davywavy | Saint-Just once said; There are too many laws, and too few examples.

Something which has been observed to me more than once is that the political conflict for the 21st century will not be one of left vs right, but one of libertarianism vs authoritarianism. On inspection, there seems to be a fair amount of truth in this observation; the left/right argument appears to have been fairly comprehensively won - at least in the forseeable short term - by centre-right liberal capiptalist democracy; or rather it's won in most places where people get a say in their government, which is what counts. However, the amount of individual liberty within that system is variable and in many places being eroded under the 'war of terror' banner.
A hundred and fifty years ago Otto von Bismarck, clever feller that he was, observed "Give me control of a nations economy, and I care not who makes its laws". He then proceded to put this into practice through economic warfare in his campaign to unify the Germanic states into a single nation. Once again, upon closer inspection it's a true rule; if people don't have economic freedom, and the wealth to enjoy it, the other freedoms they may or may not have are by-the-by. After all what's the point in having the right to protest if you can't afford to get there, or are afraid of losing your house if you do?
It's a maxim which, as a modern example, Gordon Brown appears to have taken to heart. His obsessive tinkering with peoples lives through the tax laws has resulted in several things; firstly, a £110bn hole in pension provision which, coupled with cheap credit, has driven the housing boom as people move their provision for their retirements from pensions (which they fear will be raided to fill government coffers) into bricks and mortar, and second he has increased the number of people reliant upon the state for their futures.
The thing about being reliant upon any organisation for your future means is that you suddenly become an awful lot less likely to oppose it - Tony Benn once said that the best way for any government to guarantee victory in general elections was to increase the public sector workforce to above 50%. In terms of controlling peoples lives and reducing dissent against the government, it's very clever and you have to respect that.
What is perhaps more surprising is that the rest of the current administration don't seem to have grasped Gordons shrewdly controlling behaviour and have created other new laws with all the precision and restraint of a chimp with a machine gun. The current government has introduced more laws that any other in history - over 3,000 at the last count, or about one new law every 1.2 days, which is pretty dedicated lawmakin'. I don't know about you, but I can't think of 3000 things I'd like to ban. Once I get past people trying to talk to me on public transport and pop stars thinking they can save the world by flying round it in private jets, I'm really stumped for things that tick me off enough to create new laws about.

Something I learned the other day is that back in 1979 when Nigel Lawson became Chancellor of the Exchequer he also realised the link between personal and economic liberty and part of his agenda was that every year he would repeal at least one tax. This would have not only the advantage of simplifying the legal system and making it more open to scrutiny (did you know that the amount of tax law has more than trebled since 1997? So much for 'open government') but also leave people more of their own money in their pockets.

However, as the current governments of the US and UK are busily demonstrating, economic liberty is no longer enough to guarantee personal liberty, and this got me thinking about that old question: What I Would Do If I Were In Charge?
And what I would do if take a leaf out of Lawsons book and expand it. People always seem to be saying about what they would ban if they were in charge; instead I challenge you to reverse this - which laws would you repeal? Were I in charge, I would make it my business to repeal one law every month, and I'd start with these:

1) Serious Organised Crime Prevention Act (SOCPA).
Like the Ministries of Peace and Truth from 1984, this act could not be more misleadingly named, including as it does a ban on protest within 1km of the Houses of Parliament. I don't know about you, but I never realised that protesting against a democratic government was a Serious Organised Crime, but try telling that to Gordon & Tony. Presumably, they thought they were acting in our best interest so us protesting their witless caperings is just wrong and we must be made to realise this. First for the scrapheap.

2) The ID cards bill.
English Common Law is an odd man out amongst legal systems. In most legal systems around the world, the people of a country are banned from doing anything which is not covered by those rights granted by the state. Common Law is unique in that under it, the people are allowed to do anything they please which is not specifically banned. Introducing compulsory ID cards undermines this principle by criminalising the entire population. Given that there has yet to be a single crime committed - not a single one - which could have been prevented with the use of ID cards, overturning the better part of a thousand years of legal precedent at a cost of over £6bn is not just stupid, it's willfully malevolent.

3) UK membership of the Common Agricultural Policy
By heavily subsidising European farmers, we create two effects; one, food that it is possible to sell at less than the cost of production and two, overproduction as people grow more food to grab up more subsidies. This results in third world agricultural economies not only being unable to compete in our market, but also being unable to compete in their own countries as the EU ships out it's subsidised surplus to sell abroad. I cannot think of a single economic policy pursued by this country which has done more to keep the third world poor.

4) Removal of tax relief on pensions.
As noted above, by making it less ecomonic to save money for their old age, Gordon Brown has not only created a pension hole of in excess of £110bn which you and I are going to have to pay for, but also fuelled the housing boon, which you and I are also going to have to pay for. Hurrah. The David Administration will be putting full tax relief back on pensions ASAP.

5) The hunting ban
A fair principle of creating laws is that they should make the lives of people better than they make worse. As this ban has failed to do so, we'll be repealing it.

6) Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
The 'stop and search law' which we thought we'd got rid of in the 1980's rears it's ugly head again. This law allows the police to stop and search anyone, anytime, without having to give a reason. Before this act, they had to show 'reasonable suspicion'; now, you just have to have a bushy beard. I think this can go.

So, that's my first six months in power covered - what's yours?

^{Edit: You can stop emailing me about my random apostrophe use - I've edited and think I've corrected the worst of my mistakes.}

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/

I'd repeat your 1 & 2
3. CJB 1994 'right to silence' modifications.
4. CJB 1994 'stop and search' extension.
5. CJB 1994 laws with reference to right of assembly/free parties etc.
6. CJB 2003 with reference to trial without jury.

With reference to your comment about Libertarianism, one would hope you are referring to something other than the ghastly Frankenstein of Randian kool-aid currently being drunk by American teenagers and the Republican candidate Ron Paul and instead mean something else?

But what?

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

I'd forgotten the Trial by Jury one - I'd be tempted to scrap number 6 and replace it with that one. On due consideration I probably wouldn't, I'd just scrap that law in the 7th month of my administration.
I knew people would jump on my use of the word 'libertarianism', I just can't think of any single word which better represents what I mean by the general concept of individual civil liberties combined with personal responsibility vs. state authoritarianism concept.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/

I spend so much time arguing with Randroids that it is extremely hard to envision something else other than their stark 'Social Darwinist' vision as being called Libertarianism. I realise this is the same problem as trying to use 'Socialist' or 'Liberal' in the proper sense in conversation with an American.

Surely you'd agree that completely unbridled capitalism would lead to issues though? Zaibatsu, price fixing, vast monopolies and eventually total domination - just by a different means.

For me, I think, the lesson of the previous ideological conflict is that you need a mix.

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

I like the idea of both pure anarchy and pure libertarianism; the only problem is that neither works in any way shape of form.
Like a lot of witless ideas, they look great on paper, though.

There are things that the state can provide that the individual cannot; enforcement of property rights and a legal framework, civil defense, even the National Insurance system for all it's flaws and so on. However, the state should interfere as little as possible in people's lives as it will never do many things as well as individual action and private enterprise, and so shouldn't waste resources attempting to do so.

Back from the dead. One night only.

Saint-Just once said; There are too many laws, and too few examples.

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags