The Libertarian's Handbook: The Centre-Right Principles of Liberty and the Case for a Constitution

By Richard Pinder

In recent years at home and abroad there have been arbitrary attacks on liberty, with the state interfering with age-old freedoms such as privacy, freedom of expression and justice. As the modern Western world was built on the principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, it is time to resurrect the most important idea of all: that of liberty itself.

The Libertarian’s Handbook is a comprehensive work exploring the ideas of libertarianism. It details the evolution of the ideas of liberty, explains why the politics of the small state are essential for both freedom and prosperity, demonstrates the welfare principles to break poverty and provides a novel law enforcement model which shows how we can have our security without sacrificing our liberties.

This work, in homage to Friedrich von Hayek, also critically appraises the real effects of socialism using a case study based on thirteen years of Labour rule. It challenges the socialists’ claim that socialism brings a more equal society and aids the poor, and asks if socialism is simply the road to serfdom.

The Libertarian's Handbook offers an examination of the Leveson inquiry and makes a passionate and reasoned argument for the defence of the free press, explaining why a free press is essential for a free society.

The book concludes by detailing a new constitutional model. One that would be able to protect society from arbitrary rule and from absolute rule absolutely.

As part of a special offer, the first ever issue of the libertarian-conservative magazine the Prometheus Post is also included free with this book.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Richard Pinder
• Release date: Mar 10, 2013
• ISBN: 9781301589005

Richard Pinder

Richard Pinder is an author, journalist and business owner. He is the author of the Libertarian's Handbook, an epic length (over 100,000 words) work on civil rights. While he is also the editor and owner of the Prometheus Post. The Prometheus Post is a monthly libertarian-conservative electronic magazine. It stands for the advancement of freedom, justice and prosperity. The Prometheus Post offers serious political analysis in areas such as civil rights, justice, economics and business. It is also actively campaigning for British withdrawal from the European Union, along with offering insight into, and critique of, general political affairs.

Book preview

The Libertarian's Handbook

The Centre-Right Principles of Liberty

and the Case for a Constitution

Richard Pinder

Copyright Richard Pinder 2012 - 2013

Smashwords Edition

License notes to the Smashwords edition:

This electronic book is licensed for your enjoyment only. It may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase a copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of the author.

Richard Pinder is also the editor of The Prometheus Post. You can find out more about this publication, by visiting him at his profile at Smashwords

Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter One – Fundamentals of Liberty

Chapter Two – Life, Freedom, Property and Empowerment

Chapter Three – Effective Small-State Governance

Chapter Four – Welfare

Chapter Five – Culture, Society and Citizenship

Chapter Six – Law and Order

Chapter Seven – Socialist Governance

Chapter Eight – Liberty and Press Freedom

Chapter Nine – Principles of Democracy

Chapter Ten – Libertarian Governance

Summary Index

Your free copy of the Prometheus Post - March 2013

Introduction

We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give – Sir Winston Churchill, former British Prime Minister

Liberty is the most valuable commodity of them all. The greatest treasure and the most important possession. For when a society has liberty, it is truly free from the chains of oppression, the shackles of arbitrary rule and imprisonment by tyranny.

The great torch of liberty when held high brings forth an illumination which brings freedom to the people. A light that strengthens society through increased confidence and releases the flames of hope onto a nation, so that all might enjoy a better today and look forward to a brighter tomorrow.

The pursuit of liberty is the most humane and moral of all goals. For by laying down the foundations of freedom and building upon them, by shaping great pillars of freedom and conserving them, all of society can be liberated and all of a nation can know real liberty and empowerment, uplifting and strengthening all.

Yet despite all of this, liberty has come under assault over recent years, as various governments in different countries have designed systems, utilised principles and implemented laws that have clearly undermined and attacked freedom and democracy.

In Great Britain under the Labour Party, privacy was infringed by oppressive CCTV. Justice was violated by removing trial by jury in some trials. Freedom of expression was undermined by draconian libel laws. Even the right to self-governance has been violated in Great Britain through the transfer of significant powers of government to Brussels through the Lisbon Treaty.

Nor is this attack on liberty unique to Great Britain. In America, President Obama has expanded the power of the state at breathtaking speed, undermining personal choice and individual freedom, to replace them with the dictates of an ever more powerful state.

On the European continent also, there has been a drive to try and replace democratic government with bureaucratic government, an executive that never has to face the ballot, so therefore public opinion. European President Herman Van Rumpuy, for instance, was not elected by the people, but imposed by the elite of Brussels. This is a dangerous position, for it removes power directly from the people and so undermines their liberty.

The purpose of the state is not to serve itself, but to serve the needs of its people.

Sadly, at home and abroad, some who sit at the centre of the state have forgotten this prime principle of governance. This is why it is now time to reassert the idea of liberty itself through the centre-right principles of libertarianism; to argue for freedom and against oppression, for democracy and not autocracy, for a restrained state and not an arbitrary one, so that the torch of liberty might be held high once again. This argument, in short, is an argument for the bedrock of civilisation itself.

This, however, is not the only goal of this book. The other major goal is to demonstrate clearly, with hard evidence, why socialism does not work in practice and how what socialists espouse out of power is fundamentally different from, and even at times diametrically opposed to, what they actually do in power. As Great Britain had thirteen years of uninterrupted socialism, it is now possible to see what the real effects of socialism are, long term.

It is also the case that as socialists in all nations share the same principles and adopt similar means to governance, the effects of socialism in Great Britain will be very similar to the effects of long-term socialism in other nations such as America or Australia. This should be of interest to my conservative-leaning international readers. For if they wish to see what socialism will do in their nations, a good place to start would be to see precisely where socialism led in mine.

This is an overtly political book and I have no pretension that it is anything other than what it is. I firmly believe in right and wrong and standing up for that which is moral and just. I don’t believe in making excuses for politicians who are clearly acting in an oppressive manner. Nor do I believe in pretending all political ideologies are equal, when some are evidently hostile to liberty and damage society. I aim, in short, to tell it as it is.

Nor is this a work about abstract political philosophy. Nor a book with a broad set of goals of what can be done for society, without a road map to actually get there. This is a practical book and will explain clearly and in detail what the principles of libertarianism are, why we need them, how they can be applied in practice, what can be done to prevent the state from arbitrarily attacking freedom and how society can be liberated and empowered.

The first step towards such ends, so that the torch of liberty might be held high again, is to explain the evolution of liberty itself and its major principles. By explaining what people stood for and fought for in the past, it is my hope that these same ideas can be practically applied in the present, so that all might enjoy a more libertarian future.

The various freedoms that make up liberty are not abstract. They are inalienable truths and tangible rights. By the careful explanation of what each freedom means, everyone will be able to understand if they do or do not have each one. By extension, through this knowledge everyone will know what should be protected, so that liberty itself can be defended to the full.

Greater material wealth is, has been and will likely always be one of the greatest desires for most of the people in almost any society. This can be accomplished through effective, small-state governance. For, through a more effective and smaller state, service levels can be increased while taxation can be decreased. I intend to illustrate the practical principles that will enable taxation across a nation to be decreased overall, while improving how far each pound spent actually goes, so service quality is driven up. This will, of course, if implemented lead to a more prosperous nation and greater levels of individual wealth for all.

Furthermore, I examine if the socialist, big-state approach to economics really helps the poor. Opportunity is the great equaliser in life and through fair opportunities all can be given the chance to be everything that they are capable of becoming, irrespective of their material beginnings. Greater opportunity is easy enough to achieve in practice with the right principles; pragmatic principles I intend to explain in depth as part of this work.

I also look at the broadly socialist approach to welfare and the broadly conservative one and compare them, to indicate who really is helping social mobility and combating the conditions which cause poverty.

I intend to shed light on the abomination that is the politics of segregation. Apartheid is the official name given to the politics of segregation used in South Africa, its name meaning - quite literally - separateness. Apartheid brought inequality, tension, conflict and violence in its wake, turning brother onto brother, which is utterly racist and unacceptable. As part of this book, I will also compare apartheid to multiculturalism and examine if they are different or the same.

I intend also to explain the idea of cultural emancipation. Cultural emancipation demands that all should be united and empowered, irrespective of their race, faith or sex. This can be accomplished through the principles of equality before the law, civic responsibility and principled education, among the other pillars needed for a strong society.

Labour in power introduced legislation which gave the then Labour government sweeping powers over the individual in society, allowing them to watch, listen and record most of the people most of the time. The British in effect gave up many hard-won freedoms which Labour claimed would grant us greater security. As part of this work, I will conduct an in-depth and comprehensive study of the security measures introduced by Labour, such as CCTV, ID cards, Police Community Support Officers and other systems, asking if they actually made us any safer, and also illustrating a law-and-order system which would improve security without diminishing liberty: the preventative policing model.

The final chapters of this book include two extended essays of governance: one based on what socialism has meant in practice and the other on what libertarianism would mean in practice. I also include an examination of the Leveson Inquiry and of the state of the British press, and make the argument for why Great Britain needs a constitution.

This book ends by revealing what was, and presenting a choice of what could be.

Chapter One – Fundamentals of Liberty

That the greatest security of the people, against the encroachments and usurpations of their superiors, is to keep the spirit of liberty constantly awake, is an undeniable truth – Edmund Burke, former British Whig and Member of Parliament

In the beginning of modern civilisation the idea of liberty was forged. The idea of liberty is very much the greatest and richest product of the Renaissance, the period of time between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that saw great changes in the thinking of European society.

The Renaissance, literally translated as ‘rebirth’, started upon the rediscovery of ancient works left by the Romans and the Greeks, which contained knowledge that could be applied to every element of life such as science, maths, religion, ethics, the arts and politics.

When this knowledge was disseminated across the European continent, the people of Europe entered into a gradual period of enlightenment through more open debate leading to more discoveries, the emergence of reason and the rise of ethics and culture. The rebirth in question was that of civilisation itself, as morality, rationality and culture started to become the fabric of society.

In this period which saw the re-emergence of the ideas that are the bedrock of civilisation, arose the idea of the social contract. Social contract theory was the first attempt to determine under what circumstances government authority was legitimate, and it therefore defined for the first time the rights of the individual.

The first significant philosopher who contributed to the principles of the social contract was Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan in 1651. Hobbes argued that in order for a society to function there needed to be an agreement of sorts between the sovereign and the governed: a social contract.

This social contract, Hobbes argued, was important. For without order in society, a state would be in perpetual chaos and anarchy, and organised society would not be able to exist at all. The main idea of the social contract was that for a society to function, it was legitimate for society to surrender some of its rights so the state could act in a way which could serve the interests of society as a whole.

However, despite his establishment of the idea of a social contract, Hobbes went on to make a great folly, one which led to bloodshed and turmoil. Hobbes argued in Leviathan that supreme power should lie with one man, a monarch, with this one individual being allowed to wield absolute power and to use this power however they so wished, irrespective of how oppressive and arbitrary such a rule would be, and even if such rule in fact led to tyranny.

This, Hobbes argued, was justifiable as a monarch had the divine right to act in this way and he considered such a means the way forward to achieve the ends of a unified nation. The folly of Hobbes was shown when his ideas were put into practice; his proposed means to his ends brought division, bloodshed and civil war to England and to the early union which would one day turn into Great Britain.

King James II was very much the sort of leader envisioned in Leviathan and he reigned in England from 1685 until he abdicated and fled the country in 1688. During his brief reign King James II implemented absolute rule, a position which threatened and undermined national freedom and undermined the early elected parliament and its powers.

King James II attempted to move above the law and parliament itself, trying to give himself the absolute power to overrule the decisions of parliament. He routinely arrested judges and political opponents without just cause and imprisoned them without mandate. He brought in times of peace a standing army into the mainland, which often harmed the freedoms of the people. He also imposed large and arbitrary taxes on society.

To top all this off, it was becoming increasingly clear that he might try and give away the sovereignty of England and the early union to King Louis XIV of France, showing great disloyalty to the nation and disdain to its independence. King James II was an absolute ruler, a cruel man, an oppressive leader and a disloyal monarch. This absolute rule and outright disloyalty to his country led to his undoing.

The Tories and Whigs, the first and original parties of government, set a plan in motion to remove this absolute ruler and assert in time the supremacy of parliament over law-making. This they did by making a secret alliance with the non-absolutist William of Orange from the Netherlands. The deal being, that William could ascend to the British throne if he fought King James II, swore loyalty to England and the Union and supported parliamentary sovereignty and national freedoms. In essence William was invited to remove absolute rule and if he did so, the reward was the throne.

In 1688 all the pieces were in place, and England and the early union entered into a civil war known as the Glorious Revolution, with the support of William of Orange and his army. The cruel and disloyal King James II could count on little support from his people. So he abdicated and fled late in 1688 to France.

In 1689 William of Orange ascended to the throne and became King William III, removing the tyrant King James II. Yet what made this revolution glorious was more than the removal of a tyrant; it was also the revolution in ideas. For it was in 1689 that absolute rule ended for ever in the early union and that an elected parliament became the supreme power. It was in 1689 that ideas of classical liberalism rose like a phoenix from the ashes of the old order, bringing freedom, democracy and stability in its wake. The architect of this was John Locke, who very much forged this idea in terms of its principles, as parliament and King William III forged them in actions.

It was in 1689 that John Locke published his great work Two Treatises of Government. In the first essay he demolished the idea of absolute rule based on divine right. With his second essay he established the basis on which government is legitimate.

The fundamental principle of the work of John Locke was that of political equality. Locke argued that all people are politically equal and so, as all people are equal, all individuals have the same inalienable rights as everybody else.

It then follows that, in terms of a social contract in which the state is granted authority to act on behalf of society as a whole, this authority is only ever legitimate with the consent of the governed.

It is only ever legitimate in this way. For as those who are at the centre of the state have only as many rights as anyone else, it follows that they can only ever act legitimately if the majority of society, with their equal rights, give consent for the state to act on its behalf and in a way that does not arbitrarily infringe upon the liberties of others. Equally, a state is not legitimate if it does act arbitrarily and without the consent of the governed, as those who represent the state have no more right to do this than anyone else.

The ideas of Leviathan - in practice, absolute rule - led to oppression, conflict and in the end civil war and bloodshed. Far from bringing stability they clearly brought it down and the tyranny of King James II merely provoked the people and the parliament into action which led to civil war. They were flawed in principle and proved to be a failure in practice.

The assertion of the supremacy of elected parliament acting on behalf of society as a basis of government was also shown to be a success. Democracy brought stability to the early union and in 1707 England, Scotland and Wales became the United Kingdom. This stability, lacked by many other rival nations at the time, led to the ascendancy of the United Kingdom and in time the British Empire.

These ideas of Locke also spread to America, a great nation in its own right and now one of the most powerful nations on Earth. Parliamentary democracy also spread to nations such as Australia, India and New Zealand, based on early English ideas, leading to the gradual establishment of democracy across significant elements of the Earth and freedom for their people.

It was because Great Britain was ahead, and believed so strongly in the principles of modern democracy, that she and the children of her empire were able to defeat Hitler and free Western Europe from the tyrannical grasp of the Nazis, liberating most of Europe.

The fruits of 1689 have truly influenced and shaped the globe, leading to the establishment of freedom and democracy, in time, across Europe, Australasia, America and parts of Asia and Africa. This is why the principles of Locke are supreme.

Locke’s democratic principles can be summarised thus:

The purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizens of the nation and only rightfully exists with the consent of the governed. Consent is given through the democratic vote and this enables government to take decisions on behalf of citizens within the rule of law.

John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty in 1859 was the next significant British philosopher to contribute to the ideas of freedom. The important aspect of John Stuart Mill’s work was to define when it was ethical to interfere with individuals’ actions and when it was not. This idea he called the ‘harm principle’.

