http://acalmsea.wordpress.com/

At the very moment it is a testing ground for another gaming writing project, which I’ll start properly soon- the blog’s being used as a sand box at the moment.

Food is in crisis. The Roman satirist, Juvenal, wrote that once politicians promised and paid out in sound policy, now in ‘bread and circuses’: petty promises which helped speed the Roman Empire’s rotting from within.
How does this connect, you ask? Only 20 years ago, there was a European agricultural ‘crisis’- if by crisis, you mean that we were out-producing, and thus ‘threatening’ agricultural prices- so much so, that we had the infamous ‘butter mountains’, where the EU bought the surplus and let it go to waste. If we said that we were producing a surplus of something of want, like an mp3 player, that would be less ludicrous: but food is a need. What of the starving?
That was over twenty years ago, and dare I say it but it seems to be happening again. Farmers are fighting against changes to the subsidising, protectionist regime. They are using the state as buyer, subsidiser, and price-fixer, a highly unethical situation, and in a time of rising unemployment, hundreds of thousands in Britain alone will have to spend an increasing amount of their income and savings on needs, rather than wants.
Why, then, are prices so high? Because farmers and government are, essentially, colluding to fix prices through subsidisation, and buying up of surplus stock. Rather than letting supply outstrip demand, and thus suppress prices, we are pursuing a policy of deliberately keeping prices high. It is true in Britain that many in the countryside face financial trouble and poverty; however, they can hardly be called poor compared to farmers in even internationally rich countries such as China, Poland, or Vietnam: to say they are in poverty, is a misnomer.
What, then is the substance of the current crisis? We are not producing enough. World markets have seized, and the price of fuel has risen from last year’s collapse (having risen to very high levels, which of course hurt farmers, who depend on fuel). Scientific Farming depends on fuel- it depends on it for its machinery, for its fertiliser, and for its transport, and of course the power to refrigerate in the cases of crops such as cauliflower, which is hurt by the summer weather, considered much more of a winter vegetable- therefore, they must be preserved, and sold at a low price, which hurts farmers. That is, however, how the market works, and we cannot decide what food consumers pay for- why, then, should we decide what price they should pay?
What would happen, then, you ask if prices collapsed? They already have- dairy prices have reportedly shattered coming down from the rural roads- yet, prices have risen coming down the urban and suburban roads from the supermarkets. Therefore, farmers are racing for extra income- and to get this they have to try and reverse a trend in the past couple of years for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union to liberalise and lessen in its intervention.
However, this situation cannot go on for much longer. Economic recovery is already on its way- last quarter, Germany and France surged out of recession to grow modestly; China, a growing market for western farmers as Chinese consumers increasingly get the taste for dairy products, sourced from the farms of Europe and America, especially with quality traditional products like cheese, which are subjected to statute control for what constitutes ‘cheddar’ or ‘stilton’- same with quality products like champagne, and with the invasion of the West’s business culture into the Eastern Orient, no doubt these products are becoming more in demand, just as wines, scotches and whiskeys have, both for expensive gifts to partners, and as personal tastes: no doubt, then, the West’s food industry has a growing admiration in the East, with countries which house the world’s largest populations, and economies which are still growing furiously, despite the global recession- why? Because in China, the government is in surplus, and is spending its money wisely in stimulating consumer spending- Europe’s governments are not in rude health- it shows that Germany, which has the healthiest balance sheet in the Union, has exited recession as demand for exports rises with the running-down of the Euro’s value against competing currencies such as the British pound (last year it seemed like the Euro would overtake the Pound’s price for the very first time- now it is going back the other way, which helps export friendly Europe).
What, then, of the central issue: agricultural price supports? Some are driven by nationalism, in the case of France; others, from national security- America still has quotas on sugar, ostensibly to fight Cuba, which has faded as an enemy in recent years. However, all do so because farmers clamour for it (although perhaps not in the case of the sugar farmers, but their voice is low amid the crowd of competing special interests lobbying Washington for bank, auto-mobile and other industry bail-outs, and money for self-interested programs such as Ethanol fuel)- they want to keep prices high at the gate, but they are seeing, and have seen for many years now, high prices in the supermarket shelves compared to the price paid to the farmers themselves- we have been told this is the reason for the decline in dairy farming in the United Kingdom, a traditional player. Problems such as foot and mouth have also added to the problems, and the controversy over mad cow disease left British beef in ruins, despite the fact that the problem was also present in the continent: here, government did a terrible thing in Europe by lying, and lost people its livelihoods, whilst the British government took the moral choice and attempted to openly fight the problem. It seems like a losing situation- Britain has not been able to support its own population on its own agriculture since the 1800s. Therefore, either our population rapidly contracts, we accept that British farming is an aging and dying force, or we introduce some entrepreneurial vigour into the industry. How do we that?
We have to kick government out of the market entirely: there is zero reason why the government should owe farmers a living; government should assist by treading lightly- health inspections and other such intervention should help stop the spread of parasites and disease, a major problem in an industry as transport intensive as farming.
For maximum effect, the government should refuse to give out its EU subsidies prices would fall rapidly; the poor, an increasing demographic in Britain, which is reportedy more unequal than ever, despite a Labour government which for the past decade has zealously legislated to force equality, with mixed results. Arguably, with longer legal maternity leave, and now paternity leave, has left persons of a certain age much less employable, and has hurt women’s attempt to rightly take their role in the workplace: Lord Sugar, the television personality and millionaire businessman was criticised for suggesting that maternity leave has damaged women’s employability…and this coming from a man who has to employ and pay people for a living to keep his businesses ticking. Perhaps we should be more encouraged to listen to such a person on the ground than a proselytizing columnist or opinion writer.
What would this achieve? Lower prices would, as I have tried to explain, help the poorest. As people get richer, the statistics and empirical evidence shows that less of a percentage of income is paid out on food- think that a man on a large salary may purchase a luxury bottle of scotch or two, which could cost as high as a full weekly shop by some families, and possibly two weeks for single and working people, who are likely to be hit hardest by economic troubles, as they cannot rely on others’ incomes to help them through the period of unemployment. But should we listen to the farmers? Would the lower prices kill them? Unlikely. If Britain’s auto prices ran down further to cost, it’d be incredibly lucrative to purchase British-made cars- more cars could be made for the same amount of money, and this would further support the lower prices. Suddenly a factory which turned a small profit by selling fewer but higherpriced cars could find brand new export markets and showrooms at home heaving with lower-income persons eager to purchase a good quality product. The same is true in farming- dairy farmers could export to markets abroad if the retailers in Britain pushed their current policy; rather than a disjointed market where the producers are hurting and the retailers winning, it would be in the producers’ hands.
Furthermore, it would make farming less daunting with less government intervention- the industry could advertise itself healthily, rather than the doom and gloom of an aging farming population, and the loss of skills this represents; apprentiship schemes could speed the passing on of skills, and unused land could be taken up. Sophisticated ecological management, essential if the industry is to ween itself off damaging chemicals and expensive fuel, should also be encouraged- here, government could help by introducing more courses in higher education, and in bringing a practical, yet sensible approach and teach it in schools- if children are taught the essentials, they will be more likely to go into farming, to go into ecological management, or watch prices on the shelves with the knowledge of how the industry works, creating a cleverer customer: a boon to farmers in any event.
Abroad, though, the effects could also extend- not only would customers in easily reachable countries enjoy more British-grown produce, it would also help poor farmers in regions such as Africa, which receive little help from government, and stare terrifyingly at the sky, at the mercy much more to the weather than Britain’s farmers, with our healtheir climate supporting diverser crops, which means if the weather is too hot, cold or wet, farmers will have something to ship and give them income. The world could do much to help its poorest by being fair- and by being fair, I mean playing by the same rules.
As oil prices glut higher with peak oil arriving either now or in the next few years, depending on the projection, farming must innovate- you can’t just throw oil-derived fertiliser at the ground forever, and you can’t simply plough the ground to pieces with massive internal-combustion engined machines. We can’t advocate a return to the old ways, but we can be smart about it- world population will have to start declining in the next century, as not enough food will be able to go around, and more countries will pass industrialisation, which historically leads to a falling birth-rate. However, with genetic engineering just around the corner, we can look forward to things such as virus-ran batteries (already being produced experimentally), and other such innovations which will not depend on oil or fossil fuels. Either we’re smart about it now, or when fossil fuels run out in the next century- and they will if consumption continues to grow and not stay at a standstill- we will see famine.
Now, with governments colluding with farmers, we have famine by price…then we will simply have famine. Governments must stop literally starving people to death with their intervention and supporting of a situation which cannot naturally go on: so it’s enough with the bread and circuses- give us education, give us freedom, and allow us to mind our own business…or, even better, allow us to educate ourselves, and allow us to feed ourselves.

