Is it possible simply to shut-down Quangos, Sefras and NGOs?


David Davis

I just wanted to pose a question to lawyers on here.

In the event of a British Libertarian-inclined government being elected, with a good enough majority, and taking over the administration of the UK, what is the position of all these various bodies out of reach of democratic or any normal form of civilised control, of we decide we don’t like them and want to close them?

Do their banks (they must have some) have private contractual obligations to “pay wages and salaries” and “honour debits”, regardless of what the War Secretariat might want to do?

Would the administration have to “administer” their banks also simultaneously?

How ideally might it be arranged that all previous-government-patronage-scumbag-apparatuses’ wages/salaries/ utility-bills/building-rents/pension-conts etc could simply “cease to be paid forthwith”, without getting somehow at the banks themselves, and what legal ground would we be on?

We’d clearly be in breach of fraud or civil tort Law if we failed to pay legitimate private suppliers of goods, taxis, prostitutes etc, up to invoices rendered before the date of shut-down: whether this would include public utilities is a matter of libertarian philosophy right now, given their hand-in-glove-relationship with the State as it stands.

I’m just asking.

About these ads

17 responses to “Is it possible simply to shut-down Quangos, Sefras and NGOs?

  1. IANAL, etc.

    Without government funding, some would vanish immediately (e.g. ASH), without obligatory “industry funding” others would vanish (e.g. ATVOD), others which are part of the State could be immediately closed (e.g. OFCOM or FUCKOF or whatever) and others would go back to being entirely private campaign organisations with a smaller budget (e.g. The Legion of Angry Upper Class Matrons).

    I’ve toyed with the idea that a useful strategy would be to announce an enormous enquiry into corrupt interactions, financial impropriety and lobbying with previous administrations. Run by sound persons, such an enquiry could cause sufficient disruption as to render these organisations crippled during the crucial period of suppressing counter-revolutionary tendencies. Combined with a propaganda blitz (truthfully) identifying these groups as the authors of the current tyrannical regime, they would be effectively neutralised.

    Also, Tony Blair on a “shoot on sight” list.

  2. I think we ought to leave the “Tony Blair Problem” out of it for the moment. He may have a lot of powerful and heavily-armed friends abroad by now, who may have bigger and more well-equipped armies, navies and air wings than we right now do.

    But as to the rest, it sounds a good strategic approach.

  3. Just a couple of brief points as this is not my field of expertise;
    1) I have heard of Councils forming partnerships or joint bodies of some sort; this has the great advantage that these ‘new’ bodies are not elected & can do what they like.
    2) A lot of these things are of course EU funded; the EU Commission for instance funds lobby groups and ‘fake charities’ to lobby the EU Commission to implement certain policies that the Commission wishes to implement. If we were to leave the EU these would presumably evaporate overnight.

  4. Slightly off-topic, but I looked this up for an answer I may or may not write to Hugo in the other thread. The Levellers’ Constitution-

    http://www.constitution.org/lev/eng_lev_12.htm

    I commend it to my Libertarian Revolutionary Comrades as a template for the British State as it should be… and to ponder what an England we’d have had if it had been adopted.

  5. David – as you know, since Blackstone it has been accepted that Parliament can pass what laws it likes.

    Actually I do not like that – but in this case it works in our favour. Pensions for high officials, commitments to bail out banks….. all can be ripped up.

    And if any judges object – they can be dismissed (or just not paid).

    There is no equivalent of the U.S. Marshalls service in the United Kingdom – Judges have no armed men to send to enforce their rulings.

    Judges (in the UK) depend on the Executive – and, in the United Kingdom, if Parliament grows a pair of you-no-whats it can control the Executive.

    Of course, in an alternative universe, American Federal judges might have been elected (not appointed – appointed by the very government they are supposed to limit, a “little” problem there….) and then we can picture the scene……

    President Franklin Roosevelt has just signed his infamous “Executive Order” robbing people of their gold and voiding both government and private contracts.

    Then a deep voice is heard from behind him………

    “My name is Judge Dredd and you, Mr Roosevelt, are under arrest”.

  6. It would be simple to shut them all down, but they are the lifeblood of those who lord over us. The exalted ones who gain status and wealth from state coercion won’t give up their unearned privilege without a fight…

  7. David,

    There are several strategies that can be used.

    1. Unfunding the evil institutions can be done by simple majority in Parliament.

    2. Pensions could be cancelled, but this would look like an arbitrary interference with settled expectations. My suggestion is a Public Sector Payroll Tax. This would take every income and every pension defined as coming from the taxpayer, and subject it to a 100 per cent tax above £40,000 for salaries and £20,000 for pensions. We can argue about the exact sums, but you get the idea. We could strip these people bare by using the tax system they’ve constructed to plunder us.

    3. What I most admire about the ANC is its Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Without executing anyone, the ANC used this to discredit the whole class of its opponents. Get enough of these people on the telly, grassing each other up in hope of a pardon, and there won’t be much hope of a comeback.

    4. We can still exempt certain individuals from hope of a pardon. Stringing up Tony Blair is something well worth contemplating.

    5. In general, as I’ve been saying since Cultural Revolution, Culture War, we need to shut their institutions down and shred the records. We need to make sure that any restoration of tyranny would have to start from scratch. At the worst, a few weeks in front of a shredding machine might buy us decades of effective liberty.

    • But the GramscoFabiaNazis have been interfering with other people’s (and their families’) settled expectations for decades. Can there be any case for not interfering with theirs and those of their own families?

      Perhaps am an unforgiving, narrow-lipped, vengeful man, who bears grudges.

      I grudge Socialism the ruin of my planet: “we” may not, now, in time, get off onto others: “time was all we had”, and they have robbed us of much, not even to mention the blood and sorrow and money and energy and other resources encompassing the attempted-opposing of these effing bastards. I can’t see why the heirs and successors of the people who did this wicked deed, absolutely on purpose, intellectually-codified and strategised fully in writing – they were always very frank with us and if we didn’t listen because they were hanging-half-off-the-planet then it was not our problem but theirs – should not make “some restitution”. That is ideally to say: everything they will have and for ever. They and their distant ancestors even invented slavery, which they allow today even to be practized in many countries that they find useful, while blaming specifically the Anglosphere and us for this thing.

      Let them be slaves, for ever, and work to help Get Man Into The Cosmos. They can break rocks initially on places like the ChindoHimalayan-Rail Way, or somewhere like that.

      Perhaps I’d better not try to write the LA Christmas Message this year, as I view our mortal idological enemies rather less charitably that I perhaps should?

      • Perhaps the problem we’re wrestling with here is how to implement a “Denazification” programme when one’s putative “Nazis” are so fuzzily defined. There is no “The Party” they are members of, no easy way to define who is a carrier of the ideology which libertarians would need to exclude from positions of power.

        This is why perhaps Sean’s approach has much merit; you simply destroy the offices and institutions they festered in during the current tyranny, so that they have nowhere to continue their foul works from.

        I sometimes idle away time I should spend more usefully, writing in my mind a list of those things that could or should be done away with in (a) the first week (b) the first year (c) the first parliament of a libertarian administration. For instance, the NHS would be hard to get rid of rapidly, if at all. But its “Public Health” programmes would be first week stuff, following a list compiled before the election win and implemented by a minister and his/her team already primed to go from the moment they step into Whitehall. You’re not sacking doctors and nurses, but you’re sacking every “Western Region Alcohol Policy Coordinator” and the like, and all their underlings.

        In this, there is in fact something of a benefit to the “Third Sectorising” of the State; the more of them that are on the public payroll, grant funded etc, the more there are in the State’s power and thus instantly sackable.

        Plus as Hugo has noted, pulling out of the EU on day one (there is no “process”, you simply phone the EU and tell them we’re instantly out or, even better, send them a Tweet) instantly collapses all the EU front organisations.

        • “Perhaps the problem we’re wrestling with here is how to implement a “Denazification” programme when one’s putative “Nazis” are so fuzzily defined.”

          An easy way to define the difference between ‘them’ and everyone else, is that the former draw income, status and power through government coercion, and the rest of us has to EARN it through voluntary interaction. It’s really always been about those who want to be left alone and those who won’t leave you alone (whilst making you pay for the ‘privilege’).

          It’s certainly difficult to fight an abstract, which IMHO, is what we are dealing with here. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that States evolve organically. The general public are obviously drawn to Government because it is easier to hire a statesmen to steal resources from someone else than earn them all by yourself, and like every successful mafia, they know exactly which groups need to be paid off to stay in power.

          The way I see it, is that change will only come slowly through practising what you preach: using the NAP in personal integrations, and raising children in a peaceful manner etc.. Statism will need to come out of fashion for it to cease to exist, the same way human sacrifices and the slave trade eventually did.

  8. Dear Mr Davis

    Why do you think banks are relevant to this? They are merely suppliers of banking services and have no duty to pay an employee or supplier save as instructed by their customer. If their customer ceases to exist, they simply lose another customer.

    The matter of settling debts properly incurred in the course of any taxpayer funded ‘business’ is relatively straightforward. Any attempt by a libertarian government to breach such contracts wouldn’t be very libertarian, would it?

    Any attempt by the soon to be redundant quangocrats etc to incur excess liabilities would constitute fraud, especially if it were to benefit a ‘connected person’ of the person purportedly incurring the liability. That sort of ‘contract’ is void and the perpetrators ought to be prosecuted for fraud.

    Funding of fake charities ought not to happen now, and could be construed as fraud, especially where the supposed charities are promoting policies based upon manifestly junk science. Same applies to taxpayer funding of universities and other ‘research’ bodies.

    Hope that helps.

    DP

  9. I must admit to being struck once again though by the basic problem that, if we ever have the public support to do all these things, we probably wouldn’t need to do them. The real problem for libertarians is achieving the credibility necessary to become a serious social and political force. The problem really is not the State and its nebula of hangers on; it is that most of our fellows to some degree- often enthusiastically- support it.

    Take Social Services for example; a key nest of our enemy. Many people are highly critical of them- “the SS” etc- but very few of them actually want a State without Social Services; they just want a “good” version that doesn’t do Bad Things; which is of course impossible, but that’s what they want.The same with education. I really don’t know the way forward with this.

    • The strategic problem of course is that, even having been elected, we:-

      (a) won’t have the public support to do these things, because people will scream things like “OH, BUT IN VOTING FOR YOU, WE DIDN’T MEAN THAT YOU COULD DO ACTUALLY THAT!!! WE JUST THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA!!! (So we voted for it, but we still want to have our noses perennially-rubbed in socialist shit for ever and ever.)”

      (b) will find tha to do them is even more needful, critical and urgent than we thought, specifically-because _of the above_ in (a), because the GramscoFabiaNazi phantasm is so persuasive, so “good sounding”, so “morally right” (cue Ian’s long, drawn and very reflective thoughts about Victorian PuritaNazis here and their baleful influence on the Anglosphere) that wherever anybody else suggests should be the way to organise a civilisation _must be wrong_ .

      It’s, er, kinda, like “The Political Science Is Settled”…The vast majority of political scientists and experts in this field know that socialism is right…Anyone else is a “denier”.”

      But we are right and everyone else is wrong: otherwise why are we wasting our time and lives being on here, talking about what needs to be done?

      We know what needs to be done. And we know who is preventing it. They will _simply have to go_ …The dismantling of all the foul apparatus they hijacked or invented themselves can then be done at our leisure, in about a day.

      In my current mood about these efifng bastards, I certainly don’t think I’d better write the Christmas Message for the LA: Christmas now for me is a time for stating how we shall be exacting revenge against these awful individuals, rather than talking about the future being better than the past because of The Born Jesus Christ, the Redeemer (Sean will know the Greek for all this stuff better than me). In pursuing deliberately their own objective of becoming SuperHumaNazis (quite openly – we should never complain that we weren’t advised by them of what they intended – ) and directing the rest of humanity in their image of what “it ought to be”, they have incurred my ineradicable wrath.

      But I will write it, if you want. Don’t bank on it being nice.

  10. I’m working on copylines here now, a throwback to my advertising days:-

    THE MOMENT HAS COME…

    THE MOMENT FOR REAL CHANGE…

    THE PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS HERE…

    MORE OF WHAT YOU LOVE…LESS OF WHAT YOU HATE….

    *- More money in your pocket, to spend on stuff…
    *- Less tax to the moochers who mooched you before (all of them)…
    *- NO VAT when we leave the EU…!!!
    *- More and cheaper tobacco…(fill a Transit in Trieste!)
    *- More and cheaper booze!!!…(fill a Van in Verbier!)
    *- ALL THE TELLY you love…and FOR FREE…(no “license fee!”)
    *- FILL YOUR TANK for £30…NOT £90…!!!
    *- FLY TO sunny Fucka-lotte for (as little as) £20 RETURN (for parties of 10 or more – for 100+ you get a private jet)…AND NO greenTAXES!!!

    I was goint to add:-
    “FEWER POLICE..equals….BETTER PEOPLE!!!” … But I think that the votariat is not exactly quite ready for that one yet.

  11. Maybe we should just say, “vote for us and we’ll give everyone a thousand pounds if we win”. Sixty billions isn’t much these days, but I bet it would motivate enough “disaffected non-voters” into the polling booths to get us elected. Then Dr Sean Gabb could be PM, Mr Paul Marks could be Chancellor Of The Exchequer (thus producing a re-run of the Blair/Brown years), Mr David Davis will be Interior Minister, and I’ll have the Ministry Of Wenches, the primary task of which will be the deployment of scantily clad totty around the country to induce an enormous sense of general wellbeing in the proletariat.

  12. I claim Witchfinder General. There is ample historical precedent, there must be plenty of common law to back up the office.