Alan Greenspan and the death of libertarian economics
US Economist Alan Greenspan has been giving his testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, criticised for failing to implement rules that would have curbed an overstretched banking system.
As the Telegraph reported:
In one of the most heated moments of his testimony, Brooksley Born, who chaired the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for three years from 1996, blasted: “The Fed utterly failed to prevent the financial crisis. Failed to prevent the housing bubble, failed to prevent the predatory lending scandal.”
Greenspan, who chaired America’s central bank from 1987-2006, said that he hadn’t “regulate[d] sub-prime mortgages because, by 2005, more than half of such home loans were being originated by institutions outside of the central bank’s control.”
For a man otherwise known for his strong libertarian, anti-governmental regulation and pro-laissez-faire views this was a shock.
continue reading… »
Right wing rebels
Guest post by badstephen
Somehow, over the past half-century, the right have grabbed for themselves the mantle of revolutionaries.
Right-wingers, the argument goes, are the anti-establishment mavericks, battling the status quo. Liberals now control everything. That last part might come as a surprise to many liberals.
Interestingly, the faux-revolutionary stance disguises the essential nature of the right’s project – the preservation of existing structures of power and wealth.
Friedrich von Hayek got the ball rolling in 1944 with The Road to Serfdom. Keynesian economies, allegedly, were every bit as repressive and socially restrictive as the totalitarian regimes they were fighting. Only the free market model could deliver genuine social mobility, with no single dominant class. Well, the UK has had the experiment of the last 30 years to demonstrate exactly how successful the market is at breaking down social divides. It’s not looking good, Friedrich.
In the 1960s, Richard Nixon further developed the concept of the anti-establishment right-winger. There was, apparently, an urban elite entrenched against him. The liberal media was out to get him (“You guys won’t have Nixon to kick around any more.”) And he invented the ‘silent majority’ – the right’s imaginary friend ever since. “Grocer” Heath was doing much the same thing in the UK. He was the first Tory leader to break the patrician mould and present himself as an outsider. Oddly, the modern right is reluctant to acknowledge its debt to these two pioneers.
Yet their legacy is all around us. Take climate change. Sceptics project themselves as bold iconoclasts, bravely taking on the great global green conspiracy. It wouldn’t be quite so cool to be seen as apologists for the fossil fuel industries. Whenever Jeremy Clarkson questions global warming, he does so carefully, as a naughty schoolboy making jokes about polar bears, not as a cheerleader for the automotive conglomerates. continue reading… »
Welcome to Libertopia
Wondering what “savage cuts” in public spending would actually mean in practice, or what would happen if the government got out of the way of providing basic services? The residents of Colorado Springs are about to find out:
“More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.
The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.
Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.
Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.
City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won’t pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need.”
“A budget crisis caused by the recession left Colorado’s second-largest city with a $28-million shortfall in its $212-million general budget. Residents — largely conservative, anti-tax and suspicious of their elected leaders — resoundingly voted against a proposal to triple property taxes and keep the city humming. Mayor Lionel Rivera said the city has no choice but to cut fundamental services.”
Why lefties should question the role of the state
contribution by Luis Enrique
Sensible people may disagree, but they ought to agree on this
The appropriate role of government in the economy is a fundamental question, and one that should excite the interest of LC readers. In the interminable blog war between libertarians and statists, there are two polarized positions that all sensible people should disavow.
1. Government activity is generally undesirable (on one side)
2. Government programs with laudable goals should be supported (on the other)
These extreme views are paraphrased from this blog post, which was itself inspired by this blog post, in which a couple of libertarians try to persuade their fellow libertarians to embrace government.
continue reading… »
Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform?
This morning’s guest post by Zarathustra, of the excellent Mental Nurse blog, flagged up the existence of a right-wing campaign group calling itself ‘Nurses for Reform’, and as Lib Con’s resident data hound that naturally prompted me to ask a very pertinant question:
Just exactly how many of the people behind ‘Nurses for Reform’ are actually nurses?
