Interview with Dr. Tom Rogers Deputy Leader Christian Peoples Alliance party

One of the largest of the ‘small’ parties the Christian Peoples Alliance party has been steadily gaining ground in elections.  Often standing locally to us in Croydon we’ve interviewed previous candidates Candace Mitchell and Maureen Martin.

Dr Tom Rogers has been a long standing supporter and party activist, and is the party’s Deputy Leader.  He was also the party’s candidate in the 2019 Peterborough by-election and again, in the same year, in the General Election.

Tom thank-you for your time.

You’ve run twice in your home town for parliament, tell us a little about the campaigns and how you feel they went for the party?

Our policy as a party is to stand in every election that we can, as it’s a way of building the party, but especially promoting our deep conviction that Christian values and principles are crucial to us both surviving and then thriving as a nation. 

I knew I had to stand when it looked like a by-election was coming up in Peterborough, where I live. The situation first arose when Fiona Onasanya, our sitting MP, was arrested in July 2018 for perverting the course of justice. However, we were on stand-by for nearly a year, unsure of whether the election was going to happen or not, and it finally took a recall petition for the election to be called and then we all went into an overdrive of activity. This was the first time we had stood a candidate in Peterborough and really wanted to establish ourselves in the city, and promote our Christian pro-life message. I had fantastic support from Sid Cordle, our party leader and also my agent in that election — he organised many supporters to come from all over the country to help campaign. We really put a lot of time and effort into personally making our party known to people – and undertook many hours of door-knocking, in order to explain who we were and what our policies are about. I had a certain apprehension, unsure of how people would take us — we of course met a certain amount of opposition, or people who were wedded to the main parties, but overall I was greatly encouraged by the level of support we received, as well as the number of people prepared to stand there and give us a hearing. 

As you might expect we connected with a number of Christians, but also Muslims and people of other faiths, who were pleased we were making a stand particularly on the moral issues, for marriage and the family, and also in defence of parental rights over the new compulsory relationships and sex education, as government policy in that area had made many families anxious. People generally were also impressed, however, by our economy policies, and liked our idea of the Turnover Tax, which would ensure big multinational companies like Amazon and Google, who transfer their profits abroad, pay their fair share of tax here, and that’s how we would fund our financial support for marriage (£12,000 grant on getting married) and restoring the Tory’s £12 billion cuts to benefits. 

In the by-election we were part of a very crowded field, but were encouraged to have come 7th place in the vote out of 15 candidates. For us, as a relatively new party, the election was largely about making our mark and getting our Christian message out there which we really did. For most people that by-election was really about Brexit, and there was a large protest vote for the Brexit Party, and, of course, the following General Election (just 6 months later) was also mainly about Brexit and there was a massive swing back to the Tories. We didn’t improve on our vote, which was disappointing, but on a personal level I had developed really as a candidate and was much stronger in debates, interviews and getting our message out in the local media. That was important as with the cold dark December evenings we didn’t have as much chance to do all the door-knocking that we did in the summer. Fighting two Parliamentary elections in the space of six months was certainly exhausting, and I was certainly ready for the Christmas break and to spend more time again with the family afterwards. 

In the by-election you found yourself ‘cancelled’ from a hustings held in a church!  Can you tell us about the events around that?

There were a number of hustings which took place during the by-election campaign — certain of which invited all standing candidates, which is the fairest and most democratic way, and others which just invited candidates from the “main parties”, and I could understand, even if I disagreed, that certain organisers would restrict things in that way given that there were 15 candidates. However, there was a large hustings organised at St John the Baptist CofE Church in the centre of Peterborough, where the criteria for who they invited was completely arbitrary and made no sense – they only allowed 8 candidates, which included the “main party” candidates, but also certain select and favoured smaller party candidates, including the newly reformed SDP and the unknown Renew Party, both of which had polled lower than CPA in previous elections. One would have thought that a Christian church would have actually wanted an openly Christian party candidate to participate at such an event. However, this “St John the Baptist” church certainly does not live up to name of the prophet they’ve adopted — they are a liberal, pro-LGBT ideology, so-called “inclusive” church who no doubt were uncomfortable with having faithful Christians on the platform who actually stick to the Biblical truth on issues like marriage and abortion, and other important issues of our day. 

Anyway, we were not invited but Sid Cordle, acting as my agent, was determined that they should do the fair democratic thing and allow me onto the platform. We were in town on that evening for an earlier election-related event nearby, so we thought we’d go along to the St John hustings anyway. Sid tried to reason with the Chair, who was the vicar of the church, beforehand to allow me onto the platform, but we were again rebuffed.  At the time I would have just left it, but Sid is a courageous man of God, on fire with the Sprit and he has no qualms whatsoever about taking his complaint to the audience. He therefore stood up before the start of the debate and addressed the audience, explaining that the selection of candidates for the debate was unfair and demanding that a vote should be taken on whether to allow me onto the platform. The Chair, Canon Black, would not allow such a vote to take place and stated the debate would go on with the chosen candidates as planned. Sid and I sat down. The first question was on Brexit and all the eight candidates had their say — I could see Sid next to me with his head in his hands deep in prayer through all this. The Brexit discussion was supposed to address the question of how each party would bring the country back together again after such a divisive debate. Sid was going to ensure the CPA had their say on this regardless — he stood up and again addressed the crowd, stating that only the CPA had the solution to this, as we would honour the result of the 2016 referendum and leave the EU, but guarantee another referendum 5 years after we’ve left so people can actually see and make up their own minds about how Brexit has worked out in reality. However, the Chair did not welcome this intervention and ordered security to remove Sid from the hall. So much for their “inclusive” church!

What does being deputy leader of the party mean in terms of a role, and what are you focused on?

Being deputy leader can mean different things in different parties. It does include being a stand-in for the leader, and sharing with certain frontline duties, such as media interviews and public speaking. However, in our party the deputy leader also has the very specific role of overseeing policy development and the manifesto, and that is what I am primarily focussed on at the moment. It’s very important for us that we have a manifesto that not only makes us distinct from the other parties, but also offers a positive vision and is unafraid of proclaiming real truthful solutions to our nation’s problems, no matter how “politically incorrect” they seem. We were very proud of our 2019 General Election Manifesto, not only of the strong pro-life and pro-family stance we adopted, but also the range of strong down-to-earth practical, fair and workable policies we have on a whole range of issues, from the economy to the environment. We are very blessed in our party to have many people with particular specialist knowledge and talents in many different areas, who were able to contribute strong policy ideas, for instance, in areas like social and health care. The development of policy is very much a collective exercise, in which those with a particular interest will want to contribute along the way, but it’s my role as deputy leader to ensure the process keeps moving and results in strong manifesto items to offer to the electorate at the end of it. 

“many parents got to try their hand at homeschooling for the first time. It may not work for everyone, but many found they were actually quite good at it, that they enjoyed the experience, and, most important of all, their kids made far greater educational progress in that time than they ever would have done at a conventional school”

You’ve worked in Education for a number of years, what do you think of the impact of Covid on education and exams this year?

The impact of the Government’s totally erratic and disproportionate response to Covid-19 has been catastrophic across the board – to our economy, healthcare system, to most industries and countless businesses, to our education system, to people’s lives and livelihoods and, above all, to our basic human rights and civil liberties. Historians in future generations (as far as we have a future) will scratch their heads as to why we committed national economic suicide for the sake of a virus with a 99.9% survival rate, and which for most of the population results in an asymptomatic or relatively mild illness at worse. The Government actually had a very right and sensible approach to the ‘pandemic’ at the start of it all – which was to focus on safeguarding the elderly and other vulnerable groups at risk, whilst allowing normal life to carry on as far as possible, whilst natural herd immunity developed through the majority of the population. I guess there was no money in that approach though for Big Pharma and the vaccine-pushers, who just happen also to have the mainstream media in their pockets.

The education system is a case in point. The Government was rightly resisting shutting down the schools in early March, recognising the impact not only on children’s education, but on all the parents who would not be able to work because of new child care responsibilities. It was early recognised that Covid posed an incredibly low risk, if any, to children themselves. But the clamour of the lame-stream media’s cheerleading for school closures was quickly too much for them and the Goverenment buckled – to what end? Once they’d shut the schools for 3 months there was no easy solution to the problem of what to do about exams, etc. I don’t think going on predicted grades was necessarily the fairest thing to do, but was fairer than relying on some over-complicated algorithm and was probably the most practical.

Perhaps the one good thing about the school lockdown was that many parents got to try their hand at homeschooling for the first time. It may not work for everyone, but many found they were actually quite good at it, that they enjoyed the experience, and, most important of all, their kids made far greater educational progress in that time than they ever would have done at a conventional school. That was also our family experience and my wife decided to carry on homeschooling our 4 year-old as it worked so well for him. With the State having done so much to undermine the role of parents, particularly with the attack on their rights over relationships and sex education, then home-schooling during lockdown proved to be a very empowering experience for many parents.

Whilst on Covid how do you feel the established church and churches more generally have acted in lockdown?

It’s really been a tale of two churches.There have been many individual Christians, including brave clerics and pastors, and a number of Christian organisations and smaller churches, that have really discerned spiritually what is going on, and have raised a prophetic voice against the completely disproportionate and oppressive measures of the State. They have been in the minority though and in view of the catastrophic, Godless depravity into which our nation has descended in recent times, then it’s a spiritual no-brainer — if we’re taking the word of God seriously — that, as well as showing active compassion for those suffering, the Church should be declaring the reality of God’s judgement and calling for urgent national repentance.

Unfortunately, that urgent prophetic voice has been all but drowned out by the deafening silence we’ve heard from the established church and other main denominations — and that’s been a sad indictment of how compromised Christianity has become in the West. As a Catholic I was totally dismayed at the attitude of our Bishops which has throughout been one of total craven faithlessness. Their response to the Government has been not just one of total compliance — but, even worse, of over-compliance, to the extent that they have always gone even further than required — as if they believed they could earn extra brownie points from the State. For example, when announcing the national lockdown the Government initially wanted to ban collective worship but keep the churches open for private prayer. However, not content with those oppressive measures the Catholic bishops actually lobbied the Government to go the whole hog, persuading them to shut up the churches altogether! So not only were we denied Mass and the Sacraments (which are supposed to be very essentials of the Catholic faith) for over three months, but the Bishops also denied us entrance into the house of God. That has had a devastating effect on many of the faithful and has sent an appalling message to the world concerning what the Church actually stands for — or even whether it can still stand for anything at all. Look, if Jesus and countless of his faithful followers ever since could mix with lepers, and tend to desperate souls in some of the most dangerous situations on earth and in the history of mankind, how could the Church now simply shut up shop in response to a virus with a 99.9% survival rate? Take measures to protect the vulnerable yes (if they choose to be protected in that way), but give some hope and meaning, why don’t you, to what this life is all about.

Thankfully my faith in God, if not Church leaders, has only grown stronger through all this and I know He will use these events, and the tribulations and persecution that are likely to come, to purify His Church of all the dross so it will be more faithful, more prophetic, more full of the Spirit, so it will do what it was created to do — which is to save souls and represent Christ on earth until His coming.

“we have to keep reminding people of the complete humanity of every unborn child — who is not just a potential life but an actual human life just like each of us”

The CPA works to protect the unborn child.  Abortion isn’t an issue we’ve seen gain the same traction in the UK as say in the US.  What is your party’s policy on abortion and what are one or two things you would you say to our readers who might be less familiar with the issue to persuade them to it?

We are a 100% pro-life party in that in our manifesto we pledge to protect the right to life (from intentional killing) of every innocent human being from conception until natural death. That is the only way for a Christian party to be. EVERY LIFE MATTERS for the CPA. So in practice that means complete repeal of the 1967 Abortion Act and 1990 Human Fertilisation Act so that all unborn children are legally protected from intentional destruction. We would also repeal the Northern Ireland Act 2018 which was so abused and hijacked in order to impose abortion on that very pro-life part of the UK, completely against the will of the electorate there. We would legislate for a new Offences Against the Person’s Act, if necessary, to prohibit abortion, embryo experimentation and all forms of euthanasia.

