A recent bbc article reveals how heroin supply clinics in Brighton, Darlington and London have reduced crime.
In just six months the number of offences decreased from 1731 in a month prior to the treatment, to just 546 - a drop of two thirds. This shows how drugs policy has the potential to benefit society as a whole.
This scheme costs £15,000 of taxpayers money per patient, per year, which some may object to, however a prison sentence costs £40,000 a year. The evidence also suggests that this scheme encourages addicts to quit drugs alltogether which would allow them to then work and pay taxes.
These supply clinics are a fantastic idea, and it is a step in the right direction towards the legalisation of all drugs.
Wednesday 16 September 2009
Friday 11 September 2009
One down, 10,000 to go!
LPUK, who formed in 2008, gained their first local councillor earlier this week as Gavin Webb jumped ship from the liberal democrat party. This will seem like small news to most people, but it raises an interesting point. Which party does a libertarian in the UK belong in?
The liberal democrats certainly have a libertarian wing, as evidence by the existence of liberal vision. However it seems they are marginalised within the party by the social democrats, the hostility shown towards both Gavin Webb and liberal vision as a whole can be seen in some of the comments on the liberal democrat voice blog. Then of course there is the issue of the suspension of Gavin Webb when he was in the liberal democrat party; for daring to suggest that hard drugs should be legalised. Not to mention that the liberal democrat is the most pro-EU party there is; which directly contradicts libertarian philosophy of bottom up government.
UKIP are the only mainstream party that markets itself as libertarian, a google search of them yields the introduction of: "libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union." On economic issues they are certainly the closest to libertarian in the mainstream, supporting a flat tax system, the abolition of inheritance tax and of course, EU withdrawal. However why do they wish to remain in Afghanistan? Why do they not want to legalise drugs, guns and prostitution? And worst of all, why do they make such an anti-libertarian immigration policy one of their leading areas of focus?
Finally we have the conservative party, which also contains a large libertarian wing with MP Alan Duncan and MEP Daniel Hannan both arguing for free-markets and social liberalism. However, the majority of the party have come under criticism from libertarians for being "blue labour" - and David Cameron himself once stated: "that is not conservative, that is libertarian, and that is NOT me." Too many conservative MP's have voted against equal rights for homosexuals, too many conservatives support tough immigration policy and the pursuit of this war on drugs - and yes even some conservatives now support the NHS and membership of the EU!
It is no wonder that LPUK formed. The ideal situation would be for the libertarians that are currently spread across three mainstream parties to unite under the banner of just one party, LPUK. However this is the real world, and councillors, MP's and MEP's have their jobs to consider. This is why I have so much respect for Gavin Webb, who has probably compromised his opportunity to be re-elected next time around in order to stand up for his principles. The more people that join him, the closer this country will come to uniting the philosophy of libertarianism - but there is a long way to go yet, it still remains a distant dream.
The liberal democrats certainly have a libertarian wing, as evidence by the existence of liberal vision. However it seems they are marginalised within the party by the social democrats, the hostility shown towards both Gavin Webb and liberal vision as a whole can be seen in some of the comments on the liberal democrat voice blog. Then of course there is the issue of the suspension of Gavin Webb when he was in the liberal democrat party; for daring to suggest that hard drugs should be legalised. Not to mention that the liberal democrat is the most pro-EU party there is; which directly contradicts libertarian philosophy of bottom up government.
UKIP are the only mainstream party that markets itself as libertarian, a google search of them yields the introduction of: "libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union." On economic issues they are certainly the closest to libertarian in the mainstream, supporting a flat tax system, the abolition of inheritance tax and of course, EU withdrawal. However why do they wish to remain in Afghanistan? Why do they not want to legalise drugs, guns and prostitution? And worst of all, why do they make such an anti-libertarian immigration policy one of their leading areas of focus?
Finally we have the conservative party, which also contains a large libertarian wing with MP Alan Duncan and MEP Daniel Hannan both arguing for free-markets and social liberalism. However, the majority of the party have come under criticism from libertarians for being "blue labour" - and David Cameron himself once stated: "that is not conservative, that is libertarian, and that is NOT me." Too many conservative MP's have voted against equal rights for homosexuals, too many conservatives support tough immigration policy and the pursuit of this war on drugs - and yes even some conservatives now support the NHS and membership of the EU!
