small government

Men in tights, spangly hats, and overall a complete waste of our time

Jock — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:13:15 +0000

Last week I had the dubious pleasure of attending a meeting in Portcullis House. Perhaps it is indicative of the almost non-existent esteem in which I hold our political institutions that I felt physically nauseous being in a building so full of meddling, superfluous, smugly self-important functionaries and flunkies.

Having a day off today, and finding myself watching the Queen's Speech shenanigans, I have to say I admire her very much more today that I have for a long time. How she can stomach what must be a three hour preparation and get out, all those flunkies in tights doing silly sixteenth century things, Jack boot Straw in his gold braided robes of office as "Lord" Chancellor which would probably pay for a penny off income tax itself farting around arse backwards and me wishing ever so sincerely he'd fall over and cement for the nation the image of Fool he appeared.

All for what, a five minute speech, telling us all how much more interference in our lives we can expect.

What would really bring Her Maj up in my estimation next year is if she finally decides she's had enough of doing all this for fifty-five years and that it's time she sacked the whole lot of the psychotic, useless megalomaniac and sycophantic twats because she knows full well they never achieve what they tell her they're going to and make a liar of her for forcing her to read such legislative drivel.

"My government has become such a sack of manure that Philip and I have decided this year to have them fertilize the roses at Balmoral and not interfere with the management of my once beautiful and powerful country, which they have signally failed to do properly all the time we've been doing this flummery and ceremony. May God bless you all in your efforts in our stables, potting sheds and rose beds."

Eugh. Vomit inducing stuff indeed. If I were Guy Fawkes, I would ensure Liz and Phil got out and then take advantage of the new proposed legislation of causing a nuclear explosion on the rest of 'em. read more »

The libertarian response to the BabyP case

Jock — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:51:25 +0000

Over at "Letters from a Tory", the question has been posed, how would libertarians have protected BabyP. It is something I thought about quite a lot when the story first broke and I've written a long response to LFAT in the comments there. But I thought it was worth posting in its own right:

I go further, in theory at least, than even LFAT's definition of libertarianism (as one who believes the state should enforce the law). I am more of an anarchist. Though people often misunderstand that as meaning absolutely no controls on what people do and no institutions to enforce them. That is wrong; anarchists would say that in doing away with government other structures, such as a “private law society ”, would emerge that are more consenual and explicitly contract and economic incentive driven. Also anarchism rests on the core belief in self-ownership and that everyone has the right to do as they please insofar as it does not affect another’s ability to do the same.

I did think quite long and hard about how the BabyP case ought to affect that perspective. The first thing I found is that there are at least another couple of dozen incidents of the death of a child (half under one and most by parents themselves) in “child cruelty” type incidents (rather than accident or bizarre whole family suicide type incidents I assume) every year in Britain. In other words, BabyP is not the unique case that the (quite justified) moral outrage it has generated seems to suggest. Maybe it’s mostly because Haringay is seen as having “form” on this issue after Climbie. It's a "good story" that "social services gets it wrong again". Not such a good story that at least another two dozen are going on every year around the country and nobody seems to care!

But the message is that whatever various social services and child protection agencies do know they “fail” a lot more than they’re telling us. My suspicion is that this is down to most other cases being completely under the radar of the state protection apparatus until it’s too late (and if so - what use are those state agencies if they are unable to prevent the most egregious abuse because they cannot see it coming?). Determined sadists are often quite good at covering their tracks. Just look at both Fritzl in Austria and our own version in Sheffield the other week. We can be shocked and say someone must have noticed that level of abuse even with the most determined concealing by the perps, but no. It happens and nobody managed to stop it or even recognize it.

Also, even in an anarchist worldview, the care of a child is something that is a joint trust between parents and the rest of society - society would have ended up paying for the effects of his tortured life, as Martin Narey (deliberately) controversially said, if he had grown up to become a “feral yob”. Indeed, as Guido says in the comments on LAFT's post, our welfare and benefits systems include some level of perverse incentive for people to have children who probably shouldn’t; or at least shouldn’t at a point in their lives when they can barely support themselves.

At the moment then we “contract out” to effectively disinterested parties (the state - who get paid in reality whatever the outcome and only get into any bother at all in the most egregious and publicly visible cases of failure) to carry out a function more properly suited to much more local, neighbourhood, and more importantly family, scrutiny. Where, in a “market anarchist” worldview, ought such oversight to lie? Can we imagine on whom there would be an economic incentive to ensure as far as is possible the safety of someone else’s child?

As others have mentioned, institutions such as the RSPCA (though I think they have been ceded too much power often) and the RNLI, already carry out an effective job in their respective fields. Something like the NSPCC would emerge as the champion of the most vulnerable in the last resort and would in a private law society be likely to take action to defend the “self-ownership” and freedom from aggression and coercion of a child, even against its parents (if it became apparent). Should a hospital say even allow a child born to someone who has not the means or willingness to make proper provision for bringing up a child (which could probably be evidenced from their pre-natal attitude or lack of attempt to make provision) to be taken home in the first place without much more scrutiny as to how good care they’re going to get?

Remember too, that we believe that in the absence of state-capitalism and the grossly distorted playing field that creates through privilege and patronage to the detriment of the poorest, even those poorest would be better equipped economically to make provision through friendly societies and such like for health care and so on. So I’m not suggesting that the poor should not be allowed to take their babies home. Just that in such an environment it would probably be more noticeable, not less, as to which parents had even made an honest attempt to make provision or establish a support network of family first, community second and paid for assistance third, and perhaps the economic incentive might fall on the delivering hospital at least to ensure that such prima facie support was available. They could then even at that early stage alert an organization such as NSPCC or find themselves on the receiving end of a negligence claim if anything bad happened.

Finally (I think), in such a more human scale society, I suggest it would be easier, not harder, for friends and neighbours to intervene earlier. It is in most of their economic interests often too not to be supporting or fostering in their midst the sort of home circumstances in which these sort of psychotic evil doers can function with impunity. Would the mother’s partner’s sadistic friend really only have been a problem for the child? Would not neighbours and other family members have an interest in ensuring they were driven from their midst? At the moment everyone is too tied up in making ends meet in an unfair world perhaps to care too much what happens next door until it spills over more obviously into their lives.

