Lib on the United Kingdom

2007-07-01T22:40:00.000+01:00

Smoking ban

The smoking ban came into force in England today. I don't smoke (I find it filthy) but you can guess my feelings on this.

Property owners should determine whether they want smoking on their premises, not the government. Let the market cater for niche needs.

2007-07-01T13:47:00.001+01:00

Attempted terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow

Is it Al Qaeda? Perhaps. I would assume though that Brown reckons they "hate our way of life", just as his predecessor stated.

The solution against these Islamists is to:

1 - Pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
2 - Cease from closely aligning ourselves with Bush.
3 - Pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy.

I doubt Brown would take heed of this, but we can hope.

2007-06-27T17:47:00.000+01:00

Blair has gone. In comes Brown and more large government...

Blair resigned today and Brown is now the PM. In a sense, I shouldn't really care. Brown would simply maintain large government just as his immediate predecessors as PM have. My life, and those of other libertarians in the UK, wouldn't drastically improve as a consequence.

Still, I'm not sorry to see Blair go. His decision to invade Iraq has tainted my perception of him. He truly has blood on his hands, as far as I am concerned. Granted all politicians lie, but the ramifications of these lies (no weapons of mass destruction were discovered, remember..) are great. I sincerely hope that they affect his conscience. On top of that, Iraq wasn't even a threat to the UK. If Saddam wanted to bomb us, then it would be retaliation of the sanctions and constant air strikes which harmed his people. Innocent Iraqis did not deserve to suffer in such a fashion.

When analysing Blair's ten years as PM, little strikes me as pleasing, from a voluntaryist perspective. OK to be fair, devolution in Scotland and Wales has worked well. The Human Rights Act at least enabled the government to respect the rights of the individual. But these are the few positive things he did, IMO. He bloated the size of government by increasing funding to the NHS. He imposed tuition fees on students, even though the government should get out of education completely. He didn't have the balls to complete House of Lords reform. He stated that New Labour would be "whiter than white", but his government succumbed to sleaze.

My major beef with him, apart from the Iraq war, was his insistence to partake in US President Bush's "war on terror". I'm not convinced that Islamists "hate our freedom" or "hate our way of life". Think about it. Why have Al Qaeda only attacked few liberal democracies thus far? Why haven't France or Germany been attacked? Also, no one just clicks and starts to believe that they hate Western freedom. Human psychology doesn't work like that. There must be some pressures in Islamic societies which cause such feelings. And the UK was more free in the 19th century than it is now. For example, you could walk into a store and buy heroin even. So why wasn't the UK subject to terrorism then? I feel that an alteration in our foreign policy would lessen the likelihood of Islamist attacks.

As stated previously, I won't miss him. And I don't expect much better from Brown either. Still, education is the key to a free society. Despite the continuance of big, intrusive government under Brown, if we as voluntaryists can educate others into personal and political liberty, then we have a chance of one day achieving the free society.

2007-06-19T22:14:00.000+01:00

Some thoughts on Ron Paul

Ron Paul seems to be making a stir in the USA. I have some reservations though.

1- Is it acceptable to lessen violence/the initiation of force by participating in party politics? I agree with Stefan Molyneux in this sense.

2 - Where has party politics ever got libertarianism? Party politics has been a futile end, if we must be honest. The only successful libertarian party has been in Costa Rica. No major Western country has ever had a successful libertarian party.

3 - Isn't it hypocritical to oppose the state, yet participate in it to achieve our ends?

Granted, Ron Paul may have opened the eyes of uninitiated people to liberty. Nonetheless, basic outreach and activism is more than satisfactory in spreading the word of libertarianism.

Even if Paul wins the White House, would he remain principled? When Ronald Reagan was running for President, he often used a lot of freedom-oriented rhetoric. But when he was in office he actually increased the size and scope of government. Think about the national debt and ballooning defence expenditure.

Can Paul actually win? Maybe. But that still doesn't validate the cause of libertarian party politics.

2007-06-19T21:56:00.000+01:00

Ramblers and the "right to roam"

This was in the news today.

I don't understand the ramblers objections and, really, they need education on the principles of basic property rights. If a piece of land is privately owned, then you have no specific "right" to enter that property. Ramblers have the option of pitching together and buying their own land to walk on.

Is this unfair to ramblers? Some may believe so. Nevertheless, property rights are intrinsically linked to one's self-ownership. One's fundamental rights are rights to life, liberty and property and NO human being should have the power to violate them.

2007-05-11T17:20:00.000+01:00

Goodbye Tony....

So then, Blair says he'll go on the 27th June.

I'm no fan of any British PM, let alone Blair. All have either advocated big government, or have been imperialistic. Still, I suppose there have been a few plus points of Blair's ten years as PM. The economy has remained healthy, even though New Labour have only inherited a strong economic position from the Major Conservative government. Devolution in Scotland & Wales has worked well, plus the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

A Labour government led by Brown wouldn't, I imagine, have any major differences in policy. Both Blair and Brown of course created the New Labour ethos. And a Brown government would still deliver big government, so no surprise there then...

2007-05-05T22:37:00.000+01:00

This week's elections

So the SNP won more seats in Holyrood than Labour did and probably would be the primary party in a coalition.

I'm not sure if this denotes a greater desire for independence. Nonetheless, I'm indifferent to the notion of Scottish independence. If Scots really want to become a sovereign country, then Westminster shouldn't stop them.

An independent Scotland would probably be quite a statist place though. Scotland's political culture is quite left of centre, after all. Supposedly the Republic of Ireland is a model for a potentially sovereign Scotland. Ireland reduced its corporation taxes, became more business friendly and has blossomed into the "Celtic Tiger". Could Scotland emulate that and become a "Tartan Tiger"? Only time will tell.

So what's the market anarchist/voluntaryist perspective on this? Well to reiterate, I fear Scotland would be very statist if it ever became independent. I feel Scotland needs some kind of free market voice, so an alternative to statism can be aired. Because of the socialist political culture, Scotland cannot be that favourable a place for the average libertarian.

2007-04-12T21:13:00.000+01:00

HSBC Premier bank

Some controversy has arisen around the decision of HSBC to limit custom to wealthy customers in one of their branches.

This is one self-evident sign that people aren't educated in liberty. The average Joe should realise that people should be free to associate with whom they choose, and on any basis.

HSBC are simply catering for local demand, since a large number of wealthy people live near the branch. It's simply the free market in action.

2007-04-03T16:30:00.000+01:00

Another good example of the free market in action

Lloyds TSB have announced they will provide Islamic business accounts, which conform and adhere to Sharia law.

This is a good example of the free market in action. Lloyds TSB have noticed a demand for services and are creating the supply to meet it. Their competitors, like HSBC, Barclays, RSB, etc. may soon follow suit, since they may lose market share.

The beauty of the free market is that it can cater for niche needs and desires. This is something that government is always inept at doing.

2007-03-30T18:39:00.000+01:00

Casinos

Supposedly the House of Lords has voted against some secondary legislation arising from the new Gambling Act. Even still, the government remain confident that plans for new casinos in the UK are still feasible.

Unsurprisingly, there are few comments made in favour of a total free market in gambling. I don't understand why the general public fear free markets so much.

Would there be more people gambling in a total free market? Maybe so. If this a good thing? Well people hold the right to use their property how they wish. It is their property, and hence an extension of their self-ownership. Would there be more gambling addicts? Again, maybe so. But in many cases, an addiction to something is often an innate characteristic in a person. Not everyone will necessarily become an addict if gambling was more prevalent in society. Would children be at harm? Well the mechanics of the free market would step in, in this instance. Since society values the security of children, people wouldn't have to do business with casinos that served children. Also, in response to consumer demand, casinos may also self-regulate and actively refrain from serving children.

2007-03-30T18:22:00.000+01:00

Iran - Royal Navy detainees

This situation with the Royal Navy detainees in Iran seems quite perplexing. We say that our naval personnel were in Iraqi waters, yet the Iranians state that they were in Iranian waters. Besides, is taking them as hostages really necessary or prudent? Wouldn't it be more fitting to merely warn them that they were in Iranian waters and ask them to leave immediately?

Some idiots have stated that we "declare war" against Iran, nonetheless the solution seems fairly simple to me.