We do recognise, however, the difficulties often faced by those who turn to abortion. We would support the nationwide provision of pro-life pregnancy care services, including provision of accommodation for women made homeless by pregnancy, pregnant women with special needs and one-parent families. We would divert the over £200 million of UK taxpayers’ money spent each year on funding abortion here and abroad onto supporting any mother in a crisis pregnancy situation. We would also ensure recognition for the millions of women, and men, who have been deeply affected by abortion. Post-abortion trauma affecting many women must now be recognised and non-judgemental post-abortion counselling will be made available for any woman or man who wants it, no matter how long ago the abortion took place.

Surveys of public opinion still show that there is a general unease about abortion in the population, and most people in UK certainly don’t want an abortion free-for-all, or believe in a “woman’s right to choose” no matter what. For instance, a 2017 ComRes poll (the most extensive UK polling in last decade on abortion) showed only 1% of the population (and 1% of women) in favour of allowing abortion up to birth, and around 60% of women favoured a reduction in the current legal limit. So the abortion industry and it’s champions in Parliament, like Stella Creasy are clearly out of step with public opinion. I’m not saying public opinion is where we are at this stage, but it’s not where the abortion industry is either — probably somewhere in the middle. Most people know in their heart of hearts what abortion really is. The truth has always kept its foot in the door.

The pro-abortion lobby has naturally always tried to make the unborn child a complete irrelevance, to be discarded whenever him or her is inconvenient. So we have to keep reminding people of the complete humanity of every unborn child — who is not just a potential life but an actual human life just like each of us, with a lifetime of gifts and contributions to the world in front of them. Every abortion stops a beating heart — that’s a fact because the human heart is there and beating from just 21 days, that’s 3 weeks, from conception. In fact, some of the latest research from Oxford University suggests even earlier —that the heart could beat from just 16 days, or 2 weeks!  Human life is so miraculous in its wonder and complexity that each and every human being can only be the beloved creation of God. Also we have to listen to the stories which demonstrate how abortion is never the right answer, even in response to sometimes very real and genuine difficulties — stories from the women and men who have not found abortion to be the solution to their problems, but something that just created a whole set of new and worse problems. And those who rejected or survived abortion, who were blessed by the choice of life, and now enjoy the gift of life which in so many ways conveys its own amazing answer.

We have seen an explosion of the culture wars in the UK during lockdown. What’s your take on the political climate?

The “culture wars” are something we’ve up to very recently regarded as a mainly American phenomenon, because there’s a more marked polarisation in mainstream politics in America than there is here — there’s a genuine choice, even if I’m over-generalising somewhat, in the USA between the Christian social values and free market capitalism of the Republican Party and the cultural-Marxist social values and increasing economic socialism of the Democratic Party.  Whereas in Britain you’ve basically got a liberal and clueless one-party state characterised by cultural Marxism and a mixed market watered-down economic socialism. Despite what orchestrated pantomimes we witness between the establishment parties, they are starting now to fail to delude the electorate into thinking they offer some kind of choice.

The whole disproportionate and oppressive lockdown response to the paltry threat to humanity posed by Covid-19 has of course been the most striking and extensive power-grab of the liberal Deep State that we’ve seen yet. Taken by itself it’s very disturbing. However, even before Covid we saw great signs of a rising populist challenge to the Deep State, an uprising that was most visibly represented by the Brexit referendum and the Brexit party, and also an increasing resistance to and justifiable ridiculing of “woke culture” in all its grotesque forms, which was all very encouraging. There is a definite growing backlash against the attempted brainwashing of the population by the Deep State. The Keep Britain Free campaign, led by Simon Dolan, who is pursuing a legal challenge against the lockdown measures, and the wonderful well-attended anti-lockdown protests, featuring Piers Corbyn amongst others, have been inspirational and are conveying the important message that we need urgently now to stand up for these precious freedoms we hold so dear before it’s too late. I see such a massive threat of Deep State totalitarianism, but also so many green shoots of resistance. Where sin abounds grace abounds the more!

You plan to run candidates in the local elections in May.  What would the CPA focus on in local government?

Most local issues are in fact inextricably connected to national issues, or at least decisions made at Westminster, now more so than ever. Many local councils, for instance, are left in the difficult position of having to make drastic cuts to local services and social provision because of sweeping funding cuts from central Government. However, there are still many priorities to be made. CPA local candidates stand, firstly, for the prioritising of the welfare of the most vulnerable and in need, so we will strive to ensure that the elderly, sick and disabled have essential social care provision in place. Actually, one of our signature policies in our forthcoming London Assembly Manifesto will be the provision of dedicated personal assistants to elderly and vulnerable people who would benefit from such help — particularly those who do not have the close support of relatives and family. It is also a manifesto pledge of ours to guarantee every homeless person a free night-shelter and affordable move-on accommodation as we help them back up into society.

We also believe in a zero tolerance approach to crime and the kind of genuine anti-social behaviour that blights many of our communities, and we want to see a far higher rate of reported crime being followed up. However, we are also pledged to provide greater support and practical assistance for those leaving prison — both because it’s the right thing to do and because that’s shown to cut reoffending rates drastically. We also believe in providing reliable and efficient public services and cutting down waste and pollution, creating a safe and clean environment for all local people. We also aim to help revitalise our city centres by a number of means, including the provision of more residential living accommodation – which helps retain local businesses and retail outlets, and reduces crime and depravation by reversing the ‘ghost town’ effect.

It goes without saying that we will also reverse the wasteful virtue-signalling and promotion of pro-LGBT ideology, BLM and other left-wing ideologies that so many councils occupy themselves with — forcing their employees to wear rainbow lanyards and festooning public spaces with Pride flags etc. We believe in safeguarding freedom of speech and belief, and creating a welcoming environment for all citizens. We will particularly safeguard the right to peaceful witness and to offer charitable help outside abortion facilities — as there is now a disturbing trend for left-wing councils to try to introduce censorship or “buffer” zones around abortion clinics — mostly based on completely distorted and uncorroborated allegations about those good people who provide essential pro-life witness. It’s very important that unborn children — the most helpless, voiceless and vulnerable of all — have someone there to peacefully advocate for them, and to offer women in difficult situation the choice and practical help to choose life that they’ll never receive from the abortion clinic.

“Our goal then is to aim to field a full list of candidates in every constituency for the 2024 General Election”

What areas do you hope to run candidates in and what do you see as your party’s route to electoral success?

We will be concentrating our main efforts on the London Assembly elections, where we’ll be running a full list of candidates. There will be other candidates standing locally around the country, and we invite people to stand in their local areas, but London is where our most organised and concentrated efforts will be — to get, please God, a CPA member of the London Assembly. Our goal then is to aim to field a full list of candidates in every constituency for the 2024 General Election — we are praying both for the financial breakthrough and for many more people excited by our vision to come forward to stand as CPA candidates to enable that to happen.

How can people get involved?

The Christian Peoples Alliance party are online and you can sign up for membership or for further information on our website. You can also find CPA on Facebook and on Twitter.  We can also be contacted at [email protected]

The Libertarian Listener interview – Mike Swadling

The Libertarian Listener is a UK political podcast reviewing the week’s major news stories, current affairs and events whilst providing original insights, public opinions and perspectives from the nation’s freedom lovers and liberty seekers.

For the 21 October 2020 episode they spoke with Mike Swadling about – Lockdown Rebels, CHIS Bill, NZ Labour Election, Croydon Constitutionalists.

Podcast Episode 44 – Chris Wilkinson: EU Trade Talks, Covid Tiers, Assault on Free Speech & Newman Departs

We are joined by Chris Wilkinson, the host of The Libertarian Listener podcast, as we discuss the EU Trade Talks, the Covid Tiers, the latest assault on free speech and developments on Croydon Council. We then chat with Chris about his experiences in politics, The Libertarian Listener podcast and his future plans.

Chris’ contacts:

Google Podcasts

Podcast Addict

Consumption and Production – A Brief Summery and Analysis of Capital and Consumption Goods

Economic Piece by Josh L. Ascough

Consumer Goods and Capital Goods; these are terms the average individual has heard before. But how much is understood about these terms?

What qualifies as Capital? Are there different kinds of Capital? What counts as Consumer goods? Throughout this article I hope to give the reader an in depth analysis of these terms, their technical and theoretical purposes, how they relate to one another, and what their qualities are.

We will treat this as a process throughout the article; from capital to consumer; with a few interchanges to give context and further, detailed analysis.

Before delving into such areas, a mundane but important question must be posed and answered; What is Economics?

Economics is the social science, formulated around the study of human action towards ends with scarce means. Economics holds the epistemological (theory of knowledge) view of a priori knowledge (knowledge that is acquired independently of experience, and proceeds from theoretical deduction); that all human action is purposeful to the individual subject; whether his own deductions be rational or not, all of his actions are purposeful towards his goal or goals. This is where the subjectivism of Economics comes into play; particularly with the regards to the Austrian School.

The subjectivism of economics has gone through a process of clarification. During its early period, it was believed that the subjectivism of economics depended on the assumption of perfect knowledge; that all men at all times must be omniscient, in order to engage in economic activity. This position however, takes the view (intentional or not) that the market is in perfect equilibrium, and adjusts to perfect equilibrium relative to the circumstances, and regards all human decisions and values are fully determined; leaving no scope for the autonomy of the human mind. This leads to no room for the entrepreneur. Another view to which economics took about subjectivism, was that all economic activity and human decisions are spontaneous with no purpose and totally unexplainable; this view of the subjectivism of economics leaves us with no hope or ability for understanding market regularities, or human action as in terms of the subjects purpose.

This view of the subjectivism of economics was revolutionised by the late, Ludwig Von Mises. Mises recognised the autonomy of the human mind; the subjectivist freedom for human choice, which bear the imprint of the external circumstances. The external circumstances do not themselves constrain or determine action, but the actions of the autonomous man do take his circumstances into account, with regards to the knowledge he holds of the external. The Mises understanding of subjectivism in economics dismisses the notion of perfect knowledge, and the omniscience of man with regards to his value and action; instead, taking the view that at any moment, markets are pervaded by widespread ignorance on the part of the market participants; there is no such concept of perfect knowledge, nor perfect equilibrium. An additional and important feature of the subjectivism of economics, recognises that error on the part of market participants, and disequilibrium, creates opportunities for the existence of the entrepreneur, and entrepreneurial activity.

Before moving on to the main area of our subject, it is additionally important to explain what an economic good consists of.

Economic Goods require a few qualities to qualify as Economic Goods:

  1. Scarcity.
  2. Human Need.
  3. Belief of the Goods Ability to Satisfy Wants or Needs; Directly or Indirectly.
  4. Command or Claim of Ownership Over the Good.

Economic goods are split into two distinct groups:

  1. Good of Lower Order.
  2. Goods of Higher Order.

The value or price of all economic goods are subject to marginal utility.

What is Marginal Utility?

People’s wants are ranked in terms of the importance of their satisfaction. Let us use an example of a farmer. The farmer has 5 sacks of wheat, and his wants/needs are as follows:

  1. Bread For Living.
  2. Bread For Health.
  3. Seeds For Planting For Next Harvest.
  4. Feed Farm Animals. Cattle
  5. Produce Vodka.
  6. Feed Pets.

Our farmer in question would use the wheat to satisfy these wants. But how does he allocate them? What value does each sack of wheat hold? To answer this, we must ask: Which want or satisfaction would I do without if one of these sacks were lost?

For example let us assume a pack of foxes were to break into the barn where the sacks are located, and ate all of the wheat inside the 2nd sack. The want to do without is the 5th. The value of each sack is equal to the sack which satisfies the lowest-ranked want, to which the supply is capable of serving.

The level of satisfaction is utility. The lowest want is the Marginal. Hence value is equal to Marginal Utility.

Capital: What Is Capital?

Capital refers to economic goods of Higher Order. Higher Order goods are economic goods to which the satisfaction of human wants or needs is done so indirectly. These economic goods are not used for consumption or the direct satisfaction, but utilised to indirectly service wants or needs, and for further production. As a brief example for the moment, the car you drive to go to the supermarket is an economic good of higher order; or capital good. You do not consume the car itself, the car is utilised to indirectly satisfy a human want or need, with acquiring economic goods of lower order for consumption, or for acquiring other economic goods of higher order or capital, for further and better indirect satisfaction.

These are very broad brush terms though, as can be seen in the brief example of the car, a much more in depth explanation is required, as there are different kinds of capital; including different types of capital in terms of purpose.

There are two fundamental facts with regards to capital goods, which exhibits the complexity with regards to capital goods (economic goods of higher order).

