Wednesday, 6 December 2023

Archives from author » pat

Culture Is Downstream From Commerce: The Importance Of Conscious Consumerism

(Top) The picture of a Roman marketplace which appeared with the original article on the Gab website. (Bottom) Andrew Torba, CEO of, Christian Nationalist & author of this article.
The National Liberal Party has a long-term policy of reproducing, deconstructing & commenting on – from a National Liberal point of view – articles produced right across the political spectrum. Mr. Torba’s article, which actually provides much food for thought, should be read in this context.

SINCE DAY ONE, the National Liberal Party has stated that it is a passionate supporter – and is committed to the ideal of – free thought & free speech.  To this end, we’ve produced many e-posters which invite answers to various questions.  They’re produced in an effort to encourage critical thinking and open debate.  Our intention is to create a safe space for politically incorrect non-conformists to talk about the issues of the day.  Those who enjoy mature, reasoned debate are always more than welcome to join us.  

In a further effort to promote free thought & debate we often post up articles by groups & individuals from across the political spectrum.  For instance, we’ve featured articles by independent Australian journalists Caitlin Johnstone & John Pilger.  It’s probably fair to say that both would be regarded as ‘leftists’.  We’re also aware of the US-based Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) and hope to reproduce an article from them in due course.  As far as we’re aware, however, this is the first we’ve published an article from – which many would regard as ‘rightist’.  

On the wider subject of political positions, we really hate the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ as we feel that they’re pretty meaningless.  This is particularly so in Britain today where there’s really only a fag papers worth of difference between the (Blairite) ‘right wing’ of the Labour Party & the (so-called Tory Wet) ‘left wing’ of the Conservatives Party.  

We feel that the Establishment encourages the use of the terms ‘left’ & ‘right’.  It helps create division (& sometimes hatred) between those who should be uniting and fighting the Establishment.  Sadly, very few people can see beyond this strategy of divide & rule.  This, in turn, illustrates the absolute necessity of reproducing articles from as many political positions as possible (even positions that we totally disagree with) as we feel that there are large areas of common ground for political dissidents to unite around.  Those who don’t engage with others live in echo chambers – and echo chambers can be very dangerous.   

With all of the above in mind, our attention has been drawn to the following article which originally appeared on 26th June on which describes itself as a ‘free speech technology company owned and operated by Christians.’  It was written by Andrew Torba, the CEO of who describes himself as a Christian Nationalist.  

As National Liberals we obviously have differences with Christian Nationalists.  Despite this, we found the article very interesting.  It provides food for thought and mirrors some of our own thinking – especially in respect of shopping locally, buying British & using cash.  

We’ve noticed many people moaning about the lack of apprenticeships & jobs, especially for youngsters.  People also complain that ‘nothing’s built in Britain anymore’.  Our solution is to stop moaning & take action.  Our positive ‘Buy British’ campaign encourages consumers – taking into account price and availability – to buy British.  In layman’s terms, it’s a policy of ‘putting your money where your mouth is’.  The same can also be said for our long-running campaign supporting local shops & self-employed workers.  

You can read the original article here:  

It should also be noted that whilst is a Christian organisation & Andrew Torba is a Christian Nationalist, the NLP welcomes members & supporters from all religions and none.  Also, it goes without saying that there are no links between, Andrew Torba & the National Liberal Party.  Please note that we’ve kept the original US spellings as they are. 


Culture is Downstream from Commerce: The Importance of Conscious Consumerism  

OUR PURCHASING decisions have massive implications beyond simply satisfying our immediate needs or desires.  When we buy a product or support a business we inadvertently contribute to the values and principles these businesses uphold.  This in turn influences the culture which then influences political action in our society.  

Recently we’ve seen tremendous success with boycotting woke corporations who shove degenerate propaganda in our faces.  A movement of conscious consumers who vote with their wallets is rising up and becoming the driving force behind the formation of a parallel economy and culture.  If you are serious about enacting tangible change and very real financial consequences to our enemies, you need to start thinking less about rigged political theatre and more about conscious commerce.  

