IndHome

IndHome

44p

78 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

13 years ago @ Independence Home - There's no irony Mr Duff · 0 replies · +1 points

Yes fair point, you are right that it is the Monarch who is sovereign technically. Though I am no Monarchist and believe absolutely that the people are individually sovereign, embodied by the Monarch.

13 years ago @ Independence Home - Should UKIP be a liber... · 0 replies · +1 points

Well I also use the term "liberal" and "classical liberal" in teh article alongside libertarianism. As i have said the two are interchangable nowadays due to "liberal" having other connotations. I use both ensure people are clear what i mean.

13 years ago @ Independence Home - Should UKIP be a liber... · 2 replies · +2 points

Byron, you will no doubt have noted in the article I was using the libertarian label to mean classical liberal. Many people now use the word libertarian due to the corruption of the term liberal in modern politics.

13 years ago @ Independence Home - UKIP Leader: decrimina... · 0 replies · +3 points

Lewis. Not sure how moving from a ban to controlled availability is extending the powers of the state.

As far as responsibility goes, libertarians believe people are responsible for their actions, not that they always act responsibly. Taking drugs is not really responsible, nor is getting drunk. However if people choose to screw up their lives then it is no role of the state to protect people from themselves. This is, of course, complicated by the current funding model for the NHS which socialises costs such as drug abuse, but that is another debate.

What makes you think Telegraph readers aren't liberal? Ok, you can generalise to a certain degree. But the interview was about finding out who Nigel is. Being honest and truthful is a good thing; saying what you think the audience want to hear is hypocritical.

13 years ago @ Independence Home - I though I had heard i... · 0 replies · +1 points

There will be a new video page up and running in due course. Hopefully bigger and better.

13 years ago @ Independence Home - Centralising a failed ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Sorry to hear that Peter. I hope you get used ot it. All other comments i've had have been positive so maybe it takes a bit of adjusting?
Any specific comments or suggestion please let us know - editor@indhome.com

13 years ago @ John Redwood MP - The issue of sovereignty · 0 replies · +2 points

Well said John. So what are YOU going to do about it? So far you have simply compromised your views to prop up a government which, while more Eurosceptic than the previous, is still a pro EU government, with no plans to push the EU out of our lives.

14 years ago @ The Conservative Blog - School in 1950 Compare... · 0 replies · +1 points

Lol. Genius post.

14 years ago @ Independence Home - Robin Hood Tax?...Ugh! · 0 replies · +1 points

Greg, economics is essentially logic in academic form. Yes, economies are complex and so following throught e consequeces of various actions are hard, and ultimately it is mroe of an art than a science. I certainly don't profess to understand economics wholly and fully, but I do have a decent grasp of key concepts.
The problem we are in globally is fundamentally about credit being too cheap for too long. Why? Well I would say because we were getting the 'one-off' and sudden benefit of China - i.e. globalisation. This freed up £s and $s to be spent on other things. Inflation in consuer goods was kept low by offshoring, thus keeping central bank rates low and reducing the cost of debt. Money supply growth shot through the roof and decoupled from nominal GDP. There was too much money chasing too few goods, and ultimately it showe ditself in asset prices rather than consumer prices which were being kept artificially low.

The Tobin tax would reduce volatility in markets which is a good thing, but it also reduces liquidity which is a abd thing. It is a trade-off. That is all economics is. One has to make a choice about whether the trade off is worth it. I don't think so. A tobin tax would effect market interest rates, and thus business expansion, etc. To what extent I cannot say, but there is empirical evidence for it.

As for Caroline Lucas not understanding economics I stand by my statement. She has been saying we should have a "green new deal" and switch to green energy because it "will create 1m green-collar jobs". What she doesn't also relaise is taxing the private sector to pay for these jobs will cost jobs elsewhere. And also that jobs are a cost of delivering a service, and habing job intensive energy is not great. Having energy prioduced with zero jobs would be great - then we could all have free energy, and people could be employed elsewhere in the economy, business would have lower operatings costs, wages and investment returns would be higher, etc, etc.

14 years ago @ Independence Home - An Iron Fist Has Come ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Bryan, just use this link and email it to your friends - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyNnlyIVjhU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyNnlyIVjhU