Category Archives: libertarianism

Libertarian Alliance Comment On UK Election Result

Britain, Democracy, Elections, libertarianism

Sean Gabb, Director of the UK Libertarian Alliance (he’s a friend), on the upshot of the elections in England:

“This was not a general election in which a distinctively libertarian force was likely to win power. There was also no chance of a win for traditionalist conservatives. We were not seriously consulted on the European Union, the American alliance, immigration, multiculturalism, drugs, due process civil liberties, the response to alleged man-made climate change, the dominance of big business corporatism, and many other issues of great importance. Instead, given the electoral system we have, we had a choice between difference emphases within a single consensus.

I chose to vote Conservative because, on balance, I believed that the Labour Party was the most likely to turn the country into a naked police state. I am glad that Labour lost. At the same time, I am glad that the Conservatives did not win an overall majority. Given that anything short of a huge and unmanageable majority would have given David Cameron all reason to suppose he was the Anointed One, a hung Parliament is the best outcome.

A Con-Lib pact or whatever sort will not address the issues mentioned above. But it probably will abolish identity cards and the database state that it fronts. It will probably not ‘regulate’ home education. It may rein in the Police and the bureaucracy. Even if the country does not become a better place, it may not grow worse as fast as it would under a Labour Government.

Above all, a majority Labour Government would have fixed the system to keep itself in power forever. It would have used its own creatures in the Police and the bureaucracy to harass and perhaps even to murder its opponents. A Con-Lib pact will do none of these things. It will allow a free and fair election at the end of its term, in which some distinctively libertarian or traditionalist force may have a better chance of making its voice heard.”

[SNIP]

Listen to Sean’s interview with the BBC against compulsory voting. Do you know anyone in the US who verbalizes and reasons as Sean does? On choosing to withhold the vote as a judgment:

“The people have looked at these three nauseous political parties and said, ‘None of the above.'” And, “I will do anything short of assassination to get rid of Gordon Brown as prime minister.”

We know what that feels like.

Update II: You Can Check-Out Any Time You Like, But You Can Never Leave!’

Economy, Europe, Fascism, Government, libertarianism, Natural Law, Private Property, Taxation

Swiss bankers can no longer perform a function which in Switzerland is legal and commendable: helping private property owners shield their assets against legalized theft. The Swiss are not allowed to uphold victimless laws that contradict their ultimate sovereign: Uncle Sam.

YourMoneyInfo.com: “The Swiss laws do not consider tax evasion as a criminal offense. [They recognize that a man’s property is his and his alone?! Is this possible?!] The Swiss banks do not release the identity of the account unless the foreign government proves that the account holder has committed a crime. [Or unless pressured by big bully US, the protector of freedom the world over.]

The US has managed to dispense with the venerated traditions in the financial sector of an ostensibly sovereign state. I repeat myself, but next time you hear Messrs Hannity, Steyn and others of their ilk wax about the US being the last bastion of freedom, fire off a corrective email. Point out that our government lawyers have been prosecuting UBS AG, a Zurich and Basel-based financial establishment, and its American clients, for tax evasion. (You’ll probably be told that we should have declared war, or bombed Basel…)

When they are not bailing out failed financial institutions, our statists are bankrupting viable ones.

Recommended reading: “The War on Tax Havens”

And “Hotel California“:

Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
‘Relax,’ said the night man,
‘We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!’

Update I: A “Robin Hood tax” they are calling it, and, no doubt, BHO will be on board: Under the guise of “sparing the taxpayers another massive public bailout of the financial sector,” the International Monetary Fund has “called for a financial stability contribution (FSC), which should be paid by all financial institutions, not just banks, and used to bail out weak and failing firms.”

Now note how these statists who are corralling us all into a big pen cleverly build their new scheme on a faulty premise: the idea that bailouts are a financial fait accompli. Since when? And who dictatorially decides to commandeer taxpayers monies to bail out financial institutions that ought to be allowed to fail? They do!

Update II (April 22): A correction to our reader hereunder: Neal Boortz is a “liberventionists”; “a statist, not a libertarian.” Anything he supports is usually an indication to the contrary

Update II: Beck: ‘I’m With Ron Paul’ (Breaking From The Pack)

Debt, Economy, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Glenn Beck, Homeland Security, libertarianism, Ron Paul, War

A good few posts ago, I observed that “in his groundbreaking series on the American Progressive Movement, Fox News personality Glenn Beck, previously an unambiguously pro-war military-booster, was inching towards examining his support for the kind of state expansion (via warfare) the founders would have abhorred.

Glenn made the final leap today to a non-interventionist foreign policy emphasizing American interests and self-defense and no nation building. He said the words, “I am with Ron Paul.” This could be good for the country—unless Beck is forced by his backers (FoxNews) to back down.

For example, this reasonable remark of Obama’s is drawing FoxNews ire:

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

I will post the Beck YouTube feature as soon as it’s up (readers are welcome to beat me to it).

Update: “America Is a Republic, Not an Empire” by Glenn Beck:

“The example we set now is what pisses everyone off: We say we’re going to spread democracy, but we bed dictators, we bow to Saudi princes, when it’s to our advantage. George Washington wanted us to be like the Swiss: Enemy of none, friend to all. Places like Germany — hey, we’re glad you are all straightened out, but we’re pulling out, you’re on your own. We’re not staying. We need to get out of the Korean Peninsula and Japan. No longer will we be the world’s loiterers.

The United States spends approximately $102 billion annually to maintain troops, equipment, fleets and bases overseas — if you count Iraq and Afghanistan it jumps to $250 billion. Well, I’m tired of being the world’s policeman. And in many cases we are the world’s loiterers. We need to have a “no loitering” policy.

That policy comes from the progressives. The Republicans say we’ll send in the “green helmets” and just nation build our way to global security. The liberals want to do it through the United Nations; they want to send in the “blue helmets” — which we pay for.

This doesn’t work. I don’t want to nation build. I don’t want a global government or military force.

And for all the Don Rumsfelds out there watching who are cursing me out right now because they think no time is a good time to cut defense spending. Well, maybe this will help. This chart shows who accounts for all military spending in the world.

Almost half of all military spending in the world — 47 percent — is America. The next biggest spender is Europe — that’s not even a country, they spent $289 billion on military-related expenses. We almost spent that much outside our country for our own defense!

So don’t tell me we can’t afford to cut back. Clearly we can.

And when we are in a situation like Afghanistan, we fight to win it. With all of our technology today, why can’t we get in and out of Afghanistan in a couple of years? Because the politicians have their grimy little fingers on everything. Take the military off the leash; if you decide to go to war, unhook those dogs and get the hell out of the way.”

Update II (April 16): Together with the Cato Institute, the author of the blog Downsizing the Federal Government in particular, Beck has been running pragmatic, hour-long workshops on where and how much to slash. Pretty much everything. The man is a force of nature.

Back to the matter of Beck’s “I’m with Ron Paul on foreign policy” statement: This too is a very important development. Beck is pulling away from the neoconservative pack at Fox. By declaring war on their gratuitous wars he has driven a wedge between himself and the likes of Hannity, O’Reilly, Krauthammer, Kristol, and all the followers (I don’t know a Republican ditto head who doesn’t go along with the war-all-the-time = a strong national defense formula). The unity of the ditto heads on war policy was unshakable.

Again: By denouncing the war talisman, Beck, a major star on the Right, has created oscillation in the ossifying GOP. He has broken a united front which—thanks to the likes of Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, O’Reilly; National Review, Weekly Standards—seemed unchallenged.