Over the past decade a growing number of people have become increasingly aware of the impact their consumption habits have on society, culture, politics, and the upholding of their personal values.  This awakening has given rise to the concept of conscious consumerism, which involves making intentional purchasing choices based on ethical, social, religious, and cultural considerations.  

Advertising dollars, especially for large well-established brands, are less about selling products and services and more about selling ideas.  Bud Light doesn’t need to run ads. You know what Bud Light is.  Everyone knows what Bud Light is.  So what, if not Bud Light, are Bud Light ads actually selling?  If you are paying attention, you know the answer: transgenderism.  We see how our conscious consumer response to that sales pitched worked out for them.  

It’s important to remember that it is not enough to abstain from supporting woke corporations or organizations that undermine our values.  We must actively redirect our purchasing power towards those who champion our values.  By consciously supporting businesses and people who align with our principles we can send a powerful message that resonates far beyond our individual transactions.  Our collective actions can and will shape the culture and encourage a shift towards a more values-driven parallel economy.  

In other words: if politics is downstream from culture, culture is downstream from commerce.  This has always been the case.  

At the heart of Roman society lay a bustling and vibrant hub that played a pivotal role in shaping their culture and politics—the marketplace.  The Roman marketplace, or “forum,” was much more than a mere commercial space; it was the epicenter of public life, where ideas, trade, and power converged.  The forum was where commerce, culture, and politics intertwined.  As a bustling center of trade, it attracted people from all corners of the empire and fostered economic growth.  Beyond its commercial significance, the forum served as a social and intellectual hub, promoting dialogue and exchange of ideas.  It also held immense political power as the site of important administrative buildings and public addresses.  

Like the Roman forum, social media platforms bring together a diverse range of voices and perspectives.  People from different countries, cultures, and backgrounds converge on social media, sharing their thoughts, opinions, and experiences.  Just as the Roman forum provided a space for dialogue, discourse and commerce, social media facilitates conversations on a global scale, allowing individuals to engage in discussions, debates, and even virtual protests.  

Thanks to the internet it has become easier than ever to find businesses and entrepreneurs who share our values.  Platforms like Gab, which are dedicated to building a parallel economy, allow us to tap into a network of like-minded organizations and people who can recommend trustworthy and value-aligned businesses while boycotting those who oppose them.  

While large corporations often dominate the market it is essential not to overlook the importance of supporting small local businesses.  These businesses often have a closer connection to their communities and are more likely to share their customers’ values.  By choosing to buy from local artisans, independent stores, and community-based initiatives, we contribute to the resilience of our local economies while supporting people and causes we believe in.  

Unfortunately, in many areas the reverse is also true.  Many small businesses virtue signal with rainbow flags, black lives matter flags, and other regime-approved symbols.  This makes it easy for us to mark and avoid those local businesses and instead shift our commerce to the local business owners who share our values.  

Conscious consumerism in the parallel economy has the potential to create a ripple effect that extends beyond the realm of commerce.  By actively supporting businesses that align with our values we not only provide them with the resources to thrive but also inspire others to follow suit.  As more people redirect their purchasing power towards value-aligned businesses and causes, it encourages the growth and emergence of businesses that prioritize our values.  This is far more productive than wasting our time and energy following political sideshows.  

We need to recognize the power we hold as consumers and seize the opportunity to put our money where our values are.  By doing this we can shape a future where our purchasing decisions reflect our deepest convictions and support the causes that truly matter.  

The next time you reach for your wallet, remember that your choices have the potential to shape the world.  Choose wisely and let your purchasing power become a force for positive transformation and the growth of a parallel economy.

From The Liberty Wall – Free Speech: How Do We Protect It? – Ten Years Later, Snowden’s Heroism Shines Ever Brighter.

THIS ARTICLE was published a week ago on 8th June.  Written by James Bovard it was published by Counter Punch – a US daily news website ‘from an independent left-leaning perspective’ – we feel that it’ll be of great interest to advocates of free thought & free speech.  Hopefully, it’ll encourage positive debate.  

The article marks the 10th anniversary of Edward Snowden’s exposure of the ‘Big Brother’ tactics employed by the US establishment.  As he noted at the time “I can’t in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”  

Ironically, much of this increase in US ‘Big Brother’ activity took place when Barack Obama was president.  However, it seems that because he ticked a lot of Politically Correct boxes, a more than compliant MSM still won’t admit that Obama did anything wrong.   

