Its title is a The Wall Street Journal The story two days ago was unequivocal: “Lease Truss puts libertarians in power in UK and back out quickly.” Even if I find Miss Truss more attractive than any recent British Prime Minister (including the previous one of course), which is not difficult, WSJ Its claims and implications seemed highly dubious.
The establishment’s satisfaction with the departure of the new prime minister has not allayed these doubts as they generally struggle to separate libertarianism from pragmatism. The WSJ Report:
“That libertarian outlook is unlikely to return to the UK for some time,” predicted Charlie Bean, former deputy governor of the Bank of England. “That view has been pretty much blown out of the water by the events of the past few weeks.”
A general assumption for individual freedom probably better defines libertarians. If you include classical liberals, their tent is not a small tent. But it’s clear that no one in the tent wants anything to do with government price controls (either floors or caps). Even Leviathan can deal with emergencies in less destructive ways. Miss. The Truss government announced caps on gas and electricity prices, which should be enough to negate its independence label. But some people don’t seem to understand this.
Since my knowledge of British politics is limited, I wanted to double-check my intuitions. I asked Mark Brady, a longtime libertarian who teaches economics at San Jose State University and a careful student of his former country’s affairs:
Do you agree that his resignation is a setback for libertarian ideas? Was he a libertarian? How do we square this with his plans to regulate gas and electricity prices?
Mark briefly answered my three questions:
In short, no and no. Easily, since he is not a libertarian.
again WSJ Article, No, he did not bring independence to power in the UK