Monday, August 03, 2009

Immigrants and the "social contract"

Having railed against the repulsive attitude that this country has to immigrants, it is time to propose a solution—and it is a solution that could solve other problems too.

NuLabour has cracked down hard on non-EU immigrants because this is the only way of responding to the perceived problem of immigration. The main problem with immigration—provided you are not simply a BNP morons who hates the sight of "darkies"—is that they take up resources, such as benefits.

The trouble is that non-EU immigrants cannot claim benefits and so they tend to be the ones that work. Many EU citizens work too, but they are allowed to bring in families that are eligible for benefits and do not work at all.

Our benefits bill is reaching ever closer to the £200 billion mark—it is becoming utterly unsustainable.

So, here is my proposed solution, and it is a solution designed to be implemented tomorrow—that is, it assumes that we are still in the EU, etc. So, here it is: no immigrant may claim benefits until they have been working—and contributing tax (i.e. cash in hand work will not count)—for four years.

But wait! The EU will not let us treat EU citizens any differently to British citizens. Great! The same thing applies across the board, for British citizens too.

When National Insurance was first implemented, you had to have been paying in for a certain amount of time—and earned your "stamps"—before you could start getting payouts. To an extent, this is still the case, but other benefits are not, theoretically, part of the National Insurance system, so they are paid out without any requirement to have paid in.

This should stop, right now.

So, everyone—regardless of where they are from originally—gets treated in exactly the same way: no one shall receive any benefits until they have paid tax into the system for four years (an arbitrary number—we could make it higher, if you like, or lower—four years seems a reasonable time to me).

In this way, we can stop paying for people's lifestyle choices (including encouraging the feckless to have children); we can diffuse the resentment based on the "bloody immigrants, coming here and stealing our benefits" argument; we give people an incentive to pay tax rather than do cash-in-hand work; we stop people coming here with massive families in order to soak our ridiculously generous benefits system (and thus reduce immigration); we can remove these spiteful bars to non-EU immigrants working (and thus allow private companies to hire who the fuck they want); it will provide us with an incentive to ensure that our schooling is up to scratch (since natives will be competing with immigrants on an equal footing); it allows us to open our borders to those who want to come and work here (and neutralises Hayek's problems with doing so whilst a Welfare State exists); and, of course, we will substantially reduce our social security bill.

A lot of people on the Left tend to witter on about the "social contract". Now, your humble Devil cannot remember voluntarily signing such a thing—however, if one is being generous, one could assume that paying tax is when you start contributing your part to the "social contract".

If you don't pay in, then you shouldn't get the benefits. It's that simple.

This is a easy-to-understand, reasonable and ratinal response to a good number of the problems that we have in this country.

Any questions?

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, I am sure that that would nullify some of the problem.
Next topic, housing, given strict planning laws that don't allow a lot of new build, plus government policy that fosters housing bubbles, how are we going to house all the immigrants that want to come.
Thinking about the un-sustainability of the current system, I'm sure you are aware that North Sea oil peaked in 1999, it is projected to fall to 40% of peak production by 2013. So not only will government have less tax revenue (current contribution 13%) but we are also going to be massively increasing our budget deficits to import it, assuming the Chinese haven't tied up all available supplies.
This is why I know that even if I'm wrong about the pound crashing in September, it is guaranteed to happen before 2012. Then people will fall back on tribalism, like the did in Northern Ireland with the driving out of Romanian gipsies.
You are still being naive I fear.

Anonymous said...

As far as it pertains to basic legal migration, your post is fine, DK. The problem is that it takes no account of soi-disant asylum seekers. Non-EU asylum seekers, regardless of their complexion, do receive benefits (both in cash and in kind) and are generally settled in poor areas where resources are extremely limited.

The source of resentment against migrants is not really directed at Indian IT workers who've moved to London or American classicists in the wilds of Cambridgeshire, people who migrate and work legally (and often, as you know well, amidst great bureaucratic and governmental hostility). Resentment is about the hordes of "asylum seekers" waiting in Calais to skip into the country so they can get lots of free £££.

Labour's abusive treatment of legitimate non-EU migrants is simply a distraction that's meant toso we'll think they're doing something while, in fact, they're nothing.

The problem is not and never has been Dirty Furriners A-Takin' Our Jobs. The problem is asylum seekers crossing half the globe purely to get free houses and free money all the while living a violent criminal lifestyle.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anon,

"Non-EU asylum seekers, regardless of their complexion, do receive benefits (both in cash and in kind) and are generally settled in poor areas where resources are extremely limited."

As far as I aware, asylum seekers are not allowed to work for three years, so that those Dirty Furriners cannot be accused of A-Takin' Our Jobs.

Allow asylum seekers to work as soon as they are granted asylum, and you remove that problem (and, no, you don't pay any benefits until they have been working for four years).

DK

Willy said...

Good Idea.
Even then, unemployment benefits should only last up to 9 months; then you get to food stamps etc.

BenefitScroungingScum said...

Yes, how would you factor disability benefits in to this? Bendy Girl

Willy said...

Easy. Workmens/persons compensation fund.

Devil's Kitchen said...

BendyGirl,

"Yes, how would you factor disability benefits in to this?"

Sorry, you did ask this on another thread and I didn't reply—my apologies.

It's a difficult question, of course. The only way to deal with it would be to provide an exception for those who are genuinely unable to work—which is considerably less than the 2.5 million currently on Disability Benefit.

The problem there has been a political pressure to put people on Disability Benefit to mask the true unemployment figures.

Because that is a political move, it is difficult to deal with—unless those on Disability Benefits were rolled into the unemployment figures. However, as I said, since that is a political decision, and the reason for putting people onto Disability Benefits is a political one, I don't quite know how you would sort this out.

However, were I in charge, I would be tempted to bring a malpractice charge against doctors who sign people onto Disability Benefits when they are not genuinely disabled.

With the advent of ever more connective technologies, the number of people who are actually unable to work is becoming much, much smaller—and yet the Disability Benefit bill continues to grow.

I'll admit, it is tricky. Of course, were I in charge, there would be a whole-scale reassessment of benefits anyway.

But I'm not in charge, so none of this is likely to happen anyway.

