George Galloway and "assassinate Tony Blair"On Friday I briefly listened to Galloway's radio show on TalkSport, in which he attempted to defend his comments.
I don't believe his comments were wrong at all. The solution to countering "extreme" speech is to either shun the speaker, rebuke him and discredit his views.
Seeing the light (so to speak...)
I was a staunch minarchist once, but now identify more as a market anarchist (or "free marketeer" as Ian on Free Talk Live calls it). I suppose I've made this change largely because of some introspection, and listening to some of Stefan Molyneux's podcasts (see links on the right).Minarchism is contradictory in nature. If government is force, and libertarians oppose force, then how can a minarchist accept government at all!? It's like saying cancer is bad, but limited cancer is good. Also, government is most efficiently funded by taxation. Even if there were a minor sales tax in place to fund the state, it still amounts to force against one's property. I'd state that anarcho-capitalism is the logical extension of libertarian thought.
From now on, you'd see a far more market anarchist-oriented view on issues here.
Lib Dems "4X4 tax"
The Liberal Democrats have proposed a £2000 tax on gas-guzzling cars. The party want to fight the next general election by advocating "greener taxes".
Of course the Lib Dems are a party of big government and this hasn't changed since "Ming" Campbell became leader (they're social liberals, so what do you really expect?!). Nonetheless, I don't see why the market couldn't deal with this.
In recent times, people do pay more attention to environmental issues. More people feel inclined to recycle, for example, as a consequence. Granted, the Green Party haven't done that well in light of such feelings, but I feel most in the electorate consider them to be a single issue party.
Since people place greater emphasis on environmental protection, then organisations guided by self-interest would realise this. To satisfy consumer demand, they would produce products that didn't produce a detrimental effect on the environment. This would include cleaner and "greener" cars.
Devices such as catalytic converters, unleaded petrol, etc. weren't created by the state. They were invented by the market. We don't need the state to provide environmentally friendly goods.
As a libertarian, I'm quite eager to spread liberty and work towards the creation of a freer society. This is the primary reason why I hope to start a libertarian outreach organisation in the near future. I've contacted Dr. Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance and hope to discuss with him and Dr. Evans (the president of the LA) the possibility of establishing such a group, which will work in partnership with the LA.
In my mind, the group would seek to:
a) Spread libertarian ideas to the public at large.
b) Attract "libertarian leaning" people to libertarian thought. There probably are a number of people who hold libertarian-like ideas on issues, but haven't heard of libertarianism, nor know of a name for such values.
c) Be a meeting place for libertarians. As a libertarian I often feel isolated, since I don't know many other like-minded people. Birds of a feather do flock together, so British libertarians may feel more content knowing that others share their views.
d) Secure the next generation of libertarians. If advancing liberty is to be an ongoing struggle, then it may surpass our lifetimes. We need people in the future who are willing to disseminate libertarian issues if we're ever going to create a freer society.
I would hope to model the organisation on Downsize DC or the Advocates for Self-Government, both of which are American libertarian groups committed to outreach and spreading libertarian values in the wider society. Of course there are issues of funding, seeking premises/staff, attracting members, etc. but these will be tackled in time.
I used to believe in the creation of a British libertarian political party, but know I believe that's a foolish idea. In Western society, people are far too statist in thinking to quickly accept libertarian beliefs. They need constant "education" away from statism, so liberty can be given an opportunity to shine.
I'll post regular updates regarding my work in relation to this topic.
Right to Die Bill
At present this Bill is passing through Parliament, but members of the House of Lords are weary and sceptical regarding this Bill.
The Bill would apply to people in England & Wales who were suffering badly but still had the means to make decisions.
This Bill seems perfectly sound. A person owns their life, don't they? Therefore, they should possess the means to terminate it if they choose. IMO, it's not humane for someone to spend their last days in suffering. Of course, one should account for the mental capacity to choose suicide. If somebody has such a capacity, then they must be free to act upon their volition.
Several days ago, there were news reports from Germany regarding a case of cannibalism. A man had murdered and ate another man, but the murdered man had given consent to this prior to his death.
On the Libertarian Alliance Yahoo group (see links) there has been some discussion about this. Some who post there believe this act was extreme and distasteful. I disagree, since IMO the act was consistent with libertarian principles.
One of the central tenets of libertarianism is self-ownership. This means that you own your life and possess complete sovereignty over your life and body. If this is the case, then it logically follows that someone can consent to being murdered, since the murdered party owns his life and body and hence can do anything with it. The primary stumbling blocks in such an area would be proving that consent was given. If a contract had been signed, then it should be proven that such an act didn't occur under duress.
Charles Clarke and John Prescott
I saw a brief glimpse of Clarke's report to the House of Commons yesterday. In regards to this affair, I feel he should resign, since he has demonstrated gross incompetence.
My stance on human rights treaties, doesn't need to be re-iterated here. Nevertheless, if someone is an asylum seeker and violates the law whilst they are resident in this country, then they should be deported. They possess no right to betray the hospitality of the British government.
How would a libertarian society deal with this? Well, under a minarchist regime, I would favour the aforementioned route. In an anarcho-capitalist "DRO" society, maybe specific DRO's would be responsible for punishing criminals.
As for Prescott, I'm not really interested about his supposed affair. I don't believe he should resign, in this instance. Sleaze and politicians go together like ham and eggs or strawberries and cream, so in that sense I'm not surprised.