The Pin Factory Blog

Earlier in the year a prominent leftie journalist told me that something like this would happen. I'm afraid I rather choked on my pint and jeered at him at the time, for I didn't believe that something quite so simple and obvious would ever gain traction in Governmental circles.

Elderly people are to be given money to pay for their own care in a move being hailed as one of the most radical welfare reforms in a generation. They will have the right to decide how and where they spend the cash, instead of social workers dictating what help they need to live in their own homes. Personal budgets will also be set up for younger disabled people frustrated by their lack of choice.

We move, at a stroke, from the bad end of Milton Friedman's four ways of spending money to the good side: from spending other people's money on other people, to spending other people's money on yourself (with restricted budgets we get close to the very good end, spending your money on yourself).

Now I know, there are those who think there shouldn't be any form of Welfare State at all but let's look at political reality here shall we? Clearly, people shopping for the help that they need (yes! we've introduced markets to the monolith!) are going to get more of what they want than if they are the passive recipients of whatever the bureaucracy would like to offer them.

'When I was able to control their budget, I shopped around for their care, and interviewed different carers until I found the right person. Her carer now comes at 9am on the dot, but is also happy to take her to the GP, take them shopping and do other jobs that the previous person wasn't allowed to do.'

Hurrah! Trebles all round don't you think? We're finally getting people to see the basic problem with the construction of public sector services in this country. We don't actually have to provide the services from the public sector at all. In fact, we'll get much better services if we don't, if we simply finance them and leave provision to people buying what they desire on open markets.

Now that we've got our foot in that door, when do we start seeing the same happening with the NHS, with education...  

An old man was bragging to his neighbor, "I just bought a new hearing aid. It cost me four thousand dollars, but it's state of the art. It's perfect."

"Really," answered the neighbor "What kind is it?"

"Twelve thirty."

A free society and a free economy rely on trust between individuals to function effectively. As trust breaks down, the clamour for a more invasive state grows.

One of the main reasons for the breakdown of that trust within our society was highlighted by Jane Shilling in The Times last week. A woman claiming to be a new neighbour asked for £7 so that she could charge her electricity key and rescue her children from the darkness of their new home. Ms Shilling gladly handed over £10 with the hope of helping a neighbour in need, based on the promise that the money would be repaid. Upon finding out that this woman and her friend had canvassed the whole street in this manner she is now faced with the dilemma of what to do next time.

Ms Shillings honourable actions reflect how she hopes others would act if she were a similar predicament. The fundamental difference though, between her actions and those of the professional thief she encountered, is that she would return the money. The honest amongst us who unfortunately might find ourselves in a situation where we are at the mercy of the kindness of strangers will now have to accept that a majority of the time we will find that no help is forthcoming.

The selfish actions of a minority have repercussions on the wider community since they destroy the trust that has been built up over time. We are no longer able to act out our natural instinctive behaviour of caring for others in need based on a reflective rationality. We now become cynical of everyone and are deterred from acting for fear of being lied to. The moral compass of our society has been shifted, much for the worse, by those who believe that they have a right to steal whilst praying on our best intentions. Thus society becomes more atomised and moves further from being free.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and Republican presidential hopeful, has enjoyed buoyant support in the key early states in the primary calendar – due in large part to his social conservatism. However, the boost in support for the blues-guitar playing Baptist minister Mike Huckabee has seen some of his popularity ebb away. The main problem seems to be Romney's Mormonism, which troubles many American voters. Last week he sought to put this behind him, with a speech only a few miles from where JFK allayed concerns about his membership of the Catholic Church in 1960.

The thought of a candidate giving a major campaign speech about their religious faith is troubling to many Europeans. However, the word ‘Mormon’ was used only once in the 20-minute speech, in which Romney focused more on the relationship between faith and public life than on his own religious convictions. As Joe Loconte wrote in response to Romney's speech, the purpose of American secularism "is not to quarantine religion from public life, but to protect the religious liberty of people of all faiths, or none." So just as Romney promised not to serve any one religious or interest group while in office, and demonstrated clear enthusiasm for the institutional separation of church and state, he simultaneously promised not to separate America from "The god who gave us our liberty".

Romney went on to tell of the strong admiration he had for every faith he had encountered, and how he wished that aspects of them were present in his own. In his most confrontational moment, he warned of the perils of an established state religion, pointing to Europe where he claimed that magnificent cathedrals had become little more than a "postcard backdrop" thanks to government dominance.

Clearly, the primary goal of this speech was to diffuse Christian concerns about Romney's Mormonism just a month before the primary selection process begins, but it also offered a brave and refreshing explanation of the place for religion in a structurally secular country in which faith remains an important part of many people’s lives. It remains to be seen whether Romney has overcome his doubters, but if he has, the Republican race could be blown wide open.

As ever, the problem with making sophisticated economic arguments. Do politicians agree with your subtlety, understand the nuances, or are they simply appropriating your logic to do the wrong thing?

So what do actual climate scientists think of the Bali Declaration? Something of a curate's egg it appears. 

Who actually is it that homeschools their children ? 

Guido seems to have all of the important news today about Mr. Abrahams . 