Capital is Heterogeneous: All forms of capital are different and diverse; they’re not all the same. For example a beer barrel is not a boiler or a blast furnace.

However, stating this, each piece of capital is also Multi-Specific: Each piece of capital can be used in multiple lines of production.

Because each piece is different, they can’t substitute for each other perfectly, however, because they can go into different lines of production, they can substitute at different ratios for different things; the economic calculation for capital comes down to calculating the relative scarcity and alternatives; for this, you need a pricing system to signal the various marginal production costs and marginal values of consumers, in order to configure what lines of production to go into, and at what quantities.

In regards to the Capital and Interest, a standard terminology for capital is used.

The standard term is: Capital GoodsProduced Means of Production.

However, this conflates Capital with Capital Goods. The distinction between the two can be summarised as follows:

Capital Good: Reproducible Means of Production.

The reason such a distinction is important is due to the different functions between Capital and Capital Goods. The late Bohm-Bawark coined the term evenly rotating economy (ERE) when referring to this issue. In the ERE, Capital Goods earn gross rent, but do not earn net rent; as only the original factors of production (labour and natural resources) – earn a net rent within the ERE. The reason for Capital Goods not earning net rent is due to the fact that they are reproducible.

For simplicity sake:

Capital Goods = Physical Goods.

Capital = Financial Goods.

To sum up when not referring to Capital Goods, Capital is within reference to the total sum of money prices for assets related to an enterprise, minus any financial obligations.

To give a further explanation to this, let us imagine a laundry shop owner. If you were to ask the owner how much Capital Goods he has in his business, this would be referring to his physical goods; washing machines = Capital Goods, the till = Capital Goods, laundry detergent = Capital Goods etc.

If you were to turn to this same laundry shop owner (don’t ask him too many times otherwise he might get bored with all the questions), and ask him how much Capital is in his business, this would be referring to if the business was sold; all debts and loans paid off, how much money he, as the owner would hold.

“In the market economy capital accumulation is required for an increase in living standards, and to ensure a society is made wealthier”

In the market economy capital accumulation is required for an increase in living standards, and to ensure a society is made wealthier.

Capital accumulation requires the setting aside of money; in relation to their time preference, for future consumption by forgoing current consumption. This allows for further accumulation of tools, machinery, and reproducible means of production. The accumulation of capital plus saving for a preferred time frame of future consumption, allows for higher degrees of efficiency. This may seem bizarre since if there is an immediate need for consumption, and there is no time preference for future consumption, how can there be efficiency in waiting; it may be more easily conceived if we refer to it as relative time preference.

To give an example of this in action, let us imagine a man living on an island, and he has a need for water to have a bath. If this is an immediate need (maybe he has a hot date with the girl on the next island tomorrow), he will likely cup his hands to bring water to his home. If however this is not an immediate need and he holds time spare, he could climb up a tree, grab a coconut and break it to use the shell to more efficiently gather water.

I made a quick reference to interest and I will quickly go over two important questions:

  1. What are Interest Rates?
  2. How is Interest possible?
  • Interest Rates are prices related to time preference for capital funds.
  • Interest Rates signal to investors and entrepreneurs people’s willingness to postpone consumption; or their need to have consumption sooner, rather than later.
  • Sooner Consumption = High Interest Rate. Future Consumption = Low Rates.
  • Interest Rates regulate and allocate how much production is geared towards present consumption verses future consumption.
  • Interest Rates coordinate the capital process. When consumers wish to save for the future (for college for example), they will cut back on current consumption; such as eating out at restaurants, visits to the cinema etc. It should not be misunderstood as being “current production is down = recession”; resources have been reallocated for a future time preference, towards savings for future consumption. This coordinates signals to investors and entrepreneurs that taking out loans is now more affordable

With regards to how interest is possible, we need to delve into another question:

What is the interest problem?

The interest problem, according to Bohm-Bawark is as follows:

“Suppose a Capitalist can spend £100,000 on land, labour and capital goods. One year later, the finished product can be sold for £110,000. How can this undervaluation of the factors persist?”

Anyone with financial capital in the present, who can put it to work and earn back not only the principle sum but money on top is referred to as an interest return. Why is it possible?

Before answering, it is important to mention what is known as, The Naive Productivity Theory. This is a term which was first mentioned in Bohm-Bawerk’s piece, Capital and Interest when critically referring to the Productivity Theory.

The Naive Productivity Theory notes that the return to capital goods (originary interest) is due to capital being productive.*

*Originary Interest is the ratio of the value assigned to want-satisfaction in the immediate future (current consumption) and the value assigned to want-satisfaction in periods of future consumption. It is present in market activity in the discount of future goods against present goods.

The Naive Productivity Theory however is incorrect. While it is true that capital goods are productive, and they would not be utilised were they not, this does not answer why interest is possible. If interest was possible because of The Naive Productivity Theory, then why wouldn’t entrepreneurs bid up the price of these capital goods; so instead of being able to buy capital goods for £100,000 and sell later for £110,000, they would be buying at £110,000 and selling for £110,000?

The way this is possible, is through Time Preference.

Present goods are preferred and hold a higher marginal value than future goods of comparable qualities, and need-want satisfactions.

Subjective Price Theory states that a pre-built house has a higher price than a contract for a house to be built in the future, because; ceteris paribus, consumers have more immediate wants to be satisfied.

Even if the person buying the contract at £100,000 for a house to be built and delivered in the future has no want for it, they recognise they can sell the house with a return to those on the market with more immediate wants.

I shall very briefly go over the subject of Consumption Goods.

Consumption: What Are Consumer Goods?

Consumer Goods refers to economic goods of lower order. Economic goods of lower order; or consumer goods, are goods to which the individual holds command over, that produce the satisfaction of human wants/needs directly and without further allocation of capital goods (economic goods of higher order).

Consumption goods; or goods of lower order, are the final products of the line of production which directly satisfy the want-needs and marginal values of the person who holds command over them.

Stating this however, not all consumer goods are for direct consumption. As a simple example; because I don’t want to spend too much time on consumption goods after so much time dedicated to capital/capital goods, let us take a handful of examples of what I mean by this:

  • Houses.
  • Printers.
  • Refrigerators.
  • Chicken.