Many PC cultists effectively regard Obama as America’s only living saint.  However, to us (at Free Speech: How Do We Protect It?) he reminds us that we shouldn’t give our full & absolute trust to any politician who is loved by the elites & MSM!  

We have kept the original North American spelling.  You can read the original article here:  

Please note that there are no official links between the National Liberal Party, Free Speech: How Do We Protect It?, Counter Punch & James Bovard.  


Ten Years Later, Snowden’s Heroism Shines Ever Brighter  

By James Bovard  

(Above) The Mike Mozart photograph of Edward Snowden which appeared with the original article on the Counter Punch daily news website.

TEN YEARS ago this week, Edward Snowden began shocking the world with his revelations of federal surveillance crime sprees. Unfortunately, many of the media outlets that used his disclosures of confidential information have long since shunned him or joined the shameless stampede calling for his prosecution.  

Snowden did heroic service in awakening Americans to Washington ravishing their privacy. Snowden’s “reward” is to be banished in Russia without a snowball’s chance in hell of a fair trial if he returns to America. But as he courageously declared, “I would rather be without a state than without a voice.” He explained why he leaked classified information: “I can’t in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”  

To recognize Snowden’s contribution to liberty, it helps to review the political and legal landscape before his revelations. In 2008, Sen. Barack Obama’s denunciations of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretaps secured his image as a champion of civil liberties. Campaigning for president, Obama pledged “no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens…. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.” Unfortunately, Obama didn’t promise not to ignore the law when it was “really, really convenient.”  

Barack Obama: American spy-in-chief  

After Obama clinched the Democratic Party presidential nomination, he reversed himself and voted for granting immunity to telecom companies that betrayed their customers to Uncle Sam. This was a bellwether for Obama’s future constitutional depredations. After Obama took office, his appointees speedily expanded National Security Agency seizures of Americans’ personal data. The Washington Post characterized Obama’s first term as “a period of exponential growth for the NSA’s domestic collection.”  

The acid drip of revelations of illicit surveillance that began after 9/11 continued regardless of Obama’s “Hope and Change” mantra. Shortly after Obama’s inauguration, former NSA analyst Russell Tice declared that the NSA was monitoring “all Americans’ communications. Faxes, phone calls and their computer communications.” Tice also revealed that the NSA had targeted journalists and news agencies for wiretaps. Tice’s revelations failed to hold the media’s attention.  

In June 2009, the NSA admitted that it had accidentally collected the personal information of vast numbers of Americans. The New York Times reported that “the number of individual communications that were improperly collected could number in the millions.” But it wasn’t a crime; it was merely inadvertent “overcollection” of Americans’ personal data which NSA would retain for (at least) five years.  

In 2010, the Washington Post reported that “every day, collection systems at the [NSA] intercept and store 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and other type of communications.” In 2011, NSA expanded a program to provide real-time location information of every American with a cell phone, acquiring more than a billion cell phone records each day from AT&T. Regardless, the media continued portraying Obama as a civil liberties savior.  

Obama perpetuated perverse Bush-era legal doctrines to totally shield federal surveillance from judicial scrutiny. After the Supreme Court accepted a case on warrantless wiretaps in 2012, the Obama administration urged the justices to dismiss the case. A New York Times editorial labeled the administration’s position “a particularly cynical Catch-22: Because the wiretaps are secret and no one can say for certain that their calls have been or will be monitored, no one has standing to bring suit over the surveillance.”  

 The Supreme Court endorsed surveillance  

Cynical arguments sufficed for five justices. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, declared that the court was averse to granting standing to challenge the government based on “theories that require guesswork” and “no specific facts” proving federal targeting, based on fears of “hypothetical future harm.” The Supreme Court insisted that the government already offered plenty of safeguards — such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court — to protect Americans’ rights. Law professor Stephen Vladeck commented on the decision: “The coffin is slamming shut on the ability of private citizens and civil liberties groups to challenge government counterterrorism policies.”  

