How 'High Fidelity' Showed Me the Right and Wrong Way To Spread Liberty

I was thinking recently about the movie High Fidelity (set mostly in a record shop) made in the year 2000 and based on the book by Nick Hornby. The scene that really stuck in my mind was when two of the main characters Barry (played by Jack Black) and Dick (Todd Louiso) are selling records. Dick's approach is to identify what bands the customer likes and make suggestions of bands who influenced (or are similar) to said band. This is in stark contrast to Barry's approach, which is to bully the customer and make them feel inadequate for not having certain records, which can be seen best when he says “You don't own Blonde on Blonde? Don't tell anyone” and while shoving the record in the customers hand says “it's going to be okay.”

So what does this have to do with the price of fish? Well, I realised that when talking about liberty and freedom to random people I have often taken the same approach as Barry. “What? You don't know about fractional reserve banking?! Sit down while I lecture you aggressively for twenty minutes. Don't worry, it's going to be okay.”
 

When Caity and I interviewed Darrell Becker from VoluntaryVisions.com he gave us some great ideas for strategies when talking to other people based on non-violent communication. But a week or so after our interview I found myself getting over excited and lecturing people just as I always had.

Since realising this a while ago I have tried to figure out why I am so aggressive. I could put it down to extreme passion to spread the philosophy of liberty or extreme frustration that more people don't understand (or don't care about) this stuff. Either way, this is clearly not the approach that is going to work. I realised that you cannot bully people into accepting your philosophy. Then I had a more disturbing realisation, who are the real Barry's of the world? They clearly are the statists, dictators, politicians etc. I say this because even though Barry sold the records, he was selling them through coercion and shame – the same way the public is sold welfare and government schools. “You don't want to help the poor? Don't tell anyone.” And as you begrudgingly hand over your tax money you hear “Don't worry, it's going to be okay.” And so just like the bemused man in the movie handing over his money for the records he feels he must buy because of the shame and aggressive sales tactics so the average person is left with useless government programs that help no-one but feels (out of misplaced guilt) that they must hand over their money for them.
 

I began to contemplate people who had inspired me philosophically (not just libertarians) and I immediately thought of Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Alan Watts, Bill Buppert and Neil Kramer (among others). When I think of how these speakers talk and what drew me to their work, I realised that it was largely the humour and the lightness they bring to their subjects. They engage on a conversational level without having to raise their voices and jump all over the person they are talking to. In tone they are more like Dick than Barry and in reaching me it certainly worked.

 

The conclusion I have come to is that if we are serious about spreading liberty we have to be more like Dick in this analogy. We have to find common ground and build on it gently and in good humour, we can't preach non aggression physically and engage in aggression verbally to get our point across, all that does is make us look philosophically inconsistent not to mention alienating the people with whom we are speaking. What I am saying here is not new, many libertarians (and people with other beliefs) have said the same thing many times, it's just that many of haven't been really listening and if we truly want liberty then that's what we must begin to do.

Scottish Secession Bid Has Lit A Fire That Cannot Be Put Out

Walking my dog in this grey Glasgow morning I could see the saltires still limply dangling from the tenement windows. A few hours earlier the result of the much followed Scottish independence result was confirmed 44.7% voted yes and 55.3% voted no. The mood is very different this morning from the palpable excitement you could feel in the air in Glasgow the day before. Independence may now be off the table for the time being but it's hard not to feel like a fire has been lit.

Over the course of this long campaign I have been very critical in podcasts and articles about how independence was being packaged. I constantly argued that remaining within the European Union (EU), retaining the pound and being tied to the Bank of England and to a lesser extent keeping the monarchy made it for me not really independence, rather just some more power for Scotland while keeping the real power structure in place. After all, what good is being independent from the rest of the UK only to find Scotland just another state in an EU superstate with government based in Brussels?
 

Like every other campaign this one was riddled with lies ranging from “Vote no or there will be border guards on the border with England” to “The only way to stop the NHS from being privatised is to vote yes”. But that was to be expected, we are dealing with politicians after all. There was also many, many people making their decision based on emotion rather than critical thinking. Again, something we should expect.
 