In future, we should refrain from engaging in "UN mandated" missions. This situation with the Iranians is simply a consequence of Blair's interventionist foreign policy. If the Royal Navy were solely protecting British waters and British citizens, then it wouldn't have to interfere in foreign skirmishes that don't undermine British sovereignty. If anything, we should leave the UN. Would we lose "influence" in the world? Why would we? What is the inherent good in "global influence" anyhow? The UK would still have one of the largest economies in the world and people from overseas would still desire to trade with us. As for the seat on the Security Council, well so what? Again, the concept of having influence in the world seems rather narcissistic to me. It's just a means of saying "my country is important" or "my country is better than your country". It's really an infantile, playground mentality. I would only want Britain to be a peaceful, secure, prosperous and free country. Global influence is secondary to such a principle.

In a market anarchist/voluntaryist society, individuals should be free as to whether they want to engage in humanitarian efforts. If individuals want to help the Iraqis, then they should be free to do so. In that sense, governmental force would not be needed (to tax us and then spend it on the armed forces) to patrol foreign hotspots.

2007-03-21T14:27:00.000Z

The Budget 2007

Gordon Brown made his 11th Budget today. This probably might be his last, if he really is going to take over from Blair as PM and Labour Party leader.

As usual, it was chock full of big government pap and statist drivel. OK, granted, such a thing was only to be expected.

It was surprising to hear that Labour would cut the basic rate of income tax. Yes, taxation is theft, nonetheless I didn't expect Labour would have the balls to cut taxation. In regards to growth and inflation (neither should be measured anyhow), Brown made his usual quip about "record periods of sustained GDP growth". Well yes, since New Labour won the 1997 election, GDP growth has been reasonable, especially in comparison with the other G8 countries. Still, the economy was growing healthily under the last Conservative government led by John Major. From 1992 (the end of the last British recession) to 1997, average GDP growth was above trend (which is about 2.5%). Brown and New Labour therefore can only claim credit for the maintenance of a strong economy, and certainly have not created economic strength. Inflation, from 1992 to 1997, was also reasonably low.

I'm not a minarchist, nevertheless a libertarian budget should only set aside government funding for:

- Law and order
- the armed forces
- courts and judicial system

As stated earlier, inflation (via the means of the CPI, RPI and RPIX) should not be measured. Such measurements are not accurate gauges of inflationary pressures in the economy, since they are only a basket of commonly purchased consumer items. Not every price rise in the economy is noted in such records. Besides, inflation (if defined as a rise in prices) is only caused by increases in the money supply and we have the Bank of England and Royal Mint to thank for that. Commodity-backed currencies (using gold or silver) would drastically reduce price rises in the economy and retain the purchasing power of currency.

As for GDP growth, the concept of GDP per se is a faulty one. In a free market (without any government intervention), individuals should choose whether they desire to consume greater quantities of goods and services. It should not be a goal for an entire society to meet x GDP growth target. Such a move only smacks of central economic planning, which evidently is contrary to the concept of a free market.

2007-03-18T06:57:00.000Z

Olympics, Government, Big projects and failure

The late, great Harry Browne continually used to say that "government doesn't work". He even wrote a book on that subject.

Browne was a man of great wisdom, and as such, this Olympics situation has proven him right. Government projects are continuously over budget and even turn out to be white elephants. The Millennium Dome in London is a fine example of the latter.

The free market recognises it only has limited funds in order to finance a project. It also realises that a return can be made if a project is managed successfully. Really, all major public projects should be wholly financed by the free market. Look at Wembley Stadium. The government partly financed this, and it's completion was months behind schedule. Arsenal financed the Emirates Stadium with private funding and it's completion matched proposed scheduling.

Government is slow and cumbersome. Ronald Reagan (despite actually increasing the size of the US federal government) was right in saying that government is the problem, not the solution.

2007-03-04T01:28:00.000Z

A good example of the free market in action

Recently, NTL/Virgin Media have ceased showing Sky One on their digital networks. This has caused concern because Sky One show many flagship American shows like The Simpsons.

However Sky are offering their digital service at a lower price than NTL/Virgin Media. This is a perfect example of the free market in action. BSkyB have realised an opportunity here and are willing to capitalise from a competitor.

Imagine if ALL services could be subject to such forces. Prices would be lower, due to competition. The quality of goods and services would be higher, since companies would lose custom to competitors otherwise. With no government around, we could live in a world with higher quality goods and services.

2007-02-25T05:33:00.000Z

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.

2007-02-25T05:22:00.000Z

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.

2007-02-18T00:36:00.000Z

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.

2007-02-12T21:18:00.000Z

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....

2007-02-12T21:12:00.000Z

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.

2007-01-12T23:09:00.000Z

Blair, legacy and foreign policy

Tony Blair reckons that the UK's interventionist foreign policy is justified. Well if he really believes that, then he's a fool...

The head of Her Majesty's Government is misguided for a number of reasons. Firstly, the United Kingdom isn't a superpower. We have no real right to aid in "policing" the world (OK, one can ask whether any superpower has the right or duty to police the world, but that's another argument..) The days of Empire have gone and people should realise that Britain is relatively less powerful than it used to be.

Secondly, this foreign intervention makes us a target for terrorists. And no, I don't believe the Islamists "hate our freedom/way of life". If you were a Muslim living in the Middle East, how would you feel if Western powers were always intervening in your region's affairs? The USA, for one, not only invaded Iraq, but supports the House of Saud, supports Israel, initially helped Saddam, has threatened Iran, etc. Don't forget that Muslims share a sense of "brotherhood" with other Muslims and would care if some members of Islam are being persecuted. Islamists have realised that enough is enough and are fighting back.

If Islamists truly do hate our freedom, then why have only a few Western liberal democracies been attacked? Why hasn't France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, etc. been aggressed against? Also, the UK was a freer place in the 19th century. It was also the age of Empire and we were intervening in many parts of the world. Why was there no Islamist terrorism then? A terrorist attack would have been easier to execute in that day and age.

Our armed forces should be focused upon national defence, not national offence. Many hotspots around the world have no direct bearing on our national sovereignty. Did Iraq, or Sierra Leone, or Afghanistan or Kosovo?

2007-01-10T00:21:00.000Z

Anti-discrimination laws

I was listening to the radio this morning and the discussion was about anti-discrimination laws for gays.

Over the past few years, there have been reports of B&B owners refusing to admit gay people. Well, frankly, you don't NEED to know my views on this. Homophobic B&B owners possess a right to such views and the right to deny access to gay people. It's simple freedom of association.

B&B owners who admitted all would gain custom over those that chose to discriminate. There is also nothing from stopping gays creating their own B&B's or hotels.

As always, the market would sort it out.

2007-01-02T21:57:00.000Z

"Selective schools"

According to this article, the majority of British people want selective schools, rather like grammar schools in the day.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with selective schools. It probably is beneficial for brighter students to be taught together.

Still, I would want selective schools to exist within the free market and not be financed by state coercion and force. Sadly, the day New Labour would implement my idea is the day pigs will fly and there is a cold day in hell...

2006-12-21T21:58:00.000Z

The British economy

According to the IMF, the British economy is presently "impressive". Granted, economic growth may be steady, inflation may be relatively low, unemployment is low and the balance of payments is sustainable. Still, I'd like to see a move away from statist economic policies.

What we need are the following:

- a move away from economic growth. Let individuals choose if they want greater standards of living.

- Abolish sterling and permit private companies to produce commodity backed currency.

- Abolish the Bank of England and let the market determine interest rates.

- Cease and repeal all regulations and taxes on business.

- Stop monitoring inflation and abolish the CPI, RPI and RPIX.

- Repeal the income tax. The UK isn't at war with France any more, and Napeleon died long ago.

The implementation of these measures would lead to a far freer and more prosperous economy. If only Gordon Brown would read von Mises, Hazlitt or Rothbard instead of adhering to statist pap...

2006-12-21T21:15:00.000Z

Iran

I saw this story a few days ago. Frankly, I don't see why we should aggravate Iran at all.

The Salman Rushdie affair notwithstanding, the UK has done little to anger Iran. I don't see why we should consider them an enemy.

Is there any colonial baggage attached? Perhaps. But the Democratic Republic of Congo hasn't attacked or engaged in negative relations with Belgium. And the Belgians were one of the worst colonial rulers following the Scramble for Africa.

The UK should remain non-aligned and maintain good relations with all countries. This means withdrawing from NATO, the EU and the UN. We really should really leave Iran alone and focus on genuine threats to our sovereignty and self-ownership.

2006-12-12T17:46:00.000Z

Prostitution

This issue has been featured heavily in the media over the past few days, especially with these murders in Ipswich.