The definition of the harm principle from John Stuarts Mill’s classic book On Liberty is thus:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection.… The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or to forebear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others to do so would be wise or even right.… The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

To put all this in simpler terms, it is the principle that if a person’s actions don’t harm others, they should be allowed to carry out these actions regardless if others agree with those actions or not. The only time that other individuals or the state have any right to interfere with the actions of any other individual is when they cause harm to others.

To adhere to the harm principle means to act with a presumption of benevolence towards others, that is, first and foremost to act with kindness and tolerance, and always to respect each individual’s ways even when they are not your own, and always to respect each persons choices, even if these choices are not to personal taste, and to adopt a stance of non-interference unless this non-interference causes harm to others.

The harm principle goes very much hand-in-hand with the ideas of Locke and of political equality. For if all are politically equal, no one, be they another individual or the state itself, has the right to cause harm to another, as all have the same rights. If, however, one individual acts as an aggressor and tries to harm a life, that individual or the state acting on behalf of that individual does have the right to prevent this, as the aggressor simply does not have the right to act as they do. For to do so would mean acting above political equality, which can never be legitimate.

The harm principle is a strong ethic, for it establishes the limitations of government in relation to liberty and when it is just and unjust for a government to intervene in the actions of an individual. What the harm principle doesn’t take into consideration in terms of liberty, however, is how to resolve a potential conflict between the freedoms of two or more individuals. But this can also be resolved in relation to who is or is not acting in a coercive manner.

This again all comes back to political equality as the main basis of liberty itself. Quite simply, as all have political equality and thus an equal claim to the same rights as everyone else, no one has the right to arbitrarily remove the rights from another. For to do so would violate the freedoms of another.

Equally, if one individual is attempting to commit this violation, they are in the wrong, and the individual this is being done to has the right to prevent this from happening; or to expect the state to do so on their behalf, according to the law. Finally, this can be identified by determining who in any given situation is acting in a coercive manner and thus removing choice from another individual. This principle can be demonstrated though the use of several examples.

If an individual chooses to live in a house next to a nightclub it would be fair to assume that they will have evenings when the music is very loud. However, if they have chosen to live in an area where there clearly is loud music, they don’t have the right to complain about loud music and encroach on the freedom of music enthusiasts to enjoy music, as they have chosen to put themselves in that position. If they then prevent people from enjoying music in such a situation, they would only be able to do so coercively, which is very much against the principles of liberty.

If, however, a new neighbour moves into a quiet area and consciously plays very loud music, disturbing the privacy and peace of neighbours, this would not be just, as the people living next to the excessively loud neighbour wouldn’t have a choice whether they do or do not listen to the excessively loud music. So in effect they would be coerced into doing so.

If an individual walks into a pub and it is a non-smoking pub, they don’t have the right to light up a cigarette in the presence of non-smokers, for the non-smokers in such an establishment would be coerced into inhaling smoke and choice would be removed from them.

If, however, a non-smoker goes into a pub and it is clear that smoking is allowed throughout, they don’t have the right to ask others not to smoke, as they have the choice of entering or not entering such an establishment.

If a person attends a colourful or clearly blue entertainment act and then they are offended, they would have no grounds to complain of any offence caused, as they have the choice to attend such an act or not attend such an act. They don’t have the right to infringe on the freedom of speech of the entertainer, for they have chosen to attend and such an infringement would involve forcing a view onto others.

If, however, there was a monopoly on entertainment, such would be wrong, as the individual would in effect be coerced into watching particular programmes or points of view; they would not have a choice.

To be liberated is to be free from coercion, where to be coerced is to be subject to the arbitrary will of another. What might first appear to be a conflict of freedoms is in reality not a conflict of freedoms at all.

If an individual has choice, they have freedom. If one individual removes choice from another, they can do so only if they act in a coercive manner. Acting in a coercive manner is of course, fundamentally, completely against the ideas of liberty and freedom. Choice in essence represents the idea of free will.