But these criticisms aside I have to say that this debate really seemed to awaken something in the often apathetic Scottish people. I was involved with the Scottish National Party (SNP) just less than ten years ago and at that time the idea that the SNP would get into power in Scotland was a bit far-fetched and the idea of a Scottish independence referendum seemed like pure fantasy. Even when the campaigning started two years ago it seemed like the no campaign would just easily skate their way to victory. That is not what happened. Glasgow has been so transformed over the last few months, I have never seen such a level of debate and engagement in a political issue in my lifetime and that can only be a good thing.
 

The question of independence may be settled in the minds of certain politicians but it certainly is not in the minds of a huge section of the population. It's hard to see people who voted yes turning back to the three Westminster parties (Labour, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats) in upcoming elections because they are traitors now in the minds of many people. It is equally hard to see no voters ever voting for the SNP again (many people in 2011 voted SNP but disagreed with independence and many didn't even think the referendum would happen) because I seriously doubt they ever want to go through another one of these stressful and nail biting referendums.
 

So what does this mean for the future? Well it really is anyone's guess at this point. One thing is very true, people who had no interest in politics and political theory whatsoever have been educating themselves and we all know that you cannot unlearn something. The other thing is that sixteen and seventeen-year-old's were allowed to vote for the first time and from my experience many of them were voting yes and have as such been part of an exciting political debate for the first time. We have definitely had a moderate shift in conciousness in this country and that is exciting. Don't get me wrong, most people are still socialist to varying degrees, but that's not what's important. People are talking about secession and localisation now in a way they were not before, this debate has stirred something that was lying dormant in many people and not just in Scotland, secession movements all over the world from Catalonia to Texas have been inspired by this referendum and you would make a huge mistake to assume that that feeling is just going to go away. There will be other secession movements and they will start to succeed and that terrifies the elite classes.

 

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News - http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

The Westminster Leaders Don't Want to Save The Union – They Want To Save Their Jobs

I, like many Scots while watching the coverage of the independence referendum have been nauseated by the sight of the three identical Westminster party leaders traipsing up north to come and convince us rebellious Jocks that they are really in love with the United Kingdom and they would love nothing more for us all to live in harmony as one big UK family. However, one only has to analyse the situations of these men to realise that they are only interested in saving the union because that's the only way to save their jobs...and their parties. They are not in Scotland campaigning out of love but out of fear. Let's start with the Ed Miliband and the Labour party.

No-one really knows what the Labour party are for anymore. Many on the left see them (and quite rightly so) as the once-socialist party who have spent the last few decades betraying the working class. After the Thatcher-era the Tories became irrelevant in Scotland and Labour cleaned up so to speak. But something quite strange happened in the 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections. The parliament was set up in such a way that it seemed impossible to achieve a majority but somehow the SNP did just that. For me that was the point that Scots simply became sick of the Labour party. At that time the SNP presented a positive vision for Scotland that the Labour party could not match and people left them in their droves to find something different. While this was a major setback the Labour elite in London still knew that the Scots would vote for them in general elections out of fear that the Tories would get into power.
 

But now the game has changed dramatically. Scottish Labour's first catastrophic error was letting their hatred of the SNP and the influence of their Westminster bosses cloud their judgement in terms of coming out against Scottish independence. Rather than being seen as brave defenders of the union they are now viewed by many to be simply poodles for their Westminster handlers. So now we have the spectacle of Ed Miliband and all his Labour pals vigorously defending the union – they are in so deep now that they simply have to. Imagine that Scotland votes yes on the 18^th and (as many are predicting) it's a narrow victory, well then a huge portion of the population are not going to vote for the Labour party because they will hold them responsible for selling the Scots out. If the Scottish Labour party had come out as being pro-independence from the start then I believe we would be now looking at a landslide victory for the yes campaign and as such they would be in a position to wrestle power from the SNP in an election. But this is not the case.
 

So why should Ed care? Well, without the votes from Scotland the Labour party will struggle to win any UK-wide general election and as such it looks like they would be out of power for some time (if not indefinitely) if Scotland secedes from the UK. But don't think that means that life is rosy for David Cameron, far from it.
 