In summary, I’m not sure I can see how in an anarchist, private law type society, it could be any worse than relying on the economically disincentivised civil servants to whom we contract out our social and neighbourly awareness “duties”. And the altogether more humane, less oppressed society that ought to result from such freedoms may well be able to intervene earlier and more consensually in order to protect their own interests as well as those of the child. read more »

Internet Outlaws

Jock — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:57:43 +0000

For those of you highly skeptical of my prediction that the internet will cause the nation state as we know it to be unable to tax fairly incomes or transactions in goods and services and so cease to exist in its current form , here's a slightly different angle on it at Reason...

It seems to have finally dawned on the US government that whatever laws and regulations they pass, they will not be able to ban offshore internet gambling:

The government concedes "there are no reasonably practical steps that a U.S. participant [financial institution] could take to prevent their consumer customers from sending restricted transactions cross-border."

In other news this week about the internet and real life colliding, we also had Second Life being cited in a divorce case in the UK and a Japanese woman sued for murdering her husband's online persona.

Which are you going to be - more restrictions, ultimately futile; or building new mutual institutions to help deliver public goods in an era of a reduced ability to collect tax? read more »

Repent! For the end of the state is nigh!

Jock — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:44:27 +0000

The End is Nigh
Originally uploaded by Martin~

Or, why I am really a "geo-mutualist" and why I think you should be too!

The revolution has begun. In fact it's been building for at least twenty years. When history looks back it will not probably be able to identify a particular date, but it could do worse than choose Christmas Day 1990, the day a humble academic computing geek communicated with his server in something nobody had really heard of called "hyper text". Finally there was something useful to do with the "internet" that would eventually draw in users from well outside of the ivory towers and military research facilities that developed it. Users in every corner of the world; users of every age and race; users of every background.

And what will history say about this revolution? Will it be seen as a great leap in human freedoms, capable of finally fulfilling Cobden's vision that "peace will come to earth when the people have more to do with each other and governments less"? Or perhaps that it heralded an era of unprecedented interference in our lives by governments?

Actually, I think it is a one way bet; that eventually it will be a revolution in human freedoms, in co-operation and in innovation. Such are the players in this brave new world; hackers working to bust the Great Firewall of China and liberate a fifth of the world's population for example; Kenyans being the first to be able to make payments quickly and simply by mobile phone; privacy technologists working to keep us one level of information security ahead of the law; game players investing ever more realistic virtual worlds; their individuality and very lack of co-ordination in many cases makes it inevitable.

What politicians can do, however, is either to make the transition long and painful, or to smooth its passage for the "good of mankind" so to speak. We can choose to stick by the state and try and keep it working just as its citizens are less and less tied to it, which will inevitably lead to more and more monitoring and restrictions; or we can choose to look at how to build alternative civic institutions and mechanisms to fulfill our needs in an era when the state has much less power to intervene at least without the force that is endemic in state action becoming more and more obvious to the point of rebellion against it.

So what is the great weapon of mass destruction that is going to bring low the state as we know it? Why, tax, of course. I'll let you into a little secret: in order to function a state needs to be able to tax: in order to tax it needs to have the ability to track transactions or peoples' wealth and changes therein. And from the taxpayer's point of view, there is every incentive to try to minimize their tax liability. Up until now, or very recently, it has been only the global super-rich who have had the means and sufficient incentive to take advantage of loopholes and allowances that enable them to choose the lowest tax jurisdiction in which to crystalize out their tax liability.

But thanks to the global and interpersonal nature of this most recent communications revolution we are on the cusp of mechanisms being easily available to the big majority of people that will enable us to minimize our "financial footsteps". When most of us only ever relate to the majority of our money through pixels on a screen or numbers on a bank statement - a small minority of trade now relies on real metal or crinkly coloured paper currency - what does it matter what those pixels are called; pounds, dollars, euro, yen? What about a completely new, essentially fictitious currency perhaps, like the "Linden Dollars" of "Second Life"?

Add e-Bay and Tesco to Second Life for example and one could imagine a world in which most of your financial transactions are conducted entirely in cyberspace, in virtual worlds that know no territorial boundaries or tax regimes (or at least that could be relocated into a sympathetic tax jurisdiction quickly if necessary), but with delivery of goods and services in the physical world. That's not to say giants like Tesco and e-Bay would necessarily be best, or would necessarily even survive the upheaval.

Those widespread international (and local) interpersonal (and business-to-business) mechanisms for sophisticated modern-day barter are now within reach and threaten the very raison d'etre of many of our longest standing institutions - banking and currency, transnational corporations built in an era when intermediaries were necessary to trade with far off lands, and ultimately the basis on which the state is founded - its monopoly of taxation. At the same time we can form non-geographic communities of genuinely voluntary co-operation in which we can build trust relationships, quasi-legal ways of dealing with disputes and so on that make trade possible with people a few short years ago we would have never had a hope of even communicating with.

So, which side are you going to be on - freedom and co-operation or ever more intrusion, regulation and restriction? And how long have we got?

Some of these technologies fall into the category of "overestimated penetration at 2 years, underestimated at 10 years." I think the state will be lucky if it has another decade of relatively easily collected taxes based on productivity, sales and incomes. If people want the state to be able to function beyond that, without increasingly authoritarian intrusion into our economic lives, we need to be looking now at how to make it pay its way through user fees for any value for money services we want it to provide. And as soon as it does of course it must also open itself to competition - else it's a monopoly again whose only rationale is to use its discretionary power to rip off the very people who both fund and use its services.

Unsurprisingly any of the various forms of land value tax will do to start with and would be especially beneficial implemented soon, near the bottom of the crash in land values currently underway. The present situation in financial markets offers an ideal opportunity for new means of trading without the sort of money so invidiously inflated and deflated by the banking cartels. Again, these alternatives could operate either on a local scale or in an international, or non-geographic trading community. Land has the singular benefit of being immoveable. You can't virtualize land as easily as you can income - for we all still need to have a base somewhere.

There's another major reason for helping this process away from the power of and dependency on nation states rather than fighting it - the state is expensive. The sort of redistributive measures required to ensure that everyone gets a fair crack at opportunity - the level playing field - are getting more and more expensive. Our interventions into the affordable housing market for example, in the form of subsidy, will continue to rise when land values rise, subsidizing the already-haves in the name of assisting the have-nots. Far better to try to ensure the fairest of level playing fields for all than trying to play uphill on a steepening playing field.