It is no wonder that LPUK formed. The ideal situation would be for the libertarians that are currently spread across three mainstream parties to unite under the banner of just one party, LPUK. However this is the real world, and councillors, MP's and MEP's have their jobs to consider. This is why I have so much respect for Gavin Webb, who has probably compromised his opportunity to be re-elected next time around in order to stand up for his principles. The more people that join him, the closer this country will come to uniting the philosophy of libertarianism - but there is a long way to go yet, it still remains a distant dream.
The healthcare debate II
A couple of nights ago I watched Obama deliver his plan on healthcare to congress. I feel like his plan deserves another blog entry, even though my previous one was on healthcare as well.
Firstly there are a couple of simple points he made that would have an instant positive impact; insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse treatment based on pre-existing conditions, and also the ban on annual or lifetime caps on coverage that may be received. Even if the plan achieved only this it would have been worthwhile, although it doesn't resolve the issue of people not being able to afford health insurance to begin with, or choosing not to have it. However the latter problem was also resolved by the plan to make health insurance compulsory for all, just like car insurance.
The only contentious issues seems to be the methods of allowing everybody to have access to universal healthcare. The proposal allows an insurance exchange which enables individuals and small businesses to gain insurance collectively, and shop around for a variety of private plans; which is how large corporations currently get insurance. However, the plan includes a public option to ensure that nobody slips through the cracks, and also to create competition and prevent cartels forming.
This aspect of the plan is being greatly exaggerated; Obama himself assured congress that there would be no public treatment for illegal immigrants, and also confirmed that "death panels" were an outright lie. Nor would this public option be compulsory for anyone, or effect anyone who already has private insurance. It merely exists to provide an alternative to private health insurance; and as a supporter of the private and free-market, I have faith that the private options will remain preferable. It is a contradiction to state that the free-market is superior to public options, and then assume the public option will replace the private options when both are competing fairly against one another.
The danger is that the public option will have an unfair advantage as it can collect taxes; however this was also covered in the speech. Obama stated that the public insurance option would be self-funding, using money given to it in the form of insurance premiums rather than taxes. Not only this, but he promised that if taxpayers money was used, there would be tax cuts elsewhere to balance this. This aspect of the plan is worthwhile if it stops private cartels forming, and gives access to insurance for the 40 million people in America currently going without. Especially when the costs are estimated to be lower than that of the Iraq and Afghan wars; which many, including myself, didn't even support to begin with.
The fact Obama stated in this speech his back-up plan in case the government overspent on healthcare shows the key difference between British and American politics. In the UK the government will make a proposal, follow it, and be genuinely suprised if and when it overspends and goes wrong - in contrast America has a healthy mistrust for large government. I for one would vote in favour of Obamas healthcare reforms, and I hope it is passed - if it successfully becomes a universal healthcare system with low tax costs and maximum competition, innovation and efficiency, I would certainly prefer their system to the NHS. I think the UK needs to keep a beady eye on the state of American healthcare in the future.
Firstly there are a couple of simple points he made that would have an instant positive impact; insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse treatment based on pre-existing conditions, and also the ban on annual or lifetime caps on coverage that may be received. Even if the plan achieved only this it would have been worthwhile, although it doesn't resolve the issue of people not being able to afford health insurance to begin with, or choosing not to have it. However the latter problem was also resolved by the plan to make health insurance compulsory for all, just like car insurance.
The only contentious issues seems to be the methods of allowing everybody to have access to universal healthcare. The proposal allows an insurance exchange which enables individuals and small businesses to gain insurance collectively, and shop around for a variety of private plans; which is how large corporations currently get insurance. However, the plan includes a public option to ensure that nobody slips through the cracks, and also to create competition and prevent cartels forming.
This aspect of the plan is being greatly exaggerated; Obama himself assured congress that there would be no public treatment for illegal immigrants, and also confirmed that "death panels" were an outright lie. Nor would this public option be compulsory for anyone, or effect anyone who already has private insurance. It merely exists to provide an alternative to private health insurance; and as a supporter of the private and free-market, I have faith that the private options will remain preferable. It is a contradiction to state that the free-market is superior to public options, and then assume the public option will replace the private options when both are competing fairly against one another.
The danger is that the public option will have an unfair advantage as it can collect taxes; however this was also covered in the speech. Obama stated that the public insurance option would be self-funding, using money given to it in the form of insurance premiums rather than taxes. Not only this, but he promised that if taxpayers money was used, there would be tax cuts elsewhere to balance this. This aspect of the plan is worthwhile if it stops private cartels forming, and gives access to insurance for the 40 million people in America currently going without. Especially when the costs are estimated to be lower than that of the Iraq and Afghan wars; which many, including myself, didn't even support to begin with.