DK

Duncan Stott said...

As someone who would rather be labelled Left than Right (although I'd rather be called neither), I very much agree with this.

However, shouldn't the definition of 'benefit' be extended fully to other public services? Schools, NHS, social housing? People also fear that immigrants put a strain on these services, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be included.

So new citizens will need to have been in taxed employment for 4 years in order to receive free housing, healthcare, education for their kids.

Second, should your full-benefit citizenship expire if you fail to contribute after a fixed number of years? I have some reservations over this, but a willing to be persuaded.

Devil's Kitchen said...

P.S. "However, were I in charge, I would be tempted to bring a malpractice charge against doctors who sign people onto Disability Benefits when they are not genuinely disabled."

I do realise that this is likely to lead to you having to jump through more strigent hoops—however, I would only make you do it the once, since yours is a life-time condition.

DK

Anonymous said...

DK,
I see where you are coming from to create a better system and that is fair enough, your ideas may work, but they are unlikely to be adopted.
I am looking at the problem for the implications of this now, my specialist area being finance. At present my charts tell me that we are going into the largest financial crash in history, initially I was looking at September, it may be a month or two later given the mega stimuli of the last year.
In Britain's case things are going to be extremely bad i fear.
People are going to take out their rage on foreigners, they are going to blame them for taking limited resources. I am looking at the benefit system gone, pensions gone, housing down 90%, commercial property something similar, banks wiped out, income tax down another 50%, corporate tax down another 50%.
We are almost perfectly tracking the 1930's collapse. Your idealism isn't going to any match for the next leg of this credit crisis.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Duncan,

"So new citizens will need to have been in taxed employment for 4 years in order to receive free housing, healthcare, education for their kids."

These are all benefits, so yes.

With the following problems—we have compulsory education in this country: how do we reconcile that? We cannot force people to send their children to school and force them to pay. Or can we?

Healthcare would be A&E only. However, to avoid the "free rider" problem that exists in the US—everyone who arrives at A&E in the US has to be treated regardless of ability to pay or insurance status, so you get people turning up to A&E for non-emergencies—they would only be treated if it were a genuine emergency. Anything else would have to be paid for—either through private medical insurance, or with cash.

Housing Benefit would not be claimable in any way for the first four years. If the immigrant is able to sustain themselves, then they should not be eligible anyway.

And yes, benefits for all should be time-limited (as in the US). If you want further benefits, then I would suggest private insurance—you can get unemployment insurance for about £20 per month (and it pays better than the state benefits anyway).

DK

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anon,

Yes, your prediction chime with those that I am hearing from other people in the City.

There is little that we can do. However, if we are about to go through hard times... well, people are going to have to cope.

If they start attacking immigrants, then they should be jailed—just as we would do with any other physical attack.

No amount of economic hardship justifies taking your rage out on others: in fact, nothing does (the non-aggression pact is central to libertarian thought).

DK

LL said...

Can't we just kill them? It's seems more beneficial to the English people in the long term. Bloody foreigners (all of them, including the scottish. Oh and parents on benefits/child allowance, Paid breeders)

Lord Lindley of the Peak

Anonymous said...

By allowing all asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to work, you are creating a separate set of problems. There aren't enough jobs to go around as it is.

Remember, we have to allow free movement of all EU citizens to the UK and that accounts for a huge number of extra people.

The EU is already working to standardise benefits and social systems but unfortunately, the UK is the odd man out in this argument, where we are the only country that give benefits straight away regardless of status.

The only solution now is to expel everyone that shouldn't be here in the first place immediately and not prolong the agony of a long, weighty appeals system.

That will cut the benefit bill and ease services such as the NHS.

Create a fair system for those whose skills we require or for those who genuinely want to marry and/or are in love.

It has to be said the UK IS NOT A CHARITY and the taxpayer is not happy paying for people like this :

Fanatics' call to prosecute Queen for Genocide

This nutter is British, can you believe it and he's on benefits! Can you imagine a white guy doing this against anyone ethnic?

The Labour Party has forced many white moderate people into being anti-immigration and joining parties like the BNP. This is still happening and is making people angrier and angrier.

Until this sort of thing stops, you'll get no support from ordinary working people.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anon,

"By allowing all asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to work, you are creating a separate set of problems. There aren't enough jobs to go around as it is."

If there aren't enough jobs, then immigrants won't come here—or settle here—because they will not be able to support themselves.

Unless, of course, they have enough savings to last them for four years of not working—and they won't receive benefits then, because they haven't paid any tax.

"The EU is already working to standardise benefits and social systems but unfortunately, the UK is the odd man out in this argument, where we are the only country that give benefits straight away regardless of status."

Which is precisely what my system stops: we do not give away benefits to people who have not paid into the system.

"Create a fair system for those whose skills we require or for those who genuinely want to marry and/or are in love."

And you'd let bureaucrats judge that, would you? Who the fuck are the Border Agency to pry into every aspect of my private life?

"It has to be said the UK IS NOT A CHARITY and the taxpayer is not happy paying for people like this :

Fanatics' call to prosecute Queen for Genocide

This nutter is British, can you believe it and he's on benefits! Can you imagine a white guy doing this against anyone ethnic?"


There is little that we can do about this, except...

To be eligible for British citizenship, you now have to have lived here for five years.

So, you will need to get through four years of no money, etc. Had my system been in place, Anjem Choudry would not be on benefits, and nor would he now be a British citizen—simple economics would have ensured that he could not afford to live.

My system would work beautifully.

DK

Mr said...

How are you going to manage the existing swathes of neverworked benefits breeders?

Are you going to cut off their benefits? In which case, how are you going to deal with thousands of homeless children?

Or does this apply only from tomorrow?

Devil's Kitchen said...

Mr,

"How are you going to manage the existing swathes of neverworked benefits breeders?"

I dislike retrospective legislation as it is inherently unfair.

My new regime would start tomorrow.

Benefits—other than Housing Benefit and Child Benefits—would become time limited as from then.

Housing Benefit and Child Benefit would carry on as before for those with existing children, but would not apply to any further children.

DK

Anonymous said...

In your ideal world, what do you intend to do if they come anyway? Let them rot in the street with their families?

I believe the above nutter Choudry was born in London and was born British.

