|
Written by Alex Williams
|
|
Sunday, 11 November 2007 |
"Never has so much been paid by so many for so little"
That should be the government's clarion call as they plough ahead with their preposterous ID card scheme. Latest government cost estimates put the scheme's cost at a burgeoning £5.6bn. Given the inauspicious history of government IT projects, that is undoubtedly a very conservative estimate. And it remains to be shown exactly how it will impact the risk of terrorism in the slightest.
Rather than concentrating on basic issues that could easily deliver a safer nation – such controlling the UK's borders so the security services know who is coming in and who is going out – the government seemingly prefers to opt for snazzy new schemes like ID cards, regardless of whether they will do any good. In an era of style over substance, the eye-catching initiative is king.
As time progresses, the economic price of this approach to government is becoming apparent, but no cost prediction can warn of the risks to our civil liberties. Britain is of its civil libertarian history, with a tradition of common law and negative rights. Thus when Liam Byrne declared this week that "ID cards will become a part of the fabric of British society" he demonstrated the government's essential problem – it just doesn't understand what makes Britain tick. The notion of a land in which a policeman can at any point stop and ask us for 'our papers', where our activities are recorded on a central database and where our every move is tracked, is as alien to the British social fabric as is possible.
As the costs – both concrete and innumerable – of this scheme become more and more apparent, one can only pray that this white elephant is put to sleep before it is too late. |
|
Written by Dr Eamonn Butler
|
|
Monday, 29 October 2007 |
"Verbal and physical abuse of staff will not be tolerated," shouted the
sign in the Post Office – which then went on to list the dire penalties
that would be imposed on transgressors. I'm glad the Post Office does
not allow its employees to be assaulted with impunity. But the sign
makes me glum for three reasons.
First, it indicates that liberal ideas haven't penetrated very far. In
a liberal society, people should just know that they've no right to
inflict violence on others – just as others have no right to inflict
violence on them. But then we have a state that allows majorities to
bully minorities and actually celebrates the fact by calling it
'democracy'. It denies bars the right to let customers smoke, it
outlaws drugs that do no harm to anyone but the user, it demands we
separate out our rubbish even though we know recycling is a waste of
our time – and if you don't comply, you’re judicially kidnapped and
held in jail. No wonder people in such a state think that violence is
not just tolerable, but perfectly normal.
Second, I'm glum that officialdom thinks we must be constantly reminded
of what is legal and acceptable. The Church of England was rightly
outraged by the regulation that it had to disfigure the walls of its
ancient buildings with no smoking signs. People know that they’re not
supposed to smoke in church, nor to pocket the contents of the
collection plate, nor to shout loudly into their mobile phones during
prayers. They don't need a sign to tell them so. But of course our
bullying officials need a sign – so that they can smile smugly, as they
pass St.Mary's, that their latest assault on the minority is actually
hitting its target.
Third, I'm glum because I know why people are driven to violence in
post offices and other public-service buildings. Because these
organizations are state monopolies, to whom customers are a necessary
inconvenience. Customer service is unnecessary because people have
nowhere else to go: and when customers get frustrated, they quite
naturally get a bit intemperate. The sign tells them that this is their
fault, not the fault of the monopolist. Another smug smile as the
shutter comes down and the argument is terminated. Properly competitive
public services would be so keen to stay on the right side of their
clients that there would be fewer fizzing customers in the first place.
Then, perhaps, these dispiriting signs could be binned.
|
|
Written by Tim Worstall
|
|
Monday, 29 October 2007 |
Two markedly different views of Gordon Brown's recent speech on liberty. Matthew D'Ancona thinks it cunning and learned while Henry Porter subjects it to hoots of derision .
I side with Porter here, indeed, given the similarities between simian
and human nature, I'm surprised not to see the extension from hoots to
bottom baring and faeces slinging (although I have no doubt some blog
somewhere is doing exactly that).
The way in which Brown has the wrong end of the stick is I think summed up in this line recorded by D'Ancona:
"Precious as it is," he said on Thursday, "liberty is not the only value we prize and not the only priority for government."
Well, no, of course liberty isn't the only priority for government.
It's not a priority of any kind at all for government, not even an
interest. Governance would be a great deal simpler if we were all
monitored all the time, had barcodes stamped on our foreheads, were
only allowed to act in a small number of authorised ways and did only
what we were told to.
