Coalition of the willing

Mark Wadsworth Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:21:56 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Let's look at a list* of some of the main things have been made illegal (or might be made illegal) for no good reason (whether such a ban is actually enforced or not in practice is by-the-by) and the two most stupid traffic regulations:



Smoking in pubs and clubs
Drinking alcohol on public transport
Smoking cannabis
Fox-hunting
Patio heaters
Plastic carrier bags
Taking ecstasy tablets
Brothels
Traffic lights
National speed limit on the motorways and major roads
-----------------
Update:
Allow handguns for sporting purposes
Scrap ID card scheme, national ID database and interviews for passports
Allow local councils to subsidise post offices via a precept on Council Tax, subject to local referenda
Allow trading and collecting ceremonial swords
Allow shops to use pounds and ounces
-----------------
The reason why 'they' get away with it is because the majority of people don't smoke (either tobacco or cannabis); the majority of people don't work in or admit to visiting brothels; didn't used to go fox hunting and so on. But surely, a majority of people would like to at least some of these bans lifted (those particular bans that affect them personally) or to see more humane traffic regulations? OK, there may well be a minority who don't do any of these things, who don't mind being stuck at traffic lights and who are basically total kill-joys, but let's ignore them for now.

To sum up, would there not be any mileage in a political party saying that they'd lift all these stupid bans and regulations, in one fell swoop - lock, stock and barrel?

For sure, there may be hippy dope smokers who support the fox-hunting ban; there may be women who hate traffic lights and quite like plastic carrier bags but have a moralistic aversion to brothels; there may be those who used to enjoy lighting up in the pub who believe (erroneously) that ecstasy is a dangerous drug - but have we not reached the tipping point where all these narrow groups could declare an armistice and all do their own thing and let others get on with doing their own thing?

* Please leave a comment if I've missed anything important off the list!

tags: , , , , , , , , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Coalition of the willing | 30 comments (30 topical)

Re: Coalition of the willing (#1)

by CitizenAndreas on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM GMT

This post would look a lot less idiotic if you removed traffic lights from your list.


Re: Coalition of the willing (#2)

by Mark Wadsworth on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM GMT

As a non-car owner, public transport user and pedestrain, I gave an example of why we shold turn 'em off here


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#9)

by CitizenAndreas on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:54:11 PM GMT

Not convinced I'm afraid..

"They switched off some traffic lights where I live and now the traffic moves more smoothly."

Does not amount to a coherent anti traffic light argument in my book.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#3)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:08:18 PM GMT

I feel that the repeal of all murder/ manslaughter laws, and the mandatary carrying of guns by everyone over 5 years of age would be of benefit to the country.


Re: Coalition of the willing (#4)

by Mark Wadsworth on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:12:43 PM GMT

No, that will never make it onto the list. I was hoping for sensible suggestions, such as (having pondered this) allow lesbians to have IVF, right of anonymity for sperm donors, stuff like that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#5)

by matt1986 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:00:05 PM GMT

An interesting post.

Well i definately agree about drinking on transport, and on cannabis and ecstacy (and all drugs basically). It just seems obvious to me, especially when you're free to drink alcohol and smoke tabacco, that people should be able to get hold of drugs for personal use, in a regulated way which takes money off criminals and breaks the link between crime and taking drugs. I don't see why this would be hard to sell to Middle England either; just argue the police should be set free from pointlessly telling off harmless drug-users to concentrate on catching murderers and rapists.

I don't really have a problem with anything else. I think it's fair to go outside to have a smoke if you're in a public place; no-one else should have to suffer from what you are doing. Fox-hunting is cruel, and arguments about controlling populations are disingenuous. Patio heaters are awful for the environment, and we should cut down on the amount of plastic bags we use. Speed limits save lives; that's as far as my thinking needs to go on that one.

I don't understand what's wrong with traffis lights. Should we have roundabouts everywhere instead?


