"Nobody supports complete freedom of speech"

That's the line that always gets thrown back at libertarians or indeed anyone defending the right to print cartoons that offend some people.  That lack of absolutism in freedom of speech is seen as justification for any exception that anyone wants to claim, which of course means the "right" doesn't exist.

However, the argument that there is no absolute unrestricted right to free speech and so free speech is "up for grabs" is from the same school of thought as those who claim you can't have absolute freedom or anyone can do violence to anyone else.

It's missing the point that the issue is around individual rights, and that restrictions on free speech are not restrictions on individual rights, but the boundaries between individual rights.  It is the same as my right to use my body as I wish, as long as I do not deny that same right to others.  Otherwise I am not asserting an individual right that all people have, but asserting privilege to do as I wish to others that I am not extending to others.

The same applies to the boundaries of free speech.

So what are these boundaries from a libertarian perspective?

No right to use platforms or property owned by others:   You can say, write or produce media if you wish, but you have no right to demand others provide you a platform to do so.  You do not have a right to demand a newspaper print your article, nor do you have a right to be on someone's private property and do as you wish against the wishes of the property owner.  The quid pro quo is that neither does anyone have a right to demand you print their articles, or be on your property and say or distribute content that you disapprove of.   Say what you wish on your own property, say what you wish on your own platform (and bear in mind this means there are no restrictions on who can publish, broadcast or produce content or talk), or as is often the case, obey the rules of someone else's platform.  This also includes accepting the rules of property that you enter.  When you enter a cinema, the classic shouting "fire" is likely to be a rule that would get you ejected from the premises, but also subject you to a lawsuit for the harm done to the owner and the others who acted on the false call.   Free speech, as with all actions are constrained by property rights. 

No right to use the intellectual property of others, without their permission:   Copyright and patents are the cornerstone of many industries and careers.  Those who apply their minds to pens, computers, paintbrushes, musical instruments and even their voices, have the right to own what they produce and to sell the proceeds of the products of their minds.  It is hardly a restriction on your own speech to simply reproduce that of another, if the other's speech is not restricted.

Defamation is about property rights too: Whilst less material, one's reputation is still something that belongs to you and has value, as it affects employment, business and personal relationships.  If someone distributes content that is demonstrably false which seriously diminishes your reputation (i.e. claims of criminal conduct), then there is a right to not only respond with free speech, but to claim financial damages for the harm done.  This does not prohibit such speech, but means that the damage done due to such speech can be claimed.

Censorship of recordings of crimes against the person:  There is no justification for restricting written, drawn, painted or virtual depictions of any events, as this is a creative endeavour that involve no person other than the creator/producer.  By contrast deliberate video, still or audio recordings of actual violent or sexual crimes being committed (recording made with the knowledge the crime would be committed, rather than security cameras incidentally recording the commission of a crime), are a part of the actual offence, as the person who made the recording is an accessory to it.  In such cases, such recordings should be the property of the victim, and can be used as evidence of the original crime, or treated as the victim wishes.  If the victim is not identified, the recordings are evidence of a crime and should be treated as such, until the victim is identified and can specify the fate of the recording.  This is how so-called "snuff" films, child pornography and recordings of actual rapes should be treated, as they are extensions of the actual crime.  Recordings of any other legal behaviour, regardless of it being sexually explicit, including simulated crimes, are different, as these are not crimes.  Recordings of acts without the consent of those involved could be considered violations of property rights (if the recording is undertaken without the consent of the owner or person with licence to occupy the property from the owner) or, if the other party or parties are aware of the recording, as void consent (consent obtained under objectively fraudulent circumstances). 

Prohibitions against threats are an extension of the crimes that are being threatened:  A threat to commit a crime against another is a crime, it is the possible step before the attempt to commit a crime.  The threat is itself an initiation of force, as it may result in the victim responding in submission to the threat.   In this case the speech is an initiation of force that denies the right of the recipient to live in peace.  This does not change if it is a group of individuals making threats to a single or a group of individuals, in other words it covers true hate speech, being the use of speech to threaten violence.

Fraud:  You can make statements that are false, or false claims, or lie about the contract that you are making with another party, but all of these can be subject to criminal and/or civil action for fraud.  This is, in effect, another form of initiating force, for it leads people to enter into contracts, exchanging value, on the basis of a lie, so that value is not exchanged on the basis upon which it was originally agreed. 

In all of these cases of limitations on free speech, the limitation is a demarcation of the boundaries between  the same rights held by all individuals concerned, whether they be property rights or the right to decide what one does with one's own body (recording violations or obtaining consent fraudulently being the violations).  They are not limitations based on a party being offended or in some statist definition of protecting public morals.

So no, those of us who argue for unrestricted free speech are not hypocrites when these limitations which are consistent with individual rights are quoted as the boundaries to free speech.  That is why those arguing for free speech, but also supporting "hate speech" laws fall victim to the claims by Islamists that insulting "the prophet" is "hate speech" because Islamists consider "insulting  the prophet" to be a greater offence than "hate speech" towards Muslims.

Do those of us arguing for free speech say everyone should be offensive to everyone else? No.  It is neither rational nor intelligent nor even ethical to be a whimsical vulgarian, but if it does not infringe upon the rights of others, then it is not the role of the state to use force to control it.

Within this is the right to insult any philosophy, whether based on religion or based on a this-wordly set of beliefs, regardless of how rational or whimsical they are.  It includes the right to insult any art, any speech, any person, and to praise as well.  Yes, it means that frequently you'll be offended, as will I, probably about different things, different words, images or sounds.   

However, it is only through free speech that human beings can learn from each other, can apply their minds to the full evidence of expressions from each other and respond accordingly, with speech or actions.  The right to free speech is the most fundamental egalitarian right that there is, for it is a statement that no power has the right to use force to close your voice, no power knows better than you as to what words, sounds, images and objects you can see and interpret and the sole limit on this is when your production or consumption of speech violates another.

Sky News UK shuts down journalist for trying to show Charlie Hebdo image

Those of us with libertarian/small government leanings have tended to think of Sky News more positively than other UK television news outlets.  The "pay the TV licence or be prosecuted" BBC has long had a reputation for being statist and left-leaning, and state-owned, but commercial Channel 4 is not much better.  ITV News has tended to be less that way. However, Sky News was always thought as being a bit more (if less well resourced) towards the so-called "right", and more challenging of the "what's the Government going to do about it.." narrative that is the default for interviews from so many other journalists.

No more.  Whilst the BBC chose to briefly show the cover of the Charlie Hebdo commemorative edition this week on its 10.30pm Newsnight programme, Sky News (as a rolling news channel) has repeatedly stated that it has made an editorial decision to not show the image on the cover of Charlie Hebdo, seen on the right here.  

 

Of course Sky News, as a privately owned, commercial broadcaster, has every right to make editorial decisions to not show content if it so wishes.  In the grand Voltairean tradition, I respect and would wholeheartedly defend this right, even if, as I do in this case, vehemently oppose the decision itself.  

However, what happened yesterday evening (Wednesday 14 January) on Sky News was rather more disturbing and offensive, as it consisted of shutting down the interview and the attempt by a French journalist Caroline Fourest.  It had shades of an embarrassed state broadcaster under an authoritarian regime that suddenly had to switch from something embarrassing. The Guido Fawkes blog has the video which I repeat below

Caroline Fourest was displaying, quite correctly, the disappointment and barely veiled contempt for British journalists (as none of the national newspapers have printed the cover on their covers, a couple have printed versions as large as the one above) for not actually standing up for French journalism.  They say #JeSuisCharlie as a hashtag, but none have the courage of Charlie Hebdo.  

Furthermore, Sky News apologises for an "offence caused" by the split second showing of the image, but is completely uninterested in the offence caused to thousands of viewers who are not Islamists, because Sky News insults their intelligence or emotional stability in not being able to handle seeing it.

