2.3 The Party aims to further the libertarian cause by:
(a) bringing to greater public awareness libertarian philosophy;
(b) encouraging and supporting libertarian political activity within the legal framework of the
electoral system;
(c) pursuing policies which seek at all times to minimise state intervention in the lives of
citizens;
(d) legally codifying and protecting the rights of citizens, now and into the future, through
such measures as introducing a formal Constitution and Bill of Rights within the United
Kingdom;
(e) not making any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious
observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion; and shall ensure that no
religious test be required as a qualification for any public office within the United Kingdom.
6 comments:
I could pick at the wording used where you've crossed out - mainly to replace the idea of rights with that of liberty - but the intentions seem broadly okay to me. After all there already is a Bill of Rights and I can't see why both freedom of religion and the separation of any one religion from the state is a problem.
"...mainly to replace the idea of rights with that of liberty"
I agree there.
"but the intentions seem broadly okay to me."
My objection is that these clauses define the purpose of the party. In the first excision, it shackles the party to a written constitution. At one time I would have supported this, but not any more. There's nothing libertarian in a written constitution, and if such a thing were introduced, and likewise a new bill of rights, it would enshrine 'rights' which are anything but libertarian. Witht the second excision, I don't see why this particular goal has been chosen. Any number of other aims could be put in its place, which are far more important than this. For instance; abolition of the Bank of England and/or fractional reserve banking, reversion to gold and silver money, abolition of pretty much any state institution.
In both these cases, my argument is with them forming the foundation of a libertarian party, and, due to a later clause, they can only be changed by a unanimous vote at a general meeting - that later clause has to go too!
If libertarians want to argue in favour of these policies, fine, but I don't think either is a sine qua non, and thus they do not merit their current place in the constitution.
... besides the second one makes no sense: there is an established religion in this country. It would make sense if it said the idea was to end this state of affairs, but not that it would never introduce it.
"There's nothing libertarian in a written constitution, and if such a thing were introduced, and likewise a new bill of rights, it would enshrine 'rights' which are anything but libertarian."
That rather depends on who writes it, though if it was left to almost anyone in government or Parliament right now I'm sure you'd be absolutely correct. However, if one were to be written by libertarians, perhaps with the US version in mind so as to improve on it and almost certainly starting with the Non Aggression Principle as the basis for all else, it could be very libertarian and worthy of including in LPUK's constitution as a aspiration. That leaves it as a rewriting exercise rather than an, er, excise exercise. "Protection of citizens' rights" should certainly refer to freedoms instead, and paras (d) and (e) could be rolled up together since the achievement of the first would bring the second anyway, and if LPUK wants to disestablish the CofE as the official religion it should probably just say so.
Still, I don't expect a say as I'm just someone who would have voted LPUK if there'd been a chance to and not even a member of the party - I'm just chucking ideas at someone who is. If LPUK does survive you need to attract more votes than one libertarian expat whose support is likely anyway.
AE,
for sure, I believe in a written constitution, as long as I get to write it! When I say there's nothing libertarian about such a thing, I guess I should add the word 'inherently'. It's not that it's against liberty to have one in theory, just neutral, and I think the practicalities are such that pursuing it would be folly. Besides, a libertarian government should be busy abolishing laws not erecting new ones.
"if LPUK wants to disestablish the CofE as the official religion it should probably just say so."
Indeed, but I would still argue that it should not be included as one of the foundation stones of the party constitution, unless we were going to include another twenty things that are just as high or higher on the agenda. There are so many things I'd rather see done than kicking the bishops out of the House of Lords.
Fair enough, I can understand that.
Post a Comment