Category Archives: Private Property

What Daniel Hannan Should Have Said About The BNP

Britain, Constitution, Free Speech, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Private Property

The brilliant Sean Gabb, academic, broadcaster, Director of the Libertarian Alliance in England, and a friend (who is not too good at keeping in touch), says what Daniel Hannan (scroll down) ought to have articulated about the British National Party (BNP), instead of disgorging the fascist epithet. The column you want to read in its entirety is “The British State and the BNP—The Post-Modern Tyranny of ‘Human Rights.'” Here are excerpts:

“We in Britain are endlessly told nowadays that freedom of speech does not involve the right to preach hatred and ‘intolerance.’ But it does. Freedom of speech means the right to say anything at all on any public issue, and to make any recommendation on what the law should be.”

“I was born into a Britain where this understanding was broadly accepted. I live now in a country where it is not. Thus Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote dismisses freedom of speech as an ‘almost sacred cow.’ He even appeals for support to the majesty of the British Constitution:

Over centuries our unwritten constitution has given us a framework for our democracy. From Magna Carta to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, our democracy has evolved to reflect our changing times. This framework gives us a democracy which, for all its limitations, seeks to balance individual freedoms with fairness and tolerance.

“In the technical sense, Woolley may be right. Being unwritten, the British Constitution is whatever the authorities decide it to be.

But his claim is irrelevant. A constitution does not legitimise oppression. Rather, it is legitimate so far as it protects rights. If the British Constitution no longer guarantees freedom of speech, so much the worse for the Constitution.

* Second, as said, the authorities are frightened to make a direct attack on freedom of speech. Instead, they are relying on laws that abolish freedom of association.

But this is barely less important within the liberal tradition than freedom of speech. The two rights complement each other. Freedom of speech is the right to say anything. Freedom of association involves the right to propagate what is said. It means the right of people to come together for any purpose that does not involve aggression against others. …

I am not frightened that the BNP is a party of national socialists, and that its leaders are counting the days till they can rip off their business suits, to show the black and red uniforms beneath. Under its present leader, Nick Griffin, the BNP has become a white nationalist party. The party believes in the expulsion of illegal immigrants, an in some voluntary repatriation of non-whites who are legally here, and in dismantling the Equal Opportunities police state from which people like Mr Wadham benefit. Other than this, a BNP Government might easily show more respect for the forms of a liberal constitution than have the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown—after all, this would not be difficult.

The problem is that the BNP and much of its leading personnel used to be national socialists. There are too many published statements in praise of Hitler or denouncing the Jews.” …

READ THE COMPLETE COLUMN, “The British State and the BNP—The Post-Modern Tyranny of ‘Human Rights,'” on VDARE.COM (where else?).

What? No Mention Of ‘Racism’?

Israel, Journalism, Judaism & Jews, Multiculturalism, Private Property, Race, Racism

By American standards this is a remarkable—and remarkably alien—news item from Ha’arets, the Israeli leftist, if excellent, daily. The reporting is unusual in its avoidance of biased epithets such as “racist, racism, bigotry,” etc. Just the facts, Ma’am.

Here’s the gist: Three of the nominally private, religious schools in the city of Petah Tikva refused to accept Ethiopian students “assigned to them by the municipality unless they [could] first determine if the children suit the schools’ character.”

Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar said Monday that students of Ethiopian origin could not be accepted into religious schools in Petah Tikva because of “halakhic reasons,” referring to proof of the immigrants’ Jewish status.

Sa’ar met with Amar on Sunday night and requested that he check the possibility that the Ethiopian students still not enrolled in schools be sent to secular state-funded institutions.

The laws of orthodox Judaism are exclusionary, and Ha’aretz makes that clear.

It remained for the authorities at the respective education departments to shout “racism.” As did President Shimon Peres and Nobel Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu (my father’s former friend, with whom I too took afternoon tea), who hails from the most violent country in the world: South Africa.

Against their propagandist, sanctimonious admonitions, Ha’artz manages to chronicle the events sans pejoratives. Imagine MSNBC living up to those journalistic standards, or “Pravda on the Hudson” (NYT) doing the same.

The “private” schools may wish to cease taking taxpayer funds if they want to keep their independence.

What? No Mention Of 'Racism'?

Israel, Journalism, Judaism & Jews, Multiculturalism, Private Property, Race, Racism

By American standards this is a remarkable—and remarkably alien—news item from Ha’arets, the Israeli leftist, if excellent, daily. The reporting is unusual in its avoidance of biased epithets such as “racist, racism, bigotry,” etc. Just the facts, Ma’am.

Here’s the gist: Three of the nominally private, religious schools in the city of Petah Tikva refused to accept Ethiopian students “assigned to them by the municipality unless they [could] first determine if the children suit the schools’ character.”

Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar said Monday that students of Ethiopian origin could not be accepted into religious schools in Petah Tikva because of “halakhic reasons,” referring to proof of the immigrants’ Jewish status.

Sa’ar met with Amar on Sunday night and requested that he check the possibility that the Ethiopian students still not enrolled in schools be sent to secular state-funded institutions.

The laws of orthodox Judaism are exclusionary, and Ha’aretz makes that clear.

It remained for the authorities at the respective education departments to shout “racism.” As did President Shimon Peres and Nobel Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu (my father’s former friend, with whom I too took afternoon tea), who hails from the most violent country in the world: South Africa.

Against their propagandist, sanctimonious admonitions, Ha’artz manages to chronicle the events sans pejoratives. Imagine MSNBC living up to those journalistic standards, or “Pravda on the Hudson” (NYT) doing the same.

The “private” schools may wish to cease taking taxpayer funds if they want to keep their independence.

Updated: Cash-For-Clunkers Cry Babies (& The Tragedy Of The Commons)

Conservatism, Constitution, Economy, Political Economy, Private Property, Republicans, Socialism

I don’t feel sorry for the many car dealers who opted to take taxpayer funds, via the government, and lure equally greedy and gormless customers into junking perfectly good rides, purchasing new ones instead, and taking on more debt. I’m not in the least sorry for them, now that Uncle Sam has stiffed them, no Sirree.

Ridiculous too is the incredulity the auto dealers are feigning at being stiffed (if you can call it that) by their paymaster. “We just expect the same sort of courtesy and treatment from the federal government,” they whimper. Boohoo.

“Dealers across the state are owed more than $3.6 million, according to a dealers’ group which says that so far Uncle Sam has only written three checks totaling about $14,000.”

And:

“You simply can’t ask businesses to front $200,000, $300,000 for any period of time,’ Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., told KRQE News 13. ‘These applications are simply not being processed fast enough.'”

You don’t say!

Equally stupid is the only deduction conservatives can muster: If the government can’t manage the CFC scam, how will it run the unconstitutional, confiscatory, immoral healthcare undertaking.

Of course, they omit the key phrases I just used—“scam, unconstitutional, confiscatory, immoral”—these are nowhere apparent in the debate; although Hitler is. A pretty—and pretty dumb—townhaller, taking her cues from Rush, paired health care and Hitler. Good job.)

There’s a lot conservatives can’t find words for: private property, for one. Principles is another. Nothing works in government because there is no private property. If you were given something to manage that you don’t own, have no stake in, on behalf of millions of people you don’t know, and who have no recourse against your mismanagement, except to whine like wimps—how well would you perform? Why are privately owned homes cared for and public housing trashed? Why don’t Republican and conservative bimbos and beaus of the media ever open a book and learn a few concepts.

Okay make it one crucial concept: the “Tragedy of the Commons.”

Update: To the comment below: The “calculation problem” means nothing to the lay reader. Private property means everything—or ought to. It should be understood to those who bandy about the “calculation problem” that the reason there cannot be rational allocation of resources in a state bureaucracy is because there is no private property. In a free market, the institute of private property ensures that we have prices. Prices are like a compass: pegged to supply and demand they ensure the correct allocation of resources. Conversely, in a nationalized system there are no prices because there is no private property. Absent such knowledge, misallocation of capital is inevitable.

Property precedes all else.