Is waterboarding acceptable in order to extract information from terrorists?

In a International Relations module at a prestigious university, a professor asked a hypothetical question to the class: "If a terrorist had planted a nuclear weapon in London, and you caught them, what would you do in order to find out where it was?" Hard Truths has always considered this morality play trite, because of the circumstance involved. One student's answer, to the horror of the left-wing students surrounding them, was "whatever it takes to get the information".

Hard Truths has little sympathy for a man who successfully planned the murder of 3000 civilians, was subsequently captured, and then waterboarded, in order to extract information that led to the aversion of the infamous "liquid bomb plot". It is incomprehensible that the BBC can condemn the CIA for waterboarding the terrorist, when hundreds of British lives hung in the balance. The BBC makes a mockery of rationality by suggesting that any rational person would have done other than what the CIA did. The interrogators should be proud to have served the West so well, and so faithfully. The BBC, and other left -wingers, should take a moment to consider what is more important to them, the moral high ground or their own survival...

Politicians are never "fit and proper" people to determine the ownership of a corporation!

News Corp. has been in the news a lot recently, with inquiries being held to determine how far the criminal phone hacking extended from the company's newspapers into the police and general press. Now, Hard Truths does not have the intention of commenting upon the legalities of News Corp's activities. If anybody at News Corp. broke the law, they should be subjected to due legal process. This is beyond doubt, and not the point at issue.

There was a worrying aside to the general conclusions of the U.K. House of Commons Culture Committee report. The Labour and Liberal Democrat members of the committee, led by The Rt. Hon. Tom "The Witchfinder General" Watson, voted to label News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch "not a fit person" to lead a major international company. This is a flagrant abuse of power, and must receive the strongest condemnation. It is not the place of politicians to determine who is a "fit and proper person" to lead a company, but that of the shareholders in the company. This type of statement by elected officials is completely unacceptable, given its awful implications. Once politicians are permitted to intrude into businesses and dictate issues of company ownership, it is only a small matter of time until they begin to take control of the direction and actions of the companies, creating a coercive and poisonous business environment. Corporations will feel pressured to undertake or not to undertake projects, to create or not to create products; and the consumer will invariably suffer as their choice is reduced.

Let us remember what elected officials are elected to do. Politicians are elected by the people to the stewardship of certain, very clearly delineated, areas of the public domain. In a democracy, their remit does not include determining the leadership of private organizations that already have an ownership structure. Politicians are elected by the people as glorified managers, who manage the common property and assets of the people. In a market state, politicians manage in the name of the people only that which is held in common by the people, as such management of the common market in order to provide an environment in which the people can conduct their market activity with minimal disruption. It is an affront to democracy when politicians intrude into the private sphere of private organizations.

Tom Watson and co. should remember that, in their position, they have no right to infringe upon the already fragile nature of UK democracy. Given the tendency towards overreach common on the Left, it is sadly unsurprising. Consider this a warning, then: let the people beware those who would like to see British politicians intimidate media and business organizations into compliance in a manner more commonly found in Russia.

Europe's economic ideology could doom it to collapse.

Welcome to the first post of Hard Truths are Beautiful. In the spirit of the blog, today's entry will cut to the bone of the European situation. As we have seen, Spain and the UK have slipped back into recession. There is a great deal of blame being placed upon the various austerity measures that have been adopted by various national governments (firmly among them are Spain and the UK) for the lack of growth and economic movement on the continent. Many Euro politicos are asking whether stimulus is the correct solution, such as French Socialist Francois Hollande, who hailed a "reorientation towards growth". The excellent WSJ article "Europe's Phony Growth Debate" determined that it is a fallacy that government spending (or reductions therein) can determine economic growth. The article concluded that structural reform is what is needed, involving deregulation and a reduction in government intervention in the economy. This, the WSJ concluded, leads to growth "driven by reforms in taxes, labor markets, regulation, pensions and more". 

This is not to repeat the excellent analysis that the Journal has already provided, but to detail a serious flaw in the Journals expectation. While indisputably necessary, the solution proposed by the Journal is unfeasible. The reason for this is that such a solution would be rejected by European populations due to its politics. A free-market solution will fall foul of the naturally socialist, welfare-statist ideology that is so typically European. Europeans have the tendency to ask for a solution from Vater Staat, the Father State. The reason that Europeans can only countenance a stimulus solution or an austerity solution is that they do not trust themselves to find the solution in an entrepreneurial free market; they would rather trust in the state to provide and dictate. This misplaced faith in the state is one of the reasons that Europe is on the brink of economic disaster. Rather than wanting the ability to choose the services and accommodations they wish to in a free market, Europeans would rather ask the state to provide them with a donation of that state's choosing, and when European states cannot afford  to donate any more, they accept the lack, rather than wishing for a choice of their own.

Until Europeans begin to realize that the state is not the giver of all things good, and demand the right to choose their own arrangements, European states will continue to spend more than they can afford to. When they must, they will then reign in that spending, and the people will suffer. Europeans must understand that each person has to take ownership of their life, and cannot rely upon the state to manage it for them. European states can no longer afford to provide for their people! It is time to deregulate, and allow the people to choose provision of their own.