Houses and chicken are an easy economic good to classify as consumer goods. Human beings need shelter and food, and so these consumer goods fulfil the purposes of direct consumption.

Printers on the other hand, can fall into two categories if they are not for the purposes of profit. On the one hand these are the final product after the coordination of capital goods (goods of higher order) and are purchased by consumers. However, saying this, they may also be used as capital goods from the perspective of the consumer. What I mean by this is that, nobody buys a printer for it to be the final product to which he will directly consume; people buy printers, in order to utilise them as personal capital goods, for the purposes of producing direct consumer goods; i.e. printing pictures, important documents, or receipts for consumer goods they’ve in addition purchased which are to either be directly consumed, or like the printer, be capital goods owned by said consumer to coordinate other goods he will directly consume.

“Now refrigerators are not only an extremely beneficial invention, but they’re also a great example of economics at work in the home; apart from financial capital, they can be used to represent consumption goods, capital goods, and interest/time preference, all at once within the home of the consumer”

The final example are refrigerators. Now refrigerators are not only an extremely beneficial invention, but they’re also a great example of economics at work in the home; apart from financial capital, they can be used to represent consumption goods, capital goods, and interest/time preference, all at once within the home of the consumer.

Refrigerators are consumer goods due to them being economic goods of lower order; the final outcome from the line of production and the allocation and coordination of capital goods. In addition they are capital goods for the consumer who owns the economic good in question, due to the fact they are not consumed themselves, but are utilised and can reproduce the activities they have been allocated to (keeping food fresh), to allow better satisfaction of direct needs-wants of the consumer. Finally, refrigerators represent interest/time preference in the home. Most of the time, people don’t buy 2 weeks’ worth of food for current consumption (unless they have a very big appetite). Refrigerators allow the consumer to save food for an allocated time period preferred for future consumption, for when they’re marginal utility will be higher.

There are many other areas to be talked about, particularly with regards to the division of labour, which links heavily to capital investment, allocation and coordination of capital goods and time preference, but I have taken much time over the subject we were focussed on; this may be an area to return to another time. For now I shall leave the reader with a passage from Ludwig Von Mises’s book, Planning For Freedom page 17-18, on the subject of economic organisation, economic coordination, and entrepreneurship.

“The truth is that the choice is not between a dead mechanism and a rigid automatism on the one hand and conscious planning on the other hand. The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is: whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself or should the paternal government alone plan for all? […] it is spontaneous action of each individual verses the exclusive action of the government.

Laissez faire does not mean: let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: let individuals choose how they want to cooperate in the social division of labor and let them determine what the entrepreneurs should produce. […]”



EU Regards Britain as a ‘Renegade Province’ Rather Than a Sovereign State – Sputnik Radio Interview

These efforts from the OECD come as Boris Johnson and Ursula Von Der Leyen meet ahead of Thursday’s EU summit and Johnson’s October 15th deal deadline. With more on this story, Sputnik spoke to Michael Swadling from the Croydon Constitutionalists.

“There are no good deals to be had with someone that doesn’t treat you as an equal. The EU regards us frankly as a renegade province. They don’t regard us as a sovereign state. They’ve been absolutely clear about that throughout the entire process”

“At the moment, they still seem to be asking for access to our fishing waters, in perpetuity, for us to be able to sell them fish. Now, for us to be able to sell them wheat, they don’t expect access to our fields; for us to be able to sell them goods and services, they don’t have access to our offices or our factories. I mean, it’s a completely ridiculous situation”

“Much of Europe are now having fans back at sports events, other countries are coming out. Our terrible government response, and frankly our even worse set of ideas from the opposition, is holding us back”

“If the government just gets out the way; reduces regulation, reduces taxes, and lets people thrive themselves… the sooner they can get the EU out of the way and then get themselves out of the way, we will do very well; thank you very much”

Full article:

Croydon Council – a tale of mismanagement

As Croydon Council’s financial crisis grows Mike Swadling writes for the TaxPayers’ Alliance about Croydon Council, a tale of mismanagement.

“Northamptonshire in 2018 when they faced a £10 million shortfall and debts of around £1 billion. Croydon has just over half the population of Northamptonshire, and yet still managed to exceed this”

“Given all this overspend, Croydon’s contribution to the Town Hall Rich List seems utterly obscene. The latest report showed the council has 23 staff on over £100,000 a year and 3 who earn more than the Prime Minister”

“it’s clear the financial challenges predate the crisis. Too much money has been squandered on schemes that have not paid off. Anyone can see that too little value has been provided for the people of Croydon”

“The Growth Fund, together with the Community Ward budgets awarded by councillors, gave over £35,000 to Croydon Pride in 2018, and over £59,000 the following year. They are great events, but is it really taxpayers’ job to fund my weekend entertainment?”

Full article:

The Future of the BBC – Zoom event

The Croydon Constitutionalists are delighted to host a forum on the Future of the BBC.

Croydon Councillor Jeet Bains, Sofia Svihurova former Brighton Group Leader of the Libertarian Party and Harry Fone of the TaxPayers’ Alliance will present their views on what’s next for the Corporation.

We will then hold a panel discussion with questions, followed by an opportunity for all to get involved.

Join us 6pm Friday 6th November by Zoom at

Or register here for details –

Libertarian Sofia Svihurova, has recently completed a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Ethics at the University of Brighton, with a thesis on “Concerning the Right to Self-Defence in the UK and the Issue of Empowerment”.

Conservative Councillor Jeet Bains stood in Luton North in the 2019 General Election. He first became a councillor in 2010 in the then Coulsdon West ward. In 2018 he ran in Addiscombe East and in a surprising result split the ward taking the seat from Labour.

Harry Fone is developing the TaxPayers’ Alliance grassroots network to apply pressure on the government and local authorities across the country. He can often be found in Croydon campaigning for local Council Tax payers or canvassing across the country.

Join us 6pm Friday 6th November by Zoom. Register here for details –

Tax Reform – The Philosophical and Economic argument against Direct Taxation and for Indirect Taxation

Economic Piece by Josh L. Ascough

Portions of this article are parts of a larger collection of my upcoming work titled: “The Long Road Against Statism”

“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society” is what we are told; by politicians, progressives, watermelon environmentalists, and other self-declared benevolent busy bodies. Yet this very notion is predicated on the premise of “assumed consent”; nay, the very concept of “societal good” or “public good” via government coercion is crystallised in the notion of assumed consent.