Of course, prostitution should be legalised. Paying for sex is not an act that violates one's person or property. In that sense, it's a victimless crime. In regards to street prostitution, then in a free society property owners can determine whether they want prostitutes on their streets. Private property owners could even designate special areas in which people can use street prostitutes. As for brothels and massage parlours, then leave it to the free market (as with everything else). Brothels that don't test their women for diseases would lose out to those that do. It would be bad PR for a brothel, if a punter caught a disease from a working girl.

2006-12-02T23:46:00.000Z

Abolishing car tax

During the week, the government announced a reform of the road system. Instead of paying car tax, road users would have to pay tolls on all roads.

OK, yes, taxation is theft. The less amount of taxation, the better. But I don't really approve of this idea. The road infrastructure would still be maintained by the state, and would still be funded by general taxation. There are no hypothecated taxes in the UK, at present.

What's really needed is a privatisation of the road system. Let private organisations own and maintain the roads. Big roads like the M1 and M6 can be owned by private companies. Smaller neighbourhood roads could be owned in common by a community or a local Dispute Resolution Organisation or private protection agency.

In the free society, there may not be a market of roads, in the strict sense. There might not be rival M1's or M6's. Nonetheless, different modes of transport would be in competition with each other. So rain services would seek to maintain high standards, so they don't lose customers to bus companies for example.

2006-11-28T17:53:00.000Z

Libertarian Alliance Conference

The LA held its annual conference last weekend. It wanted to attend, but other things came up, so I couldn't go after all.

I'm not really impressed by the LA.

Don't get me wrong, I think they do good work. But surely more could be done to reach out to people and build more of a community of libertarians in this country.

There must be quite a few libertarian-leaning people who possess a distrust of big government in the UK. Why isn't anything being done to reach out to such people, so they know they aren't alone in their thoughts and that others share their viewpoints? Such people could be turned away from libertarianism, if they are unable to connect with other holding similar views.

It seems to me that only politically aware or computer savvy people hold much knowledge of the LA, at present. Clearly the British libertarian movement needs a more comprehensive policy of outreach.

2006-11-28T17:35:00.000Z

Alternative Courts

Supposedly, some religious communities are utilising religious courts to solve disputes.

As a market anarchist, I support this. In a free society, people should be free to create their own protection agencies and law courts. The market should determine which courts succeed and which do not.

As Stefan Molyneux has said (see links), different agencies (or Dispute Resolution Organisation's) can form reciprocity links when dealing with people from other resolution organisations.

2006-11-28T16:57:00.000Z

Tories still "pro-business"?

The Conservatives are trying to reassure the business community that they're still pro-business, despite wanting to introduce a new "green levy" if they win the next general election.

George Osbourne made a speech to the CBI, stating that little else could be achieved without a free and strong economy.

Of course, the Tories are a party of big government. That can't be denied. But you know what? I'd rather they advocate the abolition of ALL taxation and regulations on business. Regulations on business only seek to hinder business. Businessowners spend more time completing forms, rather than actually making and selling their good or service. Such things can also deter entrepreneurship and new entrants into markets. Why enter business if it's very difficult to do so?

Also, in our very globalised world, countries would compete with each other for investment. A libertarian society, with no regulations on business, would attract business like a magnet. Companies in Western societies aren't outsourcing solely because of lower wage levels in the third world. It's also because Western economies are too over-regulated. Without any regulations, the economy would prosper to a greater degree and there would be higher rates of economic growth.

2006-11-27T00:16:00.000Z

Scottish Independence

This issue has been in the news lately. From a libertarian perspective, I don't know what to make of it. Naturally I don't believe in the state. Then again, if Scottish people truly want independence, then it should be granted to them.

I think an interim solution could be a loosely federal UK. Let England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have autonomy in certain areas, but let the Westminster government have control over foreign affairs, basic economic policy, defence, etc.

Could Scotland survive as a viable soveriegn state? It could, potentially. Some advocates of Scottish independence suggest that it follows Ireland's path and makes itself an attractive place to do business. I can't see that happening, because Scotland is a very socialist and statist country.

2006-11-16T15:01:00.000Z

Queens' Speech

Yesterday's Queen's Speech wasn't surprising, from a libertarian viewpoint. Of course, it was full of bills that would increase the size and scope of government.

One proposed Bill seemed intriguing though. The Corporate Manslaughter Bill would, if passed, make it easier to prosecute companies. I have no problem with this Bill per se, since it may actually safeguard rights to person and property.

2006-11-12T19:43:00.000Z

The BNP

Nick Griffin was acquitted of inciting racial hatred a few days ago.

I'm no fan of the BNP. Nonetheless, I support their right to be racist and air racist views. The solution to the voicing of unpopular views is:

a) Ostracise those who voice unpopular views.
b) Counter and logically discredit such opinions.

In the market anarchy society of course, property rights would restrict freedom of expression. But on your own property, you should be free to say what you like.

2006-11-12T19:25:00.000Z

Remembrance Sunday

A discussion on Free Talk Live (see links) has made me think.

It's often stated that soldiers who have died in wars died for "our freedom". How true is this exactly?

The only British war of the past 100 years I agree with was the Falklands War. In this instance, internationally recognised British territory had been invaded by the Argentinians. As a paleo-libertarian, I would view that war as a "good war". But all other conflicts in that period I disagree with, yes even WWI and WWII.

In WWI, how was our freedom under threat? Germany couldn't have invaded us since it's naval strength wasn't as great (the Royal Navy was the world's largest at that point). I'm no historian, but I doubt the Second Reich was much of a threat to us.

In WWII, the same scenario applied to Hitler. This is why the Battle of Britain occured. Hitler respected the British Empire and initially didn't want to go to war with us.

As always, it's the government who is the destroyer of freedom. After WWII, the Labour Attlee government initiated the post-war consensus and implemented Keynesian economics, the NHS and the mass nationalisation of industry. After defeating Hitler in order to safeguard liberty, did the British people gain liberty after 1945?!

The current Blair government has curbed civil liberties in the name of "counter terrorism". Without ANY government, we wouldn't suffer these violations of our self-ownership. Everybody would be free to life their lives as THEY see fit, whilst respecting the person and property of another.

2006-11-10T01:11:00.000Z

Lib Dems repeal laws?

Ming Campbell has stated that the Lib Dems would repeal some anti-liberal legislation implemented by the New Labour government.

Are the Lib Dems suddenly trumpeting smaller, less intrusive government?! I doubt it, since social liberals are inherently inclined towards larger government. A Lib Dem government would still have an NHS, mass regulations on business, fiat currency, taxation and other evils. Still, it's a positive move nonetheless.

Someone needs to stand up to Blair and his government's anti-liberalism. Surrendering liberty for extra security is NOT the answer.

2006-10-30T20:18:00.000Z

Banning flag burning

I was browsing the BBC website a couple of days ago and saw an article on flag burning. Supposedly an MP wants to outlaw flag burning in parades, especially those conducted by extremists.

I know in the US, there is a lot of furore about this issue. And to be frank, I fail to see what the fuss is.

Granted, the Union flag may be of great emotional importance or pride to some. Nonetheless, burning it simply is an instance of freedom of expression. Face it, no one's legal rights are violated if a flag is burnt. It certainly isn't an act against the person or property. Also, offence is a very subjective thing. In that sense, you cannot make laws which objectively criminalise "offensive" acts.

Let "extremists" burn their flags. In a free society, it should be their right.

2006-10-25T17:10:00.000+01:00

Secession

I was listening, as usual, to Free Talk Live (see links) the other day. The topic of secession, in reference to New Hampshire, came up.

Ian and Mark were pooh-poohing the notion of US federal government resistance to secession. I don't know about that, really. I doubt a future US president would readily permit New Hampshire to secede from the United States and become a sovereign state. If he (or she even!) didn't send in tanks and troops, then surely some other kind of sanction would be imposed.

OK, this isn't a UK issue, but I find it interesting nonetheless. I believe that (as an interim step towards market anarchy), the UK should become a federal state. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own legislatures which make law in certain constitutionally granted areas, whilst the federal Westminster government is responsible for foreign affairs, defence and basic economic policy. From then, we can decide whether to reduce the powers of the federal government vis a vis the states, or to abolish government altogether. If England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland desired to secede, then they should be free to do so.

2006-10-18T22:28:00.000+01:00

Increased state party funding

I noticed this on the BBC website.

MORE stolen money (,i.e. from taxes) will be used to fund political parties?

Of course sleaze is a bad thing. But people don't have to vote for parties that weren't transparent in their dealings.

