Liberty Alone

The principle behind the smoking ban is profoundly illiberal. It is predicated on a vision of government as having a duty to protect people against themselves and their own actions or that people are incapable of exercising choice in what they do with their time.

If the government wishes to ban smoking from all government property then fine. They can do that. As the property owner that is their prerogative, but to tell others that they cannot allow smoking on their own property is a violation of their rights.

I am not talking about any right to smoke. You have no positive right to smoke where you wish, that is up to the owner of the place you are in. You do have the right, should you wish, to pollute your body with whatever you want.

The argument that you must protect people from passive smoking is false. People are free to choose whether they go to a smoky environment, or if they work in a smoky environment. Are we going to prevent people from throwing food which smells in the bin because it may offend bin men? Or ban miners from working because of the health hazards? Am I to stop posting to this blog because I may get RSI? Everything we do poses risks, we choose to accept them however. In the workplace we expect more money for a risky job. In other things our pleasure outweighs the risk.

We have had many instances of smoking being banned on property by private and public entities without government legislation. My office has always been non-smoking. No need for government legislation to make us do that.

These arguments, and others have been hashed out many times all over the media. My main point is that attitudes to this smoking ban reveal whether a person can be called a liberal.

A liberal may appreciate the results of the ban (I count myself in that) but cannot support the ban on principled grounds.
Those who support the ban are more like the US ‘liberal’ in that they view the state’s role as protecting you from yourself and managing your life. That is not liberalism, it is authoritarianism. Either that or they are simply selfish and view the state as a means to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

I simply cannot call anyone who urges state intervention in a private matter a liberal. It goes against the very grain of liberalism. There is not even any justification for it as pursuing positive freedoms or as protecting people from the aggression of others (if I willingly go into a boxing ring I cannot complain that I’ve been hit)

One of the arguments I’ve come across against choice and a market in education is that some parents won’t make use of that choice.

This may be true, but there are several problems with this line of argument.

Firstly, if some don’t make use of their ability to choose the best school for their child then why should others suffer because of their choice not to choose? You end up harming far more children by denying them opportunity than those few whose parents do not have the opportunity.

Secondly - many examples of people, generally poor, who apparently don’t care about their child’s education. Perhaps they don’t, but perhaps they are so jaded by the lack of choice, the fact that their child is forced to go to a particular, usually failing, school because they cannot afford to move to an area with a good school or afford the tuition fees for a private school. Even if their child is gifted enough to get a scholarship, the odds are against them because of the belief that private school is only for the rich and poor people stand no chance of getting in - a myth similar to that surrounding university (especially Oxbridge), and one often promoted by teachers.
If we give people the chance to choose a better education for their child, then I think a lot of parents may surprise us. There is not much point caring about your child’s education if they are forced to go to a failing school, with teachers who don’t have the time to teach because of behaviour problems. There’s nothing you can do about it, the decision is taken out of your hands.

Thirdly - it is claimed that these parents will just send their children to the most convenient school and that will create sink schools.
Aside from the fact that most parents who are claimed to fall in this category of not caring are already forced to send their children to a sink school, if funding is tied to the child then will such schools be able to get the funding to survive? They will be forced to up their game to attract the children of those parents who do care, or be forced to close, at which point those children will have to go to a better school.

Finally this invokes a debate about the role of the state in the raising of children. Parents and guardians are entrusted with the care of their children. This argument against educational choice removes some of that responsibility from parents and hands it to the state. This is an incredibly illiberal move. True, the state and society have a duty to intervene if a parent is abusing their position of power, or neglecting their responsibility, but this removes responsibility from all parents, causing a disconnect between parents and their children.
The state is also incredibly bad at being a parent. It is an immense disadvantage to be brought up by the state. The state is not a suitable apparatus for bringing up children. When the state interferes with the choice of parents (and children) in where and how they are educated it is bound to have negative consequences for most children.

To claim that parents need the state to force them to look after their children in the best way is authoritarian and reminiscent of both collectivist thought of the socialists and far right as well as much conservative thought.

Parents may not always make the best decisions, but they are best placed to make decisions. The fact that some parents will make bad decisions is not justification for removing all choice. The effects of poor choices can be mitigated, especially by children who can now see a way forward and teachers who have the opportunity and incentive to help children as there is opportunity now.

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.