobody is an individual, everybody belongs to a 'group' and that 'group' has its place on the hierarchy. If you're in a designated 'bad group' then redemption is possible in the eyes of the authoritarian, but only on the basis of perpetual shame around gender, race, class etc. 

Support 'free speech' which is actually 'licensed speech' - and guess who decides which of us can and cannot have a license? We are all familiar with the political correctness of the Toddler Left, with its microaggressions, misuse of the word 'violence' to describe challenge or criticism and obsession with 'Hate Speech'. The Toddler Right state that they oppose this, but are actually intent on creating and imposing their own version on the rest of society. Neither support genuine free speech which is especially for the offensive, and people who disagree with them. No other form of free speech is worth fighting for or bothering with, surely?

Preoccupied/obsessed with violence and/or sex - just an observation. Socially conservative authoritarians are particularly bad for this.

Are possessed of 'common sense' and live in the 'real world' - what this typically means is that authoritarians have come to their wordlview 'in the moment', rather than distancing themselves from the emotion of their own situation and taking an abstract/birds eye view of things. Authoritarians are typically suspicious of philosophy, the pursuit of an objective truth and answering hypothetical questions (which are a fantastic example of how abstraction gets you further than talking about a 'real life' scenario you have an emotional stake in). Part of this is because they regard their issues not just as important, but altogether more important than everybody else's.

Are generally deadbeats/losers - people usually come to worldviews from which they benefit personally, then do the rationalisation later. In the case of authoritarians, collectivism gives them the chance to claim resources or 'glory' based on 'group membership' that they know they could never get near in 'real life' solely on the individual level. Most entrepreneurs, for example, are broadly libertarian in outlook and reject collectivism as the envy-driven bullshit that it is.

Typically hypocrites who live by a double standard - people very rarely live their own lives in absolute accordance with their stated worldview, but in the case of authoritarians this would effectively mean living a highly unnatural and austere existence. Speaking of which, evangelical preachers in the Bible belt are a particularly humorous example of this, banging out a socially conservative message while enriching themselves at the congregation's expense and filling more holes than a JCB in their own personal lives. See also the scores of Tory MPs caught up in scandals during the 'Back to Basics' campaign of the 1990s.

Might be libertarian on individual issues for cynical/self-interest reasons - i.e. an authoritarian who takes drugs might support drug legalisation, but this is basically meaningless.

Will deny they are authoritarian until they are blue in the face - funnily enough, authoritarians reject the label in a way that is the polar opposite of libertarians' enthusiastic acceptance of the diametrically opposing one. The paradox is that although when push comes to shove 'most people' are authoritarian to some extent, this is absolutely not how the majority of those same individuals perceive themselves and/or wish to be perceived by others. Everybody is for 'freedom' and 'empowering people' in rhetorical terms, but these concepts can and do exist solely on the individual level. The second somebody advocates 'collectivised' or 'group' forms of freedom or liberty then you know what you're dealing with. And it's about as pretty as scabies.

I hope this serves as a useful rough guide, although by all means feel free to add anything you think I may have missed in the comments.

On a brighter note, let's have some music for those of us who deal in, see and speak sense.

See you tomorrow and thanks once again for reading.

Your Place of Death - Somebody Else's Utopia

Evening - hope you're all doing above average.

It hardly counts as genius material, but I know decisively that Jeremy Corbyn is a Utopian. This was demonstrated beyond any doubt to me on the day he won the Labour leadership contest. In his victory speech, Jezza announced that his intention was to 'construct a society' in which injustice would be eradicated, working people would have more money in their pockets there would be peace in the Middle East (although what that has to do with us I remain as perplexed about as ever), it would never rain etc. I'm going to leave aside the content of the man's politics for a minute - we can and will do 1500 words about that some other night. It's the three words in inverted commas a few lines above that I really want to focus on for now.

Free societies and economies aren't 'constructed', they emerge as a result of people making rational decisions about their own self-interest (enlightened or otherwise) within conditions that, yes, can be influenced by such instruments as taxation, regulation etc but even within that framework, people are (or at least should be) free to make choices the government wouldn't necessarily want them to make and/or could see as the wrong ones. For instance, a married couples' allowance might be offered to people as an incentive to marry their significant other, but in any free society the right to stay unmarried shouldn't even have to be spelt out.

