liberalism

Are drink drive laws liberal?

Jock — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:43:47 +0000

A recently discovered, by me at least, Lib Dem blogger, Jamie Saddler, comments on the apparent decision by government not to press for a lower blood alcohol limit:

Epolitix are reporting that the government have decided against lowering the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50 mg... This is all well and good, but they are the ones who would do this regardless of the limit, and need to be the exception. It needs to be spelt out to people that if you are driving, even one drink is unacceptable. [From Jamie Saddler: Government Gets It Wrong on Drink Drive Limit]

I wonder. I do have an interest here - I was done for driving under the influence and banned for a year, sixteen years ago now. In my case, it was a timely reminder, even though it led to years of bad times for me - losing my job and so on. Had I been caught a few years earlier while I was working in Glasgow I think I would probably have done time and I am probably truly lucky not to have had an accident in that time.

Nonetheless, when I was stopped, I will always remember the first words the officer said to me: "Good evening, sir, you haven't done anything wrong, but we were following you for a while and we felt you took that last roundabout a little carelessly so we wanted to stop you and have a word; first, I'd like you to provide a sample of breath to testing for alcohol content."

They had been following me for some time, on otherwise empty roads mid-evening in Birmingham and approaching an empty roundabout I had taken a straighter line - inside-outside-inside - that someone a little more perfect would have done perhaps. I had done nothing wrong. They said.

Nothwithstanding all this though, I still wonder if drink limits are the right, or at least the most liberal, way of dealing with this nasty social problem of people who drink, drive and then injure or kill others or property. And I certainly question the common message that Jamie repeats that "even one drink is unacceptable". I rarely drink at all nowadays. I have a good relationship with alcohol. I regard it as one of the worst drugs available, even though legal, and take it generally with caution (okay, I had a few large whiskies on Saturday night but was taking a taxi, but was perfectly lucid).

But recently I was out in the car meeting someone and had two pints and drove home. They were nice pints and next time I visit I will take the bus because I would have enjoyed more. But over three and a half hours I drank two pints of ale, and "the alcohol in one pint of ordinary strength lager will take two hours to pass out of your body" [Bupa guidance]. So I'm probably right in saying that there may have been the equivalent of less than half a pint in my system when I drove away.

The problem with having a law that specifies a uniform amount for everyone and above that is a crime regardless of whether you are behaving dangerously or not, or even using a mobile phone, or driving whilst exhausted, or smoking, or eating, at the wheel, or on drugs, and so on is that you just have to keep adding extra clauses, extra laws to deal with new situations.

The problem with having a more general law of "dangerous driving" is that it appears to introduce some subjectiveness into the legal process. You are no longer asking whether a person was simply, objectively, over a certain limit, but whether the "man on the Clapham omnibus" would consider that you were acting dangerously.

The former also, almost by definition, involves trawling for offenders and in the process interfering with the perfectly legal comings and goings of law abiding citizens. And it really doesn't respect a notion of causing danger. Just breaching a numerical limit. Whilst the latter is how we expect for British law to be dealt with more generally - involving intention, capacity, culpability, danger and the subjective decisions of a jury or bench.

Now, that's not to say that I want to see more people drink driving, or a rise in death and injury as a result. As a libertarian minded person though I do want people to have to take responsibility for their own actions. And therefore consider for themselves whether what they are thinking of doing may be dangerous to themselves or others. The arbitrary, numerical limit takes away that responsibility in a way.

In the case Jamie mentioned:

A professional footballer has been jailed for seven years and four months for killing two children in a crash.

Former Plymouth Argyle goalkeeper Luke McCormick, 25, admitted
causing the deaths of Arron Peak, 10, and Ben Peak, eight, and driving
with excess alcohol.

I do not understand why this is dealt with under "causing death through dangerous driving" and not manslaughter. Manslaughter of course allows for a life sentence. A few life sentences and people would start thinking a bit more about whether it's worth testing their alcohol fuelled infallibility. If people are prevented from drink driving simply for fear of breaking a limit that will result in the loss of their license if they are unlucky enough to get caught by police, how much more so by the possibility that their journey might end in a prison cell for life if they take a gamble and lose?

I have no problem with using any of the impairment inducing activities - taking drugs, eating, phoning someone, smoking, driving too tired and so on - as aggravating the culpability and pushing more towards higher sentences. But is this not a case where "tough liberalism" punishing the consequences and not creating arbitrary laws that simply apply to everyone, dangerous or not, could once again reduce the burden of legislation and the arbitrariness of laws to deal with different substances and activities, whilst focussing peoples' minds on the real consequences of their actions?

Around 7.5% only of "KSIs" (killed and seriously injured) in road traffic accidents are causally linked to alcohol, and I believe this figure includes when the drunk is the pedestrian that staggers out in front of a perfectly legal driver and is killed or injured. Which suggests to me that the greater rewards will now be found dealing with other forms of anti-social driving. I nominate middle-lane-itis and misuse of the acceleration lane for starters. read more »

The Greenpeace Defense

Jock — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:08:43 +0000

Yes, I'm still meant to be on internet silence, but Linux and various bits of software have me stumped for a while until I get some help from the mailing lists, so I thought I'd cast my mind over the implications of the court case this week that resulted in a jury deciding that it was okay to commit a crime in order to prevent what the perpetrators believed would be a greater harm in the future. The case in point was that they had committed (and admitted) criminal damage by climbing a chimney at a Kent power station with the intent of scrawling graffiti on it in protest at its pollution record and plans to expand the facility, which, their oh so clever advocate declared would cause more and more widespread damage to people and property through the global warming it would contribute to.

Now, some of the more unthinking environmentalists might see this as a great victory. A court recognized that global warming was such an imminent threat to life and property that it was justifiable to commit brazen thuggery leading to criminal damage on anything that allegedly contributed to that global warming. Yay!?

Nay! I have two problems with this.

First is the acceptance, apparently by both judge and jury (and so, you may think, all "reasonable people"), not just that anthropogenic climate change is a fact but also such a grave threat that it justifies individuals taking the law into their own hands. To my mind this is still a matter in the political arena. Not only are there still, and perhaps growing, voices of dissent on the very premise of the debate; that mankind is responsible for such a change that it is a threat to the planet's very future. But also about what to do about it and when. A power station after all merely supplies a demand. Is the power generator guilty or the consumer making those demands? It is more dangerous to disrupt existing dwindling supplies before we have worked out how to replace them with cleaner affordable technologies? If the threat from global warming is real, so presumably is the threat of harm through disrupted power supplies.

Second is how this operates as a precedent in other, possibly more serious cases - although I heard someone saying that this decision will not be treated as forming a precedent, I'm not clear how that can be prevented. It is okay to murder an abortionist in order to stop the immediate harm to others he or she will cause? That threat, after all, is far more immediate and traceable to an individual than the effects of a single coal power station amongst all the coal fired power stations and other "climate vandals". We're starting to get not only into the realms of Philip K Dick's pre-crime but vigilante prevention of what individuals claim may be a pre-crime. This is hardly the basis for the rule of law.

Oh, you can say that no court is going to acquit a murderer because they thought they were preventing a bigger crime, but actually we already do. The "reasonable force" defense can be used to justify a death in the process of preventing an immediate threat to others' life. This decision seems to extend the boundaries of "immediate threat" let alone accurate identification of the person causing that immediate threat. One could, and many do, fight abortion on the basis that the most immediate threat t future generations of humanity is eradicating them before they are born. If we're going to adopt a principle (and I do) that we have a responsibility of stewardship not to harm future generations' survival on the planet then it would be legitimate for others to argue more forcefully that we have a responsibility to see those future generations actually survive as far as birth!

Anyway, two odd sounding sources provide what I believe are better alternative "precedents" to work from. First, there is a Catholic maxim that it is not legitimate to cause one moral bad, or an act that could foreseeably lead to morally bad consequences in order to prevent another, even near certain, specific bad. It is used mostly about abortion again. It is used to argue that it is not even permissible to abort a new life in order to prevent the death of the mother - often in the circumstances of an ectopic pregnancy for example.

Of course the world's aggressors, including the US and UK, routinely ignore this. They argue that foreseeable "collateral damage" is permissable to remove a dictator, for example. It is not. Terrorising and killing the people of Bagdad in "Shock and Awe", even as "collateral", was morally repugnant, notwithstanding our general agreement that the regime they were trying to punish or remove was also morally repugnant. The results of ignoring of this basic principle are there for us all to see - there can be little doubt now that more people in Iraq have suffered for longer under the oversight of the western occupying forces than it is likely would have happened at the hands of the previous repugnant regime. At least there could have been alternatives that held less potential for further suffering.

But on the environment, the libertarians' respect for the rule of law provides a better alternative to various bearded crusties climbing a chimney and committing vigilante criminal damage. Locke's proviso can be used, for example, to tackle pollution. If you, a power generator or anyone else - a pig farm even, pollute the atmosphere we both have to share, we have the right to legal remedy. Just as much as if you came along and started digging a hole in my prize rose border. Indeed this ought to work better than any political "solution". Protectionism is a political strategy, and even Green politicians will forcibly protect their favourite, in this case, power generation mechanism against legitimate complaint of harm. If planning permission were truly privatised, those affected most would almost certainly do better out of it than they will once the government has removed most of their rights in order to force their political idea of strategic energy infrastructure through.

Yes, we all need power, but left to ourselves we would probably not choose to have a nuclear reactor at the bottom of our garden. But, as they say, everyone has their price. If, collectively, my neighbourhood decided that the compensation on offer was enough when weighed against the costs of electricity or the convenience of not having a long transmission route or any potential danger they'd accept that nuclear reactor. If nobody accepts any price for nuclear, they have to weigh that decision against the potential alternatives. If nobody wants a giant power station, then we perhaps have to accept that we will have to help our neighbours fund micro-generation. read more »

"Corporatisation" of government functions does not transfer responsibility

Jock — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:10:40 +0000

...and is not "liberal" either.

There are often attempts by ministers (Jacqui Smith is mentioned in Sunday's Independent for example about the recent prisoner data loss) to shirk their responsibility for government cock-ups. There are also left wing commentators who crow that these incidents are clear proof that "neo-liberal" policies of "privatising" government functions are evil and should be stopped; that the "free market" does not work in the public sphere.

But I don't consider such contracting out of work as either liberal nor as implying that ministers are no longer responsible for their incompetence. Nor, even, are they truly "privatisation". To me the doctrine that says some things are better done by profit motivated companies (or other, non-government organizations) does not mean merely sub-contracting to a government service level agreement.

Yes, such arrangements may save on costs or similar. But all they are doing is delivering the same policies and procedures designed by government. This is the "corporatisation" of government. It is inherently protectionist - the government grants usually monopolistic contracts to firms, sometimes even, like Capita, that started life as a bunch of civil servants deciding they could do better for themselves by making a profit out of what they do.

No, real privatisation, so called "liberalisation" of government functions, should mean the state divesting themselves completely from interference in that policy area. For example, just because DVLA contracts out its computer systems and administration does not mean the registration and licensing of vehicles and drivers has been "privatised". Not bothering with a DVLA at all and allowing insurance companies to work out ways of ensuring the drivers and vehicles they are prepared to insure comply with what they consider to be safe would be. i.e. a different way of working, free from government entirely, and open to proper competition where new ideas and ways of achieving similar ends can be developed. Finding new structures, free from the dead hand of government to do the things we need, rather than what politicians think we ought to need.

Similarly with ID cards or passports - it is not "privatising" simply to contract out the development and implementation of a government policy to profit making firms. Indeed, this is anathema to true economic liberals - for it is corporate welfare, money for old rope if you like. My idea from yesterday about getting rid of government validated passports entirely and instead letting people buy their own guarantee of identity if and when they need one using a new mechanism such as digital certificates would be liberal; the true privatisation of functions the state previously chose to regulate and deliver itself.

And of course, such liberalisation may not end up being delivered by "for-profit" corporations at all.

So Jacqui, stop trying to hide from your responsibilities. You have cocked up just as surely as if the person with the memory stick were your permanent secretary. You are incompetent. Indeed doubly so - for not only have you failed to do your job, but you've even failed to make sure the simpler option - getting someone else to do it for you is done properly. You should go. read more »

The BR Brute Squad

Jock — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:19:13 +0000

...remember when policemen were people you felt you could go up to and ask for directions?

No longer it seems. In fact, if you have anything like a map with you, you could find yourself staying at Belmarsh (warning, watching the whole of this may cause you to damage your computer in anger!):

H/T Tristan

I am so glad Terence was filming this. Everyone should get the chance to see this kind of thing and have a real good think about the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" attitude that is allowing our country to become a fascist state. The ability to stop at random (I was going to say "take to one side", but clearly they're happy to do this in full view of the entire concourse), with no probable cause whatever, and humiliate them in order to show other passengers "look, we're doing something about your security" is utterly obnoxious. I must say, though, I am amazed that he was allowed to continue filming, considering all that has been going on about photography in public places.

Britain, like never before, needs Fourth Amendment rights enshrined in law: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How should our details be protected?

Jock — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:47:09 +0000

Following the revelation of yet more utter incompetence in government data handling the BBC asks...

How should our details be protected?

A computer memory stick containing the personal information of tens of thousands of criminals has been lost. Who should be responsible for keeping our personal information secure?

Well, I posited a suggestion ten years ago now when I was on the Lib Dems' Civil Liberties Policy Working Group. At the time ID cards were but an evil glint in Liar, Liar, Tony Bliar's eyes but there was a clear feeling that they were pushing in that direction. But it was mainly in response to issues such as Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and government wanting more and more surreptitious access to data already held about us and our activities.

My suggestion was that if government felt the need to keep all this data on us, the very least they could do would be to put us in charge of how and when it was accessed. We could all have an encryption key - it need not even be supplied by government - you could purchase one perhaps from Thawte or someone like that if, when, you decided you could not trust the government.

Two encryption keys would be required any time any bureaucrat or official decided they wanted to take a peek at any data the government held identifying you as the subject. A bit like a "nuclear key" where you need two people to turn the key for anything to work, the official would have their own key which would identify them as the person trying to access the data and check they were authorized to do so, and they would have to be in contact with the data subject, you, and, like a bank call centre does when they phone you would have to authenticate they were dealing with the real you by getting you to enter some of your PIN or similar before they'd get access.

Every government database system that held any data on individuals could have to go through an annual independent audit to ensure there was no inbuilt mechanism for bypassing such a security measure or, for example, copying data en masse with personal identifiers in. The system could be extended, voluntarily, to any organization that holds personal data - such as banks - if they felt it was more effective than creating their own, and the whole principle could be embedded in Data Protection legislation (not that the presence of Data Protection legislation stops the government currently breaking their own laws).

Remember, it's not so very long ago that when you submitted your tax return each part of it, or schedule, would be dealt with by a different official so that no one person could actually gain a picture of what you were worth. We need to return to that culture. Modern technology is great stuff, or it can be. But at the moment the culture seems to be to assume that systems ought to be intrusive rather than actively looking for ways as part of systems specifications to maintain the benefits of fast modern communications and data (for there are many) whilst not being intrusive. Witness the debate about road pricing - "eye in the sky spies" or "black box" systems that don't need to transfer data about your movements, only about your overall journey for the purpose of billing.

Would it grind government to a halt? Perhaps, though in saying that the former tax regime was entirely paper based and so much more troublesome and it didn't exactly collapse then and banks and other large data processing organizations use similar technology and still operate reasonably efficiently. Would government grinding to a halt be a terribly bad thing in any case I wonder?

But, whether the data is about criminals, child benefit recipients or recruits to the armed forces, this current government has proven itself utterly incapable of managing data, or perhaps just contemptuous of our rights. Personally, I doubt any other party's government would be doing much better - contempt for the citizen is embedded in Whitehall and Westminster, but Straw and Smith should resign over this latest data loss immediately. Resign and be tried as any data controller be would with such brazen data losses under their watch. Enough is enough. These bastards need to get out of our lives, or perhaps some day we will collectively decide we need to make them butt out, forcibly.

