Tory Majority?

All the polls point towards no party gaining a majority. It has Labour and the Conservatives gaining roughly the same number seats, The SNP being the most significant third party with the other parties getting the rest (the Liberals, Greens, UKIP, Plaid Cymru and the parties of Northern Ireland). While the polls do point to a hung parliament I rather think we may see a Conservative majority, if not very close to one. Why? The polls are generally wrong in times like these. Labour are more left leaning than they were under Blair and Brown and I think a lot of people will say one thing to the pollsters but when in the voting booth will actually vote blue.

It reminds me of the 1992 election. Neil Kinnock, the then Labour leader, was ahead in the polls and on course for a majority. Yet when voting time came not only did he fail to get a majority, it was in fact John Majors Conservatives who manged to get in with a majority. The polls were completely wrong. This time around the Conservatives are on level pegging to Labour in the polls. One of the reasons people in 1992 ended up voting for the Conservatives was uncertainty. The Conservatives were hardly popular at the time. A recession had hit, unemployment had shot up, the housing market was in the tank, interest rates had gone up and people were generally feeling worse off. Still, people voted for them for the belief that it would actually be worse under Labour, distrusting their generally Socialist policies. I think people will feel the same again for this years election in that they won't trust Ed Miliband and will end up voting for David Cameron. Similar to 1992 a lot of business leaders have voiced their concerns with a potential Labour Government along with many of the large newspapers. An uncertain atmosphere is present once more and when people are uncertain they generally vote blue.

I also think the SNP may not get their projected seats. The SNPs objective is to destabilise the union of the UK and get Scotland out of it. I think that will worry a lot of Scottish people who know they have a a far better economy by being a member. The majority of Scotish people voted against independance and I think they will once more weigh up if they really trust Nicola Sturgeon. Its not just Scotish peoples opinions, English opinion may turn and if held to unreasonable ransoms may wish to start parting with Scotland. 

Still, all of this remains to be seen and we will have to watch come 7th May. Fundamentally it doesn't matter; we're all fubar'ed whichever tribe gets in.

Should I Vote?

With the upcoming Elections here in the UK its looking another coalition. Like buses we haven't had one for years, then two turn up together. A question many people ask themselves is "Should I Vote?". Some say its your democratic duty to vote and that it is a disrespect to people who fought for our freedoms. I disagree, the prior statement is a contradiction in itself. It is your right to do what you want. Voting or abstaining from it is an individuals choice and no one should be coerced to vote against their free will. It is just as valid as voting for a political party.

I personally won't be voting as I don't believe in democracy as my prior post detailed. I abstain from voting to show my distaste in politics, to show my objection of mob rule, the dictatorship of the majority over the minority. Ignoring this, if someone who believed in democracy asked me who they should vote for I would give them the following thoughts to chew on.

Fundamentally all parties have no solution to the Government Bond Bubble with an economic disaster on the cards whoever takes power. The SNP are borrow and spend believers and will bankrupt England for the sake of Scotland; Plaid Cymru are a similar Welsh counterpart. The Greens are also of similar substance spending money they don't have and would further destroy wealth by supporting witch hunts against the wealthy. Liberal Democrats sit on the fence with everything and try to get everyones vote the only problem is they fail to do this. Despite all the rhetoric UKIP are not fascist. Adolf Hitler and his cronies quite clearly had perverse beliefs long before they came into power, I'm yet to see evidence of Nigel Farages "Mein Kampf". UKIP have carved a niche in saying politically incorrect things, which actually is great to see in terms of free speech. They do however center on immigration and the EU and also have some pretty intolerant beliefs that are fine (everyone has the right to their own views and we should all be tolerant to views we may find intolerant) but should not pass as a law as I'm sure they would wish. The Conservatives talk about how they have fixed our country but in reality they have built up more debt than 13 years of Labour in the space of less than half the time. You can say they inherited it, but they haven't really done anything to solve it - in fact it has been the monetary inflation that has greatly covered this up and will bite us all hard in the near future. And Labour want to divide everyone; rich vs poor; north vs south; minorities vs majorities. Their Economic policies are very similar to the Conservatives albeit with the odd tax on the rich (policies like this target small groups, as politicians are always looking for majority mob rule).

All the main options believe in centralised rule. None are advocating de-centralisation an abandonment of democracy, anarchy; which is perfectly acceptable - the majority haven't come around to that concept and its the majority vote they are all after. That may sound arrogant but I know from studying history that humans have been moving towards increased freedom for the individual over many years. Governments take freedoms away from the individual so are not compatible with this trend. Consequently like all forms of centralised rule - monarchs, dictatorships, religion - will slip away in the background and will be an opt-in/opt-out system at best. 

Would I ever vote? Only if I believed that there was a party who would really set freedom back, then I would vote to defend the status quo against whatever that tyranny would be. As it is, the 2015 election doesn't have that worry so I'll just see which tribe gets power this time and await the inevitable disappointment of the supporters, accompanied by the general economic chaos that comes with it.

So we come back to the original question, who should I vote for? Just like buying a car it comes back to you. Only you can make that decision, its what makes us human as we are all very unique individuals. With that we should all be free to vote for who we want with no objections from others. Thats liberty.

