Apologies

It's not just me.

For example, Doctor Vee has written this:

The observant among you may have spotted that it is a month since I wrote a post for this blog. It is interesting that I have not even found the motivation to write about the General Election. This is not a conscious decision — I genuinely have not been moved enough to put finger to keyboard.

This is due to a combination of factors. Partly, I became disillusioned with politics a couple of years ago and have not felt the need to write about it for a long time now. But it goes beyond politics writing.

With me too there are several reasons for the lack of blogging. In addition to dealing with my own financial and business matters there is a general feeling of being "blogged out". Believe it or not, it's now eight years since I started writing Freedom and Whisky and when I look at the state of the world, of the UK, and of Scotland I can't help wondering whether anything's been achieved at all. Throughout the West the political class seems determined to wipe out the prudent and to subsidise the feckless. And the term "feckless" obviously includes plenty of businessmen (sic) as well as the more conventional candidates for that description. The lack of any clear plans from the establishment parties to cut the national debt is a disgrace. They all deserve to lose.

But perhaps all is not lost. We now have a Libertarian Party in the UK and I would certainly vote for them if they were standing here. And the Libertarian Alliance goes from strength to strength. Indeed, it takes me so long every day to read other libertarian blogs that there's no time left to write this one...

Like folks elsewhere I get the distinct impression that we are heading for some kind of bust up. I don't believe for a moment that the financial crisis has been solved. As to why, I suggest getting this new book from the IEA. Then read the hard core stuff.

I'm kind of tempted just to settle back and see how it all pans out. I'm certainly going to enjoy the general election and hope to see lots of the bums (from all parties) thrown out.

But afterwards it'll be back to the intellectual struggle. That's what really matters in the long run. I expect that I'll still be part of it.

Old Devil, New Devil

After this appearance on the Daily Politics show, Chris Mounsey has deleted his Devil's Kitchen blog and is now writing as a much toned-down Devil's Knife.

An explanation of the rebranding can be found here:

My boss was phoned by a very unimpressed friend who had recognised me on The Daily Politics. My boss—who, whilst knowing that I blogged, has never let it concern him—phoned me and expressed some disquiet. I should point out that he did not tell me to do anything and nor has he tried, in any way, to force me to do anything about this situation other than talk it over tomorrow.

However, it took me only a few minutes to make this decision...

The simple fact is that I love my job and I am now in quite a high-profile position: as the company grows, I am going to become yet more exposed. And the fact is, I want to be exposed.

Chris Mounsey is the newish leader of the Libertarian Party and that explains why this whole affair has been all over the British blogosphere for the last couple of days.

I guess that I'm one of the old guard of the British libertarian movement. It's close to 40 years since I first discovered libertarianism and the entire movement could have fitted inside a telephone box back in the early days. When the Libertarian Alliance was founded its purpose was to change the intellectual climate, not to run for office. And now we have a Libertarian Party in the UK.

I was skeptical at first. I haven't joined the LP, partly because I'd probably want to devote myself to making sure that the manifesto was absolutely 100% sound in terms of libertarian theory - the theory that I've been studying for over three decades. Frankly, I haven't got the time, or the energy. But I hope that the new generation of libertarians makes sure that they do read the great classics of our movement. Party politics isn't enough: ideas are more important. But politics does have its place in libertarianism and so I wish the LP well. I have sent a donation to the "F***ing Hellski" fund and I urge others to do the same.

Cameron is an idiot

That's it then. Any slight chance that I'd give my vote to the Tories has gone down the plughole.

Cameron is an idiot

Why, oh why, don't the Tories call Brown out on this?

Not collecting £6 million in tax is not the same as "taking it out of the economy". It means removing it from the state's (proposed) spend and retaining it in the private sector where it belongs and where it will be more productive.

Discriminating behaviour

I posted the following reply to one of Jeff's postings over on SNP Tactical Voting:

There should be a crucial difference between being a Christian owner of a hotel and a Christian owner of a B&B that is effectively your own home.



Utterly wrong. The keyword is not home but property.