So, when you find me criticizing the state and its acolytes, it's less about what has gone on in times past - I would say times of missed opportunity for sure - but more on how we will be able to live in future, a future I think is pretty inevitable, in which the very idea of a state with the power to tax fairly will be severely compromised. The elephant in the room needs to be dealt with, and dealt with soon. Will it be freedom, or more desperate attempts to maintain the ailing state structures? You choose! read more »

geo-libertarian, internet, monetary reform, mutualism, surveillance state, tax

Libertarian Alliance Conference, 2008 (Part II)

Jock — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:01:20 +0000

If there were a few comments after dinner on Saturday night at the NLC with new acquaintances, maybe even friends, about how little of the days' talks actually helped some of them understand Libertarianism as an idea (after all, the links between aging and nano-technology and Libertarianism could have been obscure without a primer in Libertarian philosophy first) Sunday began with something that more people would recognize as a Libertarian issue...

Session 5: Ban the Ban: The Human Cost of Prohibition by Dr John Meadowcroft
Session 6: The Idea of a Private Law Society by Prof Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Session 7: The Modern Panopticon State v Freedom: Why State ID Cards are Bad by Guy Herbert of NO2ID
Session 8: Post-modernity and Liberty by Marc-Henri Glendinning

Session 5: Ban the Ban: The Human Cost of Prohibition by Dr John Meadowcroft

Meadowcroft lectures on Public Policy at King's College London and has recently edited a book called "Prohibitions" for the Institute of Economic Affairs examining the effects of the outlawing in various parts of the world of a variety of what may be regarded as "victimless" or "consensual" goods, services and activities such as recreational drugs, boxing, firearms, pornography, prostitution, alcohol and others.

He showed how in every case the outcome for the users, consumers or participants as well as the wider community is almost always worse than the effects of that which is outlawed. These arguments should be familiar to most of my readers, for I have rehearsed them, at least in respect of recreational drugs, often enough. The handing of lucrative markets to organized crime, the lack of knowledge, information and harm minimization facilities to users, the side effects of this crime on others in the community, the corruption of public officials and so on.

It was interesting in particular to see how murder rates seem, possibly coincidentally of course, to have risen and show consistent continuing rises after the banning of guns in most countries including the UK, since this is an area I know even some Libertarians (including myself until recently) find quite difficult to argue.

Consequently, he argues, prohibition is bad public policy. Rather than assisting in preventing harm it always increases harm from things that are essentially, in the classical Liberal sense, none of the state's business - what you do with your own bodies and lives which by and large do not affect others, except with consent.

I notice that, as they apparently do with all their publications, the IEA has sent a copy of "Prohibitions" to every Member of Parliament. I am sure their mailbags are full of this somewhat higher quality of "junk mail" as no doubt some of them see it and one wonders how many of them have read it, or even passed it onto their staff to read it and brief them on it. I shall be asking Lib Dem MP Tom Brake in particular, currently embroiled in an illiberal attempt to further curtail the availability of cannabis seeds against party policy, what he thought of the book and how it affected his decision to press ahead with his ill-advised private member's bill or whatever device he used.

Over the summer, in the run up to party conference in September, a number of us noted that, for a supposedly liberal party in which one might expect prohibitions to be roundly condemned as a matter of course, that we do not have a party group, association, "ginger group" whatever you want to call it, dedicated to fighting the seeming increasing tendency by our own policy makers to join in with orgies of "bansturbation". One thing I am hoping to do is to start a group "Lib Dems Against Prohibition" and perhaps try and get a motion into Harrogate conference on the issue. Watch this space. Maybe we can get Meadowcroft up to speak at a launch event.

Following Meadoowcroft came an eagerly anticipated session by someone regarded by many, it seemed, as something of a high priest of Libertarianism, and judging by the little informal gatherings in coffee afterwards, he certainly had some new acolytes in the room...

Session 6: The Idea of a Private Law Society by Prof Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I had long understood that there was a school of thought, anarchist to the core, that you don't even need to have "law enforcement" handled by the state - for many, particularly the Classical Liberals, the idea of a "minimal state" includes, more or less, only law and order and perhaps national defence as legitimate functions of that state.

Hoppe disagrees. And disagrees compellingly with answers to what might seem the most convincingly argued objections. I will definitely want to blog further about this, so I'll keep it quite brief here. Basically he argues that this Classical Liberal vision of a minimal state is a logical impossibility. Since by its very definition the state has the "territorial monopoly on arbitration" it has no incentive to minimize itself. Since it is enforcement, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one, it has every incentive to increase the number of things it criminalizes to justify its own existence.

Instead, he posits the idea of a "Private Law" society in which individuals insure themselves against the aggression of others (in the widest possible sense - from breaches of contract to physical violence) in a free market of insurance providers (remember that we will have, effectively, abolished the state and certainly its ability to grant monopoly and protection to such providers). In the purest free market they will always have the incentive to pursue violators of the core maxim of non-aggression on behalf of their clients. And when disputes arise between insurers, counter-claims and the like, competing providers of arbitration (appeal) services also have an incentive to produce objectively fair outcomes. Their clients also have the greatest incentives to be themselves non-aggressors - to abuse a familiar phrase you would lose your no claims bonus if you biffed someone!

It probably needs more explanation than can be given here and as I say I want to blog about this more, because he certainly convinced me. I do, of course, have a certain disagreement with him about rights in landed property in particular that I need to think on and try and reconcile, but it a compelling vision of how a truly free society unencumbered by a monopolistic state could be considerably fairer and lead to much less rather than more confrontation and aggression simply because of the financial incentives involved.

I think it probably leaves me with one area of policy to explore further and understand better before I can call myself an individualist-anarchist - welfare, but this one is a significant step towards that! If I remember this conference for just one thing, it will have been Hoppe's contribution, I am sure. And inspired choice of speaker whom we were extremely lucky to get hold of who explained what will for many be one of the far outer reaches of Libertarianism that even many "hard core" Libertarians will have been challenged by I suspect.

And so, from the most theoretical talk of the weekend to what must be one of the most pressing issues for anyone concerned about our liberty in a very practical sense here in the UK...

Session 7: The Modern Panopticon State v Freedom: Why State ID Cards are Bad by Guy Herbert of NO2ID

Again, this session deserves a blog post of its own, and so I will keep this brief. Most of us in the room were I am sure already pretty united in our opposition to the National ID card program being prosecuted by the Labour government. But for me, however strong that opposition, it has largely been from the heart - the "I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing" of Clarence Henry Wilcock in 1950 quoted by Nick Clegg in his leadership campaign and since.

