There has been much amusement lately at the promises made by the Conservatives here in Britain – higher government pensions and lower taxes. Although Arnold S. in California has been making similar promises (indeed he actually got a new spending program passed in California as recently as last November – the after school thing).
Whilst I would agree that the Conservative Party does look very silly with the headline “Conservatives promise higher pensions and lower taxes” (whatever the details about getting the money by abolishing certain means tested benefits for the old and getting rid of a lot of the “New Deal” – “welfare to work” programs), I think that the all the amusement does miss an important point.
There seems to be no great support among the voters for the reduction in the size and scope of government. Now I can remember when there was such support – the late 1970s, then very many people (perhaps most people) supported the reduction of government spending, but this is simply not true now (in spite of government spending on the Welfare State being vastly higher now than it was then).
To abolish the Conservative Party and create a new party of the ‘centre right’ would solve nothing if there is no market for such a party.
To be fair some of the enemies of the Conservative Party seem to understand this. For example Peter Hitchins (of the Mail on Sunday) wishes to get rid of the Conservative Party, but he does not wish to replace it with a free market party. No, he fully supports government railways (in fact he still bangs on about the foolishness of the private ownership of the railways even though the structure was re-nationalized some time ago), and he supports anti-Americanism, the B.B.C. ‘Licence Fee’ (TV tax) and lots of other nasty things.
It would not be fair to say that Hitchins and his ilk favour “Social Democracy plus black leather and goose-stepping” (Peter Hitchins is not a Nazi), but he and his friends are certainly not free market folk, and have nothing but contempt for the old free market ‘ideology’ of Britain. They are rather like the old ‘socio-imperial’ crowd of paternalists that surrounded Joseph Chamberlain.
Whether the Conservative Party continues to exist or not the problem (for free market people) remains the same – the vast majority of voters do not support cutting back the Welfare State and the believe that every economic and social problem should be met by new government laws or better enforcement of old laws (this, again, was certainly not true in the late 1970’s – when most people supported deregulation).
Why has public opinion in Britain changed so much? This is a question too long and complicated for me to answer here (if I can answer this question at all), but I do know that until public opinion changes or can be made to change, no political party favourable to liberty will prosper in Britain.
If there’s no “market” in Britain for smaller government, maybe it’s because there is no credible political leadership willing and able to articulate the inherent contradictions of welfare statism. Brits need another Mrs. Thatcher.
As for the Tories, they seem to be saying, “we’re for whatever it is the people want.” Hell, what use is that? If that’s the best they can do, the party deserves to die.
I have been baffled for the last few years by the lack of appetite in Britain for smaller government and lower taxes. It’s eerie. An oil-producing country, Britain has the highest petrol tax in the world. They pay for a ghastly health service. Education is not up to Third World levels – viz many W Indians paying to send their children “home” to the W Indies to get a decent education; and viz that British children are taking exams at A level that are set at O level in Singapore. Clapped out infrastructure. Income redistribution to reward the non-producers of society. And yet there’s no taxpayer revolt. Yes, the Tory party doesn’t have articulate and motivating leadership, but are the people of Britain really so adrift that they are supine to being milked for no reward?
The Conservative party is made up of older people who remember the Party as it used to be pre-Heath, call them ‘Little Englanders’, or ‘The Blue-Rinse Mob’, if you wish, they are mainly anti-Europe, and vote Tory – because they always have!. They are side-lined and ignored by all politicians.
There is also a younger enclave comprising the self employed and middle management types, who think that the Tories are the party of the more independent minded, (wrong), they tend to be pro-Europe, but still have diffficulty in defending their position.
We also have the first time voter, or younger types who know, in their heart of hearts, that socialism is a destructive dogma, but have yet to realize that the Conservatives are just socialists by another name.
Then we have yet another small coterie of Tory voters who vote because ‘if Blunkett, Dobson, Short, Livingstone, et al vote Labour, then it must be wrong, so I’ll vote for whoever is agin’ ’em’. (Saves me having to think too hard about things).
The ‘middle-aged’ group of voters (18 – 50) in the UK are all products of the Comprehensive era of education. By definition they have all received a ‘socialist’ biased education, hence they see the Welfare state as being perfectly right and normal, they have no vision or experience of anything different or better, and have little ambition to improve on the status quo. They tend to love the benefits, but hate the taxes.