Is this actually a genuine organisation that can point to a significant level of support within the nursing profession or it is, like the Taxpayers’ Alliance, just another small, well funded, right-wing front organisation with a name carefully chosen to mislead the naive and unwary into taking it for something it almost certainly isn’t?
So who, exactly, are ‘Nurses for Reform’?
Well, their director and primary mouthpiece is Dr Helen Evans RGN and she is, indeed, a nurse with 20 years experience in the NHS under her belt and a PhD in health management from Brunel University. So she’s a doctor, but not in the medical sense of the term.
As for her organisation, it claims to be a ‘growing pan-European network of nurses dedicated to consumer-oriented reform of European healthcare systems’, although evidence of any links to like-minded nurses organisations or campaign groups are a bit thin on the ground.
The other noticeable feature of the NFR website is, with the exception of a page listing members of advisory board, the marked lack of reference to anyone other than Dr Helen Evans, who appears to be the site’s sole contributor, contact point and, for all anyone knows, chief cook and bottle-washer.
Not exactly a flying start then, but there is an advisory board, so maybe we’ll find a few more nurses there…
continue reading… »
Exclusive: Campaigners advising Cameron compares NHS to “Nazi” system
contribution by Zarathustra
Nurses for Reform have been featured on Liberal Conspiracy before. They’re a campaigning group with links to the libertarian Adam Smith Institute and ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation think-tanks.
Last month they met with David Cameron to discuss their ideas, which included wholesale privatisation of the NHS, the scrapping of national pay agreements for health workers and nurses being given brands like consumer products.
The idea of competing brands of nurses (None of yer manky Tesco nurses working in our hospital. We only use Sainsburys nurses) might sound daft, but this weekend Nurses For Reform crossed the line from silly to downright offensive.
Their leading spokesperspon has been strongly implying the NHS was created along Nazi principles.
continue reading… »
How not to kill a good story
contribution by David Hencke
An extraordinary attempt was made just before Christmas to kill off a story of mine to spare the blushes of a rather hapless Liberal Democrat Parliamentary candidate caught out for living a dual life in cyberspace.
Greg Stone is now toast and has had to stand down as Liberal Democrat candidate for Newcastle-upon Tyne East and Wallsend as a result but the shennaghins surrounding the attempt to make sure this did not get into print is worth recalling.
Guido Fawkes tried to come to the rescue of Greg Stone aka Inamicus by using one of the oldest tricks of ye olde print media -a spoiler before the tale could be published by a rival.
continue reading… »
Snow offers a case for big government
‘Big government’ is often attacked as political rhetoric. In the abstract, we all like to be agin it.
Yet, on every specific issue, from child protection to the collapse of the banks, most of the public calls are very often for government to do more.
Especially when it snows.
I would suppose that a ‘big government’ approach to heavy snowfall would place a good deal of emphasis on local Councils as having the taxpayer-financed responsibility for clearing the roads, and letting business and life carry on as far as possible, and paying particular attention to vital emergency services.
Mightn’t a ’social responsibility’ approach suggest we should rally around and sort it out for ourselves?
continue reading… »
Libertarian Party surges in Canada
The province of Alberta in Canada has for many years been a Conservative stronghold. In last year’s elections, the governing Progressive Conservatives got 53% of the vote.
But at the end of 2009, the Conservatives are trailing a new party called the Wildrose Alliance. The Alliance includes both libertarian and socially conservative factions, and is led by libertarian Danielle Smith, the former Director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Recent polls in the province put the Alliance on 39%, ahead of the Conservatives and Liberals on 25% and the New Democratic Party on 9%.
continue reading… »
Even Dan Hannan opposes the ban on minarets
Is it still committing heresy to link favourably to right wing Tory MEP Daniel Hannan? Ah well, I was never going to be invited to the Cool Kids’ table anyway:
The decision by Swiss voters to outlaw the construction of minarets strikes me as regrettable on three grounds.
First, it is at odds with that other guiding Swiss principle, localism: issues of this kind ought surely to be settled town by town, or at least canton by canton, not by a national ban.
