Immigration is good

After watching Nick Griffin’s recent appearance on Question Time, and learning this morning that one in five Britons are considering voting for the BNP, I think it’s time to address the “issue” of immigration. It was heartening that the panellists and audience were, more or less, united in their vocal disgust at Griffin's ahistorical racist nonsense about “indigenous Britons”. But this is not going to be a post about the BNP; virtually all of my readers, I hope, agree with me that Griffin and his ilk are despicable, and I have no particular interest in preaching to the choir.

Rather, in this post, I want to focus on another part of the discussion, one which I think deserves an equal amount of attention; the sniping between Straw, Warsi and Huhne on immigration policy, in which all three politicians, to varying degrees, pandered to the prejudices of the tabloid-reading public. Indeed, Jack Straw seemed to me to be marginally the most principled of the three – which is perhaps unsurprising, since he is surely aware by now that his party has no immediate prospect of recovery from the political doldrums, and that he, personally, has little to lose at this stage by being honest. But it is sad, and a depressing reflection on the realities of British politics today, that no panellist spoke up in defence of open immigration. Nor did any of them truly question the basic irrational assumptions which underlie nationalist thought.

Most discussion about immigration policy seems to be founded on a basic assumption that “the British people” have some sort of a collective right to decide how “their” country will be governed, and to determine how many “non-British” people will be allowed to enter. This collectivist idea of “national sovereignty” is fundamental to political discourse, in this country and elsewhere; it underlies popular slogans such as “British jobs for British workers”. Yet I will suggest that this idea cannot be rationally defended.

What does it really mean to be “British”? I have done nothing to earn or merit my British passport. Rather, I received this privilege automatically, because I was born on British soil to British parents. It is the arbitrary accident of birth, not any moral desert or personal quality, which makes me “British”, and guarantees me the chance to enjoy all the privileges, opportunities and benefits attaching to that status. There is no intrinsic justice in this. Why am I more deserving of “British” status, and of the privileges attaching thereto, than someone of equal ability and moral character who happened to be born in Poland, or Pakistan, or Iraq, or Somalia? Why do I have an automatic “right” to live and work in Britain, to enjoy the protection of the British state and to participate in its governance, while my foreign-born counterparts do not? Why should I benefit from so much unearned privilege, while it is denied to others?

As Jack Straw pointed out, there is no such thing as an “indigenous” Briton. We are all of mixed ancestry, and can all trace our lineage back to numerous immigrant groups. Our culture, likewise, is a mixture of diverse influences from around the world – and is much the richer for it. Throughout history, people have come to this island in search of opportunity; in search of a chance to live in freedom and escape oppression, to choose their own lifestyles and pursue their own ambitions, and to be judged fairly on their abilities and their character. If we are to give the term any worthwhile meaning, this is what being “British” is all about; not a geographical or ethno-cultural identity based on the accidents of birth and ancestry, but rather a set of shared values. And if we place arbitrary caps on immigration, denying people the right to come here in search of freedom and opportunity, we cast away the values that make Britain worth defending.

I believe in a better, richer, fairer and more prosperous world for all of humankind – not just those fortunate enough to be born in the developed world. I believe in free international trade and competition, without regard to national borders. And I believe in the right of human beings to travel in search of opportunity and freedom, and to be treated equally regardless of where they come from. We should not pander to the populist prejudice of the Sun and the Daily Mail. Scapegoating immigrants for “taking our jobs” betrays a fundamental irrationality and ignorance, which should have no place in political discourse.

As such, I would argue that the major parties are fundamentally wrong, and morally cowardly, to advocate arbitrary caps on immigration, "points" systems, quotas, and the like. If foreign-born people wish to come to Britain, and they are able and willing to work, they should not be denied the opportunity to do so. Jobs are not birthrights; “British workers” are not entitled as of right to “British jobs”. There is no defensible moral reason whatsoever why those born in Britain should be privileged over their foreign-born counterparts. Even in lean economic times, British and non-British workers ought to compete for jobs, on an equal basis, in an open market. Nationality-based privilege is no less arbitrary, and no less unjust, than aristocratic privilege; and I hope the day will come when it will be seen as equally absurd.

