Lib on the United Kingdom

2007-07-01T22:40:00.000+01:00

Smoking ban

The smoking ban came into force in England today. I don't smoke (I find it filthy) but you can guess my feelings on this.

Property owners should determine whether they want smoking on their premises, not the government. Let the market cater for niche needs.

2007-07-01T13:47:00.001+01:00

Attempted terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow

Is it Al Qaeda? Perhaps. I would assume though that Brown reckons they "hate our way of life", just as his predecessor stated.

The solution against these Islamists is to:

1 - Pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
2 - Cease from closely aligning ourselves with Bush.
3 - Pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy.

I doubt Brown would take heed of this, but we can hope.

2007-06-27T17:47:00.000+01:00

Blair has gone. In comes Brown and more large government...

Blair resigned today and Brown is now the PM. In a sense, I shouldn't really care. Brown would simply maintain large government just as his immediate predecessors as PM have. My life, and those of other libertarians in the UK, wouldn't drastically improve as a consequence.

Still, I'm not sorry to see Blair go. His decision to invade Iraq has tainted my perception of him. He truly has blood on his hands, as far as I am concerned. Granted all politicians lie, but the ramifications of these lies (no weapons of mass destruction were discovered, remember..) are great. I sincerely hope that they affect his conscience. On top of that, Iraq wasn't even a threat to the UK. If Saddam wanted to bomb us, then it would be retaliation of the sanctions and constant air strikes which harmed his people. Innocent Iraqis did not deserve to suffer in such a fashion.

When analysing Blair's ten years as PM, little strikes me as pleasing, from a voluntaryist perspective. OK to be fair, devolution in Scotland and Wales has worked well. The Human Rights Act at least enabled the government to respect the rights of the individual. But these are the few positive things he did, IMO. He bloated the size of government by increasing funding to the NHS. He imposed tuition fees on students, even though the government should get out of education completely. He didn't have the balls to complete House of Lords reform. He stated that New Labour would be "whiter than white", but his government succumbed to sleaze.

My major beef with him, apart from the Iraq war, was his insistence to partake in US President Bush's "war on terror". I'm not convinced that Islamists "hate our freedom" or "hate our way of life". Think about it. Why have Al Qaeda only attacked few liberal democracies thus far? Why haven't France or Germany been attacked? Also, no one just clicks and starts to believe that they hate Western freedom. Human psychology doesn't work like that. There must be some pressures in Islamic societies which cause such feelings. And the UK was more free in the 19th century than it is now. For example, you could walk into a store and buy heroin even. So why wasn't the UK subject to terrorism then? I feel that an alteration in our foreign policy would lessen the likelihood of Islamist attacks.

As stated previously, I won't miss him. And I don't expect much better from Brown either. Still, education is the key to a free society. Despite the continuance of big, intrusive government under Brown, if we as voluntaryists can educate others into personal and political liberty, then we have a chance of one day achieving the free society.

2007-06-19T22:14:00.000+01:00

Some thoughts on Ron Paul

Ron Paul seems to be making a stir in the USA. I have some reservations though.

1- Is it acceptable to lessen violence/the initiation of force by participating in party politics? I agree with Stefan Molyneux in this sense.

2 - Where has party politics ever got libertarianism? Party politics has been a futile end, if we must be honest. The only successful libertarian party has been in Costa Rica. No major Western country has ever had a successful libertarian party.

3 - Isn't it hypocritical to oppose the state, yet participate in it to achieve our ends?

Granted, Ron Paul may have opened the eyes of uninitiated people to liberty. Nonetheless, basic outreach and activism is more than satisfactory in spreading the word of libertarianism.

Even if Paul wins the White House, would he remain principled? When Ronald Reagan was running for President, he often used a lot of freedom-oriented rhetoric. But when he was in office he actually increased the size and scope of government. Think about the national debt and ballooning defence expenditure.

Can Paul actually win? Maybe. But that still doesn't validate the cause of libertarian party politics.

2007-06-19T21:56:00.000+01:00

Ramblers and the "right to roam"

This was in the news today.