The fact Obama stated in this speech his back-up plan in case the government overspent on healthcare shows the key difference between British and American politics. In the UK the government will make a proposal, follow it, and be genuinely suprised if and when it overspends and goes wrong - in contrast America has a healthy mistrust for large government. I for one would vote in favour of Obamas healthcare reforms, and I hope it is passed - if it successfully becomes a universal healthcare system with low tax costs and maximum competition, innovation and efficiency, I would certainly prefer their system to the NHS. I think the UK needs to keep a beady eye on the state of American healthcare in the future.
Thursday 3 September 2009
The healthcare debate
Recently conservative MEP Daniel Hannan hit the headlines by appearing on fox news to warn America about the NHS;
Some went so far as to call Hannan 'unpatriotic' for his opinions, and David Cameron was very quick to side with the NHS. In reality the most common criticism of what Hannan said is invalid, which is not to say that I agree with him, because there are genuine flaws in his ideas - but before I address those I want to discuss the myth that have emerged at what Hannan said.
The leading argument in favour of the NHS, and against Hannan, seems to be that the American private healthcare system is worse. This is true by nearly anyones standards, except a few delusional republicans - however Daniel Hannan never said he supported the American system of healthcare.
The argument is not as simple as saying America have it worse, case closed. Instead the NHS should be compared with the Singapore health system which combines private and public care. The concept of the private market providing the care under state regulations and controls makes the debate far more interesting, and not as simple as those on the left would want it to be. I would go as far as to say the system in Singapore is superior to the NHS in the same way the NHS is superior to the USA. The only issue is whether it is possible to implement such a system here. The population of Singapore is smaller than London, and there are just 23 hospitals in the entire country.
The issue is not that private healthcare is a totally undesirable system, but instead that it is difficult to implement - especially when the NHS is the third biggest employer in the world, responsible for more than 1.5 million jobs in the UK (the Chinese red army and the Indian nationalised railways employ more.) However more of these jobs are held by administrators and government officials than by doctors and nurses.
The best plan on healthcare I have seen from any party in the UK is actually from a totally unknown party, LPUK - now the libertarian philosophy certainly dictates that healthcare should be private, yet the party leader Ian Parker-Joseph realises that the NHS is too engrained in society to eliminate quickly. His plan is progressive and sensible, and puts emphasis on eliminating the layers of beaurocracy within the NHS without closing down any clinics or losing any doctors. Contrary to popular belief, these plans would benefit the poorest in society by relieving them of a large chunk of their tax burdens without reducing the quality of servise given to them. It is a long read but here is a link to LPUK's leaders plans for healthcare.
Some went so far as to call Hannan 'unpatriotic' for his opinions, and David Cameron was very quick to side with the NHS. In reality the most common criticism of what Hannan said is invalid, which is not to say that I agree with him, because there are genuine flaws in his ideas - but before I address those I want to discuss the myth that have emerged at what Hannan said.
The leading argument in favour of the NHS, and against Hannan, seems to be that the American private healthcare system is worse. This is true by nearly anyones standards, except a few delusional republicans - however Daniel Hannan never said he supported the American system of healthcare.
The argument is not as simple as saying America have it worse, case closed. Instead the NHS should be compared with the Singapore health system which combines private and public care. The concept of the private market providing the care under state regulations and controls makes the debate far more interesting, and not as simple as those on the left would want it to be. I would go as far as to say the system in Singapore is superior to the NHS in the same way the NHS is superior to the USA. The only issue is whether it is possible to implement such a system here. The population of Singapore is smaller than London, and there are just 23 hospitals in the entire country.
The issue is not that private healthcare is a totally undesirable system, but instead that it is difficult to implement - especially when the NHS is the third biggest employer in the world, responsible for more than 1.5 million jobs in the UK (the Chinese red army and the Indian nationalised railways employ more.) However more of these jobs are held by administrators and government officials than by doctors and nurses.
The best plan on healthcare I have seen from any party in the UK is actually from a totally unknown party, LPUK - now the libertarian philosophy certainly dictates that healthcare should be private, yet the party leader Ian Parker-Joseph realises that the NHS is too engrained in society to eliminate quickly. His plan is progressive and sensible, and puts emphasis on eliminating the layers of beaurocracy within the NHS without closing down any clinics or losing any doctors. Contrary to popular belief, these plans would benefit the poorest in society by relieving them of a large chunk of their tax burdens without reducing the quality of servise given to them. It is a long read but here is a link to LPUK's leaders plans for healthcare.
