Curiouser and Curiouser! on government

Hobson don't live here any more

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:07:41 +0100

I want to live in their world, not the one I actually live in.

I haven't seen the show in a few years but I'm pretty sure, from a political perspective, I would agree with him.

I was listening to the news in the car yesterday (about the only time I listen to mainstream news now) and there was an item about the Italian general election. Held about every 5 years, the people of Italy are getting to choose between:

Puppet A: Silvio Berlusconi
Puppet B: Romano Prodi

What a choice? Why would you want to choose either of these bozos?

More and more I consider the best choice to be "No!" I don't want your government any more. Looking forward to the next elections in Britain I am likely to have the choice of:

Puppet A: Gordon Brown (or, god help us, Alan Milburn)
Puppet B: David Cameron (assuming he isn't assassinated before then)

Why the hell would I want to elect either of these guys? What exactly is it that they're going to do beyond line the pockets of their friends with my taxes? What else do politicians ever do?

I think the world would benefit from a real breaking down of the existing and centralized structures of power into smaller, more meaningful, and more accountable units. Beyond tax and spend a huge amount of our money what the hell is it that central government does?

How on earth do we make these people accountable?

All the immorality money can buy

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:11:16 +0100

With each day that passes I question further the role of the state in our lives. In my opinion it does more harm than good but the argument I have often stumbled over is the role of welfare payments.

This morning I have read with a sense of glowing happyness an article by Jacob Hornberger (President of the Future of Freedom Foundation) about the separation of charity and state. He compares this to the US constitutions separation of chuch and state.

He also makes some good arguments that state welfare is immoral:

After all, what meaning does charity have when it is engaged in by government? Charity connotes a willing heart of one person that reaches out to help another person. Yet government is based on force, and how can force be reconciled with any meaningful concept of charity?

People who argue that "It's all in a good cause" are, I think, using the end (supporting the poor) to justify the means (forcing me to pay taxes).

Think of it this way: Suppose I hold a gun to someone’s head and force him to take $5,000 out his bank account at an ATM. I then go into the poorest part of Washington, D.C., and I give every cent of what I took from him to poor people. Would anyone say that I had performed a moral or compassionate act?

Isn’t that what the entire concept of the welfare state is based on: a perversion of moral values as well as a denial of the freedom of the individual to decide what to do with his own money? What would be wrong with a system in which people keep their own earnings and decide for themselves which charities, if any, they wish to donate to or which people they wish to help?

And this ultimately comes to the point. In a free society we would keep what we earn and decide where to spend it. If we wanted our society to reflect good values we would voluntarily want to support those charities which we, individually, felt reflected best on our society.

In doing this we would be taking ultimate responsibility for our society. I think this frightens people. They are more comfortable to let the state take their money and do what's right. No matter the evils committed in their name because of it.

Jacob's arguments are better than I have described and I do encourage you to read what he has to say.

I may have issues with parliament but...

Sat, 13 May 2006 17:13:56 +0100

The Legislative and Regulatory Refom Bill is getting close to parliament. I think everyone who enjoys the way the government acts now will be looking forward to a bill that gives ministers even more arbitrary power to make it up as they go along.

Here is the text of the letter I just sent to the MP for Maidenhead, Theresa May:

Dear Theresa May,

I am writing again with regard to the Legislative and Regulatory Refom Bill which is due before Parliament next week.

Despite the government having made some concessions I am still very concerned that this bill gives the government of the day far too much latitude in it's ability to change the law to suit itself.

Specifically I am concerned that, even with the ammendments, the bill would not, for example, prevent a minister from removing the right to trial by jury because it was 'a burden to the police'. We should not deliberately enact bad laws as we have far too many of them already.

I think this bill strays verges on rendering law-making arbitrary and it devalues parliament. I may have issues with our parliamentary system but if it's a choice between you lot and the whim of government ministers I know which side I stand on.

If the government wants to reduce bureacracy and streamline government it could start by reducing its own size and interfering less.

I hope you will consider my concerns when this bill comes before you.

Yours sincerely,

Visit the Save Parliament site for more information.