NEW RATIONALITY A PROSPECTUS

Version 1.0

Why? People will inevitably ask the question. And my answer is this: I, and a group of like-minded friends, am passionate about the freedoms we enjoy in the UK but are concerned that, for those who have grown up in a decade where civil rights have all too often lost out to notions of equality and security, liberty is now a dangerously vague concept. Indeed, all too often it seems we have lost the means to even talk about the fundamentals of our society; a tragedy because the freedom to scrutinize is a hard fought and defining characteristic of our nation. This prospectus attempts to set out the core elements of New Rationalist thinking. It is by no means a comprehensive review of the philosophy but does hopefully provide sufficient description to permit application to topics outside of these nine pages. Most of all, I hope you find some agreement with our thinking and perhaps feel greater confidence in your own thoughts as a result. Lastly, lest I be accused of originality, it is important to note that much of this work is influenced by that of others. Most notably these include Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, John Stewart Mill and Adam Smith. My thanks too go to all those who have contributed their thoughts and criticism: Victoria Oakley, Andrew Seden, Chris Mitchell and everyone I have quarreled with on such topics. Justin Halewood, 2011

First and foremost, New Rationals are Liberals The essence of our argument is liberty. We mean liberty in the sense of freedom of humans from coercion by others, whether the arising from the tyranny of public opinion, despotic governments or overbearing armies and police forces. Liberty is the opportunity to succeed or fail, to be rich or poor, fat or skinny. But as an example, because of those for whom the word fat now offends, we are in a position where we cannot discuss many issues without fear of being reviled as sexist, snob, racist, or any other misused term that prevents honest and often factual, opinions being aired. To those people we say: Nobody has the right not to be offended. You do not have the right to prevent opinions that do not limit the freedoms of others. You do not have the right to demand others to speak nonsense in order to protect the ideological bankruptcy by which you are now defined. New Rationality is a restatement of our liberty and defence of the individual idiosyncrasy and free discourse that form the means for maintaining our freedoms. Liberty needs to be remade, rethought and reworked continuously if it is to survive and New Rationalists are at the frontline of this continuous battle. As a result New Rationality is not a composite ideology. There is not one road to becoming a New Rationalist, on the contrary, we understand the individual and society alike to progress only through the continual collision of different ideas and plurality of personalities. We embrace the opportunity for progress and are not absolutist in any belief. We must never be guided by our own identity. Perhaps the only thing we truly believe is that one should not absolutely believe in anything instead always remaining sceptical and inquisitive. In this way, New Rationality is best suited to those who embrace the chaos of life: the need for compromise, bargains and continual revision. But we advocate the approach to everyone regardless of character traits. Embracing change is perhaps New Rationalisms most important departure from Conservatism. Indeed, we oppose those whose preference for stasis would impair progress. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this position is to say that even whilst holding this principle at the core of our thinking, we are prepared to rethink our position on this, or any other belief, should the requisite evidence emerge. Again, we are not ideological but simply a reflection of the best understanding currently available. That is not to say that our decisions must continually be subject to reason; on the contrary, we understand that an expansion of useful knowledge occurs often because the very unpredictability of human action is what leads us to the unkown unkowns. In the words of Oliver Cromwell: man never mounts higher than when he knows not where he is going. New rationalism therefore is not analogous to either political or intellectual conservatism. Rather is advance is centred on the belief that progress is civilization and civilization is progress. But progress cannot be planned!

Value framework So without any clearly defined rules or absolute truths, on what does a New Rationalist base his or her decisions? Firstly, under the umbrella of New Rationality, Humanism is the naturally favoured approach to religion. We believe that this life is the only life we will have and reject religious notions of afterlife; that life is a fluke of nature, not a gift from God. Likewise, we do not entertain claims of supernaturalism, instead trusting in the scientific method to explain or indentify the wonders of the universe. We are as a consequence, Atheists. The absence of any omniscient divinity does not lead us to act amorally; in fact we believe that we can live a more ethical and fulfilling life on the basis of reason, than on outmoded scripture or divisionary preaching. Utilitarianism forms our decision-making framework. In this way, we understand an action to be right when the positive consequences of executing that action - in terms of human atoms of pleasure - outweigh the negatives, on an aggregated basis. Morals are unnecessary in this system in most cases they can be taken simply as old opinions. We believe society must primarily be controlled by the invisible hand of capitalism that is the collective solutions achieved within markets made up by millions of individuals pursuing their own self interests. This helps to ensure excessive power is not concentrated in the hands of any one individual or group, instead being dispersed amongst the individuals participating in the market-based economy. Whilst we recognise the market failures that led to the recent recession, we do not agree with the current trend towards socialism as a backlash to the banking crisis. If, in the interest of equality, we were to turn society into a homogenous organization built and directed according to top-down and bureaucratic systems of central planning, we would only extinguish the very forces that shaped the individual human minds that planned it. We oppose intrusive governments. Instead, we recognise a circle around every individual human being, which no external power, be that of one, of a few, or of the many, ought to be permitted to overstep. This reserved territory should include all that part which concerns only the life, whether inward or outward, of the individual, that does not affect the interests of others. Such liberty is necessary for the health of society, but is accompanied by responsibility for the individual. We do therefore believe in accountability by the application of law, set by a democratically elected legislature whose primary purpose is to reconcile the evils of excessive individual liberty and unlimited governmental authority. The first and penultimate sentences of this paragraph illustrate a balance that must be continually reforged.