UPDATE: My boss just pointed me to this article in Computer Weekly about Lib Dems calling for data commissioners to protect data about the public. I'm not sure it's anywhere near adequate. The liberal response should be, of course, to reduce the quantities of data first by being ruthless about who needs to store any data about us, but I can't see a data commissioner, even one for every database, will be any more effective than the current DPA regime of a responsible Data Owner who can be prosecuted for failure to comply with the act. Clealry government departments need to be held responsible in the courts, with individuals answerable, just as they are in other organizations. And at the top of the tree comes the minister concerned. It is not technology that is at fault but a lax attitude to how that technology should be used that matters. We need to change the culture such that databases are designed from the bottom up toassume, essentially, that the data subject is the one who by default has access not the data owners. read more »

Today is the centenary of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908

Jock — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:25:01 +0000

On 1st August 1908 the Old Age Pensions Act completed its parliamentary stages, the first step in the development of the modern benefits and welfare system by Asquith's Liberal government and the culmination of several decades of debate and lobbying for some provision to be made for the "deserving" poor in their old age. An alternative to the Poor Laws. On 1st January 1909 half a million or so people over 70 years old became entitled to a 5 shillings a week non-contributory payment administered via the Post Office.

It was not universal; only 5% of people lived beyond 70 in any case - and most were women. It was kept deliberately quite low in order to encourage as many as possible to make their own savings arrangements to top it up.

The BBC has a useful little comparison of then and now pensions arrangements, and you can read the whole act here.

According to an article I dug up last year Lord Roseberry described the Act as the most important piece of legislation since the Great Reform Act of 1832.

I'll refrain from a rant about how it's been a hundred years of mostly Tory and Labour government since and we still have 20% of pensioners living in poverty and dependent on additional means tested benefits and how we can solve this by continuing the legacy of liberal economic reforms those pioneers started. Let's just enjoy the birthday shall we? read more »

Land Tax and Citizens Income - further discussion...

Jock — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:00:03 +0000

Again, I'm starting a new post to respond to some very interesting comments by Tim Carpenter. My inept attempt at a Drupal template means it's almost possible to follow a thread of comments and especially given this is going to be another long response I think it deserves an airing on its own.

For anyone coming new to this debate, it follows on from my original "three point plan" for equity and economic justice and some clarifications and responses I gave yesterday to comments on that original by Tim Carpenter, Head of Policy at the Libertarian Party UK.

Tim, thanks for taking the time to respond. However I think we are, as a colleague used to say to me "talking past each one another". Paul Lockett has put it all a deal more eloquently than myself , and for that, and if I have caused any confusion, apologies.

I am a geo-libertarian (of the "geo-mutualist" variety if you will). The main thing you seem not to have appreciated is that in calling for the "Single Tax" I mean just that - the community/state can only take economic rent on the land resources within its jurisdiction and has no call on incomes or trade. As I understand it this is the "purist Georgist" position.

The ideal 'state' would be limited to collecting the rent and distributing it all as a dividend to citizens for the reasons Paul outlined. "Commonwealth" - you are right, it's lazy, I should put a space between "common" and "wealth"! Economic rent from the finite natural resources we all require to share is "common wealth" and should be collected as such and distributed as fully as possible whilst every other tax is a tariff.

Tim: "1. When I say who defines the value of your land, you say "why does anyone need to decide", yet immediately go on to talk about collecting the tax! Someone DOES decide the taxable value and that affects the actual value. Can you not see that?"

No, the market sets a location's value. It does it all the time at the moment. And it will continue to do so in an LVT system. Even in a "100% LVT" system. If a location is appreciating in value, buyers will be prepared to pay a premium over last year's rent bill and vice versa, in a falling market sellers will effectively have to be prepared to pay someone to take the rent bill off them. The following year's rent bill will reflect that premium or discount by going up or down respectively.

Tim: "2. As you should know, we aim to eradicate income tax., so the comparison does not hold."

See above - I'm a single taxer. No income tax here either. It is a tariff on employment and trade. Though I would say that if a local community decided mutually to have a local tax on incomes or sales to finance some mutually agreed local project it would be doing so in competition with neighbouring communities that perhaps were not or were charging a different rate or a different tax. Tax competition is good, in itself, isn't it? Also I am aware of some "single" taxers who would justify retaining some income tax at least temporarily in order to try to address the "embedded" historical advantages of monopoly ownership. I don't.

Tim: "The problem comes when some local area under the influence of whomsoever, adjusts taxation on land they wish to gain access to because a new development is coming. So, building a road, whack up the value of land next to it. Farmer has no CAPITAL to develop it, so has to sell it for a knock-down price because he HAS to sell to meet the tax bill. If this does not concentrate land into a few hands, I do no know what would. This is just one example of the potential risks."

This appears to be Churchill's "market gardener" bogey, or, to others, the "poor widow" bogey. If you look at it under the current system, that same farmer, in similar circumstances is perfectly able, regardless of the squalor growing around, to sit on that land, not paying anything and watch its value "ripen" until the value, created merely by excluding others from what they need to use, is so great it becomes irrational not to sell. That process is outright extortion.

In fact, under an LVT system, land values at the margin would tend to move much more incrementally in any case. In the absence of other restrictions - zoning, green belts etc (it is your policy to remove those restrictions once an LVT system proves practical isn't it?) - you would not get these large leaps in hope value. I would actually retain green belts and such like for a while after LVT was implemented so that it can have its greatest effect in turning existing urban land to its most efficient use before going for sprawl. But I am prepared to be convinced on that. After all, we know that at relatively low densities compared with what planning guidance seeks nowadays, it would take up less than three quarters of one per cent of the non urbanized land in England to build the three million new homes predicted to be necessary over the next twenty years.

But once a point of equilibrium was reached between supply and demand rents at the margins of production would move slowly and via the democratic influence of the market. If that market and the community that makes up its participants eventually get as far as that farmer's land and all that remains to bring it in from the margin to profitable development is to develop a road, the farmer will have had plenty of opportunity to see it coming long before the tax bill becomes an issue for him.

Tim: "3. Living costs - if you have CBI as described you would still keep the most expensive parts of the Welfare bureaucracy - the entire means-testing apparatus. Housing benefit would probably remain in all but name."

I disagree. But I don't think what you understand me to have described is what I think I have! ie, in particular, that I am not paying for CBI out of income taxes, but out of the community collected rent on economic land. Land at the margins tends as I said towards a nil value. More people will be able to own their home because they will not be borrowing twice as much as the value of the capital good (the building) in order to pay the land value in up front capital. Renting a basic home at the margins ought to be achievable out of the Citizens Income.

With so many pulled out of poverty anyway by not having punitive benefits withdrawal regimes that reduce the marginal value of doing even the smallest amount of paid work and by the reduced costs of living owing to tariff eradication and the better off keeping more of their own money, the capacity of private charity or local mutualism to assist the much smaller number of people that would be needing top up hand outs above their CBI would be much increased.

Tim: "4. Income. You need to clarify here - are you saying that COMPANIES have 40% more or that wage earners do? Be under no illusions, if you have CBI, income tax will be enormous. I worked out once that if we went for CBI with no other tax changes but a cull of QANGOs, income tax would need to be about 64% flat from the very first penny (IT is currently £140bln, 7k x 50m = £350bln pa). A HUGE disincentive to working especially at the lower end. Result: black economy, unproductive citizens, more companies shutting down and a growth in imports (and do not say "cheap imports make us richer" because that only holds if we are simultaneously exporting a greater amount of higher value exports)."

I hope you'll agree that that objection is moot given I am not talking about income taxes at all. My calculation of the CBI cost at £5200 pa for adults and a decreasing proportion for under-18s to 20% for 2 year olds is around £285bn. £245bn if only the adults. I reckon there was about £200bn a year's worth of economic rent in residential land alone at the recent peak of the market. I don't think it is beyond belief that there's another £85bn in commercial, industrial, retail and, possibly, agricultural economic rents.

Tim: "5. Movement to low tax areas: A company will consider workforce supply as a prime consideration, not just rental costs. If that were not the case, expensive London would be empty. People pay top dollar for London rents because of a massive pool of labour - they can gain access to many cheap or more chance of snaring the best. To think LVT would make a company move out to a depressed area? Those places are already cheap. Why doesn't it happen now? Limited skilled labour pool. As you say the Government does it now and did it in the past (remember the Hillman Imp?) and it creates quasi-soviets. If LVT has an influence, it might IMHO move a few companies, deter some from even setting up where they need to and the rest of the companies will be bled paying higher rates just to keep near the labour pool they require. In the case of London, the move will be to New York or Hong Kong and we all lose out."

There are so many issues in this paragraph I can only assume again that I have failed adequately to have explained my position. At the moment businesses pay rents, yes? In an LVT system they will still pay rents. The only difference is that whereas currently the entire rent, that which accrues to both the building and the site or location goes to the current landowner, ie it is enclosed, privatized. Under an LVT system, the same rent is due (assuming they were paying the market rent originally), only the portion of it that accrues to the location goes to the community and that attributable to the building to the building owner. There's no corporation taxes, no more employee taxes. There's no increasing of rent or rates; there's no bleeding anyone. Except those, as landowners, who have bled the rest of us for centuries.

Areas of low land value will also be areas in which it is cheaper for employees to live (lower LVT for them too). For a business operating at the edge of profit it would seem to me to be quite an attractive move. But one that remains in London because their key skills are there is not penalised by that. Indeed, if sufficient other businesses do it who do not need to be in London for optimal profitability do move, costs will also likely fall for those left behind, increasing their profit, distributable to capital and labour.

I think there is, in particular, one form of LVT that could have a significant effect in this regard...the auctioning of air-space, via "landing slots" at airports. Making more efficient use of regional airports would draw business into those areas. I'm likely to propose this to our regional conference this autumn as part of an "anti third runway at Heathrow" motion. Interesting choices of examples though - Hong Kong of course is famous for having state owned land - everything except the Anglican Cathedral is leasehold and that has been used to raise revenue in a form of LVT and keep income taxes low. Modern valuation tracking and billing systems would make that far more efficient and not prone to some of the problems Hong Kong suffered by having too infrequent valuations.

In China before Mao took over, I understand that Chiang Kai Chek's regime looked into LVT as a way of staving off the rise of Mao's totalitarian collectivism. And in the former Soviet Union, Gorbachev I believe looked into LVT as a way of capturing the value of natural resources and in not implementing it allowed the so called "oligarchs" (really "kleptocrats" in my opinion) to enclose the revenue from that vast pool of common wealth.

I'm getting a bit tired here! I'm going to call it quite at this point and maybe think some more about the issue of mutualism. I think Paul answered the point about the "state as landlord" objections quite satisfactorily and there's no need for me to repeat it. But for fairness, other readers can read Tim's further points in the comments on the previous post.

Tim: "p.s. your page has a script that my browser asks me to kill due to risk of resource hogging."

Yes - I only notice this on older machines or slower network connections - I never experience the problem at home or at work. I think it must have been an advertising panel I have just removed, but if others still experience the problem let me know and I'll have another look. read more »

Response to some comments on "Unconditional Benefits"

Jock — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:52:49 +0000

In my last post I set out what I considered to be the three necessary reforms to create a more equitable society - Land Value Tax (or "The Single Tax"), Citizen's Income and Ownership for All.

In the comments, Tim Carpenter, Head of Policy at the Libertarian Party UK had several objections that I would like to address:

Tim: "LVT can seem fine and dandy at the first off, but over time who decides the future value of your land?"

Why does anyone need to decide the future value of your land? In any case, even if that were necessary the market does that anyway even at present - what people pay for a property reflects their view of what it's worth into the future - they are, literally paying up front, to the previous owner, the rent for a number of years into the future. I agree there are issues with a "100% Land Tax" where the community attempts to collect 100% of the rent (as I and other geo-libertarians would advocate). This would make the capital land value tend toward zero and how would you know whether it's moving up or down over time? Well, the answer I believe is that it would trade at a discount or premium reflecting the buyer's and seller's view of whether the "passing rent" (ie the LVT bill) was set too high or too low.

Tim: "It is fraught with risks, opportunities for corruption and chaos. If you think compulsory purchase was bad..."

As I understand it several of the big RICS member firms have discussed this and have proposed a valuation regime that they would be comfortable bidding for and would expect to be able to handle things like appeals. The Oxfordshire pilot study showed that on average there was only a need to value about one site in ten - ie that that many nearby sites would share the same land value. And there are developing ever more sophisticated data and models for modelling things like "landvaluescape" and how it changes in reaction to things like new infrastructure.

I only don't believe it is as daunting a task as taxing incomes in the multitude of ways we currently do.

Tim: "If CBI is only half what is needed to live on, then surely we will still need welfare."

The Joseph Rowntree report I mentioned included a lot of things that go much further than the "basics needed to survive" (and the headline figure of £13,400 was "pre-tax". Not that I claim that would halve the bill. However the removal of the deadweight loss created by the other taxes that would be repealed, and the ending of subsidies, particularly on agricultural land and other tariffs on the necessities of life would make them cheaper. Two ways to be wealthier - have more money or make everything you need cheaper. As Frank Gallagher in "Shameless" says "Make poverty history; cheaper drugs now!"

Tim: "Removing the minimum wage is fine but be under no illusion, the CBI will be factored into that wage (or lack of)."

But, first, they would also be factoring in the lack of payroll taxes and income taxes - they'd have nearly 40% more in their "wage bill" to play with in many cases. Second, the CBI has two purposes in my mind - one of them is to give people enough to survive, just, day to day, but the intentional beneficial effect of that is that people have a cushion that empowers them to say "no" to a coercive deal from an employer. If the marginal benefit from working x hours for y pay is not worth it and you know you can survive until you get another, hopefully better, offer, this changes the balance of power between employer and employee. And, because it is the same for all workers, and not just the ones currently stuck in the benefits trap, the employers are more likely to have to listen and produce decent remuneration. Though I do concede that there would be hundreds of thousands of currently civil servants in the job market to depress wages...:)

Tim: "It will be no solution to poverty AFAICT and your assertion that it would eradicate x y or x is not explained. I think parish provision is an interesting one, but frankly, look at places like S Wales and you will find that parishes will have little or no wealth creation so no money to spend on their army of dependants - central funding will be needed in precisely the places where people say it causes problems of unconditionality - for once the parish is spending other peoples' money the problems are right back with you again."

However, the LVT is more likely to move economic activity to areas where companies, and employees, and therefore also companies as employers, will pay less tax, which is turn will raise the economic activity in poorer areas and tend to level out regional disparities of economic activity. It cannot be any worse than the current situation where some regional economies make up more than half of their regional GDP from state handouts and subsidies to individuals and businesses.

Tim: "As another person has mentioned, the mutualist company can occur NOW. What is to change here? The fact that it does not happen now should either make you ask what stops it legally/financially or regulatory OR that it is actually a factor of how humans are socially, in that it takes certain individuals the gumption to kick start a company (and that is NEVER to be underetimated) and once they do so, why would they then let a whole load of strangers take just as much out of it as he/she does?"

I certainly don't underestimate the setting up of a company. I have been an employer for precisely one month in my life and it was a bloody nightmare. But it would certainly be less troublesome if I was not burdened with all those damn tax calculations! But again, I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago - the "cushion" that empowers the employee to say "no" a bit more; to hold out for a better share of the total returns to a business. This of course goes to the core of mutualism as I see it, as opposed to the anarcho-capitalist type of libertarianism. Mutualists believe that the current capitalist system is lop-sided, "toxic" and that it is itself a coercive and damagingly hierarchical system. Empowering labour to hold out for a better deal, making use of new corporate forms like limited liability partnerships and so on, will accelerate this change.

...and finally...

Tim: "Monetary reform and changes to fiat issuance will not happen by itself. The problem is coming up with something to replace it that actually works. I have seen many attempts and none appear to work or are just a cover operation for hatstand ideas like "social credit"."

As I think I said in response to another comment, I'm actually quite agnostic about how monetary reform should happen and what direction it should take. Personally I like the Hayek idea of fully privatised commercially competing currencies. I am told that the legislation actually already exists to allow commercial "complementary" currencies run by corporations. Air miles, Nectar and Kit-Kash are but early examples.

But consider this - if you collect 100% land rent and the capital value of land falls towards zero, the structure of the money system is bound to change - a large proportion of our broad money is lent into existence to pay for land in the form of mortgages. At the very least banks are going to need to have to adjust to that.

Actually I believe the real question is what lengths states will go to to prevent what I see as inevitable change if we allowed it. I haven't played there for a long time, and the hype about it seems to have died down a lot, but "Second Life" and "Kiva" are but a glimpse of what might be to come.

Incidentally, I presume I've been linked to in a discussion on the Libertarian Party forums (link will only work if you are a member and registered on their forums). And that, now they have closed the public forums that were accessible to non-members, I am unable to see what people are saying. I believe that none of these three policy areas step outside the bounds of libertarianism. In fact that they address more inequities that create coercive human relationships than, say, anarcho-capitalist flavours of libertarianism do. It would be nice to get the jist of what you are saying, if anything, over there! read more »

Unconditional benefits: now is the time to smash that "cosy consensus"

Jock — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:57:15 +0000

Nick Clegg, upon his election as Lib Dem leader, said that he wanted to break what he called the "cosy consensus" between Labour and the Tories that has impoverished Britain's political discourse. With Labour now nicking policies on welfare from the Tories, and both vying to be "tough on the work-shy", now is surely the time to offer a radical alternative.

It is not just their approach to benefits that is backwards in vision, but the whole assumption that "full employment" is the thing we should be aiming for. Such a policy actually highlights even more starkly the difference between being independently wealthy on the one hand and having to work for the basics of life on the other. In an era in which more and more of our tasks can be automated or even exported we should be aiming more to live off the financial assets that past productivity has created.

Liberals have, for a century, harboured the secrets of changing all that. Shamefully, over the past quarter of a century we have dropped every one of those secrets from our policy platform, presumably so we could compete in that "cosy consensus". We are only just on the cusp of really rediscovering the oldest of these...

Three key policies in particular would end this cycle of dependency once and for all. A bold claim for sure, but why not? We have gone through sixty years of the welfare state and are still arguing about the outcomes of welfare, health, housing and education, just as Beveridge was trying to address in his report.

The Single Tax - the one policy we are slowly re-engaging with. Though we seem to be stuck on the idea that LVT is simply an alternative tax, we need to get beyond that and understand that it goes to the very core of our relationship with the planet. Land, economic land that is, "everything in the material universe not created by the application of labour and capital" (so basically the things of nature that we all have to share between the 6bn of us born here), is the third factor of production. David Ricardo pointed out nearly two hundred years ago now that land, especially where it is a monopoly, such as with a physical location or site in the built environment or, say, a section of EM Spectrum that can only be used by one wireless operator at a time, tends to absorb the surplus value created by the labour and capital expended around it that makes it a popular location. Ground rent is created where there is more than one potential occupier that could make good, productive use of a site. It creates a massive transfer of wealth from those who don't own a popular site to those who do, through no effort on the part of the owner of that site.

As a non-land example, the UK government has auctioned off the part of the EM spectrum that carries the new WiMax wireless network signals to a single enterprise, Freedom4 for the whole of the UK. They now hold a monopoly on something that is a gift of nature that anyone else wanting to develop WiMAX networks have to use. They can therefore charge more or less what they like for licenses to others to use that part of the spectrum whilst doing precisely nothing to develop the services that would run on it.

Creating so called "free land" by capturing the value of these natural assets for the common wealth rather than having to tax economically beneficial processes like work and trade is absolutely essential to achieve equity. And the best time to do it would be the bottom of a property cycle. Hint. Hint!!

Citizen's Income - this is the real challenge to the "cosy consensus" that has emerged in the past few days on welfare. It was, I believe, Lib Dem policy up until around 1991. At the top of the recent property cycle there would have been enough land tax (on residential locations alone, setting aside what might be available through commercial, industrial, central business disrict or agricultural locations, airspace, EM spectrum or other forms of economic land) available to pay a citizen's income of about £100 per week per adult and a proportion of that for children depending on age. Further reforms, for example on seignorage - the extraordinary "profit" that creating money as debt gives to the banks that is rightfully part of the common wealth (since the money they "create" is denominated in our national currency) - would enable us to pay for the current health or education budgets if we wanted to, or to add around another £1,000 to the adult Citizen's Income.

People seem to have a problem with the idea of giving everyone an unconditional and non-withdrawable payment like a Citizen's Income because, they say, it will entrench the work-shy in their bad habits, maybe even create more of them. But let's face it, if Joseph Rowntree's lot reckons you need £13,400 to live a basic but comfortable life in the UK, less than half that is hardly going to be comfortable. And it's not meant to be comfortable. It is meant to be hard enough to persuade anyone who wants anything more than the basics of life to do something to earn some additional money. Minimum wage would be scrapped so people would be free to choose to accept a job for whatever they like - just to be able to top up their citizen's income to whatever level they want, but crucially, it would not be withdrawn when people start earning, so there is every incentive for all that nearly ten per cent of the population trapped on various benefit systems to work, even if only a little.