Even if you HATE computer games- this is simply good fun, good humour, but prepare for some bad language, because let’s face it what man wouldn’t get angry at these idiots, as you read into the mind of Charles Dickens, greatest football manager of all time.

Season 2- Chapter One: Banking Crisis

http://www.sekritforum.com/storybook/dickens/?p=124

Chapter 2: The Pre-Season Blues

http://www.sekritforum.com/storybook/dickens/?p=139

Are You Writer- a Casting Call

http://www.sekritforum.com/storybook/dickens/?p=143

Season 2- Chapter Three: All Friendlies, NOTHING but friendlies

http://www.sekritforum.com/storybook/dickens/?p=149

Season 2: Chapter Four, Raven Slave No More

http://www.sekritforum.com/storybook/dickens/?p=156

Liberty

It was the first chapters of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty which, on their own, confirmed and labelled in my mind the true struggle: that for liberty.  Ever since, my philosophical struggles have been towards nothing but an ever increasing liberty- until this current state, where utter liberty is- in my mind- the only just, moral, and ethical course society should take.

What is the opposite of liberty? It is authority- and what is the result of authority? Slavery, ill-education, conditioned submission, the war of each man against the other: for each will compete to being more slavish or dumber than the other, for it is the case that tyrannical masters despise clever servants.

And what has risen out of liberty? I am not to claim that one thing can be totally positive, but it is the case that in all things we should choose the principle that promotes happiness above-all: and to me, liberty is a principle firmly grounded in these facts.  For what, politically and economically, is the result of liberty? Participation, co-operation, competition: for liberty essentially, in its base, entails the preservation of the liberty of others, in order to leave ones’ own liberty intact- authority, however, has the opposite effect: it destroys others in order to preserve the power at the core.

What is the message of the long twentieth-century? It is, in my mind, that authority- in the form of the boss, the politician, the religious leader, and political firebrands- is the agent of death, and of destruction: just as, when coupled with industrialism, it is the mass-producer of misery.

By ‘mass-producer of misery’, I call images of the sweatshop workers assembling the developed world’s shoes, clothes, and all at a price cheap enough for the multi-nationals or local slaver-businessmen who exploit it to take home a profit large enough to deter government interests from helping these poor people.  In this case, government is equated with corruption and failure: although it is the same case in every country, it is here utterly opaque.  It is even the case that trade unions- if they can even function- capture the workers in frenzies which drive them to uneconomical schemes, only furthering their misery.  A man should trust himself first and thereafter (through his tools and faculties of empathy) his brothers and sisters.  For if he does not trust his individuality, he immediately delegates decisions and experiences to outer groups, who can only roughly and imperfectly represent him- this, to me, is the crux of all collectivism: that by undermining the individual’s ego, the collection of individuals loses all meaning, and might as well be shepherded.

Government and authority is the Shepherd.  Didn’t Jesus of Nazareth always use this image? However, the sheep do not need the shepherd.  They evolved independently, and only have been made dumb by the protection and domestication of the shepherd himself, living only for the benefit of him.  However, government is not as benevolent as the shepherd: we, due to the institution of permanent tax (which has evolved from an occasional institution to a permanent regulated part of our lives) and regulatory regimes are permanently put through the meat grinders: we never have our days in the sun in the fields, as the sheep do in times before markets.

