Monthly Archives: August 2008

Another Snowdrop in the Police State Blizzard


Posted by Sean Gabb

London Local Authorities Act 2007 (c. ii)
  Main body
  PART 5 Miscellaneous
                          

75

Mail forwarding businesses
(1)
On and after the appointed day, a person shall not in the area of a borough council carry on a mail forwarding business, whether alone or in conjunction with any other business when he is not registered by the council under this section.
(2)
On application for registration under this section the council shall register the applicant and issue to the applicant a certificate of registration on which there shall appear a registration number.
(3)
An application for registration under this section shall be made in writing to the council and the applicant shall in the application state
(a)
his name and private address or, if the application is made by or on behalf of a body corporate or partnership, the registered or principal office of such body or partnership as the case may be; and
(b)
the address of each place in the borough which is occupied by the applicant for the purposes of the business.
(4)
Where there is any alteration in the particulars mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above, the person registered shall within 14 days notify the council of the fact, and the council shall thereupon amend their register.
(5)
A council may charge a reasonable fee for a registration under this section, calculated by reference to the cost of dealing with applications for such registration.
(6)
A person who carries on a mail forwarding business shall keep a record of the following particulars
(a)
the full name, address and telephone number of every person for whom any post is received, or who has requested that postal packets received may be held or forwarded to that person;
(b)
the nature of the business (if any) carried out by that person;
(c)
any instructions that may have been received as to the delivery or forwarding of postal packets;
(d)
in the case of every postal packet forwarded, the name and address of the person to whom it is forwarded (if different from the name and address mentioned in paragraph (a) above);
(e)
copies of the originals of two documents of a type approved by the council for the purposes of identifying the persons and verifying the address mentioned in paragraph (a) above.
(7)
In subsection (6)(a) above, the name and address to be kept must not be the name and address of another mail forwarding business and is
(a)
in the case of an individual, his private address;
(b)
in the case of a body corporate or partnership
(i)
the registered or principal address of such body or partnership, as the case may be; and
(ii)
the names and private addresses of the directors, partners or another person directly or indirectly responsible for the management of the body or partnership; and
(iii)
the address of the principal place of business of the body or partnership, if different from any of the addresses mentioned in paragraphs (i) and (ii) above.
(8)
The records kept under this section by a person carrying on a mail forwarding business, shall, in respect of a person by whom he is requested to hold or forward postal packets, be kept for a period of at least a year after the end of the arrangement under which that request was made, and must be kept at all reasonable times open to inspection by any police constable and any authorised officer.
(9)
If any person
(a)
without reasonable excuse contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this section; or
(b)
furnishes any false information
(i)
in making an application for registration under this section or notifying the council of any alteration in the particulars mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above; or
(ii)
to a mail forwarding business which the business requires in order to comply with subsection (6) above; or
(c)
without reasonable excuse, makes a false entry in the record kept under subsection (6) above,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

(10)
A person guilty of an offence under subsection (9) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(11)
Nothing in subsection (1) or (6) above shall apply to a person who holds a licence under Part 2 of the Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26)(licences for postal services).
(12)
Section 28 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c. 29)(power to enter premises and seize goods and documents) applies in relation to the enforcement of this section by a borough council as in relation to the enforcement of that Act by a weights and measures authority.
(13)
In this section
mail forwarding business means the business, carried out for reward, of making available to a person a postal address to which postal packets may be sent, and doing either or both of the following
(a)
holding postal packets so sent for collection by that person or his agent;
(b)
forwarding, by whatever means, postal packets so sent to that person;
postal packet has the same meaning given to it by section 125 of the Postal Services Act 2000 (interpretation).
(14)
For the purposes of this section, a person carries on a mail forwarding business in the area of a borough council if, in respect of that mail forwarding business, the postal address made available and to which postal packets may be sent is in the area of the council.
(15)
Subsections (16) and (17) below apply to any person who carries on a mail forwarding business in a borough on the date on which this section comes into force in that borough.
(16)
Until the period of four weeks commencing with that date has expired, subsections (1) and (6) above shall not apply to the person in question.
(17)
If an application for registration under this section is made in respect of the mail forwarding business during that period, the person in question
(a)
may lawfully continue to carry on the business as a mail forwarding business; and
(b)
need not comply with the requirements of subsection (6) above,

until the council issues a certificate under subsection (2) above or the application is withdrawn.