This latter group tends to be rather low on work ethic and personal reponsibilty, with ridiculous expectations of what life is all about, a large part of their lives involve ‘clock-watching’.
The change to a small state type of government will not happen by degrees, if at all, any change will be dependent on a catastrophic failure by the present system.
Sorry,
Does the Conservative Party have a future?
In short, -No!
Bring back the Whigs….
Why use four lines of text when thirty will do….
I’m both informed and amused by the comments of “ernest young”. For some time I’ve been thinking along the same lines as his conclusion — that something dreadful must happen for things to improve.
That “something dreadful” may turn out to be the adoption of the EU “Constitution”. Once ordinary Britons come under substantive control of the snail-eaters and chocolate-makers, Albion may finally emerge from her slumbers.
Here in the states, only the most liberal would get rid of the free market system that has worked so well. Yes many Democrats want to tax the rich more, and do more income redistribution, but nothing on the scale of Europe and Britain.
Seems like Britain needs an eloquent voice to remind then like Thatch did, that before you can focus on how to distribute the economic pie, you had better make sure there is a good pie to distrubute.
Why not escape to New Hampshire?
That’s my plan! Basically in share speak I’m shorting the UK, will “buy back” when it collapses.
‘if Blunkett, Dobson, Short, Livingstone, et al vote Labour, then it must be wrong
that doesn’t sound too bad an argument!
I don’t quite understand Rob Read’s point. But (as an American), I’m not comfortable with solutions to British difficulties that involve being like America or “escap[ing] to New Hampshire”.
Britain has a long and admirable (albeit uneven) tradition of liberty and industry; the British hardly need lessons from “newcomers” in these things. What Britain presently lacks (imho) are (1) an understanding of how a “united European” will decimate their freedom and way of life, and (2) the honest, determined leadership that will make (1) perfectly clear to British citizens.
Isn’t New Hampshire to be the ‘libertarian’, promised land?.
Just to clear up a small point of definition re the word ‘liberal’.
In the UK liberal used to mean just what it says, i.e. a liberal, more generous interpretation of political dogma, and was considered to be the mid-point between Left and Right. It is now linked to the Social Democrats, who are very much more ‘Left’. They are correctly called Liberal Democrats, and are ‘left’ of the current Labour Party.
The term ‘liberal’ in the US denotes anyone of the ‘socialist’ persuasion, particularly the hard left of the Democrat Party, a polite word for a communist…
A ‘Libertarian’ is someone completely different, and is used to define a belief in a small, limited role for the Government, and a true belief in personal freedoms, i.e the exact opposite of the Conservative, Labour, Republican or Democrat parties.
Apologies for stating the obvious, but as an Anglo-American, I felt it was my duty to clarify the point.
What “point” are you clarifying, ernest?
Neither New Hampshire nor anywhere else in America is a “libertarian promised land” because, in politic terms, Libertarians in the US are deader than Elvis. Just like they are in Britain.
Yes, “liberal” in America now means “left-wing”, just as it apparently does in Britain. And yes, we understand that “Libertarian” means small government, personal freedom, and other good things that go over big down at the Internet Cafe but which otherwise are political non-starters.
So ernest, you can now resume reading your Rand or Hayek.
I’m sure D Carr would have something to say on this subject ……
I’ve not a single doubt, Cydonia. “D Carr” will assuredly jump in my shit, so to speak.
Until then, I’ll resume reading my Burke, Kirk, and Berlin.
Don’t get too snippy George. I was referring to an item I saw last week re New Hampshire, and Libertarians. If you didn’t see it – no problem.
Couldn’t agree more with you about the Libertarian ideals being non-starters, but they do represent to some degree an alternative to current thinking.
Funny, I was going to put a sentence in my comment saying ‘George this definition is not for you, it is for the less well read’. It was a remark to the Samiz community in general, and not in any way a reply to your comment. And no, I was not trying to be patronising…
As you are so familiar with your local Internet Cafe and the latest trendy thinking therein, just what ‘solutions’ do the ‘little ones’ have for solving the problems of the world?, more of the same old, same old I bet!.
Might do you good to re-read Rand, Hayek and Mises, and don’t be so dismissive this time, there is a lot of good stuff there.
The State is a “stationary bandit” that justifies its revenue raising and expenditure on itself by relying on the oldest strategies in the book – a mixture of “crush dissent” “direct the education of the young” “supply a justifying mythology via a propaganda machine” and last but not least “get your opponents on the payroll”. For the totalitarian (not satisfied with robbing they want others to call it justice, and get you to call their wasteland a paradise) the ideal is for the private to be abolished, and the public to be made synonymous with the State, they attack every other source of truth (in the name of truth) destroy education (in the name of education) increase dependence (in the name of empowerment) oppose independence (in the name of liberty) create an elite (in the name of equality) become a parasite (on behalf of everybody), and above oppose a free society – freedom is slavery, truth is falsehood, and all that matters is the possession of power. The surprise is not that there is banditry and hubris, but that there were people with the inspiration and humility to create such a thing as a free society in the first place. Sometimes human beings can be amazing – it is not that it is rare but that it happens at all that is so miraculous. In the familiar story even if you were to put mankind in paradise on Earth they will destroy it. Of course we are destroying a free society. What do you expect? Are you familiar with human history?
George,
I am content to leave your ‘shit’ quite unmolested not least because your analysis of the American polity is likely to be far more reliable than mine.
As for the question posed by Paul Marks, I concur with Mr.Young. The Conservative Party is done for.
I shall be examining the reasons for this at much greater length quite soon.
George Peery – Elvis is dead? Are you sure?
The solution is to make as much of your money as possible off the books, educate your children at home, mix with people who think the way you do, refuse to cooperate and urge people not to vote for any of the vermin in Westminster. People say “Oh but there is not alternative to labourtorylibdem” while ignoring the fact MILLIONS do not vote, MILLIONS fiddle their taxes whenever possible and MILLIONS live a true free trade life. I am a builder-decorator and have not paid a penny to the theiving bastards for over 10 years and I know LOTS of people like me. Cash or kind only for me.
People who think “everyone” pays taxes should get out more, I am not as unusual as you think.
I’m very interested in the use of the word “Liberal”. For some time, I’ve self-identified as a classical Liberal, but the question is, what is the Liberal party in Britain? Certainly not the Liberal Democrats, and not the Liberals even, after Jo Grimond. Oliver Kamm and Stephen Pollard clearly believe that “New” Labour qualifies as the Liberal party, though much of their economic and social thinking seems completely against the grain of the bulk of that party’s membership. For myself, I came to the conclusion that the Conservatives were probably the least illiberal party around, and held my nose. Then Blair gave his fascist “forces of conservatism” speech, and I joined the party.
People who think “everyone” pays taxes should get out more, I am not as unusual as you think.
And yet you are quite happy to use services and systems created by and maintained by people who do pay taxes.
I wonder, in this context, who the thief is?
It’s a binge and purge cycle – the 1980s were the binge, now the purging, complete with emotionalism in politics and guilt about welfare cuts in the past. The metacontext has changed, as it always does, for reasons that are translucent and semi-rational. Change that, and the politics will change. But people in the UK are still swimming in guilt about one thing or another, and New Labour, big blubbering baby that it is, has been able to tap into it with complete success.
The Conservative Party is not on the way out, it’s just suffering from over a decade of bad leadership. IDS is arguably the worst leader the party has ever had – utterly uncharismatic, incompetent, unimaginative, lacking in political nous and unable to command respect. And yet the Tories still get around 25-30 percent of the vote, which suggests to me quite a large core constituency that sticks by the party even in the worst of times. The situation is not as dire as Labour under Michael Foot, for example, when Labour came much closer to extinction. Ultimately it was led out of the wilderness by a young, charismatic leader who is a peerless political operator. The Tories will lose one more election, will dump IDS, and then begin to turn around their fortunes. The Blair/Brown factions will instigate open warfare within Labour ranks and the Tories will win the next-but-one election.
I tend to agree with Fred but there is a wild card. The Lib-Dem’s could emerge as a power broker at the next election. That means PR, which means no come back for any of the main two parties in a format we recognise.
Does the Conservative Party have a future? I did have hopes, and even blessed them with a Duncanian kiss of death, but they appeared to go on the reverse when a swift charge at low taxes AND low spending, removal of the BBC tax, and outright opposition to the ID card would have gained them a chance at the future. So why did they stop going forward? What on Earth did they have to lose? Why did Oliver Letwin lose his nerve? And then tell Dunkers he had to start taking and spending more of our money?
