I know it's easy for a non-partisan pundit to point score, but now that we've got television again I watched a couple of interviews with Gordon Brown this morning (firstly with Andrew Marr, then with Adam Boulton). I also saw interviews with Alan Duncan and Chris Hughn. What i'd really like is to meet someone who (a) isn't a libertarian; and (b) intelligent enough to realise that Labour, the Tories, and Lib Dems are comprised of egits willing to lie in order to appear to be what they deem as being popular. I'm frustrated because The Filter^ is frequented by people who fit into both categories, so please help me out...
I won't pretend that I have a quick-fix solution to rising food prices, but I know that the Competition Commission's investigation into the UK grocery market has nothing to do with it. The fact that Gordon Brown used it as an example of how he's solving the "silent tsunami" is ludicrous. Following the local election results the PM said that he'd "listen and lead". A journalist asked if he'd have a cabinet reshuffle. Brown repeated "i'll listen and lead". If only the journo had enough nous to say "will you have cabinet reshuffle?" to which Brown would answer "I'll listen and lead"...
I'll pause. And alliterate.
I've been challenged recently about my claim that Central Bank Independence is a highly politicised matter, and yet Brown defended his record on the economy by saying that "we've cut interest rates and injected liquidity". Who is "we"??
In the US John McCain's economic advisers are reassuring supporters that despite his public rhetoric he's in favour of lower taxes. The Tories here are similar, "we'll say what needs to be said to get elected, but rest assured when in office we're on your side". Even if you trust politicians who are willing to lie to get office, how can you support the democratic system that requires them to do so?
It'd be lovely if we could all agree to disagree, but the BBC won't let me. Even though I try my utmost never to watch their channels, if I wish to utilise the services of their competitors I am forced by law to pay for the BBC. Well at some point the level of service gets so frustrating, so bad that I'm willing to fork out for the BBC and their rivals. It's like buying a Dell laptop just for the right to then also pay for a MacBook.
Today I'm annoyed by all intelligent non-libertarians, because it's due to my deep and genuine desire to believe that government provision of fundamental services is right that has meant that I continue to subscribe to them. But any person unfortunate enough to rely upon those services knows that central planning is riddled with information and incentive calamities. I'm ashamed that I've been so willing to settle for the best that socialism can provide, and will in future work hard to ensue that I can buy MacBooks. I know full well that those who can't afford MacBooks will be left with inhumane service, but I no longer see the point of sitting at 3am in the waiting room of a crumbling building alongside them. Rest assured, your waiting lines will be quicker because I'll be elsewhere. Rest assured, i'll be arguing for economic freedom for all.
Income inequality is a contentious issue, but as someone who's relied on public services I am grateful that many people are wealthy enough to afford to opt out. It's precisely because of those who remain in the clutches of socialism that motivates me to make the case of economic freedom, because when I do opt out I want as many pragmatic people as possible to join me. Socialism should be for ideologues, not the poor,.
Recent Comments