Wednesday, 26 November 2003


Today, the Queen opened this session of Parliament with the Queen's Speech, which denotes all the legislation that is to be passed within the forthcoming session. Such proposed bills include improvements to the NHS, which Blair stated today was 'improving'.

The NHS is a supposed pride of the nation. Nonetheless , it IS unnecessary. Why should the state own ALL of the health infrastructure? Yes, there is PFI, nevertheless hospitals constructed using private money would still be state-run.

I fail to see why a system used in France or Germany (in which the health systems are not wholly state owned) cannot operate within the UK. The French and Germans are no poorer or unhealthier than we are as a result of having to pay for a proportion of their healthcare. Even the US has SOME state provision of health care (such as Medicare) even though the majority of health care is privately funded. Again, the Americans are no poorer or (on average) unhealthier.

From my libertarian perspective, I believe that all health care should be privately delivered within a free market. Competition would ensure that prices are low and services are acceptable.

Saturday, 22 November 2003


In some nations, crimes which are motivated by 'hate' or prejudice against a certain group are outlawed. Some examples of 'hate crimes' include the Matthew Shepard murder a several years ago in the United States.

Of course crimes against minorities should be enforced. Nonetheless, is there truly a need to isolate certain crimes as 'worse' simply due to their motivation? I'll offer an example:

Let us state that one person is assaulted for his wallet. In another instance, a gay man is assaulted simply because he is a homosexual. Should the latter crime be treated in a more serious fashion simply because 'hate' against a certain group of people was involved? In my mind, no.

In BOTH instances, an assault occured. Ergo, the perpetrators of both crimes should be charged with assault. In a free society, I don't believe any person should be punished for what they think or believe. It should only be actions that infringe on people's right to person and property that should be considered crimes.

Wednesday, 19 November 2003


Under Tony Blair, the UK has initially sought to pursue an 'ethical foreign policy'. We supported then US president Clinton in bombing the former Yugoslavia. Since September 11th 2001, we have aided current US president Bush in attacking Afghanistan, Iraq and have engaged in the 'war on terror'.

The United States may be the 'global policeman'; after all it is the world's superpower. The United Kingdom on the other hand is NOT a superpower. Yes, we may possess one of the world's largest economies, we may have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, we may be a member of the G8 and we may possess one of the world's best respected armed forces. Nonetheless, Britain has not been viewed as a major world power since the end of the Second World War.

A nation of the UK's 'standing' in the world does not warrant such an extensive foreign policy. Other nations of equal economic and military prowess, such as France and Germany, refrain from taking an active role in the world. Isn't it possible that such interventionism can create resentment? Who is Tony Blair to make British citizens potential targets for terrorists?

Simply, the UK doesn't NEED an interventionist foreign policy. Other events around the world are none of our business. We are blessed by being in prixomity to friendly nations (many of whom are our NATO allies and fellow EU members). In addition, we are an island nation. Hitler couldn't invade us during WWII as Germany lacked a substantial navy. ANY nation which seeks to attack us MUST have adequate naval strength. We also are one of the principle nuclear powers of the world. MAD ( ,i.e. mutually assured destruction) would provide for our safety if another nations seeks to attack us with nuclear weapons.

Monday, 17 November 2003


An edition of the Harry Browne radio show from the United States has made me ponder over the past few weeks.

In a political sense, the major 'types' of rights are civil rights, natural rights and human rights. The concept of natural rights dates back to the English philosopher John Locke, who in the 17th century stated that humans possess the natural rights to life, liberty and property. In the 18th century, the founding fathers of the United States of America extended this theory by stating that humans had the 'inalienable' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness granted by the 'Creator'.

I really cannot see how rights exist within nature. Ultimately rights are simply the invention of man and exist ONLY within the sphere of man. Does a lion who kills cubs respect the cubs' right to life or liberty? Does a male chimpanzee who rapes a female chimpanzee respect his victim's right to liberty? No. Animals simply lack the 'intelligence' or awareness to create concepts of rights. Humans, evidently, do not.

We create concepts of rights as we feel we need them. But in the end, rights can only exist within the minds of human beings. In my viewpoint, they do not have any apparent natural basis.

Sunday, 16 November 2003


Luton is a large town situated appoximately thirty miles north of London in the county of Bedfordshire. It is a multi-racial town, in which the principle industries have been manufacturing in basis. However in recent times, manufacturng industries have been replaced by service sector businesses.

Luton Borough Council is a unitary authority, meaning that is possesses the combined powers of other district and county councils in England. I do feel though that the scope of the council, even with these new powers, must be questioned. Currently the Liberal Democrat run council owns swimming pools, leisure centres, youth clubs, golf courses and many other things that could easily be funded by the private sector.

Council taxes remain low, in comparison with neighbouring councils (such as South Bedfordshire or North Hertfordshire councils). Nonetheless, this example of big government (in my mind) cannot be condoned. Numerous golf courses exist as private entities. Is there ANY true need for it to be owned by local government? Why can't a swimming pool be administered in private hands? Some may balk at the notion of a privately owned swimming pool; still a non-profit pool would by definition be privately owned. Why can't local communities own and administer the pool? Even the local refuse collection services might be improved if provided in a free market. Who is the state to have a monopoly on such a service?

As a libertarian, I feel that the size of government should be reduced in order to protect the rights of the individual. Luton Borough Council (and other local government institutions within the UK) should primarily be concerned with maintaining basic infrastructure within their jurisdiction. Is there any logical reason why the private sector cannot adequately handle the services that the state already supplies?

This blog will resume by hosting articles on issues within the UK from a libertarian perspective.