Re: Coalition of the willing (#7)

by Mark Wadsworth on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:28:11 PM GMT

Matt, a patio heater emits a third as much CO2 per evening as does a normal barbecue, and about as much CO2 as a car does in 15 minutes.

The object of the exercise is not "Are there things on the list to which you object?", the point is "If the ban on whatever it is that you enjoy doing, but which is illegal, were lifted, would you be prepared to do the same thing for those activities of which you do not approve?" 

We, the people, can only make this stick if we keep adding things to the list, not taking them away again.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#10)

by matt1986 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:04:34 PM GMT

Ok, I understand what you are getting at, but I just don't think it's a realistic or appropriate question.

We should take each issue as it comes and consider what the law should be regarding it. For each thing, we should ask how much harm it does to others and try to balance the rights of different people / groups involved etc. So, for instance, in the case of fox-hunting, we should consider the rights foxes have to life and from unneccesary suffering, against the rights human beings have to harm them for their own fun. Then seperately, when it comes to, say, abortion, we should consider the right to life of unborn foetuses against the rights of women to choose what to do with their bodies. I don't think we can just legalise everything in one huge trade-off. And different issues have different levels of importance; we need objective criteria against which we can decide what the law should be.

There may be some mileage in your suggestion for supporters of an extreme anarchist / libertarian party, but that's about it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#11)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:58:38 PM GMT

I have taken each issue as it comes, and have decided that each of the stupid laws I would scrap causes more harm than good. That's my objective criteria.

I could write you a 10,000 word essay with real life examples from other countries where one or the other of the above items are still perfectly legal - or were legal in this country until recently - and where society hasn't broken down as a result.

But to say that it is OK for foxes to be snared, shot or gassed by farmers, but not OK for people to gallivant round the countryside wearing silly clothes, and occasionally, just occasionally, killing a fox means that you have already made up your mind on that issue, and no amount of logic is going to override that.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, left-wingers are more lenient on e.g. cannabis, but very moralising on e.g. fox-hunting, whereas the right-wingers are the other way round. I neither approve nor disapprove of either, and it is irrelevant whether I (or anyone else) approves or disapproves.

The only way to make this stick is for there to be stuff on the list where there's something for everybody, live and let live, etc.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#13)

by matt1986 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:25:07 PM GMT

Issues are all different and require different compromises and policy outcomes. 

A person isn't being inconsistent is she says, like in the example you give, that the smoking of cannibis should be legalised and that fox-hunting should be banned. They could be perfectly logical and compatible beliefs if you believe society should be one in which you should be free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm other people, animals or the environment, or at least not cause harm greater than the overall good done.

In the case of smoking cannabis, it's reasonable to suggest it does little harm to others and is something you do in private which only affects yourself. Therefore the overall positive effects of smoking cannabis outweigh the negative effects, or harm done to others. In this case, it therefore makes sense to grant people the freedom to smoke cannabis. In the case of fox hunting, however, the good that comes out of doing it - having a bit of fun, perhaps keeping fit and socialising - does not outweigh the harm done to foxes. So in this case, it doesn't make sense to grant people the freedom to hunt foxes.

You can argue about the specific cases and my reasoning; I'm sure my bias comes out heavily in the examples I've given. But I hope I've got across what I'm trying to say. Not all freedoms are equally valid. You can't just say, I'll let you hunt foxes if you let me smoke cannabis. They're not equally legitimate claims to freedom. You have to take each case as it comes and then make the right decision. I accept that trade-offs do happen when the law is being made, but this does not mean it is right and that it should happen.

You have to choose between competing freedoms. When you have a person who wants to be free to go to a pub without inhaling smoke, and you have a person who wants to be free to smoke in a pub, you can't say 'live and let live'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#14)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:44:15 PM GMT

Re foxes, numbers please! How many foxes are there in the UK? What is their average life span? How many are gassed, shot, poisoned or trapped by farmers each year? How many were torn apart by hunting dogs? What is your stance on eating meat generally? Do you oppose kosher or halal slaughter? Try and put it in perspective.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#16)

by matt1986 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:04:36 PM GMT

I don't know the exact answers to your questions, but there are a couple of things worth saying.