With Mr Willetts latest wheeze at spending yet more on state pensions and taxing us less (D’oh?), I think there is actually a future for the Conservative Party. It should rename itself the ‘Old Party’ and have done with it. Nobody allowed to join under the age of 75, or with a blazer that old.
Does Willetts really have two brains? It hardly seems possible any more. Maybe it’s two newt brains? Even James Naughtie bested him this morning. What a shambles.
The man columnist Michael Gove described as “a walking optic of amber fluid” a power broker? In whose dreams?
Verity:
If Charles Kennedy were a real Scotsman he’d contain a hell of a lot more than one optic of amber fluid. Trust me, I’ve just returned from an Edinburgh pub.
The saddest part of the demise of the ‘conservative’ parties in either the UK or the US is it makes those who desire to be left to their own devices in executing their lives as they see fit as some (near lunatic) fringe element. ernest young’s assessment of the effect of socialized education hits the mark IMO. Conservative friends of mine blanche at the notion of ending public/socialized education and cannot undo the programming they have received from it. In the US public education is one of the largest socialist programs around and even ardent (small government) conservatives refuse to see it as such. Merely clarifies the doping effect government has on the mind.
Small governmenteers here in the US who found their outlet in the Republican Party began losing their footing as far back as Reagan who did not have the ability to control the Dem giveaways even while he was able to cut taxes. Cue Bush the Elder and his ‘Thousand Points of Light” hogwash and the corner was turned. Luckily there was a ‘conservative’ enough Dem in Clinton (with enough Repub clout to offset Ms. Clinton’s health initiative) and some even keel on Big Government was maintained, now Bush the Younger and his entitlements and Dept of Education expansion and the days of Small Government Republicanism are near over I fear.
The unfortunate paradox is that individualism by definition is followed by those who are not joiners by nature and so a cohesive effort to change the inexorable grind toward Statism, and those on both sides who delude themselves into believing they have freedom while having the satisfaction that the ‘others’ are controlled, is stillborn. Even if some luminary were to emerge with a persuasive enough argument to dismantle the Big Government apparatus, no outlet will carry their message. The internet carries only so far….
I think toolkien has a point! How can you vote for less government?
The only answer is to persuade as many talented people as possible to eascape state slavery, and come back when it collapses.
The comment by toolkien is superb.
The constituency for less government is almost nonexistent. Politics, by its very nature, addresses the questions of who’s in charge and how the “largesse” of government is to be distributed.
Both post-60s “liberals” and so-called conservatives are intimately concerned with these question. While conservatives may talk about limiting government, there is invariably this or that costly, wasteful “programme” which individual conservatives are quite ready to fall on their swords to promote.
For my money, they’ll all whores.
The very fact that the promise of “lower taxes and higher pensions” is greeted with hilarity is proof that the grip on freedom has been lost (in case no one noticed, lower taxes result in higher tax receipts and ergo higher pensions are affordable).
And Paul, your last paragraph fills me with despair: if British pubic opinion can’t see how freedom has disappeared in Britain, and people will have to be made to change their opinion, then Britain is indeed slouching towards Oceania.
The trouble is that the Tories do not have a major politician who can, in simple but not dumb-down language, make the case for small govt., individualism, the free market and maintenance of key civil liberties enshrined in our old common law. Not one single effing person seems to be able to do that. I could. I bet nearly everyone who writes and comments on this blog could. Where has all the talent gone, for heavens sake? They all gone into hiding?
Actually, I share Johnathan Pearce’s high opinion of the lucid thinking and powers of civilised suasion of most of the commentators on this blog. Alas, they share another quality: a distaste for getting involved in governing other people’s lives for them.
Dave O’Neill is an idiot. I am given no choice by the state so why the hell should I pay for “services” I do not want and never asked for? Nothing they give me would not be better from a private firm. Police? Don’t make me laugh. The police in Peckham are worse than useless so that is left for people to sort out for themselves, which we do. It is not enough they want to rob us, O’Neill thinks stopping them from getting our money makes *us* a thief. Typical. I’d love you to come around here and start spouting off about how we all need to pay taxes… there would be a competition between the dealers, the dole bludgers and car boot free traders to see who could kick the crap out of you first.