Thursday 6 August 2009
Legalise heroin
I know I said my blog posts would be based on current events; but let's be honest - when is a sensible drugs policy ever even up for discussion? I'd be waiting forever. Now I could start small and discuss the decriminalisation of cannabis, similar to the Dutch model (and even this small step is only supported by the green party out of all mainstream British parties), but I'm going to crank it up a notch (or two) and instead discuss the full legalisation of all drugs, but to save time I'll only discuss heroin.
Firstly I can assure you all that I am not a heroin addict and I have never used heroin and wouldn't do so even if it was legal. It's a myth that you need to use drugs to condone legalising them; I believe that legalisation would benefit both the addict, and also society as a whole which includes those who would, quite sensibly, never touch the stuff. I'll start by explaining why legalisation is the best solution to help drug addicts:
Heroin can kill, and it can do so for a variety of reasons. The most frequent reason for heroin use to kill directly is overdose, and overdoses are far more likely to occur under prohibition. This is because there are no regulations on the black market. To make their heroin go futhur and to increase profits, drug dealers often mix heroin with other substances. Sometimes this may kill outright, for example there was a case in Bristol of heroin being mixed with cement as many addicts dying as a result of this. But it also massively increases the risk of an overdose; when you don't know whether your gram of heroin is 0% pure, 100% pure on anywhere in between - how can you possibly give yourself the correct dosage? It is often said that heroin is so dangerous because the difference between a normal dose and a deadly dose is so close. However in their pure forms it is actually easier to overdose on paracetemol than on heroin! If addicts knew that their heroin was pure everytime they bought it, they would find it easier to guage the appropiate dosage and as a results deaths would fall dramatically. Additionally, clean needles could be provided - preventing HIV and hepatitus from spreading, again reducing the deaths linked to drugs significantly.
There is a lot of debate about whether the price of heroin would rise or fall if it was legalised. At the moment the typical price of heroin is £40 for a gram, and the average purity is somewhere around 40%. In contrast, the NHS can produce 100% pure heroin for £6 a gram, which means the black market price is 35 times steeper. Obviously the government would tax the drug excessively and drive the price up: but heroin dealers could never compete with the government on this one. The black market is a dangerous business with prison sentences being risked, or even murders from rival drug gangs. These risks are factored into the price, driving them upwards. Plus even if legal heroin somehow became more expensive, the addict would still prefer to use clean and safe heroin, with a clean needle, than resort to the black market alternative. In this country alcohol and cigarettes are legal: do you buy these from the black market? Even if they were offered tax free, nobody in their right mind would buy them. Overall I feel confident that legalised heroin would be available cheaper than on the black market anyway. For the addict the lower price may again save lives; currently most addicts inject the drug because it is the most cost-effecient way of taking it. However, if cheaper there is a good chance that more people would instead smoke heroin, which has never caused a death.
Addiction is a big reason for heroin being illegal, yet alcohol is the only substance on the planet that can kill somebody outright from withdrawal. This isn't to say that heroin withdrawal is trivial, obviously, but if we can live under a society where alcohol is legal it doesn't then seem quite so unplausible for heroin to be legalised also. The fact is that if legalised, heroin addiction wouldn't be such a problem; with clean heroin being provided, and the extensive presence of drug rehabilitation clinics (funded by the taxes on drugs) which would help the addict and treat their addiction as a medical issue rather than a criminal one.
The most common argument against legalising heroin appears to be that it would normalise it and increase the number of addicts. This seems logically and empirically unfounded; I'm sure everybody in society is aware that a drug called heroin exists, and that it is dangerous. That would still be the case if legalised, maybe it would be easier to get hold of - but usage would surely only go up by the amount of people who currently want to do heroin, but can't because they ca't get hold of it. How many is that?! If anybody wants to do heroin, knowing the risks involved, they'll damn well have found their heroin by now. I have faith in people to understand that just because heroin is legal, it doesn't mean it is a good idea to start using it. To be absolutely sure of this I propose that drugs education is taught in all schools from the age of 10, and that this drugs education is based on objective facts instead of fear tactics that indirectly lead to deaths from lack of real education and awareness. Crucially, heroin was decriminalised in Portugal a decade ago, and all evidence suggests that heroin use has actually decreased (as well as crime and deaths related to drug abuse.)