2006-10-18T22:27:00.000+01:00

Post Office Protests

Subpostmasters held a rally in London today, calling for rural post offices to be saved.

Conservative Party leader David Cameron has also called upon the PM to do more to protect rural post offices.

The BBC website, from which I got the link above, had links to Postcomm which is the government postal industry regulator. Supposedly, new entrants to the market have to be licensed by Postcomm before they can sort or deliver mail.

Is there really any need for regulation in this instance? Yes, naturally people in rural areas would still need to send and receive mail. Still, since a demand for mail services exists within rural areas, then someone will attempt to meet it within the free market. The mail supplier may not even have to be a "for-profit" organisation; it would still have to ensure that its services equated with consumer needs. The postal market should really regulate itself. Companies that offered poor customer service would lose out to those that did offer reasonable services. Independent watchdogs could emerge which informed consumers of bad practice.

2006-10-04T22:25:00.000+01:00

David Cameron speech

I caught most of Cameron's speech at the Conservative Party conference.

Of course, it was chock full of big government rhetoric and tripe. I shouldn't really expect any different, certainly as far as the major political parties are concerned.

His idea for a "Bill of Rights" seemed intriguing though. The Tories are yet to state how they would deal with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty (which is a negative thing, since governmental law making powers should be limited) and ensure that a future Labour (or even Conservative) government wouldn't repeal it. The USA Bill of Rights cannot be repealed by a mere Act of Congress since it's actually part of the constitution. Even though I now identify as a market anarchist, my principal objection to a Tory Bill of Rights would be any "positive rights" contained within it. The Bill of Rights listed within my mock British constitution would be a far superior document ;).

2006-09-21T14:48:00.000+01:00

Minimum wage

I saw this today and thought it was quite sweet.

Of course, I would say that the minimum wage is bunk and should be repealed. People should be paid the market rate for their labour, and an employer should be free to pay any wages he wants to his employees. Bad employers wouldn't prosper in the marketplace.

2006-09-11T23:16:00.000+01:00

Tony Blair stepping down

Well over the past week, Blair has announced he shall step down within twelve months.

I won't be sorry to see him go, in all honesty. I've disliked Blair ever since he lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Granted, politicians always lie. Nonetheless, the PM dragged Britain into a foreign war, even though there was no direct threat against us.

Of course, Tony Blair is a man of big government. No libertarian can really endorse his politics or those of New Labour. The last truly "libertarian" PM was probably in office prior to World War II.

How will political historians view Blair? Well I don't believe he will be viewed as one of the "great" PM's. I'd think he'd be remembered for his government's constitutional reforms, such as partial reform of the House of Lords, devolution in Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act, reform of the role of Lord Chancellor, etc. There is also the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, which hopefully can lead to a lasting peace in Ulster.

His time as PM has been blighted by sleaze, but then so what really? Politicians and sleaze go together like ham and eggs, so it's only to be expected. It is disappointing in the sense that Blair stated his government would be "whiter than white" (in comparison with the Major Conservative government), but then all politicians lie, don't they?

I suppose the economy has remained strong under New Labour. But in 1997, the economy was quite healthy. In essence, the Major government laid a solid economic foundation after the early 90's recession which lasted until the New Labour landslide in the 1997 general election. In 1997, GDP growth was above trend, inflation was low, unemployment was falling and the balance of payments was manageable (whilst being negative).

The Blair government should also be rebuked for their authoritarianism. We shouldn't reduce liberty for extra security. Blair may feel that the Islamists hate our way of life, still that does not justify dismantling the historical basis of English common law.

Personally I feel Blair will be remembered most for creating the New Labour ethos. Even though a move towards a centrist position for Labour occured first under Kinnock, Blair finished the modernisation of the Labour party by appealing to "middle England". Revising "Clause IV" of the party's constitution enabled this plus continuing the adoption of Thatcerite economics which first happened under Kinnock. Who will be the next PM/Labour leader? I reckon that Brown is the favourite, though I feel that Reid and David Milliband would also be contenders.

2006-09-11T21:47:00.000+01:00

9/11 Anniversary

Well today is the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in New York City and the Pentagon.

As a paleo-libertarian, my views on the "War on Terror" remain unchanged. I don't believe that the Islamists "hate our freedom" or "hate our way of life" as Tony Blair puts it. In life, you reap what you sow and that's exactly what the USA and UK (and Spain to an extent) have done by intervening in the Middle East. Britain had no business in attacking Iraq, since there was no evident threat to us, nor was our sovereignty in danger of being undermined.

As a market anarchist, I would bring ALL British military personnel back to the UK and then disband the armed forces. DRO's/private protection agencies can then compete in providing national defence. There IS no real reason why (for example) we need troops in Germany (a country more than capable of defending itself) in the post Cold War era. Foreign interventionism is always a fool's errand.

2006-09-01T19:10:00.000+01:00

Big government Conservatives

This is one example of why the Conservative Party is a party of big government. Cameron wants the government to pass a new "green" law.

As always, the marketplace can solve environmental issues and dilemmas. The enforcement of private propertys rights would deter people from polluting land. People could refrain from obtaining products that polluted the environment.

As for the Tories, well I shouldn't really expect any different, to be honest. If this tax comes into being, either under a Labour or future Conservative government, then extra bureaucracy is needed to implement this law. In essence, government would be enlarged to an even greater degree. The Conservatives and big government appear to go together like strawberries and cream.

2006-08-27T18:28:00.000+01:00

Tory tax cuts

Supposedly, George Osbourne, the Shadow Chancellor, has told the Sunday Telegraph that the Conservatives may abolish stamp duty and taxation on pensions.

Of course, the Tories are a big government party, like all of the major British parties. If Cameron won the general election in 2009/10, then we as libertarians shouldn't really expect any drastic or radical reductions in the size and scope of the state. These measures don't really go far enough, at all. As a market anarchist, you'd expect me to advocate the abolition of ALL taxes.

As a libertarian, I have no real attachment or affinity with the Conservatives at all. British Conservatism, in modern times, has always been statist in nature. Thatcher may have attempted to reduce the size of government, but she didn't to any great degree. Fiat money, monetary policies, education, healthcare, the welfare state, etc. all existed under Thatcher.

2006-08-17T01:20:00.000+01:00

Terrible state education

If you want to know a reason as to why libertarians don't value state education, then read this.

2006-08-15T00:24:00.000+01:00

Air terror threat

Didn't Benjamin Franklin once say that:

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."?

Well such a statement sums up my views in relation to the BAA curbs on hand luggage. Slowly and slowly, we are losing our freedoms for the sake of "extra security". I fear that we are on a slippery slope towards totalitarianism. That may sound alarmist, nonetheless I see no sign that Blair will relent in curbing civil liberties. In the USA, the trend is identical. Free Talk Live (see links) often comment on such flagrant disregard for individual rights.

Of course, Tony Blair and the government believe the Islamists "hate our freedom" and "hate our way of life". I've stated numerous times on this blog that I disagree with such reasoning. If they truly do hate our freedom, why haven't they attacked France or Germany? Aren't they liberal democracies too? It seems strange to be so selective in the liberal democracies you attack, if you claim to despise ALL liberal democracy.

I also see that some Muslim leaders have lobbied the government regarding its foreign policies. I feel that this is prudent because I don't see how one can rationally discount foreign policy in this instance. The UK has possesed an Islamic ethnic minority for nearly five decades now. And yet it's only in the past few years that we've suffered attacks from Islamists. It's not so irrational to assume there is a correlation between Islamist terror in the UK and British military involvement in Islamic countries.

2006-08-05T19:11:00.000+01:00

OFCOM deregulations

Whilst shopping today, I noticed a billboard from OFCOM stating that UK telephone providers would be free to set their own prices.

As a market anarchist, this seems like incredibly welcome news! Industries should be free to regulate themselves. However there was one drawback. OFCOM would retain a role in the telecommunications industry, be ensuring "fair play" between rival companies.

The free market should be unrestricted in this sense. If, for example, BT charged higher prices than NTL, then BT would be "punished" by the consumer and less amounts of people would purchase their services. BT would have little choice but to reform to stay competitive.

If anything, OFCOM shouldn't exist at all. If a company is mistreating its customers, then it would lose business. Competitor companies would be more than happy to accept these new customers.

One negative aspect is that our overly regulated and burdensome economy would deter new entrants into the market. Of course, in a market anarchy, there would be a far more business friendly environment. Entry into the market would be substanitally easier.

2006-08-05T19:09:00.000+01:00

French youth coming to Britain

A story on the BBC News website seemed intriguing.