Liberty is of course the opposite of all of those things and thus
liberty and the priorities of government are in constant tension:
almost opposites of each other. If we're going to start the debate
about civil liberties, about a written constitution, from this
fallacious point then we're never going to get to the real point of
either of them.
A constitution tells us what the State may not do to us. It describes
the civil liberties that we enjoy, which may not be taken from us,
whatever the priorities of government. It absolutely is not about what
we may do, it is about what they may not do to us. And as the sad and
violent history of the 20th century tells us, if we forget that the
State is the most dangerous enemy of our liberty then we'll have
neither freedom nor security, nor perhaps will we deserve either.
|
|
Written by Tim Worstall
|
|
Friday, 19 October 2007 |
John Kampfner of the New Statesman has a piece in The Telegraph:
While all three parties seek to colonise similar ground on
issues such as tax and public services, perhaps the most fertile and
important battle has yet to be fought, between those who value
individual rights and those who wish to sacrifice them on the altar of
the state.
Yes, this is the most important battle – indeed, it has been for
centuries. Which should come first? Those individual rights or the
power of the State? What should be our yardstick by which we measure a
policy or a suggested one? I don't claim to be a political philosopher
but a reasonable outline to me would be as follows...
There are some things that we do indeed require the power of the State
to do. Obvious examples would be raising taxation to pay for defence,
or criminal justice.
Then there are those tasks which must be done collectively but do not
require that monopoly of violence which the State claims. Companies,
cooperatives, mutual societies, the Boy Scouts, churches... almost all
of 'society' is organized in this way.
Thirdly we have those things which are for the individual alone to
decide: the consensual use of gonads, whether for pay or play, the
ingestion of whatever substances take one's fancy, one's diet....
Given these three classes, our yardstick should be that anything that
could be in the third group should be: if it cannot be it should be in
the second, if that is not possible, only then should we bring the
State into play.
There is a name for those who think that the ordering should be
reversed: Statists or authoritarians. Just as there is a name for those
who broadly follow my hierarchy: liberals. Kampfner is correct in that
this is the great battle, I'm just unsure as to why he thinks this
battle is as yet unjoined. What does he think all the Hayekians,
Friedmanites, even us here at the ASI, have been banging on about for
decades?
|
|
Written by Tom Clougherty
|
|
Wednesday, 17 October 2007 |
According to the BBC, the largest ever UK study into obesity has concluded
that "individuals can no longer be held responsible for obesity and
government must act to stop Britain 'sleep-walking' into a crisis."
Although the authors admitted there was scant proof that any
anti-obesity policy would actually work, they insisted that 'something
must be done'. Don't they always...
Their top recommendations included increasing employer responsibility
(why?), "targeting" those most at risk and staging "early life
interventions" (sinister), controlling high calorie foods (of course),
and "making towns more physically demanding".
That last one is particularly barmy – what exactly do they have in
mind? Getting rid of motorised transport? More hills? Obstacle courses
on pavements? How long is it going to be before we're all lining up at
6am to do our mandatory, state-controlled exercises for the good of the
country?
Government action is not the solution to obesity. Indeed, government
interference is already at the root of the problem. Socialized
healthcare, for instance, prevents people from bearing the full impact
of their lifestyle choices and undermines personal responsibility for
health. If people had to buy private health insurance in the
marketplace, factors like weight would be factored into premiums and
people would have a far greater incentive to look after themselves.
The other big problem is the cost of food –it's often cheaper to buy a
Big Mac than it is to buy fresh, healthy ingredients and prepare a
well-balanced meal. But how much cheaper would fresh produce be if it
weren't for our farm subsidies and agricultural tariffs? If we want
good food to be cheaper, free trade is the obvious way forward.
So as usual, more freedom and more responsibility is the right answer. More government is not.
|
|
Written by Dr Eamonn Butler
|
|
Thursday, 04 October 2007 |
London's police are being prosecuted for their shooting of terrorism
suspect Jean Charles de Menezes. Trouble is, they are being prosecuted
for risking his (and the public's) health and safety.
