Monday 19 July 2004

Letters from F&W readers

Neil Craig had this letter published in the Scotsman last week. Today's paper carries one from Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute and Bruce Crichton gets a response from a statist here.

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comments made from previous template:

Robert Speirs (
Romain Blachier does not know what he is talking about. The Patriot Act has not reduced by one whit the freedom of American citizens. It has only, I hope, reduced the ability of terrorists to murder at will. The US has enough statist horrors, such as the War on Some Drugs. Sensible measures against terrorism, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan or New Jersey, are not "war-mongering". And it's the Democrats who favor the "nanny state" and more statist oppression. I wish the Republicans were better, but they're clearly more interested in individual freedom than the Democrats.

13 August 2004, 15:38:57 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate

romain blachier (
exactly, for an example see the patriot act in USA: 
It has reduced a lot the freedom of individuals.

20 July 2004, 16:15:52 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate

Stuart Dickson (
It may have escaped your notice, but it was a Conservative Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who introduced rationing, and for good reason too. 
You are very naive about wartime (as exemplified by your support for the war on Iraq) if you don't understand why Churchill made that decision. 
Wars always encourage the growth of the state over the rights of individuals. Witness the burgeoning budget deficit in the US as the Republican government's tentacles reach ever further into the affairs of its citizens. If the state did not oppress the rights of citizens during wartime then nobody would be foolish enough to get killed for the benefit of the high heid yins. 
If you oppose the power of the state, then you should oppose war-mongering.

19 July 2004, 13:56:09 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate

Andrew Duffin (
Hmm, Sandy Gemmell (the aforementioned statist) doesn't seem to have spotted the contradiction in his argument: 
"Had people lost confidence in the ability of the authorities to distribute limited resources..." 
But if it were a free market, it would be nothing to do with the ability of the authorities. 
Surely we know enough now, from the whole history of the 20th century, to state quite confidently that there is no such thing as "the ability of the authorities to distribute limited resources". 
Mr Gemmell hasn't noticed that, either.

19 July 2004, 13:19:31 GMT+01:00