So for example if somebody wants to meet up with a few
like-minded people in a former warehouse under the guise of calling it a church
go ahead, I would be the last person to interfere. Providing of course that not one penny of my
money is used to subsidise their operation.
I would say that groups like that should not attract tax breaks of any
form. If I allow them to receive any of my money then I am in effect accepting
that their rights are more important than mine.
I am comfortable with the idea of a central government
that provides services that it would be difficult to arrange at the local level.
But the breadth of my comfort zone is, to some, surprisingly narrow. As an
example I would not subsidise the railways by a penny. If current users don’t want to pay the
increased fares that would result then employers would have to raise salaries
or move the business to where the people were. Their choice, their freedom if
you like, but they shouldn’t look to me for money. The total cost, both human and financial, of the centralisation of
business activity in London is mind bogglingly large and it comes out of the pockets of
us all.Wednesday, 6 March 2013
Am I a libertarian?
I feel that my main responsibility is to watch my own
behaviour and not to interfere with the behaviour of others (except in
exceptional cases). It doesn’t bother me
in the slightest that E+E live in a clan marriage or that my elder daughter is
co-habiting with her boyfriend. Similarly I don’t know and I don’t care what
religion my neighbours practice. I have a moral framework that suits me – one
that has developed over many years – and I would regard it as unacceptable,
almost laughable, for me to attempt to impose my system of beliefs on anybody
else.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment