Friday, May 30, 2008

Political cross-dresser

How quickly a leopard can change its spots. Reason describes the new Mayor of London's transformation from libertarian to authoritarian. Fascinating piece. Populism is so seductive.
Posted by at

10 comments:

Libertyscott said...

It seems based on him banning alcohol on public transport, which frankly any good operator would do anyway (and many do), cracking down on the ridiculous free bus passes young people use (and abuse), and he wants to be tough on crime on public transport. I've been fearful on buses in London a couple of times, it's seriously dire on certain routes at certain times.

Meanwhile he has cut back on waste, ended the Chavez oil deal and started a bottom up review of all spending to seek ways to cut back.

Too early to give a verdict, and he is light years better than Ken.

10:31 AM
Blair said...

Ahhhh the great libertarian clobbering machine is at it again. Is nobody Holy enough?

The public own the tube and the streets, and last month they elected a Mayor who included these policies as part of his platform. The people of London are exercising their property rights. I don't see how this contradicts libertarianism. Nobody is forced to take the Tube.

11:43 AM
Allistar said...

Banning alcohol should be left to the operators of the tube, not the local government. Libertarianism should see a reduction in the number of laws, not an increase.

3:09 PM
Libertyscott said...

The tube is owned by central government, controlled by a local government entity - with the maintenance and capital works programme contracted out to the private sector (although even two thirds of that is about to be back in the public sector).

9:08 PM
Lindsay Mitchell said...

I don't see how property rights can solve the problem when it comes to public property, because the public can't form a consensus (they may form a majority opinion but then we run up against the tyranny of the majority) and they do not necessarily 'own' utilities by choice.

I can imagine the type of problem he is trying to solve in respect of transport but a/ do you really think it will work (can they police it if they can't enforce existing disorder laws)? and b/ where does it stop?

We now have the nicotine banners pushing the boundaries out further and further trying to ban smoking in parks etc.

7:45 AM
Anonymous said...

Lindsay

I don't see how property rights can solve the problem when it comes to public property,

I expected better from you. There is no such thing as society, nor "public property". There is property (even in London) owned by a range of private companies with diverse shareholdings - some of which may be owned by local government (which we both agree, I think, should be illegal - but is the case here).

So I really, really fail to see what public property has to do with anything. A private operator can certainly set conditions of carriage for their private service. A key shareholder can dictate to the company what terms they want. End of story.

9:57 PM
Lindsay Mitchell said...

I was responding to Blair.

'There is no such thing as society, nor "public property".'

If there is no such thing as public property then there is no such thing as private property either.

You can split hairs over legalistic meanings but if one is unable to use terms like society, community, and public good, property etc it becomes near impossible to describe ideas to those we seek to persuade.

9:53 AM
Anonymous said...


If there is no such thing as public property then there is no such thing as private property either.


there is no such thing as society - or public.
Nothing to do with property.


it becomes near impossible to describe ideas to those we seek to persuade.

I'm not interested in ideas, nor in persuasion.
I'm interested in getting elected and then governing.

ACT is interested in ideas and persuasion.

National is interested in elections and government

That's why National is on 50% and ACT only around 10%.

1:23 PM
Lindsay Mitchell said...

Anon said, "I'm not interested in ideas, nor in persuasion.
I'm interested in getting elected and then governing.

ACT is interested in ideas and persuasion.

National is interested in elections and government

That's why National is on 50% and ACT only around 10%."

Which is exactly why we are stuck on this seemingly never-ending seesaw between National and Labour governments. The people are never 'educated' beyond the status quo. Shallow.

2:04 PM
Anonymous said...

The people are never 'educated' beyond the status quo


Which is why Bismark was wrong: one should not bother to educate the populace (and Roger is wrong too for the same reason --- the analysis at the CIR about this).

And why Jefferson was right and Jackson was wrong.

And we've - literally - been paying for that mistake ever since.

Note that geographically proportional electorates, taxpayer franchise, and public servant/ beneficiary "restraint" would move us significantly back towards Jackson's model.

10:16 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)