The metric Martyrs and the Constitution: Libertarian Alliance Showcase Publication no-19, by Sean Gabb


Sean Gabb

By way of intro, der Überblogmeister writes:-

For the benefit of overseas readers, English people have been in the habit of being able to trade in – and buy/sell in (legally) “imperial” measures for as long as these have been commonly understood, which in some cases such as “a Pound” (weight) is about fourteen centuries. These measures were indeed widely used in Europe and other places in the Known World, until the advent of the Metric System, statutorily enforced throughout conquered Europe by Napoleon. Just doing that thing on its own did not make Napoleon a fascist pig, but a fascist pig is what he was all the same, for integrated reasons.

Indeed, it has ALWAYS been legal in the UK to buy/sell/manufacture ot trade in metric measures of any kind. Scientists almost universally use the MKS (and understand the cgs) systems, both of which are metric, and this is logical as it makes the use of Standard Form Numbers much easier, in conjunction with any metric unit.

The ZanuLaborg British Stalinist fascist political parties, including the Tory party, here have all colluded in the forced metrication of all aspects of British life and thought, whether this was asked for, beneficial, or not.

it is advantageous to be fluent in both the “Imperial” and the Metric systems, but libertarians do not see this as a justifiable area for compulsion or legislation, so long as the standards in each are defines and known.

Here follows a sad story:-

 

Permanent link at: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc063.htm

Free Life Commentary,
an independent journal of comment
published on the Internet
Issue Number 63
21st February 2002

The “Metric Martyrs” and the Constitution
Sean Gabb

On Monday the 18th February 2002, judgment was given in the Court of
Appeal on the “Metric Martyrs” case (Thoburn v Sunderland City Council.)
These were appeals from four men who had in different ways been told by
lower courts that it was no longer legal for them to use the English
system of weights and measures for any purpose of trade.

The grounds of their appeal were that the relevant laws had been made
further to powers contained in the European Communities Act 1972, whereas
it appeared that their right to continued use of the English system had
been protected by the Weights and Measures Act 1985. According to the
doctrine of implied repeal, an earlier Act cannot be used to amend or
repeal a later Act. Instead, where any conflict arises between Acts of
Parliament that cannot be smoothed by judicial interpretation, the later
one always takes precedence: leges posteriores priores contrarias
abrogant .

What made this case so important was that it was brought to clarify the
constitutional status of our membership of the European Union. Either the
Judges could apply the doctrine of implied repeal, in which case, our
membership of the European Union was compromised to whatever degree the
European Communities Act had been repealed, or they could announce that
Parliament was no longer sovereign, and that we were now unambiguously
under the rule of a centralising, Roman Law despotism based outside this
country. In the judgment given last Monday, the four men lost their case.
According to Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane, the 1972 Act was
protected against implied repeal by the 1985 Act, and the English system
of weights and measures has been legally abolished to the degree stated
in the disputed laws.

Now, looking at the superficial aspects of the case, it is a defeat. As a
conservative, I deplore the legal suppression of weights and measures
which are an integral part of our culture. Whatever its merits considered
purely in themselves-and these are probably not so great as is usually
claimed-the metric system is an alien thing. Its imposition cuts us off
from part of our history, and makes it harder for us to enjoy that
intimate communion with the past that is part of any nation’s strength
and cohesion. As a libertarian, I deplore the imposition of anything. If
greengrocers want to sell bananas by the pound or the kilogramme-or
indeed by the ancient Athenian mina-that is a matter for them and their
customers, not for the authorities. However, if we look beneath the
surface, we can see that the judgment was not so much a defeat as a great
if conditional victory for both conservatives and libertarians. For while
it would not have been politically conceivable for the Judges to strike
down any part of the European Communities Act, they did preserve
parliamentary sovereignty to the extent that a majority of the House of
Commons will be able in due course to repeal that Act by positive
legislation; and that is, let us face reality, how we shall eventually
withdraw from the European Union-not by some clever legalistic trick, but
by full public debate followed by parliamentary repeal. And of equally
great importance for us, when the Judges squared the apparent circle
given to them, they did so by reviving the ancient doctrine of
fundamental law.

This is a mediaeval doctrine that last flourished in the rather strange
legal soil of the 17th century. Its most famous statement is in Lord
Chief Justice Coke’s judgment in the case of Dr Bonham (1610). Bonham had
been fined for practising medicine without a licence from the Royal
College of Physicians. The charter under which he was fined had been
confirmed by Act of Parliament. In giving judgment for Bonham, Coke CJ
commented:

“And it appears in our books that in many cases the common law will
controul acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly
void: for when an act of parliament is against common right and reason,
or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul
it, and adjudge such act to be void” (8 Coke’s Reports, 117-18).

By the end of that century, though, the whole notion of a fundamental law
that could be used to judge the validity of Acts of Parliament was in
decline. In the American colonies, the notion retained its hold among the
lawyers, and is preserved in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But in
this country, the very different notion emerged of the absolute
legislative sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. Our rulers were
restrained by their sense of right and wrong-or more often by their
caution-in exercising power, but were under no legal restraint so long as
they could rely on Parliament to pass whatever Acts they wanted.
Parliament was sovereign. Its Acts could be interpreted by the courts-and
frequently have been into senses that no Member of Parliament might have
recognised in the division lobbies-but could not be called in question.

The doctrine as a whole was elaborated to its full logical conclusions by
A.V. Dicey in his Law of the Constitution (1885). It was fully accepted
by the courts. “For us an Act of Parliament duly passed by Lords and
Commons and assented to by the King, is supreme, and we are bound to give
effect to its terms” said Lord Dunedin in 1906 (Mortensen v Peters, 8
F.(J.C.), 93,100).

The only limitation of sovereignty was its protection. It was held that
no Parliament could bind itself. Parliament could do anything, except
preserve its own Acts from repeal. An Act from the time of Henry VII, for
example, states that it cannot be repealed. An early 19th century
annotator of the State Trials refers to this as a void provision. A later
Act would always override an earlier one-and do so regardless of whether
that had been the intention of Parliament. Repeal could be intended or
simply implied. “The Legislature cannot, according to our constitution”
said Lord Justice Maugham, “bind itself as to the form of subsequent
legislation, and it is impossible for Parliament to enact that in a
subsequent statute dealing with the same subject-matter there can be no
implied repeal” (Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1
King’s Bench Reports , 753. 14.).

Now, suddenly, the notion of fundamental law has been pulled out of the
legal grave in which it had been rotting for three hundred years, and
declared part of the law of our Constitution. In one sense, it was the
only way out of the paradox that the “Metric Martyrs” case had apparently
raised. By announcing that there was a “hierarchy of Acts of Parliament”
– “ordinary” and above them “constitutional”, the Judges were able to
save the European Communities Act from implied repeal. Undoubtedly, they
emphasised, European Union law is supreme in this country-but only to the
extent given by the European Communities Act, which can be repealed
should Parliament explicitly decide to do. Even so, short of explicit
repeal, it is immune from any implied repeal.

But in another sense, the judgment is only an extension of the growing
impatience that Judges have felt for a very long time with the
constraints imposed on them by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
And, in spite of the status given for the moment to the European
Communities Act, these are constraints that should be regarded with
impatience by everyone who values freedom in this country.

“The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament” is a nice set of words. The
phrase rolls off the tongue and carries the mind back to earlier ages in
our history. But the phrase no longer describes what is at all a
desirable state of affairs. We are ruled by people who get an almost
sexual thrill from messing up our lives. Because they run the two main
parties, they are able to pack the House of Commons with a combination of
sheep who would vote black white and white black if ordered, and of
weaklings who know that something is wrong, but are controlled by bribes
and blackmail. Every so often, a few decent people get elected. But that
is because the control is not yet perfect; and its main effect, sadly, is
to keep alive in some minds the delusion that parliamentary democracy
still actually exists. The general result is tyranny mitigated by
recollections of a better time.

The Judges have been worried by this for generations. According to Lord
Wright in 1942,

“Parliament is supreme. It can enact extraordinary powers of interfering
with personal liberty. If an Act of Parliament… is alleged to limit or
curtail the liberty of the subject or vest in the executive extraordinary
powers…, the only question is what is the precise extent of the powers
given” (Liversidge v Anderson , Appeal Cases, 106).

Since then, things have grown worse. Bad laws pour out in a continual
stream. A well funded interest group only has to demand, or a media
campaign to start, and the politicians reach for their legislative
hammer. In the 1960s, the insurance companies complained about the level
of awards in civil cases where they were known to stand behind a
defendant; and so the politicians virtually abolished the right to trial
by jury in the civil courts. In 1987, there were complaints when some
defendants in a criminal case pooled their right of peremptory challenge
to secure a more sympathetic jury; and so the politicians abolished that
right. Around the same time, the authorities wanted to raise the
conviction rate or financial crimes; and so the politicians created the
Serious Fraud Office, and gave it the right to compel self-incrimination.
In 1991, a few children were bitten by dogs; and so the politicians
brought in a law that almost everyone now regards as mad. Arguments about
the rule of law drew at best a blank stare, at worst an exultant sneer.

Nor is it just that Parliament is churning out bad laws-though many are
very bad. It is that Parliament is churning out thousands of pages of new
law every year, supplemented by thousands more of statutory instruments.
No one has read or can read all of these. No one is co-ordinating the
process of their manufacture. Quite often, no one knows what the laws are
on an issue from one day to another. Not surprisingly, they frequently
contradict each other. This is what led to the challenge to the
metrication laws. The Weights and Measures Act does contradict the
European Communities Act. No one intended this to happen. No one noticed
it had happened for about 15 years. But it did happen.

Now, the politicians are being brought under control. Let me quote from
the relevant sections of the judgment:

“In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to
recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as
constitutional or fundamental…. And from this a further insight
follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it
were “ordinary” statutes and “constitutional” statutes. The two
categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a
constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship
between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b)
enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as
fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely
related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also
an instance of (b). The special status of constitutional statutes follows
the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna
Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which
distributed and enlarged the franchise, the [Human Rights Act 1998], the
Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The [European
Communities Act] clearly belongs in this family…. The ECA is, by force
of the common law, a constitutional statute.

“Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may
not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a
fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this
test: is it shown that the legislature’s actual not imputed, constructive
or presumed intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the
test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words
so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the
result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied
repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to
constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words
could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant
amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in
Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart
[1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended
in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental
rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by
unambiguous words on the face of the later statute.

“This development of the common law regarding constitutional rights, and
as I would say constitutional statutes, is highly beneficial. It gives us
most of the benefits of a written constitution, in which fundamental
rights are accorded special respect. But it preserves the sovereignty of
the legislature and the flexibility of our uncodified constitution. It
accepts the relation between legislative supremacy and fundamental rights
is not fixed or brittle: rather the courts (in interpreting statutes, and
now, applying the HRA) will pay more or less deference to the
legislature, or other public decision-maker, according to the subject in
hand. Nothing is plainer than that this benign development involves, as I
have said, the recognition of the ECA as a constitutional statute.”

Some people, I know, are angry that the European Communities Act has been
given this special status. However, its protection against implied repeal
comes not-as the Sunderland City Council lawyers argued-because on
entering the European Union, we accepted a new legal order in which our
own constitutional arrangements were reduced to the status of a town
council, but because the Common Law now recognises a whole class of
special Acts of which the European Communities Act is presently one. If
we ever repeal the European Communities Act by explicit Act of
Parliament, it will drop out of this special class, but the special class
will remain.

And we can repeal the European Communities Act. That much is now certain.
The various judgments in the Factortame legislation left the position of
European Union law highly ambiguous-was it or Parliament supreme?. This
judgment make it clear that the laws of the European Union enjoy a
borrowed primacy in England. Parliament may have chosen to indulge a
foreign authority, but cannot subordinate itself to it:

“there is nothing in the ECA which allows the Court of Justice, or any
other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of
Parliament’s legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom. Not because the
legislature chose not to allow it; because by our law it could not allow
it.”

This is not the outcome that the supporters of the “Metric Martyrs” were
hoping for. It is not an outcome, I think, that anyone was expecting. The
point of fundamental law was not raised in any of the hearings, and it is
highly unusual for Judges to go beyond the points raised in a case except
for giving obiter dicta , which have no binding force as precedent. But
it is a not a judgment that the Government was hoping for. Its general
implications have yet to be revealed. But it seems reasonable that a vast
mass of bad laws can now be set aside as inconsistent with fundamental
laws that they have not explicitly repealed.

Therefore, the sections of the Road Traffic Act 1982, that allow the
Police to impose fines on motorists without going to court, may be
inconsistent with the guarantee of due process in Magna Carta. The
various Firearms Acts-especially the most recent ones, which are intended
to criminalise rather than regulate the possession of guns-may be
inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The Government’s proposed
Confiscation Agency, which will import the American doctrine of civil
asset forfeiture, will require the explicit repeal of Magna Carta and
parts of the Human Rights Act.

At a stroke, the Judges have put the politicians under a restraint that
may be as severe in practice as that imposed by the Supreme Court in
America. It means that they can carry on their game of stealing our
freedoms-but they must do so in the open, by spelling out what they are
doing in words that cannot be ignored by the courts. I have no doubt that
if they had known in advance the outcome of this case, the authorities
would quietly have connived at breaches of their metrication laws.

We have lost the right to use our traditional weights and measures. But
we may have gained the vast benefit of living again under a Constitution
that protects our fundamental rights. I feel sorry for the four men who
have taken on the considerable legal costs of getting this case into
court, and I hope that the public appeal will be sufficient to pay these
costs. But it was, most emphatically, a case worth getting into court. It
has given us, I repeat, a great and unexpected, if conditional, victory.


Sean Gabb
Director, The Libertarian Alliance
sean@libertarian.co.uk
Tel: 07956 472 199

http://www.libertarian.co.uk
http://www.seangabb.co.uk
http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com

FREE download of my book – “Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How
Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back” -
http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

Wikipedia Entry: http://tinyurl.com/23jvoz

ANOTHER LURCH FORWARD FOR THE POLICE STATE


Dr Tim Evans

This government is simply not content with merely systemically damaging the Post Office network in the UK. It has unilaterally shut about 4,000 post offices (largely in rural and conservative-voting areas) without having the guts to explain why it’s really the fault of the EU, which now makes our laws – including those which relate to competition and state subsidy in postal services.

Now, you may NOT run a “mail forwarding service” in some places (and be sure, be very sure it will be extended) without permission from the Soviet Local Authority, who will charge you (lots I expect.)

Here’s the full horror of the thing in all its Stalinist glory. the l;anguage has to be seen to be believed:-

 

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 2007 (Section 75)

 

75 Mail forwarding businesses

(1) On and after the appointed day, a person shall not in the area of a borough council carry on a mail forwarding business, whether alone or in conjunction with any other business when he is not registered by the council under this section.

(2) On application for registration under this section the council shall register the applicant and issue to the applicant a certificate of registration on which there shall appear a registration number.

(3) An application for registration under this section shall be made in writing to the council and the applicant shall in the application state—

(a) his name and private address or, if the application is made by or on behalf of a body corporate or partnership, the registered or principal office of such body or partnership as the case may be; and

(b) the address of each place in the borough which is occupied by the applicant for the purposes of the business.

(4) Where there is any alteration in the particulars mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above, the person registered shall within 14 days notify the council of the fact, and the council shall thereupon amend their register.

(5) A council may charge a reasonable fee for a registration under this section, calculated by reference to the cost of dealing with applications for such registration.

(6) A person who carries on a mail forwarding business shall keep a record of the following particulars—

(a) the full name, address and telephone number of every person for whom any post is received, or who has requested that postal packets received may be held or forwarded to that person;

(b) the nature of the business (if any) carried out by that person;

(c) any instructions that may have been received as to the delivery or forwarding of postal packets;

(d) in the case of every postal packet forwarded, the name and address of the person to whom it is forwarded (if different from the name and address mentioned in paragraph (a) above);

(e) copies of the originals of two documents of a type approved by the council for the purposes of identifying the persons and verifying the address mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(7) In subsection (6)(a) above, the name and address to be kept must not be the name and address of another mail forwarding business and is—

(a) in the case of an individual, his private address;

(b) in the case of a body corporate or partnership—

(i) the registered or principal address of such body or partnership, as the case may be; and

(ii) the names and private addresses of the directors, partners or another person directly or indirectly responsible for the management of the body or partnership; and

(iii) the address of the principal place of business of the body or partnership, if different from any of the addresses mentioned in paragraphs (i) and (ii) above.

(8) The records kept under this section by a person carrying on a mail forwarding business, shall, in respect of a person by whom he is requested to hold or forward postal packets, be kept for a period of at least a year after the end of the arrangement under which that request was made, and must be kept at all reasonable times open to inspection by any police constable and any authorised officer.

(9) If any person—

(a) without reasonable excuse contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this section; or

(b) furnishes any false information—

(i) in making an application for registration under this section or notifying the council of any alteration in the particulars mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above; or

(ii) to a mail forwarding business which the business requires in order to comply with subsection (6) above; or

(c) without reasonable excuse, makes a false entry in the record kept under subsection (6) above,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

(10) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (9) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(11) Nothing in subsection (1) or (6) above shall apply to a person who holds a licence under Part 2 of the Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26) (licences for postal services).

(12) Section 28 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c. 29) (power to enter premises and seize goods and documents) applies in relation to the enforcement of this section by a borough council as in relation to the enforcement of that Act by a weights and measures authority.

(13) In this section—

·         “mail forwarding business” means the business, carried out for reward, of making available to a person a postal address to which postal packets may be sent, and doing either or both of the following—

(a)

holding postal packets so sent for collection by that person or his agent;

(b)

forwarding, by whatever means, postal packets so sent to that person;

·         “postal packet” has the same meaning given to it by section 125 of the Postal Services Act 2000 (interpretation).

(14) For the purposes of this section, a person carries on a mail forwarding business in the area of a borough council if, in respect of that mail forwarding business, the postal address made available and to which postal packets may be sent is in the area of the council.

(15) Subsections (16) and (17) below apply to any person who carries on a mail forwarding business in a borough on the date on which this section comes into force in that borough.

(16) Until the period of four weeks commencing with that date has expired, subsections (1) and (6) above shall not apply to the person in question.

(17) If an application for registration under this section is made in respect of the mail forwarding business during that period, the person in question—

(a) may lawfully continue to carry on the business as a mail forwarding business; and

(b) need not comply with the requirements of subsection (6) above,

until the council issues a certificate under subsection (2) above or the application is withdrawn.

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE ESSAY PRIZE (£ 1,000 ): IS BIG BUSINESS PART OF THE FREE MARKET?


Sean Gabb
The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties
policy institute, today announces the title for its 2008 Chris R. Tame
Memorial Essay Prize competition.

This Prize is funded by a generous grant from The PROMIS Unit of Primary
Care and is in honour of Chris R. Tame (1949-2006) Founder and first
Director of the Libertarian Alliance. The Prize is worth £1000.

The essay title for 2008 is:

“Can a Libertarian Society be Described as ‘Tesco minus the State’?”
Essay Length: 3,000 words excluding notes and bibliography
Submission Date: 10th October 2008

Explanatory Note

The purpose of this year’s essay title is to draw wider attention to a
debate that has been taking place within the libertarian movement for
over a century, and that is now more relevant than ever: is big business
really part of the free market in which libertarians believe? Or is it
just the “third way” between free enterprise and socialism?

Many socialists and conservatives regard libertarians as cheerleaders for
big business. Our belief in free enterprise is understood as support for
the bigger, and therefore the more successful, corporations – General
Motors, Microsoft, HSBC, Tesco, and so forth – and for an international
financial system centred on the City of London.

Some libertarians are happy to be so regarded. They dislike the way in
which big government provides opportunities for big business to acquire
privileges that shelter it from competition. Even so, they believe that a
world without government, or a world with much less government, would be
broadly similar in its patterns of enterprise to the world that we now
have. It would be much improved, but not fundamentally dissimilar.

Other libertarians disagree. They regard big business as fundamentally a
creation of big government. Incorporation laws free entrepreneurs from
personal risk and personal responsibility, and allow the growth of large
business organisations that are bureaucratically managed. These
organisations then cartellise their markets and externalise many of their
costs. The result is systematic distortion of market behaviour from the
forms it would take without government intervention. These libertarians
often go further in their analysis by denying the legitimacy of
intellectual property rights and ownership rights in land beyond what any
individual can directly use.

Where do you stand in this debate? Are you broadly comfortable with a
global capitalism that is raising billions of people from starvation
towards affluence. Or are you a radical with a vision of a society that
has never yet been tried and is as alien and even frightening to most
people as anything promised by the Marxists.

The winner of the 2008 competition will be announced at the London
conference of the Libertarian Alliance, on Saturday the 25th October at
the National Liberal Club.

Full details of the Prize at

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/prize08.htm

Full details of the Conference at

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/conf08brochure.htm

END OF COPY

Note(s) to Editors

Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. His latest
book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England,
and How to Get It Back, may be downloaded for free from
http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3. It may also be bought. His other books are
available from Hampden Press at http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.

He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at
sean@libertarian.co.uk

Extended Contact Details:

The Libertarian Alliance is Britain’s most radical free market and civil
liberties policy institute. It has published over 800 articles, pamphlets
and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms.
These are freely available at http://www.libertarian.co.uk

Our postal address is

The Libertarian Alliance
Suite 35
2 Lansdowne Row
Mayfair
London W1J 6HL
Tel: 07956 472 199

Associated Organisations

The Libertarian International – http://www.libertarian.to – is a sister
organisation to the Libertarian Alliance. Its mission is to coordinate
various initiatives in the defence of individual liberty throughout the
world.

Sean Gabb’s personal website – http://www.seangabb.co.uk – contains about
a million words of writings on themes interesting to libertarians and
conservatives.

Hampden Press – http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.- the publishing house of
the Libertarian Alliance.

Liberalia – http://www.liberalia.com – maintained by by LA Executive
member Christian Michel, Liberalia publishes in-depth papers in French
and English on libertarianism and free enterprise. It is a prime source
of documentation on these issues for students and scholars.

We should all use our eyes more


David Davis

Perhaps we should all pay more attention to Private Eye. Boatang and Demetriou have just admitted to so doing.

I have to confess that, in my (relative) youth as a 20-to-30-something London businessman, and libertarian, who kind of thought he knew what the world was about, I got riled regularly by young chaps with acne, such as Harry Phibbs* and Andrew Roberts*, who would accost me at drinkspotties or in the IEA, saying things like “now     Dave, as you will have just (yeh? Me?  :-O  Yeh!!! (wha’-?) ) read in your Eye….” something-or-other……….

So I consciously did the opposite, and never even opened the flyleaf of any copy of it, from 1969 up to, well, soon now.

*Don’t get me wrong, squire! They’re perfectly normal guys and very rich too! Just that I didn’t think they were at the time, recommending  _sotto-voce_  a strange mag printed on what seemed like bog-paper, with bad typesetting and only erratically available at WH Smith/Waterloo Station in the evenings. Perhaps it was I that was at fault.

Interesting new critique of Whig/liberal/anti-EU blogs


David Davis

Have a look at this here. (The Libertarian Alliance gets a rating…)

My machine now thinks it has no battery, so whenever anybody trips over the mains wire, I go right off and shut down. So you’ll all have to work out what the link is about for yourselves, as I now have other stuff to do.

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea


Sean Gabb

According to The Independent, Britain seeks to expand its empire with 77,000 square miles of Atlantic seabed.

Splendid news. I propose Tony Blair as Governor General. We could give him a nice plumed helmet – and a pair of lead-soled boots to help his descent to this latest territory to be painted red on the map.

THE BLOGMASTER ADDS:-
This is actually a very important point raised here by Sean. If Libertarians care about property rights and what they are and what they are for, (and many of us do,) then there ought to be an agreed legal method, which everybody respects (that’s the point of Law after all, no?) to define what entitiy or “corporate person” or individual, owns what parts of the seabed.

We ought to care about who’s administering such “Law” – in case it is a bunch of “authoritarian-nationalists” (a great term, which I picked up on a newsgroup just this morning, as a description of the government of the USSR Russia today in 2008.)

MUCH MUCH better, than the crass, sad term “nazi” which gets liberals into so much trouble when used by them to describe ordinary socialists accurately.

We here do not care whether there is stuff on or under the seabed round Ascenscion Island or not. Naturally, the inhabitants, of which there are several thousand, will. It’s their life, not ours. But we think that the general point that’s being made in the article is a vital issue for the next 100-200 years, while the Earth is still the primary source of New Property Rights.

Comments please, pronto! (There will be a short written test on 31st August, to see who’s paying attention.)