It is as if it equates showing the image with an endorsement of the content of the image, rather than showing the image in the context of the news item being discussed.   Sky News readily shows clips from ISIS or Al Qaeda videos, but nobody assumes it does this as an endorsement of what is being said.  Sky also regularly shows content that "some viewers may find distressing" or "offensive" involving corpses, the badly injured or distressed.  Real people suffering, which some call "war porn" or "disaster porn".  It isn't difficult to see why it is offensive to some to repeat video footage of the last moments of someone's life, but Sky does it, as it is part of a story with the implication that it should be stopped or relief provided to those suffering.

Yet Sky News has decided not to show the image at all, even with a warning.  Why?  Well Sky wont say,  but there are three most rational conclusions:

1.  Fear of reprisals:  If Sky News genuinely feared its staff would be targeted if it showed the image, then it should say so.  Would it imply that security is not sufficient to protect them?  Perhaps.  Would it imply that the Police have indicated they would not be responsible for protecting them?  If so, we should know this.  Would it indicate that media outlets in the UK may be self-censoring because UK based Islamists are threatening and bullying them?  If so, we also should know this, because it indicates that the claims made by David Cameron that broadcasters should feel free to show or not show what they wish, within the law, as rather empty.  If our media feels at risk from offending Islamists, what next?  It means we are on a slippery slope and the Government's attention needs to shift from talk of passing new laws, to actively protecting those wishing to exercise free speech.

2. Empathy with the "offended":  The least likely, but most disturbing interpretation is that Sky News has  "agreed" the images of the Prophet Muhammed are offensive, and that it is more important to not offend a sub-set of Muslim viewers, than to not offend those who consider the self-censorship to be disgusting or childish.  In short, it would mean Sky News has taken the side of the Islamists, implying all Muslims would be offended, and their offence is worth more than mine.

3. It's not newsworthy: Sky News may have decided that the publication of Charlie Hebdo isn't important, against queues at hospital A & E, energy policy, prospective party leader debates on TV etc.  This would be just fine, there is a lot of news broadcasters don't cover because time is limited.  However, this isn't credible given  the extensive coverage given including correspondents in Paris and of course the offending interview with a French journalist. 

Of course there is a fourth conclusion, which I believe is the most likely.  A panicked, confused and kneejerk reaction has been made based on:

- Copying what other UK broadcasters and print media have done, as a default;

- Fear of reprisals expressed by some staff;

- Some commercial concern that by allowing the image to be shown, it would face viewer or even advertiser boycotts (which is dubious, indeed the opposite reaction could be true);

- A decision that SkyNews did not want to be "the news story itself" by being the only broadcaster in the UK to show it (even though half of UK households have access to multiple TV news channels from many countries, some of which have shown it).

Sky will, I suspect, stick to this line, unless a growing number of viewers and high profile figures demand it apologise for the offence caused by its self-censorship.

In one move Sky has:

- Offended non-Islamists who, as adults (and indeed children as well) can judge for themselves if the benign comic image above is offensive or not.  Instead Sky has judged for them;

- Offended Muslims who do not hold to the theological position that any drawing of Mohammed is offensive.  Sky has presumed to know best for them;

- Demonstrated that it is not, by any means, able to say Je Suis Charlie.  It does not uphold standards of journalistic freedom or courage.  

Notably, broadcaster Iain Dale on Sky News, as a regularly commentator in a review of the next day's newspapers, noted that Sky News is a large organisation, capable of defending itself, by contrast to the small independent newsagents around Britain and in France, who are stocking Charlie Hebdo, at some risk to their own lives and livelihoods.   Watch his response here:

Sky News has disgraced its reputation, has shown itself to be meek, timid and either easily intimidated, or simply appeasers of those who want Islamist blasphemy law to apply in the UK.

It doesn't show solidarity with journalists in France, or journalists that are anywhere taking on those who wish to kill them for reporting that which offends those who want power over our lives.  It shows a muddled, pablum like complacency, sitting with the mediocre, middle ground of "let's talk a lot about it, but don't rock the boat in case we get called names or threatened".

Let's be very clear.  Sky News has taken sides.

The side it has taken is not one against laws of blasphemy, it is not one against religions censoring that which they find offensive, it is not one of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, journalists who confront state or clerical censorship or threats of violence in doing their jobs.  It is not one with the vast majority of their viewers who are not Islamists, nor is it with those offended by the infantile treatment of a benign image.

It's not to side with freedom, an unalloyed defence of Western civilisation and the right for full, free and frank debate.  It's to side with fear, appeasement and to follow "the group", moreover it is, regardless of intent, to side with those who demand that Islamist definitions of blasphemy be followed in editorial decisions. 

and broadcasters wonder sometimes why they are losing audiences...

UPDATE:  Nick Cohen in the Spectator has another excellent take on this issue.

The left has been guilty of attacking free speech, says the left

Leigh Phillips on Ricochet writes a powerful, if avowedly leftwing defence of free speech and goes on the attack at what he calls the "anglophone left" for calling Charlie Hebdo "racist", clearly showing that those who repeat this call don't understand French, which of course is a form of what some on the left might call "neo-cultural imperialism":

The last few days have been a humiliation for the anglophone left, showcasing to the world how poor our ability to translate is these days, as so many people have posted cartoons on social media that they found trawling Google Images as evidence of Charlie Hebdo’s “obvious racism,” only to be told by French speakers how, when translated and put into context, these cartoons actually are explicitly anti-racist or mocking of racists and fascists.

Now I would argue vehemently that the left has a strong history of sympathising with those who support censorship, including soft peddling many regimes that would imprison or murder those who expressed political dissent.  Given its strong support for state solutions to most problems or support for so-called "direct action" (a euphemism for vandalism, trespass, intimidation and threats of violence), it is consistent to support wanting to close down debate,  but Phillips seems to get it:

There is a worrying trend on the left to dismiss freedom of expression as part of the colonialist project, to repudiate free speech as a meaningless elite piety. In recent years, the liberal-left, particularly in the anglophone world, has taken to demanding the censorship of “offensive” or “triggering” speech, and student unions, theatres, universities, schools, municipalities, art galleries and other public venues have increasingly shut down a wide range of speech acts. Even many traditional civil liberties groups appear to be cowed. Demonstrators go beyond protesting those they oppose, and now try to actively prevent them from speaking, as in the case of efforts to disinvite Bill Maher from UC Berkeley last year — ironically during the 50th anniversary of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement protests. In 2014 in the United States, campus protesters prevented commencement addresses by former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, attorney general Eric Holder, and IMF head Christine Lagarde. According to campus free speech group FIRE, 39 protests have led to the cancellation of protested events on campuses since 2009. All this is contrary to traditional leftist defence of freedom of speech and must be strongly opposed. The politics of the speaker should make no difference here.

 We counter bad arguments with good ones. The minute that we begin embracing censorship, it will be our own ideas that sooner rather than later will be deleted by the censors. And the irony is that while these calls to censorship frequently come from the “social justice left,” it is precisely as a result of the liberal foundation of freedom of expression that the women’s movement, the civil rights struggle and gay liberation have achieved all that they have.

The difficult Phillips has is the intellectual tradition he is aligned to has a firm belief in the control of language to control people and behaviour.  It has used the words "racist" "sexist" and now "Islamophobic" as a catch-cry for "shut up, your opinion is worthless, go away and be grateful we can't lock you up".  Those who criticise this get thrown the same word, because the "liberal" left thinks it has a monopoly on morality.

In actual fact it has embraced a form of collective group-think that those who lived under China's Cultural Revolution or the totalitarian Soviet satellite states in eastern Europe would recognise instantly.  It is why the term "politically correct" has been coined, albeit it too has been overused by some on the right to conceal their own bigotry.

Critics are labelled and consigned to the dustbin with that label, and there is a refusal to engage, and the most recent usage of the "check your privilege" claim is a way of focusing not on the content of speech, but on the background of the person speaking.   This, of course, is exactly what umpteen totalitarian regimes have done and still do.

I fear that the likelihood of the left in the English speaking world accepting free speech for those that reject many of its arguments, is not great.  The desire to restrict, regulate and control many aspects of people's lives, of businesses and to spend their money, runs through so much of what is advocated.  If you are going to continue to ban "hate speech", then you are going to continue to place free speech vulnerable to wider demands as to what is "hate".  After all, how many on the left would ban "hate speech" based on professions? i.e. banning vilification of say, bankers.

Muslim Mayor of Rotterdam: If you hate freedom, leave

The Mayor of Rotterdam, Ahmed Aboutaleb was born in Morocco. He is a Muslim, and he has said that if Muslims in the Netherlands don't like freedom, including the right to free speech that allows people to offend them, they can "fuck off".

He is quoted as saying:

It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom… But if you don’t like freedom, for heaven’s sake pack your bags and leave.... There may be a place in the world where you can be yourself, be honest with yourself and do not go and kill innocent journalists. And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off...This is stupid, this so incomprehensible. Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here. All those well-meaning Muslims here will now be stared at

He is standing up for freedom of speech in the Netherlands, and more importantly that Muslims who do embrace and tolerate free speech do not welcome Islamists. 

How refreshing, how clear and what a positive assertion of belief in Enlightenment values and free speech, from a man who as an immigrant, and a Muslim, embraces those values and seeks the same from all others in his city.

Sadly, i's only through the irrational, toxic prism of identity politics that means that when he says the same thing as say, the late Pim Fortuyn (a gay libertarian who was murdered by an environmentalist terrorist),it's "ok".

It's "ok" because the leftist structuralist identity politics philosophy that dominate the mainstream media and universities states that the actual content of communications is not what determines their meaning and intent, but the identity of the person making it.  That identity determines if a person is one of power (i.e. male of European descent, of Christian/Jewish or atheist belief and heterosexual and able-bodied), then their views are automatically deemed to be about "consolidating power" which in the perverse zero-sum world of the structuralists, is only gained by "oppressing the vulnerable".

In short, had the Mayor of Rotterdam been a Christian Dutch man, he would have been branded Islamophobic and racist, because it would have been presumed that you can only tell people to leave if you are bigoted against characteristics they hold inherently, not their views.

Regardless, the view he expresses should be echoed by the leaders of all Western countries.  It should be an unequivocal call that all residents who don't like the values of Western civilisation should either live in peace, or go.

Oh and he's a member of the Dutch Labour Party.  Imagine a leading politician from the UK, Australian and New Zealand equivalent parties standing up for enlightenment values in such an unequivocally forthright and brave manner.

How's that belief in free speech going then?

Whilst many of us took heart from the 1.5 million + who turned up in Paris in defiance of the Islamist thugs, the following also happened:

- Over 2,000 dead in Nigeria, as Islamist terror group Boko Haram goes on a pogrom against those who resist it in one town. The five-year insurgency killed more than 10,000 people last year alone, according to the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations.   Nigeria is increasingly losing the battle against the group, meanwhile Michelle Obama presumably thinks she has done enough by endorsing the hashtag #bringbackourgirls

- Brunei introduces the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy from April and expect absolutely no diplomatic or trade reprisals.

- Saudi Arabia inflicts 50 lashes on a blogger for blasphemy and its ambassador to France had the audacity to turn up to the Paris "Je Suis Charlie" rally on Sunday.  Again, expect no serious diplomatic or trade reprisals.

- ex. quasi-dictator of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad blames the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists for provocation saying "we respect their religion".  No you don't you prick, they were atheists.

- In Egypt, the government imprisons student Karim al-Banna for three years for saying on Facebook that he is an atheist.   You thought the Muslim Brotherhood had been ousted didn't you? "Al-Banna's father testified against his son saying "[he] was embracing extremist ideas against Islam. Al-Banna had been facing neighbourhood harassment ever since his name had appeared in a local daily under a list of atheists". Remember, Barack Obama who offered his "support" for free speech, runs a government which gives the Egyptian Government billions of dollars in aid.

A thank you from Al Qaeda

As-salaam'alaykum people of the United Kingdom

You have seen what has happened to the blasphemous ones in France as they have faced the appropriate penalty for insulting the Prophet, peace be upon him.   As you progressively realise the truth and inevitability of adopting sharia law you will not be shocked.   You will accept that so-called "free speech" comes with responsibilities, and that includes not to insult the Prophet, peace be upon him, to denigrate the truth of Islam or to be offensive to our faith.

We accept that you infidels can live in peace under sharia law, as long as you worship in private and embrace our laws in public.  Brother Anjem Choudary made this clear on American imperialist zionist television.

However, we are heartened by the response of your newspapers and media, all of which have had the wisdom to refuse to publish images of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in recognition of sharia law.  

This demonstrates how much closer to Islam British media are compared to the vile publications in France, Belgium, Denmark and Germany.  Some of them are paying the price for their foolishness.

You have learned that it is more important to not offend us, than to demonstrate some silly, repulsive, blasphemous belief in freedom that is not subject to the laws of the Prophet, peace be upon him.

British media have learned that Islam literally means submission, so you are learning and we have hope for you yet.   You may express disgust and objection to our ways of dispensing justice, but because you refuse to infringe the laws we are enforcing shows your respect for us.

That respect is noted.

Of course there is much more to be done.   

The Jews, whose forces occupy Muslim land and people, and have long had ways that historically were recognised by Christians to be offensive, cannot be tolerated whilst they occupy Palestine and challenge our faith.  They need to speak up about the crimes of Zionism or they too will be targets.   Those born Jews would be better following the example of the leader of the Labour Party, who as a Jew supported laws against insulting religions.  We have great hope that he will try again as Prime Minister, to enshrine the laws we will otherwise enforce if necessary.

Your women continue to dress as prostitutes on an every day basis.   This continues to offend us, and it is no surprise that a few of our brothers have been treating a few young women who present like that, on that basis.  We expect some action to be taken against their pornographic appearance.

There is much else that needs to change, but our priority is that you do not interfere with our efforts to help your society become pure and do not insult our Prophet, peace be upon him, or his teachings.

Your Government continues to battle our brothers in Iraq and threaten those in Syria.  Although we have some differences with them, we reject your interference in our territories.  It is futile,  and dangerous for members of your armed forces, as are efforts to support the infidels in Nigeria who are denying our brothers victory there.   We are a religion of peace, and peace will come from your submission to our truth, our values and the beauty of our faith and justice of our laws.

More and more of your people are understanding this.  Even your future monarch appears to understand this.

You also have taken to accepting that those who resist us are branded Islamophobes, and so are treated with derision for being racist.  Although our people come from many races, we are not bothered by the bluntness of this response, as it suits us.  Fellow Muslims who fear infidels are more likely to realise truth and justice come from supporting us.   It encourages us when Members of your Parliament, newspaper columnists and other commentators are more concerned about reprisals against Muslims, than about the Zionists or those who blaspheme against the Prophet, peace be upon him.

So thank you for not requiring us to take the actions we have taken in France.  It bodes well for us to have a media in the United Kingdom that is progressively compliant with Shariah Law.

Keep your women safe and obedient, do not offend us and do not try to change our people to your ways, and you too will be safe.  

Peace be upon you

Al Qaeda


Note:  This piece of parody is to reflect the contemptuous cowardice of the British press and broadcast media in not publishing or displaying any images from Charlie Hebdo that depict Mohammed, or indeed any drawings of Mohammed at all.

Islamic blasphemy law need not be enforced in the UK, for the media have simply rolled over and followed it.

Read Spiked on "What if Charlie Hebdo had been published in Britain"?

Defending free speech when it is under attack

Following on from Peter Cresswell's excellent piece outlining the recent events in Paris, come two more fundamental questions.

1. What does a free society do about those who want to destroy its freedoms?

2. Why are we, yes we, threatened by those who want to censor us?

The Islamist threat to free speech is not new.  Indeed the battle for the right to offend those who hold certain beliefs, whether religious, political, philosophical or even aesthetic, is continuous.  Laws against blasphemy were often enforced in many Western countries, to not offend Christian faiths.  It is no accident that every authoritarian regime clamps down on free speech as a first move.