I’m curious what, if any, govt. services Mr. O’Neill thinks that a tax-dodger in the US might me using.
Roads: I have no car, and gas taxes pay for most of them. Most of the rest come from local sales tax.
Medical: We pay out the ass for health insurance, which would be cheaper without all the mandated red tape.
Welfare: What laughably little there is in the US, I have used very little of in my life (a few months of food stamps while homeless). On balance, I’ve paid more in taxes than I’ve ever used, and have directly created dozens of jobs for tax PAYERS in the last 8 years.
Education: While not a property owner myself, I indirectly pay my landlords property taxes, which are used to babysit children I don’t have, all day long.
My wife, unfortunately, is still an employee of someone other than herself, which she intends to remedy once she finishes more schooling and builds a client base. Then she too can opt-out.
Were I British I have no doubt that I would do my damnedest to avoid all of the silly taxes to pay for useless things that you are strapped with over there.
Dave O’Neill is an idiot.
Nice to see polite conversation and logic are in full flight here.
Typical. I’d love you to come around here and start spouting off about how we all need to pay taxes…
Give me your address, I’ll be glad to. I might bring a friend or two.
David Mercer,
I’m curious what, if any, govt. services Mr. O’Neill thinks that a tax-dodger in the US might me using.
You probably use rather a lot of them indirectly, which is of course, the deep flaw in Mr Zorg’s “I’m an Island, leave me alone” view of economic interaction.
You may not use the services which the government has made possible yourself. Like yourself I don’t have kids and don’t need to pay for education – yet I am utterly dependant on an educated and able workforce for my income and the other benefits derived from living in an advanced technological society at the start of the 21st century. Likewise many of the core services you depend on were only possible through state investment, including the medium on which we converse now.
Were I British I have no doubt that I would do my damnedest to avoid all of the silly taxes to pay for useless things that you are strapped with over there.
Which useless things are those specifically?
My UK tax burden is about the same as it was when I live in CA – although, I must be honest I get more for my money in the UK.
err… I think Toolkien and George Peery are rather off the mark here. I quote toolkien:
“In the US public education is one of the largest socialist programs around and even ardent (small government) conservatives refuse to see it as such. ”
Have you guys ever heard of school vouchers, and how they have been a hot topic in at least 3 presidential elections so far? In fact, they are already being implemented in a small test case in Washington DC to evaluate the case for going national (they have huge public support – from democrat constituents AND conservatives).
The strong support for vouchers from conservatives and libertarians has recently been fortified by support from african-american and latino minorities, that find in vouchers the ability to drag their kids out of prison-like inner city public schools.
And as you DO realize, the end of socialised education can certainly turn the tide. And the tide has begun to rise as it is – millions of votes have been cast for the libertarian party in the last 2 elections. I do not claim that the LP will ever come to power – just that it is forcing the oligopoly of the Democrats/Republicans to drift closer and closer to libertarian positions.
Have some faith, my friends. And of course, you are all welcome to immigrate to New Hampshire (state motto: “Live Free or Die”), home of the Free State Project.
Have you guys ever heard of school vouchers
Certainly. Where do the vouchers come from? Uhh… the government. Who will still control the content of the education before vouchers will be certified? The government. Funneling in money via tax dollars and returned as vouchers with stipulations is not exactly what one would call freedom. I have no doubts that whatever ‘freedom’ there is under a voucher system will be eroded in short order as complaints are lodged and courts rule. It will still, afterall, be regarded as tax/government dollars at play. As a parallel I look at all the provisions that attach to grant dollars and government contracts, the same will attach to vouchers just the same. The solution is to not allow the government access to the money in the first place. Vouchers are an illusion.
Like yourself I don’t have kids and don’t need to pay for education – yet I am utterly dependant on an educated and able workforce for my income and the other benefits derived from living in an advanced technological society at the start of the 21st century. Likewise many of the core services you depend on were only possible through state investment, including the medium on which we converse now.