"And you'd let bureaucrats judge that, would you? Who the fuck are the Border Agency to pry into every aspect of my private life?"

How else do you propose we do this then? There has to be a fair system in place or marriages of convenience will continue.

I suggest those British "serial benefit breeders" be made to work for their money. For example, setting up community creches for the thousands of benefit kids whilst others go in the fields and do work that the illegal immigrants come and do for minimum wage. That would certainly get the fat falling off some of them!

The Points Based System: Dispelling the Myths

The new system won't work say cross party think tank "Migrationwatch UK"

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anon,

Choudry is not a British citizen. People born in Britain are not automatically British (unlike, for instance, the US).

"In your ideal world, what do you intend to do if they come anyway? Let them rot in the street with their families?"

Sure. Or they can choose to be deported back to the country from which they came.

"How else do you propose we do this then? There has to be a fair system in place or marriages of convenience will continue."

But that is the point: if you remove the benefits, it simply doesn't matter if marriages of convenience do continue.

But marriages of convenience only happen because, for some people, that is the only way for them to stay in the country. Remove that problem by letting people come and live here if they want to (and can afford to) and marriages of convenience will cease because there will be no need for them. Do you see?

"I suggest those British "serial benefit breeders" be made to work for their money. For example, setting up community creches for the thousands of benefit kids whilst others go in the fields and do work that the illegal immigrants come and do for minimum wage. That would certainly get the fat falling off some of them!"

Exactly. Remove their benefits and they will have to work.

And if they have to work, then there will be fewer jobs for immigrants anyway—and so the market sorts out the immigration problem. With no good prospect of a job and no benefits, immigration to this country would drop off anyway.

(However, with a lower benefits bill, then you can tax individuals and companies far less, and they will create more jobs.)

DK

Ian B said...

The main problem with immigration—provided you are not simply a BNP morons who hates the sight of "darkies"—is that they take up resources, such as benefits.

Well, no, not really, and playing the racism card isn't very helpful really. A considerable concern regarding immigration is cultural, and I think that is more resonant with people (even if they are generally ashamed to admit it due to the cultural hegemony) than the issue of benefits. Complaints about benefits are a proxy- objecting to benefits scroungers is still sort of acceptable in semi-polite company, so people complain about that.

The fact is that large scale immigration changes the cultures of those areas it affects. People in the west have been told to have no respect for their own culture by an elite who despise it, but those ordinary people still have a regard for their traditonal culture- englishness or frenchness or whatever- and recognise that it is being changed without their permission. It is obvious that the elites are doing this quite deliberately, although what motivates them is not so obvious, though many people have strong ideas on the matter.

It's nothing to do with skin colour, but what one might term cultural proximity. The more alien the culture being imposed, the more suspicion people have of it, and that is not unreasonable. For instance, we now have genuine and profound social problems with such matters as honour killings and child genital mutilation, which until recently were things we thought of weird and nasty things that only happened in faraway places. Immigration has made them part of the new western culture, and people just don't like that. They don't like seeing burkas on the streets and mosques springing up. People are happy with european post-christian culture and would like it to stay that way. They worry that the lives they know are being swept away.

That isn't an irrational fear. It's a very rational fear. It is not irrational hatred based on skin colour or race, but a rational dislike of the specifics of the alien cultures that are growing in the west. It's nothing to do with economics.

Culture is a zero sum game, and it's a matter of proportions. Democracy is demographics. As other cultures take root and grow, the local culture is weakened, and many people fear, not unreasonably, that it may in the not too distant future, be extinguished altogether. You can't address that by tinkering with the benefits system.

We live in a strongly moralist society, which treats any suspicion of immigration as a form of blasphemy. As such, those of us who wish to appear moral to our friends bend over backwards to display our "anti-racism", just as people in past times extravagantly displayed their piety in public. But to do so is to pretend that the real issue of culture does not exist, and thus is to not address the issue. Liberty is a western idea, unique in history. If the western world fades away, so will liberty. It is already collapsing under the weight of governments' futile attempts to create a stable multicultural society- such a society can only exist with massive centralised government power as a moderator, and if the demographic shifts too far, then that government will no longer even consist of western liberals who favour multiculturalism at all. It will consist of non-western, non-liberal newcomers who care not for such values and then the west will be entirely dead, and with it liberty.

It is not an economic issue.

Mr said...

@DK:
I dislike retrospective legislation as it is inherently unfair.

I agree, but so is then creating a 2 tier benefits system - if you could claim today then great, if you want to claim tomorrow and have no contributions banked, you're going to feel pretty hard done by. Perhaps transferring existing long term benefit claimants onto food stamps or the equivalent would take the sting out of it a little? Discretionary income could be "earned" by attending training or works to the public good perhaps?

/Housing Benefit and Child Benefit would carry on as before for those with existing children, but would not apply to any further children./
Reasonable. But the media is bound to dig up a photogenic family cut off by the state.

Say, a young mother with a couple of children who worked for 3 years before having her first child, then had another couple of kids. Working father of the children dies in a tragic accident. Once the savings (if any) are gone, will she be kicked out onto the street?

Mr said...

Grr hit post before instead of preview.

Add another paragraph - even if Housing and Child Benefit are still payable, will it be enough to live on with no unemployment benefit? If the mother goes out to work, will she be able to earn enough to pay for childcare as well as an income for herself? Once she starts earning, will the benefits dry up, leaving her worse off?

James Higham said...

Maybe an addendum - the amount given is indexed to the years contributed to.

john in cheshire said...

'fraid, if i was in power (than God I'm not - it would take up far too much of my time, and i'd have to interact with 'people' - i'd give the ethnics 6 months to bugger off. After that time, those remaining would be legitimate targets. And if we are too stupid to look after ourselves, then at least, that's our problem and no one elses.

Not a sheep said...

Don't forget "no representation without taxation"

Obsidian said...

Rather than have a time-based system, I prefer a tithe type system.

A set pre-taxed % (say 10% for arguments sake rather than an actual figure), with a floor value of say £50 a week, of your wage goes into a pot with your name on it, when you're unemployed you may take out of it.