Supposedly, a number of French twenty-somethings are settling in the UK, because the UK possesses greater job opportunities.

It seems that this is one primary benefit of having a less regulated economy. Granted its not up to the libertarian ideal, nonetheless our economy isn't as regulated as France's (or Germany and Italy) and is clearly more "Anglo-Saxon" in nature.

Because our economy is slightly less regulated, it means more jobs are being created. Imagine if we did live in a market anarchy. Without ANY regulations on business, job opportunities would be far more plentiful than they are today!! We would be a Mecca for people across Europe and the world, who would be seeking opportunity and greater liberty.

Being honest, France probably does have a higher quality of life than the UK. However, this is probably can be attributed to the difference in culture between the two nations, as opposed to any inherent or intrinsic aspect of France. In general I think the French people have to gravely consider whether "dirigisme" is worth it in the long run, if not for the future wellbeing of the French economy. The French economy has grown at a slower average rate than other G8 economies over the past decade. Evidently some reform is needed if this situtation is to be rectified.

2006-07-28T10:36:00.000+01:00

New articles

I've had two new articles posted at Strike The Root.com. One is about black market anarchism. The other is about whether humans truly do submit to authority.

2006-07-24T19:34:00.000+01:00

New article

I've had an article published at The Libertarian Enterprise.

It's basically a piece questioning whether humans naturally submit to authority (which is a common rebuke against anarchism).

You can read it here.

2006-07-14T14:17:00.000+01:00

VAT fraud

A report by Panorama on the BBC indicates that VAT fraud has reached record levels.

This is based upon statistics from HM Revenue and Customs. Well this is the price you pay for an over-regulated economy. Without excessive indirect and regressive taxation, people would see little to no reason to succumb to fraud.

Imagine if companies didn't have to pay taxes. It would be a boon! Companies could use the extra money retained to either pay employees more, or to re-invest such funds hence creating opportunities for greater profits.

If the business environment is completely free of burden and regulation, then it would benefit everyone in the long run.

2006-07-14T14:01:00.000+01:00

Knife amnesty

More than 100,000 knives were handed to the police during the knife amnesty in June.

Of course, the state would welcome this, since society is being made "safer". But outlawing knives would only have a minimal effect. People in the underworld can still obtain knives, just as people in the underworld can still obtain guns.

Also, who is to say what means can you used to defend oneself? In some US states, people are permitted to have "concealed carry" weapons. This means that they can carry a gun or weapon on their person, which is concealed, for protection of their person. If anything, we should have the same scheme in the UK.

How would a market anarchy deal with this? Well, maybe membership of a protection agency/DRO would require concealed carry or at least permit it. DRO membership could also forbid it, if necessary. Still, the market would offer lots of options regarding personal defence in an anarcho-capitalist society.

2006-07-07T15:35:00.000+01:00

Anniversary of London Bombings

Today is the anniversary of the London Bombings.

My thoughts regarding it haven't changed since the actual attack. I believe the attack occured because of Blair's intervention in Iraq and our "special relationship" with the United States. I disagree with Blair in saying that the Islamists "hate our way of life".

Look at it this way. Let's say these Islamist extremists do hate Western values and liberal democracy. Why is it that Al Qaeda have claimed responsibilty for attacks in only THREE Western liberal democracies in the world (,i.e. the USA, the UK and Spain)? If they despise liberal democracy so much, then why be so selective in whom they attack? Are America, Britain and Spain the most powerful or influential liberal democracies? Well the USA and the UK are relatively powerful nations, but Spain isn't (at least not to the same degree).

I believe the solution to Islamist terrorism is not to provoke them into attacking us. Britain should remove ALL troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire Middle East. Of course, in a market anarchy situation there would be no state who could send troops overseas. Instead, if people want to voluntarily fight in war zones around the world, then they should be free to do so. At least then, the entire population would not be a target for people who feel agrieved or have been wronged.

2006-07-04T19:53:00.000+01:00

The "West Lothian Question"

The Conservatives are proposing to stop Scottish MP's from voting on English issues, if they achieve power at the next general election.

It's about time there some kind of answer to this question. It's not fair or just for English MP's not to vote on Scottish issues, but Scottish MP's can vote on English issues. New Labour really should have thoroughly considered this whilst they were outlining plans for devolution.

The libertarian stance on this? Well I cannot naturally speak for all British libertarians. And evidently as a market anarchist, I don't believe in the state at all. Personally I think this issue should be resolved by making the UK a truly federal state. Have Westminster retain control over foreign affairs, economic policy, defence, etc. But let England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have control over all other policy issues. We'd probably have to create a codified constitution for this arrangement to come into effect, but so what? The current British constitution is "unlibertarian" in the sense that there are few to little provisions for limited government. I'd favour a constitutionally limited government as a stepping stone to a market anarchy situation.

2006-06-30T07:47:00.000+01:00

Lads Mags

Over the past few days, some Labour female MP's have complained about the presence of "lads' mags" in newsagents. They believe that they are obscene and degrading and should be placed on the top shelves of newsagent shops, rather like pornographic magazines.

Are lads mags porn? IMO, yes. There IS only one reason why they show young women topless or in sexually suggestive poses. This reason is to titilate. The definition of porn is something designed and intended to sexually arouse or titilate.

However, there should be no laws surrounding their sale. In a market anarchy, shops that sold these magazines to children might be ostracised by their community. I doubt many parents would want their younger children to read these publications.

As always, the market would sort things out.

2006-06-26T21:01:00.000+01:00

Tories' Bill of Rights

Though I identify as a market anarchist, I'd favour a codified Bill of Rights (or even a constitutionally limited government) as a stepping stone towards market anarchy. However, if this Bill of
Rights were written by Cameron, it would probably contain anti-discrimination legislation, rights to education and healthcare and other undesirable things in it. It certainly wouldn't be a Bill of Rights in the spirit of the American one. It may also undermine parliamentary sovereignty, but who cares really?
Few other countries have legislatures that can make laws in any area. Such a concept is antithetical to the ideal of limited government.

2006-06-24T22:16:00.000+01:00

WMD's in Iraq, after all?

After browsing through some message boards over the Web, I've read that WMD's have actually been discovered in Iraq after all. I'm not sure how reputable a source Fox News is, or whether I should believe it or not.

Even still, I still maintain my opposition to the 2003 invasion. Iraq had never threatened the UK or the United States, notwithstanding the fact that constant UK and US air strikes occured over in the 1990's, in addition to sanctions which hurt the Iraqi people and not Saddam.

My views on foreign policy are largely paleo-libertarian (as opposed to neo-libertarian) in nature. We shouldn't attack countries that have posed no threat to ourselves or who haven't threatened to attack us. In a market anarchy, people should be free to privately send resources to avert catastrophes such as genocides, famines, etc.

2006-06-15T22:37:00.000+01:00

Kate Moss drug charges

The CPS have stated that the drug charges against Kate Moss will be dropped. This was because the precise nature of the drug she was using couldn't be identified, even though there was video evidence of Kate Moss taking drugs and passing them onto others.

This is good news.

The Libertarian Alliance (see links) produced a press release about this, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it. ALL drugs should be legal. From crystal meth, to crack, to speed, to pot.

NO state or government possesses the right to tell its citizens what they can put in their body. Drug taking also is a victimless crime. No one's rights are violated if someone ingests drugs.

How would a market anarchy deal with drug taking? Well perhaps a specific DRO could stop its clients from taking drugs. Maybe some DRO's would offer drug rehabilition services for its clients. Still, the decision to take drugs, and face the rational consequences of doing so, would rest with the individual.

2006-06-10T02:36:00.000+01:00

Lib Dems and tax cuts

A few days ago, "Ming" Campbell's Lib Dems proposed to lower income tax. This is distinct from the policies they had in the 2001 and 2005 general elections, in which they stated they would raise income tax for those earning over £100,000 per annum. The tax shortfall would be made by increasing "green taxation" on cars and the airline industry.

These moves don't seem impressive at all. Of course, the Lib Dems will remain a party of big government, dedicated to force against the individual. They are social liberals, after all...

All taxation is ultimately theft. As a market anarchist, I would naturally favour the abolition of all taxation. As for green taxation, let the market decide. If there is a demand for environmentally friendly cars, then someone guided by self-interest would create a supply to meet the demand.

2006-06-10T02:29:00.000+01:00

Quebecois Libre article

This Canadian web magazine is going to feature an article I wrote. You can see their web site here. My article will be in the June issue, but their website is currently displaying their May issue.