The institution of authority is, in my mind, equivalent to a grain of sand lodged in the eye: it causes great soreness, pain, discomfort, and blinding, yet, it has convinced many that it is there for a good reason: because it stops another grain of sand from being lodged in the same place.  The permanent posture of authority is simply- ‘you are not clever enough, you do not have enough time, you do not have the experience, you do not have the ability to rule yourself, therefore we must do it for you’: when more often than not, they are the least perfect men of society, who are not equipped in the slightest to legislate or inform us of what shall make us happiest.

The heydays of liberty are eras of peace- the heydays of authority are war, where due to the mass involvement, the institution of authority- whatever be its form, institutional or some rebel jackboot- is overwhelmingly useful in prosecuting the killing of the most enemies, just as it is in peacetime too, but in times of peace the enemies of the masters are the servants themselves.

What is the basis of authority? It seems to me, after much reading and thought, to be ‘virtue’, ‘morality’: and not a virtue based on sensitive, individual things, but based on things like policy, collective (a synonym to me of ‘insensitive’) values, and ultimately submission.  What then is the proper immorality of liberty?

The proper amorality of liberty, in my mind, is based on an irregular thing: happiness, that the pursuit of happiness is the ultimate goal of all.  There are things which connect with happiness: knowledge, wisdom, love, empathy, and all these are encouraged by freedom: for whilst yes the freedom to harm may be encouraged (although I believe that in a society which despises invaders above all things, that this would be immediately discouraged and reduced) by freedom of action, freedom of retaliation too equalises it, so that ultimately the norm would be of peace, that this ‘war of all against all’ as Hobbes predicted would, most likely, be a stalemate, or a victory for the peaceful- law would be voluntary rather than a code of death, and those not taking it would be judged on their own terms.  For what, if there is freedom, is the basis of society? It is interaction: and that interaction is best oiled by love, empathy, closeness, consensus, and law, for if a law (and that is to me a principle) is just and promotes happiness, then the greatest majority will promote and support it, same for an unjust law, which is too often actually supported by the state, that collection of special interests.  Liberty, in its very function, celebrates difference, and takes power from it as an equalising force: authority wishes to make all uniform, industrial, at its core: for authority requires a simple fact, compliance, and requires nothing else.  National uniforms, absolute conscription, and the abolishment of freedom of thought: all are the brainchildren of authority taken to its slickest end.  The man, who may be considered an outlaw under authoritarianism, may be considered a hero or model citizen under the rule of liberty, of anarchism- the state of no leaders.  England has a strong tradition of this: Robin Hood, Hereward the Wake, and more recently the guerrilla artist ‘Banksy’, all struggled- or do struggle- because of their conscience.  I want it ultimately to be the case that Liberty- what I would ultimately call ‘Freedom from invasion’- is every man’s pistol, and that their Conscience is their Sovereign, and maximum happiness be his aim.

Why does liberty encourage wisdom and why does wisdom encourage happiness?

What is wisdom? Wisdom is the abundance of experience and knowledge, a confidence born out of monumental power.  And what do structures of authority do? They necessarily release information, and control information, by what grades or levels- with the leader knowing the most, and the lowest knowing the least.  However, this information is often a matter of training, or a matter of the undemocratic direction of the company of people the hierarchy runs.  Therefore, in order to become wise in a hierarchy, one must rise to the top, or to somehow punch above one’s weight, so to speak, and to circumvent the hierarchy, and become the confidant of those above.  Take away the hierarchy, and make information free, then wisdom is automatically easier to accumulate, just as freedom of speech creates the richest canvas of opinion in order to discuss with, so too does freedom of information: in this way, liberty encourages experience, and in the same way as ‘Nothing can come of nothing’, in the words of King Lear, by the same principle ‘Anything can come of everything’ too.

Law is the ultimate friend of liberty.  For what is liberty, this opposite of government? It is participation: it is responsibility, and what is the measure of responsibility? The Law; what is the opposite of responsibility? Representation: Government, involuntary measures.

The source of authority in a free society, is the clique, and with this, privilege.  And privilege is something to be kicked-in and smashed when it runs past the right to consume the products one makes or buys, and extends to preventing others from doing the same.  Not that under liberty secrets would be somehow illegal; they would simply be discouraged by the very mechanisms of free information and distribution: one would have to be a fox to recognise traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves, to quote Machiavelli.  Liberty is, to me, the essential of being an atom: chaotic, indestructible, and free.

Why is government in absolute opposition to liberty? What of a government which protects it against enemies?

Liberty is the security of rights.  Why is government in opposition? Consider any right: the existence of a right also entails, by its very existence, the privilege to reject the right: I may refuse my right to a wage, and be a volunteer; I may refuse a right to a payment, and gift a product if I wish; however, the right to rule is considered under current, involuntary, representative government to be invincible: what else is this, but tyranny? A government which does this, does not protect its people from enemies, it makes enemies of its own people.

The question in everyone’s minds seems to be “Why didn’t these bankers behave with more prudence?” The answer is, because it would have been unreasonable to have done at the time. The bank group certainly expanded too fast, too far- however, the interrogation by the committee of Treasury MPs is not only unjust, it is also wholly hypocritical and immoral. That is because the country is going into a period where the Bank of England is about to start printing more money than it usually does to try and inject liquidity into the economy. Not only is the base lending rate at an unfeasibly low level to reward risk-taking borrowers and punish prudent savers, but the government has already effectively risked inflation in its dealings with the financial sector- so much so, that the country may have its credit rating downgraded, in a similar move to what happened to the big banking giants once their profligacy became clear.

