You really have to read this new piece from Peter Hitchens.
This is rather topical, in light of my recent articles.
He comes from a conservative, rather than libertarian, standpoint. Though I would insist that there is a great deal of 'overlap' between his position and that of libertarians, particularly conservative-libertarians.
I disagree that the welfare system should be used to encourage marriage. This isn't because I oppose marriage. I actually support it, and the traditional family. I just don't think it is the role of the state to get involved and encourage either way.
But I like his balanced stance on how his ideas can be achieved. Unlike the Propertarian Party, he realises that you can't just storm in there and totally withdraw everything that currently exists. People who latched onto the state acted 'rationally' as he says. He is right. They did. In the same way as immigrants acted rationally by coming here and criminals act rationally by committed crimes knowing the punishments are farcical.
You can't act retrospectively. I.e. you can't abolish benefits for existing single mums, you can't boot out immigrants that have settled legally and you can't bump up sentences handed down in the past.
But you can make changes going forward, and I have more in common with Hitchens's desires than I have opposition to them.
This is why the Propertarian Party's tax proposals are utterly insane and ridiculous; one reason why I left. Sorry, DK. But you can't expect to include a mass tax abolition within a first LPUK term in government and be taken seriously.
I do encourage people to read the Hitchens piece, as his eloquent prose adds enormously to the debate going on about the 'state we're in'. The more people who join this debate on the side of those who wish to see an end to decades of social democracy, the better. God knows, we're in a minority as far as the 'national discussion' goes.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Hitchens on welfarism, conservatism and the Tory Party
Posted by John Demetriou at 16:08
Labels: conservative party, conservatives and libertarians, libertarianism, peter hitchens, socialism, welfare addicts, welfarism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
In fairness to LPUK (well, you won't be fair, but I'll have a go) the revenue raised from income tax is significantly lower (something in the order of £100bn) than spending, for instance, on quangos.
And I'm fairly certain that if quangos are cut down and local sales taxes are implemented, income tax can easily be abolished as unnecessary and illiberal.
I don't think the abolition of income tax necessarily implies that everything the government spends money on - various kinds of welfare, defence, the NHS, et al - will just be hung out to dry.
I believe it's what they call 'gradualism'. Contrary to whatever it is you believe, the majority of LPUK members really are run-of-the-mill minarchists who want a gradual reduction of the state. Honestly.
Except the LPUK doesn't just propose abolition of income tax does it? (which is around £180 billion a year, not enough to cover the social security budget which is ovr £200 billion a year).
The 'local' sales tax is a farce, and I don't particularly like VAT style indirect taxation anyway. Why should the state step in to levy a tax on transactions between individuals involving goods and services?
I am far more in favour of a reasonable, low level of income tax. Say 15%. And a Land Value Tax, which is a tax not on productivity but on something that sits idly, usually to be found in large amounts in the hands of people who inherited it.
It is also important to point out timing. LPUK pretty much proposes to bring about most of its devastating scything of the state within a few short years.
It wouldn't work, and this sales tax sounds like an incredible gamble based on poor logic and bad maths.
The sales tax, iirc, is based on the principles of localism, which I find perfectly reasonable; localities set sales tax rates in order to compete with each other for income. And to the best of my knowledge, LPUK only suggests abolishing income tax, which, again, I find to be a perfectly reasonable aim within 4 years, especially if you're cutting non-essential spending - like most quangos - to compensate.
Re: LVT, yeah, personally I've no problem with that (although 15% income tax would be pointless, I think, if sales taxes could be raised elsewhere), supporting a citizen's income in place of the welfare state. But I can't speak for LPUK policy in that area tbh.
And you sound like Sunny H or someone. 'Devastating scything'? No. I don't think anybody in LPUK is stupid enough to suggest firesales and the removal of services people have come to rely on. Again, it's all about gradualism.
Gradualism my arse. You do realise that do make a local sales tax work, you'd need a restructuring of the entire tier of local government. You'd probably need to expand it, and get experts in to devise its workings and so on. It's not easy to just invent a new system of tax, implement it without it going wrong, AND expect it to bring in the right sort of amounts of money to cover things.
It's a terrific gamble. And where would the boundaries for these 'localities' start and end? Who decides the rates?
You speak of Quangos. I've heard this chestnut a million times from LPUK people. What quangos are you referring to? Do you have a list, or some suggestions?
I don't disagree that some quangos need to go, but the bigger picture is surely 'to regulate or not to regulate'. This is in need of debate.
As I believe it consistent with libertarianism that the state should ensure that monopolies are not formed, for the free running of the free market, and I also think that libertarianism should be about a limited state arbitrating in instances where quangos can be set up to ensure impartiality and fairness.
It's all very well saying 'get rid of quangos', but the trouble with the Propertarian Party is that it is long on rhetoric, short on specifics and non-existent on realism and logic.