My piece is entitled "Sports and the free society" and details how sports could be funded and maintained in a libertarian society.

When it is published, some feedback will be welcome!

2006-06-05T18:29:00.000+01:00

The Right to Roam

Towards the end of last week, there were reports on BBC News 24 about ramblers and the right to roam. Supposedly, ramblers were upset about being refused access to private land.

Well, tough luck. No one really has ANY "right" to trespass on private property, which is essentially what these people are doing.

In a market anarchy, ALL land should be privately owned. I suggest that these ramblers gather some funds, so they can purchase their own land to walk on.

2006-05-29T00:04:00.000+01:00

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.

2006-05-22T22:58:00.000+01:00

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.

2006-05-19T18:26:00.000+01:00

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.

2006-05-19T17:48:00.000+01:00

Libertarian outreach

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.

2006-05-12T15:50:00.000+01:00

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.

2006-05-12T15:31:00.000+01:00

German cannibal

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.

2006-05-03T22:51:00.000+01:00

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.

2006-04-30T12:39:00.000+01:00

Leftist Hollywood celebrities

Angelina Jolie has praised the Chancellor for donating £8.5 billion to fund education in Africa.

She said Brown's commitment had given "so much momentum" to the campaign for universal free education in Africa.

This doesn't truly surprise me. For as long as I can remember, Hollywood celebrities have been leftist in their political views. I'd say that liberalism (in the American context) is a very popular ideology amongst the Hollywood crowd. I often think that celebrities ally themselves with such causes because it appears that they possess a social conscience and care about the world around them. It's essentially a PR stunt.

That's not to say there are no libertarian celebrities. For one, Clint Eastwood is, supposedly, a libertarian. The presenters of Free Talk Live were discussing this issue in their Friday edition. I believe that as more people gain knowledge of libertarianism, eventually more celebrities would embrace the ideology. I'd imagine that libertarianism must be one of the fastest growing political ideologies in the Western world.

2006-04-25T22:18:00.000+01:00

Blair and his "illiberal" agenda

The PM has hit out at critics, who have rebuked his government for its illiberal policices, especially in regards to crime and anti-terrorism measures.

Blair has cited the Human Rights Act as an example of New Labour's liberal credentials. But Mr. Blair, the European Convention on Human Rights is simply full of positive rights! No one really should have a right to education, or health care. These are positive rights, which have no basis in logic.

Blair also claims that protecting individuals' rights to safety and security justifies these harsh measures. Do they really? Why can't the market protect people who fear crime? If there is a demand for something, then someone guided by self-interest would provide the supply to meet that demand. Stefan Molyneux (see links on the right) has advocated the existence of DRO's (Dispute Resolution Organisations), which would provide the same services in a free society that the state maintains today. This is just one solution regarding the tackling of crime in a free society.

2006-04-18T18:46:00.000+01:00

25% of voters "may vote for BNP"

According to a survey conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, approximately 25% of British voters would be prepared to vote for the British National Party. Naturally, this has caused alarm to the major parties, who denounce the BNP as racist.

The UK is a liberal democracy, and thus relies on the pluralism of political opinion. This means that the BNP possess a right to air their views and run for office. Any move to ban them would be undemocratic and contrary to the principles of liberal democracy.

There also is the issue of freedom of expression. Libertarians would value few (if any) limits to freedom of expression. If people find the views of the BNP objectionable then they can ignore or shun the party.

The BNP's popularity is rising because white working class people are feeling excluded and marginalised by immigrant populations. Libertarians, in general, have few problems concerning immigration. Nevertheless, government is at fault here. It's the state who gives preferential treatment to asylum seekers and economic migrants.

If anything, the market should handle any problem that arises from immigration. In a libertarian society, private companies and organisations would provide support to immigrants. This is preferable from government acting as the carer, since support would be voluntary and not coerced.

2006-04-11T07:23:00.000+01:00

Gordon Brown in Africa

The Chancellor has visited Africa and pledged £8.5 billion to fund education in African countries.

What I find interesting though is the below from the International Development Secretary:

"Education is a basic human right, and to get every child into school we need more investment."

Excuse me? Education, like all positive rights, are clearly false in nature. If one demands education as a "right" then someone is forced to teach you. A person has no real "right" to the time, effort, energy and liberty of another person. Human interaction should be voluntary and not forced.

Still, I naturally don't approve of coerced tax money being used to fund education in Africa. Aid should be left to private companies and organisations, not the state.

2006-04-03T22:13:00.000+01:00

British views on immigration

A survey has shown that over 75% of British people favour limits on immigration. The survey also stated that most people felt immigration undermined good community relations. Others believed that Britain was already overcrowded and British society was increasingly becoming racially segregated.

Some of these claims seem reasonable. The United Kingdom is a rather densely populated country, in comparison with other EU and first world nations. As for undermining community relations, well I don't concur with this argument. It probably would be best if immigrants were encouraged to follow British mores and culture, once they arrived in the country. Is such a belief "unlibertarian"? I wouldn't think so. I see no general correlation between multiculturalism and libertarian thought.

Evidently, the "classic" libertarian line on immigration is for "open borders". Some libertarians have questioned this approach though, since they feel an open borders policy would allow people with no attachment to liberty to gain access to the country. They believe this would undermine the libertarian ethos of a free society.

Freedom of movement clearly is a human right. Is it "unlibertarian" to have controls on immigration? Maybe. However, I feel that immigration will be an issue of debate amongst libertarians for some time to come.

2006-04-03T22:01:00.000+01:00

Blair launches an agency to tackle "brutal crime"

Earlier today, the PM launched "SOCA", a government agency designed to tackle organised crime and criminal gangs. Blair said that the government "had to do things differently" because criminal gangs were working with increased sophistication.

So Blair is simply increasing the size of government by creating this new "British FBI". Effort would be better spent by ceasing the war on drugs, hence making criminal gangs obsolete in regards to supplying drugs.

If people wanted drugs in a climate of decriminalisation, they wouldn't have to associate with criminals whilst acquiring them. Going to a local chemist store to purchase drugs doesn't initiate force or fraud against the person or property of anybody else.

2006-03-30T03:20:00.000+01:00

Elderly "must be given a minimum standard of healthcare"

A report by Sir Derek Wanless has called for a minimum standard of healthcare for the elderly.

This report stopped short of advocating free healthcare, but called for personal contributions to be matched by state funding.

So, MORE theft (in the form of taxation) would be used to subsidise other peoples' healthcare. There really is no "right" to healthcare at all. Like all positive rights, healthcare relies on the time, effort and liberty of another. People are essentially out to live their own lives; they aren't "owed" to offer anyone any healthcare.

The only solution here is the seperation of healthcare and state. The NHS should be abolished.

2006-03-21T21:07:00.000Z

Death of Chris Tame

Chris Tame, the President of the Libertarian Alliance, died on Monday. He had been suffering from bone cancer since the middle of last year.

I never knew Chris Tame, but he had a profound influence on the British libertarian movement. British libertarianism probably wouldn't be the same without him.

RIP Chris Tame.

2006-03-17T14:39:00.000Z

Labour and the funding of political parties

According to BBC News, the Labour party received a donation of almost fourteen million pounds prior to the 2005 general election. There is some talk of funders being offered peerages, but this is being denied by Labour ministers.

Personally, I believe the twenty million pound limit on election funding should be scrapped. Would this lead to extra "sleaze", or kowtowing to large lobby groups? Possibly. But it's really secondary if this happens.

Voters wouldn't have to vote for candidates who were reluctant to make all of their funding public. Naturally voters are turned off by sleaze, so they wouldn't be attracted to candidates who were sleazy. One simply has to refrain from voting for a candidate who doesn't openly declare the sources of their funding.

2006-03-17T14:25:00.000Z

"Gay-friendly" Royal Navy?

The Royal Navy may introduce drama training to improve attitudes towards homosexuality within the service. Supposedly the ban on homosexuals serving within the British armed forces was lifted in 2000.

IMO, this initiative seems overly PC in nature. Nevertheless, governments should only discriminate in terms of merit. In that sense, gays should be perfectly welcome to serve within the armed forces.

Stonewall, the group mentioned in the linked article, have praised the Navy for instituting this scheme. But they should realise that discrimination should be permitted within the private sector. Freedom of association, after all, is a basic human right.

2006-03-10T14:36:00.000Z

Supermarkets trading "probe"

British supermarket chains are facing investigation from the Competition Commission, due to their dominance of the grocery market. Tesco, ASDA, Sainsbury's and Morrisons are being accused of forcing local stores out of business.