There are plenty of opponents of free speech in our midsts.  So in fact my second question can be answered first.  The majority have censored us already, the Islamofascists simply want the courtesy extended to them.

The much too obvious ones are the small numbers of ardent fascists, nationalists, communists and other sympathisers of politics that would explicitly censor media, art and speech.  It is extremely rare for any of them to do anything other than rabble rouse or disseminate their views, and the contradiction between their use of free speech to oppose it is clear, and so they have few followers.

Similarly, we are familiar with the religious conservatives who are keen on blasphemy laws, or who want to censor material involving nudity, sex or vulgar language.  Of course we still have laws restricting this, and the state will prosecute you for writing about or drawing all sorts of matters which it prohibits (including completely legal acts), but that's another story.  There are those who want more of such laws, some from a religious perspective, others from a radical feminist perspective.

More insidiously restrictions on free speech have come from the self-styled "liberal" left in the form of "hate speech" laws.  Whilst few would disagree with how unpleasant and vile such speech can be (i.e. explicit racism, sexism, denigration and debasing of people based on their inherent characteristics rather than behaviour), it is another story to make such speech illegal.  It has become increasingly normalised for some to say how "offended" they are by a portrayal of someone because of his or her race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, etc.  In recent years laws have been enforced to prohibit such speech.  This has been widely supported by most on the left, with the Police in the UK now arresting people for making offensive jokes.  

You will struggle to find many politicians who will argue for the unfettered legal right to offend (which is distinct from whether it is morally right or clever to do so).  Yet that is what this is about.

Indeed in the UK, a report into systematical sexual abuse in Rotherham indicated that child protection officials were dissuaded from questioning or addressing gangs of predominantly Muslim men targeting young girls, because it would "cause offence" in their communities.

Freedom of speech has been as much under attack from those who live amongst us who are "do-gooders" as it has been by those willing to wield violence directly.  The difference is the matter of degree.

The killers of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and employees were offended by the cartoons published by that magazine.  The law didn't protect them from offence, but it protects others from offence in other areas.

Don't make an offensive joke about a crime or an accident, for the law may come visit you.  Don't think about writing a sexually explicit fictional short story that involves violence and what is deemed to be the degradation of a fictional person, for the law may come visit you.  

The men who murder because they are offended are extending the logic of existing laws, and taking the law into their own hands.  At least it remains legal to parody religion, right?

So how should this be addressed?

Murderers, thugs and cowards

Taliban, Cuba's ruling thugs and Sony Pictures respectively.

On the Pakistani Taliban, it is telling what it takes for the Pakistani Army and Government to actually take this evil group seriously and seek to wipe it out.  For previously the policy was "let" the Taliban run the north-western provinces and for all major parties to support negotiating with "moderate elements" (i.e. the ones that only murder infidels, not Muslim children).  This is why Osama Bin Laden lived in comfort in Pakistan, as the Pakistani Army had essentially appeased the local Taliban. The fact that one of Pakistan's greatest financial and military supporters over the decades, the United States, had had thousands of its citizens murdered by this outfit, was irrelevant.   Furthermore, even the attempted murder of Malala Yousafzai for daring to support the education of girls, didn't animate the misogynistic theocratically minded rent-seekers in the Pakistani government.  It has taken hundreds of children to be murdered en masse, for there to finally be some effort taken to wipe them out - as they should.

For the negotiate with the Taliban, as with ISIS, is like seeking to negotiate with the Nazis for a peace where they continue to rule over some people, or to agree with a mafia over the territory they can still bully people over, or to agree with a pedophile cabal that they can only rape children within a certain area.  It's morally bankrupt, because the only winner in a compromise between good and evil, is evil, particularly when you have the means to defeat it at little relative cost compared to letting it be.

So if there is anything positive that could ever come from hundreds of children and their teachers being murdered in cold blood, is that it turns enough Pakistanis against the Pakistani Taliban, and provides the testicular fortitude in the government and army to hunt down, and defeat every last one.   In that mission, Pakistan should have the full support of those that fear a Taliban takeover the most, including India, the United States, the UK and yes, Iran.  For, as a nuclear weapon state, Pakistan, as very flawed as it is by any measures of political and individual freedom, and more flawed as a corrupt state of pilfering mediocrities, it is nothing compared to what it would be like if ruled by the pedocidal Taliban. 

Thugs being appeased, is one way of looking at President Obama deciding to make friends with the dictatorship on his doorstep, Cuba. This is easy to be critical of, because Cuba is not introducing political or civil freedoms, and is not introducing any form of liberal democracy.  It is just freeing some political prisoners.  In exchange it gets diplomatic recognition, direct telecommunications and greater freedom of movement of Americans into Cuba.   Does it provide succour to a despicable regime?  Yes.  However,  there is little doubt to me that, on balance, this is good for freedom in Cuba.  Why?  Because the more Cubans get contact with their relatives and friends from the United States, and receive money and goods from them, the more they will understand how utterly stultifying their regime is.  The main negative of the policy will be that the key beneficiaries of any liberalisation of trade will be the thugs in charge and their families, who they will grant favours to.  

However, even if this is so, the regime's monopoly on power will not be strengthened by heightened corruption and the enrichment of an elite which gained and sustained power on the basis of everyone being equally impoverished (not that the party elite were denied privilege, but the Castro mafia is not known to be anywhere near as self-aggrandising and enriching as its ideological soul brothers in other dictatorships).   Greater contact with the outside world is a good thing, and while the trade embargo will not be removed without Congressional approval on the US side (which seems far from likely), the liberalisation that does occur, will enable Cubans to taste more of capitalism and freedom than they can at the moment.   If the trade embargo is lifted, then the regime will no longer have the excuse of the embargo for the relative poverty in the country, and more will be able to tell their stories of a derelict health system (despite how much it is lauded by leftwing activists), and how harassed they are by officials.

So, on balance, liberalising contact with Cuba is a good thing.  For it leaves restrictions on the country coming predominantly from the Cuban government side.  Yes, it looks like Obama is rewarding a dictatorship for doing little, but you must think beyond that.   Eastern Europe was undermined more by greater liberalisation of contact with the West, than by maintaining tight restrictions on it.   Cuba too will change, and on balance this is one step towards this.

Cowards.  The word to describe Sony Pictures Entertainment, and the cinema chains refusing to show The Interview.   It's astonishing, that a bunch of hackers, probably led from Pyongyang, but also likely to include some paid in China and elsewhere, can frighten a company that is part of a conglomerate with a turnover 50% greater than north Korea.

Yes.  Sony had turnover of around US$70 billion in 2014, whereas the DPRK's reported GDP (on a purchasing power parity basis) was US$40 billion in 2011.  What the hell should they be scared of?

Do they fear more cyber attacks? Well talk to banks, talk to the US IT giants that fear cyber attacks more.

Do they fear physical attacks?  Oh please.  "Team America - World Police" upset the Kim mafia when it came out, and the regime can't even control this. The DPRK has little record of engaging in international terrorism outside Asia, so it is difficult to envisage that it could convincingly pay anyone in the United States to perform such acts.  

More importantly, the film makes fun, pokes humour out of a regime that prohibits such humour. One of the first acts of any authoritarian regime is to ban parodies and comic depictions that "dishonour" its leading thugs, which of course dishonours them by doing so. 

So it is very important that this film be released and shown, and for people to go watch it and laugh. Laugh at the fat hedonistic boy king who got a fine Western education, has Western tastes, who loves NBA basketball and instead of sharing this wisdom and expanding the potential of the people he inherited from under the jackboots of his father and grandfather, he's put on a new pair himself.

His father at least didn't have the excuse of knowing as well as he does, about the outside world, for the short brat was scared of flying, so hardly travelled outside the country at all.  He proudly sacrificed hundreds of thousands of ordinary people to stay in power for fear the army would overthrow him.  

So the fat boy king is now emulating his grandfather, who is one of the great frauds of the 20th century.  He deserves to be laughed at, and Sony is doing a disservice to the people of Korea, and indeed the people of Japan threatened by north Korea, and to the USA, which stopped all of Korea being under the Kim family crime syndicate (and indeed helped transform Japan into a country that could allow Sony to be established and thrive).

So if Sony Pictures is too gutless to distribute this film - sell it - let someone with courage show it, and shame on those who refuse to do so, out of fear of a bunch of upstart north Korean kids trapped at the basement of a monument in Pyongyang (well that's where I saw banks of unexplained PCs well connected before the door was slammed shut on me). 

2014 New Zealand voting guide for lovers of liberty

1. Is there a positive candidate to endorse?

2. Is there a likely winner worthy of tactically voting to eject because he or she is so odious??

3. Is there a tolerable "least worst" candidate?

So I list by electorate, the status of the electorate and who I am endorsing, then if you care, an explanation why.  Just search for the name unless you want to have a very long read...  and of course I am happy to see contrary views expressed.  I am updating this as I am on a series of flights in the next couple of days, and it is dependent on the gap between flights, wifi access and access to laptop power...

Libertarian Christians?

Now I'm not religious, I'm an atheist objectivist. However, it is worth noting that being a libertarian does not necessarily mean one is an atheist (and certainly not objectivist).  

I do believe that people can be both, quite simply the state can leave free people alone, some of them can be Christians and live lives according to Christianity, as long as they don't initiate force. Indeed, if people of all religions could simply grasp that, we would live in a far better world, albeit one that would still face debates about science and ethics, education and the like - but for these to be determined through persuasion not force.  

Well known libertarian oriented Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan has a strong faith, and in NZ, the hard-working and outspoken Tim Wikiriwhi is a Christian libertarian, as is Richard Goode a libertarian standing for the ALCP.  Their blog has their own perspective, and it's safe to say that while we'll agree on much politically, when it comes to matters spiritual, we part company.  Evangelical Christian bloggers Matt and Madeleine Flanagan likewise, are libertarians.   There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans who would claim the same.

However, that is how a free society works.  People can proselytise their religion or atheism, they can live their lives according to religious teachings and rules, as long as they respect the right of others to do differently.  As long as the religious do not break fundamental individual rights of others (that includes ensuring children are not subjected to physical and sexual abuse or neglect), they can live their lives in peace.  

The key is for Christians to not want laws passed that break the crucial "non initiation of force" principle, which has tended to be a weakness of many Christian politicians keen to regulate what people do with their bodies.   That means not wanting the law to regulate consensual adult sexual behaviour or artistic depictions of it (I use artistic to include any media depictions at all).  The tricky area comes into what is one of the most fraught issues - abortion.  Libertarians differ on abortion, some believe that the foetus has no rights, some believe they do have rights.  This is a fertile area for debate, as it should be, but as long as it is debate based on objectively defined factors - i.e. where life begins, what sort of entities should have rights, what rights and why - then debate can be rational.  That's where I fear it gets difficult for some Christian libertarians.

Yet if only we could get to that debate.   There may be libertarians from other religious faiths, I'm keen to meet Muslim libertarians for fairly obvious reasons, but it would appear that Christianity has offered more scope than most religions to "live and let live" and grant adults the freedom to choose to believe and then to respect the right of non-believers to live their lives, as long as they do the same to others.

So whilst I'll happily argue against religion generally, and argue against some of the key tenets of Christianity, I do respect the fundamental right of Christians to hold and to disseminate their beliefs.   Moreover, Christian libertarians are allies in the wider push for individual freedom.   I'd like Jewish (as in religious not merely ethnic) libertarians and Muslim libertarians as well as Hindu and Buddhist ones. Yet, rather sadly, there doesn't appear to be too many of any of them.

Free the Al-Jazeera journalists, but what about Qatar?

There is no doubt that it reprehensible for the Egyptian government to prosecute English language journalists of Al-Jazeera for "terrorism".  The campaign #journalismisnotacrime is quite right in what it calls for. As much as I support the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood autocracy that appeared to have the view that democracy means "one vote once" in its drive to create a theocracy, it does not justify the new regime suppressing free journalism.  The response to criticism should be rebuttal, not to throw people in prison.

However, looking a little bit further behind the campaign some big questions deserve to be asked...

1.  What press freedom does Al Jazeera's owners offer in its home country?  The answer is very little. Reporters Without Borders ranks Qatar as 113th in press freedom globally.  Of course, if you're Al Jazeera journalists who dare to report critically about Qatar, you at best wont last in your job long, at worst you'll end up in prison too.  This is a country where there is a proposed crime to spread "false news".  Qatar itself gets a "not free" ranking by Freedom House, which notes that:

"Al-Jazeera generally does not cover Qatari politics and focuses instead on regional issues."

2. What about journalists arrested in many other countries?  Reporters Without Borders notes that 170 journalists have been imprisoned in over 30 other countries this year.   That includes 32 in China, 28 in the largely ignored Eritrea (the north Korea of Africa), 21 in Iran and 16 in Syria.  Why pick on Egypt?  Is it because, unlike the others, it gets US backing, rather than because journalists per se mater?

3.  Why is international attention paid to Al Jazeera journalists working for Al Jazeera English, but not when those who work for Al Jazeera Arabic are arrested?  Doesn't this feed the concern of the Anglo-centric bias of so much of the mainstream media?  Few of the journalists imprisoned in other countries work predominantly in English.  Why should that matter?  

4.  How do people working for broadcasters, owned by dictatorships that intervene in other countries, expect to be treated in those countries?  I don't doubt that many journalists who work for Al-Jazeera are professional in their outlook, and wouldn't want to act as mouthpieces for their owners, but when your employer's owners are directly funding and arming the authoritarian opposition (and former government) in a country, and you're in the country reporting on it, don't you think it raises some issues about independence?

Gareth Morgan threatens me with libel.... and insults me.. *shrugs*

No.

No self reflection.

No addressing of the core questions and issues.

Wilful blindness?  Or does he simply not believe that what he saw was carefully selected?  Or does he have a cunning plan that he isn't mentioning? (!)

I don't know.. but let me have a go, respecting that he no longer wishes me to engage on his blog.  So I will respond to his comments, which say a lot in view.  Particularly an unwillingness to read.  He deleted my responses to the halfwits who claim the DPRK is "misunderstood" and even apologise for Assad.  That is "spam". 

Yes.. really.

Gareth Morgan thinks I am ignorant about the DPRK

Yes, really. 

See my response.

I'll take him on anyday about Korean history, and as long as he doesn't use the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Pyongyang edition of History of Korea, he might have a chance.  However I doubt it.

The man who claims that reporting the facts about the DPRK is a "beat up" and "completely wrong".

The man who says they are "wonderfully engaged, well-dressed, fully employed and well informed".

I doubt he got to meet anyone with English that wasn't pre approved, so he couldn't seriously "engage", and I very much doubt if he was able to freely talk to anyone without others being present.  

Well dressed?  Well he didn't meet this girl, because she is dead, she was "fully employed" hunting rats and looking for grass for survival.

Well informed?  Yes, thinking your founding leader saved the country, that the USA started the Korean War and the country's poor economic performance is due to a blockade, and south Korea is a poverty ridden colony of the USA - really well informed.

It's lack of international money he bemoans, but then borrowing from Western banks and simply defaulting doesn't exactly make for a credit rating worth glancing at.

Then Jo Morgan has been tricked well.  17 minutes of naive observations that the Korean Central News Agency wouldn't be ashamed of using, seemingly interviewed by Nick Tansley - former ZM Wellington clown.  Not a high calibre journalist.

She talks about the wonderful local produce!  The wonderful "muscular" young men, and how south Korean journalists said young men in the south were getting obese.  She seems to bemoan the "Western softness" of Seoul.

She talks about how everyone is expected to do some manual work - fabulous and how fit they are.

She blames the manual labour on "sanctions", swallowing the state propaganda.

She "reckoned" 50-60% have cellphones, but then that was those she saw - the elite.  She dismissed bans on foreigners using cellphones as "just a rule for foreigners", not because it risked live reports of what goes on.

She was gobsmacked - rightly - about the Arirang Mass Games (which are a remarkable spectacle), although again thinking it reported the "history" of the country, rather than it being propaganda and a symbol of how people are only important if they are in a mass collective action.

"You can't tell me these people are miserable" from seeing members of the elite singing and laughing together.  No they aren't Jo.  No.  

"They seem well fed" says the woman who didn't spend time on Google Earth to note the burial mounds for the starving.  

"our escorts were making sure we didn't get lost"  Too funny.  Really.  Seriously, not there to ensure you didn't go explore on unapproved routes?

"The people want their children to be able to ride down into the south, they want reunification" Yes, they do, but the regime doesn't want it, unless it involves it being on their terms - which they know will never happen.

Finally, Gareth thinks division of Korea is due to "great powers".  It was originally, for the USSR installed Kim Il Sung in the north, against the UN mandated declaration of the Republic of Korea as the government of the whole peninsula and resisting the (admittedly very flawed) elections that were meant to be the basis for a new government.  Korea could be reunified tomorrow, except the regime in the north doesn't want to surrender its slave state that sustains a tiny elite, and the south doesn't want to be a slave state.

It's not about foreign powers, unless you believe the withdrawal of US troops (one deterrent to north Korean aggression, which is demonstrable)

NKNews (subscription once you read more than the minimum number of articles) reports on the trip.  

Gareth says "the farms are perfect. They have no pollution”, 

the standard of living was probably like south Korea "20 years ago"... astonishing.  

Think maybe 50 years ago, the last time north Korea and south Korea were roughly equals in per capita income.  North Korea WAS the rich half of Korea, south Korea the poor peasant half... 

Capitalism made south Korea one of the top 20 economies in the world and now up with developed countries.  

Shame Gareth is still admiring the system that has trapped, literally and economically, the people of the north in a 1960s timewarp.

I look forward to him admitting he is wrong, confessing he didn't know as much as he wished, and sorry for saying things complementary about a country that has such a vile government.  I look forward to him noting that much of what he was told in the country was false and they were probably shown only what was permitted, in order to show the country in the best light, and that it sends shivers down their spines to think of children being in gulags today.

Really, I do...

Connecticut children are relatively lucky compared to the gulag kids

Whilst the US and other mainstream Western media continue to interview children going to school in Connecticut following the shooting, milking the sadness and showing concern for how they cope with the stress of the appalling crime (which is fair enough), I thought it was time to get some perspective.

At the moment in North Korea there are over 150,000 people in gulags. This includes children.  It is impossible to know how many are children, but it is likely to be in the low thousands.

They are slaves.  They get little food.  The temperature averages at -10 Celsius, the gulags are unheated.  They are awoken at dawn and expected to work every day, doing menial tasks.  Those too young to work get beaten, neglected, sexually abused and tortured for sadistic pleasure.  They are told every day how useless they are, as sons and daughters of counter-revolutionary traitors, lackeys of Americans and Japanese.  

"Id just turned twelve, and I remember wishing I would die soon”  (Kang Chol-Hwan "Aquariums of Pyongyang")

So note that whilst the world paid attention to the DPRK's rocket and its now failing satellite, and the propaganda around the first anniversary of Kim Jong Il's death (and placement in a mausoleum), it doesn't ever pay enough attention to the children in the gulags there.

As I've said before the prisoner children in the DPRK are:

Forced to live in prisons high in the mountain valleys, from babies.  They receive rations that are starvation level, those who survive do so by eating bugs, mice and other things they can forage or hunt for.  Many are physically abused, some sexually abused, when old enough they are forced to work from dawn to late in the evening, every day.  It is one step removed from Nazi concentration camps, in that it isn’t gassing used to eliminate them, simply hard work, cold and malnutrition.

So this Christmas, whilst you may naturally spare a thought for the parents of the children who were killed in the shooting, and the kids left behind, you'd do worse than to be distressed and angry at the ones in North Korea.  Angrier still at the willing idiots in the West who defend it, and angry at the Western politicians who have been too scared to bring this issue up at every appropriate opportunity.

As cute and amusing as North Korea is, it really isn't.  It's unspeakably vile, and at this time of year that vileness will seen many many children die of malnutrition, hypothermia and torture, because of a state, a philosophy and a system that devalues life and dehumanises in a way that is difficult to exaggerate.

Sick jokes are a crime in the UK

Today, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, spoke at the Conservative Party conference and said:

Do we want to see the internet become an unpoliced space? No. Do we want to see terrorists, criminals and paedophiles get away scot-free? No. We are the Conservative Party, not the Libertarian Party. As Conservatives, we believe the first duty of government is to protect the public. That is why the Conservative Party will always be the party of law and order.

She's right of course.  Law and order is about protecting people's freedoms, but she mentioned the word "freedom" once by saying We need to give the police the freedom to use their judgement.

Yes, well if you want the difference between conservatives and libertarians then this case is one of them.

Matthew Woods is a rather vile young man.  He posted a joke that the Police deemed to be grossly offensive, on the website Sickipedia.  The joke was about April Jones, the 5 year old girl who went missing 11 days, and now presumed murdered.  I don't care what the joke was, because it is likely to be grossly offensive to me.  However, that's not the point.

The Guardian reported:

He pleaded guilty at Chorley magistrates court to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive. The chairman of the bench, Bill Hudson, said Woods's comments were so "abhorrent" he deserved the longest sentence the court could hand down.

He is getting 12 weeks in prison.  

Is this really a matter for the criminal law?  Would he have faced a conviction if he had simply said it to another person?  How about if he wrote it on a piece of paper?  If not, why is an electronic communication so bad that it is time to be precious about vile jokes?

The Guardian also notes there is a long list of similar cases:

- A 56 day sentence for a racist comment about a footballer who collapsed;

- A community order for saying "all soldiers should die and go to hell" on Facebook;

- A teenager visited by the Police for being disgustingly rude to Olympic diver Tom Daley on Twitter;

- A man convicted (later quashed) for jokingly saying on Twitter that he'd blow up Doncaster/Sheffield Airport if it closed for the snow.

Now the last case probably justified a query, given fear of terrorism, but the rest?  Has British society become so precious that people who offend others deserve a criminal record?  Or is there genuine fear that if there isn't a criminal law against it, that people will throw ever more disgusting insults around in a snowball of nihilism and vileness?  If so, is the right response to offensive speech not simply to insult the person saying it, or to ignore it?

As John Kampfer in the Guardian said:

Direct incitement to violence is one thing. But we cannot and should not sentence people for bad jokes, poor taste and terrible manners. That is an issue for parents, teachers and, most importantly, peer groups.

Quite.

Most people in their lives will encounter bores, bullies and a range of rude pricks who will call you names, who will be offensive to you and seek to upset you.  It isn't a crime to insult someone, except it is, now.

I don't blame the Conservatives any more than the other parties.  Labour introduced this law, and both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have happily let it be.  However it is wrong.

Free speech is for those who offend as well as those who inspire.  The state should not be policing what offends people, for when will it stop?  Will you be able to call the Police if someone calls you a name?  Will books and songs be banned for offending Christians or Muslims?  Will politicians get people arrested for calling them lying corrupt pricks?

I don't doubt that the latest example of using this law is about someone who has been vile, but then comedian Frankie Boyle is vile, the lowlifes who sell t-shirts to celebrate dancing on Margaret Thatcher's grave are vile, but I don't want the state arresting them.  I don't want the state arresting me because I blaspheme against Islam, or call Russel Norman a prick, or call Sue Kedgley a hysterical control freak, etc etc.

It is time to speak up for free speech, including the free speech of that which offends, for no one should have a conviction because they said or wrote something that upset someone else.

UPDATE:  Peter Cresswell has written about people getting offended by what some politicians say.  He uses a quote I nearly used, which is Stephen Fry's about people thinking that when they are offended, they gain some sort of new right to "something".  No you don't.

Why does the role of the state matter now?

The global financial crisis is seen by the left as the prima-facie case against free market capitalism.   Just under 20 years after Marxism-Leninism was shown up, on live TV, for what it was, a cold ruthless oppressive heartless nightmare, those who quietly had to admit that communism didn't work were ready to gloat.  

