Why the State Shouldn’t Manage a Crisis


Why the State Shouldn’t Manage a Crisis

By Duncan Whitmore

Many libertarians, especially at lewrockwell.com, have written of their scepticism to the draconian responses of states around the world to the recent outbreak of coronavirus (COVID-19). It is not difficult to share this scepticism given that at least some analyses – particularly of infections on cruise ships, which, given the unavoidably close social proximity, present the closest thing to a worst case scenario – suggest there is little cause for any heightened alarm. Indeed, for the very vast majority of us, there is probably more to be feared from state overreaction than there is from the virus itself. Even mainstream commentators, such as Matthew Parris in Saturday’s Times, are beginning to question the wisdom of trashing your economy to prevent the spread of an infection that is, at least at the moment, affecting only a relative minority of people of advanced age and/or with underlying health conditions (in common with many other inflictions). States always have ulterior motives when dealing with (apparent) crises as they always see them as an opportunity to expand the ambit of their power over the populace, given that a scared people is nearly always willing to sacrifice its liberty for the sake of security. In fact, if the true medical seriousness of this current virus turns out to be only a hill of beans then it may well have served as a dress rehearsal that has merely tested our pliability for some later calamity.

This essay, however, will not concern whether the spread of COVID-19 is quite the crisis it is being made out to be. Instead, let us assume, for argument’s sake, that the world was to be threatened by a very real and very serious pandemic threat. Would such a disaster warrant stronger, co-ordinated, globalised solutions managed by states and enhanced state powers to deal with the problem? Continue reading

Economic Myths #12 – The Deflation Danger


Politicians and mainstream economists are persistent in their warning of the so-called “deflation danger” – the idea that falling prices are calamitous for economic progress and that a perpetual, ceaseless price inflation is needed in order to bring us back to prosperity. Often, a deflation figure as small as 0.6% seems to be sufficient to trigger alarm – something of an hilarious travesty when, regardless of the merits of the deflation thesis, this figure amounts to little more than a rounding error.

The typical argument against deflation runs something like this: with continuous price deflation people expect prices to be lower tomorrow than they are today so that, as a result, they put off their purchases until a later date. This, in turn, causes prices to fall further and further and so we end up in an endless downward spiral of depression and impoverishment. Inflating prices, however, cause people to buy today so that they may insulate themselves from future price rises, thus bringing about economic prosperity and an increase in the standard of living. Continue reading

National Debts and a Tory Government


…or any for that matter, so long as it is not the GramscoFabiaNazis New Labour

David Davis

I am going to propose that an incoming Tory government state that it will repudiate all UK government debt incurred after the date and timestamp of the beginning of its conference and up to the time of a new government being announced next….election. AND furthermore, that neither capital nor interest on this debt will be honoured. This will concentrate lenders’ minds immediately as some will have been sold already, some will be in trading, and some will be comtemplated between now and say this Thursday. this will increase the value of the stuff already out there, which will become very heavily-bid, and will concentrate the minds of helot-voters in the “public sector”, whi will find their wages cheques dishonoured between  now and, well, whenever. Which is morally right.

Please read on:-

In a civilised society, it is right and moral to pay off debts, in due course, after they have been incurred. Insofar as libertarians believe that governments have some sort of de-facto legitimacy, and they might if either by consent of their electorates or by dint of the fact that we are for the time being stuck with them, then it is right for gvernments to make some sort of provision for repaying borrowings incurred honourably in the course of their “duties”. Since governments have no money of their own, this sadly has to be raised by taxation along with the “normal” course of expenditures.

But I now take  a different view about some of this National debt incurred recently: this is based on newer observations of acts against this nation which could, in certain lights, be construed as Acts of War.  A well-briefed Court-of-Enquiry – a “Star Chamber” if you will – might actually interpret their decisions and acts as treason, depending on where you stand regarding the relation between the English Sovereign head of State and the People, and which is actually more important jurisprudentially since 1215 and at various defining moments inbetween.

I now put it that the British Enemy Class, arising out of a mixture of corrupted-Christianity-turned-upside-down, self-generated-intellectual hubris, and misplaced condescension towards temporarily less fortunate classes in English Civil Society, has taken a conscious war decision against liberalism.

It has decided on purpose, at some time in the past 120 years and probably quite early on, to unravel liberal English civilisation and society, this stemming from its view that we are a nationalist nation, of wicked evil imperialist repressive globally-colonizing culturally-hegemonic white anglo-saxon male slave-traders-and-drivers. And anything else you care to name. It hates us, because by promoting the virtues of individual liberty and responsibility and also of Natural Rights, we as a civilisation have never hitherto failed to point loudly and visibly towards what I call “The Door Out Of Hell”,

It has tried, hitherto only more or less partially successfully, to dismantle parts of what it hates. Although the general trend of progressive big-statism did advance from about 1874 onwards as both liberals and Tories started to doze off, not very much damage was done to liberty except during and immediately after war years. It is true that some evil things were done: private firearms began to be regulated in 1922 – passports (French word too) were introduced – whole industries were stolen nationalised – the NHS was founded – education was tampered with – and so on.  But in general the rot took some time to set in, and the GramscoFabiaNazis were getting impatient. Too many of their older ranks were beginning to die, before being able to reap the imperial political rewards of their self-promotion as noble freethinking spirits. Like literature-writers of unreadably pretentious twaddle, “artistic” pornographers, child-rapists and cradle-snatchers positioned as “artists”, “educationists” and the like, “political philosophers”, “influential economists”, “admired playwrights”,and so on. The “movement”, the “project” was rinning out of time: new or invonvenient opponents kept suddenly popping up and exhibiting dangerously high amouonts of mass support, such as Reagan and Thatcher, and the populace showed marked disinclination to meekly toe the Gramscian hegemonic cultural line.

But never fear, for a few clever Enemy Class people had begun to subvert the Universities some decades earlier. By the 90s and 2000s, this tactical assault was to become very crucial.

All was ready for 1997 and Blair. John Smith (too “old labour”, too transparently honest not to dissemble in public and therefore a strategic risk) was got rid of – a strange heart-attack and no medical history of problems – and a top project-guy was put in (you can see the point of the Granita deal now). Brown wanted to mallet away too fast, and would have spoiled things, so he was asked to wait 10 years and his turn would come, by which time the “project” would be irreversible and he might do what pleased him. As he has done.

But even after ten years of Stalinism by 2007, and the pissing-away of the Gold, the savings, the pension funds and the day-to-day-revenue in the buying of a clientariat (a necessary but in itself an insufficient condition for success,) the fabric and economic structure of English society was still very strong. The rot takes time to set in. A reasonably quick cave-in seemed improbable. Something had to be done, and fast, to being about swift collapse of confidence and morale of the entire people, and of international confidence in the structure of our finances and banking industry, a major earner and secondary/tertiary empoyer and trigger of other businesses, especially small private ones (which would have to be destroyed in the wash-flood as they’d never vote for the “project”or its droids) via trickle-down.

So the failure of a minor Rotten-Borough-Bank (Northern Rock) could be used at the right time as a method of mis-managing a “banking crisis” triggerable on top of it, if it could be (mis)handled correctly. If done right, the State could say that “the taxpayer” (itself) was “baling out and preventing the failure of” (the State was nationalising”) our “national banking assets and industry (and jobs of course)” and “your money” (now its.)

Since by 2007, there were very few individuals alive on the planet who knew what “inflation” really is, “call for” “injection of” £££££trillions would seem to have nothing to do with inflating a money’s supply, and everything to do with “saving banks and jobs and the economy world”…”quantitative easing” was a dead-giveaway, surely?

In fact the true understanding of the word “inflation” is probably limited to the few thousand people on earth who read libertarian blogs, plus maybe a few City Analysts who keep quiet about it for safety reasons.

So where does that leave the “national debt” and the Tories (IF they are elected…) Since it has been inflated out of all proportion under false pretences and by a clique of evil reactionaries who want to undo Western Civilisation, those parts of it that correspond to what they’ve taken out in order to deliberately liquidate and beggar us here, should be disowned. I wonder if they’ll be brave enough to do it?