I leave you with the words of Emma Lazarus, inscribed forever at the base of the Statue of Liberty in New York City. For those of us who believe in the freedom of the individual to follow wherever opportunity leads, and to be judged not by one’s nationality but by one’s character and qualities, there could be no better manifesto.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land,
Here at the sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbour that twin cities frame
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Don't trust politicians with your freedom

At the Conservative party conference, Dominic Grieve today criticised the Human Rights Act, and unveiled a new party policy of allowing police to “name and shame” dangerous offenders in order, he says, to keep the public safe from criminals. He also reiterated the longstanding Conservative commitment to replace the HRA with a “British Bill of Rights”, though, notably, he once again failed to go into detail as to what, precisely, this new document might entail. His announcement is consistent with longstanding Tory rhetoric. Back in May, David Cameron complained “[The HRA] is hampering the fight against crime and terrorism. And it has helped to create a culture of rights without responsibilities… since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly making our laws. The EU and the judges - neither of them accountable to British citizens - have taken too much power over issues that are contested aspects of public policy and which should therefore be settled in the realm of democratic politics.”

I am, as my readers will be aware, a fairly consistent, if sometimes reluctant, supporter of the Conservative Party. And, barring a catastrophe, a Tory government with a decisive majority now seems inevitable by this time next year. But this does not mean that I can, or should, refrain from criticising the Conservative leadership on the occasions when they get things woefully wrong. This, I am sorry to say, is one of those times.

Until 1998, Britain, unlike the United States and most other democratic countries, had no kind of entrenched protection for fundamental rights. Most other democratic nations enshrine certain rights and liberties in their constitutions. In the United States, the courts are able – and frequently willing – to strike down any law which offends against the provisions of the US Constitution. And on many occasions, it has been the Supreme Court, not the popular will, which has defended individual freedom in America and ended the oppression of vulnerable minority groups: from Brown v Board of Education of Topeka (1957), which ended compulsory racial segregation in schools, to Lawrence v Texas (1997), in which the Court struck down the anti-gay laws that still existed in several states. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution have real “teeth”; the federal courts can, and do, protect those rights even against the will of the democratic majority. When a majority of the public and their elected representatives (motivated by hatred and irrational prejudice) try to introduce laws that oppress racial minorities, or women, or gay people, the courts are empowered to strike down these laws. For those, like me, who believe in protecting the rights of individuals against the will of the majority, this is an invaluable, and demonstrably effective, safeguard of liberty.

In Britain, by contrast, we have always been governed according to a principle of “parliamentary sovereignty”; essentially, the “Queen in Parliament” – an entity which essentially rubber-stamps the proposals of the government of the day – can do whatever it wishes. If Parliament were to enact a law tomorrow requiring all ethnic-minority citizens to be interned without trial, this would be, in principle, perfectly lawful, and the courts and police would be obliged to enforce it. The Human Rights Act, contrary to popular belief, does not change this fundamental position. It is an ordinary Act of Parliament, and Parliament remains free to repeal any of its provisions at any time. However, the HRA, as long as it remains in force, does make the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (which, contrary to popular belief, has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union) part of British law. The ECHR guarantees certain basic individual freedoms, similar to those enshrined in democratic constitutions around the world: it includes the right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, privacy and family life, freedom from arbitrary detention, and the right to a fair trial before an impartial court. I do not think that anyone who believes in fundamental liberties can reasonably object to its content – which begs the question of what David Cameron’s proposed “British Bill of Rights” will contain, and how it might differ materially from the ECHR.

Cameron’s populist rant about the HRA “hampering the fight against crime”, and his lament that “judges are increasingly making our laws” and deciding “contested aspects of public policy… which should be settled in the realm of democratic politics,” displays a disturbingly authoritarian mindset. If we want individual civil liberties to be meaningfully protected from government interference, it is inevitable that judges will sometimes have to thwart the will of the voters and their elected representatives. We must accept that judges will sometimes be adjudicating on “political” questions which are the subject of public controversy – and that they may sometimes come up with answers which are inconvenient to the government of the day. There is no other way to effectively protect individual civil liberties from interference by government. If Cameron’s “British Bill of Rights” will take away the power of judges to defend human rights against the popular will, then it will be worse than useless, nothing more than a fig-leaf for oppressive policies.