I don't understand the ramblers objections and, really, they need education on the principles of basic property rights. If a piece of land is privately owned, then you have no specific "right" to enter that property. Ramblers have the option of pitching together and buying their own land to walk on.

Is this unfair to ramblers? Some may believe so. Nevertheless, property rights are intrinsically linked to one's self-ownership. One's fundamental rights are rights to life, liberty and property and NO human being should have the power to violate them.

2007-05-11T17:20:00.000+01:00

Goodbye Tony....

So then, Blair says he'll go on the 27th June.

I'm no fan of any British PM, let alone Blair. All have either advocated big government, or have been imperialistic. Still, I suppose there have been a few plus points of Blair's ten years as PM. The economy has remained healthy, even though New Labour have only inherited a strong economic position from the Major Conservative government. Devolution in Scotland & Wales has worked well, plus the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

A Labour government led by Brown wouldn't, I imagine, have any major differences in policy. Both Blair and Brown of course created the New Labour ethos. And a Brown government would still deliver big government, so no surprise there then...

2007-05-05T22:37:00.000+01:00

This week's elections

So the SNP won more seats in Holyrood than Labour did and probably would be the primary party in a coalition.

I'm not sure if this denotes a greater desire for independence. Nonetheless, I'm indifferent to the notion of Scottish independence. If Scots really want to become a sovereign country, then Westminster shouldn't stop them.

An independent Scotland would probably be quite a statist place though. Scotland's political culture is quite left of centre, after all. Supposedly the Republic of Ireland is a model for a potentially sovereign Scotland. Ireland reduced its corporation taxes, became more business friendly and has blossomed into the "Celtic Tiger". Could Scotland emulate that and become a "Tartan Tiger"? Only time will tell.

So what's the market anarchist/voluntaryist perspective on this? Well to reiterate, I fear Scotland would be very statist if it ever became independent. I feel Scotland needs some kind of free market voice, so an alternative to statism can be aired. Because of the socialist political culture, Scotland cannot be that favourable a place for the average libertarian.

2007-04-12T21:13:00.000+01:00

HSBC Premier bank

Some controversy has arisen around the decision of HSBC to limit custom to wealthy customers in one of their branches.

This is one self-evident sign that people aren't educated in liberty. The average Joe should realise that people should be free to associate with whom they choose, and on any basis.

HSBC are simply catering for local demand, since a large number of wealthy people live near the branch. It's simply the free market in action.

2007-04-03T16:30:00.000+01:00

Another good example of the free market in action

Lloyds TSB have announced they will provide Islamic business accounts, which conform and adhere to Sharia law.

This is a good example of the free market in action. Lloyds TSB have noticed a demand for services and are creating the supply to meet it. Their competitors, like HSBC, Barclays, RSB, etc. may soon follow suit, since they may lose market share.

The beauty of the free market is that it can cater for niche needs and desires. This is something that government is always inept at doing.

2007-03-30T18:39:00.000+01:00

Casinos

Supposedly the House of Lords has voted against some secondary legislation arising from the new Gambling Act. Even still, the government remain confident that plans for new casinos in the UK are still feasible.

Unsurprisingly, there are few comments made in favour of a total free market in gambling. I don't understand why the general public fear free markets so much.

Would there be more people gambling in a total free market? Maybe so. If this a good thing? Well people hold the right to use their property how they wish. It is their property, and hence an extension of their self-ownership. Would there be more gambling addicts? Again, maybe so. But in many cases, an addiction to something is often an innate characteristic in a person. Not everyone will necessarily become an addict if gambling was more prevalent in society. Would children be at harm? Well the mechanics of the free market would step in, in this instance. Since society values the security of children, people wouldn't have to do business with casinos that served children. Also, in response to consumer demand, casinos may also self-regulate and actively refrain from serving children.

