Leg-Iron has a piece on Jamjar Chutney's silencing. He rightly points out that as far as hegelian synthesis go this one has started to take hold:
1. Thesis: want everyone to sound the same.
2. Antithesis: have voices crying out in dissent from accepted normative crud.
Sythesis of 1 + 2 = ban the former to push it underground (as it will - no view point is ever silenced, it is merely made an island for the lost and a path of least resistance for the weak willed and foolish to go; look at the labour party) which eventually pushes a "third way" view which is acceptable to precisely noone = no one is happy.
The problem with politicians on either side of the "divide" (it took me awhile to figure out this "divide" itself is artificial) is that they frequently get the dividing lines between thesis and antithesis wrong - as a result they lose ground and credibility on the grounds on what they originally represented because the synthesis merely strips some of the veneer away from themselves alone.
An example: can anyone truly say the Labour party is still the party of the working man? For all of Nu & Old Labours struggle to create their brave new world all they have really succeeded in doing is stripping away more of the mask they presented as their creed, and removed the people who represented the least dishonest side of their party; as wrong as the likes of Benn the elder is we can at least have respect for his adherence to his viewpoint.
How can they claim this when every action has been to strip working men of money and property to replace it with privilege at the behest of a (supposedly) benevolent state? When we have income tax returns that are now dwarfed by the cost of welfare they no longer hold any credibility to these claims.
No it is because of this falsehood - that 2 opposing views can be synthesised into a middle ground in any meaningful and long lasting way - that we need groups like Choudray's; however odious this little scared man gets, however wrong his views are, they are colliding against reality and the natural righteousness of things. We glibly use terms like "you cant buck the market" or "you have no right" far too often without realising their true power - no matter how much interference their is in the natural justice of things their is always a reckoning.
The right will out - the more extremists we have the more clearly this comes into view, not because Hegel was right, but because he was so very wrong.
If libertarianism is anything it is not that we represent this greater righteousness; it is simply that we understand that it exists and is immutable; one of the reasons why I can proudly claim to be a Christian libertarian methinks.