This debate bears disturbing parallels to recent events in the United States, where politicians have long complained about “judicial activism”. In early 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, guaranteed by the California state constitution. Reactionary religious groups – using exactly the same kind of rhetoric that we have just seen from Cameron and Grieve – immediately mounted a campaign against the decision, accusing the judges of “thwarting the will of the people” and imposing controversial “liberal values” on the citizens of California. Unfortunately, the California state constitution (unlike the United States Constitution) is disturbingly easy to amend; and, with the religious right spending vast sums of money on propaganda, the voters of California last year approved a constitutional amendment that eliminated the right of gay couples to marry. The majority, motivated by irrational hatred and prejudice and manipulated by religious propaganda, were able to take away the civil liberties of an oppressed minority.

Some of my readers may assume that the British public and politicians are more enlightened, and less likely to oppress vulnerable minorities, than those of California. Not so. Until the judges of the House of Lords ruled against the practice, our own government was routinely detaining foreign terror suspects without trial in “Britain’s Guantanamo”, Belmarsh Prison. Without the Human Rights Act, and the willingness of judges to stand up for individual liberties, this iniquitous and illiberal practice would be continuing today – with, no doubt, the enthusiastic endorsement of the Daily Mail and its ilk. Evidently this does not worry David Cameron – but it certainly does worry me. And, considering that our Human Rights Act, being nothing more than an ordinary Act of Parliament, is even easier to amend than the California constitution, I fear for the future of liberties in this country.

If they are able to do so, the British public, spurred on to irrational extremes of prejudice and vengeance by the tabloid press, might well be willing to eliminate fundamental liberties. We should not forget the well-publicised incident in which a mob of News of the World readers vandalised the house of a doctor, being, reportedly, unable to distinguish between the words “paediatrician” and “paedophile”. Grieve’s plan to “name and shame” offenders would open the door to more of this misdirected vigilante justice. And Cameron’s plan threatens to remove the courts’ power to protect individuals from the tyranny of the mob – a plan which he can easily accomplish, since, once in power, his government can repeal the HRA by a simple majority vote in Parliament. What this really illustrates is that Britain needs an entrenched constitution, modelled on that of the United States and equally difficult to amend, which gives the courts genuine power to defend fundamental civil liberties against the democratic will.

Harriet Harman is wrong again

New Labour's most embarrassing Cabinet minister, Harriet Harman, recently locked horns with none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger over a California-based consumer review website, "PunterNet", which invites patrons of UK prostitutes to rate their experiences. During this week's Labour Party conference, she dared Schwarzenegger to shut down the website, saying "Surely it can't be too difficult for the Terminator to terminate PunterNet." With a typically cringeworthy Harman turn of phrase, she added "If he doesn't I've got a message for Arnie - I'll be back!" The owner of PunterNet quickly, and correctly, pointed out that Schwarzenegger has no power to "terminate" the website; the company is breaking no laws, and its activities are protected by the First Amendment. In an ironic twist, he then thanked Ms Harman for the free publicity.

Apart from making Ms Harman look rather ridiculous - an endeavour in which she generally needs no assistance - this case also illustrates, for me, an important point about the deficiencies of our constitutional order. Ms Harman is a solicitor; despite this, she clearly has a very limited understanding of the notions of free speech and the rule of law. It would be very disturbing if politicians were empowered to arbitrarily silence any information outlet which offends their moral sensibilities, where its operators have not broken any laws. Governments, of any stripe, cannot be trusted with the power to censor the internet.

I don't doubt that PunterNet is vile and misogynistic, and I would not mourn its demise. But freedom of expression requires us to accept the bad with the good. Just as I am entitled to freely express my political opinions on this blog - as are all my compatriots, however insane their views, from neo-Stalinists to Greenpeace to the BNP - so too I accept the right of others to discuss the relative merits of prostitutes, however revolting I may find their conversations. When I find a website offensive, I simply don't view it. Similarly, if Ms Harman is gravely offended by PunterNet, she is perfectly free to refrain from accessing it.