Guy Herbert provided the intellectual ammunition for me argue from the head and not just the heart, to understand the sinister machinations in government, and especially the bureaucracy that have attempted to foist this controlling policy on us for most of the last century. Indeed, I came away with the distinct impression that the Leviathan has been trying this for decades and all that is new is that they have finally found a government stupid or naive enough to swallow its arguments and agree to it!

At its heart, the National Identity Register (the database) is the most important issue (this much I knew, but perhaps not why). The state seeks to create the "single source of truth about the citizen", to fundamentally revolutionize the very definition of personhood, from independent individual, who is known through the various connections and activities they do to one in which it is only possible legitimately to exist with the permission of the state and the possession of its membership card.

The superficially beneficial arguments for having ID cards; that they will make your dealings with the state from which you benefit - welfare, health and so on, more efficient; that you will be better able to prove who you are in a whole range of circumstances; and, the worst, that it will help in the "War on Terror" - we've all heard them, and they do give the idea of a policy intended to help us - are not only superficial, but that the real agenda is not actually understood by most of the politicians charged with selling the idea to us.

That real agenda is about control and knowledge, the most intricate web of knowledge about every one of us. It seems likely, for example, that we will need to present our ID to rent hotel rooms, to buy mobile phones, to get bank accounts, insurance, perhaps even to rent your home, and that every time your ID is checked in one of these situations that will be logged against your entry in the National Identity Register. It will so fundamentally alter the balance between the state and the individual that it can be properly termed totalitarian. And even if implemented y people with benign motives is hugely open to abuse, both now in the sense of incompetence as the government has shown in data loss scandals over the past year and in the future in the hands of who knows what flavour of government with more sinister agendas.

Forget the politicians' assurances that safeguards will be implemented. Even since it was announced the functions the database will fulfill have ballooned more than most of us appreciate, can be extended without reference to parliament and are almost entirely in the hands of bureaucrats who do want to know every last thing about you in their area of responsibility. It is truly scary, sinister stuff, and as I say I will return to it again no doubt. And the worst part of it of course is that many, even most people accept the platitudes of politicians that this will be good for us.

I believe it is no longer acceptable for those political parties and individuals who say they oppose ID Cards and the ID Register to have little blog buttons or mere "oppositional" press releases, or "stunts" like saying we will go to jail rather than register for one, we have to up our arguments and explain more precisely the menacing revolution that the whole project threatens. If you only watch one video from the conference, I urge you to watch this one and like me, hopefully learn about the real agenda in more depth, and be appalled!

And so to the final session....

Session 8: Post-modernity and Liberty by Marc-Henri Glendinning

No disrespect to Marc-Henri Glendinning but I confess after all the excitement of Hoppe and the surge of anger generated by Herbert, it seemed a little surreal to end the day with post-modernist philosophy and, whilst I certainly wasn't switched off by this stage I will need to watch this session again to understand it and be able to comment on it more fully!

I did pick up on the general idea that (at least the vanguard and leadership of) the statist left have metamorphosized from what was at least an intellectually honest and fundamentally well-meaning promotion of socialist redistribution with an image of a fairer society, to one which is superficially much more "cuddly", that seems to provide succour and answers to everyone in a supposedly more free mixed economy and society but which masks a more insidious creeping totalitarianism that is anything but benign, putting the state at the centre and subjugate the individual. Beyond that, though, I will need to revisit the session to tell you any more.

And so ended one of the most intellectually stimulating and varied weekends I have ever had I think. I will need, as I said, one of David Friedman's nano-bot enhanced brains I think to be able to really thoroughly cogitate on the many ideas, some new to me, some just newly explained, I got out of the whole event. And I have material enough to keep my blogging controversial enough till next year's conference!

Everyone who helped arrange the weekend and all the speakers are to be commended, and the rest of the audience helped make it a convivial weekend in all sorts of ways in the formal sessions and in the more informal breaks and dinner. The "broad church" of Libertarianism was there for all to see, and I only wish that we could have had more Lib Dems there, perhaps ones skeptical about Libertarianism, for I am sure they would have had many of their misconceptions - in particular that Libertarianism is some selfish right wing "beggar thy neighbour" creed dispelled. read more »

drugs laws, surveillance state

For those of you who think you know all there is to know about libertarianism because neo-liberal Ronald Reagan said...

Jock — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:29:32 +0000

...that "government is the problem", or because anti-regulator Alan Greenspan named Ayn Rand as his biggest political influence, it's time you did some reading.

Each year the Libertarian Alliance awards the Chris R Tame Memorial Prize (named for the late founder of the Libertarian Alliance) for the best essay on a title chosen by its Director, Dr Sean Gabb, and this year's winner was announced this weekend at the Libertarian Alliance annual conference at the National Liberal Club - more on which in upcoming posts.

The Libertarian Alliance is the biggest grouping of the broad church known as Libertarianism in the UK, and this year's essay title was set just ahead of the main round of recent financial market troubles but focussing on the common idea that Libertarians would demolish the state, leaving what we currently know as big corporate capitalism to run amok. The full brief for contestants ran as follows:

Essay Title: "Can a Libertarian Society be Described as 'Tesco minus the State'?"

Explanatory Note

Many socialists and conservatives regard libertarians as cheerleaders for big business. Our belief in free enterprise is understood as support for the bigger, and therefore the more successful, corporations - General Motors, Microsoft, HSBC, Tesco, and so forth - and for an international financial system centred on the City of London.

Some libertarians are happy to be so regarded. They dislike the way in which big government provides opportunities for big business to acquire privileges that shelter it from competition. Even so, they believe that a world without government, or a world with much less government, would be broadly similar in its patterns of enterprise to the world that we now have. It would be much improved, but not fundamentally dissimilar.

Other libertarians disagree. They regard big business as fundamentally a creation of big government. Incorporation laws free entrepreneurs from personal risk and personal responsibility, and allow the growth of large business organisations that are bureaucratically managed. These organisations then cartellise their markets and externalise many of their costs. The result is systematic distortion of market behaviour from the forms it would take without government intervention. These libertarians often go further in their analysis by denying the legitimacy of intellectual property rights and ownership rights in land beyond what any individual can directly use.

Where do you stand in this debate? Are you broadly comfortable with a global capitalism that is raising billions of people from starvation towards affluence. Or are you a radical with a vision of a society that has never yet been tried and is as alien and even frightening to most people as anything promised by the Marxists.