Three months later, newspapers around the world began publishing confidential documents leaked by Snowden. Americans learned that the NSA can tap almost any cell phone in the world, exploit computer games like Angry Birds to poach personal data, access anyone’s email and web browsing history, remotely penetrate almost all computers, and crack the vast majority of computer encryption. The NSA used Facebook and Google apps to send malware to targeted individuals. NSA filched almost 200,000,000 records a month from private computer cloud accounts. Obama’s Justice Department secretly decreed that all phone records of all Americans were “relevant” to terrorism investigations and that the NSA could therefore justifiably seize everyone’s personal data.  

Snowden exposed the surveillance state  

Snowden revealed how the NSA had covertly carried out “the most significant change in the history of American espionage from the targeted surveillance of individuals to the mass surveillance of entire populations.” The NSA created a “repository capable of taking in 20 billion ‘record events’ daily and making them available to NSA analysts within 60 minutes.” The NSA is able to snare and stockpile a billion times more information than did East Germany’s Stasi secret police, one of the most odious agencies of the post-war era. Snowden later commented, “Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it’s only victimizing 95 percent of the world instead of 100 percent.”  

(Above) Barack Obama. Much of the increase in US ‘Big Brother’ activity took place when he was president. Yet he’s still subject to hero worship. Indeed, Many PC cultists effectively regard Obama as America’s only living saint!

Seeking to defuse the controversy, Obama justified NSA surveillance as simply “a tradeoff we make…. To say there’s a tradeoff doesn’t mean somehow that we’ve abandoned freedom. I don’t think anybody says we’re no longer free because we have checkpoints at airports.”  

On Capitol Hill, the response to Snowden’s disclosures ranged from vacuous to devious. House Speaker John Boehner declared, “When you look at these programs, there are clear safeguards. There’s no American who’s going to be snooped on in any way, unless they’re in contact with some terrorists somewhere around the world.” Other congressional leaders quickly denounced Snowden as a “traitor.” House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and former NSA chief Michael Hayden publicly joked about putting Snowden on a government kill list. Rogers won the “D.C. Knucklehead of the Week” Prize when he defended illicit surveillance: “You can’t have your privacy violated if you don’t know your privacy is violated.”  

Regardless of Snowden’s proof, Obama administration appointees and spokesmen insisted that NSA only targeted individuals linked to terrorism, but NSA’s definition of terrorist suspect was ludicrously broad, including “someone searching the web for suspicious stuff.” If someone used encryption for their emails, that alone justified wiretapping them. Snowden commented in 2014: “If I had wanted to pull a copy of a judge’s or a senator’s e-mail, all I had to do was enter that selector into XKEYSCORE,” an NSA program that required no warrant from FISA or any other court.  

President Obama sought to quash the controversy by boldly proclaiming: “There is no spying on Americans.” The New York Times headlined its report on Obama’s PR effort: “President Moves to Ease Worries on Surveillance; Talks of New Openness.” Talk was cheap.  

The Washington Post analyzed a cache of 160,000 secret email conversations/threads (provided by Snowden) that the NSA intercepted and found that nine out of ten account holders were not the “intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else.” Almost half of the individuals whose personal data was inadvertently commandeered were U.S. citizens. The files “tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes,” the Post noted. If an American citizen wrote an email in a foreign language, NSA analysts assumed they were foreigners who could be surveilled without a warrant.  

FISA court rulings “created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans,” the New York Times reported in 2013. The classified rulings (leaked by Snowden) showed that FISA judges rubber-stamped massive seizures of Americans’ personal data that flagrantly contradicted Supreme Court rulings on the Fourth Amendment. The Times noted that the FISA court had “become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues” — and almost always giving federal agencies all the power they sought. The vast majority of members of Congress were unaware that a secret court had secretly nullified much of the Bill of Rights. That did not deter Obama from proclaiming that the FISA court was “transparent” — though only the White House could see.  

Snowden’s revelations outraged some judges. In December 2013, Federal judge Richard Leon issued a ruling denouncing the NSA surveillance regime as “almost Orwellian”: “I cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval.”  

