Liberty Alone

In one way I’m glad that California will recognise gay marriage. As far as I’m concerned the state has no business discriminating between unions of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Civil partnerships are still discrimination, even whilst they are better than an outright ban.

On the other hand, this simply reinforces the idea that marriage is something to be granted to us by the state.
I am firmly of the opinion that the state has no place in regulating our personal relationships in such a way.

The state entering into this role of approval for marriage discriminates against many, not just those who are deemed unable to marry.
There are many who do not wish to get married for philosophical or political reasons. These people cannot benefit from the advantages which marriage brings, despite being in committed, long term relationships, often with children as well.

The state should get out of the whole business of marriage, except as an arbiter of last resort. If people wish to formally confirm their commitment then they can draw up a contract.
If a religious group is opposed to various relationships then they can argue against them to their members and refuse to recognise such relationships. They should not be able to use the power of the state to enforce their views upon others.

As a practical effort however, I applaud the Californian Supreme Court’s decision.

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.

The BBC is reporting the release of a new privacy report by the Royal Academy of Engineering.

The line Tony Blair and other technocrats should take on board is:

No technology is 100% perfect, and no engineer will tell you that any technology is 100% perfect

Another interesting idea is that the biometric data in new passports could be used to trigger targeted attacks. Since these passports use RFID for contactless reading, they are vulnerable to being read at a distance as has been demonstrated many times now.
This could be used to detonated a bomb when particular people are near it, or when people from a particular country are nearby.
The more data held on passports, or ID cards makes this sort of targeting easier, it also makes tracking of people far easier. Either by government services or by criminals or even private detectives (although such methods may be illegal, that will not stop people).

Privacy and identity have taken on a new importance recently. It used to be understood that the state and others would not pry into your private life, but today the state is seeking more control over our identities (and therefore our lives) and to reduce our privacy. We leave much more information about ourselves and our actions behind, although it is currently difficult to link all this together, new technology is being deployed to make the task of linking up our data and discovering habits and movements much much easier.

This may be of benefit to the state and its organs, but the benefit to individuals is at best hazy, at worst there is a large negative impact.

Liberalism needs to start taking these threats seriously and developing a response to such power grabs by the state. We need to articulate a vision of individual rights and responsibilities only regulated by the state to prevent harm to others to combat the vision of the ‘beneficial state’ which attempts to solve all our problems through technocratic measures and decreased individual freedom.

I’ve been alerted by Devil’s Kitchen of this article on the BBC news website.

It concerns M. Maurice Papon, who in 1998 was convicted of crimes against humanity for his role in the arrest and deportation of Jews during World War II. He also served in the French civil service in Algeria during the Algerian War - a war in which many atrocities were committed, probably with the knowledge of the civil service.

DK is disgusted by the article, and the apparent praise it gives M. Papon. I agree with this, the article almost treats Papon as a misunderstood character and lauds his commitment to the service of the state, no matter what that entailed. That does not absolve anyone of responsibility, even thinking that the right thing was being done does not absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions. The article has a hint of that all too prevalent sentiment amongst non-liberals (especially the left, but the right indulges in it too) that if the sentiment or aim was right then no matter what the outcome it doesn’t really matter.

The fact that blind service to the state is wrong both morally and practically is the other point this article misses. You may be able to morally justify actions if you believe them to be the correct actions (although the results are not then necessarily moral), but blind subservience is simply wrong, you were following orders is no excuse (there is a grey area around being coerced into doing things, but following orders does not entail coercion).
The state is not a representative of the general good, it is not an omniscient entity which will always make the right choices. The state does not merit blind service, indeed, to do simply what you are told by your superiors in the state structure in the name of serving the state will lead to doing things which are not justifiable.

A thought just occurred to me - an aim for liberals should be for every person to be able to live independently of the state, without state handouts, without state subsidy of health care or education. How can you be free if you depend on the state for your income, health or education?

Rather than aiming for a welfare state, we should aim to have no need for one. Rather than supporting the NHS we should be aiming for a situation where everyone can afford personal private health insurance. Rather than supporting the status quo in education we should be aiming for a system of private education which everyone can afford.

Such aims are far away, but there are some steps which can easily be made - reduce taxation, especially on the poor, giving them more disposable income.
Education could easily be moved in the right direction by switching to a full voucher system with the opportunity for individual state sector schools to go private or independent of their LEA.
Benefits should be simplified, reduced to a few, based on income for the most part.
Health is far more difficult to transition and indeed to find a solution which will ween people off the state whilst not leaving people stranded (although the NHS is not universal anyway). First step would be to dismantle the behemoth and pass power to the local areas and to have local funding.

Along with these we of course need a healthy competitive economy so naturally free trade and lower regulation are required.

Whether its totally achievable to have everyone living independently of the state is debatable (some argue that mutual societies and charities would allow this - perhaps they would, perhaps they wouldn’t) but I certainly think that a large majority of people could live without state subsidy and almost everyone today could live with a lower level of subsidy.

Just some thoughts, but I stand by the idea that to be free we should be as independent of the state as possible, and that’s a lot more independent than we are today (I’m sure holes can be picked in my other ideas though ;) )