By Alexander J Woolf

It is clear that a business cannot be commanded without ideas, so how can anybody expect to govern a country in this manner? Without theoretical engagement, national policy can be reduced simply to humility. If state-sponsored immolation is pursued at the expense of the mind, as is evident in the simplistic ideals of wealth redistribution, then do practical modern day policies still exist? When governments appease the needs of one household by simply transferring capital from the balance sheet of another, the equilibrium of financial prosperity is gravely disrupted. There is nothing more equal than the freedom to be unequal.

In the short-term, the man in need benefits from illegitimate handouts, but after prolongation becomes reliant upon and expectant of his ‘subsistence bailout’. By making the metaphysical calculation that he can gain without effort, the man’s mind becomes more active than that of the bureaucrat prior to investing in idleness. The question must be asked: who defines and regulates ‘need’? If one wishes to reason in terms of morality then they must be confronted with objectivist queries. For example, is it moral that a dedicated professional takes out a private health care plan, and provides their children with private education, should be obligated to pay the same level of taxation (if not higher) than one who depends wholly upon all tax-funded services? If the answer provided is ‘yes’, then one must remember that envy is not a legitimate approach to democratic policy-making. Further still, it must be immoral to hinder economic growth and employment by imposing large corporate taxation on successful businesses, and CGT on the pioneers of a flourishing service sector. These actions will have disastrous consequences when companies and individuals resort to relocation, non-domiciliary status, or corrupt methods of business in order to thrive without obstruction. The fact that governments propose to prevent such acts by implementing yet more statutes is proof of their negligence of the mind. For that reason, if captains of finance continue to face scorn and persecution for their brilliance, they cannot be blamed if they accept their bonuses and flee.

A government policy of morality is one which dissembles every NDPB of the nanny-state brick by brick; abolishes every bureaucratic treasurer; reduces foreign affairs to that of bilateral trade negotiations; and privatises all interests of importance to the people, to be funded by the revenue resting firmly in the hands of its rightful owner. It is clear however that such policies cannot be implemented at the flick of a switch, and therefore transition periods must be carefully strategised. Front-line services must be marketised immediately, including the heavy use of PPP and incentives for company sponsorship. Following from this, tax holidays should be permitted to allow individuals to prepare for their own private provisions, and non-profit philanthropy associations and private pension schemes given endorsements from central government.

In regards to unemployment, social security should be resumed in a new scheme which will deviate the funds in such a way that will reduce the feasibility of dependence and illegality. Recipients of benefits shall receive the same amount as was previously the case, but will see the route of these funds altered. Instead of the payee receiving capital directly from central government, they will receive it via an intermediary: local business. The person seeking employment will be allocated a local company within the field of industry which they are preferably seeking to enter. This fund transfer will only be authorised by the business in question when the payee has completed satisfactory attendance each week. Weekly hours of compulsory attendance will be based upon an equation converting the amount payable into minimum-wage-rated hours of work, therefore still providing the payee with the number of available days necessary for carrying out a satisfactory job search. This reform of social security policy will remove recipients from idleness, provide them with opportunities to gain experience or direct employment, promote a culture of strong work ethics, and will boost the production of business domestically. Any persons claiming social security benefits fraudulently will be discouraged from doing so when given compulsory employment responsibilities. During this transition period to decentralised marketisation, political authority must be devolved to each region in the form of referendums and initiatives for the administrative oversight of local institutions entering the private sector. In each circumstance mentioned above, there would be no costs incurred by central government.

It is a fraud against the people to implement policy without conscious reasoning, and doing so ensures that ingenuity stays confined to the private sector. Furthermore, blind compassion in the formulation of policy is weak and will inevitably also result in a weak society. Finally, in regards to the consequences this will have on the economy: a state which entrenches pity as its legal tender will never experience affluence. The only thing scarier than undemocratic governments is one which believes itself to be a ‘liberal democracy’.

Related articles

• Austerity Policies Devastate Europe (ritholtz.com)
• Cities In California Are Declaring Bankruptcy To Avoid Governor Brown’s Ridiculous Tax Raises (investmentwatchblog.com)
• Sound Money, Monetary Freedom and the State (thedailybell.com)