This would then offer the long-time employed a chance to retrain, after all if you've been employed 30 years, earning on average £20k p.a., you'll have a £60k+interest - beats looking for work at B+Q, and means you don't have to panic about bills.

It would make a nice half-way house between moving from the state teat and towards individual responsibility.

Obsidian said...

@Ian B

I pretty much agree, however in Britain we have been absorbing other cultures for forever and a day - we're a mongrel nation, always have been.

It isn't so much the change, it's the rate of change and how much in-your-face it is.

Asian immigrants have enriched immensely - I recall it being a ballache of the highest order trying to get a pint of milk at half-nine, the corner shop (run by whites) had shut at 8. Asians took over, and it stayed open 'til half ten. Much better.

Same with taxis, the Asians tend to keep theirs clean, back when it was a mostly whites-only job your average taxi resembled a skip.

Immigration is good for us, state-mandated multiculturism (as opposed to a natural one) and benefit tourists on the other hand, most certainly aren't.

Anonymous said...

Nice discussion, some good ideas but we all know unless the UK leaves the EU, it's not going to happen. The EU is essentially a left wing, socialist ideal and is hell bent on making us one big diverse melting pot whether we like it or not!

Let's face it, democracy is dead!

Chris Morriss said...

Thank you DK for this justifiably angry piece. It's restored my faith in your view of the world after the rather silly piece you wrote worshipping at the feet of Steve Jobs.

And thanks also to the comment of Ian B. I have often argued that the British have very little that is racist about them, but they feel unable to complain legitimately about the erosion of the indigeneous culture, egged-on by state sponsorship, that is happening all around us at an accelerating rate.

North Northwester said...

Ian B
"The fact is that large scale immigration changes the cultures of those areas it affects."

"It is not an economic issue."

Hear! Hear!

DK.

One problem of libertarianism [or at least Right-libertarianism] is that it treats economic factors as central to the good life in a polity. That's woefully inadequate as an account of how people can live happily together.

People need to share more than residence and a common [supposedly neutral and equal] set of negative rules to constitute a nation - or town - or whatever. They need to live by an interlocking set of institutions, beliefs, suppositions about life, and the core of this need not be minimalist non-aggression either.

What's been particularly harmful about Muslim immigration for example is the frequency and consistency with which significant minorities of Muslim immigrant groups reject in some way or other all Christian-originated notions of limited government [William of Occam], the moral equality of women and non-believers, and the authority of native institutions. And so they ask for privileges - private laws not open to others - which the multi-culti state is eager [and indeed greedy] to deliver.

Let's try an exaggerated example to test whether an economics-based scheme would work.
Say you set up your limited/licenced welfare system and an open borders policy and everyone knew that they'd get no benefits for 4 years and would have to work for it.
One year later you imported 1,000,000 mixed Afghan, Iranian, Somali, Eastern Turkish and Pakistani Muslim men.

Even assuming that the market generated enough jobs for them to do, the likelihood is that most of these jobs would be in cities: labour intensive agriculture and tourism being, well, out of date.

Just what would the cities or the neighbourhoods in which they settled be like to live in for the natives?

There are areas in Northern England now where white British are told they aren't welcome, where women are openly abused and threatened, and where the local politicians come from the 'community' and exert pressure on local government to do things their way [women-only swimming sessions, concentrating local resource expenditure on immigrant areas] and they insist on their daughters being treated as property; kept out of school, or sent 'home' to marry elderly cousins, or strangled or whatever if they have boyfriends, etc, etc.

Just how intrusive do you want the Social services to be to protect women and girls according to our enlightened western morality, and how powerful should the family courts be to foster or adopt such girls away from their own kin when they are abusive, and how vigilant and numerous do you want the police to be to handle such large numbers of people who have been brought up in a religion/political ideology that preaches first use of force, and threat of force, and strategic fraud as orthodoxy?

Not all people are the same because the contents of their minds and consciences are different - culture's not skin deep; it goes right to peoples' hearts.

We've grown richer as a nation before by modest immigration not just because of the lack of State welfare, but because the numbers were relatively modest and because the native laws and morals were upheld as obligatory.

Unless you see a revolution in the thinking of those who supply public services so that they insist on upholding British notions of the value of women and children for example, then you're not going to see foreigners of that sort becoming just another bunch of law-abiding Britons as the Jews and the Irish did.

Significant numbers of Muslims are colonists, not immigrants, and they mean to live in their ways and not by ours.

You need a better plan.

Pat said...

Just a thought on how to deal with long term disabled (wont be popular, but there isn't an ideal solution short of a miracle truth drug for all applicants). Place them in residential care for a couple of years during which time their capabilities could be assessed. Those abusing the system would get fed up with the loss of freedom- those genuinely disabled less so (as their disabilities would already have limitted their freedom). A bit rough on the genuine I know- but with the majority of the non genuine discouraged they might at least become free from being described as scroungers, and if the care was of a reasonable standard some of them might appreciate the actual help instead of just being fobbed off with a cheque.

Devil's Kitchen said...

North NorthWester,

There are always reasons why you should interfere in other people's lives, aren't there?

"One problem of libertarianism [or at least Right-libertarianism] is that it treats economic factors as central to the good life in a polity."

No, it doesn't. You have previously left comments showing that you fundamentally don't understand what libertarianism is about, and this is just one more in the long line.

"People need to share more than residence and a common [supposedly neutral and equal] set of negative rules to constitute a nation - or town - or whatever. They need to live by an interlocking set of institutions, beliefs, suppositions about life, and the core of this need not be minimalist non-aggression either."

Really? Strange: I thought that the non-aggression principle—that one in which you leave people the fuck alone to live their own lives as they see fit—was just common sense.

"What's been particularly harmful about Muslim immigration for example is the frequency and consistency with which significant minorities of Muslim immigrant groups reject in some way or other all Christian-originated notions of limited government [William of Occam], the moral equality of women and non-believers, and the authority of native institutions."

I don't give a fuck: as long as they don't try to impose their barbarity on others—including their own kin—then they can make themselves miserable in their own way.

And if they do try to impose their barbaric religion on others, then we try them and, if they are guilty, lock them up. Just as we should do with anyone who attempts to force others to live life in a way they don't like, in fact.