2007-03-30T18:22:00.000+01:00

Iran - Royal Navy detainees

This situation with the Royal Navy detainees in Iran seems quite perplexing. We say that our naval personnel were in Iraqi waters, yet the Iranians state that they were in Iranian waters. Besides, is taking them as hostages really necessary or prudent? Wouldn't it be more fitting to merely warn them that they were in Iranian waters and ask them to leave immediately?

Some idiots have stated that we "declare war" against Iran, nonetheless the solution seems fairly simple to me.

In future, we should refrain from engaging in "UN mandated" missions. This situation with the Iranians is simply a consequence of Blair's interventionist foreign policy. If the Royal Navy were solely protecting British waters and British citizens, then it wouldn't have to interfere in foreign skirmishes that don't undermine British sovereignty. If anything, we should leave the UN. Would we lose "influence" in the world? Why would we? What is the inherent good in "global influence" anyhow? The UK would still have one of the largest economies in the world and people from overseas would still desire to trade with us. As for the seat on the Security Council, well so what? Again, the concept of having influence in the world seems rather narcissistic to me. It's just a means of saying "my country is important" or "my country is better than your country". It's really an infantile, playground mentality. I would only want Britain to be a peaceful, secure, prosperous and free country. Global influence is secondary to such a principle.

In a market anarchist/voluntaryist society, individuals should be free as to whether they want to engage in humanitarian efforts. If individuals want to help the Iraqis, then they should be free to do so. In that sense, governmental force would not be needed (to tax us and then spend it on the armed forces) to patrol foreign hotspots.

2007-03-21T14:27:00.000Z

The Budget 2007

Gordon Brown made his 11th Budget today. This probably might be his last, if he really is going to take over from Blair as PM and Labour Party leader.

As usual, it was chock full of big government pap and statist drivel. OK, granted, such a thing was only to be expected.

It was surprising to hear that Labour would cut the basic rate of income tax. Yes, taxation is theft, nonetheless I didn't expect Labour would have the balls to cut taxation. In regards to growth and inflation (neither should be measured anyhow), Brown made his usual quip about "record periods of sustained GDP growth". Well yes, since New Labour won the 1997 election, GDP growth has been reasonable, especially in comparison with the other G8 countries. Still, the economy was growing healthily under the last Conservative government led by John Major. From 1992 (the end of the last British recession) to 1997, average GDP growth was above trend (which is about 2.5%). Brown and New Labour therefore can only claim credit for the maintenance of a strong economy, and certainly have not created economic strength. Inflation, from 1992 to 1997, was also reasonably low.

I'm not a minarchist, nevertheless a libertarian budget should only set aside government funding for:

- Law and order
- the armed forces
- courts and judicial system

As stated earlier, inflation (via the means of the CPI, RPI and RPIX) should not be measured. Such measurements are not accurate gauges of inflationary pressures in the economy, since they are only a basket of commonly purchased consumer items. Not every price rise in the economy is noted in such records. Besides, inflation (if defined as a rise in prices) is only caused by increases in the money supply and we have the Bank of England and Royal Mint to thank for that. Commodity-backed currencies (using gold or silver) would drastically reduce price rises in the economy and retain the purchasing power of currency.

As for GDP growth, the concept of GDP per se is a faulty one. In a free market (without any government intervention), individuals should choose whether they desire to consume greater quantities of goods and services. It should not be a goal for an entire society to meet x GDP growth target. Such a move only smacks of central economic planning, which evidently is contrary to the concept of a free market.

2007-03-18T06:57:00.000Z

Olympics, Government, Big projects and failure

The late, great Harry Browne continually used to say that "government doesn't work". He even wrote a book on that subject.

Browne was a man of great wisdom, and as such, this Olympics situation has proven him right. Government projects are continuously over budget and even turn out to be white elephants. The Millennium Dome in London is a fine example of the latter.

The free market recognises it only has limited funds in order to finance a project. It also realises that a return can be made if a project is managed successfully. Really, all major public projects should be wholly financed by the free market. Look at Wembley Stadium. The government partly financed this, and it's completion was months behind schedule. Arsenal financed the Emirates Stadium with private funding and it's completion matched proposed scheduling.