Obama sought to defuse the controversy by selecting an expert panel that he expected to vindicate his surveillance. But the panel reported that there was not a single case where the telephone data roundup had been necessary to stop a terrorist attack. The panel’s report also warned: “Americans must never make the mistake of wholly trusting our public officials.” The panel concluded that the “bulk collection of American citizens’ phone records served little useful purpose in combatting terrorism,” ABC News reported. Panel member Richard Clarke commented, “There are very few pieces of data that have been collected in this program that have been useful.” But as Snowden observed, “These programs were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.”  

The Obama administration made few substantive changes in response to Snowden’s exposure of sweeping criminality. Author and NSA expert James Bamford observed shortly before the 2016 election, “Over his two terms, Obama has created the most powerful surveillance state the world has ever seen.” Despite the uproars over Snowden’s revelations, neither Congress nor federal courts fundamentally pulled in the reins on the Surveillance State.  

Snowden observed, “The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.” Any such consent to Washington has become increasingly a mirage. The pervasive secrecy that has proliferated in post-9/11 America has made it far more difficult for citizens to leash their rulers. Regardless of the health of U.S. democracy, Snowden’s warnings on the “architecture of oppression” are more relevant than ever.  

Another Snowden lesson for our democracy is the futility of passive obedience. Vast numbers of Americans presume they will be safe from government wrongdoing or other federal debacles if they simply keep their head down and don’t complain. By blighting resistance to government, however, surveillance unleashes rulers to do far more mischief. If politicians drag this nation into a major war, keeping your mouth shut won’t protect you against incoming missiles.  

Citizens cannot acquiesce to illegal government surveillance without forfeiting their right to any remaining privacy. There is no reason for people to trust secretive federal programs more than Washington trusts American citizens. The biggest delusion is that Americans will be more secure after the feds further decimate their privacy.  

An earlier version of this article was published by the Future of Freedom Foundation.  

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit DemocracyThe Bush BetrayalTerrorism and Tyranny, and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at  This essay was originally published by Future of Freedom Foundation.  

An Introduction To The Idea Of Land Value Tax

THE LAND VALUE TAX CAMPAIGN is a UK-based single-issue organisation.  They propose that the rental value of land should be collected and used as the principal source of public revenue, as a replacement for present taxes on wages, profits, goods and services.   

The organisation notes that ‘Land Value Taxation is a method of raising public revenue by means of an annual charge on the rental value of land.  Although described as a tax, it is not really a tax at all, but a payment for benefits received.  It would replace, not add to, existing taxes.’

They believe that the money raised would support is a ‘whole range of social and economic initiatives, including housing, transport and other infrastructural investments. It is an elementary fiscal measure that goes far towards correcting fundamental economic and social ills.’

You can read the original article – which appears to come from a US publication – here:  It was put online sometime during David Cameron’s premiership.  It was originally titled Winston Churchill Said It All Better Than We Can 

It goes without saying that there are no official links between the National Liberal Party & the Land Value Tax Campaign.  We have reproduced this article in the hope of promoting positive debate.   

As usual, we welcome all feedback.  Please leave any observations in the comments section when this article appears on either the National Liberal Party’s Facebook site or on the National Liberals Facebook site 



Winston Churchill Said It All Better Than We Can 

Winston Churchill made this speech in 1909.  We can’t put the case better ourselves.  A century on, it remains clear, concise and to the point.  We would commend it to David Cameron and his team.


This article is based on a speech made by Winston Churchill in 1909. Our photo shows the statue of Churchill (1874 – 1965) which is located in Parliament Square, London.

LAND MONOPOLY is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies — it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.

Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to the general public.

Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position — land, I say, differs from all other forms of property, and the immemorial customs of nearly every modern state have placed the tenure, transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from other classes of property.

Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of land monopolists to claim that other forms of property and increment are similar in all respects to land and the unearned increment on land.

They talk of the increased profits of a doctor or lawyer from the growth of population in the town in which they live. They talk of the profits of a railway, from the growing wealth and activity in the districts through which it runs. They talk of the profits from a rise in stocks and even the profits derived from the sale of works of art.

But see how misleading and false all those analogies are. The windfalls from the sale of a picture — a Van Dyke or a Holbein — may be very considerable. But pictures do not get in anybody’s way. They do not lay a toll on anybody’s labor; they do not touch enterprise and production; they do not affect the creative processes on which the material well-being of millions depends.