The 'double jeopardy' rule was adopted centuries ago as a way of
protecting citizens from tyrannical governments bringing them to trial
over and over in the hope that at least one jury might convict. We
compromised it a while back, allowing private prosecutions – with a
lower burden of proof – even if a criminal prosecution had failed: so
you are found not guilty, but the alleged victim still pursues you for
compensation. More recently, we deliberately suspended the rule in
cases of murder when new evidence could be found. More recently still,
you can be hauled back into court on the charge that you curtailed the
'human rights' of the alleged victim.
And now – if you are a public official at least – it seems that you can
be prosecuted for compromising health and safety law during the
incident in question. On balance I would say that terrorists are a
bigger risk to our health and safety than the police, so maybe we
should cut the Met some slack. But the real point is that there are at
least different five ways you can now be hauled back to court over the
same allegation.
In these supposedly democratic times we're not exactly at the mercy of
tyrants; but we are at the mercy of politicians and prosecutors who are
pushed into illiberal actions by the pressure of the media and the
public. And that's a form of tyranny too.
|
|
Written by Alex Williams
|
|
Friday, 21 September 2007 |
Europeans have been given a strong lesson in democracy this week – by a
group of Burmese monks, who in their hundreds marched on the revered
Shwedagon Pagoda temple in the third consecutive day of protests
against the military government of Burma. Staring a brutal record of
subjugation and assault in the face, these fearless spiritual warriors
made a stand for global freedom.
Meanwhile, in Brussels – the throbbing heart of European
'democracy' – a protest against the creeping growth of Islamic
fundamentalism in Europe has been banned for fear that it might incite
violent reprisals from extremist groups. It would appear that for city
officials in Brussels, freedom of speech has become less valuable than
the placating of Sharia fundamentalists.
While a brave group of religious elders is seeking to advance the
cause of liberty under one of the darkest regimes on earth, certain
European politicians are treading the old path of appeasement at the
cost of our freedom of expression. In the words of Ronald Reagan
"freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction", and it
would seem that the time has come for all Europeans who value liberty
to reaffirm its place in western civilization, as we watch in awe the
courageous few who seek to establish it against hostile resistance
abroad.
|
|
Written by Tim Worstall
|
|
Saturday, 25 August 2007 |
Alerted by Gary Marshall I find that the police now have new powers, as of Tuesday. Under the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006
they are now able to ban anyone from anywhere. Really: if you
"represent a risk of disorder" you can be issued with a notice by any
uniformed constable, the terms of which are that you must leave,
possibly by a prescribed route, and not return to the area for up to 48
hours. The penalty for disobeying this is a fine of up to £ 2,500.
Now we know what is meant by this: those who either fired up on
alcohol (for it refers to alcohol related disorder) or the worse for
wear are to be got out of an area until they calm down or sober up. But
it's an absurdly broad provision (and I can see no reference to any
system of being able to appeal against such a direction) for the test
is "likely...to cause or contribute to" such alcohol related disorder.
So you're banned from an area simply because, in the opinion of one
policeman, you might, ooh, just as an example, be found to be black
near where the BNP is having a drink?
Of course, that's not what was intended, nor what will happen at
first: but who is willing to bet their continued liberty to walk down
the street, innocent of any offence, on that always being true?
It's actually even wider than that :
(8) In this section “public place” means—
(a) a highway; or
(b) any place to which at the material time the public or any
section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right
or by virtue of express or implied permission;
and for this purpose “place” includes a place on a means of transport.
So when you have the neighbourhood barbie, or the Christmas drinks for
the people in your street, the police now have the power to ban anyone
they like from your garden or house. Even if you have given them
express permission to enter.
How did we get here?
|
|
Written by Tim Worstall
|
|
Sunday, 12 August 2007 |
I will admit to a little surprise that the website drugs.gov.uk
is not devoted to the remarkable way in which proto Cabinet Ministers
are seemingly immune to the charms of THC. Surely such a remarkable
occurence, that all currently there who did smoke cannabis didn't enjoy
it is worthy of research?
But no, the site is actually home to the usual wibble about drugs are bad, m'kay? Try this consultation paper : a highlight (yes, a highlight!) is that Class A drug use is stable. There is, however, one area of interest. Over here
, they are actually asking for your views. So, may I ask you to both
proffer your views and spread the word to others who might wish to
offer theirs?