There really is no need for this probe. This is simply an instance of the free market in action.

Tesco, ASDA, Sainsbury's and Morrisons are simply responding to consumer demand. There must be some kind of demand for high-scale and cheap groceries, or else time, effort and money wouldn't be spent in constructing more supermarkets. In this instance, the consumer is still king though. People can refrain from shopping at the big supermarkets, if they choose. If Tesco or ASDA's sales were declining, then they both would have no choice but to change to secure custom.

As always, the market should sort an occurence like this out. Organisations like the Office of Fair Trading should be abolished.

2006-03-03T14:18:00.000Z

Harry Browne is dead

I was browsing through some libertarian-oriented websites today and I was shocked to read that Harry Browne had died on 1st March.

I was a keen fan of Harry Browne's radio show, which lasted prior to his confinement to a wheelchair. He had greatly inspired me as a libertarian and really was the old daddy of the global (and not just American) libertarian movement. He was also a fine writer and speaker. I've purchased a copy of "The Great Libertarian Offer" and I've been meaning to buy "How I Found Freedom In an Unfree World".

I'm sure he'll be missed greatly. RIP Harry Browne.

2006-02-22T23:24:00.000Z

Some thoughts on the Austrian Irving case

My views regarding David Irving mimmick those surrounding Abu Hamza. Even though it was an Austrian case within Austrian jurisdiction, I don't believe he should have been convicted for his "crime".

Claiming the Holocaust never occured is understandably offensive to some. It's probably even an illogical opinion, since there is plenty of evidence of the Holocaust's existence. Nevertheless, it shouldn't be a crime to claim the Holocaust never existed. Such an act doesn't initiate force against the person or property. As always, one who expresses unpopular opinions can be challenged, rebuked, ignored or shunned.

2006-02-15T16:34:00.000Z

Smoking ban

MP's voted for a ban in public places in England yesterday. The ban will come into effect in 2007.

I don't smoke, nonetheless I'm opposed to this ban. I think the market can handle any dilemma that arises here.

Evidently, there is a demand for non-smoking establishments. There would also be demand for establishments in which smoking is permitted. If such a demand exists, then someone will cater for it.

Even now, restaurants have smoking and non-smoking areas. Did government institute this? No. It was simply the market responding to demand from their customers. If companies in a capitalist society don't respond to customer demand, they lose money and face the threat of their business facing bankruptcy.

Pubs, restaurants and clubs aren't even "public" places. They are private entities and as such should be free to set their own rules. Private property rights should be paramount here.

The smoking ban in New York City hasn't worked and is very unpopular with New Yorkers.

2006-02-09T14:05:00.000Z

Stefan Molyneux - Libertarianism and "oppression"

I listen to Stefan Molyneux's podcasts (see links on the right) almost everyday of the week. An issue he raised in a recent podcast seemed intriguing.

Molyneux stated that one cannot be a libertarian if they possess no experience of being oppressed by authority, since libertarians generally desire to limit or eradicate the authority of the state. I find such a statement, quite frankly, to be shocking.

Molyneux often cites incidents in his youth which made him sceptical of the power of authority. It was developing these views which lead to his libertarianism. I'm not sure if I agree with Molyneux's reasoning here. Is there a specific psychological make up which leads to libertarian beliefs? I've never really studied psychology but I've never heard of any evidence which denotes that political beliefs are based on innate or idiosyncratic mental tendencies.

I can broadly understand the rationale behind Molyneux's claim. Yes, the state is oppressive, forceful and coercive. Any libertarian could tell you that. Nonetheless, I believe the reasons for people becoming libertarian are as varied as there are libertarians.

Some libertarians would use natural rights to justify their libertarianism. Granted, natural rights don't exist (I see no evidence of their existence), nevertheless I can see that protecting rights to life. liberty and property (or estate as Locke called it) are central tenets of libertarian belief. Other libertarians (including myself) would use utlititarianism to justify libertarianism. I personally feel that man would be happier with greater freedom, since seeking the freedom to live our life is part of human nature.

Some libertarians may simply like libertarianism because they think it's "cool". Others, like the presenters of Free Talk Live (see links on the right) felt they were "lied to" in their youth regarding the nature of government and view government as an oppressive evil. It's wrong for Molyneux to state that the only path to libertarianism is via experiencing oppression at the hands of some authority figure.

2006-02-09T13:55:00.000Z

Abu Hamza

Abu Hamza was convicted of inciting hatred a few days ago. Islam and issues of free speech/expression have clearly been hot news topics of late.

As a libertarian, I don't believe in many limitations to one's right to speak freely. Freedom of expression, in itself, doesn't infringe on rights to the person or property. All in all, I think it's a mistake to imprison Hamza.

Freedom of expression surely is a hallmark of a free society. The Libertarian Alliance (see links on the right) have produced a press release which condemns the conviction of Hamza.

2006-02-06T23:27:00.000Z

Top ten myths about libertarianism

Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian libertarian writer and podcaster, has produced a podcast which seeks to refute popular myths about libertarianism.

Molyneux's podcasts are highly informative and truly thought provoking.

It's very interesting and you can listen to it here.

2006-02-06T00:14:00.000Z

Incompetent British police

I'm a great fan of the TV show "The Simpsons". The police chief of Springfield (the town the Simpsons live in) is called Chief Wiggum and is consistently portrayed as being incompetent and corrupt. It seems we have lots of Chief Wiggums in the UK currently.

When radical Muslims were protesting outside the Danish embassy in London a few days ago, they carried plaques that could be considered to incite hatred or murder. Yet nothing has been done to stop these people.

I don't like the police at all. I think many police officers are corrupt and seldom care about helping others or protecting people. In my mind, many police officers join the service because they crave power and authority over others. I think most people fear the police, more so than trust them.

I've started to warm to the possibility of privatised police. I feel the profit motive and the presence of competition would produce a more effective and efficient police force.

2006-02-02T17:53:00.000Z

BNP free speech trial victory

Nick Griffin and Mark Collett have been cleared of inciting racial hatred. The Crown Prosecution Service have asked for a re-trial, since some charges are outstanding.

I'm no fan of the BNP at all. I believe they are a racist party, despite their claims to the contrary.
Nonetheless, I do feel justice has been served here. As a libertarian, I don't believe in many limits to freedom of expression.

I would favour some laws outlawing defamation, largely from a moral perspective. I don't think it's just for people to defame each other, since defamation can detrimentally effect one's home and work life.

As for racial hatred laws, I think they should be outlawed within a libertarian society. My view on free speech is that people who express obnoxious or objectionable views can be shunned and ostracised by the community. People can also use their rights to freedom of expression to discredit and combat such objectionable views.

Freedom of expression also doesn't violate rights to the person and property. This is why I favour few laws curbing freedom of expression.

2006-01-31T07:21:00.000Z

Religious hatred

MP's in the House of Commons are to vote on amendments to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.

As I've stated before, I'm no fan of this Bill, because it evidently undermines freedom of expression. As a libertarian I don't believe in many limits to freedom of speech.

Religion is not an innate or intrinsic trait. People aren't born religious. They only acquire religion through socialisation. Religious belief can also be altered and renounced. Because of this it cannot be as bad to criticise or speak foul of religion.

As in all cases of freedom of expression, people can ostracise others who express offensive or objectionable views. You can also use your freedom of expression to counter, expose and discredit such views.

IMO, this is just another example of New Labour's worrying authoritarianism.

2006-01-27T15:58:00.000Z

Simon Hughes

Over the past day or so, Simon Hughes has admitted to having gay relationships in the past. This is despite denying he was homosexual in a prior TV interview.

Rather like the Oaten affair, I'm relatively indifferent to this scandal. He clearly lied about his sexual orientation and he has owned up to such deceit. Even Peter Tatchell has forgiven him for a supposedly "homophobic" electoral campaign in 1983, in which Tatchell ran as a Labour candidate.

Like Oaten, Hughes has not committed an illegal act and should not be forced to resign as an MP. I believe that the private lives of politicians should remain private, unless they are breaking the law or initiating force or fraud against another individual.

I don't think this would affect Hughes' leadership challenge that much. Attitudes towards homosexuality within British society have liberalised over the past few decades. Even still, the Liberal Democrats remain a worthless "social liberal" party.

Social/modern/new liberalism erks me because it places less emphasis on freedom and more on welfare and helping the disadvantaged. I cannot name a policy the Lib Dems' have advocated in recent times which would genuinely increase liberty in this country.

