What's the problem with the BNP?

I'll probably try to watch Question Time tonight, but can't understand why people are so offended by the BNP. For me the BNP represent three things:

1. Promoting "British" interests
2. Socialisation of the means of production

As someone who advocates free immigration and a free market, it's obvious why I disagree with the BNP. But having watched the conferences of the three "major" political parties, there's no fundamental difference between their views and the BNP. The only real debate is what you count as "indigenous Britain" - the trouble the Tories and Labour face is defining the "Britain" they promote. At least the BNP are clear on this. Yes, Nick Griffin is odious. But he's a politician. If you are repulsed by listening to the BNP on this week's Question Time, you'll realise how I feel every week.

Comments

[aje]

There is no contradiction in supporting both democracy and open borders, they are not mutually exclusive. Both can be the goal

There is. Britain's full of nationalists - we'll always have immigration controls. There is a choice to make between advocating policies that you think are morally just and economically literate vs. those that are popular.

So to come back to my original point: I think the democratic process is secondary to policies that I think are best. Hence it's easy for me to argue - on moral grounds - that the BNP are despicable. The problem with this is that the other parties are little better. By contrast, those who choose to value the democratic process as primary (and outcomes secondary) should, if they're consistent, remain silent on debates like BNP vs. Labour policy.

I know this sounds like an extreme dichotomy, and I know you feel there's a comfortable middle ground. But I think you're kidding yourself. Either outcomes are more important than process or not. On these issues, I'd contend that democracy should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. On immigration particularly, it has delivered a suboptimal policy, therefore its not worth defending.

[Jim]

"I think the democratic process is secondary to policies that I think are best."

So what? So do lots of people, many of whom disagree with you. Oh, if only there was some way of settling the matter!

Look, if all you're interested in is being 'right' from your own perspective, knock yourself out. But if you're interested in actual policy change, you have to involve yourself in the detail of institutional setups. And you don't seem all that interested in that.

"those who choose to value the democratic process as primary (and outcomes secondary) should, if they're consistent, remain silent on debates like BNP vs. Labour policy."

What a bizarre statement. Those who think that democracy is the best way of settling political differences should remain silent about all actual political differences? As Quinn said, you've got a pretty strange idea of what democracy should.

[aje]

Oh, if only there was some way of settling the matter!

Democracy can't settle the matter. See Arrow.

[Quinn]

I've belatedly realised that this discussion is pointless. We're not arguing like-with-like. We're not comparing democracy with self-governance, since both systems can throw up a myriad of different options. For instance, I've argued elsewhere with people who endorse your idea of self-governance and the minimal state, except if there is one thing they feel government should do it's to maintain secure borders. See also the UK Libertarian Party, whose immigration policy is more draconian than anything I would consider.

No, the problem is that we're comparing democracy in the widest meaning of the term with your narrow, personal, specific and bespoke idea of how your ideal society would be run. Fine. But the problem with Britain being full of nationalists is that they will still exist in your idea of society. You may imagine that your world rejoices in freedom and is one free of tyranny, but all those nationalists would no doubt disagree, and denied the right to express their opinion at the ballot box, who knows what actions they may take, violent or otherwise, to get try to get their way? I'd also love to know how you get there from here, imposing your idea of society on a reluctant populace; democrats have no such problem.

Ultimately this debate is flawed because we're not discussing your, Jim's and my perfect systems, or even democracy versus self-governance, but rather your idea of perfection as opposed to all the possibilities that democracy may throw up, and which hasn't delivered exactly what you would wish, yet. Well, we'll never convince you of democracy's worth in that case, but frankly it's not a fair fight.

[aje]

I wouldn't go so far as to say this debate is pointless, but it's certainly very vague.

All I'm saying is that I'd like immigration policy to be similar to football team policy. i.e. to each his own.

[Jim]

"Democracy can't settle the matter."

It can't settle it to everyone's satisfaction, but that's not a good criterion. The point is whether it minimises disgruntlement compared to other systems or, put another way, whether it achieves ex ante buy-in. As I see it, you're not coming up any real alternatives, because 'self-governance' throws up questions you're not addressing. You say 'we' shouldn't give some people power over over other people, but who's this 'we'? How do 'we' decide what 'we' want to do? If the group you're in decides it wants to, say, impose tariffs on 'imports' from other localities, what's to stop it? Part of the reason nation states exist is to stop beggar-my-neighbour policies at the local level adding up to society-wide harm.

But as Quinn says, there is probably little point arguing over this since the basic concepts we're using seem to be so far apart.

[aje]

In a market there's an equilibrium. There isn't in democracy.

In a market there's an opt out. There isn't in democracy.