This article is mainly being written to answer an interrogation the sheepish former executives couldn’t answer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7881081.stm). Chairman of the Committee Mr McFall posted the inquisition: “The Oxford English Dictionary definition [of a bank]: ‘An organisation offering financial services, especially the safe keeping of customers until required and making loans at interest’…So, did your organisation live up to that definition?”
-The central crux of the answer must be on what Mr McFall would deem “safe”. The question here, therefore, is at what fraction the bank must lend of its reserves- that is, how much more over its money in its vaults is it lending. Until the closure of the wholesale markets, HBOS easily fulfilled this remit- it was thus “safe”, although it did it in a riskier manner than it should. If it did not have the agreed minimum amount of capital in its vaults, then that is clear regulatory failure- but only on the same side of the coin as the lowering of interest rates to such low official levels. Indeed, it could be argued that the Treasury’s fiscal policy in expanding the government’s budget wastefully, at the same time as the independent Bank of England was being easy with the markets, that the Treasury itself did not fulfil its remit, which is, to quote The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary Second Edition: “Funds or revenue of State…administering expenditure of public revenue, and co-ordinating the economic activities of other branches of government”- the lack of prudence by the HBOS bankers is shared by members of the Treasury, seeing as they both committed the same sin: the sin of poor judgment. The irony, is that the HBOS bankers have because of the public’s lustre and spirit of wolfishness not been afforded the same status of being human beings running on probabilities and taking risks- just as the HBOS bankers tried to please shareholders by being riskier, Treasury officials when now-Prime Minister Gordon Brown sanctioned similar risky investment in the NHS, and in costly foreign wars, one of which violating international law and being contrary to millions of protesters. The organs of the state cannot be allowed to escape here- they took the same risks the bankers did, and the bankers did based on the fact the markets were incredibly healthy and that it was unlikely the system would collapse any time soon. The Treasury, meanwhile, did not have the benefit of such statistics as it works outside the market, the investments in public infrastructure being rampantly inefficient.The Treasury may have been able to escape with some face had it handled this crisis better- it in this case had the perfect model in the case of Sweden, which brilliantly escaped a carbon-copy crisis situation in the 1990s. The Treasury should have immediately guaranteed all retail deposits, agreed to underwrite unrisky loans to help rebuild banks’ capital bases (at the same time as the recapitalisation, which actually happened), and opened a so-called ‘bad bank’ as the Swedes did, which would have absorbed all the ‘toxic assets’ and squeezed as much as possible from them and not been open to new business passed a given date (meaning, banks would not have the guarantee of pawning off poor loans onto the bad bank if they failed in years to come); however, it has performed poorly, and undercut the tax system in the worst way possible- the VAT Cut can be considered an abandonment of its remit alone, because the balance of benefit to cost has been proven to have been so poor.

The point is, HBOS failed because of its mistakes and its risky business model. If the wholesale money markets hadn’t collapsed, those men would most likely have been hailed as heroes, just as Jérôme Kerviel, the Société Générale- a French investment bank- market trader who illegitimately lost the bank billions because of a retreat in market conditions did. If we’re to enter an era where we associate good business with being scared to invest, then we will most likely have poor growth- investments generally pay off more than they fail, but it’s the failures which shape the market as much as the success: HBOS surely will serve as a model example for years to come of a humbled titan.

HBOS, then, is on the grill, and as I have detailed rather unfairly and hypocritically. The step should not be to regulate more, but ensure that when companies and individuals fail they do not impose so much cost on others for their own choices. The only way to do that is to break up the cartels which exist in government- the housing bubble was caused by low base-rate interest rates, which effectively means the Central Bank sold more bonds (which is how interest rates are lowered and raised, making money supply easier and smaller respectively), and a period of risky but successful period of lending ensued, which only encouraged banks like HBOS further. We should never punish people with hindsight wholly in mind. We must lower income and business taxes across the board, making the Treasury more prudent by restricting its opportunity for tyranny (which I have outlined, particularly in the Tough Choices, Part 1 article, available on this site), and discouraging the rich from hiding their assets and investments off-shore, which in itself made credit rating organisations’ jobs hard, as they weren’t able to fully assess banks’ capital health (riskier stuff being off-shore- Royal Bank of Scotland’s former boss revealed recently he had hidden a significant sum of loans from the bank, for instance). We mustn’t allow the markets to grow out of proportion as they have- really, inflation has effectively been alive and well in the housing and credit markets, hiding the economic lunacy to the Central Bank’s inflation target setters. We should decentralise our banking system, and return to a state where banks issue money as they did before, wagered against their reputation. This is called Free Banking. If the banks (if they so wished of course) had a currency to protect as well as a capital and deposit base, they would be far more inclined to not cause inflation. The risks of fractional reserve banking would be more or less eliminated- for instance, if I was storing millions in the bank I could opt for whichever fraction I wanted, which would be leveraged against the interest rate: those who chose the riskiest rate would be rewarded for their risk, but would have more to lose. This would put the sovereignty in the consumer’s hands, not the Central Bank’s. If, say, (to take a simple example) Northern Rock- the nationalised retail bank- had collapsed under this system and it had been a money-issuer, its currency would have been deemed worthless and would have been abandoned. Holders of the money would have been able to convert the currency with the buyers or the administrators of the bank into the more reputable currency, adding liquidity and stability to the newly formed institution, or if in the case of the administrators would have allowed the bank to reel in its assets quicker and be more efficiently sold. In the current system, hundreds of billions of pound stirling were spent and leveraged on the bank, and probably to the detriment of the Treasury (and thus Stirling) itself. Just as to encourage a child to be more independent you cut the apron strings, we should do the same with our banks- if they fail, then they’ll be abandoned and the market will absorb the losses. The success of this policy can be attested by a period of seventy years in Sweden, where only one bank went under in those seven decades of free regulation. It may seem counter-intuitive, especially in this time of crisis- but by cutting the ties we can help insure the system as a whole. What seems to be in deficit with the world’s citizens, is they don’t seem to understand that Central Banks are banks too, and that they are not just the masters of their universes, but were once members of that universe. The power of the Bank of England is frightening- they hold the keys to the overwhelming example of legal tender (the opposite philosophy as free banking, where tender would only be accepted on the reputation and judgment of the person receiving it), and with their control of interest rates they hold the keys to nearly everyone’s income, even the government’s. It not only makes economic sense, but it also makes moral sense. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of people on Select Committees deciding what I should do. HBOS paid the price and lost its fortune and independence, it’s time the Treasury, the Bank of England and the system as a whole gets the same inquisition as these risky bankers. A privatisation of the money supply would be a good step in this individualist revolution.

Title change: Part Three in the series ‘A Matter of Loans and Taxes’ was in early writing stages, but I’ve decided to re-write this as Part Three.

