Monday, 28 February 2011

The Entry Cost For Democracy

I saw a twitter post yesterday from Matt Davies.

Contribution by Party to the Administration of the General Election 2010

UKIP £250 000
LPUK £ 1 000
Conservatives £ 1 000

No wonder that the Conservatives and Labour Party don't like Constitutional Reform, they get elected on the cheap and maintain the political class system.

Sunday, 27 February 2011

American Democracy In Action- Vote Early Vote Often



H/T UK Libertarian

And they know they are on CCTV, and they just don't care !

'Our' Foreign Policy

Cameron is in danger of reducing his own role to that of global door-to-door salesman, a high class Del Boy with better kit. He’ll never sell a speech about democracy if people think his real message is “take your time about it, boys, because I have some tear gas and missiles to flog”. Tony Blair was, latterly, dazzled by big oil contracts. Cameron is in danger of repeating this same mistake.

Spectator

Oscar Wilde On Socialism

As Libertarians are denounced as selfish by 'caring' socialists


Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking
others  to live as one wishes them to live. And unselfishness is letting
 other  people's lives alone, not interfering with them.
Selfishness
 always aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type.
Unselfishness recognises infinite variety of type as a delightful thing,
 accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it. It is not selfish to think for
 oneself. A man who does not think for himself does not think at all. It
 is grossly selfish to require of one's neighbour that he should think
in the same way, and hold the same opinions. Why should he?


          'The soul of man under socialism'  Oscar Wilde



          H/T Tom Paine 

Saturday, 26 February 2011

Is Cameron Really Breaking the State Monopoly?

Short answer: In my opinion? No.

David Cameron in his speech presented the image that somehow the State monopoly over "public" services will be broken.

Replacing directly employed and operated services with those selected, paid for and overseen by the State[1] is hardly breaking a monopoly. It is equivalent to replacing soldiers with mercenaries.

Who pays the piper calls the tune and as the State will still be paying, they will still call the tune, not you, not "us" and not "society" [2].

The state will decide the terms for tendering, shortlisting and ultimately decide who gets to operate. Will they permit multiple organisations to operate in a geography, enabling each of those consuming the service to decide independently which provider they prefer to deliver it?

There is absolutely no indication at this time that this is how it will be.

In fact, seeing as the State is a monopoly that exercises monopoly power, I find it very hard to see how, even if there were provisions to enable that to happen, that the State machine will countenance it, let alone understand the value of or be comfortable with such a state of affairs.

Granting privately run entities monopoly concessions - for this is what is happening - is hardly the breaking of monopoly. The princeling who grants the concession still keeps a chain on their pet and will not hold back from jerking it should it get out of line. Further, should an entity gain substantial operating income in such a way or, in some cases, become a "wholly unowned subsidiary" of the State due to it being de facto its only customer in that endeavour, then both "private" and "voluntary" labels will cease to have any real meaning, as they currently do for a whole host of fake charities.

I have nothing against ending monopolies, but replacing state run monopolies with private monopolies operating under a state concession is not a step forward and has the capability to be a big step backwards.

Why? In a word: Corruption. Operating such concessions can mean alot to an organisation. Prestige, income, existence. When you have a small group of people deciding upon which entity will gain using other peoples' moeny, the temptation to influence that choice, shall we be more delicate?, is great.

You cannot bribe or corrupt someone who is spending their own legally earned wealth, but you most certainly can when someone is spending large amounts of another's on a third.

As such, Cameron's vision of The Big Society in this dimension is a Bribers Charter. A Lobbyists Dream. Watch how the whole process attracts an ecosysytem that operates at our expense [3].

Watch also how a buyer who must buy ends up not being the customer but the victim. If you have to buy something and there are a small number of suppliers, then cartels can form either explicitly or implicitly. Unless you can walk away from the table and the clock is ticking, your money is as good as theirs. For a council with statutory obligations, it cannot walk away. It is sunk.

The way out? First, if there is a statutory obligation, then should that remain? What should the State actually be doing? Cutting down the scope of the State is one way to reduce the problem. Should the State fund the provision of services then there should be a way to organise plurality of delivery with each individual deciding who provides it. If you want a Statutory Obligation, then THIS should be there at the top - an obligation to not encourage corruption, cartels or establish monopolies which will operate against the interests of the consumers and funders of those services.


[1] please forgive me if I refrain from using the term "Local Authority", as I do not recognise such entities as being or possessing "authority".

[2] unless you mean the "society" that is made up of self-appointed spokespersons, squeaky wheels, "community leaders" etc. who like to believe we believe they have a legitimate voice and can speak and decide for others.

