9 Comments

1. Kevin B says:
   October 11, 2011 at 10:51 pm

   You’re probably right about ‘unfiskable’, but Laban Tall has been having fun with one of the commenters:

   I’ve been hearing for years about the sophistication of the Republican political wing, and I guess the Guardian’s giving space to Ronan Bennett testifies to that. But this is a very poor standard of sock-puppetry.
2. Current says:
   October 12, 2011 at 12:15 am

   You can take consolation in the fact that McGuinness has little chance of winning because of the PR system used in Ireland. He won’t receive many second preference votes. Micheal D Higgin (Labour) will probably win.
3. John Galt says:
   October 12, 2011 at 4:35 am

   Lets be honest here, he wouldn’t be the first politician to rise from the ranks of the terrorist IRA to become President of the Republic of Ireland would he?

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89amon_de_Valera
4. Lynne says:
   October 12, 2011 at 5:47 pm

   When terrorism looks good. This is what happens when a political system becomes so corrupt, weak and inefficient it wrecks the country it’s supposed to be working for.
5. PeterT says:
   October 13, 2011 at 3:51 am

   Had the British managed to hold on to North America, and Jefferson et al continued their ‘terrorist’ activity until the British gave the colonies de facto independence Canada style, and Jefferson got elected prime minister, what would we libertarians have to say about this? Obviously Jefferson was one of the greatest men ever to have lived whereas McGuinness is a slimy murderous twerp, and I don’t want to suggest there is moral equivalence between the two situations let along men, but I think it is clear that it would not be a far fetched comparison to make for somebody of the Irish republican pursuasion, and if they did make it we would have to cogently argue our case, and not just dismiss it, as I just did with my comment about McGuinness. Our response could be that the means of conflict that we would prepared to consider acceptable would be limited to those of war (geneva convention style), and if that proved ineffective then defeat would be admitted. We could of course say that we do not consider violent resistance is not justified…but I am aware that most libertarians are not pacifists (albeit some have a pacifistesque outlook on life and would prepare Galt’s gulch to the moral difficulties of violent conflict). Thoughts?
6. Tosh says:
   October 13, 2011 at 4:37 am

   Apparently the IRA campaign is over, according to this. Not sure that the IRA sympathisers, thugs and bed-wetters would agree.
7. NickM says:
   October 13, 2011 at 9:42 am

   PeterT,
   Interesting point and one I shall think over.
8. David Gillies says:
   October 13, 2011 at 6:32 pm

   My libertarian stance on the whole deal is that if George III hadn’t been such a complete arse and the colonists not such a bunch of intransigent wankers the current capital of the United States of America and Greater Britannia would be somewhere near Raleigh NC (much nicer climate than DC) and its southern border would be roughly where Guatemala is today.
9. PeterT says:
   October 13, 2011 at 10:06 pm

   David, explain please, sounds interesting. Oh, I do love a bit of counterfactual history (that might have come across a bit Liam Fox).