One of the cancers of the age is the phenomena of illiberalism masquerading as liberalism. The rot set in the latter part of the 19th century when the liberal party went rogue and started flirting with socialism and welfare and indeed it prefigured the 20th century full blown version in the post war Labour government with wholesale nationalsation and welfarism.
Today the cancer of illiberalsim has all but devoured classic liberalism in its all invasive advanced statism that will not leave any area of human experience untouched by the clammy hand of the state whether it be human action words thoughts and emotions even.
The closing down of Uber by the Transport for London authority is one of thousands of illiberal state incursions into freedom and markets that masquerades as liberal and concern for the public good which is a transparently self serving rationale for yet another state powe rgrab and sop to the unions who have long lobbied against Uber and what they rightly regard as the threat it posed to their cosy state enforced monopoly of the taxi service in the city.
Illiberalism flying under the false colours of liberalism poses the greatest threat to freedom since feudalistic times albeit it is worse as the latter never made any pretence that it was doing anything other than holding down a whole class of people to further its own class hegemony and tyranny whereas the modern liberal is forever wearing his liberalism on his heart proclaiming his love of the people as he busily deprives the unwary subjects of the last few remaining liberties left to them.
It is very hard to criticise this faux liberalsim without running the risk of the charge of illiberalism oneself so captured has the word been by the faux liberals.It will be very hard to break though the carapace of liberalism they have cased themselves in to reveal the true tyrannical nature of their programme and fully expose its malevolent intent.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Friday, September 29, 2017
Capitalism Serves the Collective Good!
The worst possible defence of capitalism is to attempt to defend it on collectivist grounds of serving the common good which is exactly what true to form, Thesera May did in her speech to the Bank of England. She went on to 'defend' it by championing progressive taxation for state spending on education and welfare! Damning capitalism with faint praise isn't the half of it. Misrepresenting capitalism and justifying it on socialist grounds is worst than Corbyn's full assault on it and is an admission of defeat and act of moral cowardice. It amounts to handing the keys of 10 Downing St to Corbyn which is probably where he will end up if the tories carry on in this self defeating apologetic craven way towards the only system that has ever delivered freedom and prosperity around the world.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Freedom of Speech. An Obituary
In this country you can go to jail for seven years for handing out literature and videos critical of Islam on the charge of 'religious harrassment'. Blasphemy laws long abolished have re insinuated themselves back on the statute book in a new guise of 'hate speech'. Our response to terorism has been not to search and destroy the terrorists but search and destroy free speech in order to protect the terrorists.
During the second world war no one would have suggested that the best way to defeat the Nazis would be to pass hate speech laws making it an inprisonable offence to criticize Nazism.
There has not been a peep of protest against this outrage which illustrates the illiberal age we live in where the population has been dumbed down and conditioned to tolerate the intolerable with passivity and craven silent acquiescence.
During the second world war no one would have suggested that the best way to defeat the Nazis would be to pass hate speech laws making it an inprisonable offence to criticize Nazism.
There has not been a peep of protest against this outrage which illustrates the illiberal age we live in where the population has been dumbed down and conditioned to tolerate the intolerable with passivity and craven silent acquiescence.
Bombardied with Statism
With all the furore over Trump's decision to levy gargantuan tarriffs on Bombardier and the outcry in the British media over such wanton protectionism it has gone virtually unmentioned that Bombardier has been bankrolled by the British government to the tune of billions of pounds and this approach to state cosetting of British industry is a perfect illustration of the mixed economy and the unholy alliance between business and State implicit within it.
If a company or corporation cannot exist survive and flourish without huge injections of state ie tax funded cash in the real world ie a free market laissez faire capitalist system it would be left to fail and regarded as objectively an unsustainable, non productive dud. But in the mixed economy corporate welfare world it is given huge infusions of state largesse which has provoked the Trump hostility regarding unfair trade practices and although his response is regrettable and lamentable and downright un American and anti capitalist it ill behooves the British government to cry foul when it is engaging in its own virulent strain of protectionism with its market distorting interventionism rendering it guilty to charges of rank hypocrisy and double standards.