Yes, in the light of campaigns by the tabloids against "benefits scroungers" and the "something for nothing culture" it will be a difficult alternative to sell, but we should be prepared to do it. Think of it the other way around - if we all contribute to the value of locations by our activities around them, why should the dividend from that only go to those who can't work, say? Why not to all of us. It creates a cushion to fall back on in hard times and the ability, even if only for a short while, to be more choosy about the work we accept. No longer do we have to accept the lowest job just to survive. Instead of only the very wealthy gaining financial independence by privatising the collection of land rents, everyone gains a measure of financial security from the common wealth we all contribute to creating.

You could then say that any additional "benefits" must be provided locally, through locally raised taxes and much more accountably than at present. The "parish rate" would have to be used to provide say a basic education for those who were not earning anything more than their Citizen's Income and A&E type health services. But remember, much of the illness in society is because of the sort of poverty that both the Single Tax and the Citizen's Income would eradicate. And not having to pay several taxes on incomes - employers' and employees' NI, income and capital gains taxes - would enable more people to save more of their incomes in productive financial assets for their old age reducing the reliance on a crumbling state pensions system. And, apart from say the armed forces, the troughs at Westminster could be emptied and everyone sent home (and James Purnell would have to find a real job, or discover how life is on the dole perhaps!)

Ownership for All - this third plank of Liberal "redistributive" policy came to the fore in the middle decades of the twentieth century, this is crucial to creating more financial independence for more people. I'm not talking about the sort of free for all sale of state companies as in the eighties, which became in effect a gambling opportunity for anyone who had a few quid stashed away - "Let's have a flutter on Sid" type thing. This is about creating structures in which the workers can share in the success of their employers by becoming part owners. Much more like, say, John Lewis, or, in the seventies, the National Freight Corporation. And things have moved on even since then. New corporate forms such as limited liability partnerships enable different types of partners entitled to different proportions of the profit, not just the providers of the capital.

Again, with the Citizen's Income behind them enabling people to turn down work that does not offer optimum returns to the worker, more and more employers would have to offer the sort of package of benefits that enables ordinary workers to build up a financial stake for the future. These financial assets are fairer than putting all your capital assets in the single basket of one's home, which is not really "net wealth" in any case. More liberal than both socialist style "common ownership" and ownership solely by the capitalist, such partnerships would generate real wealth that can produce an income when you no longer want to work for whatever reason.

-------------------------------------------------

These three measures are, I believe, essential to a truly economic liberal platform. They share, equitably, the common wealth created by us all, and distribute more fairly the ownership of financial assets between those who provide capital and those who provide labour to an enterprise. They would reduce the cost of the basics of life by removing tariffs, subsidies and the private collection of rents and so instantly make people better off. They would leave a vanishingly small number of people genuinely unable to fend for themselves and the "parish rate" system would enable localities to support them while the work-shy would have a hard time surviving only on their Citizen's Income and those who are currently trapped on benefits have every incentive to take up even small amounts of work to top up their Citizen's Income.

It is time for such a revolution, for the Liberal Democrats and for the country. You don't have to be the first country on the planet to do this, but whoever does will instantly become the most liberal and economically just country on the planet and a magnet for international trade seeking to avoid damaging tariffs. We have gone sixty, a hundred, even, if herbert Spencer is to be believed a hundred and fifty years tinkering with redistributive policies involving moving incomes that people have worked to achieve around and still have not achieved the "greater good". The recent press coverage of the Welfare Green Paper shows that the politics of envy and "deserving and undeserving" are still alive and well. It is time to try these different strategies instead of "more of the same" attempts to be tough on the undefined undeserving.

And the biggest prize of all - it would enable us to get rid of vast swathes of bureaucracy and get those state employees into real productive work generating real additional wealth for the country instead of pushing other peoples' around the corridors of Whitehall. read more »

Beginning of the end for VAT?

Jock — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:33:53 +0000

...well, perhaps not quite but this is interesting, if blindingly obvious in a sort of a "why didn't we think of that" way:

HMV customers to exploit tax loophole at digital terminals - Telegraph

Customers at HMV stores will be able to avoid paying VAT by ordering CDs and DVDs through digital terminals. The "HMV Delivers" kiosks are being installed across the chain's 240 UK branches over the next two years. Their initial role will be to allow customers to order products that are out of stock in their shops. The merchandise will then be sent from HMV's offshore site in Guernsey.

I've been writing for a while now about how the globalization of communication (and delivery) technology is set to make it ever harder for states to quantify and collect taxes based on trade and incomes and make it imperative, if they want to have any revenue stream into the future, to switch taxation to more fixed sources like ("economic") land - ground rents, airspace, electromagnetic spectrum and so on, or face the prospect of ever increasingly authoritarian measures to force people to repatriate income and assets for tax purposes.

I hadn't counted on VAT being amongst the first to be threatened, but here it is. It's not going to help buying cakes from Tesco yet because it will only work if it is actually imported, I suspect (no getting away with simply operating from a warehouse in every town that happens to be owned by a Channel Island company I would think).

But people, liberal minded political types especially, need to wake up to this double threat - to recognize that revenue collection will be more difficult in future if based on moveable assets, incomes and trade, and to recognize that addressing that means going one of two ways - the more equitable land tax, or the more authoritarian crackdown on trade and "cross-border" earnings. The ability to move money and income and so on overseas is moving fast and getting ever easier for the ordinary person - you no longer need to be super-rich to go offshore. We need to act fast to counteract its effects on future tax revenues. read more »