[3] In the private sector where no compulsion to buy exists or the choice is so wide, this is infinitely less of a problem, for economics tends to keeps a lid on things

Monday, 21 February 2011

Rubbish In, Rubbish Out- 2011 Census






The Green Party decided that it would oppose, then dropped the idea of a boycott of the 2011 census because of the involvement of US Arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin. As Libertarians there is absolutely no justification to hand over our personal Data to a centralised State for 'planning purposes'.

Ten Census lies from the ONS


The propaganda push for the 2011 census has begun. NO2ID opposes this census because it represents the worst features of database state, the insatiable desire for ever more information, and the presumption that official purposes override privacy.
Here are the ten worst lies you will be told in the coming weeks:

1. The Census is essential for government and business planning

On the contrary, it is worse than useless because it is expensive, inaccurate, and quickly out of date.

2. Our Census data is trusted and respected worldwide

Even were this true, should we care? Most countries do have some sort of census, but would being respected at doing something essentially useless be worth more than £300 millio.

3. It's a great source for genealogy

100 or 200 years ago there was little record of most people's lives, and old censuses may be the only documents available. It is ludicrous to assume the same will apply in 100 years time, and outrageous to suggest it justifies spending public money.

4. It's 'good for employment', it provides jobs.

Temporary ones, Yet the money spent would otherwise be spent on something — probably something useful involving permanent jobs.

5. Census data is confidential for 100 years.

Not any more. Census forms are kept from the public for 100 years. But EU legislation allows the 2011 census to be shared with all 27 member states, and the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 created powers to share the information with public bodies, and "approved researchers".

6. The census results in high-quality information.

No one knows how many people lie in their return. The 2001 census is generally believed to have 'missed' around 900,000 men under 40.

7. Everyone should be proud of playing their part in the census.

There is no reason to be proud of being tallied like cattle. There is every reason to oppose the waste and the intrusion. There is a long history of public resentment of the census.
In the 1800s census officers had to be given police protection; in 1911 the suffragettes boycotted it in protest; and in the 50s TV publicity told people it wasn't "another bit of snooping"

8. Communities can use census statistics to help gain recognition.

Whether a group is "officially recognised" is a political decision, not the same as individuals being located and categorised. 390,127 people recorded their religion as Jedi in 2001; they have yet to be officially recognised. More seriously, the Board of Deputies says the census underestimates British Jews, precisely because some of that community are nervous of officials knowing where they live.

9. Completing the census is straightforward, convenient and secure.

New questions are more intrusive than ever before, requiring details of employer's addresses, the details of any visitors to your house, and where they usually live. This is a direct danger to people who have sensitive occupations. The online version is a perfect cover for phishing attacks.

10. Your personal information is protected

Security is only as good as the shortest route to breaking it. Thousands of people will be involved, large commercial contractors and government agencies will process it, and the law newly provides that the data may be accessed for a variety of reasons, not just for making a statistical summary.
It cannot be guaranteed there won't be a security breach, or that data once captured will be used legitimately.
They cannot protect it; they shouldn't collect it.

H/T NO2ID

The Suffragettes boycotted the 1901 census, the Jedi knights became one of the fastest growing religions of all times in 2001. The State has no need to know my religious leanings, how many bedrooms I have and what my ethnic background is, I am sure they know this information already.

Friday, 18 February 2011

The myth of the two party system

Spotted this week a column by James Forsyth of the Spectator, offering the usual Tory criticisms of electoral reform (i.e. that they won't be able to form a government, blithely ignoring the current situation). What really aggregated me however was this bit:

'The layout of the Commons’ chamber — with MPs facing each other, separated by the distance of two swords — creates an expectation that there should be two sides in politics, a government party and an opposition party.'

He then goes on about how we've always had a 2 party system. Apart from the postwar era however is historically inaccurate. Going back to the early 19th century, it was just Whigs and Tories right? Eh, no, there were radicals and Irish MP's (who formed a succession of different parties). The Conservatives (formally Tories) split over the corn laws forming the peelites, giving 5 parties in the 1850's. These merged with the Whigs and Radicals to form the Liberal Party, bring the total number in parliament. down to 3.

20 years later the Liberal Unionists broke away over Ireland, giving 4 again. By the eve of WW1 they had merged with the Conservatives, however the rise of Labour meant there were still 4 main parties in the commons. Post war the Irish party was wiped out, and the Liberals split yet again. Up until WW2 there were still 3-4 main parties, and this has been the case since the 80's again.

So to say that Britain has always had a 2 party system is a gross exaggeration. My hope is that we are heading towards another realignment of the parties, and that there will prove room for a socially and economically liberal party like LPUK.

Libertarian Party Leader Secures Out Of Court Settlement From The Treasury Solicitor on Behalf Of Vince Cable.



In another turn of events in the five year battle against the Department of Business,Innovation and Skills, the Treasury Solicitor acting on behalf of 
Vince Cable has agreed to settle Andrew Withers Leader of the Libertarian Party legal costs out of Court in relation to a Data Protection Request made
in October 2009 in relation to Data held on him by the private office of the then Secretary of State Peter Mandelson.