Although this blog has been consistently critical and opposed to Brussels and all that emanates from it is it not one of its rules that the nation states of its respective members should expressly not be funding businesses and corporations thru their tax system or is it yet one more EU rule that is honoured more in the breach than the observance?
If a company or corporation cannot exist survive and flourish without huge injections of state ie tax funded cash in the real world ie a free market laissez faire capitalist system it would be left to fail and regarded as objectively an unsustainable, non productive dud. But in the mixed economy corporate welfare world it is given huge infusions of state largesse which has provoked the Trump hostility regarding unfair trade practices and although his response is regrettable and lamentable and downright un American and anti capitalist it ill behooves the British government to cry foul when it is engaging in its own virulent strain of protectionism with its market distorting interventionism rendering it guilty to charges of rank hypocrisy and double standards.
Although this blog has been consistently critical and opposed to Brussels and all that emanates from it is it not one of its rules that the nation states of its respective members should expressly not be funding businesses and corporations thru their tax system or is it yet one more EU rule that is honoured more in the breach than the observance?
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Corbyn. Appearance v Reality
Have the chattering twittering classes got Corbyn all wrong though? Is he the insurgent gadfly on the political establishment as he is presented or have we all been taken in by the radicalist posturing which when examined a little closer doesn't really hold up at all.
I would suggest that far from being a radical change agent Corby is the political establishment personified. In the age of mixed economy statism to be arguing for yet more statist controls on business and trade and the economy, less individual autonomy, more oppressive paternalist government not less, an expansion of the bloated welfare state which saps initiative and self reliance and depresses economic growth is the most reactionary articulation of the political class it would be possible to imagine.
Not trusting the British people, suspecting them of holding unnaceptable non politically correct views,seeking to circumvent their wishes and desires by a top down centralist statism is not radical but profundly regressive and undemocratic.
Today's youth are conservative,risk averse,whiny,neurotic,fragile dependent and fully steeped in the entitlement grievance culture and Corbyn far from being the radical firebrand of subversion is their political enabler and comfort blanket, the facilitator of their neurotic flight from reality and low moral intellectual horizons. The mischaracterization of Corbyn as radicalism personified could therfor well be one of the greatest political con tricks and frauds of modern times
I would suggest that far from being a radical change agent Corby is the political establishment personified. In the age of mixed economy statism to be arguing for yet more statist controls on business and trade and the economy, less individual autonomy, more oppressive paternalist government not less, an expansion of the bloated welfare state which saps initiative and self reliance and depresses economic growth is the most reactionary articulation of the political class it would be possible to imagine.
Not trusting the British people, suspecting them of holding unnaceptable non politically correct views,seeking to circumvent their wishes and desires by a top down centralist statism is not radical but profundly regressive and undemocratic.
Today's youth are conservative,risk averse,whiny,neurotic,fragile dependent and fully steeped in the entitlement grievance culture and Corbyn far from being the radical firebrand of subversion is their political enabler and comfort blanket, the facilitator of their neurotic flight from reality and low moral intellectual horizons. The mischaracterization of Corbyn as radicalism personified could therfor well be one of the greatest political con tricks and frauds of modern times
End of Ideology Theory Debunked
Now that the ideology taboo consensus of the last 20 years since the Blair Switch Project ie that no party should have a philosophy let alone dare speak its name has been well and truly smashed with the meteoric rise of Corbyn it would be good for democratic plurality if the tories were to rediscover ideology and start articulating it before Corbyn wins by default.Will there be any sign of that in the upcoming Conservative conference? Expect porcine aviation before that happens.
Under the present political system it has been demonstrated that it is all but impossible for a third party however seemingly popular and successfull in tapping the zeitegeist to break through - witness Ukip's rise and fall, but it hard to see how any relief from the dreary statism of the political classes can be circumvented without a new political movement and party to challenge the statist quo.
