And why not bankrupt them?

Tim Worstall has an article on the Adam Smith Institute website about yet another example of the waste of public money and asking if it is possible to surcharge a Cabinet Minister for the losses to the taxpayer caused by that Minister’s own gargantuan stupidity.

While holding Ministers personally liable sounds a good idea, I would far sooner see them barred from holding any form of office – or even being a Member of Parliament – for a fixed term of say ten years, something that might also concentrate minds.

Of course there is a method by which we could save these idiots from being both personally liable and being barred from holding office – the adoption of The Harrogate Agenda and Referism, whereby the expenditure of all public money, whether national or local, has first to be agreed, through the presentation of an annual estimate, by the people.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

3 Responses

  1. Antisthenes says:

    Most of the functions that government carries out will in most cases be inefficient and wasteful. That is a most compelling reason for the size and functions of the state to be very restricted. Apart from which when government and the people are not one and the same then the opportunity for mismanagement, corruption and abuse of power increases in proportion to the gap between those who govern and those who are governed. Today we have a situation where the gap is very wide indeed and daily widening. That has come about because the people have been conditioned to become culturally socialist if not economically so. Due to which the people pay lip service to democracy while at the same time encourage statist authoritarianism. I have said before and I reiterate that the road to true democracy and indeed implementing any of the Harrogate agenda is barred by the existence of politicians and political parties as while they exist government and the people cannot be one body. Calling for refer-ism etc., does not do the intended job it may help a little but it does not overcome the formidable obstacle of politicians being between the people and government. I do not wish for a bloody revolution or anything of that kind what I seek is to push politicians out of the legislature and government and let them take up their true position that of what they are just another bunch of vested interests.

  2. Jim says:

    On the “public” debt, there is only really one fair course of action to be taken by the government. That is simple all out default. This may sound a little shocking and even criminal to some people until its clearly explained.

    First lets see what debt is. A creditor (say Mr Smith) lends a debtor (say me) some money for somethng (say £1000) we agree that next year i will pay back Mr Smith £1,100. Great, a 10% loan, nothing wrong there, Each of us benefit, and the loan was made between Mr Smith and I, in the knowledge i will pay the amount + the interest using my own resources, I pledge this on my honour and Mr Smith takes some risk.

    It would be totally injust for me to approach the people in the 11 houses down the road from mine and force them to pay (steal) £100 from each of them, in order they pay their “fair share” of my debt. Those 11 people did not ask for the loan, did not take the loan, did not spend the loan, so have absolutly no moral duty to repay the loan.

    The same applies with government debt, a government does not borrow with the intention to pay back its own debt, or on its own honour, but rather the honor of and from the wallet/purse of the tax payer. Both government and Creditor are aware of this at the time the loan is made and its nothing short of theft. The taxpayer did not ask for the loan, did not take the loan, did not spend the loan (or even have a say in how its spent), so the taxpayer has no moral obligation to pay off the loan.

    Default may sound bad, but its better and fairer to default on those creditors who took the risk, than it is to tax and inflate away wealth from the tax payers who had no choise.

  3. APL says:

    An interesting thing might be:

    1. Who got the £70,000 offer price for derelict property in the first instance.
    2. Who on the preferred list will get the properties for a £1
    3. How many instances where 1 & 2 are the same person.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012