No one is against education and technology. Who says they must be controlled by the State to be effective? I seem to recall all sorts of technological progress made in this country (the US) without a penny of State dollars to motivate its creation. The US burgeoned under its unique ability to found voluntary associations for all sorts of causes from entertainment to humanitarianism to education without the intervention of the State. We became the most prosperous nation the World has seen based on that model, a model under attack for the last 70 years in which we have become a nation of dependents waiting for the next circus and shipment of bread. Suffice it to say you seem to have the notion that only government can create economies of scale enough to create Good, while I don’t.
Cheers!
Looking at the Libertarian Party position (from the website), how are interschool standards set? How do I, as an employer compare qualifications assuming there is no central standards body to enforce curricula?
Looking at the Libertarian Party position (from the website), how are interschool standards set? How do I, as an employer compare qualifications assuming there is no central standards body to enforce curricula?
Perhaps by using a tool called value judgement. This is precisely the problem, the underlying paradigm. Suitability has to come from the State, someone has to pass judgement for you? You need a prepackaged set of State standards to be able to discern qualifications? Once upon a time, particularly in trades, a person was apprenticed and learned skills suitable to their abilities, or created new abilities to meet the task. Which of course is ultimately the real requirement. Others attended advanced studies and were afforded the opportunity to profess this advanced knowledge. Others then could pre-judge the value of the other person thereon, and the person would be allowed opportunities first and deeper judgement reserved until later. But today we get a sheet of paper signifying you’ve successfully jumped throught hoops in an academic vacuum for 13+ years is valuable only in the sense of the person’s maleability, but doesn’t necessarily determine qualifications. I look at this way that (in the US anyway) we spend 13 years in public school, a large percentage now go on to State supported 4 year schools, and an ever growing percentage going on the Grad school for 2 more years for a total of 19 years of education out of about 24 years lived, and most don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to their first job. They’ve merely proven that they will do what other people tell them to do for 19 years and will likely do as they are told in the future.
‘Education’ is simply one, refined form of conditioning, and its purist form allows a person to perform behaviors suitable to a task that has value, to themselves and/or others. Practically speaking, on-the-job training is infinitely more valuable than the academic vacuum as far as real production. The saddest part of this situation is the unrepentant reliance on the State sanctioned educational meritocracy by everyone in society, abrogating the personal requirement of individual value judgement, all based on some egalitarian ideal. A misdirected attempt at conditioning (public education), made of generally soft-left elements, in face of practical economic needs which consequently aren’t being met. State controlled education is but one part of the quasi-theocratic umbrella we in the US are living under.
This by no means is anti-education. Proper conditioning is essential to increase value in yourself especially as you exhibit your value to other people. You will likely be pre-judged by others before you exhibit skills. The question is should the State be involved in this most individually based activity? I say no, and the structures it has built are faulty and ultimately self serving.
It will be interesting as technology grows, requiring even greater differentiation, as well as the speed technology changes. The old, traditional models of education will become extinct IMO. It is my hope that the process of conditioning to meet these new realities will be at last wrenched from the grasp of the State.
Toolkien,
Once upon a time, particularly in trades, a person was apprenticed and learned skills suitable to their abilities, or created new abilities to meet the task.
Yes we did, but now life is just a tad more complex. At least it is in my industry.
My customers expect the engineering resources I provide to them to be the very best available and they like to ensure that they have recognised qualifications in engineering and computing which they can compare to others.
A value judgement really doesn’t cut the mustard in modern business.
Ignoring the stuff about the State, I’m more concerned about ensuring I can run my business profitably, and effectively. I can’t see how I can do that under the model you suggest. Libertarian ideals are good, but they shouldn’t be allowed to do any more harm than the statist alternative, and frankly, I think this is one of a few areas where the Libertarian alternative is utterly unworkable.
My customers expect the engineering resources I provide to them to be the very best available and they like to ensure that they have recognised qualifications in engineering and computing which they can compare to others.
