By any measure, Michael Bloomberg is a political rarity. The Mayor of New York is a prominent Republican that holds (relatively) classical liberal views on both economic and social issues: supporting laissez-faire economics over dirigisme, abortion rights over body fascism, and gay marriage rights over homophobia. Sadly for libertarians, this is a position that doesn’t fit well into the intellectually-stunted dichotomy of American politics, in which economic individualists are usually social statists, and vice versa.

Bloomberg’s uncomfortable compartmentalising into the US system is reflected in his political affiliation; started life as a Democrat, before switching parties in 2001 for purely political reasons (to avoid a tricky primary race in city in which Democrat candidates are ten-a-penny). On Wednesday, he completed the set, left the Republican Party, and declared himself an independent.

The mayor’s decision was made with only one date in mind: 4 November 2008, the day of the next Presidential election. The Bloomberg camp has denied this, but that’s par for the course, similar to a football club’s board giving its manager a vote of confidence (Barack Obama, anyone?). In American politics, one has to go a long way before “no” means “no”, and Bloomberg is not about to make such a statement.

The reason the two main parties matter so much (despite the notoriously weak whip system) is because American politics is dominated by money, and parties bring in the dollars like no-one else. However, as a self-made multi-billionaire, Bloomberg is also one of few politicians to have successfully financed his own campaign in its entirety. In 2001, he spent $73m on the mayoral election - which works out at $50 per vote cast and at over five times what his Democratic opponent could muster. He repeated the feat in 2005. In short, Bloomberg can afford to run as an independent, so why shouldn’t he?

As the not-so-invisible primaries continue to roll, the Republicans and Democrats will start to swiftboat each other, giving Bloomberg the perfect chance to establish his national credentials and build up his base. It comes as Rudy Giuliani has suffered a series of setbacks, possibly allowing Bloomberg to finally step out of the political shadow of his mayoral predecessor.

Ideologically, independence from the straitjackets of the economically-illiberal Democrats and socially-illiberal Republicans makes sense. Financially, it’s not exactly an advantage, but it’s not a major disadvantage to a man worth $5.5bn. Politically, it’s perfect. Despite the denials of his intention to run, Bloomberg’s declaration of independence is too convenient. In fact, the only thing amiss is the date; Bloomberg could have done far worse than to wait two weeks. When better than to issue his Declaration of Independence, and his intention to become the first independent President since George Washington than on July 4th?

David Davies, the Conservative MP for Monmouth, has argued for an expansion of the prison system in a post on the blog of the deplorably authoritarian Cornerstone Group. So he claims, prison helps society [sic.] by keeping known criminals off the street, with massive economic ramifications. It’s a rare frosty day in hell when any but the most intransigent statist agrees with the Cornerstone Group, but today is just such a day.

The Cornerstone Group represents just about everything that’s wrong with the Conservative Party. They’re Kinder, Küche, Kirche sort of authoritarians, keen on protecting the privileges of the elite, be they the Church of England or the aristocracy, while oppressing the rights of the masses, be they women or ethnic and religious minorities.

However, in advocating prison, they’re not the ones doing the oppressing. They’re the ones defending the oppressed: the victims of crime. By the back-of-an-envelope calculations performed by the Cornerstone Group on the government’s crime statistics, Davies believes that, by doubling the number of prison places in order to house ‘career criminals’ the country can cut the cost of crime in half. That is, for an outlay of £3bn a year, the country can recoup between £30bn and £45bn.

Unquestionably, one of the great problems of recent times has been the deliberate blurring of the lines between the innocent and the guilty: those whose rights are infringed, and those that infringe upon others rights. We’ve seen the innocent punished through ASBOs, the Terrorism Act, detention without trial, ID cards, trial without jury, and so on. At the same time, victimless crimes, that involve no infringement of others’ rights and are thusly not a matter of state concern, such as drug consumption, are outlawed by the Taliban tendency represented by the Cornerstone Group.

The other side is the one with which David Davies agrees: that the guilty get off without serious punishment, or even punishment at all. Most thieves and burglars escape custodial sentences altogether, while even murderers are released after a few years. If this can be fixed by £3bn, to protect the rights of the people so let down by the current system, it’s worth every penny.

Alternatively, of course, one can free up spaces by decriminalising those current activities that are illegal, but not immoral. Take just one area in particular. 12,567 individuals are held at Her Majesty’s pleasure in England and Wales for ‘drug offences’ [sic.], none of which offend the basic liberties of other people. That’s more than are held for robbery and fraud put together, and comes to 16% of the total prison population. Free these innocents, and the state can keep more murderers, rapists, and robbers incarcerated.

The key is to begin to discriminate between what is moral and what is immoral, and decide whether a given action harms the natural rights - to life, liberty, and property - of other individuals. If it doesn’t, it is completely inexcusable for the state to criminalise such an action, which is the mechanism by which it force its own morality upon other people. At the same time, it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens’ natural rights by preventing criminal abuse. If this quest is harmed by insufficient prison places, then that must be resolved, lest the state lose its raison d’être altogether.

