So, does Lord Carey think the “News of the World” was right that exposure of Max Mosley’s private likes and habits is “in the public interest”?

David Davis

I want humans to become better people, and I want them to want to be that thing. I want them to not have to want to read scurrilous crap, about the sexual leanings of other people, printed by “news papers”. That they want this stuff merely opens doors for supposed “moralists”, which is to say:- stalinists in disguise, to operate controls. My objective is best served by freeing education from the State’s control. Search many earlier posts about education here.

Now, I wouldn’t so sado-masochism if you paid me. (Nor “oral” sex for that matter, whatever that strange and tautologous concept might be.) Or to be spanked, like poor old Sir Max Mosley, in a sexual context? Nah. The “News of the World” , described as a “news paper”, thinks that one person’s private delights ought to be displayed “in the public interest”. Yet, a person described as a “retired archbishop” (does he stop believing in God then, when he “retires” – a strange this for a “man of God” to do, I would have thought…retire?) thinks that such “news papers” ought to be allowed to go on supplying suppurating pus for people, robbed by the State of the ability to make informed judgements, to drink.

I’m not so sure as “Lord” Carey is.

People’s sexual and fetish habits become the property of others in a society where other people have nothing better to do than to want to know about them, for (what is called in Liverpool) “a laff”. This comes about because all other ways to stimulate the brain and mind, such as reading 1950s engineering textbooks on lathe operation, or practising with a reproduction Long-Bow, or learning how to build and drive a computer-aided 5-axis-milling-machine, have been taped off.

It is also reasonable to suppose that what someone wants to get up to in his (or her) bedroom, with or without one – or many – girls (or men) to help, and whether these are paid to help or not, is his (or her) private business. It was obvious to a child of six that a “public interest” defence by the NoW would fail.

Even in a free market, I for one would prefer that “there is no market in the gap” for stories like this, notwitstanding that I would make _no law_ to make publishing them an offence. I would, as I said, prefer that _people_ should find them both uninteresting and intrusional, such that there would be no reason for a “news paper” to publish such a thing.

The solution of course is better people. Perhaps we  libertarians will also have to dissolve them and elect another? Perhaps revolution is harder than it looks?

One comment

Leave a Reply