Under the present political system it has been demonstrated that it is all but impossible for a third party however seemingly popular and successfull in tapping the zeitegeist to break through - witness Ukip's rise and fall, but it hard to see how any relief from the dreary statism of the political classes can be circumvented without a new political movement and party to challenge the statist quo.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Theocracy V Liberty
Defender of the faith Peter Hitchens made an extraordinary claim in a recent interview on youtube that the British people had to decide whether to re embrace Christianity or succumb to Islam.He said that they might suppose rejecting Christianity would result in a more free society but they would be sorely mistaken and the far more likelier outcome would be the UK becoming a muslim nation.
Leaving aside his vested interest in the matter - in the words of the great philosopher Mandy Rice Davies 'he would say that wouldn't he?' - and his transparent attempt at desperate theological irridentism to recover lost ground to the secularist forces, his argument is clearly absurd as practically no one in this country even believes in the British establishment's soft feeble eviscerated version of Christianity and are hardly likely therefor to fall into the arms of totalitarian Islam.
The main reason the threat of an emboldened Islam in the UK is even broached is because it is itself a defacto theocracy with a State religion via the Church of England which makes it impossible or extremely difficult to challenge and defeat Islam. One can hardly muster an argument against theocratic Islam if one is living under a system of theocratic Christianity. No argument of principle can be made against the idea of a State religion if one is compromised by having it entrenched in one's own political system in the form of a national church and religion - even if it does exist chiefly by force of the inertia of tradition.
Those who protest most voiciferously that the UK is not a theocracy are the first to argue that this is a Christian country with a Christian heritage which has informed our art,literature music and law so they cannot have it both ways.
The only solution to the threat of Islam is not to embrace another primitive religion but to have a clear separation of Church and State and let the C of E fight its cause in the market place as churches do very successfully in the United States which is clearly not (alas) suffering from any consequent dearth of religious sentiment and fervour.
Leaving aside his vested interest in the matter - in the words of the great philosopher Mandy Rice Davies 'he would say that wouldn't he?' - and his transparent attempt at desperate theological irridentism to recover lost ground to the secularist forces, his argument is clearly absurd as practically no one in this country even believes in the British establishment's soft feeble eviscerated version of Christianity and are hardly likely therefor to fall into the arms of totalitarian Islam.
The main reason the threat of an emboldened Islam in the UK is even broached is because it is itself a defacto theocracy with a State religion via the Church of England which makes it impossible or extremely difficult to challenge and defeat Islam. One can hardly muster an argument against theocratic Islam if one is living under a system of theocratic Christianity. No argument of principle can be made against the idea of a State religion if one is compromised by having it entrenched in one's own political system in the form of a national church and religion - even if it does exist chiefly by force of the inertia of tradition.
Those who protest most voiciferously that the UK is not a theocracy are the first to argue that this is a Christian country with a Christian heritage which has informed our art,literature music and law so they cannot have it both ways.
The only solution to the threat of Islam is not to embrace another primitive religion but to have a clear separation of Church and State and let the C of E fight its cause in the market place as churches do very successfully in the United States which is clearly not (alas) suffering from any consequent dearth of religious sentiment and fervour.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Mixed Economy Blues and Reds
Why is the mixed economy still a thing and who on earth really thought it would be a good idea in the first place to put together such an unstable mix of contradictory ideologies as socialism and capitalism? As this combustible mix has created inevitable periods of boom and bust exacerbating economic cycles since its inception decades ago, it is worth examining the motives behind its construction and looking at its deleterious effects and consequences more closely.
It is undoubtedly the case that the mixed economy is a product of pragmatism,hedge betting, an avoidance of principles in favour of a shabby compromise that ultimately satisfies no one and causes endless wrangling between the respective advocates of its conflicting constituent parts, the socialists blaming the capitalists for its failings and vice versa. Bizarely what is more often the case and something very noticeable in recent times is for capitalism to take the whole rap for the sins of the mixed economy - witness the endless discussions on the 'crisis of capitalism',the failings of 'late capitalism' which goes entirely unchallenged by the alleged and putative defenders of capitalism the conservatives who in the face of this onslsught for some reason best known to themselves maintain a trappist silence.
