I first became interested in politics through reading books by libertarians. I read books by Richard Maybury, who amongst other things, believed that America should never have got involved with WW1 and WW2, that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional, and that heroin should be legal. However wacky his ideas may seem in retrospect, his writing style was concise and easy to understand. His ideas resonated with me at the time, because I went to quite a rough school where I believed most people didn’t want to work hard, so the thought of a welfare state bailing them out seemed unbearable. I believed in a social Darwinist paradise, where everyone succeeded or failed on their own merits. I also believed that freedom was the most important principle, even if it came at the expense of equality, order or social cohesion.

Aged 16, I changed schools to a better one. It was at my new school that I realised my libertarianism had been mistaken. For the first time, I met other people who described themselves as libertarians. But they weren’t consistent in their belief in freedom. They wanted the state to enforce cultural norms to promote a strong national identity, not allowing minorities to visibly express their own distinct way of life. They advocated an extremely tough law and order stance, even with evidence showing that high incarceration rates do not necessarily reduce crime. They also wanted more government spending on things that would benefit them, such as more education investment or subsidised trains. I realised many so-called libertarians were simply conservative nationalists, who only called themselves libertarians to appeal to young people.

The reality is that pure libertarianism isn’t liberating at all. People won’t be free if the government doesn’t provide certain social goods. People won’t be free to get any job they want if the government won’t provide a decent education to everyone. Freedom to move is restricted if the country’s transportation system is poor. A certain degree of regulation is actually liberating because it gives businesses certainty they won’t be discriminated against. That’s the purpose of the European Single Market- to provide a level playing field for all European businesses by subjecting them to the same rules. Most importantly, conjectured notions of freedom mean nothing to those stuck in poverty, which will increase dramatically in the absence of any social security system.

Now I haven’t completely renounced my libertarian views. A healthy scepticism of the state is good, because both historically speaking and even today, the biggest oppressor of humanity is government. Even in liberal democracies, civil liberties are violated far too often. Outside the developed world, the state is frequently responsible for brutal repression and mass murder. Governments have a legal monopoly on violence, which means they are uniquely dangerous and must be held to account. I also think a scepticism of government economic intervention is good. Government spending is often wasteful and inefficient, even as markets are far from perfect either. For the most part, government ownership of industry is less preferable to a highly competitive and well-regulated private market. Libertarian economic thinking is particularly useful when understanding monetary policy; artificially low interest rates, quantitive easing and fractional reserve banking frequently lead to credit bubbles, which when burst, cause immense damage.

Overall on most issues, I still lean in a libertarian direction. I’m often opposed to government attempts to change personal behaviour, even if much of that behaviour is bad, i.e eating too much, smoking, taking drugs, having unprotected sex with multiple people etc… I don’t like the government getting involved in lots of foreign conflicts. I still think protecting individual liberty and private property rights is crucial for any society to flourish. But the doctrinaire libertarian orthodoxy of my teenage years has been thoroughly renounced. Partly because as a general rule, I no longer indulge in utopian thinking. But mostly because individuals are most free when they are healthy, well educated, and secure from deprivation. A strong safety net allows people to take risks, thereby enhancing the dynamic economy libertarians purport to champion. There’s nothing wrong with advocating entrepreneurialism and a can-do spirit. But sometimes, we need a little bit of help along the way.

Why does everyone assume these days that integration is such a good thing, asks Giles Fraser in The Guardian. Louise Casey’s “community report”, published last week, simply took it for granted that it’s inherently unhealthy for communities to keep themselves to themselves. But why shouldn’t they preserve their distinct character? It’s precisely that which makes them a community in the first place. “What a miserably grey one­-dimensional place [the world] would be if the dominant model of middle-of-the-road liberal secular capitalism became the only acceptable way of living.” To hear Communities Secretary Sajid Javid berating people for not embracing Britain’s “shared values” is to be reminded of the Borg, those Star Trek villains who travel the universe forcibly subsuming other cultures. “We are the Borg,” they say. “Surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” There we have it. For integrationists, “good community is little more than a dash of cultural colour at homeopathic levels: a calendar of exotic festivals, some religious fancy dress”. But having a different way of life, or seeing the world in a different way? Please God, no!  (Giles Fraser, The Guardian)

Well, Giles, thank you for your perspective, but, as a liberal Epicurean who is dedicated to human rights and the decent treatment of all people, wherever they come from, I have to disagree and vote for integration. I believe that cultural diversity is a bit over-sold.

Human beings feel comfortable in “tribes”. We no longer call them that, but this is an inescapable fact. A “tribe” is a group on people with shared values, outlooks, even the same politics.  You feel comfortable with your tribe, whether it is based on religion, education, language or skin colour.  People with shared values feel they can say what they think and know they will not be harshly judged.  Constantly being on edge, anxiously avoiding offense to some religionist or foreigner is not fun. In the long term it is stressful. There are areas in the UK where English isn’t the lingua franca after three generations. This is divisive and, I think, discourteous to the natives. If you desire to move to another country and it is hospitable enough to welcome you, good manners demand that you make an effort to fit in.  To adopt any other attitude is to be arrogant. “You’ve joined us; we haven’t joined you”.

Having said that, everyone of whatever race, colour or social position, should be treated with kindness, courtesy and good humour  They should have help with housing, schooling etc and encouraged to be a productive member of society.  If, like the young ladies who audited my old company’s books, you have educated yourself, thrown off the veil and joined the majority culture, you will be highly respected, not to mention esrn well. Why not? They would have had much less respect where their parents came from.