Like Brian Micklethwait, I have been at the annual conference of the Libertarian Alliance , held at the National Liberal Club, a glorious Victorian building erected at a time when Britain’s ruling Liberal Party (formerly the Whigs) was genuinely liberal in the classical sense of that word. Among the topics to fuel the mind: libertarian approaches to the environment, a debate about whether limited-liability companies were a good thing; the contribution to libertarian thought of Ayn Rand and reflections on private enterprise and defence. An excellent collection of subjects.
As some regular readers will know, the founder and director of the L.A., Chris R. Tame, has been fighting cancer and made a great effort to be present throughout the entire conference. Anyone who knows and admires this clever, generous and tenacious man will not be surprised at his determination not only to set up this conference but also to set in train plans for future events. He received a surprise award celebrating his achievements on Saturday night’s banquet, and no-one deserved it more. Without Chris, it is probable that Britain’s present libertarian movement would not exist, and I don’t think I am writing out of turn in doubting whether Samizdata would be quite what it is now, either.
Agreed. Chris’s insistence on the intellectual struggle, rather than on plunging into party politics, which would then have meant Conservative party politics, saved British libertarianism from the vacuous catastrophe that has now overtaken that party. Such involvement would have achieved nothing.
If I may speak personally, I would have had nothing to join that was worth joining. That would have meant no Brian’s Last Fridays, and that would, at the very least, have made Samizdata a very different sort of operation, because many of the main Samizdatistas got to know each other at Brian’s Fridays, and it was how Perry got to meet us all, Johnathan Pearce in particular.
The other thing that facilitated the birth of Samizdata was the Libertarian Alliance Forum. Again: no Chris Tame, and that disappears too.
You can never be sure about these What If?s, because maybe others would have filled and maybe more than filled the gap that a Tameless Britain would have contained. But from where I sit, remove Tame and everything changes, almost certainly for the (much) worse.
Will there be a pubished account of some of the debates? In particular I would just love to see what the outcome of the debate re limited liability of companies would be since I still fail to see how, in this day and age, we can have any individual be held non-accountable for his/her actions and be allowed to shelter behind some governmental shield for their inability to run an enterprise.
Julian, there will in due course be available transcripts of the talks, including the Q&A sessions.
The debate on limited liability firms and the issue of incorporation is fascinating. There is by no means some sort of “consensus” on this among classical liberals, just as there is heated debate on things like intellectual property rights. I personally think that limited liability is very difficult to avoid in today’s litigious and bureaucratic world.
There is a agreement among libertarians and classical liberals that inheritance tax and capital gains tax should be abolished.
These are, of course, two of the most important advantages that a corporation has over an individual. Individuals have to pay these taxes and corps do not.
These days most stock is not even owned by indivduals (due to tax law and regulations) so most corps are “owned” by other corps (pension funds and other financial institutions). So hired managers are controlled by hired managers, who are controlled by other hired managers, who are controlled by…..
It is like a Russian doll, with no real “ownership responsibility”.
And, of course, big corps can have legal departments (to deal with all the govenment regulations), whereas a small enterprise managed by its owner can not deal with all the regulations (he just does not have the time).
However, to say that taxes and regulations help corps against other enterprises is not the same as to say corps should be banned.
The idea of the corporation is a lot older than a few 19th century Acts of Parliament.
As was said at the conference (by a great South African) if I want to get together with a 100 (or a million) other investors and tell you honestly “if you deal with our organization you will only get paid if the assets of the organization (not our personal assets) can cover the debt” that is to present a choice.
You can say “I refuse to do business with a limited liability organization” or you can do business (knowing that you can not touch the homes and other assets of the shareholders if the business goes bust).
It is your choice – if it is openly stated there is nothing unlibertarian about it.
The unlibertarian bit is all the advantages that corps have in tax law and dealing with the weight of regulations.
But the way to deal with that is to get rid of the taxes and the regulations – not to try and adapt them to apply to corps as well.
The Conservative party proved it was not interested in proliberty ideas (it is a myth to say that the party is not interested in ideas as such), when it abolished the Federation of Conservative Students – this was an institution in which (for all its faults) people were encouraged to read such writers as Hayek and Mises and many young Conservative students really did read them.
The people who convinced the Chairman (then Norman T.) to get rid of the Federation of Conservative Students told all sorts of horror stories about thuggish behaviour and claimed that the organisation was full of people obsessed with drugs and child sex.
However, the real reasons for getting rid of F.C.S. were rather different.
First it was a “dummy run” to see whether a propaganda campaign could convince the party to get rid of a well established institution – a method that could be then used against the leader of the party (Mrs Thatcher) herself.
Also the F.C.S. made Mrs Thatcher look moderate by comparison – one could not paint her as an “extremist” whilst the F.C.S. still existed.
As it was Mrs Thatcher still won the leadership election that (a couple of years later) was called against her – but she was told that under the rules of the party she had not won enough votes and had to resign (this was not exactly what the rules said – even the twisted rules just said that she had to run in a second round, even though she had already got a majority of the vote, but Mrs T. was told that she would lose a second round)
Isolated in her cabinet (Norman T. was gone, and she was surrounded by people who said nice things to her face and plotted behind her back) and with her supporters in the party already defeated (by such things as the eliminating of the Federation of Conservative Students), Mrs Thatcher was doomed.
What do we have now?
A party that talks about “social justice” and “public services”. No wonder most people despise the Conservative party.
It is seen as corrupt, back stabbing and having no beliefs. People who really believe in “social justice” would never vote Conservative, and people who do not believe in social justice have trouble in voting for a party where the leading lights say (however dishonestly) that they do believe in it.
The sad thing is that there are many good people in the Conservative party. I do not mean me – I mean real people who work hard and bring up families.
It is upsetting that good people have nothing much to represent them.