The collapse of investment banks demonstrated what happens when a handful of men are driven by a ruthless desire to make money using other people's money, with little regard for the risks or the consequences.  That was and is the line taken by the left.  The British Labour Party, with barely a hint of contrition, blames the banks - not the fact that it was in power responsible for the biggest bank of the mall, the one that all the others are dependent on, and nay encouraged to use for unlimited credit.

The first stage of the financial crisis saw banks face collapse over poor investment.  In a free market economy a bank that does that would be allowed to fail, but the leftwing response (indeed the conservative rightwing response if one looks at the United States) was to bail them out.  The left now claim that this is what free market capitalism is about.  Really?  Is there any sector where free market capitalists argue for state bailouts?  No.  

They who meme that capitalism is about privatising profits whilst socialising losses are talking utter nonsense.  For this would not happen in a true free market economy.  Indeed, in a true free market economy there would have been a couple of key differences from what happened.

One is the often repeated rules set up in the late 1990s by the Clinton Administration requiring lenders to loan to a segment of people who would otherwise be bad credit risks.   That in itself meant people who shouldn't have had credit to buy homes got it.  An explicitly redistributive measure that backfired.

However, the more intrusive role of the state is the central role it plays in creating money and issuing credit to banks.  The state creates money from nothing and distributes it by lending it to banks at a centrally set interest rate which they then lend onto borrowers at a profit.  That isn't free market capitalism, as a core component of capitalism - the means of exchange - is state created and its value managed by growing its supply (created managed inflation).

In such an environment, the state boosts the economy by ever increasing the money supply, with more credit being issued, supporting positive and negative investments, until at some point, the bubble in prices in investments, whether they be shares or property, bursts.  In Ireland, the state, which offered an explicit 100% guarantee of deposits, shifted the burden onto taxpayers.  In Iceland, the state let them all fail.  

The so-called deregulated free market financial sector was nothing of the sort.  It could operate largely as it wished in developing financial instruments with the public and businesses and each other, but it did not with the blood supply from the state of credit issued from nothing.  

Free market banking is not banks that issue state issued credit which is turned on and off like a tap.  

What we have had is mixed model banking, and we have it again now.

The second part of the global financial crisis has come directly from statism.  Banks have finally figured out that sovereign debt in countries that run perpetual budget deficits, and don't even have the instrument of printing fiat money to pay for it, is not safe.  Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and increasingly France, Belgium and Slovenia, are all facing up to reality.  The economics of every single one of those states has been ever increasing spending, ever increasing state employment, ever increasing regulation of business and every increasing debt.

The model of the socialist state, that borrows and spends between elections, passing on the burden to the future generation, has been found wanting.  It is a model that the UK has also embraced with aplomb under Gordon Brown and in the US, not just by Barack Obama, but also G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.  

The level at which people will tolerate taxation is below the level that the left have sold the state to them.  It is that gap that needs bridging across the Western world.  With few exceptions, this is the model that has been swallowed and which virtually all states are now trying to adapt to buy time - yet they are not dealing with the fundamentals.

The US Presidential election is a facsimile of that debate.  Barack Obama believes the answer is to raise taxes to bridge the gap, albeit slowly and to continue with using debasement of the currency, through money printing (quantitative easing) to boost the economy and hopefully ensure GDP grows faster than debt.

Mitt Romney believes in cutting spending, albeit slowly, and although he would also debase the currency he is willing to investigate the merits of a shift to a commodity based currency, rather than currency based on nothing but confidence.  

In New Zealand, this debate is what should be led by Libertarianz/ACT/ the new liberal party.

A belief that the state should hold ever decreasing amounts of public debt, that it should not spend more than it takes in revenue.  That it should encourage independence not dependence, that it should encourage people looking after themselves, their families and each other, not to claim the unearned money of others by force.  That it should promote the benevolence of civil society, community and fellowship, not the sneering, mob rule of people lobbying departments, councils, community boards for new laws, new money, new taxes, engaging in endless rent seeking paid for by force by someone else.

The global financial crisis was not due to free market capitalism, its solutions were not remotely anything to do with capitalism, and today the seeds are being sown for the next financial crisis.   The seeds are quantitative easing, which has been a resounding success in keeping the Japanese economy stagnant for 15 years.

The anti-capitalists seen in leftwing parties and the Occupy movement had a point.  The model that failed four years ago was a massive transfer from all of us to the owners and employees of banks that undertook malinvestments.  

Yet it isn't capitalism that failed, and those who oppose it don't have an alternative, just anger and a desire for more government.

We do have an alternative.  

Economic Freedom Report shows how far the US has fallen

The Fraser Institute - a Canadian libertarian think tank - has produced a fairly comprehensive assessment of the ranking of about two-thirds of countries on the basis of economic freedom over a wide range of indicators.  It produces it every year.  This year the story it tells is of a world where economic freedom is still correlated to wealth, but also relief from poverty and, despite the scaremongering of the left, proportions of wealth owned by the poor relative to the rich.

Peter Cresswell pipped me to the post in writing about it,  describing why economic freedom means more than just wealth, but also wealth for the poor (who are many times better off in free economies) but I thought it deserved a longer review.

The report measures a wide range of indicators such as:

- Size of government:  This includes the extent of government consumption, levels of transfers/subsidies, the share of government presence in the market as an owner and investor in business and top tax rates.  No doubt socialists would regard this as being an invalid measure of success or failure, as they would see a large state participant in the economy as positive.

- Legal System and property rights:  Independence of the judiciary, impartiality of courts, protection of property rights, military interference in rule of law, integrity of the legal system, enforceability of contracts, restrictions on sale of land, reliability of the police and the business costs of crime are included here.  I'd have thought most of these would be seen by even those on the centre-left as being critical components of any good state.

- Sound money:  Measures here include growth in money supply, inflation and freedom to hold foreign currency accounts.  Of course those of us who believe that fiat currencies are fundamentally flawed wont be satisfied, but it is a good measure of the management of a key policy that can be so destructive to the wealth and savings of the vast bulk of the population of a state.

- Freedom to trade internationally: Tariffs, regulatory barriers to trade, the usage of black market exchange rates and controls on the movement of capital and people (including travel restrictions) are all considered here.  Again those on the left would be supportive of restrictions on many of those points. 

- Regulation:  Regulations on bank ownership, credit and interest rates.  Labour market regulations ranging from hours of work to conscription, and regulations on starting, licensing and tax for business are all included.  It also measures the need to pay bribes.  Once again, those on the left would be keen to have more of most of these.

The full report is here, and I'll leave it to others to do a more depth distillation of specific results, but for me there are some notable trends and statistics.

Key overall rankings

Hong Kong and Singapore are the top two, followed by New Zealand.  Yes NZ is number three, the freest "proper" liberal democracy.  It shows both how far NZ came in the 1980s and 1990s, but also how far others have not come.

Australia is fourth, but the UK is 12th and the USA 18th.  The last of those should be a clarion call warning to Americans who believe in capitalism that warnings about Obama making America like Europe are optimistic - for six European countries are more free, economically, than the USA.  It is noted the US was ranked 2nd in 2000, and fell to 8th in 2005.  No sign of Bush "neo-liberalism".

In Europe, Switzerland tops clearly, at 5th,  Finland at 9th, Ireland at 12th equal with the UK,  Estonia 14th and Denmark at 16th.   Of the other big European economies it is telling that Germany is 31st (below the likes of Sweden and Austria), Spain 34th,  France is 47th (barely above Poland but behind Albania - yes Albania), Greece is 81st,  Italy is 83rd, all beating Russia at 95th.  Ukraine is the worst in Europe at 122nd.

In the Americas, Canada is 5th equal with Switzerland.  Yes, more economic freedom north of the border.  Chile soars ahead of the rest of the Americas at 10th.  Mexico 91st, Brazil 105th, Ecuador 126th and Argentina 127th.  Venezuela naturally is 144th (bottom rated of those measured). 