In all nations, governments try their hardest to limit free speech, frequently exploiting moral panic as a pretext for extending their control over citizens' means of expression. In Australia, for instance, the Rudd government has attempted, on the back of media-hyped pornography scares, to put in place a nationwide "internet filter" which would allow government agencies to control all Australians' access to the internet, ostensibly in order to combat "extreme pornography." And, of course, in the United States, the threat of terrorism was a convenient excuse for the enactment of the PATRIOT Act and the introduction of "National Security Letters", a means of searching private communications without a judicial warrant - a practice introduced by the Bush administration, and currently being enthusiastically defended by the Obama administration, despite the latter's vaunted commitment to civil liberties. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

We must not allow politicians - however convincing their excuses - to further limit our freedom of expression. The fact that we may find other people's preferred forms of expression distasteful, or even morally outrageous, does not justify using the coercive force of state power to silence them.

In addition to the defence of free speech, however, there is a broader point to be made here about our attitude to the sex industry as a whole. In an unrelated recent incident in Washington State, a number of baristas at a coffee stand have been charged with prostitution. Apparently their crime was that, while working, they removed clothing and allowed customers to touch their breasts and buttocks in exchange for a fee. The scheme was a convenient money-maker until one of their customers, for whom they "bared their breasts and pulled down their undergarments" for the princely sum of $20, turned out to be an undercover detective. Local police claim that the women's activities constituted "prostitution" under state law.

Speaking for myself, I find it difficult to imagine a greater waste of law-enforcement resources and court time than this investigation. I simply cannot comprehend what useful purpose is served by charging the baristas with a crime. Their activities were not hurting anyone (except, perhaps, their employer, who is perfectly at liberty to fire them if he or she wishes). They were simply engaging in consensual, non-coercive commercial transactions. If they had been offering, say, car washing or upper-body massages, then their activities (while unorthodox) would not have been illegal. But because the transaction involved services of a sexual nature, the State - motivated, no doubt, by a paternalistic concern for protecting public morals - suddenly feels the need to intervene.

I hasten to add that I am not defending the prostitution industry as a whole here. Many prostitutes are victims of human trafficking and/or chronic drug addicts, and are held in virtual slavery. It is certainly legitimate for the state to protect vulnerable women from sexual exploitation, and to prosecute those responsible. But the case of the "bare baristas" cannot be said, by any stretch of the imagination, to fall into this category. These women were not victims of exploitation, nor were they exploiting others. They were engaging in free and consensual business dealings. They were providing a commercial service to consenting adults who wanted that service, and were willing to pay for it; and they were doing no measurable harm to other people or to the community at large. Why, then, does the State feel the need to expend taxpayers' money on punishing them?

I realise that this post may seem rather disjointed, but I am trying to make a more general point. We can all identify forms of expression and behaviour which we personally find disgusting or morally offensive. But in a free society, we are not entitled to control our neighbours' activities merely because we dislike the choices they make.

Freedom to discriminate?

The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission has recently begun legal proceedings against the far-right British National Party, alleging that the BNP’s racist “whites only” membership policies contravene the Race Relations Act by discriminating on the basis of ethnicity. In response, Brendan O’Neill has argued, quite persuasively, that, in a free society, political parties and campaign groups ought to be free to adopt discriminatory membership policies; repugnant as the BNP’s “values” are, we must permit them the right to exclude whoever they choose from membership of their organisation. He argues, “Freedom of association and the right to organise politically – two key rights in any democratic society worth its name – inevitably involve choosing who to associate and organise with, and therefore excluding those who, for whatever reason, do not live up to the standards, political beliefs or membership criteria of your organisation… Forcing all manner of private and political groups to open their doors to everybody and anybody would represent a stinging attack on freedom of association, and on the choice, independence and freedom of thought that are bound up in the forming of private associations and political groups.”

As far as this goes, I agree with Mr O’Neill. The basis of a free society, and of political and religious pluralism, is the acceptance that people legitimately hold differing beliefs, and that the State is not morally entitled to censor the expression of those views with which it disagrees. A key component of this is the right to form associations for the promotion of one’s beliefs. To some extent, our society already recognises this. We do not, nor should we, force conservative religious denominations to violate their strongly-held beliefs by ordaining women and gay people to the priesthood or by performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. Nor, in general, do we force political parties to admit members whose beliefs and practices are repugnant to the party’s ideology; the wave of expulsions from the Conservative Party in recent years, including the mass expulsion of the former Conservative Monday Club under Iain Duncan Smith, is testament to the fact that party authorities can and do exclude those whose public statements and beliefs are at odds with those of the Party. And so, if we are to be honest and consistent, we must apply the same principle to the BNP. Their membership policies, rightly, offend the national conscience; but the essence of free speech is that we tolerate the expression of all ideas, not just those of which we approve. Just as it would be wrong to force the Labour Party to accept an outspoken Conservative into its ranks, or to compel the Roman Catholic Church to ordain female priests and conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, so too it is equally wrong to impose tolerance and ethnic diversity, by government fiat, on a private political organisation which exists for the furtherance of racist and nationalist beliefs. The BNP ought to be free to organise itself however it wishes, just as we are free to organise and campaign against it.

However, Mr O’Neill goes further than this. He asserts, applying the same principle with consistency, that all private-sector bodies should be free to adopt discriminatory policies – including discrimination in employment, and in the provision of goods and services – without interference by government. He would extend, in other words, the principles I have just outlined from the political and religious sphere into the economic sphere; he would allow, for instance, a privately owned cafe to refuse service to Jews, or a private employer to refuse to employ Asians, or a hotel to refuse to lease rooms to same-sex couples. Many of the luminaries of libertarianism, including the late Milton Friedman, would agree with him; and in the abstract, the logic of his position is compelling. Nevertheless, impeccably-reasoned ideological positions do not always survive contact with the real world – and in this case, I think he is profoundly and dangerously wrong.

Mr O'Neill says "Discrimination in the public realm is intolerable because it denies an individual his full humanity. It hampers his ability to live a full and free life and transforms him into a second-class citizen." But is this really any less true, in some cases, of discrimination in the private realm? In an economy like our own, the majority of wealth is generated, the majority of goods and services supplied, and the majority of people employed, by the private sector. As most of my readers will agree, this is a desirable state of affairs; a market economy is demonstrably far more efficient in the allocation of resources than is central planning. But it does also mean that, if we wish to combat race and gender discrimination in practice, we cannot simply leave the private sector to its own devices. In a society with entrenched racial inequality, formal equality before the law is not sufficient. Unlike political and religious association, it is unrealistic to see the employment relationship in all cases as genuinely voluntary. While a person is not “forced” to work for a particular employer, everyone must ultimately obtain a job and an income from somewhere; and, for the most unskilled and vulnerable workers, there is often very little choice. Employers, therefore, wield great power over workers.

Here in the UK, a recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that, despite increasing levels of education among ethnic minorities, non-white workers still face discrimination and lower earnings in the workplace compared to their white counterparts, even when the results are controlled for educational background and occupation type. In Britain, racial discrimination in employment and commerce is still very much alive; and without anti-discrimination legislation, we would have no effective means of fighting it. We live, still, in a society in which ethnic minorities have lower earnings and fewer prospects than their equally qualified white counterparts, and in which 40% of ethnic minority children grow up in poverty. If we adopt Mr O’Neill’s preferred policies, this state of affairs may continue indefinitely.

Libertarians typically advance two main practical arguments for their position. Firstly, they argue, right-thinking people are free to boycott businesses which adopt discriminatory policies; public pressure, protests and consumer choice will put those who discriminate at a disadvantage. Secondly, since the market separates economic efficiency from irrelevant factors, they argue that a private business which refuses to serve or to employ certain sectors of the population, on the basis of irrational prejudice, will be shooting itself in the foot. Neither of these arguments, however, survives contact with reality. In societies where racism is endemic among the majority population, a business which adopts racist policies will be at an advantage, not a disadvantage, in its dealings with consumers. Even in a society such as our own, where most people pay lip service to racial equality, it is clear from the statistics I have cited above that there is plenty of racial discrimination in Britain – and that the discriminators are, by and large, getting away with it. If we repeal anti-discrimination statutes, this situation can only worsen.

Ultimately, the State cannot remain neutral on issues of racial and gender equality. By failing to take action against discrimination in the private sector, it effectively perpetuates and supports discrimination. We must remember that the legal framework in which private business operates – property rights, the law of contract, the limited liability corporation – is created and sustained by the State; businesses do not operate in a vacuum, and their operation cannot be treated as a purely private affair into which government ought not to inquire. Private businesses, therefore, have duties and responsibilities to the society which sustains them; and one of those responsibilities is to work towards the elimination of racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination in employment, trade and commerce. In a free society, racists must be free to advocate racism; but they ought not to be free, in situations where they wield power over others, to put their racially-discriminatory beliefs into practice.

Apologies, by the way, for the absurdly long post.

Healthcare, Hannan, and rethinking libertarian strategy

There has long been an underlying ideological tension in the Conservative Party between the avowedly libertarian faction and the more moderate mainstream. This tension seems to have come to a head in the last week, with David Cameron distancing himself from MEP Daniel Hannan’s remarks regarding the NHS.

My readers might well expect me, as an avowed libertarian, to take Hannan’s side enthusiastically. Of course, those who know me better will be well aware that my political views swing on a day-to-day basis from “wishy-washy moderate” to “borderline anarchocapitalist firebrand”, depending on how misanthropic I feel at the time. And, in fact, it transpires that I have a surprising amount of sympathy with David Cameron.

Hannan’s remarks were made on an American TV show hosted by noted conservative pundit Sean Hannity. Unfortunately, the American conservative movement, of which Hannity is one of the leading public figures, has been reacting hysterically to Obama’s healthcare proposals, and spreading irresponsible myths. In particular, Sarah Palin was responsible for some absurd hyperbole this week, suggesting that Obama’s plan would introduce “death panels” where bureaucrats would determine which citizens were worthy of life. These remarks ignored the obvious fact that all systems, whether in public or private ownership, ration access to healthcare; just as a public plan must keep costs under control, so too insurance companies and HMOs in the United States limit access to care, and sometimes deny life-saving treatments. In other words, such “death panels” exist in any healthcare system, however it is organised. Resources will never be infinite.

If Obama were proposing the compulsory nationalisation of all healthcare services, and barring citizens from purchasing healthcare in the private sector, Palin would perhaps have a point. But he isn’t. He is proposing the introduction of an optional public insurance plan, which will operate alongside existing private insurance. Citizens will still be perfectly free to purchase healthcare for themselves in the private sector if they wish to do so. There are legitimate criticisms to make of Obama’s proposal, not least its financial viability; but he is not proposing to give federal officials power of life and death over every citizen.

Likewise, the British media and the public have finally taken note of the tirade of criticism being launched at our own NHS by American politicians and pundits. Some of this criticism is justified; in particular, survival rates for many cancers are lower in Britain than in the United States, and some treatments and technologies are less widely available. And as my readers will know, I am not an uncritical supporter of the NHS; I have often advocated replacing it with a more market-oriented system. Nevertheless, some of the claims being made by American conservatives are nonsensical and laughable. The most egregious example – noted by science blogger Ed Brayton several days ago, and finally picked up yesterday by the British media – was an editorial in Investors’ Business Daily which claimed that under the British system of healthcare resourcing, disabled scientist Stephen Hawking would have been deemed “unworthy of life” and left to die. Of course, as Hawking himself immediately pointed out, he was born and raised in the UK and has received NHS care throughout his life.

So was David Cameron right to leap to the defence of the NHS? Politically, he had little choice. The British public still have a reflexive affection for our healthcare system, as shown by the sudden popularity of “#welovetheNHS” on Twitter. On an objective policy level, however, there are plenty of criticisms to be made of the NHS, and I have not shied away from making such criticisms in the past. And it is to be hoped that the future Cameron government will at least consider the possibility of further wide-ranging market reforms.

Nevertheless, Daniel Hannan acted irresponsibly: both in adding fuel to the fire of the present US healthcare controversy, which has been characterised by irrational fears, lies and juvenile nonsense; and in making a statement which, he must have known, would be divisive and politically damaging to his own party in the UK. Unsullied ideological purity will not do the world any good; we need to face political reality. Until a Conservative government is elected in this country with a large majority, there is precisely zero chance of any further useful reform to the NHS. Those of us who believe in free markets, therefore, need to be realistic, and work, first and foremost, to ensure not just that the Conservatives are elected – which is virtually a foregone conclusion – but that they are elected with a solid majority, and that the Conservative leadership is not compelled to publicly distance itself from the party’s libertarian wing.

We don’t need to love the NHS. But we need to accept it, and work within the system rather than rejecting its fundamentals. David Cameron is, on that level, right to commit the party to a more mainstream policy. Similarly, our American conservative cousins would do well to stop fear-mongering and to accept that their own healthcare industry is broken; and, while Obama’s plan may not be the best option to fix it, the best course is to accept the need for reform and to have a mature debate, rather than further inflaming the issue with hysterical rhetoric.