I have met practically no-one who believes one word that comes out of David Cameron's mouth much less his 'heartfelt' pleas to save the union. To understand why Cameron cares so much about a country who cares so little about his party we must turn to UKIP and more specifically Nigel Farage.
 

Nigel Farage is not a stupid man, far from it. Despite UKIP not being part of the “Better Together” campaign he has been in Scotland sticking his oar in. Now, he knows that he is not well liked (and in many cases detested) in Scotland, however he carries on. You may think “why bother?” but it's perfectly simple. I believe that he knows that his presence will help the yes campaign because many undecided Scots who dislike him will look at him campaigning and will be immediately drawn to voting yes. And this is what will benefit Farage. Here's why – if Scotland goes independent then it is no great loss to UKIP (they only have one European Member of Parliament (MEP) in Scotland and that is it) because without the fear of the Labour party getting into power in England (backed by Scottish votes) then actual conservatives in England will feel less obliged to vote for the Tories to keep Labour out. So with the fear taken away where might they go....hmmm...it's a tough one right enough...to...UKIP? Maybe? Of course they will. They will not pass go and not collect £200 and I think Farage is savvy enough to know this and David Cameron is terrified. Not only will he be the prime minister that lost the union but he could also be in charge when the Tories finally capitulate to the growing power of UKIP – a disaster.
 

As for Nick Clegg, well he's just following his pal Cameron around at this point, he is a man who has so compromised any principles he may once have had for a small slice of power and as such he is not worth even caring about. Sorry Nick but it is all your own fault after all.

So what have we learned? Well, the “Better Together” campaign is fear all over. They scaremonger because they have no positive vision and their leaders are only up here 'fighting' for the union because they are also scared that their parties will crumble to the new political powers that are emerging. People all over the UK are sick of the pass-the-parcel nonsense between these two parties who only have minute differences in policy. They are dinosaurs and they are dying out and guess what? Most people are happy about that.
 

I am a libertarian and as such I do not want to be part of the EU or the Bank of England and I am no fan of the SNP's socialist policies. However, I feel that the quicker Scotland divorces itself from these Westminster elites the better. They do no care about us, they are simply covering their own arses and more and more of the Scottish people can see through their lies. So I will vote yes on the 18^th but not out of fear but out of hope for a truly free Scotland – one day.

To Achieve True Freedom We Must Let Scottish Socialism Fail

During this whole farce of a Scottish 'independence' debate I have been very upset by many people I know on the left and right of the mainstream political spectrum compromise their beliefs and abandon all reason and logic in favour of emotional, nationalistic and fantasy arguments. It seems that when people (such as myself) want to put forward a case based on logic and economic reality we are shut down because we're ruining delusion for the masses. The only way I see true independence being achieved in Scotland is if we first let this socialist nightmare that is the yes camp fail. I will take some examples and explain.

In my article “Scottish Independence: What It Is and What It Isn't” I detailed that calling what the yes camp are shouting about 'independence' is at best economic ignorance and at worst flat out lies and manipulation. In that article I explained that keeping the power structure in place (the EU, the Bank of England and the monarchy) cannot be called independence. So I won't dwell on those points, important as they are. What has been bothering me is the rampant socialism and nationalism of the yes camp (hint: those two things don't go well together). So what am I actually taking about? Let me throw some examples your way (and please read this using logic and not emotion or simply don't bother).
 

Yes people seem to want the disaster that is the NHS enshrined in some kind of constitution so we can continue to have our money stolen by the government through taxation to fund a crumbling Soviet-style health system. Now in my article “A Scottish Constitution Will Not Make Us Free” I explained how constitutions are not worth the paper they are written on anyway (ask most mainstream US politicians or anyone who lived in the Soviet Union or currently lives in North Korea – all have or had written constitutions) but that's not the issue, the issue is that we would have much better healthcare if we abolished the NHS, or made it voluntary (for more detail on the NHS see my article "Time For A Voluntary NHS?") and the British Medical Association and we actually opened up the market. That statement is dynamite in Scotland right now but only to people who have never genuinely looked into the economics of healthcare. The NHS will crumble eventually.
 

