About Elizaphanian

Rector of West Mersea

Particular political issues – a response to Al

Al listed some issues that he counts as “conservative”, and invited me to comment on them. I’m just going to comment here on my own views on each issue, not on whether they count as definitionally conservative or not.

Al’s list: “lower and less progressive taxes, more spending on defence, police and prisons, sympathy for the death penalty, reluctance to control guns, less spending on health and social security, less spending on state schools and the encouragement of private alternatives, more restrictive immigration, “no” to gay marriage or to any form of equal rights for gays, less regulation of business to help the environment or to protect workers rights or consumer rights, less regulation of financial markets, less subvention, freer trade, more restrictive abortion laws.”

My stance:
lower and less progressive taxes I’d be in favour of a flat-rate tax;

more spending on defence, police and prisons yes, but tied in with a large number of structural reforms, especially with regard to the reformative elements of the prison system. I’m not in favour of prison for non-violent crime, especially as prison is presently constituted;

reluctance to control guns I’m presently thinking about the implications of remedying the disempowerment of the general populace, which may or may not involve armaments;

less spending on health and social security as I see it the issue is not about the level of spending but about a) how the spending is sourced, and b) how it is managed and spent. I’m in favour of a more intelligent structuring of health spending (NOT shifting to a US system, which I think is bonkers). I think there is a debate to be had about emergency care and chronic care, in that the former I see as being essentially free at point of need, the latter I’m not so sure about;

less spending on state schools and the encouragement of private alternatives I’m in favour of a voucher system, which gives parents more power, rather than being beholden to the producer interests;

more restrictive immigration yes, especially from Islamic countries. I’m a big fan of the US system of immigration, ie having to sign up to a framework of values;

“no” to gay marriage or to any form of equal rights for gays I’m in favour of full legal (secular) equality for gay people/ gay couples;

less regulation of business to help the environment or to protect workers rights or consumer rights I’m in favour of businesses being required to operate within the constraints established by their local community; they must certainly operate within the law; I’m also strongly in favour of proper cost-benefit analysis being done on proposed regulations;

less regulation of financial markets financial operations need to operate under the same law as anything else, eg contract law; beyond that I’m not sure what regulations are at issue;

less subvention yes;

freer trade yes in principle, but I don’t see free trade as an idol to be pursued at all costs, as in practice ‘free trade’ can be a total misnomer;

more restrictive abortion laws yes.

Who should pay for the helicopter?

A group of friends are climbing a mountain in the Alps. There is an accident, a fall, and one man breaks his leg. The emergency services are contacted; the injured man is airlifted out; he heals; all is well.

Who should pay for the helicopter?

I would have thought that some form of insurance or tax on the people who walk in the mountains, which pays for the helicopter, would be a workable and sensible arrangement.

What I don’t think is sensible is a tax on the general population to pay for the helicopter – not only are the general population not involved in the Alpen pursuits, but a general tax is something extorted by force.

[And the reason I don’t think extorting things by force is any good is because it destroys the moral fabric. This is why I’m a conservative on general principles.]

The difficulty comes with, eg, a single mum in poverty. Should there be a general tax to help her? Is it a fair analogy to compare an Alpen walker who breaks his leg with a single mum?

What I would not dispute is that there are circumstances where it is not just morally right but morally imperative to offer support to a single mum. What I question is whether that support should come from a central government relying on enforced taxation.

So the real question is: how far should people be expected to bear the consequences of their actions? In the case of Karen Matthews, for example, it’s not clear to me that government support was helping. Put crudely, central government is too remote and coarse grained to help in a situation where the wider culture (especially the moral or ethical culture) has broken down. In such cases it is more important to establish a moral framework than to give out cash.

I do believe that a Christian approach is one based on grace rather than merit, so there isn’t just a bias to the poor, there is a bias towards mercy rather than condemnation. What I don’t believe is that this mercy should be distributed via the state (as opposed to, eg, the local church).

In other words, I would agree that despatching the helicopter is a Christian act. What I don’t agree with is a general assumption that the best way to provide the helicopter is by a centralised state.

“In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.” (2 Thess 3)

TBTM20081216


The U.S. commander in charge of the waters off Somalia, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, told CNN on Monday that he thought it would take a force of 61 warships to safeguard the sea lanes just in the Gulf of Aden, compared with the 14 international ships now patrolling off the Horn of Africa. If the U.S. Navy alone had to provide a force that size, it would take every destroyer and cruiser in the fleet, plus three frigates.

TBTM20081215


Last few days have been exceedingly busy, so no TBTMs – but you haven’t missed much as the weather has been very dull – as with today’s picture. Am now slowly getting back into the saddle.

A reading group

Over the last few months Stephen Law led a ‘group read’ of Dawkins’ God Delusion, which I think worked out fairly well, although I didn’t comment as much as I might have done as he was fairly restrictive in what he wanted to cover. I’m inclined to do something similar here, as I think there is a good crowd of people from all over the spectrum of belief and unbelief.

The book I’m going to begin with is Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason”. I’ll write a chapter summary at the beginning of each week and try and kick off some vigorous and fruitful discussion.

I’ll begin in January – which should give anyone who wants to join in time to get hold of the book.