If a rise in stocks confers profits on the fortunate holders far beyond what they expected or indeed deserved, nevertheless that profit was not reaped by withholding from the community the land which it needs; on the contrary, it was reaped by supplying industry with the capital without which it could not be carried on.

If a railway makes greater profits it is usually because it carries more goods and more passengers.

If a doctor or a lawyer enjoys a better practice, it is because the doctor attends more patients and more exacting patients, and because the lawyer pleads more suits in the courts and more important suits.

At every stage the doctor or the lawyer is giving service in return for his fees.

Fancy comparing these healthy processes with the enrichment which comes to the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts of a great city, who watches the busy population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient, more famous every day, and all the while sits still and does nothing.

Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.

While the land is what is called “ripening” for the unearned in-crement of its owner, the merchant going to his office and the artisan going to his work must detour or pay a fare to avoid it. The people lose their chance of using the land, the city and state lose the taxes which would have accrued if the natural development had taken place, and all the while the land monopolist only has to sit still and watch complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes many fold, without either effort or contribution on his part!

But let us follow this process a little further. The population of the city grows and grows, the congestion in the poorer quarters becomes acute, rents rise and thousands of families are crowded into tenements. At last the land becomes ripe for sale — that means that the price is too tempting to be resisted any longer. And then, and not until then, it is sold by the yard or by the inch at 10 times, or 20 times, or even 50 times its agricultural value.

The greater the population around the land, the greater the injury the public has sustained by its protracted denial. And, the more inconvenience caused to everybody; the more serious the loss in eco-nomic strength and activity — the larger will be the profit of the landlord when the sale is finally accomplished. In fact, you may say that the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done. It is monopoly which is the keynote, and where monopoly prevails, the greater the injury to society the greater the reward to the monopolist. This evil process strikes at every form of industrial activity. The municipality, wishing for broader streets, better houses, more healthy, decent, scientifically planned towns, is made to pay more to get them in proportion as is has exerted itself to make past improve-ments. The more it has improved the town, the more it will have to pay for any land it may now wish to acquire for further improvements.

The manufacturer proposing to start a new industry, proposing to erect a great factory offering employment to thousands of hands, is made to pay such a price for his land that the purchase price hangs around the neck of his whole business, hampering his competitive power in every market, clogging him far more than any foreign tariff in his export competition, and the land price strikes down through the profits of the manufacturer on to the wages of the worker.

No matter where you look or what examples you select, you will see every form of enterprise, every step in material progress, is only undertaken after the land monopolist has skimmed the cream for himself, and everywhere today the man or the public body that wishes to put land to its highest use is forced to pay a preliminary fine in land values to the man who is putting it to an inferior one, and in some cases to no use at all. All comes back to land value, and its owner is able to levy toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry. A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community increases the land value and finds its way automatically into the landlord’s pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or new tramway, or the institution of improved services of a lowering of fares, or of a new invention, or any other public conven-ience affords a benefit to workers in any particular district, it be-comes easier for them to live, and therefore the ground landlord is able to charge them more for the privilege of living there.

Some years ago in London there was a toll bar on a bridge across the Thames, and all the working people who lived on the south side of the river had to pay a daily toll of one penny for going and returning from their work. The spectacle of these poor people thus mulcted of so large a proportion of their earnings offended the public con-science, and agitation was set on foot, municipal authorities were roused, and at the cost of the taxpayers, the bridge was freed and the toll removed. All those people who used the bridge were saved sixpence a week, but within a very short time rents on the south side of the river were found to have risen about sixpence a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted!

And a friend of mine was telling me the other day that, in the parish of Southwark, about 350 pounds a year was given away in doles of bread by charitable people in connection with one of the churches. As a consequence of this charity, the competition for small houses and single-room tenements is so great that rents are considerably higher in the parish!

All goes back to the land, and the land owner is able to absorb to himself a share of almost every public and every private benefit, however important or however pitiful those benefits may be.