As the radical progressive liberal that I am (radical: address the root
causes please, progressive: Govt can indeed do things, including get
out of the way, liberal: Smith, Ricardo and Mill, they're our boys!) of
course I have argued that the entire problem will be solved (in so far
as the desire of human beings to get blitzed can be "solved") by
legalization.
It is possible that you are so misinformed as to disagree with this view in which case can I urge you to read this from Milton Friedman?
The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the
military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a
whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation
worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining
the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.
You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is
devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs
are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young
people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged
among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the
public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end
you seek to achieve.
Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor
are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is
demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate
through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene
profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords;
illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials;
illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they
are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft
and assault.
Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts
that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike.
Even if that doesn't convince you, would you still like to tell them
what you think? And do remember to be polite, it really doesn't do to
insult the servants.
|
|
Written by Aeon McNulty
|
|
Thursday, 05 April 2007 |
I'm not necessarily against the use of surveillance cameras -
especially in dangerous areas - but these new devices fitted with
loudspeakers will not be used to prevent violent crime; they cannot.
They will be used to badger, rebuke and embarrass the public for
perceived anti-social behaviour. It will begin with littering but it
will rapidly and inevitably expand to cover illegal parking, smoking,
environmentally "unfriendly" behaviour and anything else that our
overlords feel, in their infinite wisdom, we shouldn't be doing.
If, at some point in the future, I am suddenly harassed by the
grating and horribly disembodied sound of some whiney, safely faceless
bureaucrat with a superiority complex, or a recorded child's voice
selected to cause me embarrassment, I will do my civic duty and
enthusiastically smash the wretched thing to pieces. I expect I will
not be alone.
I think it's singularly appropriate to give George Orwell the last word:
"The telescreen was giving forth an ear-splitting whistle which
continued on the same note for thirty seconds. It was nought seven
fifteen, getting-up time for office workers. [...] 'Thirty to forty
group!' yapped a piercing female voice. 'Thirty to forty group! Take
your places, please. Thirties to forties!' Winston sprang to attention
in front of the telescreen, upon which the image of a youngish woman,
scrawny but muscular, dressed in tunic and gym-shoes, had already
appeared. 'Arms bending and stretching!' she rapped out. 'Take your
time by me. ONE, two, three, four! ONE, two, three, four! Come on,
comrades, put a bit of life into it! ONE, two, three four! ONE two,
three, four!...' "
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
|
|
Written by Tom Clougherty
|
|
Tuesday, 03 April 2007 |
People's attitude towards the police is perhaps one of the saddest
indictments of the modern British state. It wasn't long ago that Sir
Robert Peel's famous maxim, "The police are the public and the public
are the police", still held true. Police were regarded as benevolent
authority figures and seen as valuable members of local communities.
How things have changed.
Distrust and derision of the police has become remarkably widespread,
and not just among society's more 'criminal' elements. The general
public has become increasingly fed-up with the police service – seeing
them primarily as enforcers of the nanny state. A recent survey for the
Taxpayers' Alliance confirms this: most people were unable to name a
single local police officer and believed that the police were more
concerned with targeting motorists (and raising revenue) than with
tackling crime. The steady infringement of our traditional liberties
has hardly helped matters, often setting the police in opposition to
the public they are meant to serve.
This problem has not escaped the politicians' notice. Writing in today’s Telegraph,
Nick Herbert announced the publication of "Policing for the People" by
the Conservative Party's police reform taskforce. Drawing inspiration
from the success of Rudy Giuliani's 'broken windows' policing strategy
in New York, the taskforce aims to reconnect the police with the public
and establish real accountability to local communities.
The report calls for directly elected police commissioners to replace
police authorities, to make the police more responsive to the concerns
of local citizens. Communities would get a new "right to policing" – to
be exercised through regular beat meetings with local officers.
Injecting local, democratic pressure into policing is undoubtedly a
good thing. It would force the police to focus on the concerns of the
people they serve and not on those of distant Whitehall administrators.
It would also create a strong and lasting incentive to cut crime.
Madsen's piece today notes that for all the fine political talk of
civic responsibility and stronger communities, there seems to be a lack
of actual policies to encourage these ends. The Conservatives' police
reform proposals might just be a rare exception to this observation.
|
|
|