For the non using taxpayer it means you're not funding police enforcement of prohibition, nor are you funding the prisons to detain them, which would save millions when it comes to heroin or billions when it comes to drugs as a whole. At the same time the taxes generated from selling heroin in a controlled way would create affluence in society because the government could keep this money and lower taxes elsewhere because of it - and when everyone then has more money they'll spend it on cars or whetever and the economy will grow. Why are we choosing for this money to go into the hands of evil drug dealers instead? And as touched upon earlier money generated would go towards rehabilitation clinics where you can go if you're fed up of taking heroin and just want to stop, and go back into the workforce as a normal citizen (which again would help the economy, if people were working rather than sitting about in prison or even dying, because of prohibition.) This is what a desperate user would choose, rather than mugging people, because controrary to the medias portray of heroin addicts, they don't enjoy mugging people, and want an alternative. This also links to the earlier point of lower prices: which means that heroin addicts would be less likely to mug or burgle than they would be under prohibition.
Other benefits to society would be the elimination of organised gangs within the UK, and a reduction in drug barrens from abroard importing substances into the country. It would also produce jobs from those who grow the drugs, produce the drugs and sell the drugs (I don't want drugs to be used anywhere; I believe in designated areas for consumption), additionally this drugs policy could even help other countries such as Afghanistan as firstly our troops would stop their destructive policy of destroying their opium fields, and destroying their livelyhood, but instead we could trade with them freely and fairly - giving them profits which could be used to boost their infastructure, to to prosper as a nation. This links strongly with the fact that I want free trade with all nations, at all times; and that I don't support military intervention abroard.
Finally (yes, I'll stop soon) this is a case of civil liberties. Should the government stop somebody with cancer from smoking? Or someone with diabetes from eating burgers, should it criminalise self-harm, and so on. I'm going to end this post with a quotation I rather like:
"It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve." – Henry George
Firstly I can assure you all that I am not a heroin addict and I have never used heroin and wouldn't do so even if it was legal. It's a myth that you need to use drugs to condone legalising them; I believe that legalisation would benefit both the addict, and also society as a whole which includes those who would, quite sensibly, never touch the stuff. I'll start by explaining why legalisation is the best solution to help drug addicts:
Heroin can kill, and it can do so for a variety of reasons. The most frequent reason for heroin use to kill directly is overdose, and overdoses are far more likely to occur under prohibition. This is because there are no regulations on the black market. To make their heroin go futhur and to increase profits, drug dealers often mix heroin with other substances. Sometimes this may kill outright, for example there was a case in Bristol of heroin being mixed with cement as many addicts dying as a result of this. But it also massively increases the risk of an overdose; when you don't know whether your gram of heroin is 0% pure, 100% pure on anywhere in between - how can you possibly give yourself the correct dosage? It is often said that heroin is so dangerous because the difference between a normal dose and a deadly dose is so close. However in their pure forms it is actually easier to overdose on paracetemol than on heroin! If addicts knew that their heroin was pure everytime they bought it, they would find it easier to guage the appropiate dosage and as a results deaths would fall dramatically. Additionally, clean needles could be provided - preventing HIV and hepatitus from spreading, again reducing the deaths linked to drugs significantly.
There is a lot of debate about whether the price of heroin would rise or fall if it was legalised. At the moment the typical price of heroin is £40 for a gram, and the average purity is somewhere around 40%. In contrast, the NHS can produce 100% pure heroin for £6 a gram, which means the black market price is 35 times steeper. Obviously the government would tax the drug excessively and drive the price up: but heroin dealers could never compete with the government on this one. The black market is a dangerous business with prison sentences being risked, or even murders from rival drug gangs. These risks are factored into the price, driving them upwards. Plus even if legal heroin somehow became more expensive, the addict would still prefer to use clean and safe heroin, with a clean needle, than resort to the black market alternative. In this country alcohol and cigarettes are legal: do you buy these from the black market? Even if they were offered tax free, nobody in their right mind would buy them. Overall I feel confident that legalised heroin would be available cheaper than on the black market anyway. For the addict the lower price may again save lives; currently most addicts inject the drug because it is the most cost-effecient way of taking it. However, if cheaper there is a good chance that more people would instead smoke heroin, which has never caused a death.
Addiction is a big reason for heroin being illegal, yet alcohol is the only substance on the planet that can kill somebody outright from withdrawal. This isn't to say that heroin withdrawal is trivial, obviously, but if we can live under a society where alcohol is legal it doesn't then seem quite so unplausible for heroin to be legalised also. The fact is that if legalised, heroin addiction wouldn't be such a problem; with clean heroin being provided, and the extensive presence of drug rehabilitation clinics (funded by the taxes on drugs) which would help the addict and treat their addiction as a medical issue rather than a criminal one.