But that's one point (albeit a big one) but it's not just the NHS. All yes campaign literature is packed full of talk of 'social justice' (whatever that means, usually that more money will be stolen from people who actually work to pay those who don't) and government hand-outs. What is talked about less is the fact that the Scottish National Party (SNP) will have to flood Scotland with immigrants to pay for the ageing population and all this damn spending. I personally am not against individual immigration what I am against is massive amounts of people descending on a city and causing social tensions (as I have witnessed in Glasgow) that will only get worse as more immigrants flood the city and put strains on the public services the yes people are so adamant they want to protect. Now, when a statement like that is made people automatically just shout “racist!” to shut you up. But that is not an argument and to anyone who listens to me for five minutes it is obvious that I am not racist in the slightest. But this has become a new tactic of the left in Scotland. Look at when Nigel Farage came to Scotland and was subject to abuse by leftist thugs. I'm no Farage fan but if he is such an idiot as the left claim then why couldn't they let him speak, surely then he would make an arse of himself and no-one would take him seriously? They must have been scared of what he might say to take the extreme step of shutting him down so aggressively (socialists denying people free speech, where have I heard that before...)
 

I know I have railed in podcasts and articles about the evils of central banking but this is worth revisiting. The yes camp want massive government spending in Scotland but bizarrely want to be subject to the Bank of England. I wonder if they know that the reason we have government debt that our children will inherit is because of fractional reserve banking. This currency issue would be solved if the yes folks thought about a Scottish currency backed by say gold or even competing currencies. Even if they decided to follow a debt-free government issued currency model like Abraham Lincoln's “greenback” notes that would be vastly better (although I don't recommend it personally). But no, the yes folks want to go on and on about keeping the pound as it is and basically condemning every person, their children and grandchildren to continue this farce of government debt caused by privately owned central banks (such as the Bank of England) to roll on for generations.

Another point I have only touched on briefly in the past is the Royal mail issue. The Communication Workers Union put out a good booklet explaining why re-nationalising Royal Mail can't work. There are a few reasons for this (despite the fact that nationalised industries don't perform as well as private ones). For example the universal service would be harder to keep in Scotland alone because of it's higher level of rural and hard to reach areas (this would also affect the Post Office network for the same reasons). Also an independent Scotland's proportion of Royal Mail's historic pension liabilities that are currently held by the UK government would have to be determined. A new Scottish postal regulator (such as they want to introduce) would be an additional cost to taxpayers. We don't know what would happen to shares owned currently by Royal Mail employees either. Where will this socialistic plan of nationalising Royal mail end? With many staff being laid off and a worse service for the public. And I thought the left were supposed to support the workers?

But this is all part of a common trend in Scotland. Scotland has developed into a terrifyingly state-dependent society that spends more on benefits per head of the population than anywhere else in the UK. Thinking people know that socialistic policies can't work long term because of the fact that state-planning has been shown up for what it is – ineffective nonsense. Any serious economist will tell you that price is determined in the market and no matter how much you say “No, no, no, we'll ignore economics and build a tartan utopia.” It will simply not change the facts.
 

Socialism has been shown in the 20^th century to be what it is – a dead end. If Scotland goes independent and these damaging socialistic policies are enacted then we must learn from history. Maybe it'll take twenty years but like the Soviet Union it will fall apart eventually. Every country with large welfare states and socialist healthcare will fall apart when they can no longer be propped up.
 

But I'm not in some kind of violent depression about this (despite what you may think) because I've come to realise that no amount of talking, writing and podcasting is not going to get this into people's heads. Unlike the people who have compromised their philosophical beliefs over this issue and have as such discredited themselves from philosophical debate for life I don't think short term. Like the elites in the world (the Fabians and the round table groups etc.) I have started to think long term. The only way we can move towards a truly free society is if we let Scottish socialism be enacted and wait till it crumbles and the people (red delusions completely removed) wake up and realise that socialism makes no one free, helps only the politicians and their corporate buddies and only serves to infantilize the population at large. In my view only then when this tartan socialism has been discredited will people turn their eyes towards true freedom and independence and only then will Scotland prosper.

