Saturday, 14 March 2009


Neil Craig writes about the "Liberal" Democrat conference:
Taken all in all the LibDems Conference get their funding overwhelmingly from the state, some via middlemen. This perhaps explains why all of the motions under discussion involve more regulation, government spending &/or taxes & none of them endorse anything the founders of liberalism would have recognised as such.
The trouble is that it's not only the "Liberals" who are illiberal, that's true of all of the mainstream parties here in Scotland. The same's the case almost everywhere else of course. Except, that is, on the Internet. It's like a parallel universe out there. Politicians, newspaper journalists and television presenters are running around like headless chickens with no clue as to how to deal with the economic crisis. But the truth is out there.

Things are quite different from the recession of the 1970's, which coincided with my discovery of libertarianism and Austrian School economics. Back then one had to be extraordinarily lucky to come across the likes of Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. Now correct explanations of why the crisis arose are just a few clicks away. But still the establishment doesn't get it. Or perhaps doesn't want to. I wonder if we're going to see one of those paradigm shifts after which everyone will be claiming to have known what was going on all along.

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

Colin Finlay
I think that the BNP policy on the Economy depends upon that dreaded bane of liberals everywhere, neo-mercantilism, a policy which is the mainstay of both Japan and South Korea's post-war successes.

15 March 2009, 22:13:59 GMT
– Like – Reply

I wonder if we're going to see one of those paradigm shifts after which everyone will be claiming to have known what was going on all along. 
I'd be happy to put up with the smugness as long as they take the message on board.

15 March 2009, 20:43:50 GMT
– Like – Reply

Neil Craig
I know the LDs best but you may well be right about the other parties getting funded by quangos & government funded "charities" too. Nonetheless I suspect that the Tories will get less funding per vote & UKIP even less. My hunch is the BNP despite being actually old Labour statists will not see any quangos giving them dosh. 
This is an example of how democratic politics are subverted by carefully directed pressure of lobbyists. Such lobbying by the rich is also a problem but it is less monolithic than government funding. Both sorts support those in power - the Green movement is surprisingly heavily funded by very rich foundations who really don't like the common people being able to fly to the Seychelles.  
I don't suppose corruption, legal or otherwise, can ever be fully ended but reducing the size of government & particularly of its discretionary power would reduce the benefits & give government less money to do this with. 
I think you are right about the importance of the net. Not only on economics but also on things like the Yugoslav wars it is astonishing how helpless we used to be when the MSM controlled everything. We may not be free but we are no longer helpless.

15 March 2009, 18:11:57 GMT