Once you utter the words 'construct a society' then by definition no such respect for free will exists. If the harmless desires of an individual happen to stand in the way of the building and maintenance of Utopia then they become a disruptive dissident, the proverbial egg without whom no omlette could ever be made. Their wish to live their own existence out quietly, pursue their own interests in both the economic and personal sphere, can and must be trampled on in the name of a clearly defined greater good. Some attempt will then be made by the State to bring that individual into line and where that goes, well, we'll go further down that unfortunate road later.

I'm sick of hearing Marxists in particular being excused as people who mean or meant well, but their wonderful ideas were either corrupted or maybe didn't work in reality. As if the multiple lessons of history do not serve as conclusive evidence to give up on this line of extremism forever, raw collectivism of all types can not be described as 'lovely' or 'nice' in any way. Collectivism means force, it means coercion and when it comes down to it, collectivism will mean brutality if free will backs it into a corner. Of course some watered down 'balance' between individual and collective is a different proposition but that means rejecting Utopia as a concept in the first instance.

This is the counter-intuitive crux of the matter - when push comes to shove it's the individualist who will consistently defend the oppressed and victimised from a position of principle. Utopian collectivists, on the other hand, could politely be described as complete shits who will happily stick people in mass graves in the name of their revolution or promised land. Individualists have nothing like the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, the Khmer Rouge and its Killing Fields or Mao's Great Leap Forwards on their (our) record - collectivist Utopians did all of that. Yet conventional wisdom depicts collectivists as 'well meaning' and individualists as greedy and selfish.

The mind boggles.

Look, there is no such thing as an objective Utopia and anyone who believes otherwise in the face of  overwhelming historical evidence gets the square root of zero in the way of charity from over here. There is 'your Utopia', the construction of which will almost certainly involve the use of force and/or eroding the liberty of others to pursue their own goals and express themselves. For the sake of argument (although it doesn't happen) let's just say that this Utopia is achieved relatively peacefully, at least without political violence. Even then there will be dissidents, people who regard your heaven as their hell. How does the Utopian State interact with these troublemakers?

Of course you could allow them to express themselves freely, form some sort of opposition in the true sense of pluralism and accept that Utopia might be demolished one day. But having worked so hard to get to the promised land, why on earth would you throw it all away so casually? Besides which, the biggest single defining feature of a Utopian collectivist is their particular brand of moral superiority, an unshakeable belief that their Utopia is good for you too, even if you haven't worked it out yet through ignorance, stupidity, or whatever. Only a selfish, treacherous individual could fail to recognise the wonders of the society they had worked so hard to build, right?

Perhaps dissidents will be sent for 're-education' in the mould of Mao's Great Leap Forwards or the seizure of education systems for brainwashing purposes by the Communists and Nazis? Well we're already in 'bad enough' territory but what happens when somebody refuses, or rejects the 're-education' in favour of what they believed in all conscience beforehand? This is the point of no return with Utopia construction, sooner or later you're going to have to a) accept the rights of others to hate and seek to undo it, or b) eliminate them from society by force. Again look at history and, inevitably, Utopians select option b - "without breaking a few eggs" and all that.

This cultish modus operandi indicates a clear use of belief and politics by Utopian collectivists as a faith substitute. The quasi-religious nature of Communism, Maoism, Nazism etc upon close inspection should nail it completely.

Make no mistake, Utopian collectivists are mad, bad and dangerous.

Once we accept that there is no Utopia, no messiah and no magic formula with regards to the 'construction' of the perfect society then we stop trying to prevent every last unfortunate thing in the world from happening. Again our good friend counter-intuition makes an appearance as the pursuit of 'the greater good' invariably causes serious net harm across all those impacted by it. There will always be inequality, social injustice, unfair outcomes and people holding unfortunate or offensive opinions, perhaps expressing them rather loudly. This is far from perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the alternative of poverty, labour camps, misery and mass murder.

Perfection isn't (and never has been) an option, so get it off the table.

At the risk of telling you what to think, we should all be worried by anyone who promises to build Utopia, or 'construct the perfect society', regardless of the supposed idealism behind the architecture. A 'constructed society' cannot be a free one and deep down its designers know that.

These are not 'nice but misplaced' ideas at all, but inherently dangerous ones.

I may get another in tomorrow if I get time, so feel free to suggest titles for future pieces.

In the meantime I'll leave you somewhat appropriately with the Cult - thanks for reading and I'll catch you soon.