This idea of paying councillors when they're voted out of office . Wouldn't this simply be rewarding failure, something so decried when it happens in business? 

A nice three word movie review: although one which, to be honest, could be written without actually having seen the movie in question. 

And finally , aren't MPs supposed to drool over present constituents, rather than potential future ones? Or is this legitimate development of the papparazzi industry?

Various people are being uncomplimentary about the latest ideas for the abolition of freedom detention without trial as announced: constitutionally illiterate for example :

Proposals to extend the limit for pre-charge detention to 42 days are "constitutionally illiterate" as well as dangerous, critics warned yesterday, because proper parliamentary scrutiny would confuse the roles of MPs and judges.

The former attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned that such examination by MPs would be difficult, adding: "I think parliamentary scrutiny is hugely important and one of the great things we have in this country. But it isn't necessarily the right way to deal with individual cases, while they are going on."

At heart the idea is that, in order to make sure that someone isn't either released or charged (that is, they can continue to be kept in jail despite being, legally, entirely innocent), the Home Secretary should ask MPs for permission to keep an individual in custody for further questioning. 

I'm sorry? Politicians hold a vote as to whether a specific individual should be denied his freedom? That's dangerously close to a Bill of Attainder: further, it betrays a gobsmackingly awful understanding of what the "rule of law" actually means. Certainly, politicians get to decide what the law is but it then applies, evenhandedly, to all of us. For politicians to vote on whether that evenhandedness exists or not in individual cases replaces the rule of law with the rule of the mob, not, perhaps, a path we want to go any further down.

I'm reminded of Larry Flynt's words (and I paraphrase) after winning a First Amendment case in the US. If the law protects bastards like me you can be sure that it will protect you too.

Imagine, for a moment, a purely hypothetical: we have a one eyed, hook handed, benefits gobbling, bigamously married preacher, one who incites violence and is of dubious status as a British citizen (yes, this is a hypothetical). The Home Secretary asks for an extension of his detention. Does anyone really think that MPs will vote their consciences? On either the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt? Or will it be the Whips, or, worse, The Sun leader column that decides whether he continues to be denied his freedom?

And if the law will not protect him from politicians seeking votes, will it protect you? 

I'm entirely flabberghasted that (even) the current Home Secretary could think this an advance in freedom, liberty or security. 

A blonde was playing Trivial Pursuit one night.

It was her turn, she rolled the dice and she landed on "Science & Nature".

Her question was, "If you are in a vacuum and someone calls your name, can you hear it?"

She thought for a time and then asked, "Is it on or off?"

Committed to a meritocratic society, many States in America allow nearly anyone with the filing fee and handful of supporters to run for office. This is, of course how a body-building actor and a professional wrestler filled the governorships of California and Minnesota.

In 2008, comedians have taken over as the joke candidates, as Al Franken becomes increasingly serious in his bid for Senator in Minnesota and Steven Colbert’s short presidential campaign dies in South Carolina. Both men, comedians and commentators adored by the left, began their campaigns mocking the process, but ambiguous about their true intentions. Colbert feigned seriousness until the end, but Franken has begun to act like a real candidate and looks more like a serious candidate and threat to Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. However, as he picks up the traits of a classic candidate, one wonders: has Franken taken his candidacy to this level to further mock the others, or is he now seriously considering himself as running for office and unfortunately slipped into the characteristics he once so mocked?

Nevertheless, people frustrated with government originally loved Colbert and Franken because they mocked the process. Once comedians actually join in the fray, they lose their appeal. As Franken’s candidacy becomes more viable and he slips into the traditional candidate image, what more does he have to offer the people?

Support for those who mock the process show the frustration and dissatisfaction of most people with government administration. Comedians are meant to continually poke leaders with a stick, not become them. An attempt like Franken’s shows the problems inherent to government, that even the most stinging commentators will fall in line with the election and governing machine when placed in the position. In reality, the process needs its commentators, because it's so difficult to check the power of government from inside.

After four months here, the time has come to say goodbye to the ASI and return home to the US. Working here has been quite the experience and of what I remember, I'll never forget. I will certainly miss the guys in the office and the slice of English culture I've gotten to know.

I've had a fantastic time exploring London, but now I'm ready to return to small town life in Walla Walla, Washington and complete my undergraduate work at Whitman College. I'm especially looking forward to Senior year when I will stop paying rent on my house and simply take up residence in the library as I attempt to finish my thesis.

Good luck to the ASI and to everyone here!

A fascinating conversation with Arthur Laffer about the Laffer Curve. Yes, it is both obviously true and a little more complex than is often assumed.

Correcting unsound ideas about other economists: no, Adam Smith was not laissez faire. 

This is supposedly about boxing but actually has more to do with the Brits abroad and interactions with Johnny Foreigner than anything else. 

More blog news from America. Netsmith agrees with Dizzy here, whoever invented that phrase should be fired . 

Extremely depressing news about fisheries . At least some politicians have managed to cotton on to the problem: but there's not going to be any action towards the obvious solution. 

No, this might not have been the best idea about food suggestions for the holiday season. 

And finally , film ideas that really were so bad that they didn't get made.