Liberty Alone

Apparently we cannot be held responsible for what we eat, the state must intervene to stop us getting fat.

This is one of the most obscene things I’ve read in a long time, but its just the continuing infantalisation of people. You cannot be trusted to choose a school for your children, or to spend your money as you wish, now you cannot choose what to eat apparently.

Not that this is that far from what some LibDems have said. Going back to the school dinners debate on whether children should be forced to eat school dinners, apparently poor people cannot choose between free school dinners and a packed lunch for their children so they must be forced to feed their children ‘properly’.

There is no reason for messing in people’s lives like this. Costing the NHS is no reason, the NHS is not worth losing more liberty over (its already stolen enough liberty as it is), the economy is no reason - if people become economically active through obesity then don’t support them in this it is their fault (aside from the minority of cases where a medical condition is responsible).

These authoritarian meddlers can just fuck off and leave us alone to eat what ever we like.

(anyone else confused by the ‘crisis’ of size-zero models and the ‘crisis’ of obesity?)

I seem to have raised the ire of Cllr Tim Kent by calling his proposal to force children to eat healthy school meals.

There is so much wrong with this I don’t really know where to start.

Firstly, in response to his blog post, I didn’t recognise any dig at Jamie Oliver and I certainly don’t care about Jamie Oliver. He’s an irritating TV chef, that’s about it.

Now to get onto the idea of compulsory school meals and why it is illiberal and authoritarian.

This is a coercive measure. It is seeking to force people to act in a particular way ‘for their own good’. This is generally accepted by liberals to be wrong. JS Mill stated this very succinctly:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

The natural retort to this in this case is that its fine for adults, but these are children, they don’t have the ability to make sensible choices yet, so its fine for the government to do this for children.

This is a very worrying idea. It call for the furtherence of the removal of children from their parents to the state. Children are not fully responsible for themselves, that much is true, but the responsibility lies with parents. It is the parents’ right to choose what their child eats. To take such decisions away from the parents is to remove the parents even further from the raising of their child. It furthers the collectivisation of children which is a very dangerous trend. John Hemming MP is documenting and campaigning to prevent the current abuses of the state’s power over parents of children, do we really want to extend such power?

The final defense of the position comes from a collectivist and utilitarian point of view. It claims that it is best for the long run of society and lessen costs in the NHS.
What is best for ’society’ (whatever that is in this case) is not sufficient argument for government intervention. People themselves must choose to act or not. That is the liberal way. The collective good is not a liberal justification since it can run counter to the rights of the individual (which in this case it does).
As for cost savings in the NHS this again is no justification for action. To take this desire for savings towards an extreme, perhaps it would be best to steralise people who it is determined won’t feed their children ‘properly’? An appeal to saving costs is an excuse for illiberal measures by government to try and dig itself out of a hole of its own creation.

I hope I have shown that this measure is illiberal. Individual choice is at the heart of liberalism, this removes freedom, liberty and choice. As is typical of these sorts of proposals, it resorts to arguments of collective good and utility.

As for being authoritarian, well, this would be the government using its authority and power to force people into conforming with its ideals. That’s authoritarian in my book.

It seems everything is depressing for liberals at the moment.
We have the smoking ban infringing on property rights.
We have the EU advocating internet censorship and looking towards China for ideas.
The new Criminal Justice Bill seeks to make ‘offensive images’ illegal - no matter how they were created. This is now well into the realms of thought crime.
That beacon of freedom, the USA, is sliding ever more towards authoritarianism, following our descent.
The US congress has failed to back opening up immigration more and is adopting an ever more protectionist stance (more proof that the Democrats are no more liberals than the Republicans).
There’s the usual calls for ever more power to detain without charge and suspend habeas corpus.
There’s an increase in intolerance and bigotry even within the Anglican Church.
Not to mention long term concerns about ID cards, state surveillance through traffic cameras and road charging, the ever increasing state and its increasing theft of money through taxation and regulation.

