Misunderstood: Why simple descriptions fail libertarianism!

 

Names matter, don’t they?

 

Getting someone’s name right is a precondition to establishing reasonable contact with them. It’s said that there is nothing more English than not quite catching a new neighbour’s name, and then avoiding eye-contact with them for the next 30 years to avoid any embarrassment!

 

Addressing things by the right description is important in so many arenas of life. If we fail to tell it as it is, then we risk being misunderstood, misunderstanding others, and crucially, allowing people with extremist views to go unchallenged.

 

As regular readers of this column will know, I am a big believer in free speech. By which I mean that people should be allowed to say whatever they want, even if it offends others, as long as it is not deliberately intended to incite violence, and more generally, have as much freedom to order their order lives as they see fit.

 

Ideally, the state should be absent from as many aspects of our lives as possible, with the exception of protecting citizens from external threats – whether they be military, economic or environmental.

 

Libertarianism has been around for centuries and, in the West at least, is a well-established philosophy being a cornerstone for many of the liberties that we all too readily nowadays take for granted.

 

So why do so many mainstream news outlets seemingly struggle to identify what is, and is not, a libertarian perspective? I’m coming around to the conclusion that the establishment do this deliberately, so concerned are they that ordinary citizens might develop their own ideas!

 

Over the last couple of weeks, there’s been quite a few examples of such centre-left double-speak, aimed at misrepresenting what libertarians really believe.

 

Exhibit one relates to the election of a new president of Argentina. Javier Milei was voted in by a landslide – in the main, due to the chronic handling of the economy by the ruling leftist party.

 

What I found most fascinating was how leftist organisations from the Guardian to the BBC (and also, strangely, the Telegraph) opted to describe him as a ‘far right libertarian.’

 

Now to be fair, there are a few aspects of Milei’s policy platform that I would applaud and would accept are good old-fashioned libertarian stances. These mainly relate to cutting the scale of the public sector, including the bloated and biased state-run media (perhaps we should copy this in the UK?).

 

Otherwise, his rather bizarre personal behaviour aside, his beliefs tend to the authoritarian, not least his opposition to abortion, women’s equality, identity rights, and the fetishisation of the military (watch out Falkland Islanders).

 

Ah, I get it. It’s easy to dismiss him as far right because he’d also like to reduce immigration from its current levels.

 

But as I’ve suggested earlier, protecting citizens is one of the few legitimate roles of the state. It is commonsense. And that includes regulating immigration. This is not about culture wars or appeals to nativism. Unregulated immigration distorts societies and the economy.

 

Forget Argentina. The situation in this country is spiralling out of control. Net migration in the year to December 2022 was 745,000 (revised up!). In other words, 745,000 MORE people lived here than choose to leave the UK and live elsewhere.

 

The left in this country decried Suella Braverman as an authoritarian, both because of her efforts to destroy the people smugglers’ business model, and because she, rightly in my opinion, queried whether certain groups shouting hate slogans were being treated more softly than others.

 

Although I do think in some of her language, she acted naively – the vicious attacks on her for sympathising with our Jewish communities facing vile antisemitic hate speech and attacks, singled her out for sustained opprobrium and misrepresentation from the left and their media allies.

 

But we do need to get a grip on these before there is a massive reaction from the authoritarian elements in our society. More and more European countries are starting to experience this.

 

Italy has a prime minister who says nice things about Mussolini. Hungary has a leader with a long-term admiring relationship with Putin, that authoritarian of authoritarians.

 

The recent Dutch General election saw Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom capture the most seats.

 

Mercifully, no-one has been naïve enough to call Wilders a libertarian. Because he’s demonstrably not. Many of his social policies are leftist, such as those on healthcare and housing, and he talks of Islam as a ‘retarded culture’ and of expelling Dutch Muslim citizens legally resident in the country. That is despicable authoritarianism and must be opposed.

 

Interestingly, there is a Dutch Libertarian Party which one political website accurately describes as ‘mixed left and right’ in its political orientation. They at least won’t be boxed in by simpleminded descriptions.

 

That is why it is important to not misname or misidentify libertarianism. We oppose the bullying overreach of fascist groups as much as we do the leftist-loving establishment.

 

We stand foursquare with that famous quote by Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." 

 

Know our name. We are libertarians.

 

First published in www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Thursday 30th November.

Bureaucracy is a disincentive

First published in the www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk & www.dissexpress.co.uk Thursday April 30, 2020.

Another month, another column dominated by COVID-19, I’m afraid. 

The way different entities have responded to the pandemic has confirmed me in my fundamental Libertarian beliefs - that the best government is small government and the more control individuals have to make decisions the better the outcomes will be.

Firstly, however well intentioned, big state institutions have struggled to deliver the right solutions.

Unlike private sector supply chains, the state has approached the acquisition of personal protective equipment (PPE) in an utterly bureaucratic manner. This has resulted in inadequate and unfit supplies being delivered to the wrong frontline services at the wrong time.

The embarrassing farce of a military plane having to fly to Turkey to pick up half of an order that seemed stuck in that country sums up vividly the utter inadequacy of Central Government purchasing teams.

More locally, I am aware of business contacts in the logistics and warehousing sectors who have acquired the highest grade PPE, but whose offer to supply this at cost (i.e. no profit) to local hospitals and other key providers remains unanswered. 

In other words, local public sector procurement teams have once again proven themselves to be focussed first and foremost on process and box ticking, as opposed to delivering urgent positive solutions.

Contrast this institutionalised sloth with the energy and inventiveness of both the private sector and our wider civil society. Local manufacturers have speedily adapted their processes and technologies to produce large quantities of medical equipment and there is probably not a village in Suffolk that hasn’t seen residents coming together to produce everything from visors to scrubs.