"And so they ask for privileges - private laws not open to others - which the multi-culti state is eager [and indeed greedy] to deliver."

The multi-culti state is not a libertarian state, is it? No. Good. Thank you.

In a libertarian state, the state (in whatever form) would not be able to grant any special privileges to any special group. Do you see?

"Let's try an exaggerated example to test whether an economics-based scheme would work.
Say you set up your limited/licenced welfare system and an open borders policy and everyone knew that they'd get no benefits for 4 years and would have to work for it.
One year later you imported 1,000,000 mixed Afghan, Iranian, Somali, Eastern Turkish and Pakistani Muslim men."


What if we had my four year system, and then I bred and set loose upon the population a hideous chimaera made of a Tyrannosaurus Rex, a whale and a chicken which wiped out 80% percent of the population: now, how would a libertarian government make a trifle.

Seriously, WTF?

I actually cannot believe that you dared to leave a comment which combines such a fundamental ignorance of libertarianism with such an utterly stupid fucking scenario that totally ignores the central point of the post. I salute your bravery at least.

Fucking hellski.

DK

wh00ps said...

@ Obsidian: That's my local shop!

More generally, the cultural aspect seems rather different around here. The local "indiginous" culture is mainly benefit-chavs, and the local immigrant culture is mostly well-to-do eastern europeans running late-night greengrocers (a FANTASTIC development).

As for the unfortunate mothers-unable-to-work, perhaps without the teat of the welfare state, they could club together to form collectives with othe women in similar situations? I've often thought this. They could basically operate a nursery while some of the mothers work, and others look after the children. Or they could take turns, or whatever they want. Perhaps, to enact this "tomorrow," the last act of the Welfare State could be to set some of these places up?

Anonymous said...

Mongrel nation ?

What did the BNP poll last time out ? just over a million votes divided between the various candidates was it ?

The libertarians ? 36 votes ?

The LPUK spokesmouth being an alcoholic drug abuser who calls the electorate 'thick cunts' because they refuse to take his ideas on board.

Tomorrow really belongs to you, doesn't it ? :D

Lola said...

Benefits in general drive the growth in the thing they are designed to ameliorate. If the state pays unemployment benefit, you get unemployment. If you pay Incapacity Benefit you get incapacity (what ever that means).

Benefit seeking is a rational choice for many people. They, correctly, weigh up the alternatives of working for a living or living on benefits. Then taking into account various factors, including income and leisure, they make the rational decision that a life of leisure is a better lifestyle choice. As DK points out making our benefits system universally available to all and sundry encourages idleness in the indigenous population and hence also encourages opportunistic immigration from the lower paid or idle or clever and idle.

If you leave the benefits in place for the locals only, you will encourage crime in immigrants who will descend into the black economy (which I absolutely support as it is properly free market). But they will be in the 'bad bit' of the black economy, exploiting their fellow illegals (clam fisherman drowning in Morecombe bay). Polish plumbers are in the 'good bit' of the black economy because their customers are often (mainly?) middle class home improvers who should know how to buy well.

Putting arbitrary time limits on being able to claim will only encourage gaming by skilled immigrants, and they will outgame the 'authorities'. Don't argue, you KNOW they will!

The answer to the immigrant 'problem' is not to limit access to benefits but to scrap all state funded and administered benefits, except the State's role as insurer of last resort. (It is not possible for commercial insurers to underwrite many chronic conditions.)

If you entirely privatise benefits, bringing back Friendly Societies and the like, there will be a complete and absolute commercial imperitive that will control claims. Profits will depend on it. Customers will not permit their premiums to be spent on the idle. Claims management will be tougher. (I'll argue elsewhere about the overall efficacy of this. Antis usually quote the US insurers as examples of bad practice. Since I run a retail FS business I can categorically state that if such schemes are properly applied for the insurer will honour a claim).

Meantime the State can get on with its primary duty, security and the rule of law. The State will pursue illegals in the 'bad bit' of the black economy.

Of course quite a large number of people will not buy insurance, so when they claim we need to re-invent the workhouse. (The BBC did it recently as an experiment for single mothers, so why not?. I mean they did not realise that that is what they were doing, but it was).

As my plan also involves bringing in flat income tax (or better yet scrapping income tax completely) the black economy problem also goes away.

So, DK, I entirely endorse the idea in your post, but the 'solution' is more holistic than just putting in some arbitrary bureaucratically administered rationing system. Why? Because you know very well that anything bureaucratic never ever works. It'll suffer endemic producer capture and the bleedin' hearts will get into it and try and reverse it from not paying to paying only selected groups and....well you can imagine where that's going to end up.

Plus the evidence for the general success of such policies already exists. The mass emigration to the USA. The US only permitted people to come in who had no job waiting and there were no state benefits for them. Therefore the States attracted the most desperate, determined and enterprising of individuals, and the Mafia. The State failed to control the Mafia. But the power of the enterprise shown by the immigrants drove the US to incredible wealth and power. So do not condemn immigration, but set up policies that encourage the enterprising and determined.

None of this will be implemented by Nu Labour or Blue Labour. Both are too dependent on and benefit from the bureaucratic State to want to truly reform it.

Anonymous said...

Completely logical, and therefore doomed to never actually happen. Can we get some real people in as MPs rather than the aliens that we have currently sitting in the House of Commons?

Anonymous said...

Anon, regarding your post r.e. the coming Crash in the markets, can I ask whether your view corresponds to my own, or what you think in general? My view is that the quantative easing by the govt has just gone straight back into the markets, hence the recent boost, in aneffort to get rid of some losses/make some profits, and then tempt the retail investors back in before all the big boys come bback at the start of September and the fun REALLY starts.
And I'm sorry, this is very off topic.

Obsidian said...

@Anon 4:46

Yes, a mongrel nation.

We've been consistently invaded over the centuries meaning we've quite a mix of European heritages running through our DNA.

Hell, castles - as in an Englishmans Home is his Castle - are a Norman import.

If the BNP want to exorcise all foreign influence, they can start by fucking off to a wattle-and-daub construct instead of living in some froggy-based brickworks idea.

Anonymous said...

Allow asylum seekers to work as soon as they are granted asylum, and you remove that problem (and, no, you don't pay any benefits until they have been working for four years).