About all that is going right is that we’re not in France, Russia or Zimbabwe.

There are two things to fear from climate change.
Firstly the changes in the environment and the effects they have. This is what most people focus on.
Secondly the political uses to which fear of climate change is being put. This is far more worrying to me, much of the rhetoric is centred around authoritarianism.

Too much of the debate on climate change is focused upon hysteria and bad science in the media. The debate is framed as ‘greens’ vs ‘deniers’. This polarises the debate and prevents good science, which flourishes upon vigorous debate and the falsification of models.

A classic example is the IPCC report which says that climate change is driven by human action, but has also reduced its estimates of the effects of climate change. The press report this as being final and we’re all doomed, something which the report does not claim.
It is a scientific report, it is not final, it is not certain. The evidence is still being collected, new models are being developed, the science is not finished, it never is. The effects may be more or less than those the report suggests, but the latest evidence as presented by the report suggests smaller effects than were previously thought of.
The media, and the green movement however will not countenance any scientific debate. Witness the fuss over the AEI offering money for scientists to write essays on climate change policy and studies of what models are effective. This could run counter to the received wisdom, so was jumped upon as Exxon Mobil offering money to scientists to deny climate change (the fact that this is not what was asked and that Exxon Mobil didn’t appear to have had any influence in this is apparently besides the point). You are now not allowed to criticise the received wisdom of catastrophy.

Scarily, the green movement doesn’t even seem to take notice of the content of reports like the IPCC’s report. Localism is a great cry of the greens, anti-globalisation is their staple, and anti-technology rhetoric is common. Both the IPCC and Stern however report that the best scenario is to increase the amount of globalisation and innovation whilst a regression to localism would in fact produce worse climate change.
This doesn’t stop the green movement claiming the opposite however. Ideology seems to be trumping science.

So many suggestions for solutions rest upon collectivist principles of state control and authoritarianism. For our own good naturally. This is a dangerous trend, for us as well as the environment. The collectivist states in the past have had the worst effect on the environment and state intervention through restrictions led to the popularity of SUVs in the US - a measure to help the environment ended up harming it.

Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been lauded as a great film, yet its scientific basis is suspect at best. Peer review played no part. Yet there is no criticism of it because of that.
Greenpeace is not criticised for hiring scientists to promote its views, why should other organisations be criticised for that? Its not as though other scientists will not review the research and criticise it.
It reminds me of Galileo. He made some claims which went against received wisdom and he was persecuted, however he was correct. Others have made claims against the received wisdom and they were disproved and lie mostly forgotten.

We desperately need sensible debate about the science and the policy, for the planets sake and for our own sakes and those of our children.
Climate change does present a massive challenge, but hysteria, one-sidedness and hyperbole do not help, only sensible debate can.

We must not let concern for the environment or fear of climate change lead us to authoritarianism in the same way concern about poverty did with socialism, or the way this government is attempting to with fear of terrorism. We must stand by our freedom and liberty and promote good environmental measures which are compatible with them.

Green liberalism is about sensible debate and refusing to give up our freedoms whilst sharing a concern for the environment. It is not about caving in to fear and repression. We must develop a truly liberal response to climate change, one which leaves people free to act and live their lives without repression and without fear.

I’ve just heard Matthew Taylor (Blair’s ex-advisor not the LibDem MP) on the radio talking about trying to include people in local government and politics.

He misses the point entirely, he keeps on talking about ‘persuading people to act wisely’. Why should government persuade people to act wisely? How on earth can government decide what that is?
This is the same old paternalistic authoritarianism hiding behind a mask of participation and localism.

Perhaps we can welcome the fact that they realise that there’s a disconnect between government and people and that government cannot do everything, but to assume that government knows what is best, it just needs to persuade people to ‘do the right thing’ is wholly wrong.
People must be left to make their own choices and to take responsibility for them. Government should protect that right, not seek to manipulate it.