Part Two:

A Royal Failure

“Eleven years ago we rescued Britain from the parlous state to which socialism had brought it. Once again Britain stands tall in the councils of Europe and of the world. Over the last decade, we have given power back to the people on an unprecedented scale. We have given back control to people over their own lives and over their livelihoods, over the decisions that matter most to them and their families. We have done it by curbing the monopoly power of trade unions to control, even victimize the individual worker.”

Those words were said by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, possibly the most controversial politician of our times. Thatcher did much to rebuild Britain, but she greatly ruined its industrial capacity by breaking up the coal industry and subsequently selling it, rather than simply privatising it as she perhaps should have. Nevertheless, she left some things untouched, sadly rather than happily. Take the example of British Telecommunications, now BT Group and one of the largest and most advanced telecommunications companies in the world, and a genuine world leader. This week, The Baron Mandelson, the Business Secretary, talked of similar hopes for Royal Mail. And it is this subject which is the focus of this article.

The problem of the Royal Mail is very similar to that of the failing American automotive giants, which it has been announced today are to receive around US$11billions in loans. All of them are strategically linked to nearly every company in their nations. If Ford, Chrysler and General Motors were to go into bankruptcy, so too would thousands of suppliers and tertiary firms. If the Royal Mail was to fail, and is currently in the red, then the entire postal industry would fall. As discussed in my previous article, the Royal Mail, much like the US Post Office, has a monopoly on delivering letters, parcels allowed to be delivered by third-parties. The Royal Mail was instrumental in linking communities, and for the cost of a stamp one could (with the Uniform Penny Postage) and can send a letter anywhere in the United Kingdom, such is the infrastructure of the company. However, it is a failing enterprise.

The definition of insanity, is to try something again and again, and to expect a different result every time. Thus, the current plan to find a partner for Royal Mail and keep it majority-Treasury owned (see last article for why I do not say publically-owned) is doomed to failure. The Royal Mail has been part-privatised or privatised before, when it was disastrously rebranded as ‘Consignia’, and both times have failed. Even now, the postage industry is partly privatised and open, with competitors allowed to distribute the mail, but generally do not deliver it. This puts a strain on the Royal Mail, and maintains a false brand image that it distributes all letters. The answer, then, is that ethically the Royal Mail should be broken up, and that the current state of affairs does not favour taxpayers or letter-senders, with private companies succeeding at the expense of the Royal Mail. The answer is not to re-instate the monopoly, but to make the distributors also deliver the mail, similar to how the same people who run the trains should logically own the track and signals (both owned/maintained by differing organisations). Indeed, the competition would spur modernisation, and create jobs, the unions currently having too much power over a failing system. If the Royal Mail’s workers go on strike, the United Kingdom’s economy significantly suffers, so as a matter of utility it should be fully privatised, previous attempts being botched and confusing, much like the railways (which, ignoring the material difference, was based on the highly successful change to the aviation industry’s structure, the idea of the difference in infrastructure meaning the plans were doomed from the very conception).

Post offices, worryingly, are closing around the country. This is because the Post Office Ltd. is literally losing hundreds of millions of pounds in its current state. If the idea for fundamental change is not accepted now, it may never be. If we open up Post offices to competition, or at least use them initially as a porous system for the differing mail companies to work within the infrastructure, then it will make the service very attractive to customers. Postal companies could theoretically pay the Post Office fees for using their buildings, and this would not be necessarily the new status quo, some Post Offices possibly being bought out by private investors. A large, nationwide, business like the Post Office may not find profit in keeping small, essential, rural branches open, but small local business surely will. It is a matter of life and death for these communities, just as rural train stations were pre-Beeching Report, especially for the elderly, the immobile and the infirm. If profit cannot be found, then non-profit and charities for the benefit of the elderly and disadvantaged could run the post offices.

This would surely create employment, as each agency would need its administrators, its delivery officers, its drivers, its warehouse workers, and its managers. Indeed, it could provide a much needed boost to Treasury funds by relieving Royal Mail from its books but also providing taxes, and it could theoretically stimulate rail demand if freight shippers exploited the new marketplace. Thus, the privatisation and breaking up of the monolith would surely go further towards the old social-democratic economic project of full employment, whilst exploiting the wealth and innovation of Capitalism. Indeed, if the accepted vernacular for Capitalists was true, then Free Marketeers (us being lumped in with the big corporate, corrupt, crony capitalists) would support the monolithic Royal Mail. However, this is of course absurd to any free marketeer.

It is a sad thing to contemplate, but we are coming to the end of seeing the old red dame strutting all around the country, even though it could still have life as a company, its days as a nationwide mega-corporation are over.

-R.J. Croton

Next in the Tough Choices series, the promised article A Matter of Loans and Taxes…

Coming in the future: Tough Choices Part 4- on the green planet, environmentalism, and the  actual advantages of a free market approach to upholding ecology and the environment.

Part One:

One Way to Go

“I thought I’d woken up in France”. Those were the words of one Republican Senator about the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two US-government created and sponsored mortgage companies. The seemingly unthinkable is happening- citizens in modernising free-marketeering countries are associating privatisation with greed and nationalisation with accountability and sound business. Then again, who could blame the average man who, seeing the massive failure of the gigantic financial industry, equates that failure with the previously record profits with an almost anti-clerical, corrupt, greed?

There are extremely few people who want to see us return to coal boards, completely national rail, nationalised utilities and Royally chartered and Government-owned publishers. Instead, there is an increasing call for a much more mixed economy- an almost Leibniz-esque rationale: that we must have the best of all possible worlds. But Leibniz was contemplating the Problem of evil- i.e., how evil and suffering can exist in a God-created world. However, this came with the proviso that God had given us freedom and liberty, and that is why evil existed. Nowhere did it suggest that evil exists or is curtailed because God intervenes in the universe, it simply came with the proviso that God chose the world we live in out of all the possibilities, and this is the best one. So too does the idea of a mixed economy depend on the idea that Government has chosen out of all the best possibilities. But not only is this fatalistic, philosophical nonsense, it is also economically and historically nonsense.

Take the example of the rail industry. The very reason it was nationalised and taken over was because of the Second World War- the infrastructure needed to be directed nationally for the total war effort. However, why did we not simply give back the railway at the end of the conflict? Because government could not afford the compensation, but also the Labour-lust of the time demanded it be nationalised along with our energy and other such formerly private sectors.