The injustice of this much repeated canard that capitalism is the sinner rather than the sinned against lies in the the glaringly obvious fact that in the mixed economy model it is the socialst element that has been free riding at capitalism' expense since its unfortuante inception, as the wealth creation is solely on the capitalist side of the equation and the socialist part is merely the redistributor of its fruits and profits and is defacto parasiting off capitalism's achievements.
It is for the above reason that capitalism has nothing to gain and all to lose from this marriage made in hell of the mixed economy for when as inevitably it must, the mixed economy crashes upon the rocks of its own internal contradictions it will be tainted by the association and the calamties laid at its door alone.
Is this not precisely what we see in the Corbyn phenomenon? The failings of socialism go undetected in a mixed economy which were it to be forced to stand alone in a complete socialist system without capitalism to masks its defects they would be all to obvious and glaring,witness every single country throughout the last hundred years that has experimented with socialism from Soviet Russia to present day Venezuela. Granted that even in those obvious examples socialist's defenders still argue theirs is a good moral system, nevertheless, minus the mixed economy it would be that much harder to maintain such a fiction. This is not to say that a Corbyn governement would be welcome to dispel any illusions people still have about socialism but merely to point out the fallacy of those who blame capitalism for the failures for the mixed economy.
The obvious solution to the mixed economy conundrum, having exposed its follies and fallacies would be to advocate for either outright socialism or capitalism allowing the respective ideologies to stand or fall by their own merits,a fair fight in other words without all the obfuscations,evasions tawdry compromises and conflations implicit within the mixed economy. This is unlikely to happen all the while the conservatives stick stubbornly to their pragmatism but its beginning to look decidedly like thin gruel in contrast to Corbyn's red meat ideological socialsm and whilst it sufficed in the Blair years it is not looking like a viable proposition as the emboldened advancing Islington Marxist snaps ever more menacingly at May's heels.
Things are made more problematic however by the sad fact that under May the long standing lamentable vice of tory pragmatism has given way to an implicit endorsment of a soft tory socialism - witness her first speech as leader where she pledged to redistibute wealth towards the 'just about managing' and this explains why the tories have been so reluctant to confront Corbyn's socialism uncompromisingly -it is hard to critique an ideology that one partially shares and has been stated before in any contest between similar ideologies it is the party that holds to the ideology most consistently that ultimately prevails. This will explain the horror of a Corbyn government if it comes to pass. In such a dynamic Corbyn looks principled and May shifty.
If capitalism loses it will be by default,the absence of a principled opposition to socialism and its altruist roots. To lose a debate is regrettable enough but to lose by never having the debate is tragedy itself.
It is undoubtedly the case that the mixed economy is a product of pragmatism,hedge betting, an avoidance of principles in favour of a shabby compromise that ultimately satisfies no one and causes endless wrangling between the respective advocates of its conflicting constituent parts, the socialists blaming the capitalists for its failings and vice versa. Bizarely what is more often the case and something very noticeable in recent times is for capitalism to take the whole rap for the sins of the mixed economy - witness the endless discussions on the 'crisis of capitalism',the failings of 'late capitalism' which goes entirely unchallenged by the alleged and putative defenders of capitalism the conservatives who in the face of this onslsught for some reason best known to themselves maintain a trappist silence.
The injustice of this much repeated canard that capitalism is the sinner rather than the sinned against lies in the the glaringly obvious fact that in the mixed economy model it is the socialst element that has been free riding at capitalism' expense since its unfortuante inception, as the wealth creation is solely on the capitalist side of the equation and the socialist part is merely the redistributor of its fruits and profits and is defacto parasiting off capitalism's achievements.
It is for the above reason that capitalism has nothing to gain and all to lose from this marriage made in hell of the mixed economy for when as inevitably it must, the mixed economy crashes upon the rocks of its own internal contradictions it will be tainted by the association and the calamties laid at its door alone.