You tell us.

No go and read the winning essay. Congratulations go to Keith Preston, for his entry entitled "Free enterprise: the antidote to corporate plutocracy"

But if you are too lazy to read the whole lot (c 3000 words - so no more than one of my usual posts!), it concludes...

"An economy organized on the basis of worker-owned and operated industries,peoples’ banks, mutuals, consumer cooperatives, anarcho-syndicalist labor unions, individual and family enterprises, small farms and crafts workers associations engaged in local production for local use, voluntary charitable institutions, land trusts, or voluntary collectives, communes and kibbutzim may seem farfetched to some, but no more so and probably less so than a modern industrial, high-tech economy where the merchant class is the ruling class and the working class is a frequently affluent middle class would have seemed to residents of the feudal societies of pre-modern times. If the expansion of the market economy, specialization, the division of labor, industrialization and technological advancements can bring about the achievements of modern societies in eradicating disease, starvation, infant mortality and early death, one can only wonder what a genuine free enterprise system might achieve, and would have already achieved were it not for the scourge of statism and the corresponding plutocracy. "

Now, you may still not be convinced that "government is the problem", but do us the decency of not conflating "deregulation" with "evil right wing global corporatism" and blaming "libertarianism" for the great big pile of dog-doo the state and economy is in right now. Especially those of you who claim to be Liberals, fellow travelers of Libertarianism for the past 150 years. read more »

Land. Value. Tax.

Jock — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:52:59 +0000

Over at Lib Dem Voice they've printed a biographical piece from the Directory of Liberal Thought about Henry George, the leading proponent of the "single tax" in the nineteenth century that many of us know nowadays as "Land Value Tax" or "Site Value Rating". Several of the correspondents in the discussion following the article felt that they had never really understood, or had explained clearly and convincingly, what LVT is and why it is such a good thing. So I'll give it a go, though many have tried before me, and no doubt many of them more intelligibly.

Land.

Forget what you might think you know about land. In economic terms land refers to the third factor of production. If "labour" is the work that goes into something, "capital" the wealth invested or expended in producing more wealth then "land", in economic terms, is everything else - "the entire material universe not produced by the application of capital and labour." So yes, it includes the land underneath our feet, but it also includes the air, the electromagnetic spectrum, the cosmos, the mineral wealth of the planet, all in their natural states, natural fertility, self-seeded trees and plants, water and fish and non-domestic animals and so on.

Now, billions that we humans number, for most purposes most of these types of land are either unlimited or of indefinite supply. Some types we don't absolutely need to survive. Others we do need to survive. Others are fixed or limited in supply. As far as I am aware, we are pretty well attached to this planet. Every single human born so far has only had the resources of this one planet to sustain them. And since we need it to survive, then we must all, every one of us, have an equal claim on its natural bounties.

In early human society, hunter gatherer family units or tribes would simply range over as big a territory as necessary to meet their nutritional needs. For some, in fertile temperate parts of the world, this may have been a small area. For others, in less fertile territory, it might be a large area of rough foraging. But of course this sort of isolation, subsistence living, is not very conducive to human development. Through trade we grow, both as individuals and as communities. And as soon as we come together to trade certain locations become more important as places where people meet and we can no longer justly grab as much space as we want without excluding others. It is at this point that land begins to have...

Value.

The value of "land" is its "rent". Just as the cost of "labour" is "wages" and the cost of "capital" is "interest". When natural resources (land) are in infinite supply, so that anyone who wants to use some of it can just take it and there will still be plenty for everyone else, it has no rental value. But as soon as humans get together in clusters, the further we move away from being a agricultural based economy and as our survival is based more on our ability to sell our specialist labour for enough to sustain us those locations where we form our clusters begin to attract rent, because many people are in the scramble to be in the best location for their market.

A landowner might be able to make more efficient use of his location and fit more people onto a particular piece of land, or they might invest in creating a work of art for the discerning occupier who will pay a premium for quality. But the landowner, as a landowner, does not have to lift a finger to contribute to any change in the rental value of that location.

And when we buy our homes, what we are doing is rolling up all the location rent for a number of years and handing it over, together with the capital value of the buildings at that location, to the previous landowner, and usually borrowing to do so. This is a key concept in LVT - we are already paying this rent either monthly when we actually rent, or up front when we buy (but inflated often by the cost of borrowing to afford it). It is this "rent" value that Land Value Tax seeks to...

Tax.

To me, this is a big misnomer, and causes a deal of confusion about LVT even amongst "Land Value Taxers". The Georgist purist like me intends really for the community to share the rent for the locations that are made valuable by that whole community equally with everyone in that community. Shared equally because, remember, we have that equal right of access to the land as our birthright as creatures tied to it for the very stuff of life, and because we all help to create that overall rent value. We more commonly think of a "tax" as an imposition used to fund government spending. The community sharing of rent is really a way of each and every one of us paying everyone else who has just as much right to make as good use of our location as we do for the inconvenience of having to avoid it because we have exclusive rights to it.

The community in question is the area within which land has rental value - technically speaking "within the margin of production". In some cases that may still be just a single town or city - the desert outside Phoenix, Arizona, for example might well tail off to zero in rental value at the end of the irrigation system pipes. In others, it could be an entire country - for example it could be argued that we are such a small country that London creates some rental value almost everywhere in the country.

The effect of this rent sharing is that those in that geographical community, however big it is, whose productivity - ability to earn - means they can only afford to live in the cheapest locations with the lowest rents will get more, perhaps much more, than they pay out in location rent. Those whose ability to earn enables them to commandeer the best locations will be paying into the community rent fund much more than they get out. And the net effect of all that is that we create an automatic, self-adjusting safety net which, if you have nothing else coming in, should enable you to eke out a basic living on the most marginal, cheapest locations.

Of course many of you reading this actually do believe that government is sometimes the best body to deliver "essential" "public" "services" and will recoil from the idea of giving people a basic income for fear it becomes an invitation to idleness. That's fine. For you, the Land Value Tax would be a way of financing those public services. I will tend to try to persuade you to take that one further step and believe that giving people their money to spend for themselves will lead to better and more efficient services in most circumstances.

The single tax.