However, as we know, when it came to Thatcher the Keynesian ideas had fallen out of fashion because of the stagflation crisis of the Seventies. Thus, British Telecom, British Gas and British Coal were all privatised, and to a near-universal positive effect. However, it took much longer for British Rail to be privatised, and when it was, it was ridiculously complex.

In-fact, it was so complex that although passenger uptake increased by 30% under Railtrack, the infrastructure and signals operator before Network Rail, it led to overcrowding. The mixed-solution of short-term franchises, and infrastructure separation (for example, the same persons who own the track do not and did not maintain it), led to a complete lack of investment. Indeed, the number of employed by the railways fell from 85,000 in 1996 to 52,000 in 2007, and private investment barely rose in a 3-4 year period from £4.241billions in 2002/03 to £4.456billions in 05/06, whilst local and central government investment dramatically rose from £3.254billions to £4.762billions in the same period (source: Transport Statistics Great Britain 2007 Edition, Department for Transport). This points to a greater imbalance, with private investors being scared away, leading to more taxpayer intervention. Now, as taxpayers, we must demand that we have to pay as little as possible for the best solution- and in an industry with its greatest customer numbers in almost half a century, it would be logical to assume that it was bustling with private individuals wanting to invest their money, reduce over-crowding and build and improve infrastructure, all for the good of their pockets, and to the incidental good of our pockets and schedules.

The central problem here, is that there is far too much government intervention. There is an unjustified fear that by completely setting the industry adrift in the market it will lead to its very destruction. However, this has not happened in the case of energy or telecommunications, and it will not happen to rail. Rail was built almost completely by private initiative, the only help from government being quickly passed and implemented legislation to allow the industry to build around the country. It is what turned Britain from a mixed industrial-rural economy into a truly industrial one, factories no longer having to crowd around canals or ports, and instead being able to be built where it was best. There is absolutely no rationale behind the idea that those who maintain the track should not own it, and those who use the track should not own it. Indeed, the reason why British Rail worked (and that is a fragile usage) was because it was able to stamp its authority everywhere; however, that is certainly why it was privatised- because the monopoly was bad for customers, and it was ultimately bad for the railways. Instead of ripping up the fringe routes, Beeching should have instead in hindsight privatised the entire system, just as Japan has done, and merely subsidised the outlying regions. I say this, because Japan- by any standards- has the finest rail system in the world- and it is completely private, completely free market, and 1/3 of all the world’s rail journeys are taken in Japan.

The reason why the idea behind nationalisation simply doesn’t work isn’t just one of economics, it is one of logic. When one describes a nationalised company, it is described as publically owned, however, this is simply not what nationalisation is. Northern Rock, a troubled mortgage lender rescued by the British government, isn’t owned by the public- it is owned by the Treasury. If it was publically owned, we would by definition have property rights over it and its assets. Indeed, even if it was based on a stock market system, we would be able as citizens to do what we like with our shares, and have all the rights shareholders do. Therefore, nationalisation means- to be owned by the Treasury, which has the power to forcibly take from our earnings- i.e. tax us. The Treasury does not operate democratically- we do not vote on if we want a cut in taxes. We vote for whichever representative promises to do what we wish, and we know that it is the rare politician who doesn’t hush up his policies and promises when he finally gets his seat. And that’s because, just as how business runs, politics is fundamentally run by self-interest, and it is in the self-interest of the Treasury, and therefore the Chancellor and the Cabinet, to keep industries so that they can be taxed and controlled. It rarely leads to improvement, and indeed even when it does it is often swallowed up by the corruption and inefficiency caused elsewhere. The crux of the paradox is that a company is simply a legal framework for a group of individuals to run their affairs and ventures. A publically-owned company, such as Northern Rock, does not just answer to the market, but it also answers to its owners- the Treasury, who appoint its board and executives. Instead of delivering maximum profit and efficiency, they can use government funds to undercut privately-owned companies, leading essentially to price-fixing, they can eliminate competition by means of the legislature through their political masters and owners, and all to the detriment of us, the customers. For example, Lysander Spooner, the individualist anarchist businessman and legal philosopher, in the Nineteenth Century set up his rival to the US Post Office- the American Letter Mail Company. The US Post Office, by constitution, has a monopoly on all letter delivery- and Spooner’s company justly out-competed with the US Post Office by responding and setting prices by the market and by the customer, that is until government forced him out of business through legal means. The US Post Office had its place in the constitution to ensure that such an important instrument was available to all; yet, the competing enterprise delivered a better (and arguably more socially just) service. The fact is, that Big Government always loses sight of the original aim, and like the greedy thing it is will not be able to think clearly or reasonably, as shown in the USPO’s incompetence over its central mission when compared to the ALMC.

The current banking crisis was even caused by government. In 1977, President Carter forced US mortgage lenders to give out risky loans to those they would not dare lend to before- thus the creation of the sub-Prime market. When this nearly destroyed the market in the Eighties because of defaulting and other results of bad business, the Government didn’t say ‘that did not work, it simply created poverty. Our mission to force the market to provision and help provide housing failed’, they took on the bad debt, consolidated it, and forced the market to start again. This made banks and mortgagers, in the words of the Adam Smith Institute, the free market think tank, “too big to fail”, which is a rather familiar phrase, isn’t it? Thus why the west in the next decade will enter a painful era of government debt and even heavier taxes. This will be explored more in a forthcoming article.

