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.

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.

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.

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....

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.