CitizenGeek said:
Anyways, in the spirit of debate, I thought I'd try to get a discussion going on a fairly broad topic. Also, in the spirit of British parliamentary debating, I'll give the motion:
This House Believes That the State should only Intervene in the Affairs of the People Whenever Their Lives and Livelihoods are Threatened
Basically, the government has no place in any other aspect of our lives except in terms of protecting us from eachother (and maybe foreign invaders too).
Any takers? I like the State and I think the role of government is important, so I'll be speaking from the opposition. I know ayase and some others harbour some anarchist-ish ideas, so it could be interesting :]
Well, 'tis the season, I'll bite.
The statement posited is one which lies at the core of classical liberal and libertarian principles - That humans should be responsible for themselves but
not free to exercise power or control over others, and that is when the state is required to intervene. It is one which I largely agree with. I would argue that not only does the state currently fail to prevent people from harm and exploitation at the hands of those more wealthy or powerful, but that the increasing responsibility (and therefore power) taken from citizens and placed in the hands of the state has been a major factor in several problems facing Britain today. I'm happy to discuss other areas as well, but will start with a very current issue, that of the economy.
State intervention our economy has destroyed our manual labour market and decimated the working class. Many have been abandoned as a new underclass who merely exist, feeling unvalued and unable to pursue their callings in the modern world. These people's livelihoods have not only been threatened, they have been destroyed. Why does a manufacturing business in Britain shut down? Because they cannot compete with other countries. They cannot compete because of the high wages guaranteed by the state, however no-one would deny that the minimum wage is indeed the minimum required to survive in this country.
But why should that be? Why should someone in the UK require ten times or more money to live as someone in another part of the world? Our reliance on imported food is one answer (which has come about for the same reasons of being unprofitable). The largest is housing. The planning committees of councils across Britain are glaring examples of state corruption in the interests of business and the state itself. In areas where land is plentiful and need for housing is great, a dozen homes are packed into single acres of land one step at a time over many years, making sure demand always outstrips supply and ensuring that the price of the land and of homes remains high. This is very good for the banks who ensnare people in debt with large mortgages (which they conjure up from nowhere, as due to partial reserve lending they do not even have the money themselves). It is also very good for the government, who receive stamp duty for every house bought but also get a nice injection of cash into the economy every time one is sold.
Imagine the country as it is today with no minimum wage; it's an unappealing prospect. But imagine there were no planning laws either, that anyone could build on their own land whatever they wished. The price of housing would begin to fall. The cost of living would begin to fall. Unemployed people who feel hopeless could work at manual jobs again and live for less, the country could compete again in the world. State control of the economy has had one effect - to move all growth to the financial markets and service sector. I am from a working class background, I know people who have no desire to work in these fields despite the government pushing them as a golden ticket out of unemployment. Unlike some more right-wing libertarians I don't blame the individuals for the perpetually unemployed; I blame the state. Relying on the tertiary sector for jobs and growth makes the country richer, but it does not make us economically secure or make the people happier.