Government is slow and cumbersome. Ronald Reagan (despite actually increasing the size of the US federal government) was right in saying that government is the problem, not the solution.

2007-03-04T01:28:00.000Z

A good example of the free market in action

Recently, NTL/Virgin Media have ceased showing Sky One on their digital networks. This has caused concern because Sky One show many flagship American shows like The Simpsons.

However Sky are offering their digital service at a lower price than NTL/Virgin Media. This is a perfect example of the free market in action. BSkyB have realised an opportunity here and are willing to capitalise from a competitor.

Imagine if ALL services could be subject to such forces. Prices would be lower, due to competition. The quality of goods and services would be higher, since companies would lose custom to competitors otherwise. With no government around, we could live in a world with higher quality goods and services.

2007-02-25T05:33:00.000Z

US Missile Defence

Supposedly, members of the American and British government have been in talks surrounding placing missile defence infrastructure in the UK.

In principle, I see nothing wrong with a missile defence system. Nevertheless, I would rather it was funded voluntarily and not via force. In a market anarchy, specific DRO's/protection agencies would provide national protection services on the basis of supply and demand.

Would it make the UK a target for nukes? I'm not sure. Since we currently possess Trident, then that may serve as an effective deterrent.

2007-02-25T05:22:00.000Z

Blair and Iraq troops

Earlier this week, Blair announced that a portion of troops were to be moved from Iraq.

I suppose this is good news. Still, was it worth going to war initially?

There WERE no WMD's. Even though Saddam was a bad man, so what? Foreign policy should only be limited to national defence, not offence. It isn't really our business if Saddam's regime "oppressed" its people.

Politicians will always lie. They will always attempt to secure their status amongst the "great statesmen". For these reasons, we must always oppose the actions of politicians and the state in general.

2007-02-18T00:36:00.000Z

Mr. Hain, Labour and large government...

Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland, has stated that the poor should receive free TV licences and bus passes.

It's a common misnomer to label libertarians as "anti poor people". We really are not. We are not sociopathic or bereft of any empathy and compassion for people. What we oppose is GOVERNMENTAL FORCE being used to help the poor. Libertarians would argue that if helping the poor is necessary, then let it be done on a voluntary basis. Let private charities aid the poor, without taxation, welfare states and other initations of force.

Another means of aiding the poor is basic economic freedom. Removing all regulations on business would make business start up so much easier, so poorer people could enter business, create and sell goods and services and help themselves out of poverty. But under New Labour, we still have numerous regulations on business. Imagine how wealthy our society could be without them.

2007-02-12T21:18:00.000Z

TWO reasons why the Conservative Party is a party of big government...

See here.

And here.

Who is Cameron to say what people can or cannot put into their body? So much for the Conservatives saying they are a "party of freedom". IMO, any British libertarian who believes that is deluding themselves.

And Sweden? I'd leave big, intrusive government to the Scandanavians, thank you....

2007-02-12T21:12:00.000Z

Miss Blair? F**k would I....

In last week's Question Time, David Milliband claimed that the electorate would "miss Tony Blair as PM" once he resigned. Well, let's just say I don't share such sentiments.

Virtually all British PM's in history have been either imperiailist, or increased the size of government. In that sense, they have been grossly un-libertarian. Blair has been NO exception.

Tony Blair has only sought to increase the size and scope of government and make us a target for Islamist terrorists. There has been the minimum wage, the war in Iraq and increased "investment" for the NHS. I wouldn't "miss" a person like that.

2007-01-12T23:09:00.000Z

Blair, legacy and foreign policy

Tony Blair reckons that the UK's interventionist foreign policy is justified. Well if he really believes that, then he's a fool...

The head of Her Majesty's Government is misguided for a number of reasons. Firstly, the United Kingdom isn't a superpower. We have no real right to aid in "policing" the world (OK, one can ask whether any superpower has the right or duty to police the world, but that's another argument..) The days of Empire have gone and people should realise that Britain is relatively less powerful than it used to be.

Secondly, this foreign intervention makes us a target for terrorists. And no, I don't believe the Islamists "hate our freedom/way of life". If you were a Muslim living in the Middle East, how would you feel if Western powers were always intervening in your region's affairs? The USA, for one, not only invaded Iraq, but supports the House of Saud, supports Israel, initially helped Saddam, has threatened Iran, etc. Don't forget that Muslims share a sense of "brotherhood" with other Muslims and would care if some members of Islam are being persecuted. Islamists have realised that enough is enough and are fighting back.

If Islamists truly do hate our freedom, then why have only a few Western liberal democracies been attacked? Why hasn't France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, etc. been aggressed against? Also, the UK was a freer place in the 19th century. It was also the age of Empire and we were intervening in many parts of the world. Why was there no Islamist terrorism then? A terrorist attack would have been easier to execute in that day and age.

Our armed forces should be focused upon national defence, not national offence. Many hotspots around the world have no direct bearing on our national sovereignty. Did Iraq, or Sierra Leone, or Afghanistan or Kosovo?

2007-01-10T00:21:00.000Z

Anti-discrimination laws

I was listening to the radio this morning and the discussion was about anti-discrimination laws for gays.

Over the past few years, there have been reports of B&B owners refusing to admit gay people. Well, frankly, you don't NEED to know my views on this. Homophobic B&B owners possess a right to such views and the right to deny access to gay people. It's simple freedom of association.

B&B owners who admitted all would gain custom over those that chose to discriminate. There is also nothing from stopping gays creating their own B&B's or hotels.

As always, the market would sort it out.

2007-01-02T21:57:00.000Z

"Selective schools"

According to this article, the majority of British people want selective schools, rather like grammar schools in the day.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with selective schools. It probably is beneficial for brighter students to be taught together.

Still, I would want selective schools to exist within the free market and not be financed by state coercion and force. Sadly, the day New Labour would implement my idea is the day pigs will fly and there is a cold day in hell...

2006-12-21T21:58:00.000Z

The British economy

According to the IMF, the British economy is presently "impressive". Granted, economic growth may be steady, inflation may be relatively low, unemployment is low and the balance of payments is sustainable. Still, I'd like to see a move away from statist economic policies.

What we need are the following:

- a move away from economic growth. Let individuals choose if they want greater standards of living.

- Abolish sterling and permit private companies to produce commodity backed currency.

- Abolish the Bank of England and let the market determine interest rates.

- Cease and repeal all regulations and taxes on business.

- Stop monitoring inflation and abolish the CPI, RPI and RPIX.

- Repeal the income tax. The UK isn't at war with France any more, and Napeleon died long ago.

The implementation of these measures would lead to a far freer and more prosperous economy. If only Gordon Brown would read von Mises, Hazlitt or Rothbard instead of adhering to statist pap...

2006-12-21T21:15:00.000Z

Iran

I saw this story a few days ago. Frankly, I don't see why we should aggravate Iran at all.

The Salman Rushdie affair notwithstanding, the UK has done little to anger Iran. I don't see why we should consider them an enemy.

Is there any colonial baggage attached? Perhaps. But the Democratic Republic of Congo hasn't attacked or engaged in negative relations with Belgium. And the Belgians were one of the worst colonial rulers following the Scramble for Africa.

The UK should remain non-aligned and maintain good relations with all countries. This means withdrawing from NATO, the EU and the UN. We really should really leave Iran alone and focus on genuine threats to our sovereignty and self-ownership.

2006-12-12T17:46:00.000Z

Prostitution

This issue has been featured heavily in the media over the past few days, especially with these murders in Ipswich.

Of course, prostitution should be legalised. Paying for sex is not an act that violates one's person or property. In that sense, it's a victimless crime. In regards to street prostitution, then in a free society property owners can determine whether they want prostitutes on their streets. Private property owners could even designate special areas in which people can use street prostitutes. As for brothels and massage parlours, then leave it to the free market (as with everything else). Brothels that don't test their women for diseases would lose out to those that do. It would be bad PR for a brothel, if a punter caught a disease from a working girl.