 

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News

http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

 

Why I Am A Libertarian and Not A Conservative

Unfortunately many of the people I interact with in Scotland in my daily life are unfamiliar with the philosophy of libertarianism. So when having political discussions with people I begin to put forward my views I am very often branded “conservative” or sometimes bizarrely even “neoconservative” (which considering the libertarian anti-war stance makes absolutely no sense). Now, to anyone who understands libertarianism these conservative labels are not accurate and I would like to point out why (in my own view) this is.

Before we go on I should point out that the reason why I have called this article “Why I'm a Libertarian and Not A Conservative” opposed to “Why I'm a Libertarian and Not A Liberal” is that (if we leave aside the fact that the word liberalism has been twisted so many times over the years to mean different things and use it as it is currently understood in the mainstream vernacular) frankly in many parts of the People's Republic of Scotland “conservative” is a rather dirty word (especially in Glasgow). So if I talk to someone and mention that I'm anti-war, pro drug decriminalization, for limiting government spending and free markets many people seem to filter out the parts they would call “liberal” and jump on the ones they would call “conservative”. Because to them being a conservative is just downright bad. But this aside, let's continue.
 

Like most ideologies what we call conservative in the mainstream and what being a true conservative is are radically different things. In my opinion no true conservative would call David Cameron and his band of followers conservative. So what do I mean when I talk about conservatism?
 

I'm usually accused of being a conservative when I mention my economic preferences for (ideally no government whatsoever) but realistically a very small one, which would entail massive cuts in public spending (which is associated with conservatism in the minds of many). So I would abolish (or radically slash) welfare, the NHS and even privatise public roads. Now my preferences are actually more radical than most conservatives because I believe having a truly free market minus a state. But you can see that there are similarities between libertarians and conservatives when it comes to free markets and small government. But when it comes to social policy things start to look very different.

To me conservatism is really about either retaining traditional social norms and values (as we have them in this country) or going back further to previous norms and values. Why I do not identify with this school of thought is because to me it seems like imposing your own morality on everyone else. Before I go further it should be mentioned that most conservatives feel this way because they genuinely believe this line of thought keeps social order and is generally good for society. But my problem is that (like most libertarians) I don't want to impose my values on anyone else. Many conservatives in the UK are against things like gay marriage, drugs decriminalization and legalizing prostitution. But - coming at this from a libertarian perspective - I personally don't care what consenting adults do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. I also don't think that these things destroy the “social fabric” that many are so obsessed with preserving (for more in depth on why see my articles “The Gay Marriage Distraction” and “Legalize All Drugs!”). To libertarians, wasting tax payers money prosecuting victimless crimes like smoking a joint or visiting a hooker is madness. I simply want to leave people alone who are not hurting anyone and I want people to leave me alone as long as I'm not hurting anyone. It really is that simple.
 

In a recent interview Caity and I did on the Greening Out Podcast with Dr Sean Gabb, director of the Libertarian Alliance UK he explained that in the past in libertarians in the UK allied themselves with the Conservative Party (something they do not do now). So that may be one reason for some people's confusion of the terms. But I think another is simply that libertarian ideas are not widely discussed in the mainstream in the UK so as soon as someone who leans left, shall we say, hears about cuts in government they think “AHH CONSERVATIVES!” In the same way when a conservative hears about gay marriage and drugs etc and being anti-war then the reaction is “Bloody liberals! You want to destroy our society.” Many people simply attribute different policies to where they fit in to their left-right political mind box.
 

The way I understand and espouse libertarianism is that it takes good ideas, some we attribute to the right wingers (free markets and slashing government spending) and some the left (drugs decriminalization and being anti-war) and moulds them into a coherent philosophy which is all it's own. It is my own personal view that if we can spread libertarian ideas as widely as possible then we can begin to dispense with this left-right tribal rubbish and actually talk about what will increase freedom for all.

 

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News

http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

 

Most Scots Aren't Ready For Independence

As an anarchist I am often accused of being too optimistic when sitting with someone and explaining how people can be trusted to take care of their own affairs without having to have a government do it for them. But what I've seen and heard during this independence referendum campaign deeply worries me and shows me that to put it bluntly most people in Scotland are simply not ready for independence.