“The nature of this premise is rooted in the desire to control how our fellow man operates; how he uses his property and values, and how much of his values and property are permitted for him to assess and access”

All of these concepts and notions are rooted in the belief that the individual is under obligation to accept the assumed consent of his neighbour to sacrifice the individual’s values on the individual’s behalf; that no man may truly own his existence, nor be master of his own destiny. The nature of this premise is rooted in the desire to control how our fellow man operates; how he uses his property and values, and how much of his values and property are permitted for him to assess and access.

These parasitic piranhas show their true colours when questioned; they demand their fellow man have his resources, values and property extracted by the external, yet refuse to voluntarily relieve themselves from their own property further. These “Men of State” bestow upon themselves entitlement to the values and properties of others, but do not view themselves in the same light.

This is the mind-set of the “Statist Entitlement Complex”: You must accept the assumed consent from the external to extract your property and values, because it has been deemed that your values and property are not permitted in your possession on the basis of the assumed consent via the societal good, which has been made the mandatory good on your behalf through assumed consent.

This apparent “societal good” via government coercion based within the premise of assumed consent, cannot operate on acknowledging the existence of the individual or his self-ownership; it must view the individual as expendable to the State and the tribe.

With this said, we conclude at the beginning of this article, that taxation is not the price we pay for a civilised society; taxation is the price we pay for assuming consent to Tribalism, Collectivism, Statism, and the externally defined sacrifice on the behalf of the sovereign individual.

With the introduction to this article, we require starting from the position of a priori knowledge; an axiom that man, the individual is sovereign.

This axiomatic truth, by recognising the sovereignty of the individual, as well as the sentience of the individual, acknowledges that value is subjective; as one man seeing higher value in his self-interested pursuit of service to others, may not be recognised or adopted by another fellow to the same degree, and that all sovereign individuals strive for the maximisation of their values; even he who chooses the maximisation of his value to pursue service to others over himself is his own sovereign self, and is operating in rational self-interest and the expansion of his own moral value, so long as he views this to be of higher value to himself over other values he may hold or strive for. Furthermore, this axiom acknowledges that all values face trade-offs; the sovereign individual can trade long term values and his future existence for short term values and current existence and vice versa, yet in addition, we acknowledge the objective reality of what is needed for the full pursuit of these values: Action.

Action requires ideas to be processed and progressed into action.

Ideas require thought to be interpreted and crystallised into ideas.

Thought requires values in order for the manifestation of thoughts.

Values require needs in order to assess which are of higher value.

Needs require life in order for a potential need to exist.

It is not “I think therefore I am.” It is, “I am therefore I think.” Hence the process which is the heir to this notion is: “I think therefore I act.

All human action is purposeful to the sovereign individual towards the goals he sees as of value; these goals can be ends in and of themselves, or ends that once achieved, are developed into means for the purposeful action towards other goals and values.

Through this understanding of our a priori of human beings, our axiom of the sovereign individual and that all individuals strive for the maximisation of their subjective value; trading those which hold lesser value to them for those which hold higher value, we come to the other notion.

No individual can perform a sacrifice to which he consents to. A sacrifice requires the termination of a higher value in exchange for that which is of lower value to the individual: if the action has truly been consented to by the individual, it must be of higher value to him, hence he made no sacrifice; he gained a value. A sacrifice can only occur therefore, via external forces assuming consent over the individual to act on his behalf.

If we continue down this path of assuming consent over the individual to sacrifice his values on his behalf, for the abstract higher plane known as “societal good”; to him both economically and socially, we risk reverting ourselves to poverty, not just in economic terms, but poverty in moral terms.

In his 1954 book, The Income Tax: Root of All Evil, Frank Chodorov gave several political, philosophical and economic arguments against the Income Tax.

From pages 12 – 13, Chodorov gives a description as to how Income Taxation is, an essence of Socialism:

…when this amendment became part of the Constitution, in 1913, the absolute right of property in the United States was violated. That, of course, is the essence of Socialism. Whatever else Socialism is, or is claimed to be, its first tenet is the denial of private property. All brands of Socialism, and there are many, are agreed that property rights must be vested in the political establishment. None of the schemes that are identified with this ideology, such as the nationalization of industry, or socialized medicine, or the abolition of free choice, or the planned economy, can become operative if the individual’s claim to his property is recognized by the government. It is for that reason that all Socialists, beginning with Karl Marx, have advocated income taxation, the heavier the better.

What Chodorov says is in relation to the distinction between Direct Taxation, and Indirect Taxation. While Indirect Taxation still extorts a portion of resources from the individual, and operates as all taxation, on the basis of assumed consent, Indirect Taxation recognises the original claim of ownership to be within the hands of the individual wielding command over the resource. The Indirect Taxation requires the individual to first consent to a particular act; buying a product for example with the Sales Tax. Direct Taxation on the other hand, such as the Income Tax, does not require the individual to consent to a particular act, and does not treat the resource to be the property of the owner, who holds the official claim. Direct Taxation, such as Income Tax, sees the income as a loan by The State; the individual labourer holds no claim of ownership for his fruits, his fruits are loans by The State holding a claim as original, official owner of the property.

This type of taxation holds consequences for the productivity of the economy and the living standards of all individuals. There are two core consequences:

  1. Lack of Saving.
  2. Reduction in Incentive.

Through income taxation, individuals hold a reduced amount of expendable income, which means the marginal utility of goods affordable to them decreases and the opportunity cost between consumption for more urgent needs and current value, and saving for future consumption and future living standards increases; the man who is taxed up to 40% has a much smaller surplus bracket for saving consumption for the future, and finds himself prioritising current, short term consumption of goods whose marginal utility are high; in other words, living for the day, by the day.

