During an economic malaise one of the endless reams of statistics to which pundits glue their eyes is the number of jobs that are either created or destroyed. The state makes “job creation” a central plank of its economic policy to put people back to work, and the impression that more people are being hired and fewer fired buoys their hubristic impression that we must be on the road to recovery.
In the first place, we might as well point out that, for as long as humans strive to create more wealth, there will never be a shortage of demand for productive work. Labour is the ultimate scarce commodity – however much machinery we have and whatever our state of technological progress there is no production process that does not require an input of labour (any such process which did not require labour would essentially be producing free goods). Thus, the phenomenon of involuntary unemployment is made possible only by the artificial costs and restrictions that the state places upon employers – such as minimum wages, health and safety laws, working time restrictions, taxes, compulsory national insurance contributions, etc. – which mean that employers and employees cannot work together on terms that are acceptable to them. This is on top of the distortions and upheavals of state-induced business cycles which create clusters of bankruptcies and redundancies in the first place.
That aside, however, the obsession with jobs is another example of the error of looking at an isolated aspect of economic achievement rather than at the entire picture – much like trying to boost consumption in order to further growth which we explored in myth #2. Read more
It’s created a criminal offence a day since May 1997: another one can’t be that hard, surely? Or…are some crimes “more equal than others“…?
Discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or religion is (rightly) illegal. Except for, of course, as regards the human rights of a person who, say would not want to employ someone for reasons best known to himself, but we’ll let that pass for now.
The Libertarian Alliance, I must first state, does not agree in any way with the policies of the BNP, nor does it support any of them. It supports no political party whatever, with the possible unofficial exception of the LPUK.
I’m sure we’d all not want to live in a society where, if you belonged to a certain political party, you could be persecuted, officially or otherwise, victimised, or lose your job, livelihood or home. That smacks of the worst days of nazism in the Third Reich, and of the days of Stalin and Mao – and many other hoodlums we could mention. And indeed we have done, and recently. Nasty, low “Chè” had people killed, even personally by him sometimes, for not thinking the right things. Keeley Hazell would not approve at all, at-all-at-all.
The fact that they are a “left wing top 100 blog” is a dead giveaway, but the blogosphere is a truly Free Nation, and they have every right to say what they please, as do we.
The Global-left is scared shitless of the BNP, since it views that party as a direct and mortal competitor for the votes of the effectively-disenfranchised Old White Working Class and its heirs of the moment whatever those may be. Whereas we as Libertarians have no position on this either way, since we see this spat as mere extremist infighting within the envelope of the Left. We also regard everybody – including people like “Unity”, as disenfranchised by a single oligarchical Enemy Class – which happens outwardly to behave right now as if it was part of the “left” – but that is a mere tactical accident of current events.
Correct me if I’m wrong: but I don’t think this government, a left-wing government, cares about the fate of people who have decided to support what some of the left thinks of as the wrong left-wing party which cares a bit about the fates of some left-wing-supporters, against another but larger lot of left-wingers who don’t care about the first lot of left-wing-supporters.
It’s Germany in the 20s/30s all over again, isn’t it.
The British Left (can we call these outfits “British Internationale Parties”?) is wetting itself with delight (here’s a typical example) as I suppose can be expected. Although as I have said in the comments here, it’s strange that today’s leftists don’t exactly see themselves as friends of the BNP: we here certainly are not their friends, but the Left they share most of their objectives. Very strange really.