The London Rioters and Their Targets

My latest article is out in The American Thinker.  Once again it is on the March 26th rioters and is a reflection on the precise nature of the targets that they chose, and what it says about the ideology of the left.

I note that the anger of the rioters was directed at note only banks and other institutions, but also places of luxury such as confectionary store Fortnum and Mason, as well as The Ritz.  This is well in line with the left's continued assault on luxury and culture, which ultimately hurts the rank and file man or woman in the street - not the rich that the left claim to be punishing or attacking.

"Last Saturday, London was hit by what is now a regular occurrence in Britain: the violent rioting and looting by a growing number of socialist, militant environmentalist and anarchist groups, intent on dishing out as much harm as possible to British capitalism. 

Although (as state controlled BBC told us over and over again) the actual rioters were a relative minority of the protesters, they appear to have implicit support from the majority of the approximately 400,000 that descended upon the capital.  Spokespersons for the marchers seemed angrier at "the media" for covering such violence than those who were violent, and one can see from the coverage of the event that for every small gang of violent thugs, there was a much larger crowd of leftists behind them cheering them on.

This is nothing new; anti-capitalist marches during G8 summits, protests against hikes in tuition fees, and now protests against spending cuts have all ended in rioting and destruction of property, without any sign of opposition from the majority of protesters.

What is interesting about the riots is the targets that were chosen.  Yes, there were the usual symbols of Chomskyite "anti-corporate" rage, such as Starbucks, McDonalds and various banks.  Yet, other targets, such as Nelson's column, The Ritz, and luxury confectionary store Fortnum and Mason are notable for being targets of a different kind of rage -- something best defined as an anti-cultural iconoclasm from the left.

Although the left claim that the targets were attacks on the privileged rich, a closer look allows us to see the root of such attacks in socialist ideology.  For the left have not changed their ideology, they have only changed the way in which it is expressed.  The destruction of a nation's culture, history and the luxuries a nation provides has always been a cornerstone of socialist revolution.  From the book burning of Mao's China to the destruction of the Russian Orthodox churches in Lenin's Russia, leftists have always attacked the symbols of a nation's culture and its luxuries.

The more traditional, anti-religious iconoclasm -- as seen most notably in Lenin's Russia -- can still be observed whenever one accompanies a leftist on a trip to the Vatican.  They can be guaranteed to at some point sniff, "These jewels and churches should be sold off and given to the poor" while failing to see that it is usually the poor who are finding spiritual nourishment in those churches that our leftist comrades would have sold off.  They can almost certainly be relied on to add "that is what Jesus would do" despite it almost being a word for word quote of Judas, not Christ[i].

Yet it is a more anti-cultural iconoclastic spirit that motivates leftists to smash up "homes of the rich" such as The Ritz and Fortnum and Mason.  While the socialists may believe they are punishing the bourgeoisie for their high living and exploitation of the proletariat, they are in fact often punishing those whom they claim to be helping..."

The rest of the article can be found at The American Thinker here.

Beware the Tyranny of the Majority

There is nothing easier in this world than spending other people’s money, and conveniently there are a lot of politicians prepared to make it possible for us to do so. But is it just to do so?

One of the things I have been pondering since the March 26th mass tantrum in London are two slogans I saw emblazoned on various pieces on private property and signs. One said “Burn the rich” and the other said the less controversial “Tax the rich.” I imagine many people would agree with the latter but disagree with the former, while failing to see the misguided mentality that connects the two.

“Tax the rich” is something we hear of so often now that we take it for granted. We accept that not only is it “fair” for “rich” people to pay a higher amount of tax in real terms, but that it is also acceptable for them to pay a much higher percentage of income tax. Additionally, we accept that the government can occasionally place special taxes on rich people, such as the mansion tax in New York City, or the supposed “one off” bankers bonus tax that is currently in vogue. However, one may ask – is this behaviour acceptable?

Arthur James Balfour – who was Prime Minister from 1902 to 1905 – once said, “The tyranny of majorities may be as bad as the tyranny of kings.” Indeed, the concept of the tyranny of the majority is one that has worried many political thinkers – most notably the American Revolutionaries – who consequently put limits on government in order to prevent such a tyranny from occurring. It is a concept that one might not have heard explicitly but one that we are all aware of. Although we accept the principle of majority rule, we recognise that it has limits, and if 51% of people voted to execute the remaining 49%, that this would not be a legitimate use of democratic power, and would be a tyranny of the majority.

To counteract this problem, democratic theory recognises that man has certain rights, and that government has certain limits. Democracy cannot be an excuse for the tyranny of the majority over the minority – even the majority can only vote for certain things.

From this, we state that it is not right to “Burn the rich”, even if it is approved by the majority, for the majority do not have the right to enact tyranny upon a minority. Yet does this principle not also mean that a democratic society has no right to levy special taxes solely on a minority, i.e. the rich? Is this not the imposition of tyranny by the majority onto a minority of rich people?

Taxation should be a burden shared by all. It is natural that rich people should pay more money in real terms than those who earn less, but there is no reason except for governmental overreach that means that the rich should pay a higher percentage of tax. People who are paying little or no income tax then forcing people on high incomes to pay 40-50% of tax is not “fair”, it is simply tyranny lite. If we accept that one group of people has the power to place certain taxes on another without their consent, what is to stop them in theory from imposing a 100% tax, or simply confiscating their property altogether?

The more democratic and genuinely fairer way of taxation is to implement either a cap, as has been done in Hong Kong (the highest tax bracket is 20% and most income is taxed at 2%, 8% or 14%), or a flat tax as is currently being considered in Poland and Australia.

This would mean that the majority calling for a tax hike would be bearing similar hikes themselves, meaning that they would be less likely to call for obscene confiscations of income like we have been seeing in Britain in recent years. Additionally, it would prevent the hypocrisy of high and mighty armchair activists and Che wannabes thinking themselves saints for proposing outlandish spending proposals, whilst demanding that a minority pay for their inspired ideas. They would have to put their money with their mouths are.

It would also lead to a great deal more fiscal responsibility from our population and our government. For the majority might be a little more timid about calling for ridiculously wasteful spending programs if it is their taxes as well that are to be hiked in order to pay for it. Yelling “Get someone else to do it” is seen as the height of rudeness and laziness in a social setting, yet write it down on paper and we call it the Labour Party’s Election Manifesto.

I doubt that this change in taxation will happen very soon, for it will always remain a lot easier to spend other people’s money. Certainly, activists on the left know full well that their movement would be nowhere near as popular if instead of scrawling “Make the rich pay” on the wall of Fortnum and Mason they scrawled “Make everyone pay.”