The Flying Rodent has commented at some length on a previous post. As I’ve been busy coming back to the UK, I haven’t had the opportunity to reply at any length. Such is the detailed nature of the comments, I thought a follow up post is probably the most appropriate. Firstly, my thanks to FR for some considered points that opened an interesting and intelligent exchange.
Failure of Ideologies:
Further to my comment that those examples FR mentioned failing as a consequence of people, he replied thusly:
This is a good point, and one I’d like to see raised more often. Any system is only as good as the people who work within it, and humans are inherently fallible.
That said, it lets ideology off the hook too easily. Nobody assumes that the Soviet Union produced inhuman psychos in its political class because they were mere humans – they recognise that the ideology of the Bolsheviks was fundamentally fucked up and very likely to produce inhuman psychos. The same logic surely applies everywhere throughout history, because if there was a single “magic bullet” ideology for running the perfect society, we’d have adopted it by now.
Well, yes. The problem is that there are people who will subvert any ideology to obtain and maintain power. That said, Communism is inherently evil from the get-go simply because it involves the use of force to work. Libertarianism is based upon the opposite, the lack of force. Indeed, the initiation of force is repugnant to libertarians. Like others who travel with me, I believe in the basic decency in every human being and do not wish to force them to my will. People left to their own devices are basically good. That has been my experience over the past half century and I base my interactions with others on this understanding.
That said, I don’t think anyone is naive enough to believe that there is a magic bullet – are they? No one system applied in its purity will solve mankind’s problems. So, yes, if it did, surely we would have tried it by now. What I, and I believe others of a libertarian ilk, are asking for is more autonomy for the individual over their lives, more accountability for those who govern, and, perhaps, something more local – more of which, later. I’m not looking for a pure libertarian solution, because no such thing exists. I am looking for a smaller state that concentrates on the fundamentals and lets us sort the rest out for ourselves. Strip away the unnecessary kludge – we could start with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If ever there was an example of a wholly superfluous government department, this is it.
What we most certainly do need is defence – and as I stated previously, this means defence, not expeditionary wars in other peoples’ countries. We most certainly need criminal justice. One of the central planks of libertarian philosophy is the rule of law. This needs to be upheld and the idea of a plethora of private police forces operating independent fiefdoms doesn’t bear thinking about. I am reminded here of Virgin Trains a few years ago commenting that Railtrack made their life difficult as an incident on one zone would be handled differently to another despite it being the same company. An odd parallel, perhaps, but the principle stands. The state, I feel, is the natural provider in this instance.
Tax
Before moving onto other areas, I guess we have to explore that bug-bear, taxation. The reason I picked up on FR’s original comment over at LC was because he used a hyperbolic misrepresentation; “I don’t want to pay taxes”. Okay, I accept that it was intended as a gag, but all too often, this idea is presented as a core libertarian philosophy. Yes, it’s true, you will see libertarians presenting tax as extortion with menaces. In its purest form, that is perfectly correct – the individual is being relieved of money with the threat of imprisonment for failure to comply.
However, the pragmatists – even the cited example – recognise that there are those things we need to do collectively (such as those already mentioned) that have to be paid for somehow. Taxation, becomes the necessary evil by which it is funded.
Now, I don’t have any particular beef with extending the core role of the state to providing universal funding for welfare activities where they are necessary. It is reasonable to provide a safety net for those who need a helping hand, should they find themselves suddenly unemployed, for example. Also, I am happy for my tax pounds to contribute to universally funded health and education – because I recognise that not everyone can afford to contribute as much as I can or possibly at all. I approve of the idea that pauper and prince alike will have access to such things irrespective of their means as and when they need them. That, after all, was one of the things that drew me to the Labour party back in the seventies. However I am less happy – much less happy – with the idea that the state provides these services. I believe that they will function much more efficiently and cost effectively if the consumer has the final say – and that means that as in the private sector, consumer choice and healthy competition, not a state operated monopoly as we have now. If a school or hospital fails, then someone else will step in and provide the service. I have to meet my clients’ expectations, or not eat – why should health service providers and educators be any different? And that welfare safety net, should be just that, not a lifestyle choice. It should be pitched so that working is a necessary and attractive proposition.
Flying Rodent feels that my take on tax is a funny way of contradicting his point. It isn’t. My position is entirely logical and consistent. A leaner, more efficient state, that concentrates on core objectives needs less money to function. Therefore, we would be taxed less. And, less tax take, less money to waste, the more efficient it will need to be. At present, we have the worst of all worlds, a bloated state, high taxation and piss-poor value for money.
I used my example of just how unfair our system is. Up to just over £34k, we have a basic level of 22%. It then jumps to 40%. I hit that band during the tax year just ended as a consequence of caving into my main client who had targets to meet. Consequently, I am faced with a pretty big tax bill next January. And, contrary to what idiots like Richard Murphy might think, I do not regard it as a privilege. It’s a burden and one I will avoid next year by working less. This, of course, is in no one’s best interest. Indeed, I dislike income tax in its entirety, regarding it as punitive and an unfair burden on the lower to middle earners. What I would like to see is intelligent reform, preferably more accurately based on ability to pay that spreads the load more evenly. That said, I oppose the “squeeze the rich” philosophy, because those who can will simply up sticks and take their money elsewhere. There are those who feel that they have a solution, but without wishing to go into it all again, I’ve yet to be convinced about LVT. My point being; what we have at the moment is not ideal, it is pretty awful and needs reform.
Parliamentary Democracy
The Flying Rodent defends our current system, preferring it to stringing the current set of crazed control freaks from the nearest lamp post. Well, yes, there is a point to be made here. Who was worse; Louis XVI or Robespierre? That’s the problem with revolutionary change; one despot is replaced by another. It took decades for the aftermath of the Russian revolution to settle and it is arguable that we are still witnessing some of that fallout today. So, I would agree that evolutionary change is better than revolutionary change – despite the satisfying mental images of Downing Street’s finest tap dancing on air.
However, the system is broke. It does not represent the will of the majority. It does not protect the minority from majority tyranny. It does not keep the state from indulging in arrant control freakery at the behest of the ruling party. There is no accountability. Political parties once in power may ignore pre-election promises with impunity in the full knowledge that a parliamentary majority means that they can do pretty much as they please for up to five years. There is no mechanism by which we, the electors, may call them to account and remove them.
On more than one occasion, it has been pointed out to me that I would like the Swiss system. I must admit, the more I look at it, the more I tend to like it. Also, the more accustomed I become to the French commune system, the more I like that, too. Democracy is local and accountable. I have a problem, I nip along to the Mairie and get it sorted. A directly elected mayor is directly accountable to the fifty or so people who elect him. Democracy has a face and it works. Neither is an example of a libertarian utopia, but both are improvements on the UK, frankly.
So, to answer the question posed on the previous conversation:
Who SHOULD be installed at No:10 ?
Does it matter? In a properly accountable democratic system, the role would have so little power, that it could be Mickey Mouse for all we should care. Indeed, Mickey Mouse would make a better fist of it than the present incumbent.