Benevolent Laissez Faire

The centre-ground continues to march to the left on issues of tax. Since UKUncut began bullying and intimidating retail employees, large corporate employers have been forced to cancel tax-planning measures and raise their tax-bills and help avoid “austerity-cuts”.

We have seen the expectations of tax-recipients and their professional advocates rise. It is no longer merely compulsory to pay tax but it is “morally” shameful to do anything but pay the maximum, regardless of which breaks and incentives (“loopholes”) have been offered historically.

Careful observers will know that public “services”, mandates, and rules are over-specified, unjustifiable, unethical and inefficient. Yet the mainstream does not engage in criticism or resentment of these institutions but seeks to protect them and ensure a “fair” contribution to running them is paid.

We still live relatively comfortable lives despite a growing politically imposed economic order which is destructive and immoral. We should, have and can live without it.

A laissez-faire non-political order would be better, more just and more benevolent.

 

 

To present the evidence for that conclusion, I am organising a one day conference in central London. Tickets cost £15 and are available via Meetup.com. The schedule includes Yaron Brook, Anton Howes, Janina Lowisz and Julio Alejandro.

Early birds can get tickets for £12 if they buy now.

 

Simon Gibbs

Simon is a London based IT contractor and the proprietor of Libertarian Home. Working with logic and cause-and-effect each day he was naturally attracted to nerdy libertarianism and later to the benevolent logic of Objectivism. Find him on Google+ 

  5 comments for “Benevolent Laissez Faire

  1. Paul Marks
    Apr 11, 2016 at 8:09 am

    I do not understand what Mr David Cameron and Mr George Osborne (Mr Osborne of the various trusts and….) have done.

    It was insane for men of inherited wealth to use the language of the left – “Social Justice”, “fair shares”, avoiding tax (not tax evasion tax avoidance – such as having your mother make you a big gift to avoid inheritance tax) “imaral”, “morally wrong” and so on….

    Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne did the work of the left for them – they dug a big pit and then walked straight into it.

    And are now (or soon will be) stuck on the sticks (coated with real nasty stuff) that they themselves lined the pit with.

    It is indeed like their (Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne) policy on GOVERNMENT SPENDING – they have declared (endlessly) how tough they are being, whilst (in reality) not really cutting government spending.

    Think about that. All the political harm of being seen as “cutters” (grinding the noses of the poor and so on) without any of the economic benefit of actually cutting government spending.

    Why? Why, why, why?

    Yes I am old (I admit that) – but I doubt that people with younger brains (such as Simon – although good luck with the conference) can come up with a logical reason for the strange behaviour of Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne. How they have systematically created a trap for themselves – on both taxes and government spending. By saying one thing and doing something totally different.

    The only possible solution I come up with is that they (Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne) can not free themselves from their “education” – Eton and Westminster do not really teach a different ideology than state schools (they just teach establishment collectivist ideas rather better than the state schools) and they both went to Oxford and studied PPE – many good people have done that, but they are good people in spite of (not because of) what they were taught at Oxford.

    As people taught that “Social Justice” (“fair shares for all” – all income and wealth “distributed” by a wise and compassionate government) is a Good Thing (TM) Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne automatically talk the language of this leftist doctrine – even if they do not practice it (and the gap between their words and their deeds was bound to get them into difficulty).

    And on government spending?

    Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are Keynesians – they believe that talk of “cutting spending”” will “boost investor confidence” (investors are, supposedly, morons who are controlled by “animal spirits” and do not know how to read a chart on government spending) – but actually cutting government spending would “undermine effective demand” and hurt the economy.

    So they talk tough about cutting government spending – whilst not actually cutting it. Not even demented things such as money the European Union (indeed Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne actually support the extra layer of government that is the E.U. – what the bleep…) and “overseas aid” (as if this had not bee refuted by Peter Bauer decades ago).

    And people wonder why I concentrate on American politics.

    At least Ted Cruz does not talk the language of the left – and outlines policies (such as getting rid of 5 Federal Government Departments and 25 Federal Government Agencies) that I can actually support – even though I think they do not go far enough.

    I tend to ignore British politics because the very language of it is insane.

    It is like listening to RINO “Republicans” like John Kasich. “Bring people together” to “get things done”, and all the rest of the Progressive claptrap.

  2. Ken Ferguson
    Apr 11, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    Why? Why, why, why?

    It’s a bit unfair to blame Cameron and Osborne for the fact that the Overton window has moved so far to the left. Depressing.

    • Mr Ed
      Apr 12, 2016 at 6:42 am

      But Ken, they are the glaziers fitting the window. And the Overton Window applies to what the political class think, not really the public. Note how insulated from real life concenrs our politicians are, imho.

  3. Lucien Phelps
    Apr 18, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    I sometimes fantasize about starting and advertising a ‘tax planning service’ (to be branded ‘TaxMax’) which would have the opposite aim of most tax planners, of ensuring that users of the service would pay the maximum levels of tax possible under the law – and of ‘naming and shaming’ all those noisy Guardianistas and ‘social justice warriors’ who fail to sign up for it.

    I don’t think it would be viable, as these types have a curious reluctance to apply the same standards to themselves which they demand of others. But if anyone has the money and the knowledge of the tax system to undertake a mischievous project like ‘TaxMax’, I offer the idea here for free!

Comments are closed.