“the only way to ensure economic progress and the increase in the standard of living, is to increase the per head capita investment, which is only possible if people are saving and investing to allow the expansion of capital investment, and the furthering of the division of labour”

When individuals have large portions of the fruits of their labour extorted, they are less inclined to save; which places a major problem into economic progress and productivity, as the only way to ensure economic progress and the increase in the standard of living, is to increase the per head capita investment, which is only possible if people are saving and investing to allow the expansion of capital investment, and the furthering of the division of labour.*

*(One could make the argument that the Income Tax and top-down imposed disincentive for saving creates the incentive for central banks to artificially lower interest rates and expand credit beyond the money supply, creating inflationary booms and beginning the process of the boom/bust cycle. Though this is not a piece on monetary policy and I don’t intend to make it one.)

Finally on the first note, the forced disincentive for saving reduces the judgement the individual is capable (or maybe allowed is the right word) of making towards his property, and how to best allocate his resources to maximise his quality of life.

In other words, your ownership entitles you to use your judgement as to what you will do with the product of your labour-consume it, give it away, sell it, save it. Freedom of disposition is the substance of property rights.

~ Frank Chodorov – The Income Tax: Root of All Evil page 18.

On the second note as to the dangers of Direct Taxation, it creates a disincentive for individual productivity and production. If an individual has his resources extorted heavily and continuously, he will become disinterested with furthering his productivity and with continuing his production; as he sees his fruits, and the productivity he could place with them, restricted by the State, and since no one can consume more than they have produced (unless you’re the government and have the magic power of ignoring economic realty at the expense of everyone else), the living standards of the individual reduce. This is why the greatest enemy to the individual, especially the poor man, is not “income inequality”, but income extortion and inflation of the money supply, and devaluation of his resources; leading him straight into the welfare trap.

Interference with this freedom of disposition is, in the final analysis, interference with your right to life. At least, that is your reaction to such interference, for you describe such interference with a word that expresses a deep emotion: you call it “robbery”…if you find that this robbery persists, if you are regularly deprived of the fruits of your labor, you lose interest in laboring. the only reason you work is to satisfy your desires, and if experience shows that despite your efforts your desires go unsatisfied, you become stingy about laboring. You become a “poor” producer.

Frank Chodorov – The Income Tax: Root of All Evil page 18.

As stated above with the philosophical argument for the sovereign individual on the subject of a priori knowledge in accordance with human action being purposeful, if faced with a direct tax, the sovereign individual’s unseen consequences are enacted. He has not been permitted the maximum capabilities of his ability to proceed with the objective, purposeful process for attaining his ends via the means he holds command over; he has been denied his full ability to act.

This indicates that he has in addition, been denied his full ability to process his ideas, manifest his thoughts, asses his values, nor recognise his needs; he ultimately has been denied the maximisation of his a priori knowledge of purposeful human action; he has been denied the maximisation to life.

There would be many who would say that a direct tax is a fair tax, based on either one of two principles:

  1. Ability To Pay.
  2. Relation To Benefits Received.

Both of these reasons given for the justification of a direct tax are in the negative however.

With regards to the ability to pay principle, there is no clear standard about what is meant by someone’s “ability” to pay. For example, let’s say two people; person A and person B. Person A earns £50,000 per year, Person B earns £28,000. A has no savings, person B has loans from undergrad and graduate tuitions to pay off. B has no children, A has 4 children. Who in the example has the greater ability to pay? There’s no unit to measure who has the greater ability to pay.

One way people try to argue around this, is by stating that when people give charity to their church, or to an animal rights organisation let’s say, they are encouraged to give within their means by the priest or animal rights organisation representative; the argument pertaining that it is the same with taxes. However, the priest doesn’t come to your house if you refuse to give 20-40% of your income; nor does PETA take you to court for charity evasion (though knowing PETA I can see them threatening to do so). The State however does. There is no means to resign from the government. In addition do people truly only give to charity based on their means? Of course not. People give to charity because they subjectively believe there is a value in doing so. Carl Menger once addressed these values as the satisfaction of imaginary needs; because these were values that did not directly or indirectly benefit the individual’s human needs, though he recognised said individuals’ were achieving the value of needs they believed required satisfying.

As a final note on this current principle, the market and in turn market prices obey the law of one price. Everyone expects to spend the same money on bread, cars, iPhone’s, iPad’s etc. People with a greater ability to pay don’t pay more for these goods. If people were expected or required to pay more for these goods based on their ability to pay; for example if someone earning £50,000 had to pay £3,000 for an iPhone, yet the individual earning £18,000 only had to pay £500, there would be no incentive for people to work harder, to acquire a higher income, or to save for the future. This would in effect cause equal income, as no one would hold any incentive for greater productivity, and the economy would collapse.

The other principle as mentioned is that the direct tax is in relation to the benefits a person receives from society. There are a few things wrong with this.

“People engage in market activity based on mutual, consensual exchange; government on the other hand is coercion. When people engage in market exchange, they do so because they perceive there to be a benefit, this benefit is subjective. However, because tax is non voluntary, they do not indicate any sort of benefit”

The individual earning £50,000 is able to do so because he is providing higher productivity that is valued more, and is of greater service to consumers; whether directly or indirectly; so by this terminology, said individual is giving back to society based on his productive efforts, and is being paid in proportion to how productive he is. In addition the market is not government. People engage in market activity based on mutual, consensual exchange; government on the other hand is coercion. When people engage in market exchange, they do so because they perceive there to be a benefit, this benefit is subjective. However, because tax is non voluntary, they do not indicate any sort of benefit. While there is no form of a just tax or a fair tax, if the aim is to add a layer of consent to a tax and to ensure the maximisation of an individual’s ability to command the resources he holds a claim to, the better methodology is to pursue an indirect tax system; such a system would not only ensure that people pay a tax only when engaging in a consensual action, and provide ability and incentive for savings; such a tax system would also ensure governments inability to directly extort resources simply based on ownership, and force governments to adopt a more fiscally responsible position, based within their means, and to limit government to focusing on their primary focus; which is the protection of life, liberty and property.


Podcast Episode 43 – Dan Liddicott: Masks in Pubs, Emergency Budget, New Parties & Independent Libertarians

We are joined by Dan Liddicott, the former Chairman of the Libertarian Party UK, as we discuss the wearing of facemasks in pubs and other Covid restrictions, Croydon Council’s Emergency Budget and 2 new political parties. We then chat with Dan about his resignation from the Libertarian Party and his new initiative: Independent Libertarians.

Independent Libertarians –

Young Libertarians –

You can follow Dan at

Google Podcasts

Podcast Addict