Firstly, even if there are many other bad things that happen to foxes, making fox-hunting seem minor in comparison, it could still be right to ban fox hunting if, on balance, hunting causes more harm to foxes than not hunting them does. Just because a lot of other bad things happen, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to do anything at all.

Secondly, the specifics of what I said are irrelevant really. I was just trying to say it is possible to have different views about the balance of freedoms on different issues; so, for instance, it's consistent to oppose fox-hunting and still favour the legalisation of cannabis-smoking. This means, to go back to your original point, you will not therefore necessarily be able to form a coalition of those in favour of fox-hunting and those in favour of the legalisation of cannabis. One side might fundamentally disagree with what the other side wants. In my case, although I might want cannabis smoking to be legalised, I might not be prepared for this to happen at the expense of letting people hunt foxes. If both freedoms were granted, I may appreciate being able to smoke cannabis freely but might really hate people hunting foxes. I might think it is more important for foxes to be free from being hunted than it is for me to be free to get pleasure from smoking drugs. So, on balance, I might decide I prefer the law as it is, and have neither freedoms granted, than to get my way on one issue but have to capitulate too much to something I despise.

Again, it doesn't matter about the specifics in each case. I'm just trying to argue it's possible people who want different things still will not want to work together to acheive gaining distinct freedoms. To give another example, those who believe they should be free to smoke in pubs might not want to work to get this freedom alongside people who want to have the freedom to own a gun. So, ultimately, I just don't think you can get people in favour of different things to necessarily work together.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#18)

by Mark Wadsworth on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:09:36 PM GMT

I'm just trying to argue it's possible people who want different things still will not want to work together to acheive gaining distinct freedoms... So, ultimately, I just don't think you can get people in favour of different things to necessarily work together.

You don't need to 'argue' that - you have explained very succinctly how and why successive governments (Lab and Con alike) get away with chiselling away one freedom after another - it is the tyranny of the majority where we end up oppressing ourselves, rather than declaring a Christmas Day 1914 Western Front style truce and leaving each other in peace.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#19)

by matt1986 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:36:33 PM GMT

It's just not true that there are all these potential freedoms out there that the government is denying us, and that if only we could all realise we're all members of minorities in our own way we could join together and push back the oppressive frontiers of the state.

You happen to have a particular conception of freedom, and a belief that everything the government does is auotmatically prescriptive and restrictive. You happen to believe, for example, people should be free to smoke in pubs, without realising some people would prefer to be free from having to be around smokers. In this case, if government prevents smoking in pubs it is protecting some people's freedom and restricting other people's freedom. If it allows it, then, again, it would be protecting some people's freedom and restricting some other people's. 

You can argue your case, but you can't then complain when someone happens to disagree with you. You just don't seem to realise as well as taking away freedoms government can also provide freedoms, and we have to look at each issue to decide what the most appropriate thing to do is. Different people, looking at different issues, will want different levels of governmental intervention to ensure their own conception of freedom in each case is ensured, and people will disagree strongly in different cases about what the right thing to do is.

It's just too simple and naive to try to rally together every apparently-oppressed minority to lead a charge against government and demand once and for all it gives us our freedom back.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#20)

by Mark Wadsworth on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:49:00 PM GMT

Matt, again, you are stating the obvious (and sadly true): "It's just too simple and naive to try to rally together every apparently-oppressed minority to lead a charge against government and demand once and for all it gives us our freedom back" (only I wouldn't call it 'naive' I'd call it 'idealistic'). You might as well ask "Why don't oppressed minorities like gays, ethnic minorities etc gang together?". But hey, factually you are correct. As to smoking in pubs, about a quarter of adults smoke - so what's wrong with local councils auctioning off one smoking licence for everyfour  pubs or clubs? It's a voluntary tax, everybody wins - the council taxpayer, the smokers, the landlords and the non-smokers. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#21)

by matt1986 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:36:32 PM GMT

It's perfectly logical for those in favour of equality for gay people and ethnic minorities to work together, which they do anyway, as, generally, they're working towards the same goal - equal treatment for all individuals regardless of individual traits that harm nobody or nothing else. They have a similar conception of freedom and view of the world, so it makes sense. So if you're arguing these groups should get together then you're argument is legitimate, but pointless - it already happens, and anyone who supports gay rights will invariably support equality when it comes to ethnicity.