In every case where there has been an industry, government is the side which has failed, been out-foxed, and been the greedy pig at the trough. But because of the place government holds in a democratic system, it won’t just be wished away, and it will always have an excuse until the monopolies have been broken down by the will of the customer and the voter. It is time to completely cut the apron strings, give up on this Georgist experiment, sell the rail and the infrastructure to the franchises, and let them establish themselves as sound, long-term companies. Indeed, the logic is undeniable- give them enough time for their choices to come back and bite them, and they will not be so risky; furthermore, they will be able to deliver strategy steadily and in their interest alone- that is why rail infrastructure isn’t improving, because the franchisees have zero incentive to improve it, as they may be forced out of business by the red tape, or they may even be forced out of business because they can’t satisfy the demand which would make them profitable. For example, Crossrail- a major public rail project in London- has been dogged with problems for decades in varying forms, all because of the ridiculously complex system of planning permission in this country. The answer here, clearly is to abolish the Local Planning Authorities, and replace them with a simple piece of legislation which requires a privately-done feasibility report. It is a violation of property rights that one should not be able to build what one wants on their land, and the feasibility report would cover ecological concerns. Furthermore, in an illustration of how green rail is, a mere 0.4% of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2005 were Rail-derived, whilst 0.7% were from Coaches and Buses, and a much more massive 3.4% on Road freight (statistics by economic sector). If we want to ween people off cars, it’s time to allow the alternative to be provided, just as in Japan.

Privatisation and economic freedom makes sense, whilst the half-way-houses-ideologies of regulation and government-created markets have clearly not worked in the case of rail, or indeed in terms of mortgages (to the effect of the near-destruction of the world banking system), or in the case of mail delivery (thus why the letter-monopoly Royal Mail and Post Office is a sadly ailing, failing, venture)- the alternative thus proposed creates the best of all possible worlds. After all, it is government which is the God that has resoundingly failed. There’s clearly only one way to go.

This essay is primarily primed for those who are called “fundamentalists”; I have little quarrel with those who believe in a god, yet have a doubt in that opinion- for that shows that it is by their independent reason and logic they have come to their present state of mind. What I rally against here is those who give up their reason, and place their mind and in-fact their entire nature and existence, in the grasp of some other. This is something I decry, as it is not often that this is the result of voluntary action- that is, someone could ethically sell themselves if it was by their full and independent consent.

Therefore, I see this fundamentalism as a form of slavery, and it is often in the times of the greatest weakness that it strikes. Observe the most common cases of when persons start associating themselves with religion. It is often during childhood; but to take a more adult case, there are those who are the so-called ‘born-again Christians’. And I posit that those of this denomination often turn to this devotion during weakness- after alcoholism, after sadness or rejection, or even after near-death. For it is forever the case that something when strong moves little, and is thus indestructible; and it is when one degrades or is shocked, as in the cases outlined before, that one truly and fundamentally is able to change. I emphasise those qualifications because a change of opinion is different to a change of devotion- for often when one changes an opinion, it is when a new case arises which voids the prior logic and reason- and thus to criticise this kind of change would be utterly hypocritical, I being no different from others that I once held opinions and feelings which I do not hold now.

It is in this that this philosophy- which is, to quote Islamic literalist Ayman Zawahiri: “[we] believe in our religion, both as an ideology and practise!”- so vile, so despicable and slavish. It prays on those who are weak or sick, or even those who have a will-in-the-making: our children. Children are like those who first followed these Prophets- dependent on these men to reveal to them the truth, rather discover it themselves.

To attack the core of fundamentalism, and I speak of it in the more Christian context, we must look at the origins of it as a movement; which are, that it was one rooted in anti-clericalism, and two in the birth of the Anglican, Rome-independent church, which during the upheaval of the Commonwealth of England and the Protectorate sparked a radicalism which manifested in many forms. One positive form was Quakerism, that Religious Society of Friends- a school which I share many thoughts with, which would make me a Non-Theist Friend. It is in this openness, which is almost Eastern rather than tyrannical and Abrahamic, that I find a joy. The ultimate root of what is called Evangelicalism is that the Church was considered corrupt, and that therefore faith should be placed in a literal interpretation of the Bible and Gospel. Therefore, the real idea of a Theocracy reared its head, which had not taken place for many centuries, not since the founding of the Church of Rome, with its political and pragmatic uses at the heart of its power and direction, especially under the corrupt Borgia family. Not only is this idea dangerous, but it is also logically false, as I shall outline. We must look historically, as any theology or school which deliberately interprets literally must answer the same questions and look at the same arguments as those who composed the texts themselves.

The origin lies in the teaching schools of the Hellenic world, especially those pre-Socratic so-called Atomist and Epicurean schools. Although confusing now, due to the nomenclature being used concurrently in scientific physics- such as motion, atoms, et cetera- the debate uniformly centred on the nature of the universe. The materialist, Atomist, view was that the universe and all matter was constructed of indivisible units called atoms, and that all things were made up of either atoms or void. The very fact that this idea made existence all important, and the idea that things have always existed, always will and cannot be ‘created’ or ‘destroyed’, void being a state of nothingness, meant that the idea of a creator became logically absurd. It was the rival, metaphysical, Aristotelian and Platonic view, that the universe was created. Indeed by admitting that the universe was created, meant that there must instinctively and intuitively be a creator. This, however, appealed to Socrates and his students, who have since become the face of ancient Greek philosophy. Thus, when it came to the formation of Christianity, no doubt this had a great influence, such was the power of the Socratic and metaphysical thinkers, who too influenced Rome.

However, now that the entire physics behind the anti-Atomists has been proven wrong, that there are no basic elements, that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, and that the universe did not have a ‘beginning’ (in that the universe did not suddenly come into being as it is, that it expanded and was summoned from a singular point in the Big Bang, and thus whatever expanded exponentially must too have existed before in its previous form), and that ultimately everything is made up of singular units called Atoms, then surely the entire logic behind a creator falls down, and surely what was prophecy is now revealed as madness? Surely then, it is the materialists who have been proven right, and it is their arguments who we should re-examine. In-fact, the similarity behind the current ‘atheist’ philosophy and that of the ancient Atomists isn’t all too different.

Nietzsche believed that the world had taken a wrong course when it had caught the winds of Socrates’ thoughts, and that all this led to the creation of Christianity- for it is true that Christianity is a mesh of thoughts and ideas, and that it is not coherent, and that it is certainly not unique, as is proven with the similarities with the Roman cult of Mithras. Therefore, let us look at the current and contemporary trends with an Epicurean bent. To take an example, let us examine the rejection of geology, carbon dating, palaeontology and indeed cosmology in their Young Earth Theory. They posit, just as with almost every other conflict, that the lack of evidence to support them is in itself not a barrier to their theory. However, how is the lack of something a something? How is void in itself an atom?