This leads me my choice principle, which is thus:

Fundamental to freedom is choice, for without choice an individual is not free at all, as to have choice removed is to be compelled to the arbitrary will of another. Therefore no individual has the right to remove or refuse choice from another, except when another individual attempts to impose their personal choice or choices upon them.

Between the harm principle and the choice principle it is possible to create a moral framework that defends the freedoms of the individual. This, however, is only one aspect of liberty, for the other relates to the empowerment of the individual and the ethical lifting-up of society. An individual confined to poverty is not free, neither is an individual who cannot make use of services if they lay beyond his or her financial reach.

Before the twentieth century the liberal movement could be broadly described as conservative in its character, in terms of placing great emphasis on the freedoms of the individual and favouring the free market. However, during the twentieth century the liberal movement moved leftwards.

About a century ago in Great Britain there was no national health service, no welfare state, poor services in general and poverty was a real issue for some. The liberal movement realised that leaving elements of society in such dire circumstances was quite simply unethical. This of course led to the liberal movement looking for new means to tackle such problems.

In Great Britain the old Liberal Party started adapting more and more left-wing ideas and changed from being a liberal party in the classical and conservative sense to being a liberal party with its ideas of liberty based on a more moderate version of socialism, advocating greater levels of state intervention and higher levels of restriction on business.

A similar change happened in America with the Democratic Party adopting more leftist beliefs. In both instances the ideology which came to prominence in the twentieth century, under the flag of liberty, is known as ‘social liberalism’.

One of the main contributors to the thinking of social liberalism was John Maynard Keynes. His contributions to social liberalism were economic. Among other principles he suggested the enlargement of the state and greater intervention in the economy, in order to try and provide more jobs.

However, the principles of Keynes and the social-liberals, in this respect, do not enhance liberty. On the contrary, they in fact greatly diminish freedom; equally, they do not in the longer term empower society either.

Furthermore, the combination of socialism with liberalism has, in my view, perverted and contaminated the idea of liberty. For socialism, as I will demonstrate with clarity throughout this book, is intrinsically a deeply oppressive ideology and therefore incompatible with the philosophy of liberty.

In the first sense, the idea of enlarging the state, as per the thinking of Keynes, is wrongheaded in terms of enhancing liberty. Firstly in the context of individual freedom, for it directly undermines individual freedom. Secondly, in the present day the overwhelming majority of the Left divide liberty into two categories: positive liberty and negative liberty. Positive liberty, according to this school of thought, is associated with empowering the state and argues that the empowerment of the state leads to the empowerment of society. Negative liberty, according to this school of thought, consists of the freedoms of the individual, such as freedom of speech or the freedom to own property.

From the onset as a negative has been attached to a person’s individual freedoms and a positive has been attached to the power of the state. It implies by definition that any power invested into the state is positive and any freedom that an individual has is negative.

This thinking, however, is dangerous. For if it is followed through to its conclusion, in which state power is held as a positive and personal freedom is held as a negative, the state can justify any amount of intrusion into the life of the individual (which is positive in this sense) and remove any amount of individual freedom (which is negative in this sense) and claim it is acting liberally. Clearly this would not increase liberty, as freedom has been reduced and (if this thinking is taken to its final conclusion) destroyed altogether.

An example which illustrates such is the governance of Russia, back when it was a communist state and before the fall of the Berlin Wall. When Russia was a communist country the state had absolute power. Russia, using the positive and negative liberty definition, was a country with complete positive liberty.

The Russian people, however, had no freedom to vote, no freedom to own property, no freedom to express political views; which in the context of positive and negative liberty was unimportant, as freedom in these terms was negative.

Clearly, a people living in poverty and under an oppressive regime are not liberated. Yet while using the positive and negative definitions of liberty, communist Russia would be a nation with perfect positive liberty. This demonstrates that the division of liberty into positive and negative liberty is simply false and wrong-headed and equally perverse, as freedom is stripped away. Therefore such a definition cannot be classed within the philosophy of liberty at all. There is no positive and negative liberty: merely real freedom or socialist oppression.

In practice, why the enlargement of the state leads to the erosion of liberty is simple enough to explain. In a small state what a government provides for is that which is essential to society and reasonably expected by society: for instance, the army, a court system and schools. In short, a small state provides jobs which add value to society, such as police officers, doctors and teachers.

As per the social-liberal and leftist view in general, when the state expands itself it can only ever do so by creating jobs that have no value, as the jobs which are valued have already by definition been taken. However, these jobs which add no value, or non-jobs as they are commonly known, must have some function in order for them to be created in the first place. As they cannot by definition add value to society, they can only ever decrease value to society.

As the jobs that create value, and those things which society wants, have been taken, this new workforce can only therefore engage in activities that are neither wanted nor needed. This of course means greater levels of intrusion into the lives of the individual and of business, which directly means the level of freedom of the individual will decrease and business will perform less optimally. This, of course, will cause more businesses to crash and unemployment to increase.

Also, increasing the size of the state will not empower society from an economic perspective either. In simple terms the private sector creates wealth, provides for work and produces taxes, while the public sector doesn’t produce wealth and consumes taxes. If the tax-consuming sector becomes too large, the tax-producing sector will suffer and more people will become unemployed.

This was a point made by the economist Friedrich von Hayek in opposition to the work of Keynes. He also went on to say that as the state increased in size and the private sector weakened or stagnated, inflation would also increase, making everything relatively more expensive and leading to higher stagnation and inflation together, in an effect Hayek called ‘stagflation’.

In the 1970s, both in the United States of America and in Great Britain, the large- public-sector approach led to stagflation and large-scale unemployment, thus proving the work of Hayek. Therefore the large-government approach, as it causes greater levels of poverty and unemployment, doesn’t empower society at all. In fact it does the precise opposite, as the evidence demonstrates.

Also, money taken in this way is taken in an arbitrary way. For such money isn’t used in a way to benefit society, in the sense of empowerment. It is used in a way that directly hinders society and diminishes freedom.

Then along with the major intellectual flaws I have outlined with the philosophy of social-liberalism, there are other baggage issues that come with foolishly trying to combine the ideas of liberty with socialism. Namely, full-on socialist ideas can creep into a social-liberal party, and in this way freedom can be deeply undermined.

For instance, in Marxist socialism the idea of patriotism, which means in the correct sense being loyal to the men and women in an individual’s country, is considered to be a false form of consciousness. Therefore in socialism, since it is wrong to be patriotic it means that it is justifiable not to act in a nation’s best interests, or even to acknowledge the idea of a nation.

In Great Britain the Liberal Democrats pledged that they would give the British public the right to a vote on any European treaty that transferred power from Great Britain to Brussels. Yet when it came to the Lisbon Treaty they supported it and refused to give the British a vote. The Conservative Party, incidentally, was the only major party that voted against the Lisbon Treaty.

Clearly, in terms of the philosophy of liberty, freedom of choice is a very central idea, for freedom of choice is the difference between free will and subservience. Yet the Liberal Democrats refused outright to allow the British public a choice on an issue that the majority of the British wanted a say on. Not only was this wrong in terms of going against public free will, through denying people an important choice, it was compounded in terms of the sheer magnitude of that denial of choice, as the choice related to the transfer of significant powers from Britain to Brussels.

The excuse they gave for going against giving the British a vote on the transfer of sovereignty was that ‘it was the wrong sort of referendum’ and what they wanted was an in-or-out vote with regards to Europe. In May 2008 Lord Pearson of Rannoch attempted to chair a motion in the House of Lords for a referendum on European membership. This the Liberal Democrats opposed, effectively helping to defeat the motion.

Clearly, this rubbished their earlier claim. The socially-liberal Liberal Democrat Party clearly went out-and-out to refuse people a choice on an important issue, flying in the face of what the polls suggest: that this is an issue which the electorate does wish to be consulted on. The Liberal Democrats clearly are not that democratic, as the point of democracy is to serve the wishes of the people, which the Liberal Democrats are not doing.