Second, it is disproportionate. There may be arguments against the erection of a particular minaret by a particular mosque – but to drag a constitutional amendment into the field of planning law is using a pneumatic drill to crack a nut.
Third, it suggests that Western democracies have a problem, not with jihadi fruitcakes, but with Muslims per se – which is, of course, precisely the argument of the jihadi fruitcakes.
Hannan’s last point is surely the most important. Whilst there may have been a few Swiss voters who voted for the ban solely out of aesthetic antipathy, I suspect they were somewhat outnumbered by people who voted because they are suspicious, wary or even scared of their Muslim countrymen.
If a number of amateur bloggers can speculate that fear of Muslims led to this vote, you can be pretty sure that Swiss Muslims have gotten the message, too. And therein lies the problem; othering often leads to more marginalisation, segregation, exclusion, distrust and bitterness than existed before. Those are pretty ripe conditions for political and religious extremism to fester, and so the proponents of the ban are actually succeeding in compounding a problem they supposedly wish to reduce. So they’re either dishonest or deeply daft.
I’m not going to claim that there’s some silver bullet for achieving greater social & cultural integration, and I’m not going to pass myself off as any kind of expert about extinguishing militant theism. But I do know that neither of those aims are going to be achieved by winning small-minded & petty restrictions on what religious buildings look like.
Conservatives and Libertarians – How do you spot the difference?
A little over a week or so ago, John Elledge sparked off a fair degree of consternation in libertarian ranks by making the all too common and, to an extent, understandable mistake of confusing genuine philosophical libertarians with those on the conservative right who’ve co-opted the term ‘libertarian’ as a a pseudo-intellectual fig-leaf for their belief in the merits of tax cuts and an unfettered right to air their bigoted opinions with total impunity.
John’s post prompted an interesting and, at times, heated debate in comments, one that included a rare off-Samizdata appearance by Perry de Havilland, along with a commentary by Bella Gerens (aka Mrs Devil) that’s well worth a look, but what neither provide – and to be fair I doubt that this was Bella’s objective – is a clear and readily digestible exposition of the central difference(s) between a libertarian ( or liberal, for that matter) and a conservative.
With libertarian ideas becoming more and more influential as many of us start to look beyond the established, and in many respects increasingly discredited, political order towards a ‘new politics’ of some description, it strikes me that there’s a need to bottom out this difference if we’re raise the level of debate above that of fighting of who’s most adept at burning straw men and that, in turn, brings me a couple of quotations from two of the great political antagonists of the late 18th Century which, as I see it, articulate exactly the kind of distinction we should be mindful of.
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” – Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
“Men are qualified for civil liberties in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites: in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity” – Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
You may disagree, but as I see it those two short quotations more than adequately sum up the fundamental difference between the archetypal liberal/libertarian and conservative view of both liberty and, indeed, of human nature.
For Paine, liberty, and the rights and freedoms associated with it, is a universal principle and, as important, indivisible. Liberty is for everyone, irrespective of their station in life or their personal and/or moral character. It is natural right, albeit one that other liberal, and particularly, contractarian thinkers, who were deeply sceptical of the Lockean doctrine of natural rights, were able to derive by other means.
Universalism of this kind is the defining characteristic of classical, enlightenment, liberalism, in which both modern liberalism and libertarianism are, to varying degrees, rooted.
Burke, on the other hand, sets out the classical conservative position on liberty, and by extension on human rights, one that holds that civil liberties, in particular, should be dispensed to general population in to their moral rectitude and personal/collective character.
In the modern political idiom that principle is most frequently to be found in the populist political rhetoric that has more or less defined the public discourse on criminal justice since the introduction of the markedly universalist Human Rights Act. Whenever a contrast is drawn between the presumed ‘rights of victims’ or the ‘rights of law-abiding citizens’ and the ‘rights of criminals/terrorists’ then what you’re seeing is latter-day Burkean conservativism in action – and that is true irrespective of whether the individual invoking this heavily qualified view of liberty is an actual conservative or, as has frequently been the case in recent years, a minister in the current New Labour government.