It is a truth that the Universe runs on a single law- one thing having something, and another not having such a thing. I say that it is a single law, that it is a single thing, because the secondary is a nothing, and is therefore the opposite of a thing, of a something. Indeed, only in thought, which is in itself a non-physical thing, does a nothing exist. A true nothing would be unperceivable, as our senses would not be able to detect it. Indeed, how is anything super-natural even able to be sensed? For the senses are the faculties- the conduits of data to the brain and consciousness. Therefore, how can anything ultra-natural or beyond-nature even be perceivable? The answer is- that it cannot be, as it would violate the principles of the human physiology and chemistry. Indeed, the only place it can exist is in the mind itself, and often this is a souring of the senses by a chemical, by a something, by a hormone, by a fear. Therefore, anything supernatural cannot be truly sensed, and anything thought to be sensed is but an invention of the mind, then how could we even perceive the Christian God? Isn’t he beyond our very faculties to comprehend? Thus we must come to the conclusion that everything is material, and that metaphysics is but a branch of the psyche. I elaborate on this because the fundamentalists break all these laws, and they step on them and think of their inventions as things beyond us, when they are in-fact products of themselves. Imagine if someone said suddenly that in darkness they could find light. One would laugh at such a madman, as darkness is the absence of light. But similarly imagine a man saying that the lack of evidence disproving something was in itself a qualification to ignore every piece of evidence against him, once again one would not think this person stable or reasonable to any degree. But then imagine that a man said “There is no proof God doesn’t exist, therefore I see no reason why I shouldn’t believe in him”- and this would be acceptable. But, how is this acceptable? And once more, how is this acceptable when the very roots of the arguments they accept literally have been proven to be wrong? Surely this leads this man to actually be saying “I interpret my holy book literally for no other reason than to comfort myself, and to stop any re-interpretation which would distort my comfort”. But surely, wouldn’t placing a literal interpretation in the hands of ones’ leaders result in not a soft, malleable, pragmatic sceptre, but a rule of law and doctrine which is iron and in-fact intrinsically cruel? Surely then they do not escape the perversion of pragmatic rulers, and in-fact hand such men- who have always and will always exist so long as power tempts man in any degree- a power which would corrupt them absolutely, even though it is to escape the corruption of the present, it would simply be an older and blinder corruption. How then, can there be darkness in this light? How can from nothing be something? How could there be creation from nothing, how can there be void and then atoms? How can there be from the immaterial material?

It seems to me that it lives in a small world, this philosophy, where the internal and external contradictions are ignored and repressed. ‘Fundamentalism’, to me, seems in practice to be a synonym of Isolationism, of Regression and of Fear. It is the reaction of a religious intellectual group which saw its systems failing and being exploited, and even seeing their hold on society slipping and ripping. Thus why they must ruin the tradition of the past few centuries since Newton, wherein Theologians have deliberately reconciled with Science. Now, they reject it, and in the process embitter the world. All arguments of this nature are, by virtue of their proof, argumentum ad ignorantiam, as they ignore or even translate all data to their own means. Let us demonstrate an example- one position of the Young Earth Theory is that the Christian God placed the fossils on Earth which contradict the very basis of the theory. This is an equivalent to a conclusively proven form of madness suddenly being taken as a form of sanity, however strange.

The very fact that the central ideology makes such demands of logic, of reason, of imagination, of ignorance, and of regression in order to support its central tenants shows its utterly flawed nature; as it is the case, that any ideology is flawed when it cannot operate on the most basic level within Occam’s Razor. Let us take an example, that of Free Market Economics for example. The central and simplest tenant can be summed as ‘Competition is beneficial’. This can be used in almost every challenge against the ideology- for example, if the government made it law that everyone owns the same car, or set-up and maintained a subsidised and cartel-esque car firm which fulfilled this function. In any analysis of the idea, from the proposition, to the implementation, to the results and denouement, the central and simplest tenant can be applied to argue against it and answer any situation. It does not demand leaps of logic intrinsically, nor does it appeal to ignorance. If it so happened that the idea was successful, even still proponents could point to the even more successful companies abroad. The burden of proof always rests with the expounder of the opinion, never with the opponents.

It is my opinion that this shifting of burdens, and of this appeal to ignorance, shows that it is a sick ideology- that is, that it is ill and dying. Just as those who flee to her in their weakness, this old rabble-rouser has seen the last of its green days- and all they can do is protest, isolate themselves from contact, and deny, simply to preserve their way of life; because, just as the old statists and tyrants knew, that as soon as a challenge against them succeeded, or people started not turning their ears to them at the first resort and more to individuals, then that was the weakening of their rule. And what results from the enforcing that usually follows, of the iron attack? Revolution- and this time, those religious men do not have the power they desire over law, and only over individuals. Yet, this revolution is coming, or is even happening- and we will revolve once more, we shall go back to the Pre-Socratic, Pagan, individual way, where it is just Schools of Thought, and the whether one believes in the Gods or Creators will be a much more pragmatic manner. Perhaps we shall even head back into the depths of Theology afterwards, and begin the cycle of history once more…but not after a true materialist individualist culture has its day. And then, perhaps the men will rise, like I, who see man’s selfishness and ego more as motivations and encouraging of acts which before seemed difficult; godlike; selfless- when in-fact they are nothing of the sort. Men shall arise who see every problem as conquerable, as selfish, as winnable, as human, and they will perhaps in-fact be supermen, just as Nietzsche envisioned- but because they will be beyond that man who came before, who was beaten and restricted by his ignorance of his own nature. They will be comprehensible to us, they will not be supermen- they will simply be Men. The barrier between us and them is that we still look at things through the same squint and restriction of perspective- we act much as we used to, although we may think different. And that realm of thought is that place where progress takes place, and where soon it shall invade into action. It is only in the mind- or from things resulting from the mind- that contradictions can happen; they do not extend to the physical world as such. It is when we believe they do, and when they can, that we start inventing our own reality, and start looking through the world through our own self-fashioned imperfect lens. There will be no fundamentalism of any form- no faith, only freedom to act how one thinks, and in that universe there will be room for all- those who are godfearing, those who are not, and those who are possibly something else.