Despite being ordered to release the data by the Information Commissioner in September 2010, the Department refused to admit any such data was held by the private office. 
In October 2010 Andrew with the agreement of the Office of the Information Commissioner applied to the High Court for an order under sec 7(9) Data Protection Act for the private office to reveal the data held. The Treasury Solicitor chose to defend the action with a witness statement from the data protection officer saying that the data 'simply did not exist' . The Hearing was scheduled for January 28th 2011, European Data Protection Day.

Two days before the hearing the Treasury Solicitor asked for a adjournment, introducing an apology and a witness statement that data did after all exist.
The Data from Mandelson's Office is heavily redacted 'to protect the officials concerned' but it does show an extract that Andrew was targeted.
Previously solicitors for Vince Cable on November 12th 2010 objected to a District Judge, to Andrew being the Leader of the Libertarian Party. This was withdrawn on December 3rd 2010 in a telephone conference with the District Judge.
The Treasury Solicitor has agreed to settle costs out of Court by the 28th February 2011, and the Data Protection Officer concerned has agreed to make further Data available in relation to the private office upto January 28th 2011.
Andrew Withers said yesterday- 

It is clear that the State, despite the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act, is still addicted to secrecy, not out of concerns of national security, but to cover the tracks of public servants who are either incompetant or acting on other agendas personal or political. "

Thursday, 17 February 2011

On Jefferson

Saturday, 12 February 2011

Wednesday, 9 February 2011

Perpetual Motion economics

Allister Heath's City A.M editorial (in response to the Governments new bank Levy) is so good it deserves quoting at length:

'Please bear with me, dear reader, as I try to recount what passes for common sense at the Treasury. “The banks” are back in the black, so they can afford to pay more – and given that they remain weirdly enamoured with London, they will put up with ever-higher taxes and continue as if nothing had happened. There will (of course) be no adverse effect on lending volumes, interest rates charged, the cost of services (such as advisory or fundraising work), the employment of staff in London, dividends paid to institutional shareholders or anything else that matters. The only changes will be that profit and compensation will be reduced (with no negative effect on the incentives of shareholders or staff, obviously, and no knock-on effects) – and that the government will collect more money. A faultless scheme, the budgetary equivalent of perpetual motion.

The Labour party agrees that taxing banks doesn’t have any disadvantages or unintended, perverse consequences: it just thinks the UK should do even more of it, and specifically tax profits and bonuses even harder (the government doesn’t really disagree; it hints it will do that if the Merlin talks collapse). It’s a firmly entrenched new consensus, shared by most of the media and virtually all of the public, who want banks “to pay their fair share” (a moving target, but one which it increasingly seems to mean close to 100 per cent of profits and pay). As Voltaire’s Candide might have put it, it’s all for the best in the best of all possible worlds.'


It is truly a shame that there doesn't seem to be anyone in power who understands the first rule of economics (incentives matter). Furthermore to any financiers regretting the funding they have lavished on the Tory party, there is a party here in LPUK that doesn't go in for banker bashing and actually understands how economics works in the real world.

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

What is going on at the Libertarian Alliance?

Initially after reading this blog post over the weekend I didn't give it much though. Since then however it has produced a huge (and bitter) comment thread and responses like this, and I have to question what the outcome will be.

While I have met some of the individuals concerned I am not familiar with the details of the situation and don't have much to add, beyond that I do find Dr Gabb's recent pronouncements distasteful and likely to put off potential supports (while the less said about his new book the better).

However I do think this could potentially lead to a welcome rejuvenation of the organisation, and it taking a more active role than it has in the past.

While there are a huge number of free market think tanks and single issue groups, the LA (IMO) should be a kind of umbrella group providing a common thread to all groups interested in Liberty. In the past however it has not been that effective at promoting itself or its ideas (I only heard of it through the Samizdata blog). Compared to the Taxpayers Alliance the LA has had very little media impact or influence on public policy, while reaching out to the next generation seems not to be a priority either (the conferences I have been to have struck me as rather academic and full of middle aged men debating Hayek versus Friedman).

The challenge today is not so much is developing our ideas but spreading them beyond the Westminster village to the public at large. I hope the LA can overcome these difficulties and be good partners in spreading our message far and wide.

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

Liberal Vannin Party Libertarian Award

Manx Radio reports that the Libertarian award has been give to the Manx First Minister Sir Miles Walker.

Liberal Vannin Party

On Egypt- Ludwig Von Mises Institute

"As in 1989, the one demand is that the dictator go."
 
Those of the young generation, people too young to remember the collapse of Soviet bloc and other socialist states in 1989 and 1990, are fortunate to be living through another thrilling example of a seemingly impenetrable state edifice reduced to impotence when faced with crowds demanding freedom, peace, and justice.

There is surely no greater event than this. To see it instills in us a sense of hope that the longing for freedom that beats in the heart of every human being can be realized in our time.
This is why all young people should pay close attention to what is happening in Egypt — to the protests against the regime of Hosni Mubarak as well as the pathetic response coming from his imperial partner, the United States, which has given him many billions in military and secret-police aid to keep him in power.
The United States is in much the same situation today as the Soviet Union was in 1989, as a series of socialist dominoes toppled. Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia all experienced dramatic meltdowns, while the Soviet regime, supportive of these systems since the end of the Second World War, sat by helplessly and watched. Leaders made vague statements about the need for peaceful transitions and elections, while the people on the ground completely ignored them.
What has sparked the uprising? There are economic considerations, of course. A good rate of inflation in Egypt is considered to be 10 percent, and currency depreciation works as a massive punishment against savings and capital accumulation. Unemployment is high — about the same rate as the United States' — but it is even higher for young people who are worried about the future.
Economic growth has been much better in the last decades, thanks to economic reforms, but this tendency (as in the old Soviet bloc) has only worked to create rising expectations and more demands for freedom. It remains a fact that nearly half the population lives in terrifying poverty.
The core of the problem, it appears, relates to civil liberties and the very old-fashioned conviction that the country is ruled by a tyrant who must go. Mubarak tolerates no challenges to his martial-law rule. There are tens of thousands of political prisoners in the country, and it is easy to get arrested and tortured simply by calling the dictator names. The press is censored, opposition groups are suppressed, and corruption runs rampant. Mubarak's will to power has known no bounds: he chooses all the country's elites based solely on personal loyalty to himself.
Mubarak has ruled for 30 years, and yes, there have been elections every 6 years, but these are widely seen as being only for show. Opposition candidates end up prosecuted for a variety of invented crimes. Democracy in Egypt is merely a slogan for one-party rule. And this is striking: the main excuse for his martial law is one that is all too familiar to Americans — the war on terror (and never mind the terror dispensed by the warriors themselves).
"What the uprisings underscore is a fundamental reality that the world too often forgets. … The people far outnumber the government."
Probably a more substantive issue concerns the digital revolution and the opening up of the entire world through the Internet — a species of the very thing that the United States cited as the reason for the anti-Soviet uprisings of the late 1980s and early '90s. Many young people in Egypt are as connected to the world through social media as American teenagers, and they enjoy access to the sights and sounds of the modernity that the regime so opposes.
To understand what is driving the protests, consider the date that they began: National Police Day on January 25. This holiday was created by Mubarak only in 2009. Talk about misjudging the situation! And sure enough, the government's response was to jam nearly all Internet communications and shut down all cell-phone service on the day of the planned protest. But it didn't work: Thanks to what is now being called "hacktivism," the revolution is being broadcast around the world through Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, even as Wikipedia is being updated minute by minute. And the Al Jazeera English live feed has, as usual, put the biased US media to shame.
Meanwhile, official government voices in the United States have been pathetically behind the times. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have been refusing to describe Mubarak as a dictator and lamely urging a transition to an election — run and ruled over by the Mubarak regime. The protest leadership immediately saw that line for what it was and rejected it outright. It is unbearably obvious that the United States is nearly alone in more-or-less supporting Mubarak, but that is exactly what you would expect of the imperial backer of the despot.
What are the protestors' demands? It is not complicated. As in 1989, the one demand is that the dictator go. This makes complete sense and is the only solution that accords with what is right and just. This and only this will establish the basis for a transition to anything. What follows after that is really something that has to be worked out, not by the CIA, but by the Egyptian people, who have had their voices muzzled for far too long.
What the uprisings underscore is a fundamental reality that the world too often forgets. It is at the core of the relationship between any government and any people, in all times and all places. The people far outnumber the government, and for that reason — and even when the government is heavily armed — every government must depend on some degree of consent to continue its rule. If the whole of a people rise up and say no, the bureaucrats and even the police are powerless. This is the great secret of government that is mostly ignored until revolution day arrives.
More than the anti-Soviet protests of the late 1980s, the Egyptian uprisings reveal what might eventually come home to the American empire itself. Under the right conditions and at the right time, consciousness might dawn right here at home. It could happen here for the same reason it could happen anywhere.
Government knows this, and hence its accumulation of weaponry and relentless propaganda. The difficulty for the state comes when its will to power generates what Thomas Jefferson called "a long train of abuses" that create a burning desire within people to rise up and demand freedom. Because, after all, it is the right of a people — is it not? — to alter and abolish the form of government under which they are forced to live.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of The Left, the Right, and the State.

Send him mail. See Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.'s article archives

Ludwig von Mises Institute