So what do I mean by that? Well from the SNP to the Radical Independence Campaign (RIC) all I see is socialist ideas being put forward by most on the yes side. Like the SNP talking about re-nationalising Royal Mail in Scotland, something that simply would not work when you take into account the thousands of employees who now own shares and also keeping the universal service would be a major challenge.

One of the big fear tactics is telling people that the Tories in England are trying to privatise the NHS and the only way to keep it in Scotland is to vote yes. Now, I have explained in many other articles why the NHS should be privatised anyway. But this is not about that, this is about how socialistic policies in the UK have infantilized large amounts of the population. That's what state socialism (and socialistic policies) do.

It's like this, followers of the Abrahamic religions feel comfort in having a god that is interested in them, loves them and deeply cares about what's going on in their lives like a benevolent father who never abandons them and is always around. To remove that from the very deeply religious is to invoke fear of being alone in the cosmos and it removes the hope that there is someone you can ask to help you out in hard times and will provide a paradise (although in some Christian conceptions a strange one that's like one eternal family gathering – I'll take hell over that thank you very much) after death.

People feel the same way about the state (whether they admit it or not). The revulsion in peoples faces when you talk seriously and intelligently about removing the state altogether is due to the fact that they are afraid to have to fend for themselves without daddy government around to do that for them. By having a national health service, welfare, state pensions and all the rest of it people feel more comfortable because they don't have to worry about that stuff. They're not bothered about the fact that none of this is actually free if you are forced to pay taxes. Or by the fact that we have to put up with inferior services from state-run institutions (I have gone into depth on this in other articles).

As the state grows so does the rise of adult infants. If there was no welfare or NHS many people might think seriously before having children, they would realise that they need to work harder or get a job in the first place. That their resources must be channelled into providing the best life for their child. But when daddy government is around then people feel freer to be irresponsible because they just think fuck it, the government will pay for it. The same goes for people who don't save for their retirement for the same reasons. Do they ever think about the fact that the government steals the money from hard working responsible people to pay for that​ It is a disgrace that so many people are dependent on the state in Scotland. Now before you think, it's the fault of big business creating inequality or some other scapegoat just remember that big business couldn't exist without having politicians in their pockets and it is irrelevant which politician you put in office because everyone has their price and we know people get into politics to get paid – in a big way.
 

So how does this all tie in? Government is the most dangerous superstition (as Larken Rose put it) that we have. All this independence chat is is about bringing some form of Tartan Socialism to Scotland within the already existing power structures (the EU and the Bank of England). Until we have a major paradigm shift in Scotland and people wake up to what is really holding them back then all this independence stuff is frankly a waste of time. I would be the first to enthusiastically support a free Scotland with a minimal state to begin with and I would be out campaigning every day if that was on offer but all I hear from pro-independence people is talk of growing the state even larger if 'independence' is achieved. Let me tell you until the people wake up to the reality of government we're just re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

 

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News

http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

 

SNP Propaganda Piece Decoded

I recently struggled through a short SNP propaganda video lately which, I have to say was one of the worst attempts at propaganda I have ever seen in my life. But it is full of what passes for debate in modern politics and it is this fallacy that will win the independence referendum and that is the logical fallacy known as the “Appeal To Emotion”.

The definition of this fallacy from Wikipedia is: “Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also, this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process.” These fallacies are nothing new in politics of course, pretty much every word out of a politicans mouth is an appeal to emotion, tradition, authority etc.
 

The video I watched is about Kirtsy who is so intelligent that she is mulling over Scottish independence as a foetus. And she has some questions which I'd like to answer for her.
 

Will it be a Scotland that is fairer and more prosperous? A Scotland where I can reach my full potential? Crystal ball anyone? I always worry when the word 'fair' comes up in political discussion in Scotland because it's usually used in a socialistic fashion. For example people may think that it's fair to steal money in the form of taxes from hard-working people to give to people who choose to do nothing with their lives. Is it fair to give said money to people just for having children? What about the word 'prosperous' by that are the SNP talking about the oil fairy again? We would be more prosperous if the SNP dropped the idea to keep the pound and we could finally escape from the control of central banking which creates money out of thin air and causes inflation.
 

