A local council at Tweeddale banned a children's sports tournament that has taken place for 40 years, reports Laura Pitel in the Times. The reason? "to protect young players from becoming upset if they lost." Sports development officers at the local council believed that primary schoolchildren on losing teams would suffer from "low self-esteem."
In fact this is what has always happened. Children play sports at school and learn how it feels to win, and how to handle defeat. They learn to stretch their performance against others and strive to excel, and they learn composure when they lose and how to move on. They learn how to work in a team to achieve a result.
The council's policy is apparently "trophy-free," to enable the children to express themselves "without the focus on the result." The world is not like that.
Part of life is about expressing yourself, certainly, but part of it is about results. Part of it is competitive, too, and school is a good place to learn the skills and the demeanor appropriate to that.
Some parents thought as much, and started a Facebook campaign to have competitive sports restored. Now the council has reinstated the inter-schools football and netball competition.
This is good news for the children. Not only will they have the fun of competitive sports, but their long-term interests will be enhanced as their characters take shape and prepare them for a life that is not wrapped in the cotton wool of education psychologists.
I've just finished reading 'What Price Liberty? How freedom was won and is being lost' by historian Ben Wilson. And I must say, it was a fascinating read. Using Berlin's negative definition of liberty, Wilson chronologically charts the growth, decline and battle for individual liberty over the last four hundred years of British history.
While reporting and examining political events across the centuries, Wilson seeks to identify the factors that have extended freedom. It is not often large-scale demonstrations, benevolent governments or even constitutional checks and balances that nurture liberty, Wilson argues, but "the direct action of bloody-minded individuals". Liberty has been won, bit by bit, in "moments of storm and passion" by minority groups, opportunism, and, quite often, unintentionally. And when liberty has been protected without legal restraints on government, it has been because the concept and language of liberty flourished in public debate. Using examples from across ages and the political spectrum Wilson shows that when individual liberty is considered sacrosanct by all classes the political desire to meddle is beaten down: though not always without a fight.
However, Wilson gloomily claims "the liberal phase in our history seems to be coming to an end". From the emergency legislation of the World Wars that seized liberty in the name of national security and victory, subsequent declines in individual freedom are all too painfully noted. Again, Wilson's analysis is interesting: that over recent decades we have become more 'risk-averse', with the fear of social disorder, crime and terrorism encouraging people to incrementally hand over their liberties in return for increased security and peace of mind. The information age has seen state regulation and data hoarding increase, while the lines between public and private, protection and intrusion have become increasingly blurred. New Labour’s desire for a strong and efficient state was at ends with the principles of ‘cumbersome’ liberty, and so its importance was downplayed at every opportunity. Another blow to liberty has been struck, Wilson argues, by Britain’s uneasy response to multiculturalism. Our fear of offending minorities has lead us to attack everyone’s right to free speech, and created legislation that makes all of us less free and more fearful of those who are ‘different’.
How do we counteract this? The answer is to re-invigorate the language of individual liberty, and encourage it to be spoken by politicians and the public. This liberty is the foundation of social harmony, progress and economic growth. Britain’s relative freedom has been admired and mocked, but always recognized; it is up to groups such as the ASI to demonstrate how essential this freedom is and insist that liberty is at the forefront of policy decisions.
In association with the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the Adam Smith Institute, Big Brother Watch, The Manifesto Club and Liberal Vision, The Free Society is hosting a series of debates entitled Voices of Freedom: The Battle Against Big Government.
Subjects include ‘Economic Freedom in Welfare’, ‘Big Government is Watching You’, ‘Can a Big Society be a Free Society?’, ‘Hyper-Regulation and the Bully State’; and ‘Who Holds the Liberal Torch in 2010?’.
The debates will be chaired by Mark Littlewood, general-director of the IEA; Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas; James Panton, co-founder of The Manifesto Club; and political blogger Iain Dale. They will be held at the IEA on 3, 10, 15, 24 and 29 June.
Speakers currently include Philip Davies MP; Brendan O’Neill (editor, online magazine Spiked!); Michael White, assistant editor of the Guardian; Ross Clark, author of The Road To Southend: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society; Dr Eamonn Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute; Alex Deane, director of Big Brother Watch and former chief of staff to David Cameron; Dr Tim Evans, president of the Libertarian Alliance; freedom of information campaigner Heather Brooke; Chris Mounsey, leader of the Libertarian party; Josie Appleton of the Manifesto Club; and journalist Philip Johnston, author of Bad Laws: An Explosive Analysis of Britain’s Petty Rules, Health and Safety Lunacies and Madcap Laws. More speakers will be confirmed shortly.