The most common argument against legalising heroin appears to be that it would normalise it and increase the number of addicts. This seems logically and empirically unfounded; I'm sure everybody in society is aware that a drug called heroin exists, and that it is dangerous. That would still be the case if legalised, maybe it would be easier to get hold of - but usage would surely only go up by the amount of people who currently want to do heroin, but can't because they ca't get hold of it. How many is that?! If anybody wants to do heroin, knowing the risks involved, they'll damn well have found their heroin by now. I have faith in people to understand that just because heroin is legal, it doesn't mean it is a good idea to start using it. To be absolutely sure of this I propose that drugs education is taught in all schools from the age of 10, and that this drugs education is based on objective facts instead of fear tactics that indirectly lead to deaths from lack of real education and awareness. Crucially, heroin was decriminalised in Portugal a decade ago, and all evidence suggests that heroin use has actually decreased (as well as crime and deaths related to drug abuse.)
For the non using taxpayer it means you're not funding police enforcement of prohibition, nor are you funding the prisons to detain them, which would save millions when it comes to heroin or billions when it comes to drugs as a whole. At the same time the taxes generated from selling heroin in a controlled way would create affluence in society because the government could keep this money and lower taxes elsewhere because of it - and when everyone then has more money they'll spend it on cars or whetever and the economy will grow. Why are we choosing for this money to go into the hands of evil drug dealers instead? And as touched upon earlier money generated would go towards rehabilitation clinics where you can go if you're fed up of taking heroin and just want to stop, and go back into the workforce as a normal citizen (which again would help the economy, if people were working rather than sitting about in prison or even dying, because of prohibition.) This is what a desperate user would choose, rather than mugging people, because controrary to the medias portray of heroin addicts, they don't enjoy mugging people, and want an alternative. This also links to the earlier point of lower prices: which means that heroin addicts would be less likely to mug or burgle than they would be under prohibition.
Other benefits to society would be the elimination of organised gangs within the UK, and a reduction in drug barrens from abroard importing substances into the country. It would also produce jobs from those who grow the drugs, produce the drugs and sell the drugs (I don't want drugs to be used anywhere; I believe in designated areas for consumption), additionally this drugs policy could even help other countries such as Afghanistan as firstly our troops would stop their destructive policy of destroying their opium fields, and destroying their livelyhood, but instead we could trade with them freely and fairly - giving them profits which could be used to boost their infastructure, to to prosper as a nation. This links strongly with the fact that I want free trade with all nations, at all times; and that I don't support military intervention abroard.
Finally (yes, I'll stop soon) this is a case of civil liberties. Should the government stop somebody with cancer from smoking? Or someone with diabetes from eating burgers, should it criminalise self-harm, and so on. I'm going to end this post with a quotation I rather like:
"It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve." – Henry George
Thursday 30 July 2009
A general outlook
My main criticisim of most political blogs I read would be that they focus far too much on the philosophy and ideology of politics, and the arguments become increasingly vague and detatched from reality. In order to prevent this happening to my blog I'm going to discuss current events in the news, and I will discuss these events from a minarchist libertarian perspective.
But before I begin doing this, I think one post is required that is more general. Politics is very complicated, and it doesn't help that people with different opinions often borrow eachothers terminology. To resolve this confusion I'm going to explain what different words mean to me, and of course I'm going to explain what a Minarchist Libertarian believes in, and why I choose to believe in this over other political philosophies.
A good start would be to outright reject the concept of definining yourself as either "left-wing" or "right-wing" as this is too simplistic. Online there is a political test called the 'political compass' test, I'm sure most of you have heard of this. Whilst the test itself has horribly slanted questions, it does introduce nicely the concept that there should be a whole new axis added to the equation. Right down the middle of your left-right line there should be a vertical line - which then creates four different positions. The horizontal line represents economics, and the vertical line represents social policy.
Straight away this changes the face of politics entirely. This is where the political compass website places many of the mainstream parties in the UK, in 2008:
An interesting observation here is that the BNP party is actually defined as being left-wing, wheras in the media they are constantly referred to as being "far right" - the reason I am eager to stress this point is that according to my definitions I am actually the one who is far-right, however, I am also the exact opposite of the BNP and I want to make sure I am never associated with them in anyway. If there is still any confusion, here is the websites explanation for where they place the BNP:
"It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as extreme right. The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear."