In a civilised society, owners of property have the absolute right to determine how their property is used. The only exception is when such use involves the initiation of physical violence against another person or his property. There is no right not to be offended. And this rule applies to discrimination against blacks, Irish, Scots, or even against people called Jeff or David.



See here.



It shouldn't need to be pointed out that none of the above means that I'm in favour of such discriminations. But I totally support the right to carry them out. And of course the right of those who disapprove to carry out retaliatory discriminations.

Wet or Dry?

In response to this post of mine, Subrosa asked:

David, if the SNP privatise Scottish Water they'll lose so many votes in this area anyway. What would be bound to happen is that prices would go sky high.

Well, yes and no. I've no doubt at all that such a move would cost the SNP votes. But that's because of the almost universal lack of economic understanding here in Scotland. Not that it's much better elsewhere of course.

Earlier today I bumped into historian Michael Fry, formerly a Tory candidate and now a supporter of the SNP. Michael has an article about water privatisation in today's Scotsman but unfortunately it's behind the subscription wall. However I have the paper edition!

Michael explains that English water prices shot up after privatisation as a direct result of years of underinvestment by the state:

We might pause to reflect that no other country follows the precise Scottish model of regulated public ownership, whereas all over the world countries have adopted the English policy of straightforward privatisation. One of the reasons is that the English have succeeded in improving the quality of their water, and far faster than we have for all our babbling burns and limpid lochs.

For me the issue is primarily a moral one. The state is the only body in society that can initiate force without attracting the attentions of the police. If there is to be a state at all (arguable), it must be limited to protecting us from aggressors. Everything else, including water, should be provided by the private sector.

Michael concludes his article by asking:

People often ask me how I, a cold-hearted capitalist, can bring myself to support the bunch of wooly lefties who now rule us from Holyrood, as I will again on 6 May.

Here is my answer: reality makes capitalists of us all. It is like nothing so much as a douche of cold water.

I agree with that, except for calling capitalists "cold-hearted". Capitalists are warm-hearted folk who provide people with goods and services without the support of taxation extracted from others.

I really do look forward to that "douche of cold water" being piped, perhaps, directly from Loch Katrine to the Glasgow City Chambers.

Is this a scam?

From: HSBC BANK UK [ add to contacts ]

To:
Cc:
Date: Saturday, April 03, 2010 02:29 pm
Subject: Re-Verify Your Lloyds TSB Online Banking Account Status.

During our regularly scheduled account maintenance and verification procedures we have detected a slight error in your account information.

To securely confirm your personal information please click on the link below:

My account activity

Confirm Your Login Information now to enjoy the benefits of online banking and finance to avoid identity theft and fraudulent activities on your account. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………............................................................................................. Programs and data held on this system belong or are licensed to HSBC BANK UK. It is an offence to access the programs and data unless you are doing so through your own account using the Passwords and User ID issued to you by HSBC BANK UK in an authorized manner and in accordance with all applicable laws.

The US spelling of "authorized" is a bit of a giveaway, is it not?

But how about an a-mail from "HSBC" warning me about an account with "Lloyds TSB"!

Where's the money?

I'll name one of the organisations I work with "O". It deals with several government departments one of which I'll call "G".

A couple of weeks ago "O" sent an e-mail to "G". Essentially it said: "Send us an invoice for £Megasum and we'll pay you by return. But please make sure the invoice reaches us before 31st March."

Needless-to-say "G" has yet to send the invoice. All it needs to say is: "Send us the money." We'll pass over why on earth "G" itself doesn't know how much to invoice "O".

Like all such entities "G" is short of cash.

Or is it?

It certainly spends lots of cash. From previous experience it's highly likely that when "G" gets round to sending the invoice and subsequently receives the cheque from "O", "G" will stick the cheque in a drawer for up to three or four months before they decide to deposit it in the bank.

This is not a one off. I know of several "Os" that have similar experiences with "G".

The Hawick Pound

I see that some folk in Hawick want to issue their own currency:

A pilot scheme for the "Hawick Pound" is being launched this month to try to encourage more people to shop locally.

There has been concern from traders because of the competition they face from larger retailers outside the town.

But the idea is that the local currency could only be spent in Hawick, so money would stay in the community.

I'm all in favour of towns like Hawick having strong economies. And I'm also in favour of private monetary systems. But I don't think that the good folk of Hawick have thought this through properly.

Listen to this broadcast:

Basically we are going to print up some notes and sell them into circulation.

Just like that.

When the BBC reporter asked, "How would inflation work in Hawick?" the answer was, "I don't know." Not good enough. And if the currency is just going to be "printed up", we can guess the answer on that one.

As Mises explained, a sound currency can only come into existence by winning the hearts and minds of people in the marketplace. Why would a resident of Hawick prefer a currency that was only usable in his home town, especially a currency that can be "printed up"? There's absolutely nothing to stop Hawick folk from patronising local businesses as things stand right now. By all means let that include a bank - but one founded on sound principles.

Calling you...

MPs are having a moan about banks:

Banks are continuing to aggressively target customers who have fallen into debt, according to a report by a group of Scottish MPs.

The Scottish Affairs committee has called for an end to "undesirable practices" such as automated calls.

I didn't realise that the IMF used automated calls!

I blame the public sector workers

According to David Bell in today's Scotsman:

PUBLIC sector workers are not responsible for the recession.

But in the very next sentence Mr Bell writes:

Most of the blame should lie with regulators, bankers, governments, economists, auditors, credit rating agencies etc.

Eh? Aren't the regulators and "governments" public sector workers? And the economists have almost all been educated at universities that employ public sector teachers. Lots of those economists still work in such "public" institutions and wouldn't know real economics if it hit them on the head.

Of course bankers, auditors and credit rating agencies have also fallen down on the job but the prime reason for the financial crisis (most of it yet to happen I guess) is the existence of the fraudulent government-created money system.

Now why could this be?

Here's some interesting news about camera sales:

The UK has embraced the Micro Four Thirds camera format, making up over 10% of interchangeable lens camera sales (by volume) in December 2009. According to figures from market research company GfK Retail and Technology, around 6,600 Micro Four Thirds cameras were sold in the UK, accounting for more than half of the system's sales volumes in 11 major Western European countries.

The Micro Four Thirds system allows serious cameras with interchangeable lenses to be much smaller than the more conventional SLRs. Also, by not having the bulky pentaprism on top, these cameras look very similar to compacts.

Now why would the Micro Four Thirds system be doing especially well in the UK?

It's not the price: these cameras are pretty expensive. I reckon that the reason may well the one that's making me think of getting one of these pricey little devices. Having a small and unobtrusive camera could well mean that the user is less likely to come to the attention of Britain's police forces who are waging a relentless war on photography. Unusually in European history this is a war that seems to have left the mainland unscathed.

Opinion Polls

Last week:

Conservatives: 39%
Labour: 33%
Liberal Democrats: 17%
Others: 11%

Today:

Conservatives: 37%
Labour: 35%
Liberal Democrats: 17%
Others: 11%

Next week:

Bond Market: 100%
Conservatives: 0%
Labour: 0%
Liberal Democrats: 0%
Others: 0%

test

Twitter

My Twitter account has been hacked. Password being changed. Please ignore any strange messages.

How should I vote?

I see that my good friend Sean Gabb is thinking of voting for the Tories.

This is quite a change for Sean and here's the key quote:

This being so, why do I propose to vote Conservative? The answer is that a Conservative Government would probably continue with most of the suicidal or simply demented policies of the Blair and Brown Governments. But, at the end of five years, it would then allow a free election as these things have been commonly understood in England. A re-elected labour Government would not.

I'm sure that Sean includes Scotland as well.

My own position on the forthcoming election is still in doubt.

Let's go back to when I first became interested in politics - back in the late 'sixties. After a brief leftist phase I discovered the IEA and learned quite a bit about economics. I was excited when Ted Heath won the 1970 election, but he rapidly abandoned his free market Selsdon principles and adopted interventionism. In 1972 I discovered libertarianism, joined the Libertarian Alliance (now directed by Sean), and read all the classic stuff by Mises, Hayek, Rand, Friedman and Rothbard.

Things got worse and worse during the rest of the 'seventies. Inflation was rampant and total economic collapse seemed possible. But as far as I can recall we libertarians didn't concern ourselves nearly so much with civil liberties as we do now. Not because civil liberties weren't important but rather because the Wilson/Callaghan Labour governments clearly wanted to nationalise the economy but didn't show anything like as much interest in nationalising our minds and bodies. Unlike their successors today.

This meant that British libertarians were quite supportive of the Thatcher regime as it gradually reduced the growth of the socialised part of the economy and brought inflation back under some sort of control. Sadly there was no serious attempt to tackle the welfare state but lots of us continued to vote for a Conservative party that was clearly better than the alternative.

Along came John Major - infinitely preferable to his Labour successors who enthusiastically supported the ill-fated ERM debacle. And then we got Blair. I for one wasn't fooled for a moment. Blair and Brown have almost destroyed our country. Not only have they ruined the economy, they have almost completely wiped out our civil liberties that have been won over such a long period. I think that fixing the economy will be an easier task than rebuilding civil society.

In 2005 I voted for the Tories but without too much enthusiasm. In 2007 I voted Tory for the Edinburgh City Council but SNP for Holyrood. This was partly a tactical anti-Labour vote and, thank God, Labour got the chop. But my support for the Nationalists wasn't entirely tactical. I do have a great deal of sympathy for the independence cause. My own background is both English and Scottish and I'm proud to say that I've visited every county in the United Kingdom. I also think that the UK has generally been a good thing.

But times change.

We are no longer a world power and it was the Empire that bound us together. Also, Britain is just about the most centralised country of its size - despite devolution. The dominance of London - largely the result of government policies, not of the free market - harms the rest of the country tremendously, especially those of us far from the capital. Scotland has an alternative identity that's not on offer to, say, Yorkshire. Everyone here, including unionists, has an alternate nationalism to the British one. I think that Scottish independence is likely at some time and I'd quite like to be around when it happens. I see no reason for an independent Scotland to be an economic failure - subject to adopting suitable economic policies. I've got the textbooks! And although some other libertarians may disagree, I think that Scotland's relative homogeneity may well be a most useful asset in the future.

But the SNP hasn't quite sealed the deal for me yet. Every time I decide that I'll abandon the Tories for the Westminster vote the SNP indulges in another bout of nanny-statism. Then I start thinking like Sean and lean back towards the Tories only for them to drop another clanger. I know several of the Scottish Conservative candidates and would probably vote for them out of a sense of loyalty were I to live in a relevant constituency. But fortunately perhaps I've never met the local candidate and so my own vote can't be influenced by friendship. Nor do I know the local SNP person. I have seen the Labour candidate on a couple of occasions. He seems to be slightly more knowledgeable about economics than does his boss. If only this Labour chappie would defect to the Libertarian Party my quest would be over. Oh yes, his name is Alistair Darling.

Banking reform

I went to the David Hume Institute event last night.

The topic:

‘Narrow banking and all that – regulatory reform after the collapse of Scotland’s banks’

Speaker: John Kay

I'd guess that there were around 150 people there, with heavy representation from the banking world. Kay's argument was for the introduction of a regime of narrow banking.

Its purpose:

Their purpose is to ensure that taxpayers will never again be called upon to lay out unimaginably large sums of money to protect financial institutions, and to protect the real economy – non-financial businesses and users of financial services – from the consequences of mismanagement of financial services firms. The interests of the financial services sector itself are secondary to these primary objectives.

I think that Kay's plan is certainly better than what we have now. After the talk I asked Kay about the commodity-backed currency option and the role of fractional reserve banking. He thought that his narrow banking proposals were sufficient to mitigate the effect of the fractional reserve system. I'm not so sure, although I don't think that fractional reserve systems should be outlawed so long as everyone can see what the risks are.