Sure, implementing the sales tax would take time (not really that much time though, I imagine. Local councils already run various tax schemes, it shouldn't be that hard to adjust). I never said it would happen to directly compensate for income tax abolition. One example is to take VAT up to 30% in lieu of income tax having disappeared (saw that on the ASI blog some time ago, can't be arsed to find it again), or cancelling all sorts of pointless government projects (you can't deny there are many, and expensive, projects that can easily be removed... remember that IT project that just got conveniently shelved?). Or it might be able to happen in conjunction with the restructuring of the NHS, i.e. government funded but not government run. The costs of various NHS trusts would then leave the hands of the taxpayer. In short, to cut income tax out entirely, adjustments will have to be made across the board - as is inevitable anyway, given the nature of the party - not just in one specific area.
And no, I don't have a list of quangos, each assessed individually for usefulness and time it would take to remove. Partly because I'm just not privy to that sort of information, but mostly because I'm just a bloke who goes on the internet sometimes to read figures and opinions and has to work in his spare time.
http://tpa.typepad.com/bettergovernment/files/080515_structure_of_government_1_unseen_government_immediate_release.pdf Here's a list of them, though, for your perusal.
But anyway...
'I don't disagree that some quangos need to go, but the bigger picture is surely 'to regulate or not to regulate'. This is in need of debate.
As I believe it consistent with libertarianism that the state should ensure that monopolies are not formed, for the free running of the free market, and I also think that libertarianism should be about a limited state arbitrating in instances where quangos can be set up to ensure impartiality and fairness.'
Where did monopolies come from all of a sudden? Sorry, I don't follow this bit.
This post is spot on, I think.
On marriage, Hitch often seems to harp on about "laws that encourage divorce" by making it relatively easy ("no fault"). It doesn't seem so unreasonable that these could be reverted to their historical state, where divorce was possible but required a good reason ("my husband beats me up", "my wife is cheating"). The new rules could apply to all new marriages, and if (like Harry Rose) you didn't like the sound of them, you could always tell your fiancee that you didn't want to get married on the grounds that divorce wouldn't be easy. I am sure she would understand :).
Just quick before I run out the door.
Local tax requires a federal state. German states have a local income tax and local business tax and it is something I have done a small amount of reading on recently.
But that is the only way it can be done. Full blown localism with the State being left to collect taxes to support defence and other national requirements.
This is something I'm warming to more and more to be honest.
However, the LPUK polcy is to scrape a tax in one parliament that currently contributes a huge amount of money to the coffers. Those coffers currently being fucked. Therefore the policy is 2 years out of date.
It is also costed along the lines of an apple is about the same as a pear. It isn't as clear cut as that.
Mr Boatang, you are wrong.
The electorate are fully aware of how realistic the LPUK's policies are. Hence their brilliant result in the Norwich North by-election last July.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich_North_by-election,_2009#Results
Them 36 people ain't no mugs.
I guess I was being optimistic by posting comments here... oh well.
Well, do you seriously think you'd get elected by promising to abolish income tax but raise VAT to 30%? Let alone if anyone became aware of your illustrious leader's One Law idea...a hostile liberal/socialist media would dismantle you before you could even start to explain your mathematical calculations....if you have made them....if they noticed you in the first place...
Indeed Mr Rob. LPUK seems to be quite naive about things like this.
JD reminds me about poor Thomas Burridge and his 36 votes - I remember reading his press releases, badly in need of copy-editing as they were, and wondering how anyone could think they could go up against the polished PR machinery of the big parties. He seemed honest and well-meaning, but unfortunately that's not enough...
Honest, well meaning, and 18 years old.
Go back to him in 5 years and I guarantee his politics will have changed beyond recognition. As they do with most people who go from being kids to adults.
Bloody ridiculous state of affairs, that.
Ben S, sorry are you annoyed because everyone didn't go 'Fuck me, Ben S is only bloody right!'
You have a view, we have a view, others have a view. Doesn't mean I have to come in pants when you post a comment old bean.
You state gradualism. Ther eis nothing gradual about 5 years is there. That's pretty fucking quick Ben.
At no point did I expect either of you to agree with me ;)
And you're being a tad misleading there. 5 years to get rid of income tax is not, on its own, a 'fucking quick' timetable.
5 years to get rid of everything could be seen as 'fucking quick'. Also as 'fucking stupid'.
But nobody is really suggesting that.
5 years is fucking quick Ben. Income tax must be voted on by the House each financial year, which means that it is more like 4 years.
By which point all other systems must be put in place. For instance...
I dunno, the several thousand people that would lose their jobs. The redundancy payments that would run into millions, the loss of tax from those that lose their jobs, the increase in welfare...the list is pretty long.
Ans I am yet to see a list of what quangos should be lost, so I presume all of them, which is absurd. For instance the police complaints commission is a perfectly valid quango, the legal service commission is a perfectly valid quango and so on.
The world is not black and white.
Read Milton Friedman's 'Capitalism and Freedom' for proper libertarian discourse on the role of the state and the need for the state to ensure the smooth running of the free market by ensuring monopolies don't occur.
This is surely a very important function of the state. To not bother with monopoly creation, under a libertarian state, would lead to anarchy, penury for millions and ultimately feudalism.
I'm sure people like DK and OH wouldn't mind, but quite possibly around 60 million would.
But sod democracy, eh boys?
Weirdos.
Boa and Dem, I actually agree with a lot of what you say but we are better off spending our energy debating it within LPUK rather than against it.
Post a Comment