I hope you will understand that, when I speak of the land monopolist, I am dealing more with the process than with the individual land owner who, in most cases, is a worthy person utterly unconscious of the character of the methods by which he is enriched. I have no wish to hold any class up to public disapprobation. I do not think that the man who makes money by unearned increment in land is morally worse than anyone else who gathers his profit where he finds it in this hard world under the law and according to common usage. It is not the individual I attack; it is the system. It is not the man who is bad; it is the law which is bad. It is not the man who is blameworthy for doing what the law allows and what other men do; it is the State which would be blameworthy if it were not to endeavour to reform the law and correct the practice.

We do not want to punish the landlord.

We want to alter the law.

National Liberal Party – Words Of Wisdom – Henry David Thoreau(1817 – 1862)

Serving A Higher Ideal & Building A New Breed Of Politician

Kwasi Kwarteng (left) and Matt Hancock (right) were just two prominent Tories who were willing to consider taking a job furthering the interests of foreign company on top of their constituency duties. Hancock wanted £10,000 a day for consultancy work. Under the current system, they’re not doing anything illegal.
The NLP is looking for those who’re willing to promote the idea of serving a higher ideal & building a new breed of politician. Are you prepared to help us?

TOWARDS THE END of last month, several top ranking Tories were caught in a sting operation organised by the political campaign group Led By Donkeys – LBD.  

The sting was an ‘experiment’ designed to illustrate if, during a cost of living crisis, MPs would consider taking a job furthering the interests of foreign company on top of their constituency duties.  You can see the whole context here  

Those who were interested in earning extra money included Sir Graham Brady (Chairman of the powerful Tory 1922 Committee), Stephen Hammond (formerParliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport), Kwasi Kwarteng (former Chancellor of the Exchequer), Matt Hancock (former Secretary of State for Health & Social Care) & Gavin Williamson (former Secretary of State for Education).  

It’s vitally important to note that none of these MPs are doing anything illegal.   

There doesn’t appear to be a limit on the number of jobs they do.  Nor is there any limit on what they can earn.  Therefore, under the current system, it’s perfectly acceptable for Matt Hancock to earn £10,000 a day for a consultancy role.  But, for those living on the breadline, its highly immoral.  

To be perfectly honest, we’re not particularly surprised that these MPs do as many jobs – and accumulate as much money as possible – as they can. After all, they’re all capitalists.  And, for us, capitalism is a cold, dog eat dog philosophy.  It’s a greedy, grasping & centralising philosophy.  It has absolutely no interest in those who’re less well off or who fall below the breadline.  

So what should be done about this situation?  

First of all, it should be noted that National Liberals have no problem whatsoever with people earning really good wages.  Indeed, we’re sure that every worker would love to be on £10,000 a day!  Nor are we opposed to people doing several jobs.  Unfortunately, many have to do this this just to stay above the breadline.  

There are several practical measures that could be introduced to stop the practice of MPs double-jobbing.   

Two measures immediately come to mind.  The first would obviously be to increase pay to such a point that they wouldn’t need several extra jobs.  However, this wouldn’t be too popular with the electorate.  Another idea would be to set a (very high) minimum limit on the amount of time they have to spend on constituency work & in parliament.  However, this would require very precise definitions.  

These changes may make some differences, but the National Liberal Party believes that we must go much further.  In fact, we feel that the root of the problem lies in the type of person who is attracted to political office.  

We believe that we need to attract the very best of our people to the cause of National Liberalism.  They need to have principles & be prepared for a long-term struggle.  They need to be motivated by love and not hate.  They shouldn’t be involved in politics for fame or fortune – and money definitely shouldn’t be their God.   

The problem of greedy politicians isn’t going to go away anytime soon.  Therefore, we’re more than likely be discussing this problem in more depth in the near future.   

In the meantime, we’ll keep on promoting National Liberalism, the idea of serving a higher ideal & building a new breed of politician.  Are you prepared to help us?

The National Liberal Party Asks … Should We Scrap The TV Licence Fee? Join The Debate!


The National Liberal Party Has Asked Four Questions – Can You Answer Them?  

The National Liberal Party Has Asked Four More Questions – Can You Answer Them?  

The National Liberal Party Has Asked Another Four Questions – Can You Answer Them?  

The National Liberal Party Asks … Should All Public Transport Be Free? Join The Debate! 

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.