Freedom of speech From within the reasonable parameters set out above, we are strong supporters of freedom of speech and expression. A particular threat we have observed is the preference for avoiding hurtful observations in favour of those more emotionally appealing, otherwise known as political correctness. We believe that whilst politically correct opinions can help those who purport to hold them feel virtuous compared to those who speak honestly, it often leads to an incorrect analysis (if any) of real problems and in turn, leads to suboptimal outcomes for society. Whilst this is a particular trait of Leftist thinking, holding a contrary position does not place New Rationalists on the Right. We are sensible and three dimensional, not ideologues or extremists. A few examples of our thinking are given below. Perhaps these criticise minorities that some feel deserve protection from scrutiny. But we believe better understanding of these issues will aid the production of solutions: Issue Women's pay less than men's Climate change Racial tension PC Opinion Sex discrimination Fossil fuel consumption BNP Factual Opinion and different work/life choices, childcare breaks and population explosion and Islamic youths

Adapted from The Retreat of Reason, Civitas, 2006 We trust a more factual approach to such issues will foster accountability as people and communities protect their collective and individual reputations. That said, discrimination must be actively resisted, particularly in the labour market where equality of opportunity and social mobility are of utmost importance to energizing of society (more on this below). To some, holding both positions may seem a contradiction, but again, we view this as a balance we are obliged to continually renew relative to personal experience, and other credible evidence. It is not at present racist to say that Bangladeshis are, in general, worse drivers than Britons (42 fatalities per 1000 vehicles compared to 4). Neither is it sexist to say that at present, women are generally more domesticated than men (do I need to reference anything here?). Facts are often unpalatable but that does not mean we should not discuss them, for this would only breed a sanitised method thought and discourse wherein differences are neither acknowledged nor embraced. The current trend to keeping our heads in the sand and our fingers in our ears, lest we might offend, is actually counterproductive to the expression of differences such behavior is intended to protect.

Prince Phillip Racist or New Rationalist?

To a World Wildlife Fund meeting: "if it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and flies but is not an aeroplane and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." In the same vein, we view state enforced multi-culturalism as a divisionary concept that leads only to compartmentalized communities and competing special interest groups. Instead, we are supporters of applying a Muscular Liberalism to the development of British culture. As Liberals we must take account of our duty to defend our freedoms from infringement by religion, industry or government, whether from the Right or the Left. The UK is the beneficiary of legislation (Habeas Corpus as the foundation stone) and democratic institutions (elected representation, separated judicial and legislative functions, central banking etc) that afford every citizen a voice in the swirling consciousness of our society. But it is only through this Liberalism that we each enjoy such influence. We must not allow the defining quality of this Liberalism, tolerance, to enable others to chip away at this achievement. We believe that by separating political views from economic activities, the impersonal nature of truly free and healthily competitive markets stands as the most important force in preventing barriers imposed on the basis solely of race, religion, age or any other uncontrolled characteristic. For instance, the typical anonymity of labor inputs (who made the bread you ate today?) and relative disadvantage of businesses that make decisions on the basis of anything other than productive efficiency (narrow recruitment strategies limiting pools of talent, for instance) both ensure free markets should automatically drive out discrimination. It is this rather than equality legislation that provides the greatest leveling force in society. The role of government in this regard should be limited to rooting out collusive behavior such as price fixing, which, in the absence of normal cost pressures, lessens the threat non-productive policies pose to competitive advantage, and hence creates a platform for mutually supporting coordination between firms engaging in discriminatory practices.