Is this not precisely what we see in the Corbyn phenomenon? The failings of socialism go undetected in a mixed economy which were it to be forced to stand alone in a complete socialist system without capitalism to masks its defects they would be all to obvious and glaring,witness every single country throughout the last hundred years that has experimented with socialism from Soviet Russia to present day Venezuela. Granted that even in those obvious examples socialist's defenders still argue theirs is a good moral system, nevertheless, minus the mixed economy it would be that much harder to maintain such a fiction. This is not to say that a Corbyn governement would be welcome to dispel any illusions people still have about socialism but merely to point out the fallacy of those who blame capitalism for the failures for the mixed economy.
The obvious solution to the mixed economy conundrum, having exposed its follies and fallacies would be to advocate for either outright socialism or capitalism allowing the respective ideologies to stand or fall by their own merits,a fair fight in other words without all the obfuscations,evasions tawdry compromises and conflations implicit within the mixed economy. This is unlikely to happen all the while the conservatives stick stubbornly to their pragmatism but its beginning to look decidedly like thin gruel in contrast to Corbyn's red meat ideological socialsm and whilst it sufficed in the Blair years it is not looking like a viable proposition as the emboldened advancing Islington Marxist snaps ever more menacingly at May's heels.
Things are made more problematic however by the sad fact that under May the long standing lamentable vice of tory pragmatism has given way to an implicit endorsment of a soft tory socialism - witness her first speech as leader where she pledged to redistibute wealth towards the 'just about managing' and this explains why the tories have been so reluctant to confront Corbyn's socialism uncompromisingly -it is hard to critique an ideology that one partially shares and has been stated before in any contest between similar ideologies it is the party that holds to the ideology most consistently that ultimately prevails. This will explain the horror of a Corbyn government if it comes to pass. In such a dynamic Corbyn looks principled and May shifty.
If capitalism loses it will be by default,the absence of a principled opposition to socialism and its altruist roots. To lose a debate is regrettable enough but to lose by never having the debate is tragedy itself.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
What Would a UK Capitalist Party Look Like?
Is the UK ready for a capitalist party and what would it look like? The Monarchy would be no more and few I suspect would miss it especially with the ominous prospect of Charles on the throne.(To even be having to discuss such a thing in the 21st century is absurd and surreal in itself).
There would no longer be a national church with disestablishment and again few would miss it as the Church of England is a pathetic anachronism which should have been put out of its misery long ago and is merely going through the motions spouting its shop worn liberal nostrums truly manifesting its liberal party at prayer status. With diminishing numbers of people professing a religion of any description it is absurd to keep up the pretence that we are a country of believers and it is immoral for people to be forced through taxes to support this morribund institution.
The Lords would be abolished as the two parliamentary chambers conflict leading to a systemic democratic deficit in favour of unelected Lords.
But all of the above is a mere formality,stripping away the superfices and excrescences of mindless tradition. The main changes would be the total deregulation of the economy,radical tax reduction, the closing down of most gov depts, an end to all foreign aid,privatising the BBC,ending all quangos,banning all public service trade unions with the explicit intent in due course of privatising them all bar the police, privatising the education system, freeing up the broadcasting airwaves from gov regulation. These are a few pointers.
There would no longer be a national church with disestablishment and again few would miss it as the Church of England is a pathetic anachronism which should have been put out of its misery long ago and is merely going through the motions spouting its shop worn liberal nostrums truly manifesting its liberal party at prayer status. With diminishing numbers of people professing a religion of any description it is absurd to keep up the pretence that we are a country of believers and it is immoral for people to be forced through taxes to support this morribund institution.
The Lords would be abolished as the two parliamentary chambers conflict leading to a systemic democratic deficit in favour of unelected Lords.
But all of the above is a mere formality,stripping away the superfices and excrescences of mindless tradition. The main changes would be the total deregulation of the economy,radical tax reduction, the closing down of most gov depts, an end to all foreign aid,privatising the BBC,ending all quangos,banning all public service trade unions with the explicit intent in due course of privatising them all bar the police, privatising the education system, freeing up the broadcasting airwaves from gov regulation. These are a few pointers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)