If the readers of BBC History magazine had their way, everyone in the country would be enjoying a day off work today. In a 2006 poll, their readership chose the 15th June as the date they would like to see dedicated to a new national holiday to celebrate British values. Winning out over more auspicious rivals, such as VE Day, Armistice Day, Trafalgar Day, the 15th June doesn’t seem to have much going for it. That is, except that it was the day the first blow in the fight against tyranny hit home.

On 15 June 1215, the marshland of Runnymede, in Berkshire, was home to one of history’s rarest spectacles: an autocratic ruler giving away his power and his asserted right to rule by force alone. That day, King John of England signed Magna Carta, ending the absolute monarchy and guaranteeing basic liberties of all free men.

Beyond the intricate balancing institutions between the King and his Barons, Magna Carta guaranteed many of the rights that are protected today. It outlawed imprisonment without trial, false imprisonment, and disproportionate punishment; and guaranteed the right to self-defence, the separation of executive and judiciary, and trial by jury.

In short, it enshrined the rule of law and the mechanisms by which our inalienable fundamental rights - to life, liberty, and property - have been protected for the past eight centuries years. Without it, the people would be left as they were, prostrate in front of the state. Whilst Magna Carta did not, as no law thus far has, allowed man to live free of all tyranny, it was inarguably the first step, and, for that reason, ought to be commemorated as heartily as any day before or since.

Today, Conservative Shadow Chancellor George Osborne announced his party’s plans for reforming state economic governance. In a wide-ranging speech, he called for, amongst other changes, a dramatic shake-up of how the Bank of England’s hierarchy, including limiting the Governor to one term, and making Monetary Policy Committee member selection a transparent process.

There are very good arguments for the state to have no say in monetary issues whatsoever. A central bank is a monopoly supplier of fiat money, forcing upon the people (à la Kublai Khan) a financial regime that may, or may not, be in their interests; in particular, a state that is indebted may force the people to accept a monetary regime that devalues money (à la the Weimar Republic), hurting the individual’s interests. However, if one assumes that it should control the supply of money, it is of paramount importance for the process to be an open and fair one, incorporating the best economic minds the world has to offer.

In that respect, the reforms that the Tories propose are a mixed bag. The idea that the state has any right to operate behind a cloak of secrecy, whilst forcing its will upon the people, is an absurd idea, and, hence, Osborne is right to support open MPC selection. However, there is absolutely no reason to limit the Governor to a single non-renewable term, except for political reasons.

Alan Greenspan (who is, incidentally, now an unpaid advisor to the Bank of England) did a fantastic job at the USA’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, over a period of nineteen years. However, had he been limited to a single term, rather than been allowed to be reappointed by three successive Presidents, the United States economy would be in far worse shape than it is today.

In effect, term limits work in the opposite direction, to transparency; they force upon the citizens a sub-premium choice by limiting their options. At least, if we are to be governed by a statist monetary regime, let it be transparent. But, above all, let it maximise its efficacy by not forcing itself to choose an second-rate greenhorn over a first-rate Greenspan. One of the Shadow Chancellor’s proposals is in that vein, but the other, sadly, is not.

It is fitting that our inaugural This Day in Liberty is taken from the darkest chapter in human history, at a time when liberty, and therefore all of civilisation, came closest to being extinguished. Into that darkness, light was cast by the forces of freedom, who fought - and won - in North Africa, in the Pacific, in Burma, and in the skies over Europe. However, none was shed on the oppression of the human spirit more than by a single Jewish girl in Amsterdam.

On 12th June 1942, Anne Frank was given a small black and red book as a birthday present from her father. From that moment, she kept it as a diary, adding entries compulsively. At first, she discussed relatively ‘normal’ events, but, as the family was forced into hiding, and the occupation became more intolerable, Anne moved to more moving matters: the role of God, the nature of liberty, and the insurmountability of the human spirit.

On 4th August 1944, Anne and her family were arrested, the SS having been tipped off of their whereabouts by an unknown informant. In a fate to be shared by six million fellow Jews, they were murdered in the Nazi death camps. However, long after her death, her tale, and that of her yearn for freedom, lives on. We owe it to her memory to advance its cause, and never to endanger it allowing ourselves to be ruled by tyranny.

Welcome to the inauguration of the Torch, the official blog of the University College London Libertarian Society. We’ll be written by student libertarians, and providing free opinion and free debate, from our own backgrounds, courtesy of the Free Society.

Obviously, we’ll be keeping on top of current affairs, both British and international, and providing our opinions on the issues of the day from a non-party political, but always libertarian-biased, point of view.

However, we’ll also be adding to that a mix of other posts. Local issues are particularly important to this, whether on a London basis or from our own contributors’ respective hometowns. Furthermore, as students, we’ll add to the mix goings-on at UCL: in the Society, in the Student’s Union, and in the university generally.

On top of that, we’ll be discussing issues related to the philosophy of libertarianism and to its advocacy in the UK and around the world. In particular, watch out for the ‘This Day in Liberty’ sections, dedicated to commemorating particular events in history important to the advance of freedom, wherever or whenever they have been made.

With all that happening and more, consider Lady Liberty’s Torch well and truly lit. Long may it enlighten the world.