The programme of events concludes with a "Smoke on the Water" boat party on Wednesday July 14.
If you are interested in attending please RSVP: events@forestonline.org
When the single currency was adopted, Germany effectively loaned its AAA-credit rating to every other eurozone country. So Greek debt – like a subprime home loan – suddenly went from being rather risky to being a 'safe' investment. Then the true state of Greece's finances became clear. And everyone realised that Greece wasn't Germany at all. That's what triggered the panic.
Last week I saw Robin Hood at the cinema. It is a truly, extraordinarily bad film: long, boring and yet, at times, preposterously silly. The low point came towards the end, when a bloodied, chainmailed Robin lept out of the English Channel, and gave a dramatic, slow motion roar. The whole audience burst out laughing. But it’s a real shame the film is so terrible, because it actually has quite a libertarian message. This is the not the Robin Hood conjured up by those Tobin tax advocates, who think confiscating bank profits will solve all the world’s problems. This Robin makes speeches about liberty, battles King John’s tax collectors, and even tries to force the King to sign an early version of Magna Carta. If the film hadn’t been so utterly charmless, I’d have been cheering him on.
***
This version of the Robin Hood story made me think of Jean Baptiste Colbert’s famous quote: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing”. King John, plainly, failed to master that art. Yet modern governments have become very good at it, taking up to half of what people earn without triggering a revolt, or even any serious resistance. The reason is that people today often pay their taxes without realizing it. Most is simply withheld by their employers, while much of the rest is passed on to the taxman by retailers. I suspect a lot more people would be advocating low taxes if they had to actually reach into their pockets and pay them directly. In this spirit, perhaps it is time for tax withholding to go.
***
On Friday, I saw a rather pathetic protest taking place on Palace Street, near Victoria. ‘No sanctions for North Korea’ was the general theme: one man stood holding a big sickle and hammer flag with ‘bolshevism’ written on it, while the other read a prepared speech through a loud-speaker. South Korean ‘conservatives’ are the real villains, apparently, and North Korea is a people’s paradise. At first I laughed, but on reflection it makes me quite angry. Too many people continue to see communism, which has killed a hundred million people in the last Century, as a nice idea that didn’t quite work out. But the truth is that communism is an evil, inhuman ideology that can only lead to tyranny. The sickle and hammer deserves to be as reviled as the swastika.
The Cobden Centre Education Network is a new network of students in the UK interested in libertarian and classical liberal economics, especially the Austrian school. It aims to connect libertarian and classical liberal students across the UK and help them develop their interests and involvement in classical liberalism and libertarianism.
This summer, the Cobden Centre Education Network will be hosting a series of seminars studying Murray Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State, a seminal work in Austrian economics that lays the foundation for further study of the Austrian school. The seminars will take place twice a month at the Institute for Economic Affairs in London, and Cobden Centre board members and fellows will join us for some sessions. Electronic copies of all reading materials and a study guide will be provided.
As well as being a unique opportunity to develop a comprehensive knowledge of the Austrian school, this will give Education Network members a chance to meet some of Britain’s foremost libertarian and classical liberal thinkers.
If you are interested in joining the Cobden Centre Education Network, please email “sam@cobdencentre.org” with your name, contact email address, and university and course if you are currently in education. Please also state if you are available to attend events during the summer in London.
Dr Madsen Pirieoutlined a couple of policies the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives could agree on...
Our new Communications Manager, Sally Thompson, wondered why there weren't more female libertarians...
Liam Ward-Proudsaid the election was a race to see who could bury their head furthest into the sand about Britain's public finances...
Tom Cloughertyargued that, since we're talking about electoral reform, an English Parliament should be very much on the agenda...
And Tim Worstallsuggested we should all agree on economic liberalism, since it produces the most wealth, and worry about redistribution afterwards. He also pointed out that we shouldn't blame the CDS market for Greece's – if anything, it is stopping things getting worse.
As a female libertarian, I’m a rare breed. Libertarianism should give women more choice in their healthcare and their child’s education, it’s a key mechanism for alleviating poverty and creating greater personal freedoms, so why do so few women align themselves to this political theory?
Looking online, there are a number of (mostly misogynistic) arguments for the lack of women in our circles. It’s because women are ‘mostly emotional rather than rational’ or it’s the fear that libertarian events are filled with wild-eyed fanatics, that keeps them away. Or perhaps women just aren’t educated or encouraged to engage in political debate – we would rather study fiction and the arts – so discussing government policy and individual liberty isn’t something we feel at home with.
There may be some truth in the argument that women and men are wired differently. A study by Abrams found that with women’s suffrage the decisive voter was more likely to support increases in government social welfare spending. Women are socialised as nurturers, we expect society to care for people who have nothing, and as such are more attracted to a state that provides for the weakest. As Jessica Ashooh, an American libertarian argues, “If one's primary role is a wife and mother, rather than as a member of political society or the workforce, then issues involving individual rights fall to the wayside. Preferences become by definition collective and having a state safety net becomes much more desirable.”
I’m not so sure. Talking to women in my peer group they are completely aware of the dangers of big government, high taxation and a floundering economy. They also know they don’t want their children to grow up in a world of health and safety rules, they want choice in their children’s education, and want access to the right drugs and best healthcare when they are ill. If you ask me, plenty of women have been libertarians for years – they are just not familiar with the term or philosophy. We could blame the state education system or an apparent lack of interest in politics, but ultimately I think some of the blame must fall on us for not making libertarianism accessible. Whoever is to blame, one thing I do know is that if we want libertarianism to enter mainstream politics and influence government, then we need to start getting women on board and making libertarianism a real choice for both genders.
The Spectator and Telegraph columnist James Delingpole gave a solid defence of classical liberalism at the ASI's The Next Generation event on Tuesday 4th May. He explained why it was so difficult to be a classical liberal - its firm roots in empiricism and the realities of human nature do not often arouse great enthusiasm. Its policies and positions must constantly be explained and justified, relying on the audience's commitment to reason and logic. A big ask.
To be on the left on the other hand is simple. Not only have they won the culture wars as Gramsci had hoped and advocated, but to take on an air of moral superiority is both thoughtless and effortless - it is the easiest thing in the world to be committed to reducing global warming, poverty and inequality. Actually acting on those commitments is something entirely different, and could be done to the detriment of all in a spurt of destructive moralising zeal.
Despite the numerous advantages of the left, classical liberalism is fundamentally 'sound' due to its basis in reality rather than wishful thinking. It will prevail so long as we keep on justifying our positions sensibly and with the use of reason. Delingpole's speech ended in a call to arms - it was for us to continue a fight with the odds stacked against us - whilst being a classical liberal may be difficult, we gain all the more from the tools of empiricism and realism at our disposal. In short: classical liberals are always right, and should remember it.
Valdis Dombrovskis, Prime Minister of Latvia at Munich Economic summit, 30 April 2010
[Note: Latvia has abolished 30 percent of public sector jobs, and the wages of government employees who remain has been cut by 28 percent. A government deficit of 20 percent of GDP has been transformed into a surplus of 8 percent in just 2 years. Budget flights to Riga start at £14.99].
A local council at Tweeddale banned a children's sports tournament that has taken place for 40 years, 
I've just finished reading 'What Price Liberty? How freedom was won and is being lost' by historian Ben Wilson. And I must say, it was a fascinating read. Using Berlin's negative definition of liberty, Wilson chronologically charts the growth, decline and battle for individual liberty over the last four hundred years of British history.
In association with the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the Adam Smith Institute, Big Brother Watch, The Manifesto Club and Liberal Vision, The Free Society is hosting a series of debates entitled 
The Cobden Centre Education Network is a new network of students in the UK interested in libertarian and classical liberal economics, especially the Austrian school. It aims to connect libertarian and classical liberal students across the UK and help them develop their interests and involvement in classical liberalism and libertarianism.
As a female libertarian, I’m a rare breed. Libertarianism should give women more choice in their healthcare and their child’s education, it’s a key mechanism for alleviating poverty and creating greater personal freedoms, so why do so few women align themselves to this political theory?.jpg)
The Spectator and Telegraph columnist James Delingpole gave a solid defence of classical liberalism at the ASI's The Next Generation event on Tuesday 4th May. He explained why it was so difficult to be a classical liberal - its firm roots in empiricism and the realities of human nature do not often arouse great enthusiasm. Its policies and positions must constantly be explained and justified, relying on the audience's commitment to reason and logic. A big ask.