Now this is the other side of the equation. Nobody who is serious about LVT's benefits wants to add to the current tax bill. LVT must replace other taxes if it is to achieve its most important benefits - of freeing up labour and capital to invest and work in productive wealth creation. And so Henry George called it the "Single Tax" and his adherents were called "Single Taxers". Henry George reasoned that virtually all other forms of taxation constituted tariffs, and therefore barriers to wealth creating free trade. All except tax on land in the generic economic sense affect the resources that can be applied to productive enterprise - labour, capital and, in the end, consumer spending.

And remember, the best thing about all this is that most of us, that is everyone who is still paying a mortgage or anyone who rents anyway from a landlord, are already paying this "single tax" in the form of location rent to our landlord or previous landowner, who have done nothing as landowners to earn that bit of the rent. So reductions in any of these other taxes, such as employers National Insurance, Income Taxes, VAT and capital taxes, feed straight through into more money in our pockets. And not only that, but all the disincentives to work and creating employment created by our complex income tax system and the problems associated with benefits withdrawal rates and tax credits and so on, will be removed.

Nor must you believe that the "Single Tax" only refers to a tax on the rental value of one type of land. There are other finite natural resources that we can rightly claim belong equally to all of us but which attract an economic rental value because they are scarce amongst a given community of users. One can argue for a "Land Value Tax" on the exclusive right to transmit on particular frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. Or to fly through our airspace at a particular time and place. You could even describe some mechanisms for taxing polluters as a specialized "Land Value Tax" - though it may not be the best way to deal with such issues.

Common Objections:

"We've already been taxed on the money we bought our home with"

Actually, you've been taxed on what you have paid your rent with - whether you actually rented, or bought from the previous owner by paying over several years' rent up front. Any rise(or fall) in your property's rental value by the time you come to sell it on is mostly accounted for by changes in the location rent, to which you have not actually contributed, as a landowner anyway.

But think of it in a post-LVT world - you'll have paid substantially less for your home, you'll have borrowed substantially less to do so, and you will not be paying all those unproductive taxes on income and capital anyway.

We have plenty of "double taxation" in our current system anyway. I pay tax on my income, but then when I go out and spend my post-tax income on most most goods and services I will pay VAT at another 17.5% and possibly duties. And this is an ongoing double taxation - at least with LVT we're only talking about this effect being felt once - at the implementation date and then not again because all the other taxes will have been ended.

"Land rich, income poor - the "poor widow bogey""

As long ago as 1909 Winston Churchill used to be taunted by the Tories with what he called the "poor widow bogey" - the supposedly unbeatable argument that LVT would be wrong because people who happen to have seen the rental value of their location rise will have to pay more in location rent without necessarily having more income with which to do so.

First, again, think of it in a post-LVT world - you will have borrowed substantially less to acquire the various places you will have lived in your life and you will be paying, if you are efficient in your use of land at least, less in tax in the form of location rent. You will have more to save and invest in productive assets other than housing. If you choose to save for your retirement an amount that allows you to continue paying your location rent till you drop, fair play to you. But the evidence is in fact that there is a huge unmet demand for people downsizing nearing retirement (indeed it is mostly the best off pensioners who are able to do this at present). LVT, because it makes the market in land and locations much more reactive to community change, will more than likely encourage this need to be met.

But in the implementation there is some evidence that a very small proportion of pensioners would indeed face larger bills than they have at the moment. For those Land Value Taxers who would prefer to implement LVT slowly, increasing the rate of the tax over a long period of time, their answer would be to allow such people to roll up their tax bill until they do eventually sell up and move or for their estate to pay. I, preferring the big bang approach, would simply compensate people for the lost land value in bonds which they can use to pay their tax into the future.

"Confiscating the value of our biggest asset"

It is true that implementing the full rent sharing I outline above will wipe out the capitalized rent values that one is accustomed to seeing as part of the "sale price". And it is also true that this will hurt those most recently on the ladder and having just borrowed to pay for that up-front location rent.

But the home you live in is not really "wealth" in the conventional sense. Until you are at the stage of downsizing or selling up completely, the value of your home really only matters in respect of its relationship to the price of your next one. For most of us, for most of our lives, our shelter is a cost of living - either in rent or mortgage payments. And if we have slashed the cost of buying by removing the land value, then we have also slashed the cost of your next home in similar proportion.

Again though, in transition from one system to another, with my big bang approach, those who lose out can be compensated with bonds with which, for example, they could pay off any outstanding mortgage over the new land-free market value. If you take the slower incremental implementation mechanism, again, the loss will be less all at once; indeed you could structure implementation such that it effectively only capture future rises in rental values.

"Impossible to value"

This is the "experts' objection" that it will be too cumbersome to invent a system that values the rent for each plot of land every year. And more than that, that it will be arbitrary. But we know from evidence in on the ground pilot studies that we only actually have to value about one in ten plots that share common characteristics in the form of access to services and infrastructure say. It's also not really too different from the current system of self-assessed income taxes. A game is played out every year with taxpayers trying to minimize their liability and the HMRC trying to catch people out hiding some of their income. And here there is no market to help.

The average mortgage lasts eight years. That means that somewhere around 12.5% of our owner occupied housing is valued every year just to get a mortgage valuation. More in recent years where people have been encouraged to chop and change their mortgage even though they are not moving home.

And then there's the rental market. There will always remain benefits to renting for some in the population - short term workers and so on. So there will remain a rental market. This presents yet more, and really very accurate, evidence on which to base valuations- more accurate once you take away the capital gains aspect of land ownership as landlords will only be investing in a rental stream.

And ultimately the market will still highlight areas where the assessed location rents are higher or lower than investors think they should be. If buyers think the current rents are too high, they are going to offer a discount on the capital value of the buildings themselves and if assessed rents are adjudged too low by the market, buyers will offer a premium over the building values in order to get the more desirable location at a lower location rent until the location rent is adjusted the next year.

And finally, let's not pretend that this is new - we had Schedule A imputed rent on our homes on our tax returns until 1963.

"Concreting over surburbia"

There is often concern that when Land Value Taxers talk about our system leading to more efficient land use we mean that every available inch of land will be developed. There is no reason to think this in reality. It will first bring into use completely unused land - that mouldering old factory that's been sitting empty and becoming more and more of an eyesore for a decade for example.

But there's no reason why Land Value Tax would not be subject to a similar planning regime as now. It would change - because a community decision that they would prefer housing to a factory on a particular site for example will lead to that factory being redeveloped a deal sooner than it might today, because its owners are going to be seeing their location rents rise to the point that running a factory there would be inefficient compared with developing it for housing, say.

