Randomly Selected Article or Link

Naim Zidane, reported the Telegraph last week, is a 70 year old Palestinian who all his life has worked in a vineyard owned by the Italian priests at the West Bank Salesian monastery of Cremisan, near Beit Jala, not far from Bethlehem. They've been working together as a community for 120 years. But soon, it appears, the Israeli security barrier will drag this last West Bank vineyard into the Israeli side of the wall, just as they have ripped away the livelihoods of thousands of other West Bank Palestinians with the closing off of many olive groves over the past few years.

Meanwhile, last night, they once again attacked civilian infrastructure in another sovereign state, Lebanon, closing Beirut airport with rocket attacks, in reprisals against a geurilla organization, Hezbollah, sponsored and many say, I gather, controlled by a third, Syria, for kidnapping two Israeli military personnel. And in the past few days seventy Palestinians and one Israeli, including, as always, mostly civilians, and with them lots of children, have been killed in Israeli incursions into the largest concentration camp on the planet, the Gaza strip, also, it seems, because some of their fellow "countrymen" if Palestine can be called, yet, a country, kidnapped an Israeli soldier who was, presumably, on his way to maim and kill more Palestinians.

I really hesitate to post about Israel. If I am lucky my visitor numbers will rise. But probably at the expense of abuse that seems to be meted out against anyone who says anything negative about Israel. I'm a pacifist. And I understand that things have been difficult, shall we say, in that part of the world for several decades. I believe, I think, in a two state solution, not because I support Israel - if Israel hadn't carved itself out of the desert in the first half of the twentieth century I certainly wouldn't be creating it now. But it exists, and as a pragmatist, I believe there are a whole load of peace-loving Israelis, who arrived there and brought their families up there, hoping for some kind of peaceful co-existence with those who also viewed that land as part of their history and we should work for that peaceful co-existence.

But can you imagine the uproar there would have been if, say, the US military had gone about searching for those two of their soldiers, Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker, who were kidnapped by allegedly al-Qaeda linked insurgents in Iraq, by killing civilians and bombing civilian infrastructure there? Like the battle of Falluja? Despite all my misgivings about the US government's lack of respect for the rule of law, I cannot for the life of me see why Israel gets away with these things, almost unremarked upon.

Our seeming collective myopia disgusts me - note to any hardcore Zionists about to yell at me - not Israel per se, but us, who seem to let this violence trickle through in the inside pages of newspapers and down in the bottom half of the news hour, with hardly a mention, either to condemn, or to discuss solutions. Maybe this latest attack on the civilian infrastructure of a country that in recent years, despite the upheavals caused by the death of President Rafik Hariri a while back, has been getting itself back on its feet, will refocus attention on what's going on in the area.

Punishment attacks are the weapons of a desperate regime. They are disgusting. Against the rule of law. People who support, as I do, a two state solution (though I have to say with deep, deep misgivings about the carving out of settlements whenever it suits them leaving the West Bank looking like a land strafed with bomb craters like the Somme battlefield) will eventually lose sympathy and wonder what it is we actually support - which ones are the murdering terrorists. Because terrorism is exactly what's been going on in Gaza; state sponsored terrorism, and state sponsored theft as in the case of Naim Zidane's employers' vineyard.

And I for one am losing patience with it. Whatever the hurdles, whatever the attitudes of those they feel are ranged against them, Israel can be the "better man" in its response, respecting the rule of law. When I was young, I just about remember Entebbe - we were I think in Kenya at the time. We thought the surgical precision of Israeli special forces when they wanted to be was second to none in the world. Maybe that was naive (I was only seven I think and soldierly antics were exciting, not threatening), but it seems to me they have become little more than the terrorists they condemn. And if we lose patience with the situation, if we give up hoping for a peaceful, adult, settlement, then I would imagine that Israel's death throes could be as bloody as its birth-pangs. And we will not care, because we'll have grown used to the bloodshed, and really have stopped trying to work out who are the good guys or not.

There's often talk about the "younger generation" who have only ever known Tony Blair in charge in their political memories. Well, in a way that applies to me too. Of course at forty, I have more political memories than that (including writing, at age 11, to someone called Williams who was in charge of schools at the time, or so I thought, to complain about the discipline regime at my private preparatory school!), but I only really got involved in party politics after the 1997 General Election.

So far as I am aware my family had always voted Liberal. They were part of that Scottish cohort who were not in the Kirk (Tory party at prayer) and were not Catholic (who it was always said were instructed by their bishops to vote Labour), but Gospel Hall Brethren and so in that non-conformist set that gravitated in Scotland to the Liberals.

But, at public school, self interest put me off ever wanting to vote Labour (who would, we were all told, close down private schools) and, whilst my early career in the City was unashamedly inspired by the Thatcherite loads-a-money era, I could not stomach voting for a party that treated me as a gay man as inferior (don't argue with me here, they did, and as recent opinion polling amongst their members shows still do at heart). I had the great misfortune, at my second voting General Election, to live in the constituency of that odious woman woman Jill, now Baroness, Knight, author of the hated Section 28.

Despite all the promise of equality from Labour, I actually contacted Millbank during the 1997 campaign, the first in which I had gone so far as to actually read party manifestos, to ask whether Labour party policy of repeal of section 28 and equalisation of the age of consent were specific first term promises and was told they were not. So that settled me on joining the Lib Dems. And for a year and a half I was just that, a "sleeping" member, paying my dues (albeit at the rate of the minimum annual subscription per month in order to salve my conscience at not actually doing anything active!).

Whilst there was a certain feeling of relief that Labour had routed what had become a moribund and corrupt government, and some smiles at the "New Labour, New Britain" agenda, little did I know that the reign of Tony Blair would lead me to a deep loathing of national politics, the notion of the nation state even and crucially the role of an individual claiming to "lead" and "speak for" an entire nation of sixty million different opinions. The size of that first, and indeed second, majority, silenced real political debate as surely as a one party state would have done. Only the House of Lords, which I loathe as an institution, seemed willing and capable of opposing anything, and their days were numbered.

I am hard pressed to name anything I think Blair has done in his ten years that was done voluntarily and with good grace and for the better. Age of Consent and Section 28 were both changed in the end, but reluctantly, after European Court intervention in the case of the former and after unnecessary delay in the case of the latter. Devolution for Scotland and Wales was good, but in reality all but predated Blair in the form of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Wealth inequality has been up and down, the Big Brother state has moved on apace, there feels like there has been just as much massaging of figures, and certainly more spin than ever before, and little if any feeling of a real ideology behind it all. I've never felt before that politics was merely a cynical exercise in winning elections to perpetuate one's own power at almost any cost.

At the same time I have flirted with Trots, and then "seen the cat", respectively looking for the small government option - either anarchist in the former case or "geo-libertarian" once I had had my eyes opened, precisely because, like nobody else before him, the smarmy, spinning, unassailable man at number ten had put me off government entirely. Two books that kicked off that search for a personal ideology are "An Intelligent Person's Guide to Liberalism (Intelligent Person's Guide Series)" (Conrad Russell) and "The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery and Destructive Economics" (Michael Rowbotham). And now not even the Lib Dems can adequately express my radicalism for economic and constitutional reform, to end protectionist monopoly and elected dictatorship respectively.

So it's good bye and good riddance Mr Blair. I'd rather you didn't take any international man of mystery jobs that would mean me continuing to see your smarmy git face on my television or newspapers ever again. In fact, maybe you'd consider going to Mars for a while. Thank goodness nothing, not even conversion to Rome, can bring you a plenary indulgence any more, and there remains a chance that you will be brought before some authority you might recognize at some point in your future, to answer for your actions.

Technorati Tags: political obituary, tony blair

Over on the Ludwig von Mises Economics blog last week, Ben O'Neill, an Australian libertarian and academic, wrote a piece against the welfare state in Is the Starving Man Free? and the full article is here:

'Modern "liberals" who advocate the view that government should provide us with the necessities or alleged necessities of life rarely appreciate that this assistance rests on a system of mass robbery and enslavement that is highly inimical to their professed belief in liberty. In fact, the advocates of such policies present them in quite the opposite light, as enhancing our liberty.'

Now, much as I hesitate to go up against an article at the great Mises Institute, this issue goes to the heart of differences between some liberals and some libertarians, though not this liberal libertarian. Indeed it is one of the core messages of the "Liberal Alternative" book we are compiling under the auspices of ALTER, and, to give it a plug, what I will be talking about in the ALTER fringe next Saturday evening in Liverpool, alongside James Graham, Tony Vickers and Vince Cable.