In Asia, Taiwan gets 15th, Japan 20th and South Korea 37th. China 107th.  India and Pakistan both 111th.  Myanmar is bottom in Asia at 143rd (yes I know another would be worse). 

In Africa, the best performer is Mauritius at 8th, but then it is a long drop to Rwanda at 45th.  South Africa is 85th.  Most of the bottom rated countries are in Africa, still, with Zimbabwe at bottom on 142nd.

The Middle East has Bahrain topping at 7th, proving that economic freedom does not necessarily mean political freedom.  UAE is 11th and Qatar 17th.  Algeria is bottom of the Arab world at 137th, with Syria at 119th.  Israel is 52nd.

What of New Zealand's ranking?

NZ might be third overall, but it is 95th on size of government (95th smallest out of 144), which shows how highly ranked NZ is on most other measures. 

Yet NZ was ranked far more highly on size of government recently.  In 2009, the year after the current National led government stopped the Helen Clark juggernaut, it was ranked 73rd on size of government.   So National has led the growth in the state, relative to others.  Of course Labour achieved a lot on that front, as NZ was ranked 47th freest in 2000 just after it was elected, but that's a far cry from 1995 when it was 18th.   You can thank Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley and Winston Peters for that.   You can go further back and see Ruth Richardson saw NZ rise from 66th to 18th in five years and now drop to a ranking last seen in 1985 when Roger Douglas was only starting to unwind Muldoonism.

Beyond that measure, NZ's score on legal system and property rights has slipped a little from a high point in 1995, although it would be interesting to probe into the detail behind the scores here (and elsewhere).

On sound money it remains about as highly rated as it always has been.  However on freedom to trade internationally it is now scored the lowest since the 1980s, with compliance costs on trade, foreign investment limits and limits on capital flows reducing the score.

The overall regulatory score is the best it has been since it has been measured, but on labour market regulations NZ is ranked 9th, its lowest ranking besides size of government.

So what does this mean?  Simple.  Any claim this National-led government is implementing radical free market reforms falls flat on the evidence - it has grown the state.  In relative terms, NZ has been retreating from such reforms for around 17 years now.  The state grows faster under Labour, slower under National.

Yet despite slipping on some measures, especially size of government, NZ ranks well largely because others have slipped as well.   It becomes more apparent if one looks at key comparators like Australia, the US and the UK.

Australia

62nd in size of government, 66th on freedom to trade (a lot of protectionism), 29th on monetary policy, 11th on regulation overall, 13th on legal system and property rights.  Australia is 4th overall still, which is still the best position it has ever had.  However, under that Australia has slipped on size of government (had been 47th in 2009), slipped on legal system and property rights (was 3rd in 2000), slipped on monetary policy (10th in 2009), plummeted on freedom to trade (was 19th in 1990 and has slipped since, mainly because others have moved faster) and slipped a little on regulation (was 8th in 2009).  Disturbingly one area Australia has slipped back on is bribery.   Capital controls are also severely restricted.

In essence, Australia slipped back on protectionism some time ago, but the end of the Howard administration has been characterised by ongoing slippage in economic freedom.  Not entirely surprising, as this has been shrouded by the bubble of mineral prices that politicians have been riding on.

UK

117th in size of government, 41st on regulation, 19th on monetary policy, 15th on legal system and property rights and 5th on freedom to trade.   The UK has slipped badly in recent years as it was 5th overall as recently as 2005, being 12th today.  How has it dropped?  It was 58th on size of government in 1990, just after Thatcher had resigned.  It has fallen steadily since 2000. The legacy of the spending and regulatory measures taken after Blair won a second election is what is now apparent, with the Gordon Brown years particularly reducing economic freedom.  The hysteria over the barely apparent austerity (which is simply slowing the growth in spending) is just that, and the big emphasis now ought to be cutting the size of the state and regulation - but it's unlikely to happen under a Conservative coalition with a schizophrenic leftwing party.

USA

73rd on size of government.  Yes 73rd!  57th on freedom to trade.  31st on regulation.  28th on legal system and property rights and finally 7th on sound money (really??).  Where has the US come from?  It is 18th overall now, but was 2nd as recently as 2000.  By 2009 it was 15th (yes you can thank Bush for that) and the slide has continued under Obama.   On size of government it has dropped from 24th in 1990 to 73rd now, consistently.  That's through two Bushes, Clinton and Obama, and Congresses dominated by Democrats and Republicans.  On legal system and property rights it was 1st way back in 1980, yes before Reagan.  It slipped through to 1995, improved a little for 2000, and then kept slipping back, although is slightly better now than it has been since 2005.  In 2005 it was top for sound money, but it is no surprise that that has slipped with the printing presses.  Freedom to trade was once 7th in 1980, but has slipped back almost consistently since then - globalisation?  No, the US hasn't kept up with that.  The slide has been particularly intense since 2005, but Obama has never been a friend of free trade.  Finally, the US was once 2nd for regulation in 2000.  It has plummeted since then to 31st, notably it was 24th in 2009, showing once more that Bush was hardly a small government President.

Republicans in the US often talk about how they don't want to be like Europe because it is so socialist, but they need to look at themselves.  The US ranking on so many measures is worse than several European countries.  On size of government, Albania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Moldova, Romania, Switzerland and Ukraine are all smaller than the US.  Yes, Albania, once the last bastion of true believers in Stalin.   This should blow any claims that the US is the bulwark of economic freedom of the world - it quite simply isn't.

Curious ratings

On size of government Madagascar gets the best rating, but given every other rating is 92nd or worse than 100th, it isn't really a fair indicator, much like Bangladesh at 3rd (which more shows an inept state rather than a good small one).  Hong Kong is 2nd though.  At the other end of that ranking, Algeria at 142nd sits near the Netherlands at 144th and Sweden at 143rd.  Big states that are offset by good legal systems, protection of property rights and lower levels of regulation.

Legal system and property rights ratings are more consistent.  Finland is 1st,  NZ 2nd and Denmark 3rd.  Every other top 10 country is either western European, Singapore or Hong Kong.  At the bottom are the likes of Venezuela, Haiti, DRC and CAR.  All other below 100 rated countries are developing countries in Africa and Asia, including the likes of Argentina.  

On monetary policy the leaders are the likes of Japan (yes really!), Portugal, Albania and the USA.  Bottom rated are Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Angola and DRC.  Still I've little confidence that monetary policy deserves a high rating anywhere nowadays.

On freedom to trade internationally, the best rated are the likes of Singapore and Hong Kong, UK, Uruguay, Guatemala, Ireland, Peru, Netherlands and NZ.  Not a consistent lot, but showing different levels of openness.  At worst it is Venezuela, Iran, Myanmar and DRC.  India is also ranked poorly at 114th, not great for a country seeking to emulate China (which itself is 104th).  Russia is 127th, but oddly Iceland is 118th!  A lot depends on what is protected and size of the domestic economy, obviously Singapore and Hong Kong would not thrive being closed economies.

Finally on regulation, the best rated are Hong Kong, but then Fiji, NZ and Singapore.  At bottom is Algeria, Brazil, Myanmar, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.  One wonders if Brazil can sustain growth with such a tightly regulated economy. 

Conclusion

The big picture is that for much of the world economies have been subject to more government regulation in recent years, as the automatic response to a financial crisis caused by central bank fueled credit bubbles and exacerbated by fiscal incontinence has been to regulate more, engage in more central bank incontinence and to do little to substantially shrink state spending.

So let's stop talking about austerity.  In Greece, the only dimension that has ranked well as of late has been monetary policy - the rest have been the measures of a state dominated and regulated economy.  The broad indicators of a sound economy come down to a robust legal system that protects property rights and reasonably sound monetary policy.  Beyond that, the more regulation and more trade restricted the economy, the less likely it is to grow or to deliver better results for the poor. 

There is a lot of further analysis that could be done of these figures, particularly trends in GDP growth, GDP per capita and changes in rankings over time.  Of course this is all based on scoring which is not particularly transparent.  Herein lies the difficulty in making more than broad based interpretations of the report.