Healthcare by force

I urge my readers not to forget one simple truth: consumer capitalism is the greatest force for good in world history. Thanks to capitalism and international trade, even the humblest of us have lives which are far more secure and prosperous than those of any of our forebears. I can go to my local supermarket and buy a vast range of food from around the world, all year round, at reasonable prices. I can listen to any music from Mozart’s Requiem to the Dixie Chicks in my own home, without even having to move from my chair. And I can communicate instantly with people on the other side of the world, and publish my opinions on this blog for free. All these privileges are open not just to the wealthy, but to ordinary people. Capitalism has delivered this; no other form of socio-economic organisation has ever had comparable success in raising living standards for ordinary men and women.

With this in mind, it’s difficult to see why, across the pond, President Obama is pushing to introduce more federal government interference in the healthcare industry. Of course, the received wisdom on the Left, in both countries, is that American healthcare is an example of the failure of the free market. Left-wingers often point out – correctly – that Americans spend more of their income than any other country on healthcare; that America’s health outcomes nevertheless lag behind much of the developed world; that there is considerable inequity of access, with some 47 million having no health insurance; that those with serious long-term health problems are generally uninsurable; and that health insurance premiums for the average family are going up and up. And they are right. American healthcare is in a mess.

But it is not a “failure of the free market”, because American healthcare is not a free market, nor anything close to it. Rather, due to the heavy burden of state and federal regulation, the American health insurance industry is dominated by a number of lucrative regional monopolies – for instance, as Paul Krugman has pointed out, Blue Cross-Blue Shield controls some 75% of the health insurance market in the state of Arkansas. Krugman correctly notes that this is far from a competitive market; but, in advocating more government interference, he fails to mention that the current situation is created entirely by government interference in the first place! Each state has its own Insurance Commissioner – often popularly elected – or Department of Insurance; the vast differences in regulation between different states make it impossible for any but the biggest companies to compete across state lines. Some states have a “community rating” system, preventing insurers from adjusting premiums based on the individual’s level of risk. And many states prescribe which treatments insurers are required to cover. With this in mind, it’s not too hard to figure out why the US health insurance industry is uncompetitive and charges exorbitant premiums – and it is a self-perpetuating cycle, as the largest insurers work to keep the regulatory framework in place through lobbying and political campaign contributions.

It is worth acknowledging that Obama is not proposing anything remotely comparable to the British NHS. Nor is he proposing a single-payer insurance system similar to those which exist in Canada and most European countries. Rather, he wants to create a federally-run public insurance option which will compete in the market alongside private alternatives. In principle, this seems fine; it certainly doesn’t offend against libertarian principles of non-coercion. But will it really be sustainable? The existing federal healthcare programmes, Medicare (an insurance system which serves those over 65), Medicaid and SCHIP (which subsidise the very poor and children from low-income families, respectively) are rapidly losing financial viability; expenditures have increased at a rate far greater than revenues. Federal spending on healthcare programmes totalled $682 billion last year, more than was spent on defence ($613 billion) or Social Security ($612 billion). The new programme will likely suffer from similar financial problems; healthier and richer people will stay with private insurers, while the poor, ill and uninsurable will gravitate to the federal health plan.

Why is this relevant to my readers, most of whom are British? Because we seriously need to re-examine our own commitment to the NHS, which, like Obama’s plan, is rapidly becoming financially unsustainable. Since 1997, spending on the NHS has vastly increased, reaching £104 billion by the 2007 fiscal year. This money appears to be pouring down a black hole; and it will continue to do so, with an aging population requiring more and more care. The next government will have to face the unpopular necessity of cutting back services; the only alternative is to increase taxes dramatically, which will inevitably destroy the British economy and drive productive businesses overseas. With a large and rapidly aging population, and the growing costs of healthcare, we simply cannot afford the NHS any more.