Personally I would also like to see many planning controls repealed anyway and have most (ie small scale) developments make their peace privately with its neighbours through mediation rather than state control.

Overall though, there is little evidence that people would suddenly settle for a squashed apartment instead of a suburban semi with garden and garage just because of LVT. It will encourage people to consider whether their continuing use of a particular location is cost effective for them and it will make the market more efficient and so there is likely to be more rebuilding, but that doesn't need to be at the expense of amenity.

In conclusion

So, there then was my now not so concise explanation of Land Value Tax and some brief responses to some of its most common objections. It is quite important to get across just how land gains its value though. That helps to explain why some of us see LVT as such a just and equitable way of doing things. If we had Star Trek style free instant transportation systems, land would again be worthless but while it take time (which is money opportunity lost) and money itself to get from A to B the land in between A and B is absorbing some of your hard earned income (and that of everyone else who has to pass it by every day) for doing precisely nothing.

Land values are effectively a tax on all production and one we already pay anyway. Getting rid of all those other taxes on production and capturing for the community the rental values of land will create such a different more equitable economic playing field on which we all continue to ply our various trades. read more »

Private charity, voluntary co-operation or state welfare

Jock — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:56:26 +0000

One of the most common points of disagreement between, let's call them "state-interventionists" and "non-interventionists", is the claim that "non-interventionism" would leave the poorest in society on the scrap heap with no welfare, no support. That the much vaunted idea of "non-interventionists" that "private charity" or "voluntary co-operation" would take the place of state welfare is just an impossible pipe dream. So determinedly do "state-interventionists" believe their own claims that they frequently castigate "non-interventionists" as heartless uncaring selfish individualists who would rather see others die than pay taxes. One quote from a Lib Dem Voice "discussion" just today will give you the general idea:

"Well none of them [Libertarians] are serious, because it an incoherent philosophy....send the kids back down the mines, it’s only a lifestyle choice."

And to an extent, I used to believe that propaganda. As a geo-libertarian of course I do have an answer of sorts - the basic income derived from land user fees (which would on their own create an almost unimaginably more equitable society in any case) would cover the basics of life for everyone, and give everyone an incentive to top it up with as much or as little work as they can manage.

But a recent discussion on a "non-interventionist" mailing list I've been frequenting recently has challenged the basic assumption of this debate for me. Would people really not contribute voluntarily to the upkeep of others if you don't have a government apparatus threatening them with the confiscation of their property and ultimately the loss of their freedom unless they pay their taxes?

It is a strange proposition. Governments for at least the last sixty years have been supporters at some level or another of some form of state welfare. They may argue about how much is appropriate but the fact is, people have overwhelmingly voted for a state that takes money from you in order to give some of what's yours to someone deemed "less fortunate". We even have a cliche about the inevitability of death, and taxes.

We have tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people who do voluntarily give up their time to care for another. Most people are someone's relative, someone's friend, someone's colleague. And whilst I recognize that some do not have such support networks and would still require some form of collective support, most people do not want to see their friends and relatives on skid row or worse.

One has to wonder whether the interventionist route actually makes things worse. And in how many ways. When we look at our pay packets do we not think often that we've given quite enough for the support of others through our taxes thank you very much. National Insurance and Income Tax between them effectively make the worker near forty per cent worse off. I know what I would do with an extra forty per cent each month. It would pay the interest bill on the piece of land we have just acquired for our first Community Land Trust for a start.

Other taxes and protectionist policies keep the prices we pay for basics artificially high and create incentives for companies to produce cash cows rather than exciting developments. I'll bet if we didn't guarantee one pharmaceutical company a contract for however many millions of doses of Metformin diabetes pills every year a dozen others would have put the effort in to find a cure, not a chronic treatment regime.

The attempt to do welfare as a "universal" system, with the same rules for everyone, means a bloated bureaucracy enforcing inflexible regulations. If welfare were, say, to be dealt with at the parish level, and the barriers to job creation caused by taxes eradicated, I'll bet you more people would be found some work, appropriate to their abilities, even if it didn't give them everything they need and then people would feel much better about helping them out with the rest - because they were trying to help themselves as best they could. We have no way of measuring that at a national level really.

We have a Professor here at Brookes, a chap called Steven King. His area is the History of Welfare mostly in the 18th and 19th centuries - probably the period which received wisdom says was the harshest environment if you were poor or hapless. But I was fascinated by a lecture he gave a couple of years ago on being elevated to the professoriate (you are elevated to that aren't you?). Apparently when parishes were responsible for pensions, those who actually got a pension - those whom their own peers and neighbours if you like knew had simply tried and been unable to support themselves (in common parlance I guess the "deserving poor") would get on average 75% of the average working wage for their area. For others there were varying levels of support down to a pretty basic safety net that was intended to be subsistence rather than comfortable for those they felt were "swinging the lead".

And then there's the problem of administrative costs. If I had an extra 40% in my pay packet and was going to give it away, I'd know that the people or organizations I was giving it to would get all of my donation. I'll bet for the 40% the state apparatus take off me in taxes, probably half actually gets to someone who needs it, to direct service delivery, if that.

So, given all those disadvantages of, and the singular advantage that people actually vote for, this tax based welfare system at some level or another, is it not just possible that by doing away with all that coercion, all that centralization, all that unproductive bureaucracy, the people who get to keep what they earn would be quite proud to "do the right thing" by their neighbours and communities? If they vote at the ballot box to have money taken off them by the state for things they obviously believe are necessary, would they suddenly feel they were not necessary or that they should not contribute towards those same things without the threats of the state? Isn't that a totally illogical position? You'd vote for it but not do it if the people you vote for didn't force you to do it?

And so, at the very least, would it not be at least a courtesy to accept that Libertarianism is an optimistic creed; that it is positive about humanity's innate ability and even need to help each other. You may call that a naive optimism. But I'd rather be a glass half full freedom lover than the glass half empty authoritarian approach that says humanity will not help itself unless it is forced to do so by the agents of a state apparatus that may, just may, cause more problems than it actually solves. Libertarian is not a "devil may care/beggar thy neighbour" philosophy but one that places the utmost faith in people, as individuals, to know and do what is right.

And as to whether it is a "coherent philosophy" or not, I submit that "non-interventionism" is the only truly coherent philosophy in the game. For once you admit the state can do one thing better than we can through voluntary co-operation, you inevitably end up in endless arguments between factions about just how much the state can do better, and the ultimate end of that arms race is totalitarianism - that the state can do everything better than voluntary co-operation. Which is manifestly not true. read more »

Politicians: masters, or servants? And of whom?

