Here come the stormtroopers


For the first time ever British Police Officers will conduct permanent patrols through the streets armed with fully automatic submachine guns. The measure is supposed to help areas where gang violence levels are on the rise, but does it really take submachine gun wielding cops to lower crime? How much does it take for British citizens to finally realize that the government is taking control of their lives? And how long will it take before the police institute a curfew in those areas, or police patrols like these become a regular occurrence in all of London? This measure taken should not be tolerated. It is severely damaging to the already frail social freedoms that Britons are allowed.

These patrols are supposed to be a means of reducing gang violence and illegal gun sales, and according to the police are ‘intended to be a reassuring presence for residents’. However, I can think of very few things more intimidating than seeing uniformed police walking down my street with submachine guns. I know that there must be line somewhere between policing and state control, but the government has blurred that line to the point that citizens don’t notice anymore. I personally feel that individuals should have the right to bear arms, and I didn’t think it could get any worse than denying individuals this right. I was wrong. The only thing worse is to send out permanent patrols armed with military grade weapons after taking away everyone else’s guns.

All steps toward state control start with good intentions. At some point people need to stand up and declare that good intentions are not enough to justify denying personal freedoms.

Spencer blogs regularly on gun control here.



As I write, Great Smith Street – home of the Adam Smith Institute – is closed off by police. There is red and white 'do not cross tape' everywhere, two police cars and a police van are parked at one end of the road, and another two police cars at the other. Policemen and Community Support Officers are swarming all over the place, doing what they do best (being officious and irritating) and they have just been joined by a collection of yellow-vested fire marshals from the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

What has happened? Is it a bomb scare? A terrorist attack? Or is there a sniper on the roof, as I just heard one passer-by saying? Actually, no. It's none of those things. The reason for all this fuss is... wait for it... a piece of lead-cladding that has come loose from a building across the road.

Now, OK. Falling pieces of lead are, I suppose, a genuine health and safety risk. But do we really need the efforts of a small army of officialdom to protect us from it? Do we really need the disruption of closing a road to traffic, as well as pedestrians? Couldn't they just block off the bit of the pavement underneath the hanging lead, put up a few 'danger' signs and be done with it?  And if they're really that concerned, couldn't they just station a polite bobbie on the street-corner to warn people and direct them to the other side of the road?

Well, apparently not. Not in the crypto-facsist, risk-averse, bureaucracy-obsessed Britain of the twenty-first century anyway.

Do even the markets not trust the market?


The pound soared yesterday on news that the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) had voted 9-0 not to increase the level of Quantitative Easing beyond the £175bn already promised.

On one level, this makes sense. Quantitative Easing is the most deliberate form of inflation: an active policy to increase the supply of money. Inflation devalues a currency not just in comparison to goods and services domestically, but also in comparison to currencies internationally. So the more one Quantitatively Eases, the more pounds one would expect to have to give up to tempt a wily American or European to part with their dollars or Euros. So far, so good.

But if the BBC is to be believed, this is not the reason why the pound soared. According to the BBC, the reason for the pound’s rally was that “The decision not to inject more money was seen as a positive sign that the UK economy was recovering and did not need further help from the central bank." And therein lies the problem.

The Bank of England, despite what we are regularly told by politicians, central bankers (unsurprisingly) and economists trained in the Keynesian school, cannot act as an omniscient oracle, able to predict the future of the economy with precision and foresight. The Bank of England can at best act as a research institute, albeit one with a vast staff. Indeed, Tim Congdon argues that Mervyn King would reduce it to exactly that.

The reason for this, as economists of the Austrian School demonstrated, is that information about the economy exists in the minds of the participants in that economy, and is necessarily vast and diffuse. No single authority – be it bank, ministry or leader – can possibly gather together the trillions of data severally known by the millions of actors within the UK economy (let alone the billions beyond our borders whose actions affect our own). That information can only be found within “The Market" – an unfortunate analogy for the interplay of actors seeking to pursue their own ends with their limited resources. Thus the market price will always be a better indication of supply, demand and future expectations than that of any single expert or group of experts.

Consequently, it would be madness for actors to read more into the opinions of the UK’s central bank than in the investment decisions of millions of capitalists across the country and beyond.