But you're suggesting people with fundamentally different views of the world, and of freedom, team up to take on the government. And I'm saying you're never going to get, on the whole, people in favour of fox-hunting siding with people favouring the right to smoke cannabis, because their political ideologies are likely to be fundamentally different. It's just not going to happen. The onus is on you to show why people would get together when their views of what freedom entails probably differ completely.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#15)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:46:33 PM GMT

Re smoking in pubs, jkitleft below suggests quite rightly that this could be dealt with via the tax system. I agree, only my policy would be that local councils auction off a small number of 'smoking licences' to pubs and clubs, let's say sufficient for one in every four pubs or clubs to have a smoking licence. But that's details.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#24)

by Swissnic on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:54:25 AM GMT

I disagree with the smoking ban.  It was implemented too strictly.  Why shouldn't dedicated smoking clubs be excluded from the ban?  Cigar clubs have been killed by this, and I am, sure you wont find any non-smokers there complaining about the smoke.  Also, what is wrong with properly designed smoking rooms in offices, airports, stations etc.  You might as well ban tobacco and be done with it...


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#6)

by jkitleft on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:24:55 PM GMT

I take the JS Mill approach.

I can't see what would become worse if drugs were legalised. I can't see what becomes worse when there are equal gay rights. I can't see what would become worse if we legalised prostitution.


It is hard when in principle, I support gun control. I'm not particuarly fussed about it. The jury is out: in the USA crime is sky-high, but with high gun ownership in Finland, Israel and Switzerland, they see little gun crime.


I also in principle support banning fox hunting: but how do you enforce it? I don't support say, culling of animals. I don't support the legalisation of foxes being ripped to shreds by dogs. But again, it feels like a political issue because it involves toffs. It is low down on my list of priorities.


I can't see anything wrong with metrification. It is pragmatic. It is not 'loony', and the fears of straight banannas have been unfounded.


Also, in principle I support a ban on smoking in public places. Here's my solution. Small businesses that allow smoking should pay 2% more corp. tax, large businesses should pay 5-7% more. Tobacco companies should pay 10% more as a direct tax to the NHS. The ban should be enforced as mandatory in offices etc. but lifted on shisha bars, tobbaconists, cigar bars etc. Only 50%, rather than 25% covering need be required.


I support scrapping ID cards, but am not threatened by a DNA database. I support speed limits and traffic lights.


Re: Coalition of the willing (#8)

by Mark Wadsworth on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:04 PM GMT

Jkitleft, the name of the game is adding things to the list, not taking them away again, I can't possibly argue each one in detail. Neither do I intend to compile a list of 'Things that I like'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#12)

by jkitleft on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:22:11 PM GMT

scrap the Polish potatoes order et al.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#17)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:11:49 PM GMT

I'd love to, only I don't know what that is.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#22)

by Swissnic on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:42:19 AM GMT

I personally disagree with any type of prohibition, and think it just pushes whatever undesirable substance or action into the hands of the criminals to profit from.

Legalise everything.  Then regulate and tax it.

I will choose a couple of the above issues to expand upon.

Fox hunting:  This is an activity that all members of society have participated in for hundreds of years and feel that we should have the right to continue.  I have as much concern for the actual Fox as I do for a Rat, Squirrel or Cockroach.  As a Fox rips apart a pen of chickens, not to eat, but for pleasure, so a Dog or two should be allowed to do the same.

Speed limits: I think speeds limits are a necessary evil, but should be modified accordingly.  The government has no problem with reducing the standard from 30 to 20 mph around schools (I live in a 20 zone and support it), but they refuse to review the motorway speed limit which was indroduced in the 50s/60s when cars had useless drum brakes and no safety features whatsoever.  Most other European countries have limits in excess of 70mph, and Germany's record for fatal car accidents on the autobahn is no worse than ours.  I do feel that the massive fuel inflation we are seeing these days is causing people to drive more economically and therefore slower.  I did a trip from warwich to london at exactly 70mph and got over 50mpg, but the only vehicles I was overtaking were HGV's.  EVERYONE else was driving faster which really makes a mockery of this law.

Marijuana:  In the 19th centuary, Hemp was by far the largest agricultural crop across the world.  It was used for making rope and materials, oil for machinery and later on, fuel for automotive engines, and the begining of plastics production.  Queen Vic enjoyed its medicinal properties as did many others.  Enter Big Oil Companies.  Facing stiff competition from any farmer wanting to produce oil, they lobbied the government to ban hemp.  The Internation Opium Convention in 1912 raised the issue of Indian Hemp and asked it to be investigated. Over the following decades many unfounded claims (e.g. Hemp use leads directly to heroin injection;  Hashish use causes cronic "Hashishism" etc) ensured it was added to the banned substances list on international treaties.  Given that the Big Oil Dictatorship is nearly over, perhaps it is time to rectify a century of ubsurd prohibition of one of the most useful plants known to man, and use its properties in medicine and as a bio-fuel to once again help man's advancement.


Re: Coalition of the willing (#23)

by Swissnic on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:47:34 AM GMT

Sorry Mark - forgot to add to the list.  Heres one...

Please add Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide to the list.  I am pro-choice for the elderly!


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#25)

by Mark Wadsworth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:59:07 AM GMT

Euthanasia will never make it onto the list, or are you being sarcastic? Assisted suicide, seems fair enough.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#27)

by Swissnic on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:36:52 AM GMT

Ummm - don't get you here...  I am not talking murder. 

Euthanasia means "Good Death" and is the ability for one to end there own life, or for another to do give consent for those who are incapable of doing so.  I would like to think that if a family member was in a great deal of pain, and had decided to stop fighting, we would be able to comply with their wishes.  I would hope for the same choice when my time comes too.

Also, people can comit suicide by many forms, so why not let them have a more dignified way to end thing, and without causing the stress and shock to those who find them. 

Again, regulation is important, but I find it wrong that society can and does dictate the course of actions upon which the only or main affect is the individual concerned.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#28)

by Mark Wadsworth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:14:57 AM GMT

OK, I think I may have misunderstood, assisted voluntary suicide is fine by me, I just don't like the word 'euthanasiA'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#26)

by Mark Wadsworth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:00:52 AM GMT

Excellent stuff - legalise, regulate and tax! Thanks for support.


[ Parent ]

Re: Coalition of the willing (#29)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:26:31 PM GMT

Legalise, regulate and (where applicable) tax the following:

Prostitution / brothels
Supercasinos
Voluntary euthanasia
Same-sex marriage
All-day Sunday trading

The others I don't particularly agree with. On the issue of allowing shops to sell in pounds and ounces - fine, providing you'll allow me to drive down the motorway with every sign given in both kilometres and miles. Fair?


Re: Coalition of the willing (#30)

by Mark Wadsworth on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:59:30 PM GMT

NM, that's very helpful. Luckily we already have gay marriage (or is it the silly name 'civil partnership' that offends?), so that's no longer an issue. It's the 'tax' bit that is important - local councils could make a fortune by auctioning off licences for e.g. supercasinos (or any size betting shop, come to that) and brothels.


You say 'you don't particularly agree with' the others, well of course not, most people won't agree with most things on the list (I admit that I don't either, but I ain't telling which), the point is, are there some things that you DO agree with? Answer, I hope, yes.


[ Parent ]

Coalition of the willing | 30 comments (30 topical)