Education In areas of education, we rationally recognise the realities of the current English education system. For instance, we are sufficiently detached from personal experience and subsequent self-deception (many of the early NRs were educated at state schools) to recognise the difference in quality between privately and statefunded educational experiences (privately educated children are four times more likely than state pupils to get straight As at A-level, and more than three times as likely to go to university). We understand the relative dominance of fee-paying schooled graduates in the professions as, primarily, a reflection of their stronger academic credentials in comparison to those with state educations. We view private schooling, in the main, to be the reward for parents who have worked to provide their children with the best possible start, forming an integral part of the incentive structure within an economy. At the same time, we desire liquid social mobility to help support the aspirations of those most likely to profit from an advanced education. This is different from an egalitarian policy of equalising the prospects of all children from all backgrounds and of all abilities on the contrary, we view visible and purposeful differentiation between pupils on the basis of performance as the most important stimulus to academic (and non-academic) achievement. In this regard, we are proponents of hierarchical class arrangements, honest feedback (return the word fail to teachers vocabularies) and class/house league systems, for example. Furthermore, schools must not be able to adopt subjects, guide student choices and select exam boards in the interest of inflating institutional results. Fixing the yardstick will help to ensure every state-schooled pupil is given the opportunity to accurately compare themselves to their fee-paying contemporaries . We believe changes such as these in the state sector will provide pupils with a greater chance of fairly winning places at the top universities, closing the quality gap between those from fee-paying and non-fee paying backgrounds and improving social mobility by opening access to the top professions and salaries. It will then remain the role of government to prevent university places being awarded unfairly, with decisions made solely on the basis of academic and extra-curricular performance. This is just one example of a New Rationalist approach to education there are of course many other areas to which the philosophy can be applied.

Equality Most of what we strive for are things we want because other people already have them. Inequality of material living standards is therefore vital in forcing progress. Only by purposefully avoiding any state-backed guarantee of providing something of a universal average standard is the forward momentum of economic development maintained. Redistributive policies, although to some extent required to protect the vulnerable, have the potential to strike at the heart of capitalism private property rights. As seen previously in the Eastern Bloc or Soviet Union, arbitrary wealth equalization, whilst sometimes demanded by a disappointed underclass, inevitably leads to a workforce blighted by insecurity and melancholy; a major barrier to economic development in the long run. Correspondingly, the successful economic reforms implemented in China since the late 1970s and early 1980s demonstrate that inequality simultaneously enhances the average, as well as increases the range of, living standards experienced by society at large. It is important to understand that leaders in a fair market-based economy beat an upwards path for others to follow, rather than hoarding a disproportionate fraction of wealth it is not a zero-sum game. Yet we are faced with a dilemma, for rational enquiry tells us there is such a thing as too large a gap between rich and poor. In particular the combination between the income pyramids and electoral systems of many capitalist countries enable wealth to confer political privilege that can be used to unfairly disadvantage others. Indeed, corruption within market capitalism is comparable to the misguided attempts at egalitarianism in forming a disincentive to the efforts of the multitude. By protecting our political systems from corruption, we ensure the opportunity for wealth may be lost as well as gained. Furthermore, we acknowledge evidence that excessive inequality can lead to an erosion of trust and increased anxiety as the differences between rich and poor widen. As previously indicated, we acknowledge a point at which the decline in the social prosperity of a country outweighs the economic returns of inequality, and applying the utilitarian methodology, find this to be calculable by an electorate of New Rationals, who may then express this balance through political preferences.

The Environment That climate change is a scientific certainty is not a New Rational position. Instead, we understand its existence as holding sufficient degrees of certainty and risk to warrant action prioritized above all other activities conducted in the collective interest of humanity. Our acceptance of this, even when running against the maintenance of personal freedoms, reflects the inescapable fact that we rely upon the planet for our very existence. We do not reject scientific evidence simply because we do not like the results. We believe the most effective force to tackling climate change is also its cause. The developed worlds rapid economic growth and attendant rise in GHG emissions has only been made possible by securing the economic freedom of market participants. It is the same market forces that now must work to decouple economic activity from hydrocarbon fuel consumption in such time as further irreversible damage to the atmosphere is avoided. There are numerous mechanisms for achieving this, perhaps most promisingly, through the state-sponsored introduction of a market-backed price for carbon emissions, forcing firms to meet the real costs of this externality. Alongside these decoupling efforts, we must acknowledge the often ignored side of the equation, population growth. Worldwide, every four days human population rises by 1 million. We argue for efforts that reduce the rate of growth, or perhaps more preferably, instigate a decline such that the pressure upon natural resources is reduced. At the very minimum, a rational approach to discussing the limits of our planet is required.