There are therefore two possible explanations for why the market responded as it did. The first is that the BBC’s analysis is correct because “that market" (in fact, currency speculators) have swallowed the myth of the all-seeing central banker and have put their faith in the nine wise men. If so, woe betide us all.

The other explanation is the BBC is wrong, that speculators know that the market knows best, but that they also understand that the value of Sterling can only fall if Quantitative Easing goes on. With such a clear signal from the Bank of England that at least part of their inflationary policy is closed-ended, the markets can breath a small sigh of relief.

On inflation


Yesterday morning I was reading an old article by Joseph T. Salerno, which was published in the Austrian Economics Newsletter in 1987. The following passage on inflation struck me as a worth reproducing:

[I]f an additional quantity of Fed notes is printed up and spent by government on various goods and services, an excess supply of money will temporarily be created in the economy. The initial recipients of the new money will quickly get rid of the excess cash simply by increasing their own spending on goods; those who eagerly receive the new money as payments in the second or later rounds of spending will do likewise, in the process bidding up the prices of goods, reducing the purchasing power of the dollar, and, consequently, increasing the quantities of dollars that each individual desires to keep on hand to meet expected future payments or for other purposes. In summary, any excess supply of fiat money does not go out of existence, but is spent and respent and continually passed on like a "hot potato" throughout the economy until the surplus money is finally and fully absorbed by the resulting increase in general prices and in desired dollar holding.

The important thing to note here is that inflation – by which I mean an increase in the money supply – does not affect everyone equally. On the contrary, it benefits those closest to the pump, while penalizing those further away. The powerful and the politically connected – like banks, the public sector, and government contractors – get the new money first, before it has driven up prices, and therefore benefit from it. By the time it reaches the average taxpayer, prices have adjusted, and their incomes and savings are worth less than they were before.

This is why, in a sense, inflation is the most insidious and cowardly tax there is. It silently redistributes wealth from the ordinary citizen to the elite, without most people having a clue what is happening. Sadly, I suspect that's one of the reasons why politicians all-too-often favour it.

Progressive contradictions


It was rather interesting listening to the likely next leader of the country discussing conservative philosophy with Peter Oborne on radio 4. Two points can be drawn from it. Firstly, he does not know very much about conservative philosophy; and more importantly, the philosophy he claims to hold is contradictory.

Although it is no proof that a Prime Minister needs a deep understanding of ideas in order to rule with success (just look at Gordon Brown), the rather limited answers to Peter Oborne’s questions were certainly surprising. Although he has never claimed to be a great intellectual – and of the fraction who will hear the program most will care little for the ideas – surely he should really know more about the intellectual roots of the political party he is now leading. If I was his advisor, from now on I would copy Blair and stick to daytime TV. Best to leave the political philosophy to those in the Conservative Party who can name more than The Road to Serfdom when asked for the key conservative texts.

More importantly Cameron’s various arguments in this interview are irreconcilable. Despite reeling off Oakeshott’s famous quote about prefering present laughter to utopian bliss, when pushed to decide whether he believed in civic associations or enterprise associations he finally came down on the side of the former. However, he spent the whole interview talking about Disraeli's one nation conservatism, his progressive conservatism and how his will be an “enabling government". But the fact of the matter is, progressive and universal goals cannot be built upon civic associations as meant by Oakeshott. This ties in to the contradications with Cameron’s rhetoric in favour of localism and much else. He is so desirous of change that he may be unable to dispense with the apparatus of centralized state control.

In practice, any number of things might force him to adopt a less interventionist approach to governing; yet this hardly insurance against an extension of the New Labour project. Whatever the truth of Cameron’s beliefs, something is going to have to give. Sadly as his latest announcement on all women shortlists shows, the safe money is on his progressive side trumping his conservatism.

Sex trafficking: no evidence for Harman's law


Harman's sex trafficking law is based on feeble, fraudulent evidence.

Here's the line. Women are being trafficked into Britain and forced to become sex slaves. We know this because the massive Operation Pentameter, involving 55 police forces, six government departments and various NGOs, led to the arrest of 528 sex traffickers. On the basis of this, Harriet Harman is rightly pushing through a bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute controlled by someone else.

Except it's all lies. As Nick Davies reports, the six-month investigation actually failed to find a single sex trafficker. Ten of the 55 police forces arrested nobody at all. Some 122 of the 528 arrests claimed never happened (they were wrongly recorded, or phantom arrests designed to chase targets). Half (230) were women – suggesting that the Operation was a convenient excuse to harass prostitutes and clock up more arrest figures.

Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced their 'success', 106 without any charge at all, and 47 being cautioned for minor offences. Of the rest, 73 were charged with immigration breaches, 76 convicted on drugs raps, and others died or disappeared.

Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women. Seven were acquitted. The net haul from this vast operation was 15 successful prosecutions. Of those, just five men were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes (two of whom were already in custody).

So that's the 'huge success' that allowed Jacqui Smith and now Harriet Harman, to claim that 'thousands' of women were being trafficked, and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.

Sex workers are opposing the new legislation. They know that every time governments 'get tough' on prostitution, they are the ones who suffer. The police just have another excuse to go on fishing trips, round up a few girls, and boost their arrest figures so that they get Brownie points and the Chief Constable gets a better bonus. And to prove that they are not 'controlled', girls will start working alone, rather than in flats with a maid to look after them, which will make them more vulnerable to abuse and attack. Thanks, Harriet.

Dr Butler's book The Rotten State of Britain is now in paperback.

The EU is listening...


In the past the European Union has been accused of being virtually deaf to the wants and needs of its members populace. The recent reactions to referenda being a classic example. Well it seems the EU is mending its ways and is going to listen to them. They are planning to listen to them all the time, whatever they are doing.

"Project INDECT aims to mine data from television, internet traffic, cellphone conversations, p2p file sharing and a range of other sources for crime prevention and threat prediction.

So rest assured whatever you are doing the EU will be listening to your every word or online action. Reassuring isn't it?

Immigration and the division of labour


In 2004, the UK lost about 360,000 workers/taxpayers but gained an additional 223.000, making immigration the most significant contributor to population growth in Great Britain. Emigrants have also become a crucial factor in maintaining the scale between workforce and a still ageing population. According to the “Foreign Worker Employment" report from February 2009 made by the Office for National Statistics, 21 % of the British Workforce has at least one foreign born parent.

The question then posed is whether it is a good or bad trend to have a still growing population of foreigners moving to the UK? In short, from an economic perspective it is undoubtedly good. Considering the fact that an growing number of Britons each year leave the country, it would be a catastrophe for the British economy to make migration rules more stringent than they already are. In fact, the wealth of all Britons would improve if current restrictions were diminished, making it easier for employers to hire the right workers with no regard of nationality EU or non EU.

Research published in the journal “International Tax and Public Finance" by Mihir A. Desai, Devesh Kapur and John McHale suggests that the quantity of foreign workers needed in the UK as a share of the British working age population will increase to about 73 percent within the next 40 years, this even assuming no post 1995 migration. Considering all this, easing the immigration procedures would be more than just useful, it is required.

Among the arguments against this include the suggestion that foreigners should contribute to their native economies rather than going to the UK. However, everything being equal the optimal use of human capital will by and large result in the optimal production of wealth. Foreigners going to the UK will be contributing to their community will also contribute to the aggregated wealth produced in the world. However, if any doubters still remain, why doesn't the government reward this percieved investment of human capital in the British economy with export restrictions to the UK market?

Spirit in the sky


The fact that a man in Texas is on death row and is to be executed in under a month is to come as no surprise. However, what should raise a few eyebrows is the influence that God’s word appears to have had in deciding this.

Khristian Oliver burgled a man, beat him with his own rifle and shot him in the face. Yet jurors have admitted that during his trial several, highlighted copies of the Bible had been passed around, and that attention to brought to passages such as "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death."

Perhaps Oliver deserves the absolute punishment. For a man to be put to death, the jury must unanimously decide on the death penalty, free from outside influence. People’s outlooks are shaped by important figures and events in their lives, and for many people religion is a very strong influence. For such people, religion is an internal influence; something which already guides their judgments and decisions. The problem in this case is that the deliberation process in this trial reached a point where Bibles were used and quoted. However, the US constitution calls for the separation of state and religion. Just because one person believes in God doesn’t mean the law should be based around an interpretation of his wishes.

With all likelihood Oliver was a very nasty man and deserves his fate. However, as the American constitution went to great lengths to extract personal religious beliefs from law, the nature of his sentence is disappointing. Every US citizen is entitled to a free and fair trial, clearly this one has been tainted. Perhaps Oliver should not be meeting his maker just yet.