In fact this is no less true when you find it reflected in Rosa Luxemburg’s famous, and endearingly pithy, critique of the kind of post-revolutionary Bolshevism that would eventually spawn Stalinism.
Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. The essence of political freedom depends not on the fanatics of ‘justice’, but rather on all the invigorating, beneficial, and detergent effects of dissenters. If ‘freedom’ becomes ‘privilege’, the workings of political freedom are broken.
All of which explains, in part, why many on the left regard Stalin as a conservative rather than a socialist or Marxist.
So, it you’re at all unsure as to how to spot a Tory masquerading as a libertarian, just ask them whether they believe that victims of crime, or just plain old law-abiding citizens have different rights to criminals.
If the answer’s ‘yes’, then you’ve got yourself a Tory (or a cabinet minister).
If the answer’s ‘no’ and they go to explain that both have the same fundamental rights but that the criminal’s freedom to exercise those rights may be legitimately, and temporarily, constrained in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others, then you’ve got yourself a liberal or libertarian.
Simples.
Are all libertarians this childish?
When you were a child, the world revolved around you. All that mattered was your meals and your toys and, if you were lucky, you had a galaxy of benign grown ups to bring them to you.
For the first few years of our life we’re all convinced of this simplistic worldview, until, sometime around the age of four, we start getting to grips with the idea that other people have desires and ambitions that are different to, but just as valid as, our own.
Unless, that is, you’re a libertarian.
Last weekend my work took me to Manchester for the Tory conference. There I spent a slightly worrying hour in the ‘freedom zone‘, a fringe venue where those who felt the Conservative party had become too namby-pamby and left-wing had set up camp.
The theme of the meeting was ‘the bully state’, and the panel included Roger Helmer, the MEP for East Midlands. Mr Helmer made a gallant defence of his rights to get pissed, stuff his face, pollute his lungs, and ruin the atmosphere by driving as fast as he likes in a great gas-guzzling monstrosity. People were sick of being told how to live, he said. The state should butt out.
continue reading… »
Is Dan Hannan really a libertarian?
contribution by Soho Politico
As we have all now read, yet another recorded interview with culture warrior Daniel Hannan has surfaced and caused much controversy.
What I’m interested in is the defence of Daniel Hannan over this emanating from the right.
Their claim is that Hannan’s lionising of Powell is benign, because he never associated himself with Powell’s views about immigration specifically, and is in any case personally a ‘libertarian’ on borders.
continue reading… »
Quote of the day
A bit of light entertainment on a Friday afternoon from Freeborn John:
LPUK [Libertarian Party UK] showed some early promise, I thought, but seems to have turned into the saloon bar at a home counties golf club; its members have, for some reason, elected as their leader a cross between Captain Mainwaring and David Icke.
All very odd.
Why we should take Hannan-ism seriously
Here are three reasons why Hannanism matters rather more than some of its slightly more moderate supporters will want to admit last weekend.
1. The big idea:
Hannan is both the most strident and the most feted contemporary British advocate of what has been the dominant idea in the Anglo-American right for the last thirty years. The idea is: “less state equals more freedom”.
There is still every reason to think that this remains the dominant ideological belief in the Conservative Party.
Listen carefully to debates on the right and objections to Hannanism are often matters of strategy and tactics. Many Conservatives disagree with the vehemence with which Hannan expresses his views. But these are usually differences of degree, rather than differences of directionality. Few want to go as far as Hannan in taking arguments to their logical conclusion.
So the content of Hannanism – less state, less tax, less regulation, less Europe – remains the content of most Conservative public advocacy.
continue reading… »
How Tory bloggers spun Coulson
There has been an intriguing side-show to Coulsongate / NotW blagging story: the speed at which many Tory bloggers came out to distance themselves from Coulson, to Guido Fawkes who insisted that the Guardian were wasting their time with the whole issue. Yesterday showed that not to be the case at all.
And indeed the affair raises some very important questions about the context of bloggers versus lobby journalists.
continue reading… »
Nick Clegg: more libertarian than he thinks
Having just listened to a very interesting IPPR podcast from their event last week featuring Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, it is clear that this thing called ‘liberalism’ matters enormously to him.
He is, perhaps, the Liberal Democrat leader who has given most emphasis to the ‘liberal’ dimension of Liberal Democrat thought. It is hugely refreshing to see a politician willing to go out and make a case for ‘liberalism’ in this way. Clegg is a politician of genuine ideas, and, as one might expect, there is a lot in his speech which liberals in the Labour party (like me) would agree with.
But just what kind of liberal is Nick Clegg?
[Update: Evan Harris MP defends his party in the comments]
continue reading… »
Sorry, but Abu Qatada deserves the compo
‘PREACHER of hate’, ‘truly dangerous individual’, ‘Osama Bin Laden’s ambassador in Europe’; if rhetoric alone were sufficient to secure a criminal conviction, Abu Qatada would currently be in the early years of a very long stretch. Luckily for all of us that live in Britain, any amount of declamation or hearsay is not enough to put somebody behind bars.
Yes, of course this man’s openly expressed views are utterly odious and utterly repugnant. However, until the Thought Police do finally get to run the show in Airstrip One, to endlessly reiterate that undeniable point is to miss what is at stake, namely the quaint insistence that the same rules must apply to all.
Tech politics: libertarians and the Library
A year ago, I wrote a piece here about the great art of the Gothic and Renaissance periods, and how we owe its existence to the Dead Hand of the (Tuscan) State. But where should we look for actions of slightly more modern government working to enrich our lives? Certainly not in the unending flow of nutty, illiberal laws; nor in the insidious creep of compliance culture (subject of a memorable Stephen Fry podcast). So, here’s an idea: look to the British Library.
More specifically, their Turning the Pages project, 10 years in the developing, that put our national library in the very first rank of learning innovation worldwide. (See the video.) The project’s achievement has been to digitize 15 (so far) of the Library’s most valuable manuscripts, and deliver them inside an interactive online environment that re-creates the experience of handling them in the raw.
continue reading… »
EU in ‘not about to lock us all up forever’ shock
One of the most popular sports played by politicans across Europe is ‘blaming unpopular things on the EU’. The specific unpopular thing varies across countries: here, it tends to be Rules And Regulations; in France, it tends to be the ability to buy things without enormous tarrifs; while pretty much everywhere it’s immigration.
However, it’s only in the UK where we have a large, or at least vociferous, group of utter maniacs and obsessives who’re willing to blame absolutely everything that happens on the EU, and to view the organisation as a tool of the Devil, or possibly Hitler, to bring about a communist Hell, or possibly a Fourth Reich.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» How bad is the feline obesity crisis?
» Why don’t MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours?
» Obama is right to slam BP – and why capitalists should too
» Why does Phillip Blond see civic cohesion as a security issue?
» So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge?
» Last night’s Labour hustings: will it get interesting or turn to torture?
» It’s now down to Ken to win London for Labour
» The Labour people need
» Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed?
» The Labour leadership’s token contender.. and it’s not Diane Abbott
» In defence of these fraternal nominations
|
66 Comments 20 Comments 13 Comments 10 Comments 18 Comments 4 Comments 25 Comments 49 Comments 31 Comments 16 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Sarah AB posted on Complete tits » Blackberries posted on Complete tits » Shatterface posted on How bad is the feline obesity crisis? » Shatterface posted on Complete tits » McDuff posted on Why I'm defending Ed Balls over immigration » damon posted on Complete tits » Sunny Hundal posted on Complete tits » sunny hundal posted on Why don't MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours? » Lee Griffin posted on The Labour leadership's token contender.. and it's not Diane Abbott » dan posted on Defend the urban fox! » Richard W posted on Boris rise for Living Wage left of Labour » Julian Swainson posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » sally posted on Complete tits » Joanne Dunn posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » Lovely Lynnette Peck posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? |