So where does a Minarchist Libertarian fit into this? Unlike any mainstream political party I fit into the 'bottom right' box, which means that I am economically a 'neo liberal' (but I prefer the term free-marketer) and socially I am apparently a 'libertarian' (and again I disapprove of the websites terminology here, libertarianism is as much economical as it is social, the term 'liberal' works here, I am socially liberal.) I am also aware that this website places the liberal democrats into my area: and of the big three parties that is who I would probably vote for - but firstly I am far more 'extreme' than the liberal democrats and on social issues especially I would be hugging that bottom line, and secondly I simply don't think that they are actually a right-wing party due to the huge precense of "social democrats" in the party who are effectively socialists who are also socially liberal. Finally, I hope it is now clear that a libertarian truly is the opposite to the BNP, who market themselves as "the labour party your parents voted for" - in other words, as a socialist party (that happens to be horrifically authoritarian in addition to that.)
Finally, I am going to quickly summarise what a Minarchist Libertarian believes, and why I identify myself as one. Firstly, when it comes to defining your social values - issues such as freedom of speech, immigration, capital punishment, warfare, drugs policy, prostitution and so on, the real difference between being authoritarian and liberal is the level of involvement of the government. In all of those examples I listed, and all others which I just don't have time to list, the more a government is doing to supress those things, the more authoritarian it is being. However if you believe that most, or all, of the above should be a matter of choice for the individual - free from state intervention - then you are socially a liberal. A libertarian such as myself sees society as 60 million individuals who each have their own set of morals and values, and I believe that legislation over morals should be an absolute last resort. For example, many people feel that prostitution is morally 'wrong' and should be illegal. Whilst on a personal level I agree with them: I do not believe the role of government is to put people into prison for making a decision that it sees as morally questionable, if they are consenting adults of a sound mind, who is the victim? Not to mention the fact that when the government intervenes on social issues even with the best intentions, it runs the risk of exasperating the problem, to give another example, prohibition of drugs makes illegal substances far more dangerous than they would be if they were legal and regulated - it also creates organised crime, and all evidence suggests that it actually increases drug use compared to the alternatives of decriminalistion or even full legalisation.
As a student my social values don't tend to raise many eyebrows, but on economic issues I am often faced with criticism. This is because economically I am "right-wing", and yes this means that I prefer the conservatives to labour, and I prefer UKIP to the conservatives. Many of those who take the political compass test come out as "bottom left" - and whilst that is largely because the questions are designed to produce that outcome - it is also partially because that really is the position of many students. The concept of being in favour of capitalism seems outrageous.
The point I would make is that I do not support capitalism as we know it in modern society. What I support is "free-market" capitalism which we do not have. The consistency between my economic and social values is that economically speaking: free-market capitalism requires minimal government intervention. In fact if you google "minarchism" this is the definition that comes up first:
"Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government or limited-government libertarianism) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression."
It now becomes clear that taken to it's extreme, my political position would actually be anarchy. Though I have nothing but contempt for anarchists who give libertarianism a bad name by making it look too extreme and unworkable. It's a bit like somebody who is left-wing having contempt for communists for giving them a bad name.
Some people believe that the economics of society are totally seperate to the social aspects. They believe that you can increase the public sector at the expense of the private sector - and this create a huge government with more and more government officials whose job it is to make decisions on your behalf - without them then using that power to legislate over your day to day life socially. I think this is naive at best, dangerous at worst - it is no coincidence that the Nazis and in modern times the BNP were both economically socialists. True capitalism actually ensures freedom for the individual by reducing (though not eliminating) the role of government in society. Another positive of capitalism can better be expressed by a nobel prize economist than myself:
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what colour people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another." - Milton Friedman.
As I said at the beginning of this post, which seems so long ago - in the future I will confine myself to discussing a single issue which is currently in the news, but it seemed sensible to give a more vague overview of my ideas first.
But before I begin doing this, I think one post is required that is more general. Politics is very complicated, and it doesn't help that people with different opinions often borrow eachothers terminology. To resolve this confusion I'm going to explain what different words mean to me, and of course I'm going to explain what a Minarchist Libertarian believes in, and why I choose to believe in this over other political philosophies.
A good start would be to outright reject the concept of definining yourself as either "left-wing" or "right-wing" as this is too simplistic. Online there is a political test called the 'political compass' test, I'm sure most of you have heard of this. Whilst the test itself has horribly slanted questions, it does introduce nicely the concept that there should be a whole new axis added to the equation. Right down the middle of your left-right line there should be a vertical line - which then creates four different positions. The horizontal line represents economics, and the vertical line represents social policy.