Nor do we need it. Privatisation does not have to mean an American-style landscape of large, rapacious insurance monopolies. Rather, I would suggest a return to an idea which served British workers well in the nineteenth century: non-profit co-operative and mutual societies. These entities could provide health insurance at an affordable cost to their members, and, since they would be owned and run by the members for their own benefit, would not have to produce profit margins for shareholders. At the same time, NHS hospitals could also be privatised as local consumer co-operatives owned collectively by patients. Patients would be able to choose both their insurer and their healthcare provider, and make decisions about healthcare for themselves. And the worst features of the NHS system – government bureaucracy and quotas, political interference, centralised rationing of healthcare by NICE, and the constant pouring of taxpayers’ money into the gaping maw of financially unsustainable NHS trusts – would be eliminated.

All that is required is the political courage, on the part of conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic, to stand up for the free market and individual choice. Unfortunately, Cameron’s Conservatives are unlikely to take the politically risky step of taking British healthcare out of the hands of the state. And in the US, much of the conservative media seems more concerned with promoting deranged conspiracy theories about Obama’s place of birth than with addressing the serious issues.

Time to end subsidies for the arts?

Reading the Sky News homepage yesterday, one could be forgiven for thinking that we live in dark times. Swine influenza, we are told, is ravaging the globe. The economy sinks deeper by the day into the slough of despond. The only ray of hope is the comfortable victory of 27-year-old Chloe Smith in Norwich North; and even this is tarnished for me, and for many of my readers, by the fact that the Libertarian Party candidate in the by-election received only 36 votes, putting him in last place (behind the Monster Raving Loony Party and “None of the Above”).

With my usual resolute inattention to the problems of the day, I will be writing about none of these things. Rather, as befits the season of the BBC Proms, I have decided to write about music and the arts – and, in particular, those areas of music and the arts which receive public funding.

I am not, of course, writing about popular music. Not even the most ardent socialist, to my knowledge, has advocated the nationalisation of the record industry, nor contended that Madonna or the Pussycat Dolls merit support from the taxpayer. Rather, this blog post is intended to address a matter far dearer to most of my readers’ hearts; the generous tax-funded subsidies currently bestowed upon those forms of music which our political masters consider culturally important. Listening to Holst’s The Planets yesterday evening, I mulled over a longstanding question. Should the British taxpayer continue to subsidise opera houses, symphony orchestras, Radio 3 and the like? Can I, as a classical liberal, honestly condone the practice of demanding money from my fellow man, via the coercive agency of the State, in order to promote my preferred form of music? As much as I would mourn the demise of the Proms, or the dissolution of the BBC Symphony Orchestra, is it right that these things be supported by state coercion?

We might ask the same question in other areas. Can we justify public funding of libraries, and museums, and art galleries, and English Heritage, and national parks? Or the absurd cost of the London Olympics? We are so accustomed to these amenities that we rarely question the morality of funding the arts, sport and culture with forcibly-confiscated wealth.

I am not quite enough of an ideologue to advocate the abolition of public libraries; these facilities provide a vital educational service to millions who would not otherwise be able to afford to buy books or access the internet, and it is difficult to see how any equivalent could be provided by the private sector. Similarly, some reasonable justification can be offered for the state-funded preservation of national parks, museums and historic sites. But where, I suggest, we ought to draw the line is in expending public money on forms of cultural expression which are of interest only to a small minority (and, for that matter, a minority which can generally afford to pay its own way). There is no good justification for subsidising the Royal Opera House, or modern art exhibitions, or BBC radio and its associated orchestras. If these institutions are of sufficient interest to consumers, then it ought to be possible to run them commercially at a profit. If, on the other hand, the general public is not willing to pay for opera or modern art on a voluntary basis, what possible justification can we have, in a free society, for extorting money from them in order to pay for these things? Why should Bob the Taxpayer be forced to subsidise the works of Tracy Emin or a performance of Wagner’s Ring Cycle, when he might well prefer to spend his money buying a new car or attending football matches?

Is there an alternative to state coercion? As usual, there is; and we can look to examples in our own country. The National Trust, a charitable institution which maintains many historic sites and areas of natural beauty around Britain, receives no government funding but manages to raise more than £300 million a year from membership subscriptions, income from its properties, and voluntary donations. If this can work without relying on public funding, why does the taxpayer need to subsidise opera, art galleries or the BBC? As in so many other areas of life, when the State stops interfering, the private and voluntary sectors will take up the slack. And so I can say – with, I think, some justification – that despite my own artistic preferences and those of many of my readers, the time for government subsidy of the arts is over.