Liberal Vision

Government in debt - fines go up! Any correlation?

I was driving back from Tescos last night when my partner told me that the Government was going to raise the fine for not wearing a seat belt from £30 to £60.  Clearly I missed this news item amongst the many other news items I’d heard or read in the last couple of days about one thing or another being banned, regulated or funded by the taxpayer.

Of course, the justification for increasing the fine is to encourage ’safety’ for drivers and their passengers.  But let’s be clear here, this is not about safety.  This is about raising money.

Let’s have a look at some figures.  According to one of my God-awful local papers here in Staffordshire - The Sentinel - 2,863 were issued with £30 fixed penalty notices between April 2008 and March this year.  By my reckoning that is a total of £85,890 that year.

Double that, and assuming the level of deviancy remains the same, Staffordshire fines will total £171, 780.

In neighbouring Cheshire, 4,288 people were caught not wearing a seat belt last year (for they are very bad people across the border) - a total in fines of £128,640.  Again, double this and the fines total £257,280.

Interestingly, and despite the fines existing in 2007, pretty much the same number of people in Cheshire were fined for driving their vehicle without wearing a seat belt.  That year 4,248 fines were issued, a total of £127,440.

Of course, this money is going to the victims of these horrendous crimes, right?  Nope, for the truth is there are no victims when someone makes the choice not to wear one’s seat belt.  The truth is there is a beneficiary of these crimes against humanity and the fines that are imposed, and that is the Government and its agencies.  It profits from us doing these so-called bad, bad things.

It may not be the wisest of choices to not wear one’s seat belt, but in not doing so you don’t harm anyone else.  There are of course many reactionaries who argue there are victims involved.

If I were to crash my car tomorrow and, because I did not wear my seat belt, I flew through the windscreen and ended up a bloody mess on the highway I would of course be leaving my partner and child behind. That would be unfortunate but that doesn’t make them victims.  They have not been harmed by my actions.

Yes, it is true they don’t receive my income or my companionship (for what its worth) any more, but that still doesn’t make them victims.  They have experienced a loss, but that doesn’t make them victims.

My conduct as an individual would be well known by my partner and possibly my child.  If I were a ‘prolific’ offender and didn’t wear my seat belt frequently, my partner has the opportunities to make choices in the matter too.

Maybe as a result of her concerns we’d have life insurance.  Maybe she’d decide that our relationship couldn’t continue unless I changed my bad ways and started wearing the seat belt every time I got into the car.  Maybe she would refuse to get in a car that I’m driving.  She has free will.  She can make choices in life.

Of course, the one thing that really seems to exercise advocates of the seat belt laws is the cost to the NHS.  Heaven forbid I should live and yet break every bone in my body.  That would be costly to the taxpayer.

I’m afraid to say that should not be the concern of a free person.  You and I are parted from a sizable chunk of our income every year to pay for the NHS, and it is not as if you or I have any choice in the matter.  If we refuse to pay, we are punished with bailiffs, our property being stolen or ultimately being sent to prison.

It is not my duty to concern myself with how my actions are going to impact the NHS, an institution that is funded by theft and threats of violence.  I should be able to live my life as a free person and if I lose a limb as a result of my life choices, I should be able to access the NHS to which I’ve financially contributed.

And let us remember the NHS already funds peoples’ life choices - being injured as a result of rock climbing for example.  Should this activity be stopped or regulated for fear that it might cost money?

If anyone has concerns about the cost of the NHS, my message to them is don’t stop me from exercising my free will.  Instead, look at the NHS itself - how it is funded and how it is administered.  Leave me, my friends, family and neighbours alone to live our lives as we see fit.

The fact is this - Government really isn’t concerned about our safety.  It is concerned about how much money it can raise from us for its own ends.  We are nothing but wage slaves.

If it were genuinely interested in our safety on the roads - and I personally don’t advocate this - it would impose points on non-seat belt wearing drivers’ licenses or ban the deviants from driving altogether.  After all, if these people are unsafe should they really be driving at all?

Those who can, teach - like parents!

As a matter of principle, Liberal Democrats should support home educators in their opposition to Graham Badman’s recommendations in the Review of Elective Home Education in England.  However, I fear the Party leadership will not do so.  Instead, it looks at though it will be seeking to find a ‘balance’ between the rights of parents to decide for themselves how best to educate their children, and the collective welfare of children as a whole.

Why am I so concerned that the Party may side with collectivism as opposed to defending individual rights?  Upon seeking clarification on the Party’s policy on home education from Cowley Street’s policy boffs, and in particular on the Badman recommendations, I was reliably informed of the need to find that balance.  In short, I was told the Party is generally supportive of the Badman recommendations.

I have several problems with siding with this subjective piece of rubbish.  As a libertarian, I say the Party should not be endorsing coerced collectivism at all.  Sure, if a group of parents want to voluntarily come together and register their children with the State and the evil database that is ContactPoint, then let them do so.  I would say they are foolish in their choice but they should be free to do so nonetheless.

If however, parents decide they want nothing to do with the State, they too should be free to exercise their rights.

Under the Badman proposals home educators will not be permitted their rights.  They will be forced to register their children with their local education authority, and their children will be entered onto the ContactPoint register, and if parents’ standard or type of education doesn’t conform with that which is prescribed by the State - which most of us know to be crap - then the freedom to home educate their children will be denied them.  Opposition to this is a matter of principle for all Liberal Democrats.

Of course, if a child is being abused - which, as an aside, government do-gooders have attempted to use as a justification for more regulation and control of home education - then that is another matter.  No-one should be aggressed against contrary to their will.  If there are victims of abuse, then the full weight of relevant laws should fall upon the aggressors.

If however a child is not receiving an ‘adequate’ education, this in itself should be no business of the State’s to resolve.  Despite it being written in man-made Human Rights laws (that by the way also protect the State so should perhaps be referred to as Human and States’ Rights laws)  the truth is that under natural law no-one has a right to education.

Yes, it would be nice if every single human being on this planet had access to not just a ’suitable’ education, but excellent education too; but I say this again, no-one has a ‘right’ to education.  For if they had, the question is then what standard of education?  Mediocre to poor?  For that is the general standard delivered by the State to our children.

If people want better than the State can provide, they should be able to opt out of State provision without fear of threat and hindrance from government and its agents.  They should have unrestricted freedom to choose what they believe is best for their own kids because - and this is a fundamental point - the kids belong to the parents, not to society or government!

Once bureaucrats gets involved and starts dictating the terms, quoting laws and targets, the already high standards that are achieved in most cases through home education - and indeed independent sector education - will be dragged down to State level.

I hope the Party leadership sees sense and doesn’t allow the collectivist malaise undermine home educators’ freedoms, for if it does, it may as well ditch the word ‘Liberal’ and replace it with ‘Social’.