Let it be known that I AM Ideologically in favour of a Small State

We have seen in recent days the attempt by some to attack MPs in the government for desiring cuts, wishing to have a smaller State for ideological reasons.

Well, I do not consider that an attack, but a compliment[1]. I desire, within the bounds of a foreseeable horizon, a smaller State, a balanced budget and debt reduction, not just deficit reduction. What holds for a household is the same for a State. We must live within our means[2].

Taxes are, at best, a necessary evil. Redistribution by coercion, certainly not a "good", has built up an inertia of its own, rendering it very hard to reverse and return to a voluntary, consensual approach[3].

The attempt to "preserve jobs" in the public sector is often justified by the effect the ending of those jobs will create. These problems are exacerbated by the policy of moving State sector jobs to areas of high unemployment. You replace one dominant employer/sector with another, so dealing with the symptom, not the disease. However, across the country, keeping those jobs means the private sector has to pay those wages via taxes or higher debts for the country. For all the talk of more money in the economy, in no way will all that money return to the pockets of private sector workers. A significant proportion will not. Heat, not light, is often generated.

If jobs are created or maintained by putting money into the pockets of public sector workers, then more would certainly be created or maintained by not taking that money out of the pockets of the private sector in the first place. Taxing the private sector makes the UK less competitive. It increases the flow of wealth out as our exports reduce and our imports increase. It not only takes money out of the pockets of workers, it puts their very employment at risk. Public sector workers should be employed because there is a need for the function, not through any specious argumentation over the effect on the economy.

So what to cut? The headline figure of the Coalition's 19% vs. Labour's predicted 20% reductions are a shallow game play and there are suggestions that the two numbers are arrived at from so divergent routes as to make any comparisons worthless when talking of percentages.

The key is to have a clear purpose for what the Government is, what the economy is and the purpose and limitations of both.

A government only gains legitimacy if it can secure the population at home both in terms of internal threats - via police, courts, prisons or other mechanisms - and external threats - the mainly the military and diplomatic services.

Until we are in a position to reduce the State below what is often understood to be a form of Minarchism, then this is an unavoidable, necessary evil. Better to ensure that if you have to tax people and implement such a necessary evil, it is done as professionally and competently as possible, so reducing the impact on our freedoms and Rule of Law.

After that, it becomes, frankly, more a discussion of "wants", not "musts", but I would place care for people who are not in a position to exercise informed consent or defend their personal sovereignty[4] within that list. This must remain a want, though, for that is necessary to avoid mission creep. The State should also be constitutionally limited in what it can do, especially in the area of forming monopolies where no natural monopoly exists.

Once so limited, I would be very happy to see each person given the opportunity to prioritise the spending of their taxes. Some may not have the time, so they can decide to abdicate to a political party which has their own pre set bias. That is fine, for the individual. What is not fine is 40% or less deciding so, and the other 60% having to comply to the same balance which is what we have now. So a Labour voter can have their net tax revenues allocated as they wish it. A Conservative, likewise.

By each deciding for their own revenue streams, personal responsibility is enhanced. People can then withdraw support for a Party's ideology at will at any time, not just all-or-nothing like-it-or-lump-it once every 5 years charade we now have. It might also be worth a reality check to include the major benefits people draw down on, so if they pay taxes but are a net gainer, they will find they have no allocation. Most people with two or three school age children will find they are a net gainer. They will find that they will have no discretionary control over taxation revenue and I think that should be made clear to people.

Transparency and reality is lacking from the whole area of public finances. People kid themselves they contribute when in truth they do not. People think there is some big pot that pixies refill with gold every evening when they sleep. People think that there is a vast army of under taxed rich people who cannot leave the country or hire someone to take their wealth out of the reach of the Taxman.

So what of the economy? Well, the economy is just people getting on with living. Buying, selling. The less the State meddles in that, the less it tries to engineer, manage, skew, bias, tax or subsidise, the better for all. The collective wisdom of crowds trumps GOSPLAN any day. Alas, there is a massive Fabian and beyond mindset that believes the State can "do good". There lies folly. The folly is repeated and replayed over and over due to ideology, pork barrelling or expediency. It has to stop. Leave people alone, for they know best, in the round, what is best for themselves.

On a final note, as a country, we overspend. Even with the cuts now announced, our national debt will double to around £1.4tln before the next election. That is a scandal and one that is rarely mentioned. We are certainly not wealthy, but the aim should be to become so once again and to begin with we need to reduce our debts and get the State out of the way of wealth creation so each of us can get on with the job.


[1] However, it is interesting to see how few MPs defend that corner. Any?
[2] In my opinion, the UK has not been a truly wealthy country since, I suspect, 1914. After the first war there was a false rebasing to the Gold Standard, rendering exports overpriced, the last thing that was wanted considering all the blood and treasure that was lost. Then we had the crash, the Keynesian response, the Second World War, which transferred what wealth was not blown up to America. Then we had the Welfare State. Is there any room for more nails in the coffin?
[3] Even recent benefits like the Educational Maintenance Allowance, EMA, generates howls of protest as if this was won by The Chartists.
[4] The frail elderly, infirm, de facto orphans and mentally ill, for example.