You might have seen the news about Brian Haw rather funny if the implications were not so serious.

In essence, Mr. Haw has been shouting at MPs through his megaphone from his encampment in Parliament Square for the past four years. This has made them a little tetchy so there was a small addition to the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, banning demonstrations in the area around Parliament without prior authorisation from the police. As the Guardian points out:

The new rules state that, from August 1, anyone wanting to demonstrate in the area must have authorisation from the police "when the demonstration starts". Mr Haw's lawyers pointed out that his demonstration had started four years ago and argued that he did not have to apply for authorisation, even though the law was targeted at him

Why is this an argument for libertarianism? The authorities use a sledgehammer to crack a nut (sorry, bad pun), remove a frequently used ancient liberty (that of any free citizen being allowed to turn up at random and shout abuse at those who rule) and manage not to deal with the original problem. They are, it appears, not actually very good at their job, that of passing laws.

Yet these are the people who determine how and where we build our houses, what medical treatment we may have, how our children shall be educated, the hours we work, what we may or may not buy and sell and in what measures we may or may not do so. If they're not actually capable of getting such a simple thing right how badly are they doing the more complex ones?

Libertarianism, the basis of which is that politicians should leave us mostly to our own devices, seems to be the only rational response to the British political class.

(Tim Worstall writes here).