1. Greed
2. Envy
3. Lust
4. Gluttony
5. Pride
6. Wrath
7. Sloth

Now having listed those, let me sling something into your consciousness: most right-wing parties in Europe and the Americas tend to be Christian parties.

Surely if right-wing parties are more often the home of Christians in politics, the policies of right-wing parties must suit those people’s morals? But doesn’t the ‘Loads-a-money’ caricature of 80s Conservativism stinks rather of gluttony, pride and envy?

In fact post-Thatcher Britain has been struck by all of these ‘sins’. Aside from those with eating disorders, I would have thought that everyone has sinned with greed (and those with eating disorders, religion tells us with no hint of sympathy, have sinned with pride). Anyone who enters the lottery and does not intend on giving away all but what they ‘need’ has sinned with envy and would sin with gluttony. Everyone who has watched a football match and willed their own team on is verging on wrath.

I know of no man who has not noticed in an inappropriate way (for the sin of lust) an attractive woman (or man — although homosexuality and religion really don’t like being in the same sentence). And those of us with a mirror in their bathroom have at least a little pride.

In fact, of the ‘sins’ on that list, wrath is best avoided (but is a character trait for some) and envy is truly unpleasant. Aside from those two, I would proudly admit to having committed them all!

Maybe Conservatives and Christians are similar in not thinking about some aspects of life in any detail: How many of us can name, for instance, a deeply religious (Christian) person who has not read the bible? How many of us can name a strongly Conservative person who would secretly admit to believing homosexuality is unnatural? I would suggest that both these positions are illogical and so fit well together in the same person.

New Testament Christians, if they agreed with Jesus tipping the tables in the synagogue, if they agreed that gluttony, greed and pride are sins, if they believe there’s something metaphysically bigger, really should be socialists or libertarians.

My Political Views
I am a centrist social libertarian
Right: 0.44, Libertarian: 5.6

Political Spectrum Quiz

I think this test is actually a little more accurate than the one I completed in June 2006. James Hellyer, where are you?

But in a previous post I also criticised the US’s can’t-pay-then-die system which is, to put it simply, wrong. In a civilised country it is right that provision of healthcare for those who cannot afford to pay is made from general taxation. If that makes me an impure libertarian then so be it.

But this system does not have to be the NHS. It doesn’t even have to be in place somewhere else. So here’s what I propose:

The railways in the UK were privatised by the last government in the most awful way. Ticket prices are not set by individual operators and so if I buy a ticket from Brighton to London it effectively does not matter which company’s trains I use. This ruins the point of privatisation — competition.

Oops, I just lost some of my audience by talking about privatisation; well come back will you?

The NHS needs genuine competition. The way I propose to introduce that is to allow half of all hospitals in each area to be run privately. Whatever the state spends per patient, the private hospital in the same area would get the same money. The incentive, then, would be to attract patients to your private hospital in order to receive some of that funding. Money that is not required to provide patient care is then made available to the private hospital’s shareholders. The drive for efficiency to create profits would be balanced by the need to attract patients and so be better than the NHS hospital.

The private hospital would be free at the point of use (because it receives matching funding from the state) and would be heavily regulated in the same effective way the financial services sector in the UK is (and which is clearly not working in the US).

Alongside this revolutionary healthcare system would be a change in incentives for drugs companies. Currently there is a clear conflict of interests whereby drugs companies can make more money from treating illnesses than from curing them. So the drug companies need an incentive to attempt to cure ailments. This should be done by using a competitive prize system where prizes are larger than the likely profits from symptom-relievers. I challenge some philanthropist to start up a charitable foundation to fund these prizes — I would happily contribute to that fund!

And finally, let’s be clear, Sicko is not even as unbiased as the BBC; it is a propaganda work which sits on a body of fact and then changes aspects to suit the maker’s own ends. I enjoyed Sicko, I found aspects of it (that are true) disturbing and I found aspects of it laughable. The reactions of British patients and doctors was clearly genuine — Brits do tend to laugh at that sort of question in a way that Americans do not.

Either way, Kiva’s what you need.

Kiva is a way of giving charitably but not giving away your money. Once the person who used it has profited from using their entrepreneurial spirit, the money is returned to you to invest in someone else. All you lose is a small amount of interest!

So loan some hard-working people some money and see what they can do with it to improve their lot and the lot of their home country’s economy!

Sign up at Kiva.org

A couple of days ago my car started making some horrendous metallic noises. I thought, actually, that a part of my car was dragging along the ground. When I got to the gym (for that was where I was going) I checked the underside and could see nothing too loose. I did, though, discover that the exhaust pipe gets quite warm (mind your fingers says the voice of experience).

At lunch time today I took my car down to the Kwik Fit on Old Shoreham Road in Hove and they took a look at it while I returned to work. When they phoned me back they told me that there was a bracket loose and that they’d welded it back on. I asked what the damage was (you know, to my wallet) and they said “Oh, no charge for that“.

So this is a big thumbs up to Kwik Fit and it’s multinational parent company, Ford Motors.

And now the Trade Unions, having failed at ruining domestic businesses thanks mostly to Mrs Thatcher (for all her social-engineering faults) are going to try to destroy multinationals instead in a new form of traditional socialism: TUC on multinational businesses.

But I remain confused by this attitude. The trade unions, even now domestically, believe that in private companies where there is genuine competition (and not oligopolies) direct action is a reasonable response to poor behaviour by companies. Surely, actually, companies are the greatest examples of genuine free democracy? Information about publicly listed companies is available to all and, just like Acts of Parliament or decisions made at local government, the people do not read them — they have better things to be doing. But they have access.

So, when people choose to shop at Evil Corp. plc, they are choosing to support exactly what that company is doing. When people boycotted Nestle in the mid-90s, they were reacting, democratically, to what they considered unacceptable behaviour by that company. I am proud to admit I joined in with that boycott and evangelised too.

Trying to react, from within, and unilaterally against a company (as Trade Unions might) is to defeat the general will of the buying public who are exercising their democractic beliefs. Much like terrorism or violent protest (as opposed to civil disobedience, voting and peaceful protest) trade union action is a disproportionate response against what the majority want. And, hopefully, the tyranny of the majority will be avoided by the twin impactors of minor intervention by the State (regulation) and the empathy of that majority acting in the interests of all.

I was appalled, incidentally, to read in Scientific American a while ago (and it came back to me as I wrote today) an article which stated as fact that pure libertarianism was an outdated and simply wrong ideology. I intend to tell you not only why it is not wrong, but also what impact it has on speed limits, in a future post. Please keep comments related to speed limits for that post.

Well today, Ken exploits and supports poor socialists. Buying fuel from a democracy ought to be a good thing, but all economists agree that a stable developing economy needs a strong principled stance on the absolute that is, and should be, property ownership.

And now a new Socialism is rearing its head. So far there have been three: Socialism, Communism and Environmentalist-Socialism. Now there is a fourth: International-Anti-trade-Environmentalist-Socialism! I’ve never really believed that post-Victorian socialists had the interests of the poor or the ‘worker’ at heart but this must be the final, unequivocal evidence?