The Liberal Democrats are also pursuing and advocating policies that seriously put the liberty of the nation at deep risk. Life is the most sacred and important liberty of them all and the protection of life is the first and most important duty of government.

Yet the Liberal Democrats, both out of power and in coalition government, have been attempting to remove from Great Britain its independent nuclear deterrent, by opposing Trident.

The reason why Trident is important in the defence of the nation is that by its very existence, it dissuades conventional war. No nation would risk a direct war against Great Britain while it has a capable nuclear defence system, as it would risk annihilation.

In the Cold War the reason why Russia could not go into open war with America and Great Britain was simply because if it did so, Russia would face nuclear destruction. As the costs of war were too great, a war didn’t happen. A capable nuclear deterrent did, on this occasion, in all likelihood prevent the Cold War from turning into a very warm war and did, by extension, most likely save many lives on all sides.

If Great Britain got rid of its nuclear weapons tomorrow, it would put the lives of every British citizen at risk, as Great Britain’s foes - and not only those of today, but potential foes in the future - would be able to wage war without paying as high a cost. This of course would make war far more likely.

The second major consequence of disposing of Great Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent would be that the nation would be open to nuclear blackmail. Even if Great Britain did get rid of its nuclear weapons, nations such as Russia and China would not. Nor would nuclear disarmament in Great Britain prevent rogue states, such as some of the ones in the Middle East, from developing their own nuclear weapons.

Now, if a rogue state, or a former neutral nation such as China, suddenly turned aggressive, they could demand whatever they wanted and Great Britain could not refuse, putting Great Britain into a position of weakness. The point of a nuclear deterrent is not actually to use it, but to have a weapon whose power is so great it ‘deters’ other nations from attacking the country and thus prevents most serious wars from happening in the first place.

As the disposal of trident would directly put the lives of every citizen of the nation at direct risk and as it would make direct war against Great Britain more likely and open the people of Great Britain to nuclear blackmail, the Liberal Democrat opposition to Trident seriously undermines freedom in Great Britain.

Ironically the Liberal Democrats of Britain often cite the voting system as being wrong, as in their system of proportional representation, those who come second or third would get more seats. The problem isn’t the system; it’s their policies and political positioning. For how can a party that shows no loyalty to the country ask for the country to show loyalty to them? Nor can a party expect people to believe what they would stand for in power, if they cannot even stand by their promises out of power.

Social-liberalism diminishes the freedoms of the individual and undermines personal empowerment. Furthermore, it can lead to an overbearing state and also allows socialism to get in through the back door.

This is why at the turn of the last century when the British Liberal Party moved towards socialism, it stopped becoming a significant power and has never held a majority government since. For those who believe in socialism voted for Labour and those who believed in the primacy of the idea of liberty refused to back a party who advocated principles that clearly went against freedom. Equally, this is why in my view the word ‘liberal’ in America holds a negative meaning, for many in the States also correctly recognise that social-liberalism is far removed from the ideas of liberty.

In the modern day, however, there is a growing desire for the ideas of liberty to gain dominance. Society in general seems to be becoming more and more averse to the creep of the big state. Yet in order for society to gain real freedom and genuine empowerment the philosophy of liberty must be based on a solid foundation.

That solid foundation is conservatism, for conservatism works with the free market, thus increasing freedom, and not against the free market. It is based on the practical and not the idealistic. It seeks to encourage aspiration, not envy, and is an idea based on respect for, not opposition to, the rule of law.

This new thinking in liberty is known as ‘libertarianism’ and is based on centre-right principles, as opposed to liberalism, which is based on unworkable socialist principles. The error of the social liberals is that they tried to replace a philosophy that worked with one that did not.

Instead, through libertarianism the ideas of liberty are grown organically on hard-headed conservative foundations, with principles added to practical conservative ideas, instead of replacing ideas that work with ideas that don’t. Libertarianism is conservatism-plus, in essence.

There remains, however, a single question on the issue of empowerment: how to lift up society and improve the quality of life for all, without compromising right-headed principles.

Genuine empowerment based on libertarian