I also believe it gives some libertarians a "bad rap"; seeming to leave the "safety net" to the possible vicissitudes of private charity gives them a "beggar thy neighbour" reputation. Yet Liberals, and before the Ayn Rand/Ludwig von Mises school of libertarianism the mutualists and individualist anarchists like Lysander Spooner, had a neat response. For the record, I tend to agree that if we take from people what they earn with their own labour and resourcefulness it is coercion and even theft, but there is a source of value that properly belongs to us all, and not, as in the current predominant model, to the occupier - rent.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

But notwithstanding this increase (of population), so vast is the territory of North America, that it will require many ages to settle it fully; and, till it is fully settled, labor will never be cheap here, where no man continues long a laborer for others, but gets a plantation of his own; no man continues long a journeyman to a trade, but goes among these new settlers, and sets up for himself.

[From: Observations Concerning for Increase of Mankind (1751), Sec. 8, Works, Vol. II, p. 225]

If we had free land, nobody would starve, unless that is they could not physically lift a spade to grow their own sustenance. The poor could up-sticks, spread out to the next available plot of unoccupied land and cultivate it. It would be a basic existence to be sure, but one that would not depend on another to provide, by state coercion or by reliance on private charity. And in time, one which could provide the most basic means of providing not just sustenance but opportunities to create wealth.

Now the fact is, we are not in that happy situation Franklin described. We do not have "free land". It is all enclosed. And indeed it would not suit modern, sophisticated, "civilized" (in the sense of "urbanized") humanity well if we did have lots of unused land lying around being unproductive. But the corollary of that is that there is no way the landless poor can sustain themselves without recourse to selling their labour to another. And in that state of desperation where one is about to "starve" one is surely more than most liable to coercion by that other. "Will work for food" maybe a simple slogan, but it hides a desperation likely to be seized upon by the unscrupulous.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

Then he says: "If I am born into the earth, where is my part? Have the goodness, gentlemen of this world, to show me my wood lot, where I may fell my wood, my field where to plant my corn, my pleasant ground where to build my cabin." ..."Touch any wood or field or house-lot on your peril," cry all the gentlemen of this world; "but you may come and work in ours for us, and we will give you a peice of bread."

[From: The Conservative, A Lecture delivered at the Masonic Temple, Boston, December 9, 1841]

Now what of the other side of O'Neill and the Mises style libertarians' claim that for the state to take anything from everyone to support the "starving man", to give him his basic needs, is "mass robbery and enslavement"? Well, as I said, I tend to agree that taking anything of what someone has made with his own labour or resourcefulness is theft. It is justified by the "liberals" that O'Neill castigates (that's most of us!) on the several grounds that it prevents a greater evil - the starving man, that it pays for the inputs that enable us to make money from our labour - our education and that of others to work for us, and the somewhat vague assertion that those who have much should give more to support those who have less. But it is still an offense against self-ownership; that which John Locke describes as being able to retain the fruits of our own labour.

But there is value in land that the owner does not create for him or herself. It is two hundred years since David Ricardo showed that rent increases to absorb the extra productivity that can be gained from a good piece of land compared with an inferior piece with no effort from the land owner, as owner. There is a perfectly reasonable strand of libertarianism, known as geolibertarianism, that asserts that since this rent is not earned by the landowner, but created by the expenditure of others, in labour and capital, that gives a particular location more social and commercial attractiveness, it is legitimate to collect this value from owners to compensate those who suffer from lack of land. And in a modern, urbanized economy, this would mean cash with which to satisfy their most basic needs, a "Citizen's Income" allowing them then to sell their labour, their bellies full and their body rested, without having to accept a potentially exploitative bargain.

Unlike taking part of what a person earns from his labour, impinging on his or her self-ownership, this can be justified because it is value that the owner does not earn for themselves, that it does not affect their ability to earn from their labour in future, and as a user fee in return for the state's or community's protection of their right to occupy such a location, a user fee in proportion to the potential natural productivity of that location, whether they make use of that potential productivity or not. Location is a monopoly, protected by the state; libertarians are against monopoly and state protection. It forms a neat, virtuous circle, from which those left without access to free land can be supported without the "mass robbery and enslavement" O'Neill rightly denounces.