Bottom = Slavery and Personal Irresponsibility
Now, the key point today is that I maintain the left v right is passé. It's old hat. What we really need to be talking about is top v bottom. I do not consider myself either left or right. All the evidence tells me that the left - aka socialism - does not work. In fact cannot work. And similarly the Right 'conservative' does not work. And in fact cannot work.
If you look at the history of conservatism in the UK it is exemplified by its ability to gain power by accepting the changes made by the Left. It has 'conserved' things that were not previously thought of as Right wing or conservative. And it tends to be authoritarian. Witness the way Osborne handed Draconian and arbitrary power to HMRC or the constant attempts to 'control' the internet. Finally by definition Toryism grew out of land ownership - i.e. rent seeking.
On the left the constant failures of economic rationing by bureaucrats, and because of the skewed incentives of those bureaucrats, will tend to lead to more and more regulationism and less and less economic freedom. The left defined itself by mis-defining 'capitalism'. It looked horizontally across the Nolan Chart. It should have been looking upwards. It decided that on the evidence of that horizontal view markets were not good enough and that central planning by wise bureaucrats was much better. Keynes did not look up either.
In short both left and right will tend to trend downwards over time to the bottom. They will both end up as totalitarian regimes. (Witness Corbyn's threat to requisition houses).
The chart implies something else. Without both economic and personal liberty there can be no Liberty. Property rights (including sound money which is a form of property right) are fundamental to liberty. And this is why the Left can never embrace liberty.
But given that the Nation State is a Good Idea what is the least worst way of paying for it that does not erode liberty and economic freedom and uses the least possible coercion? Enter Georgism.
To my mind Georgism achieves two things. One, It raises tax income in an equitable and efficient way and two, if done properly increases liberty by removing the ability of the few rent seekers to suck the wealth away from the productive in 'economic rent'. I see no contradiction between Georgism and Liberty. But then I am not an anarcho libertarian.
There is a lot more than can be said about this, but I wanted to be as brief as possible and to promote discussion.
So what do you think?
Debate Magazine
We (or maybe just me?) got ourselves into a long discussion on an earlier post that rather lost its way. So I thought I'd try to make a bit clearer the point I was trying to make. First of all I would expect that all of you know about the Nolan Chart? (I accept that it is a simplification).
Top = Liberty and Personal Responsibility
Bottom = Slavery and Personal Irresponsibility
Now, the key point today is that I maintain the left v right is passé. It's old hat. What we really need to be talking about is top v bottom. I do not consider myself either left or right. All the evidence tells me that the left - aka socialism - does not work. In fact cannot work. And similarly the Right 'conservative' does not work. And in fact cannot work.
If you look at the history of conservatism in the UK it is exemplified by its ability to gain power by accepting the changes made by the Left. It has 'conserved' things that were not previously thought of as Right wing or conservative. And it tends to be authoritarian. Witness the way Osborne handed Draconian and arbitrary power to HMRC or the constant attempts to 'control' the internet. Finally by definition Toryism grew out of land ownership - i.e. rent seeking.
On the left the constant failures of economic rationing by bureaucrats, and because of the skewed incentives of those bureaucrats, will tend to lead to more and more regulationism and less and less economic freedom. The left defined itself by mis-defining 'capitalism'. It looked horizontally across the Nolan Chart. It should have been looking upwards. It decided that on the evidence of that horizontal view markets were not good enough and that central planning by wise bureaucrats was much better. Keynes did not look up either.
In short both left and right will tend to trend downwards over time to the bottom. They will both end up as totalitarian regimes. (Witness Corbyn's threat to requisition houses).
The chart implies something else. Without both economic and personal liberty there can be no Liberty. Property rights (including sound money which is a form of property right) are fundamental to liberty. And this is why the Left can never embrace liberty.
But given that the Nation State is a Good Idea what is the least worst way of paying for it that does not erode liberty and economic freedom and uses the least possible coercion? Enter Georgism.
To my mind Georgism achieves two things. One, It raises tax income in an equitable and efficient way and two, if done properly increases liberty by removing the ability of the few rent seekers to suck the wealth away from the productive in 'economic rent'. I see no contradiction between Georgism and Liberty. But then I am not an anarcho libertarian.
There is a lot more than can be said about this, but I wanted to be as brief as possible and to promote discussion.
So what do you think?
Bottom = Slavery and Personal Irresponsibility
Now, the key point today is that I maintain the left v right is passé. It's old hat. What we really need to be talking about is top v bottom. I do not consider myself either left or right. All the evidence tells me that the left - aka socialism - does not work. In fact cannot work. And similarly the Right 'conservative' does not work. And in fact cannot work.
If you look at the history of conservatism in the UK it is exemplified by its ability to gain power by accepting the changes made by the Left. It has 'conserved' things that were not previously thought of as Right wing or conservative. And it tends to be authoritarian. Witness the way Osborne handed Draconian and arbitrary power to HMRC or the constant attempts to 'control' the internet. Finally by definition Toryism grew out of land ownership - i.e. rent seeking.
On the left the constant failures of economic rationing by bureaucrats, and because of the skewed incentives of those bureaucrats, will tend to lead to more and more regulationism and less and less economic freedom. The left defined itself by mis-defining 'capitalism'. It looked horizontally across the Nolan Chart. It should have been looking upwards. It decided that on the evidence of that horizontal view markets were not good enough and that central planning by wise bureaucrats was much better. Keynes did not look up either.
In short both left and right will tend to trend downwards over time to the bottom. They will both end up as totalitarian regimes. (Witness Corbyn's threat to requisition houses).
The chart implies something else. Without both economic and personal liberty there can be no Liberty. Property rights (including sound money which is a form of property right) are fundamental to liberty. And this is why the Left can never embrace liberty.
But given that the Nation State is a Good Idea what is the least worst way of paying for it that does not erode liberty and economic freedom and uses the least possible coercion? Enter Georgism.
To my mind Georgism achieves two things. One, It raises tax income in an equitable and efficient way and two, if done properly increases liberty by removing the ability of the few rent seekers to suck the wealth away from the productive in 'economic rent'. I see no contradiction between Georgism and Liberty. But then I am not an anarcho libertarian.
There is a lot more than can be said about this, but I wanted to be as brief as possible and to promote discussion.
So what do you think?