Straight away this changes the face of politics entirely. This is where the political compass website places many of the mainstream parties in the UK, in 2008:
An interesting observation here is that the BNP party is actually defined as being left-wing, wheras in the media they are constantly referred to as being "far right" - the reason I am eager to stress this point is that according to my definitions I am actually the one who is far-right, however, I am also the exact opposite of the BNP and I want to make sure I am never associated with them in anyway. If there is still any confusion, here is the websites explanation for where they place the BNP:
"It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as extreme right. The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear."
So where does a Minarchist Libertarian fit into this? Unlike any mainstream political party I fit into the 'bottom right' box, which means that I am economically a 'neo liberal' (but I prefer the term free-marketer) and socially I am apparently a 'libertarian' (and again I disapprove of the websites terminology here, libertarianism is as much economical as it is social, the term 'liberal' works here, I am socially liberal.) I am also aware that this website places the liberal democrats into my area: and of the big three parties that is who I would probably vote for - but firstly I am far more 'extreme' than the liberal democrats and on social issues especially I would be hugging that bottom line, and secondly I simply don't think that they are actually a right-wing party due to the huge precense of "social democrats" in the party who are effectively socialists who are also socially liberal. Finally, I hope it is now clear that a libertarian truly is the opposite to the BNP, who market themselves as "the labour party your parents voted for" - in other words, as a socialist party (that happens to be horrifically authoritarian in addition to that.)
Finally, I am going to quickly summarise what a Minarchist Libertarian believes, and why I identify myself as one. Firstly, when it comes to defining your social values - issues such as freedom of speech, immigration, capital punishment, warfare, drugs policy, prostitution and so on, the real difference between being authoritarian and liberal is the level of involvement of the government. In all of those examples I listed, and all others which I just don't have time to list, the more a government is doing to supress those things, the more authoritarian it is being. However if you believe that most, or all, of the above should be a matter of choice for the individual - free from state intervention - then you are socially a liberal. A libertarian such as myself sees society as 60 million individuals who each have their own set of morals and values, and I believe that legislation over morals should be an absolute last resort. For example, many people feel that prostitution is morally 'wrong' and should be illegal. Whilst on a personal level I agree with them: I do not believe the role of government is to put people into prison for making a decision that it sees as morally questionable, if they are consenting adults of a sound mind, who is the victim? Not to mention the fact that when the government intervenes on social issues even with the best intentions, it runs the risk of exasperating the problem, to give another example, prohibition of drugs makes illegal substances far more dangerous than they would be if they were legal and regulated - it also creates organised crime, and all evidence suggests that it actually increases drug use compared to the alternatives of decriminalistion or even full legalisation.
As a student my social values don't tend to raise many eyebrows, but on economic issues I am often faced with criticism. This is because economically I am "right-wing", and yes this means that I prefer the conservatives to labour, and I prefer UKIP to the conservatives. Many of those who take the political compass test come out as "bottom left" - and whilst that is largely because the questions are designed to produce that outcome - it is also partially because that really is the position of many students. The concept of being in favour of capitalism seems outrageous.
The point I would make is that I do not support capitalism as we know it in modern society. What I support is "free-market" capitalism which we do not have. The consistency between my economic and social values is that economically speaking: free-market capitalism requires minimal government intervention. In fact if you google "minarchism" this is the definition that comes up first:
"Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government or limited-government libertarianism) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression."
It now becomes clear that taken to it's extreme, my political position would actually be anarchy. Though I have nothing but contempt for anarchists who give libertarianism a bad name by making it look too extreme and unworkable. It's a bit like somebody who is left-wing having contempt for communists for giving them a bad name.
Some people believe that the economics of society are totally seperate to the social aspects. They believe that you can increase the public sector at the expense of the private sector - and this create a huge government with more and more government officials whose job it is to make decisions on your behalf - without them then using that power to legislate over your day to day life socially. I think this is naive at best, dangerous at worst - it is no coincidence that the Nazis and in modern times the BNP were both economically socialists. True capitalism actually ensures freedom for the individual by reducing (though not eliminating) the role of government in society. Another positive of capitalism can better be expressed by a nobel prize economist than myself:
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what colour people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another." - Milton Friedman.
As I said at the beginning of this post, which seems so long ago - in the future I will confine myself to discussing a single issue which is currently in the news, but it seemed sensible to give a more vague overview of my ideas first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