I'm not convinced you do remove the problem. In fact, this suggestion contradicts your basic thesis on immigration.

On the one hand, you rightly say that we should only accept immigrants who are net contributors. On the other, you say that asylum seekers should be allowed to work. However asylum seekers cannot be accepted or disallowed on the basis of their ability to work and contribute; the *only* criterion for judging their entry to the UK is whether they are, in fact, in need of asylum.

Even cutting off the benefits of these immigrants will not achieve a thing since, in the first place, Britain is legally obliged to provide them with housing and to maintain them and, in the second, most of them are so criminal that, absent benefits, they'll simply steal, deal and pimp to get money.

Complex Messiah said...

Funny - I've been saying the same thing for ages now - the only difference being that I say five years, but that's irrelevant. People's reactions to this proposal are interesting; the left seems to have spread cancerously througout society to the point where they think this is some dystopian, hard-line, inhumane approach. Personally I find the current system where I work to pay for some fat chavvy fuck to sit on his arse watching sky.

Antisocialist said...

"Yes, a mongrel nation."

The effects of the relatively low levels of immigration from our very near neighbours is minimal. The Norman nobles had little genetic impact on the general population.

Do you really think this country would be what it is today if Islam hadn't been repelled by Charles Martel in 1683 and had swept through Europe?

Antisocialist said...

DK, I can remember when I thought a little like you. It was only a few years ago. I don't any more.

The damage to English culture caused by relentless immigration is incalculable. It's all but disappeared in my neighbourhood. All part of the slow process of reducing the English to minority status in their own country. At least that's the plan.

As I said on a comment on a previous article, it doesn't take much research to discover that the name of the game is the effective destruction of the English as a race and nation. All to ease the transition to World Government, with the added benefit of making the country hopelessly divided when a significant number of people finally twig what's going on.

One of the key indoctrination centres into the 'system' is Eton so it shouldn't be a surprise you're such an ardent internationalist. It's only when you begin to 'wake up' a little that you realise just how much your thoughts, opinions and sense of possibilities have been shaped over the years. Most likely courtesy of the Tavistock Institute or one of its offshoots.

And all of this is supposedly for the economic benefits? You seem to think it's all a worthwhile price if it gets you an upgrade for your Mac. I love Macs but I'd give mine away tomorrow for my neighbourhood back. I don't hate the Indians, Africans, Pakistanis, Jamaicans, Kurds, Afghans, Albanians, Iraqis etc that now make up the bulk of the local population. They're not to blame for this.

Unfortunately it was never about the economy. The next phase of the engineered financial collapse is coming in the autumn. All part of the agenda. As is the manufactured flu pandemic designed to reduce the world's population. Eventually to below a billion.

I live in hope that the Satanic conspiracy that wants to either kill us or permanently enslave us will be defeated. It's just a shame that you, probably inadvertently, are so eager to assist it in so many ways. The Devils Kitchen indeed.

cynic said...

This is a great winning argument but involves the standard threat of withdrawal of benefits.
This argument is usually made by someone who does not actually know anyone on benefits.

The issue with any argument that involves withdrawal of benefits is that generally the ones who lose out most are young children not getting fed or clothed properly, not the "benefit scroungers" one is trying to "target"


The feckless STILL have their kids (the clue is in the label you chose).
So you needs to come up with some clever ways to protect this innocent group while getting the cut-off message thru to the said feckless parents. Free school meals is the only good example I can think of.

One finds the Tebbit-like toughlove advocates quickly (and sensibly) folding once 2yearolds start showing up with swollen bellies.

Anonymous said...

Part of the reason we are in such a mess, is that the state has been busily spending our hard earned cash on young women who get pregnant, with no means of supporting their baby. In fact, the baby is a meal ticket.

We should have the guts to stop that now. No benefits, no council house, and if you can't demonstrate your ability to provide for your child it is taken into care and placed for adoption by people who can provide a decent upbringing. A child is not property. I suspect that this would have an effect on the numbers of teen pregnancies, and the caseload of neglected children. They would be beneficial side effects, but the main justification is to stop these people legally mugging the taxpayers.

Asylum is another bugbear. It should mean just that. Sanctuary until such time as the asylum seeker moves elsewhere, or his home country is judged to be safe. It should not confer any other "rights".

Immigration from outside the EU is not justifiable in a country with 60 million people in it. Many of whom are unemployed. It is ridiculous for the government to imply that we have a skills shortage. We don't. We have a party in power who have been feverishly importing voters since 1997. Immigration needs to halt, completely. No quotas, no caps, no arranged marriage rackets.

Of course the lefties would be screaming blue murder. To me, that's all part of the charm....

sobers said...

While I sympathise with the sentiments of the idea I suspect the practicalities would destroy it in short order. A new system that leaves ANY section of people (however undeserving) without benefits overnight will fail because hard cases will immediately flood the media, and the political pressure to DO SOMETHING will be unstoppable.

Which is why I favour the time limited benefit system. A fixed number of years on benefit. So when it is introduced at year zero, no one will be immediately without cash/housing. But equally 4 or 5 years down the line, when the cash stops, no one can claim they didn't know what was going to happen, or have time to reorganise their lives, get new qualifications etc etc.

Such a system would save money, lots of it, but not immediately. A system must not only be empirically fair, but 'seen' to be fair by the population at large, so that politicians can withstand the inevitable pressures that will come when you try to ween people of the benefit teat.

Mr Matthew said...

Couldn't agree with you more on this one DK!
"If you don't pay in, then you shouldn't get the benefits. It's that simple."
It really is.
Suprised you haven't destroyed that stupid "Sexts" report that came out earlier today! I had a quick go in my new blog earlier (:

SJB said...

The biggest call on the benefit budget is the state pension, representing 46% of the total.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2008/09/12/13.09.08.Public.spending.pdf

I remember reading a report at the tail end of John Major's government that over half the women receiving a state pension had made no NI contribution at all. Of those women who have paid NI I doubt few will have contributed enough to match the payments they subsequently receive because generally women live considerably longer than men. Plus, until recently they could take their state pension at 60; men had to wait until 65. Many pensioners also claim top-up benefits like pension credit + many receive a 100% council tax rebate. For example, consider a pensioner's annual benefit of £6k (£4k state pension + £1k pension credit + £1k council tax rebate). So a male retiring at 65 and dying at 70 receives £30k (5 x 6k) in benefits; whereas a woman retiring at 60 and dying at 80 receives £120k! Paging Equality Police ... Harriet Harms please answer your phone :-)

Robin said...

Why four years ?
After that can they live eternally on benefits ?
It sounds as though you are just delaying a problem, not solving one .

North Northwester said...

Hi DK.

I’ll try again.
North NorthWester,

There are always reasons why you should interfere in other people's lives, aren't there?

[Self-defence being my favourite here.]



No, it doesn’t. You have previously left comments showing that you fundamentally don’t understand what libertarianism is about, and this is just one more in the long line.

[Hayek: economic explanation of how spontaneous orders evolve via social Darwinism [maybe not a pure libertarian but a major guru of theirs] ; Ayn Rand [heroine if not a libertarian in name] leave my property and economic opportunities alone; Murray Rothbard, likewise (or I’ll shoot) , both the fractions of the UK Libertarian Alliance going back to the 1970s, The International Symposium of the Open Society, – economic freedom [within property laws] will enable us to live the emotional/spiritual life which we all [often quite secretly] crave.
We’re up to our eyebrows in material wealth in this country and we’re not still free to live our own lives as we see fit for a number of reasons – some of which are not good reasons.[

Really? Strange: I thought that the non-aggression principle—that one in which you leave people the fuck alone to live their own lives as they see fit—was just common sense.

[Nah. Tragically it’s counter-intuitive, to so many people, and not just the evil ones such as our common enemies. It’s been like that for along tome and our [recently eroded freedoms] came out of a long process of people who held to no such non-aggression principle slugging it out. Freedom grew.[

I don't give a fuck: as long as they don't try to impose their barbarity on others—including their own kin—then they can make themselves miserable in their own way.

North Northwester said...

....

[Well, they do try to impose it on others and there’s a lot of them and the nastiest lot have rather a lot of power on their side, and it’s not going to be overcome by quoting The Virtue of Selfishness at them. To which they will not listen. When you’re taught from childhood that we’re all God’s property and that anything that interferes with his chosen earthly leadership is blasphemous and punishable buy death, you aren’t going to spend much time listening to Milton Friedman fans. Or Edmund Burke fans, either, alas.]

And if they do try to impose their barbaric religion on others, then we try them and, if they are guilty, lock them up. Just as we should do with anyone who attempts to force others to live life in a way they don't like, in fact.

[It’s thousands and thousands who bag their daughters or export them for marriage, and so on. That’s a lot of power someone – we are agreed – needs to wield. Such power – even in the hands of the courts – is going to require a lot of resources and public will to protect the young. State power.
I’m only saying.]


The multi-culti state is not a libertarian state, is it? No. Good. Thank you.
[Agreed. And it would be expensive in so many ways to try to get there all at once – if possible. And I doubt it would outlive the massive campaigns of subversion that the Left and its crazy allies would wage agasint it – not without becoming something else. ]

In a libertarian state, the state (in whatever form) would not be able to grant any special privileges to any special group. Do you see?

[But they have them, and to get them back is going to be costly, and I don’t just mean cash. DK , yo can argue with me, show me I’m wrong (and if convinced I’d change my mind.) You can tell me to fuck off. I might. I might not. I might comment again and get on your ‘pecs. But I’m never, ever coming after you with a gun or a knife or a mob or an aeroplane, but others would. ]



....

North Northwester said...

What if we had my four year system, and then I bred and set loose upon the population a hideous chimaera made of a Tyrannosaurus Rex, a whale and a chicken which wiped out 80% percent of the population: now, how would a libertarian government make a trifle.

[You’re bright enough to use counterfactuals to prove a case. Nozick’s Story of a Slave, perhaps? Hobbes’ Social Contract? Rousseau’s? You just haven’t engaged this time. But it’s only a blog. I do absolutely everything except poetry on mine pushing conservatism, so why should you answer every point of mine?
OK, we have way more Muslim men here than 1 million. Not all single. Most are peaceable and law abiding and about a quarter of the young ones think terrorism’s okay to promote or protect Islam overseas or even here. They vote. They marry. They write to MPs and intimidate local politicians with their pushy victimhood. They’re never, ever going to pick up Towards a New Liberty or Free To Choose, or quote Ayn Rand or Ludwig von Mises or Karl Popper or Robert Nozick at you. Never.
Good luck trying, though. Seriously: I’d prefer a libertarians-versus-conservatives party political system to any other, but I doubt I’ll get my wish.
Sorry about the name-dropping, I’ve been picking through my PhD notes…
I really liked whale/chicken thing.]

Seriously, WTF?

I actually cannot believe that you dared…
[all you can do is disagree, probably swear, disprove me, ignore me, or ban me from the site – it’s not like you’re going to kill me, unlike, unfortunately, some of our lovely new neighbours]….
…to leave a comment which combines such a fundamental ignorance of libertarianism with such an utterly stupid fucking scenario that totally ignores the central point of the post. I salute your bravery at least.

[Other people really, really believe we’re all God’s property. They’ve got numbers, oil money, 1,300 years of warrior-culture untouched by the liberal Enlightenment, the belief that they ran the Soviets out of Afghanistan and very soon, if we let them, the Taliban will have Pakistan and its Bomb.]

And radioactive dust has no human rights.
None at all.

NNW

Fucking hellski.

DK

Devil's Kitchen said...

North NorthWester,

Let's say that I accept your points: how, then, you punish the guilty without punishing the innocent?

Our system currently punishes the innocent and leaves the guilty alone.

My system would, at least, stop punishing the innocent and free up resources to go after the guilty.

And it was not intended to be a comprehensive fix: just a quick fix that could be applied tomorrow.

DK

Shigella said...

"Britain is legally obliged to provide them with housing and to maintain them"

That might be true, but why is Britain obliged to house them in a 3-bed semi?

I've been suggesting a scheme identical to DKs to people for years (only I proposed three years no claim pay-in time). The biggest argument people usually put forward is the prospect of beggars and vagrants in the street. Some have said that in the 70s and 80s the streets of London were strewn with homeless people and that this would happen again without the monolithic welfare state. I don't know if this was ever the case (I'm an evil immigrant).

The best solution I've been able to come up with is a work-house type arrangement instead of housing benefit. Anyone on benefit who hasn't got sufficient savings or insurance to provide their own accommodation moves into a workhouse where you get a roof over your head in dorm-type accommodation and three healthy meals a day. In return you do your share of work in the kitchen, cooking, cleaning the rooms, bathrooms, communal recreation areas and contributing to an income source for the home or manning the creche (thereby gaining valuable work skills). I'd imagine 20-25hrs a week would be fair. The rest of the time is yours for sitting on your arse or job hunting. If you get a job you pay a small amount of rent but you contribute fewer hours to communal labour and when you're on your feet you can move out into your own accommodation.

It doesn't have to be inhumane or unfair and it ensures that free-loading is minimised without anyone being chucked out on the street if they don't have any marketable skills.

I've worked for room and board in my life and I've worked for free to gain experience. I considered both a fair exchange.

Obsidian said...

@Antisocialist

The Normans were merely the last successful invasion, and their effects on English culture were immense.

We had the waves of Anglo-Saxon tribes, the Romans before them and many continental attacks before then.

Even literacy among the lower classes was an import from Europe, who were given it by the Moors.

Our laws, our history, our culture, our very bones are the product of imported blood and ideas.

Yes, we're mongrel race in every aspect. Denying it is stupid.

Martin said...

I find this wonderfully entertaining.

We've got soi-dissant lovers of liberty organising everyone's lives, people who lead lives so chaotic they think policy should be dictated around when the shops are open; and now we've got an immigrant wanting to bring back the workhouse.

Rolling on the floor laughing. folks.

Incidentally, the poster 'Obsidian' really should Google the name 'Adrian Targett'. They might learn something they clearly don't know about the history of inward migration into the British Isles.

Anonymous said...

Obsidian,

You talk rubbish and know nothing about English/British history.

The Romans did not remain in Britain for long they were driven out by Anglo Saxons, and Moors never colonised Britain and made no contribution to its make up. The Normans never mad too much of a contribution to our culture either, the nation of England remained and Normans basically ended up becoming English.

The ethnicity of the English is essentially made up from ancient Britons, Germans, and Scandinavians who were all racially similar an evolved into a mainstream culture.

Your argument is typical of a Socialist who likes to falsify British history to suit your own political agenda. You and your kind will never give credence to indigenous Britons, so you can keep pedalling the legitimacy of multiculturalism.

It’s a dying shame that so many young people today get brainwashed by your version of falsified history.

North Northwester said...

Devil's Kitchen said...
North NorthWester,

Let's say that I accept your points: how, then, you punish the guilty without punishing the innocent?
Our system currently punishes the innocent and leaves the guilty alone.
My system would, at least, stop punishing the innocent and free up resources to go after the guilty.
And it was not intended to be a comprehensive fix: just a quick fix that could be applied tomorrow.


DK.
Thanks for this courteous reply which you didn’t have to give.
I get it. I work in the System with little enough pride and hope and I see how it works and mostly fails to work every single day. See my post tomorrow if you will for a new example. Whatever.
Welfare dependency is part of a native British problem; with or without the immigration issue. Welfare dependency – and ‘unwanted’ immigration are in large part a population issue. The Welfare State reinforces idleness as a hereditary survival mechanism akin to Hayekian spontaneous-order social Darwinianism because of inertia in the British political imagination. You’re right to want to break it. But given that the Big Three parties (including my powder-blue former shower) have little intention of wielding any axe the way that you want, then something gradual might sell better to, i.e. a large body of our neighbours both native and incoming.

North Northwester said...

We need to hit at hereditary idleness first, and fecklessness tourism second – or maybe the other way around.
But the Libertarian Party polled 36 (?) at Norwich North, so gradualness will I’m sure be the way to go to start solving this problem. Your 4-year plan is an imaginary construct at the best because of electoral reasons. Nothing wrong with moving towards it; dream big as the Abolitionists did, but we need to get numbers organised and going in our direction NOW. You can have my battered copy of Road to Serfdom when you pry it from my dead cold hand, but until then I’m embarrassed to say that moderation must be the key here.

Apart from trying to whore some traffic off your mighty blog towards my lesser one I was trying to make a serious point that freedom-loving people of all sorts need to bear in mind when we’re faced with largish numbers of folk who aren’t freedom-loving at all.
This is that there are motivations and other forces in any one polity as powerful as - and often more powerful than: enlightened self-interest; rational calculation and love of family, friends and self. Some people have plans other than to produce and consume and keep it real at home. You’re not going to buy off or pacify or anglicize very large numbers of people who won’t play the melting-pot game or any other part of the freedom game when it conflicts with their innermost and defining beliefs. Numbers count and the government are importing people who just won’t play at all. Harshness may have to come, sooner or later, and I’d prefer small-scale and more immediate meanness in shutting the door for a while until our markets and society can soften and absorb what’s flooding in to more delayed and desperate harshness.

Counter-suggestion; dig out inter-generational dependency in a more ‘acceptable’ way via the soggy establishment to the extent that it can be done - a big ‘if’ kind of thing - while heavily limiting incoming anti-westernism for a decade or so. I truly fear there are way more pro-Jihadists than active Libertarians in Britain right now.

Anonymous said...

"Had my system been in place, Anjem Choudry would not be on benefits, and nor would he now be a British citizen—simple economics would have ensured that he could not afford to live."

You're very wrong there Mr. Devil. Choudary (and others of his ilk) would simply leech of his followers' donations, as he is most likely doing right now.

You should understand politics and religion as a business, in the same way you view those fake charities... same thing, different gift wrapper.

Anonymous said...

"Had my system been in place, Anjem Choudry would not be on benefits, and nor would he now be a British citizen—simple economics would have ensured that he could not afford to live."

You're very wrong there Mr. Devil. Choudary (and others of his ilk) would simply leech of his followers' donations, as he is most likely doing right now.

You should understand politics and religion as a business, in the same way you view those fake charities... same thing, different gift wrapper.