I am a certified public accountant here in the US. I am certified by the State of Wisconsin. I merely jumped through hoops to assure those that I am qualified. As a part of certification I must attend continuing education. The process is a farce, creating an artificial market of this ‘education’ that is merely a formality. My only other obligation is to pay bi-annual fees to a bureaucracy with which I have very little interaction, and use these fees to minister over whether I’m attending CE. This of course is the problem of State certfication in the first place. It gives consumers a false sense of security about the quality of what they are consuming. It is a process that allows individuals to set aside their own intellects and rely on State opinions, which are faultily determined. This, ultimately, is the crossroads I come to with debates such as this. I have the notion that fellows such as yourself have the ingrained notion that the State provides greater assurances to the masses than would otherwise be contrived. I do not. Ultimately the world is made up of individuals who voluntarily associate (or should be allowed to maximally) and engage in the process of living their lives. The State, once created, can be deemed to be the only association that is not completely voluntary and should therefore be the least invasive, fullfilling simple, prime functions. Such functions, IMO, do not include conditioning and passing judgements as to the quality of an individual toward a given task or situation. Ultimately certifications result merely in artificial barriers and are protectionist, not of the consumer, but the provider. Also, when the State is so intimately involved in passing judgement as to the quality of an individual, they create artificial opportunities for a certain class, and when the overriding, misguided attempts at egalitarianism invariably enter the equation, the State then must answer to this and further justifies their invasion into the conditioning process, that is, if they artificially create opportunities for one they must for all. In other words when the State enters the arena of education/conditioning, as well as certifying competence, the are also passing judgement on the group not considered qualified, making them, under egalitarian notions, the State’s responsibility as well as being denied opportunity and so other opportunities must be created for them. The State becomes the allocator of jobs.
Toolkien,
It gives consumers a false sense of security about the quality of what they are consuming.
Compared to what? I’m not qualified to judge the ability of an accountant. If I was I wouldn’t need the accountant in the first place.
What mechanism do you then propose for me to ensure that the person is qualified to do the work.
It is also incorrect to say that there is a false sense of security. I can’t speak for the US, but if I hire a professional here registered with a professional body, they will have indemnity insurance and there will be a recourse for me through that.
There is a difference between the US and here. My understanding is while an accountant must be Chartered from the Insitute of Chartered Accountants, I don’t think there is any government interaction on that.
To sum up. I don’t, under your scenario, see the state as allocator of jobs but rather the state, in its true role, of the mediator between parties.
Without some form of mediation, meaningful interaction is utterly impossible.
There is a distinct difference between mediation, after the fact, and professing capability before the fact. That is the foundation of role the State plays. If a person has been defrauded of their property, they should have recourse to the State as the repository of Force. For the State to pass judgement beforehand on the ability of an individual, and the likely outcome of contracting with them will be a positive one, does create a false sense of security in the consumer.
What mechanism do you then propose for me to ensure that the person is qualified to do the work.
I have no problem with private associations of professionals making assertions about the quality of its members. The consumer can take it for what it is worth as a part of their decision to contract. I don’t see the State having a role in passing such value judgements. I belong to the AICPA and the WICPA, both independent organizations, and is therefore a voluntary association. But I still have to be certified and registered with the State before I can practice, or I will be forcefully prevented from doing so. That is not correct IMO.
To sum up. I don’t, under your scenario, see the state as allocator of jobs but rather the state, in its true role, of the mediator between parties.
I’ll admit I short shrifted this. What I mean by this is that, with State involvement in determining professional fitness merged with an underlying egalitarian motivation, if the State artificially supports one class, and is discriminatory to another (the ‘uneducated’) the feel the need to make redress. In a way there is a notion that the State some how enables the professional to earn a living, setting up barriers to entry, and limiting demand creating scarcity. This then is used as means of further control and reallocation to those who did not have ‘opportunities’ created for them. In essence the worth of the individual providing professional services is reduced to a simple quotient of opportunity made possible by the State versus eminating from the professional outward. I don’t know how to be any clearer without being overly long about it. Suffice it to say that the US system today is very much predicated on ‘opportunity’ and great sensitivity toward it permeates our culture. How it translates into handing out jobs is in the sense that the State can bar who provides services in the first place, the sense of providing opportunities to those who do, in essence empowering some with privelege of working at their trade. Consequently others demand the State provide ‘opportunity’ to them as well, thereby further expanding the State’s role in education/conditioning, the choices available of professions taught, and many times creating public works and government contracts to provide jobs for those predetermined professions. So handing out jobs may have been to simplistic a statement, but the State largely impacts the labor market and the direction it takes, well beyond its proper scope.
But I still have to be certified and registered with the State before I can practice, or I will be forcefully prevented from doing so. That is not correct IMO.
I’m not sure what the State registration is for. The same work is done by the professional bodies here in the UK.
However, I am not entirely convinced, especially in areas where there is a huge potential for liability, that self regulation, as I think you are suggesting would work.
The “state” should certainly not be an active participant. It’s role, as in all these things, should be to set the minimum acceptable standards for qualification and, for universal qualifications, ensure these are meaningful.
I agree that you as a professional should not have to register with the state. However, I do believe the state has a necessary regulatory role in the definition of “state” wide standards.
The “state” should certainly not be an active participant. It’s role, as in all these things, should be to set the minimum acceptable standards for qualification and, for universal qualifications, ensure these are meaningful.
But again this is the core of the argument. Meaningfulness begins with the individual and their set of values, and its consequent judgements, are native to them. The underlying issue is you find meaning as something that is generated by the State and I believe that meaning begins with individuals. The individual needs to use the best information at hand to make their decisions, and there is more than enough information without the State involving itself. Again it is the underlying paradigm gap between our viewpoints. Outside assurance in the conduct of ones life should not originate from the State, but the voluntary associations individuals create and the ‘faith’ and assurance they derive from them.
To my mind I think we’ve beat the horse to death on this one. I don’t know if we’ll ever understand perfectly the other’s point of view, but suffice it to say that I believe they both spring from the same sense of ‘positivity’ we both have inate in ourselves. You attach positivity to State oversight into education and suitability, and I view it as a detriment, while I view it positively that people will ultimately make sound decisions if they use their own reserve of value judgements. I suppose, conversely, I do hold the opinion that in many matters between individuals, as long as no coercion is used and no fraud-in-fact is present, people are responsible for the outcome their own actions, but by having State involvement, shifts a least part of the onus onto us as members of the State, and creates a path toward sharing in the burden to correct a supposed State failure.
Meaningfulness begins with the individual and their set of values, and its consequent judgements, are native to them
Frankly, this is the core problem and why the idea of the individual is utterly meaningless here.
The individuals core values and judgements are their own, they are not mine. This is a good thing.
The problem comes when you are judging values in fields in which you know little. This wasn’t, historically a problem, but it certainly is now. There are lots of field of endeavour where I am simply not qualified to judge and I don’t like the odds the market could give me on that.
I want a 3rd party to mediate and protect my rights. Without that 3rd party you rapidly move from classical libertarian ideals into a anarcho-libertarian nuthouse, not something most sane people advocate.
but suffice it to say that I believe they both spring from the same sense of ‘positivity’ we both have inate in ourselves. You attach positivity to State oversight into education and suitability, and I view it as a detriment,
Actually, I don’t think the state is positive at all. Its a faceless behemoth which doesn’t care about me at all. However, through years in customer facing roles in many industries I have very very very very little faith in the idea that people are also positive.
People will screw you over without blinking too.
while I view it positively that people will ultimately make sound decisions if they use their own reserve of value judgements.
I think you then do too little to protect people from the unscrupulous. Something the State isn’t all that good at but something, equally, that individuals are dreadful at.
Now see hear, my dears…………as a Yank, I really don’t much care in the short run what you Euros incline yourselves to do. Further, I suspect that in the longer run, you’ll come to regret your desire for more socialization and this ridiculous euro union that the French think will restore their gloire, and the Germans KNOW will power theirs to some Fourth Reich. At which point we shall probably be asked to save you blokes again, but, due to our OWN deteriorating national will and courage, I simply wouldn’t count on a third Atlantic crossing for purposes of salvation. We’re not that far behind you in decline old sports.
Nevertheless, I visit your still fair land (can’t say much for the people, however) at least yearly and you folks DO have the most DIABOLICAL prices for things! I realize the dollar has shrunk against the pound, but do you realize that you people generally pay MORE in pounds than we in DOLLARS back here in the states for the same bloody items? Anything from cheap hamburgers to blue jeans! You pay more in your 2x the value of the dollar pounds for the same thing. Your gas prices equal approximately $5.50 in our cheap greenbacks, per gallon! We pay around $2.20 for premium and we too are heartily taxed.
Worse, your healthcare is so atrocious, slow and inept that you have to wait ages for services and pay buckets. Many of you have private insurance plans ANYWAY to offset this horrid care………..
….and you want MORE socialism? Good luck!