Will it be a Scotland of opportunity, where free higher education is a right for all, and going to Uni depends on your ability, not your bank balance? Unpopularity alert – education like healthcare is not a right. I don't actually mind funding intelligent people from poorer backgrounds to get an excellent education but I would like to do it voluntarily and not have money stolen from me to do it. Also, what about parents, is saving for your kids college education (which would be easier with much lower or no taxes) such a bad thing? Another point to this is that University education for prosperity is a lie. There are many people with degrees who are out of work or in low paying jobs (believe me, I know a few) and at the same time we have very prosperous people like Richard Branson and Bill Gates with no degrees! With a wealth of information available at our fingertips higher education is becoming irrelevant in many fields, how about teaching entrepreneurship in schools? That would make us prosperous.
 

Will the land of my birth be a true nation that stands proudly alongside all other nations, with a voice and a vote to help build a better world? This is a classic meaningless sentence. What is a 'true nation' anyway, one that exists? What does a “voice and a vote to help build a better world” actually mean? A vote where? In the EU perhaps? With it's unelected president? This is just meaningless emotional garbage.
 

Will my Scotland be free of weapons of mass destruction and a country that can never be led by others into illegal wars? I would love nothing more than to say yes, yes and yes again. I have never agreed with the 'deterrent' argument for the UK having nuclear weapons, there is no circumstance under which we will fire them unless we decide with other countries to all have one huge earth-wide suicide. But with the SNP voting to stay in NATO it seems likely that they will exert pressure to keep the nukes if they think it's beneficial and just by being in NATO it is likely that we will be dragged into 'illegal wars' – guess what, pretty much all wars are illegal, mass murder isn't exactly a good thing. Another point is that NATO was set up as a defence against an attack from the Soviet Union – something that doesn't even exist any more.
 

Will I grow up in a Scotland where our wealth and natural resources are in Scotland’s hands, not squandered by Westminster governments we didn’t even vote for? Hmm, well did we not affect a hung parliament in Westminster when only one Tory MP was elected in Scotland? Let me tell you this is a post-Thatcher type of voting because the Tories used to pick up many MP's in Scotland before the Thatcher-era and the disastrous poll tax that left a very sour taste in Scottish mouths. Oil could be great revenue for Scotland but we would have to keep the EU's hands off it to profit.
 

Will my mum and dad be able to live their old age with dignity, in a Scotland that respects and cares for its pensioners? Ah yes, back to the appeals to emotion here. Why would you not want a private pension? They don't take as much as the tax man and you will have more in the end than you would with a state pension. Also, the SNP have talked about how much they would have to increase immigration in an independent Scotland to have enough young people working to pay for it. Now, I have no problem with immigrants all my grandparents were and my wife is one also. However, mass immigration can lead to major social tensions (as we are seeing right now in Glasgow) that can lead to major social unrest and a strain on these much praised 'services' that our tax money pays for.
 

Will my own kids be born into a society that is more equal and safer, a society that reflects the true values of Scotland? Again, more emotional chat and not much facts or policy. What are the “true values of Scotland” anyway? Friendliness? Sure, there's a lot of that. Sectarianism? There's just as much as that also. By “safer” do they mean increasing the already growing police state? If they want all this immigration and it causes social tension will that make us safer?
 

Will I raise my family in a Scotland where the decisions about our future are taken by the people who care most about Scotland, the people who live here? I hate to break it to you Kirsty because I've come to be quite fond of you but the elites in power don't give a shit about you and they never will. Governments are no better than organized crime, they are inherently violent. They steal your money through tax and if you object they send uniformed thugs to your door calling themselves police to kidnap you. If we accept that initiation of violence and stealing are wrong then we have to conclude that government is morally wrong.
 

Now, I have picked on the SNP in this but the Better Together mob are every bit as bad. I would love the people of Scotland to think critically instead of being led into emotional arguments either for a yes or no vote. If we don't see through the manipulation of the people through emotional arguments then we will never figure out what works economically. We have to get out of thinking in the sectarian box, that's the only way we can make sensible decisions about the future. Sorry Kirsty.

 

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News

http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

 

 

http://www.snp.org/vision/better-scotland/independence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25910947

http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2014/may/what-yes-vote-means-immigration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion