Democracy, the State and Libertarianism

Published by Tom

July 27, 2013

Democracy, the State and Libertarianism :: A Very British Dude.

I commend this post to you. Jackart and I don't agree on everything – he's far too anti-automobile for us ever to be buddies – but he writes good, practical sense here. While I take the view that the state is such a flawed concept that its use must be kept to a minimum – his consequentialist approach is much more likely to appeal to voters afraid of the unknown. Indeed, I am not at all sure why he would label his middle-of-the-road views as "libertarian"; given how much opprobrium that word attracts!

He and I could agree, for example, on moving to the model of state-funded health care he proposes – essentially that currently used in France. He might regard that as his final objective. I would regard it as a step on the road to freedom. His only problem with being allied with me is that the defenders of the lethally-Soviet NHS might accuse him of being secretly on the same road as me. Frankly they have already proved that they will lie, cheat and desecrate graves in its defence, so I can't see that's a huge problem.

Our state is so powerful and invasive at present that an alliance could easily be built across the whole political spectrum – including more reasonable members of the Left. Jackart is certainly right that there's no point in purists fantasising about a libertarian utopia. Our freedoms have been lost yard by yard. We will be lucky to win them back inch by inch.

8 responses to “Democracy, the State and Libertarianism”

Jackart

July 27, 2013

Thanks for the link. A couple of points: I’m not anti automobile, I’m anti automobile-for-everything. Cars don’t work in towns and ruin them for people, who become less free because of impenetrable rivers of fast-flowing metal dividing people from amenities. The car thus becomes “necessary” to the exclusion of walking or cycling, which are much more human and social. Driving in town makes people miserable in way walking doesn’t. Design a town for a car, and you get Stevenage or Milton Keynes. For the bicycle Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
Secondly. I’m libertarian, because I will to all practical purposes always be arguing for less state than we have now. I have no utopia in mind, and I’m deeply suspicious of those who do.

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

July 27, 2013

I am not surprised by your demurrals but must demur. Towns without cars might as well be nudist colonies for all the use they are to me. And even a communist could believe in less state than we have now, but that wouldn’t make him a libertarian. It’s all relative, my friend.

LikeLike

Reply
Diogenes

July 27, 2013

Towns that grow organically like London will inevitably be congested in the centre. The more traffic there is the less practical cars become, assuming time is a factor for you… if it isn’t, a Ferrari is an odd transport choice.
Actually London is now blissfully free of traffic during congestion charging hours. One can wander down Shaftesbury Avenue safer than 100 years ago.
There is nothing intrinsically libertarian about cars. I use a car out of town, a motorcycle in town and a bicycle in central London. In each case I travel quicker and cheaper than any state alternative.
But I like Jackart’s pragmatism. He grasps that you never simply win an argument, you just succeed in shifting your opponent by degree. The purist libertarian view is an impossible sell to a generation bought up on NHS propaganda. Equally it is not a practical path, people need to be weened off dependency… especially mentally.
Tom, I am very glad that you are back and I would be glad to assist this site in any way. I have a couple of posts/questions in mind to contribute.

LikeLike

Reply
Saclerson

July 28, 2013

800th anniversary of Magna Carta coming up. Planning anything?

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

July 29, 2013

I had planned to open one of my few remaining bottles of Gevrey Chambertin, but I am open to other suggestions.

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

July 29, 2013

There’s nothing inevitable about it. Paris and Berlin are perfectly drivable. The systematic neglect of London’s infrastructure for generations will bring the national economy to a halt eventually, if other problems don’t get there first.
Paris is much more densely populated than London. The “bowl” planning model they have, with building heights permitted to be higher and higher as you move out to the Peripherique allows that. London is relatively sparsely populated in urban planning terms. It’s the weakness of the infrastructure that is the problem (you have space to build high-rise, but no utility capacity to service it, tube capacity to get the inhabitants to work and road capacity for their buses and – yes – cars).
The reason all this matters nationally is that London is the only UK city that is a net contributor to the Treasury. Compare and contrast Germany, where every “Land” has at least one city that is a net contributor. If London breaks down as the British state’s only net revenue engine (and that could be triggered by wealth-creators finally deciding the place is unliveable) taxes or borrowing would have to rise even further across the country.
If I were Boris Johnson, I would make a unilateral declaration of independence. The Free City State of London would be quite a force in the world and the threat would be removed of legislation voted for in the UK hinterland or in the EU that would damage London’s own economic engine.

LikeLike

Reply
Diogenes

July 30, 2013

The bowl planning model is an excellent idea but I think it would be a stretch to say either Paris or Berlin had grown organically like London. They have both been extensively pruned over time, Paris in the 1860s and Berlin by various dictatorial regimes and a generous spot of carpet bombing in the 40s.
By contrast the only straight roads in London were built by the Romans.
To retrofit some Haussmann Avenues is the wet dream of every urban planner and wannabe Napoleon out there. I am surprised to see it lauded here though. Do you have other suggestions or do you favour the Livingstonian approach of pricing the poor off the roads?

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

July 30, 2013

I favour the removal of planning controls, “heritage” restrictions on development and the state monopoly on the provision of highways and other infrastructure. It would be an almighty mess for a decade or so, but a new order would emerge as developers worked out the profits to be gained by supplying what people want.

LikeLike

Reply