Life After Democracy

Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The 21st Century will see dramatic changes; technologically, culturally and politically. One such change will be how people come to view Democracy. The majority currently believe it to be synonymous with Freedom, Liberty and Prosperity. In reality Democracy is nothing more than a form of tyranny; rule of the majority over a minority; a system that removes individuals freedom of expression and replaces it with the submission to the 51% rule. The other 49% opinions do not matter; its the 51% who can dictate the terms.

In many areas of our lives we reject democratic choices. For example when we buy a car. Can we imagine allowing democratic rule on such a process? If the majority were to decide on a Ford Mondeo then what if I wanted a sports model, a small economy model, a classic or a luxury model? What about all the car manufactures who have all sorts of small differences between prices, quality and features? What about all the potential innovations that would not occur? We would think it absurd to use democracy to select our cars but this is what we do for many other choices that should be left to individual choice. Instead so long as a majority - it may not even be 51% for example in a cars case due to the sheer initial choices it may only require 10% to gain a majority, leaving the 90% with a choice they didn't want.

The reality of democracy is even more absurd than the above. In reality we have a single vote that represents dozens of decisions. When we go to the polls we vote on taxation, schools, hospitals, transport and so forth but we only get a single vote on them all. We have a handful of parties, in reality two parties, whose views we have to select from. When was the last time you voted for a political party that you agreed with on every point? It never happens, it can't happen as the diversity of individuals means it is impossible to model hundreds of decisions rolled into a single choice.

Once the party is in power they then have 4 years to loosely stick to their original mandate. When did a party do everything they said they would? I can't name one. It always ends up in inevitable U-turns. Worse still policies are enacted that we never even sign up to when we cast our original vote. David Cameron recently said he wants to ban encryption yet came into power under a pretense of bringing back rights to the individual. When did people in the UK vote for Tony Blair to invade Iraq or Afghanistan? Surely these were worth voting on? Of course all the frailties of Democracy are exposed once more in an event such as the Iraq invasion. Even if we were to allow a majority vote does this mean the 49% who oppose war should still have to pay taxes towards it, therefore funding such a cause. They would be forced to have blood on their hands in the name of so called "Freedom". The absence of Democracy would result in voluntary co-operation. If Tony Blair wanted to invade Iraq then he would have to persuade people. People would have been free not to provide any financial or moral support to such a cause. Of course with such mechanism the Iraq war would have never got going or would have not be prolonged as long as it was. Once an individual is empowered with their own choices then they can have real control and freedom will prosper.

Some would argue what alternatives do we have and I would respond with no Government. People don't need a centralised command committee we have just been conditioned to believe that we need such an entity. Laws, Schools, Hospitals, Transport, Money - all aspects of society should be privatised. What do I mean by privatised? "Public ownership" has a name that conveys something is run by us all but if we break it down what it means in reality it takes on a different meaning. In reality there is always a single provider. There is no choice. No one has the freedom to compete fairly as the rules, regulations and the monopoly privileged is dictated by a central entity. If we don't agree with management we can only do something every 4-5 years. Even then its not competition as its only ever have a single provider. Some will say we have private schools, I would respond, do we? The curriculum is dictated by the state, the school times, the age ranges, the exam process and so forth. In America they have an issue with University education costs rising too much - due to the state run inefficiencies. Private providers are providing a similar education for a fraction of the cost. Yet all that happens is the state tries to close down such endeavors as it has done with money, medical care, transport and so on. When we view privatisation a word that has been dragged through the mud what does this mean? Choice. Freedom to choose. Freedom to own shares in a company - so you actually have a opinion in how its run. If you don't like it you can sell your stake at any given time and move on. If no company does what you want you are free to create one of your own and offer a service. Private Companies are in fact true public run services. They are created and run by people. They are subservient to societies demands. If they fail to meet such demands they die away. People are free to own them, to run them, to pick and choose goods between them. "Public Services" do not take this form. They persist eternally no matter how badly they are run.

How would we run the legal system, the money system, the schools and so on without Government. Its coming and its going to happen whether the State allows it or not. Our legal system is a product of centuries of competition, money was invented by private companies to overcome barter and schools during the 19th Century in England went from educating 5-10% of the population at the beginning of the century to over 90% at the end, bringing about mass education before the state became involved.

Democracy amounts to nothing more than mob rule. The majority have dictatorial power over the minority. I like fast food, I don't eat it in spades but I do occasionally eat it. What happens if the majority decides to tax it, or worse ban it for the "good" of everyone? Suddenly my opinion doesn't matter, my liberties have been taken away, I can't enjoy a food source I once took pleasure in. What happens if I want to school my Children through some other means, get medical treatment on my own accord free from the majorities stiffing regulatory bodies. If I want to give my kids ketchup, which was banned in French Primary schools, Eat Haggis which is banned in America, Drink Raw Milk or use encryption? Many of which at some point or other may have been banned by a majority or worse a select few who obtained power from the majority decided to do as they pleased.

Life after democracy may seem like a bold statement. It may even seem to most who read this as a step backwards. It is my opinion it is only a matter of time until we shake away from the shackles of this institution and eventually allowing individuals autonomy over their lives and bodies. Democracy is not a form or freedom but it seeks to centralise power to a select few. Over the course of the 21st Century it will become less relevant as more people select other choices over the state current monopolies.