Thursday, 27 May 2004


With these European elections coming up, I'm sorry that there is no mainstream Libertarian party to vote for. Sometimes I feel it could be successful, since the electorate often call for an alternative. They generally see no difference in policy between the major parties.

I believe that if there ever were a Libertarian party in Britain then to a good degree its success would depend upon how its marketed. If its representatives stated that 'taxation was theft', then I doubt it would get far. Yes, this is a libertarian belief, nonetheless the average Joe in Britain would consider that a 'far out', even extreme view. The key would be to state how the electorate would be better off without an income tax and with most current government services in private hands.

Similarly, if representatives of the party simply said that all narcotics should be legal then it would do little good. It would be more feasible to state how the War on Drugs is a failure and how society would be better with legalising narcotics.

One thing which has prevented the foundation of a libertarian party is the claim that the actions of certain libertarian think tanks/pressure groups (such as the Libertarian Alliance) would be comprimised. I don't fully understand this view, since in the United States there are libertarian pressure groups and think tanks in addition to a libertarian political party. In the UK, we have green/environmentalist pressure groups and a Green political party.

Several other liberal democracies have libertarian parties. Evidently the US has one, as does New Zealand and Australia. Why should the UK be any different?

Over the past few weeks, the Harry Browne show interviewed the nominees for the Libertarian Party nomination for President of the United States. Gary Nolan, Michael Badnarik and a representative of Aaron Russo were all questioned regarding their campaign strategies.

Personally I felt Gary Nolan was the most impressive of the candidates. He seemed the most enthusiastic and came across very well. To me it seems he possesses good people skills. Mr. Badnarik was too dry and uninteresting when answering questions, whilst the representative of Mr. Russo made numerous unrealistic claims regarding his campaigning.

The Libertarians generally acquire about 1% of the popular vote in US presidential elections. I believe Mr. Nolan is the best candidate to match or even improve upon the LP's traditional vote totals.

In the papers today, there was a story concerning a three year old child who died as a result of obesity. Supposedly the medical profession was 'shocked' to hear about this. Evidently the parents must be held fully accountable and should have maintained a greater control over the child's diet.

Why should it be the role of the state to determine what people can or cannot eat? Ultimately personal responsibility is the key in this instance. Why go to McDonalds when you can go to Subway? Why not go to a sandwich bar instead of frequenting Burger King or KFC? McDonalds or Burger King do not actively force people to eat their food, do they?

With freedom comes responsiblity. To be free means that you should respect others' freedoms and recognise the consequences of your actions. If you eat too much unhealthy foods, then you must realise that such consumption would in the long run have a detrimental effect on your health.

Thursday, 20 May 2004

London Olympics

This isn't wholly a political issue, but I fail to see why the state should fund the bid. I hear that council tax money is being used to finance part of it. Yes, parts of East London might be 'regenerated' (heh, I've been to Leyton and it's a dump full of pikeys). But regeneration would also take place by removing regulations from business, allowing poorer people to take jobs and better themselves.

I would like to see London get the Olympics though. The UK really needs to stage more 'world-class' sporting events. Though I don't understand why London is only seen by the IOC as the only viable place in Britain to stage an Olympics. Atlanta isn't as interationally famous as other US cities (like NYC, Washington or Los Angeles) but they still held an Olympics when Clinton was the President.

Tuesday, 11 May 2004


Charles Kennedy has stated that his party wish to abolish council tax and replace with a local income tax. Council tax replaced the 'hated' poll tax in the early 90's and loosely mimmicks the previous rates system in being progressive in nature.

Like the Tories I have a 'thing' against the Lib Dems, largely because I dislike the nature of modern liberalism (in that it places higher priority of welfare and social democracy than on liberty). Still, I don't wholly agree with their plans for the financing of local government. I'd prefer a local sales tax, which in a libertarian society would not be high since the scope of local government would be limited.

Libertarians may in general believe that taxation is theft, but if you want to have a state tben there probably is no better method of funding it.

Tuesday, 4 May 2004


The government are looking to introduce ID cards in order to 'protect' the British people. They believe that especially in this climate of terror, it is important to promote extra security. Supposedly the ID's would take the form of a facial, iris or fingerprint scan.

As a libertarian, you can easily guess my attitude to such a scheme. The majority of British people claim not to be bothered by the implementation of ID cards. That's their view, but I wholly disagree.

What RIGHT does the state have to retain information of this manner of its citizens? Would a police officer have a right to ask you for your card on demand?

Why do we NEED to 'protect' ourselves from terrorists? What quarrell do they TRULY possess with us, apart from allying ourselves with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The whole notion of ID cards in this instance is completely illiberal and must be opposed.