2006-01-25T09:32:00.000Z

Mark Oaten

The Liberal Democrats have stated there still is a place for Oaten within their party. Oaten resigned from the Lib Dems' Shadow Cabinet due to reports that he frequented a rent boy.

When I first heard of this scandal, I couldn't really care less. He wasn't doing anything illegal (or anything that deserves to be illegal). If he had truly denounced a judge for visiting a male prostitute, then yes, he should be outed (no pun intended) as a hypocrite.

In a libertarian Britain, politicians shouldn't be censured or even impeached for such trivial matters. Having sex with a male prostitute hardly denotes the initiation of force or fraud against the person or property, does it?!

2006-01-25T09:23:00.000Z

TV Licence

The government are going to raise the cost of a TV licence to £131.50 from April 1st 2006. The Culture Secretary claimed it would maintain the BBC's position at the "forefront of broadcasting technology".

Of course, the licence fee is a tax and taxation is theft. A libertarian British government should privatise the BBC and abolish the licence fee.

People often complain that the BBC is good since it produces high quality programmes and that a privately owned BBC would cater only for reality TV and other nonsense. Why should this be the case? I'm sure there is a large demand for quality television. If so, then the market would meet that demand.

2006-01-20T18:32:00.000Z

Cannabis

The government have decided to retain cannabis as a Class C drug. This is despite warnings from the medical profession that cannabis may be a cause of mental illness.

I suppose this is good news in itself. Nonetheless, the only sensible move IMO would be a complete decriminalisation of ALL drugs. Even if cannabis does cause mental illness, so what? In life, you weigh the consequences of an action before you act. The same principle is applicable in this situation. In a libertarian society, there would perhaps be a greater emphasis on rationally weighing the consequences of actions than there is presently. Being free means being free to make mistakes and learn from your mistakes.

A person should have the right to put whatever he chooses into his body. If you don't own yourself, then you cannot be free.

2006-01-17T08:05:00.000Z

Prostitution "crackdown"

The Home Office have announced plans which shall crackdown on prostitution within England & Wales.

The plans include taking away the driving licences of kerb-crawlers and aiding street prostitutes to find alternative vocations.

To me this simply confirms New Labour's authoritarianism. Granted, street prostitution can "blight" areas. Therefore, it should simply be a matter of property rights. In a libertarian society, roads and residential areas may be privately owned. If people in residential areas don't want prostitutes in their area, they'd possess the means to deny them the ability to work in such areas.

The government also want to alter laws which limit the number of prostitutes that can work in flats and massage parlours. I'd agree this form of prostitution was safer and that most women working in these places choose to work within prostitution.

Of course, prostitution is a victimless crime. If two people agree to have sex in exchange for payment, then no force or fraud against the person or property of another is being committed.

2006-01-13T09:06:00.000Z

Liberal Democrats leadership

Sir Menzies Campbell, Mark Oaten, Simon Hughes and now Chris Huhne have entered the race to become the new leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I don't really find this contest interesting. The Lib Dems, like the other two major parties, are a party of big government. Since they are social liberals, they would naturally seek a large state that initiates force against the individual.

There appears to be little hope of the Lib Dems becoming more libertarian in their views. Mark Oaten claims to be a "classical liberal", nonetheless I doubt he as leader would effectively promote social and economic freedom or (from a libertarian perspective) properly reduce the size and scope of government.

2006-01-04T18:01:00.000Z

Conservatives = party of big government

David Cameron today made a speech stating how the NHS would remain "free at the point of delivery" under a Conservative government. He also stated that a Tory government led by him wouldn't opt for an insurance-based health care system.

OK, yes, the Conservative Party have for many decades advocated big government. Nonetheless, it's interesting to see a trend towards statism under Cameron. First, it was a commitment to redistribution of wealth. Now it's calling for a retention of a state-owned health care system.

I hope Cameron realises that such a belief leads to a growing government which taxes, regulates and initates force against the people.

Of course, I'd favour a completely free-market health care system. Government has no place in adminstering health care, or any positive right.

2006-01-04T17:15:00.000Z

Gordon Brown and a written constitution?

According to the Independent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may seek to implement a written constitution, if he succeeds Tony Blair as Prime Minister.

Brown is drawing up a series of proposals designed to limit the powers of the state.

In principle, I think this is a good idea, if true. I'm no fan, as a libertarian of our current constitutional arrangment. There simply is no check on governmental power within our "uncodified" consitution.

One thing I object to is the exact content of any constitution layed out by Brown. If it contains things such as a right to health care, or right to education, then for evident reasons, I won't support it.

A draft libertarian constitution for Britain can be seen here.

2005-12-29T15:47:00.000Z

I hope you all had a Merry Christmas.

Another example of the need for greater freedom of association..

The Equal Opportunities Commission has called for sex discrimination laws to be updated. They've also called upon private industry to promote equality and diversity within their organisations.

So, since anti-discrimination laws aren't working, it's time to introduce a new law? Isn't this a sign that anti-discrimination legislation is flawed?

Like the smoking example I posted, employers shouldn't be forced to associate with groups they disapprove of. They should be free to associate with anyone they choose and on any basis. I feel that any business that chooses to openly discriminate against women would be shunned by the public, since sexism isn't considered moral or acceptable in contemporary society. As always, the market will sort out any "injustice" that may arise.

Women may find this unfair, nonetheless the solution would be to compete, if you feel you're discriminated against.

2005-12-23T17:54:00.000Z

Freedom of association?

A smoker from Somerset was sacked from her job, simply for being a smoker. Dataflow Communications (the firm who sacked the smoker) stated that they don't employ smokers, because they want healthy employees.

This is simply a good instance of freedom of association. If Dataflow don't want to employ smokers, then it's their right. People should be free to associate with anyone they choose and on any basis.

If anything, the market will sort any "injustice" out as a consequence of freedom of association. In a libertarian society, there will be fewer regulations on business, so starting a rival business would be easier than it is now. Also, companies that choose to discriminate probably wouldn't be very popular. Therefore they would lose out to competitors. The point here is to compete, if anyone is "treated badly" like Ms. Blinham.

2005-12-21T17:26:00.000Z

The "snow penis"

There was some controversy on Free Talk Live (see links) yesterday regarding the creation of a "snow penis" in an American neighbourhood.

The story was that someone had erected (no pun intended) a phallic-shaped snow figure in their garden. The debate surrounded whether people had a right to destroy "offensive" objects on other people's property.

Clearly this is an issue of property rights. In a libertarian society, people should be able to do what they please with their property and own anything, provided they don't initiate force or fraud on the person or property of another. Now, in this sense, a snow penis is not initiating force against someone. No one will suffer physical harm or damage as a result of its existence. The physical integrity of one's property will not be undermined by its existence. Granted, property values may deprieciate due to its presence. So what? One can always move to another neighbourhood if the presence of a snow penis is too offensive for ones tastes.

Besides, who is to state what constitutes an "offensive" piece of property? Offence is a rather subjective thing in itself. Does someone have the right to destroy anything they find offensive, no matter how innocuous or mundane?

As a libertarian, I feel a person possesses the right to protect his property from damage. This right should supercede any "right" not to be offended.

However, the level of force must meet the initial force enacted. If someone trespasses on your property, I don't believe you have a right to kill them. Trespassing in itself doesn't have to lead to an attack against the person. In this instance, I believe a warning should suffice. If successive warnings aren't noted, then physical force should be used. If someone is entering property with the intent to rob, steal or cause physical harm, then yes physical force should be used against that person.

In the case of this "snow penis", I feel that force could be used to protect one's property. A person seeking to destroy this object should accept any consequence of their actions. This means potentially being physically attacked, if needs be.

2005-12-20T20:54:00.000Z

Postal privatisation

A House of Commons select committee has stated that "universal service" may not be met if a market exists in letter and parcel delivery.

Universal service refers to the Royal Mail delivering letters to all addresses, no matter how remote. MP's believe such a thing would be undermined if a market existed in posting letters.

These MP's should learn that if a demand exists, someone will meet it in a free market. Maybe someone will come up with a method to deliver letters and parcels to "remote" areas in a free market. A market certainly would lead to better services and lower prices for sending things. If the Royal Mail's stamps were at a higher price than their competitors, would people be as inclined to buy them?

Another thing these MP's should learn is that with all the taxes, regulations and other things companies have to endure, people may be deterred from starting a company that delivers to remote areas. If I were one of these MP's, I would be questioning the level of regulation that New Labour has on business.