Although I backed the immediate necessity behind a whole range of Government schemes designed to both boost the cash flow of businesses and protect jobs once the pandemic eases, the bureaucracy and muddle in applying for such support is a massive disincentive.

The application form for the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) is vast. I must have spent a week, to date, working on the detail required, with probably another week's worth to go before it's even in first draft.

 

Research from Suffolk Chamber of Commerce shows that only a very small minority of applicants to CBILS have actually secured a loan. Not surprising given all the hoops they have to jump through.

 

The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) which allows firms to ‘furlough’ their staff, is equally clunky. The seven-page guidance and even the online calculator are confusing and seemingly inaccurate, as the way they calculate entitlement seems to mean that my business wouldn’t actually get the 80% promised – more like 66%.

 

In any case, a much simpler and less interventionist approach would be to use existing systems. Businesses are registered to pay NI/PAYE, VAT, Business Rates & Corporation Tax. These systems already exist to take our money so why did the Government waste six weeks inventing a new system to give it back to us? Why not just let us keep it in the first place, like they did with the VAT deferral to the end of this fiscal year?

 

The mainstream media have played their usual gloomy part in minimising those parts of the economy that have proven to be robust and who will lead us out of the current economic difficulties. 

 

Their relentless attacks on our hardworking ministers, including our prime minister who is still recovering from COVID-19, as they grapple with unprecedented challenges, is a disgrace.

 

No surprise then that the YouGov/Sky News poll of 20/21 April showed national TV and newspaper journalists were the least trusted professions – far less than those same Government ministers.

But the signs of recovery are there. Early last month my own company recently saw the arrival of our first Chinese shipment since the extended Chinese New Year break. This is an important lead indicator as it shows that China, the engine of much international trade, is beginning to come out of its own lockdown.

This consignment was not a one-off as by the time you read this my business will have received further shipments and will be working at full capacity.

 

As a result, I’ve now recalled all my staff to cope with the demand, meaning I can pause my battle with the CJRS and other Government bureaucracy – for the time-being at least.

Ends.

Fresh approach to homelessness

As published in the Suffolk Free Press, Thursday, October 4, 2018.
 

Every time I go into Bury St. Edmunds, Ipswich or Lowestoft, both homelessness and begging – which are not necessarily the same thing – seem to be getting worse.

I’m aware that the causes of homelessness are varied and frequently interlinked: relationship breakdowns, job losses, mental health issues and drug & alcohol dependency.

We're told that the increase in begging appears to be the result of a rise in networks of gangs, possibly part of a wider upwards trend in organised crime.

And I can only imagine by how much ‘professional beggars’ fleece other members of the public!

The national costs of dealing with homelessness are estimated to exceed £1 billion per year. Only last month, Mid Suffolk council trumpeted its opening of a 17-bed homeless centre in Stowmarket – at goodness know what cost to Council Taxpayers.

As a libertarian, who resists the encroachment of the state on ever more aspects of our lives and which taxes us in ever more ingenious ways, I can see that the current approaches are both costly and ineffective.

So what is the libertarian solution?

Firstly, it must be to remove the statutory requirement to provide state-run support for our adult homeless citizens.

Linked to this, should be improved mechanisms and positive support for individuals to fund charitable and faith-based groups to do their work more effectively, without the wasteful and bureaucratic state getting in the way. Indeed, local councils should be forced to waive the collection of business and/or domestic rates on any group supporting the homeless in any way.

In general, people are good to each other, and volunteers are far more generous and compassionate than government employees.

Secondly, whilst it is the right of everyone to give money to whomsoever they like, the social emphasis must be on encouraging donations to these charitable and faith-based bodies. Ipswich Labour MP Sandy Martin articulated something very similar recently – probably the first time I’ve ever agreed with him on anything!

I exercise my right not to give to individuals, no matter what their sales pitch is, instead preferring to support caring voluntary operations.

Interestingly, I don't see as many sellers of the Big Issue these days. I applaud that scheme as it gives people an economic focus and encourages them to rebuild their lives through their own efforts, rather than remain dependent on others.

We must also hold the same standards for all citizens. Therefore, anti-social behaviour and aggressive begging must be dealt with through prompt and effective action. No-one should feel intimidated or impeded by the actions of another.

I would also like to see neighbourhoods, both residents and businesses alike, taking more powers from the state to set their own standards of acceptable public behaviour and to take pride in and police their own areas.

I would like to see an extension of the schemes delivered by various Business Improvement Districts, including the one in Ipswich, whereby areas support their own anti-social behaviour monitors with defined powers of stop, search and (only as a last resort) arrest.

Finally, I would like to see a relaxation in our restricted and bloated planning system. With the support and agreement of the local community, if a homeless person has the will and drive to build him or herself a basic shelter or dwelling on designated public spaces, why should the state stop them? Better still, with the state at arms length, encourage those local communities to provide and offer accomodation, either as new build, temporary or converted.

On the principle that something is better than nothing, why not allow folks to get off the streets and have a shelter of their own for a limited number of months, on suitable council maintained sites as the first step to rebuilding their lives?

Weak sentimentality and a self-serving NIMBY'ism perpetuate the lives of misery of many. We need a new approach that addresses the core issues of homelessness and begging and offers practical steps for self-improvement.

We need a libertarian approach.

= = = = = = = = 

Atlas Shrugged - on the silver screen*

At last!

More than 50-years after Ayn Rand's masterpiece, it's coming to a big screen near you soon.

Check out the trailer here;

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/

I can't wait!!

*Thanks to Shane Greer from TotalPolitics for the heads up!