An interesting anecdote. After leaving the University I walked down the road to a Lidl shop to get some milk. Ahead of me in the queue were around a dozen students. Every one of them paid for their purchases using plastic. I used a fiat currency note.

Nicolagate

Everyone's being going on about the Nicola Sturgeon letter. There's some good discussion over on SNP Tactical Voting.

Jeff writes:

So two former Labour leaders and a former Tory Cabinet Minister write character reference letters and/or involve themselves in court cases at the request of a constituent and it's ok. An SNP MSP does it and she faces "serious questions", calls to resign and a media grilling to within an inch of her political life.

Unsurprisingly, the unionist parties (and their media outlets) have attacked Sturgeon, and nationalists have supported her. But what no one has done is to ask the really obvious question: Why should the state operate a benefits system in the first place?

Obviously it shouldn't.

The non-aggression principle is at the heart of libertarianism. Some libertarians believe that a state is necessary to defend us against aggressors. Others believe that it's possible to do away with the state altogether. No one who accepts the non-aggression principle thinks that the state should take resources from some to give to others. The real scandal of Nicolagate is that all the politicians seem perfectly happy with the benefits culture that's bankrupting the country.

As for Mr Rauf himself, should he go to prison? No, I don't think so. Prison would mean that taxpayers would be funding him yet again. What should happen is that he is fined, say, ten times what he has stolen and that money be used towards cutting taxes.

Scotblogs Awards

Thanks to everyone who voted in this.

Bastiat Alert

That old seen and unseen fallacy never quite goes away, does it?

Here's the latest outbreak:

ALMOST 800 jobs were safeguarded or created in the final quarter of 2009 after Scottish Enterprise paid out more than £7 million in regional selective assistance (RSA).

But how many other jobs were lost as a result of the taxes extracted to pay for the jobs favoured by Scottish Enterprise (sic)?

As the great Bastiat put it:

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

From "Hug a Hoodie" to "Hang a Hoodie"

And you get to do it yourself!

The question I have is this: Has Annabel Goldie signed up to this policy? What, with law'n'order being devolved and all that.

I agree with Labour! (*)

Slaps forehead. Scrapes oneself off the ground.

But they've got this one right:

Scottish Labour, which is opposed to minimum pricing, said the study strengthened its argument that the measure would do little to cut problem drinking while penalising moderate drinkers and boosting supermarket profits

Needless-to-say I understand that Labour's opposition to minimum pricing is almost certainly simply because it's a policy of the SNP, not from any moral opposition to market rigging. Oh no.

Labour's Jackie Baillie says: "Scotland’s hard-drinking culture is a national disgrace."

No, Scotland's hard-legislating culture is a national disgrace. Drinking is voluntary; being legislated into serfdom isn't.

(* Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Alistair Darling.)

The state is not your friend (part 94)

Now this is an interesting one:

Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), claimed the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) was “over-zealous” after John McHugh, an English teacher from Dundee, was removed from the teachers’ register after being banned from driving for two years and fined £400.

Smith said teachers were being removed from the register for relatively minor offences outside work that had no bearing on their professional skills.

I think that an employer should be able to dismiss an employee for any reason whatsoever. Subject to contract of course.

Does that mean that I think that every employer is all wise? No of course not. Nor is every employee.

If the EIS were a genuine union that's primarily interested in its members' welfare they would have spotted the real issue here. Especially as they are teachers.

The real issue is that almost all teachers in Scotland are employed by the state. In a free society, no teacher would be employed by the state. They'd be self-employed, employed by companies, employed by co-operatives, employed by parents and employed in all sorts of ways yet to be imagined. Then, if one employer behaved "over-zealously" they'd very quickly find out that no one would continue to work for them.

Who's gloomy now?

Scotland's top civil servant, that's who:

THE country is facing a gloomy future, Scotland's top civil servant has warned, with fears that reduced budgets will see a rise in compulsory redundancies.

But what Sir John is talking about are cuts in the public (sic) sector. The truth is that without cuts in the "public" sector we can't get growth in wealth creating businesses. I find it worrying when folk conflate the size of the state with national prosperity.