My Next Vote Goes To The Libertarian Party

Reply to the comment left by rob david at 14/12/2017 - 01:27
Obviously if the population was growing/hadn't grown so much there would not be the same level of demand. But then would the same number of properties have been built? Would there still be a shortage of affordable homes especially in the South East?
But we are where we are, other than immigration, it's almost impossible to control population growth, unless draconian measures like legislating on maximum family size is introduced cf. China

Reply to the comment left by Barry Fitzpatrick at 14/12/2017 - 07:48
You’re certainly correct on population, which is the rising “demand” part of the problem.
There are two parts: babies and immigration. Neither of these are a problem.
What is a problem is WELFARE. And I really need to make a video on our welfare proposals!
Many people, maybe even most people, have babies which they cannot afford to raise without state financial help. This is not responsible. A person without kids, or someone who raised kids without help, should not be expected to contribute financially to upbringing someone else’s kids. It’s unethical to force them to do so, in my opinion. So we need to phase out the various benefits such as child benefit, child tax credits etc. That means an end to new claimants. And phasing out others over a 5 year period.
Of course, some would argue “what if a relationship breaks up? That happens, that’s life, not lack of responsibility.” Point taken. But I would also counter argue that benefit payments are leading many women to feel safe enough financially to have babies with partners they’re not 100% committed to or in love with. They might think twice if they know there are no benefits.
As for immigration, I must add in the usual “I’m not a racist” caveats. My wife is a Russian immigrant. And most of our friends are Eastern European. I’m almost an immigrant. I’m British but lived abroad most of my life. That being said, many immigrants, even those who are good hard-working people, receive state financial support. They often receive working tax credits and housing benefits. They get homes from councils and housing associations.
I have absolutely nothing against migrants who come here to work and make a good life for themselves. But they must not receive any taxpayer funded support.

We can’t reduce births or immigration down to zero without recourse to dictatorships. But we can do a lot to solve the problem with more freedom. Stop taking money off the strivers to give it to others in benefits. And you will see demand for housing fall over the long-term.

Please consider joining the Libertarian Party. Help us change the direction we’re headed in. http://www.libertarianpartyuk.com

Will Taylor
Deputy Leader of the Libertarian Party

Reply to the comment left by Will Taylor at 14/12/2017 - 09:37"There are two parts: babies and immigration. "
This is too simplistic, there is also greater longevity, higher divorce rates, and people remaining single for longer (and no longer living in the family home). There are also big regional variations.
"Stop taking money off the strivers to give it to others in benefits. And you will see demand for housing fall over the long-term."
I don't see how this will reduce the demand for housing.

Reply to the comment left by Will Taylor at 14/12/2017 - 09:37
Hi Will. Ending welfare benefits would lead to carnage. My siblings and I were brought up on benefits from when I was 10 and the others older. All 4 of us went on to be constantly employed and paying taxes for decades. My father had more or less had a breakdown after my mother left us and previously had regularly worked 80 hour weeks on the buses to make ends neet. He couldn't keep that job and also look after us. Had there been no benefits I don't know where we'd have ended up - in care, unless that safety net also went...

Let's not berate Will (I am not saying anyone is, just there's a danger we might going by the direction seen in other media), but rather suggest how he might have policies to deal with population growth, immigration and the jolly big benefits bill.

Reply to the comment left by rob david at 14/12/2017 - 01:27 "Is it housing, or more accurately a population crisis ? The utility & food supply Co's put uk heads at around 80m." .

Now that is interesting. Worth a debate on statistics and our ability to count.

Reply to the comment left by Barry Fitzpatrick at 14/12/2017 - 10:36
Hi Barry,

The "strivers" comment at the end of my last post is a conclusion of what I said. Reduce the welfare incentives for people to procreate and immigrate and you will reduce demand for housing (in the long-term).

And yes, I agree, housing demand is MUCH more complicated than just babies and immigration. I guess the point I didn't make is that government has no power to influence life expectancy or divorce rates, nor should it. These are outside of our direct control. What we can do is reduce state intervention, both in housing policy and welfare.

Best regards,

Will

Reply to the comment left by Will Taylor at 14/12/2017 - 16:44
Absolutely, the State should be there for a "hand up" not a "hand out"

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 14/12/2017 - 11:07
Hi Ros, thanks for sharing your story. It's quite striking how similar our stories are. My father was a bus driver, worked long hours, and ended up have two breakdowns. One when I was 13, the second when I was 18. From age 13 onwards on we mostly scraped by on benefits. Where would you and me have ended up without welfare? Who knows?
That being said, libertarian policies are all based on the same moral foundation: each individual person has the right to their own life, and to their own property. They have the right to live their lives as they see fit, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others.
That seems like a reasonable enough moral philosophy? Well it is, but when you start to study the practical implications of it, it does get a bit tricky!
As property professionals, we are the first to complain when the State infringes upon our individual rights when they tax us, or create rules to protect tenants. And we are right to complain (in my opinion).
However, if we truly adhere to the above moral principle, then we can't complain when we also apply it to welfare. No matter how noble the intention, it is theft to force a person to hand over money. It really doesn't matter what what the money will be used for. It is theft. And that is, in my opinion, quite immoral.
Taxation is theft. Or extortion in some cases. Is the Libertarian Party a zero tax party? No. Because that would make us dangerous ideologues. We need some tax to run a criminal justice system and military defence, which are the basics of any civilised society. But any tax more than the bare minimum is just simple theft. Calvin Coolidge, the 30th American president said as much.
So, where does that leave us? And more importantly, where does that leave the people who are dependent on welfare?
I would suggest that this is a problem we should try to solve with more freedom, rather than less. Libertarians believe that the State has taken over and largely monopolised what was a thriving charity sector in the first half of the 20th century. Where the recipients of charity mostly felt gratitude for the help, now welfare is expected, and is something entitled to. We have bought into the socialist idea that the State should look after us from "cradle to grave". Well, it's doing a pretty terrible job if you ask me. Disabled people dying of starvation. The elderly being abused in care homes. Social care in crisis. Patients waiting weeks for the results of tumour biopsies, to the point where the cancer becomes untreatable... The State is incapable of looking after us. I would like to see State welfare phased out over a long period of time. Possibly as long as 20 years, if that is what is needed to reduce the pain of being weaned off this addiction to welfare.
What will people on benefits do? Two things:
1. Some will be quite able to fend for themselves. We give too many benefits to people who are quite capable of working longer hours (the working and child tax credits).
2. Some will need some help, from someone. Even temporarily. The question is WHO should help? The answer is simple: people who are willing to help. Family. Friends. Neighbours. Concerned citizens. You and me. Charities.
We don't need the State to look after those who can't look after themselves. That's our job. And we'd do it a lot better in my opinion. There is some terrific grassroots work taking place in Hull, without government help.

The Libertarian Party are quite supportive of the idea of helping those in need. But those who help should not be forced to help. We, as individuals, should have the right to choose who to help, how we help, how much we help, when we help, and in what capacity (either financial, or practical).

That's the libertarian viewpoint at least. And it's not one that everyone shares, I will grant you that. But if someone claims to agree with the basic moral principle I outlined above, this is where it leads us in practice. Freedom to help others, as much as we choose to.

With respect, I do not agree that removing welfare would lead to carnage. Some temporary pain perhaps. But it is not the removal of welfare that causes the pain. It is the awful situations that people find themselves in. Welfare is a government safety net. Removal of it does not cause the chaos. The chaos is caused by the breakdowns, the job losses, the illnesses, and all of the other tragedies that we face. Again, those who are concerned about the consequences of removing welfare are free to contribute and help those in need as much as they like.

So I advocate helping those in need. But without the large-scale theft.

Best regards,

Will