Jock — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:21:43 +0000

Courtesy of the Libertarian Alliance blog, I am drawn to a commentary on the Libertarian Party UK blog about an article by someone called Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. at mises.org (how's all that for being damned by the company I keep, or in this case the blogs I read!) about the relationship between the "state", the politicians who try to make us believe they are "running" it and the people in whose name they are supposed to be doing so.

It introduces me at least to the idea of the "personal" and the "impersonal" state.

The personal state is where the regime in power for the time being is synonymous with the state. Most obviously this is an absolute monarchy for example. The monarch is the state. When the monarch dies the regime dies with them and another replaces it. It may be largely the same but it is still a personal fiefdom if you like of the monarch in charge.

In the impersonal state, the predominant form for the past several centuries (ironically in Britain probably traced to the "Protectorate" or at least the Restoration), the state, its bureaucracy, apparatus and most of its policy direction go rumbling on from one regime to the next. The leader is the manager not the owner, if you will.

He says the political system, of parties, elections and so on, are a chimera, making us believe we are in a personal state. That is we elect a manager who cocks up somehow we just elect another one and everything will be different. But who is really in control?

I'm sure most of us active in politics used to chuckle at "Yes, [Prime] Minister", but we all know there is more than a grain of truth in the message that the bureaucracy just rumbles on, sometimes even deliberately frustrating the will of the current elected managers, knowing that if they hold out for long enough another lot of managers will come along who may be more to their tastes.

And I don't mean that this is a personal thing - that there is some conspiracy between individuals wielding power in smokey rooms and dark corridors. It's just the way the thing works in a big state. Look at the comment the other day by a Labour minister that she thought that by the time of the next General Election the ID card system would be so far down the line that it would be impossible for any new government, even one elected purely on a platform of opposing ID cards, to stop it.

Okay, I think, I hope at least, we can take that example with a large bucket of salt - after all, unless it's been designed by Cyberdine Systems to become "self-aware" on or before 5th May 2010, there will still be an "off switch" on the mainframe! But you get the idea. And if you've been a local councillor, you see it every day in the workings of your council bureaucracy - the same old surly faces, sometimes frustrating the ideas of the politicians and so on. We have come to know some of that as the "can't do" culture.

Rockwell's conclusion is that the political "game" is futile. Ideas can move the world, but they can't shift the bureaucratic apparatus of the state at the same rate. And I have to say, since I combine my party political presence with real action on alternative structures such as Community Land Trusts and social enterprise, that bears out. Indeed, whenever we need the imprimatur of the state, such as in planning issues and so on, the byzantine apparatus seems to do its utmost to frustrate or delay us.

I tend to disagree. Obviously, I suppose, since I remain involved in party politics. But I do recognize that for all the "change" we talk about, Nick Clegg talks about, Obama talks about, whoever talks about, it does seem that most things will just grind on the way they always have. We will complain about them. We may even blame Gordon Brown or someone else for them personally. But if we continue to play that same game we will never really change them.

I am in politics because I believe those big ideas can be introduced through the political system. So did our political forebears like Lloyd-George with his 1909 budget - he at least had the balls also to go head to head with the establishment that rejected his big ideas but still, essentially, lost. I don't advocate violent revolution, though at times it seems that little short of that will actually achieve the change necessary. But I do want us to grow the cojones to be radical, to propose the "ideals" not the "manageables", to aim high and be different. And to demolish this all powerful leviathan and start from the ground up again.

I return again to the idea that we are in an age of epochal change. Of the unprecedented ability for us individually to communicate with others all round the world. We have to begin to ask just how much of that "impersonal state" we need any longer. Cobden had it about right when he said that "peace will come to the earth when people have more to do with each other and governments less." Politicians, let humanity grow up. Realize your limits. Let go and do something productive for a change instead! read more »

"Corporatisation" of government functions does not transfer responsibility

Jock — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:10:40 +0000

...and is not "liberal" either.

There are often attempts by ministers (Jacqui Smith is mentioned in Sunday's Independent for example about the recent prisoner data loss) to shirk their responsibility for government cock-ups. There are also left wing commentators who crow that these incidents are clear proof that "neo-liberal" policies of "privatising" government functions are evil and should be stopped; that the "free market" does not work in the public sphere.

But I don't consider such contracting out of work as either liberal nor as implying that ministers are no longer responsible for their incompetence. Nor, even, are they truly "privatisation". To me the doctrine that says some things are better done by profit motivated companies (or other, non-government organizations) does not mean merely sub-contracting to a government service level agreement.

Yes, such arrangements may save on costs or similar. But all they are doing is delivering the same policies and procedures designed by government. This is the "corporatisation" of government. It is inherently protectionist - the government grants usually monopolistic contracts to firms, sometimes even, like Capita, that started life as a bunch of civil servants deciding they could do better for themselves by making a profit out of what they do.

No, real privatisation, so called "liberalisation" of government functions, should mean the state divesting themselves completely from interference in that policy area. For example, just because DVLA contracts out its computer systems and administration does not mean the registration and licensing of vehicles and drivers has been "privatised". Not bothering with a DVLA at all and allowing insurance companies to work out ways of ensuring the drivers and vehicles they are prepared to insure comply with what they consider to be safe would be. i.e. a different way of working, free from government entirely, and open to proper competition where new ideas and ways of achieving similar ends can be developed. Finding new structures, free from the dead hand of government to do the things we need, rather than what politicians think we ought to need.

Similarly with ID cards or passports - it is not "privatising" simply to contract out the development and implementation of a government policy to profit making firms. Indeed, this is anathema to true economic liberals - for it is corporate welfare, money for old rope if you like. My idea from yesterday about getting rid of government validated passports entirely and instead letting people buy their own guarantee of identity if and when they need one using a new mechanism such as digital certificates would be liberal; the true privatisation of functions the state previously chose to regulate and deliver itself.

And of course, such liberalisation may not end up being delivered by "for-profit" corporations at all.

So Jacqui, stop trying to hide from your responsibilities. You have cocked up just as surely as if the person with the memory stick were your permanent secretary. You are incompetent. Indeed doubly so - for not only have you failed to do your job, but you've even failed to make sure the simpler option - getting someone else to do it for you is done properly. You should go. read more »