Rick Perry: Intellectual Giant

James Garry: Failing Yet Again to Defend the Death Penalty

In a post that manages to be simultaneously a bit petulant and utterly insipid, James Garry has responded to my deconstruction of his argument on the death penalty. I've only just come across it and I've no desire to go through Garry's response* to my post in any real detail - life is too short to start the world's most boring flame war - but I did just want to respond to some of the more blatant misrepresentations of my arguments. First up:

I had meant to respond earlier to “The Nameless Libertarian’s” latest submission in our exchange on the death penalty but this is the first opportunity I have had since its publication. He’s one of the less better-mannered opponents as he can’t keep up an exchange without resorting to abuse (often a sign that my interlocutor is running out of rope, if that’s not too appropriate an analogy). And where there isn’t abuse there is poorly constructed argument.

I have to say that I am mildly amused to be accused here of being "less better-mannered" and of "abuse". While regular readers will know that I do use fruity language on occasion and will give abuse to deserving targets, I've actually been quite polite to Garry in my exchanges with him. And while it is tempting to give him both barrels now in terms of abuse, I really can't be bothered. So instead I'll say that the delicate flower probably needs to develop a thicker skin.

Take the title of his latest instalment, for instance. “Garry: Still failing to defend the death penalty”. I do not “fail” to defend the death penalty, I just don’t convert “The Nameless Libertarian” to my way of thinking. Which was never my intention. Even if I presented a treatise that “The Nameless Libertarian” found successful, it wouldn’t change his opinion. What he really means is that I fail to defend the death penalty because I do not agree with him.

Nope. What I mean when I say Garry has failed to defend the death penalty is, well, that he's failed to defend the death penalty. His case is so weak as to be largely useless. Sorry, Garry, but you do fail. But that's window-dressing. The biggest way in which Garry, wilfully or otherwise, misrepresents me and my argument is here:

I’ll repeat what he wrote: “[C]riminals are not thinking about the consequences of their actions because they do not expect to be caught”. Note the two verbs in this sentence – to think and to expect. In this context, they mean pretty much the same thing. The verb “to expect” implies some sort of thought process. In other words, “Criminals are not thinking about the consequences of their actions because they do not think they will be caught.” I would like to be able to ascribe this paradoxical construction to the author’s craft, though I suspect this grammatical fallacy was an accident. If criminals think (i.e., “expect”) that they will not be caught for committing a crime then they must know that there is punishment associated with being caught. In which case, criminals must be thinking about the consequences of their actions.

There is only one other way that “The Nameless Libertarian’s” sentence can be rendered: “Criminals are not thinking about the consequences of their actions because they cannot expect to be caught.” (That is, they lack the faculty that causes them to expect punishment). This is an even more precarious piece of reasoning. If this is the argument that “The Nameless Libertarian” intends to submit, then it is an example of petitio principii, also known as ”begging the question”.

We can dismiss the second argument as it is weak and simply incorrect. As for the first one, the words "think" and "expect" clearly have different meanings, even in this context. Don't believe me? Well, an expectation is different to a thought; if in doubt, consult a dictionary. But let's look at the context here and what I am actually saying. I am saying that criminals do not expect to be caught, and consequently they are not thinking about it when they commit their crimes. That does not mean they have never thought about the potential consequences of their actions; just that their expectations of not being caught mean they do not need to think about those consequences when perpetrating their actions. To use an analogy; I do not expect to be hit by a car when I dart across the road before the green man come on at the pedestrian crossing. That does not mean that I have never thought at all about one possible consequence of my action; rather, that I am not thinking about it when I carry out that action - perhaps because other thoughts are more pressing in my mind.

Garry asserts that I am begging the question; I'd argue that he is creating a straw man argument.

“The Nameless Libertarian” proceeds to cite Ian Brady as a reason for abolishing the death penalty because Ian Brady did not “take into account the potential consequences of [his] actions.” Really? Is he on record as saying he didn’t know the consequences of his actions? Have any credible experts said that Ian Brady did not know the consequences of his actions?

Why not assume equally that Brady did know the consequences of his actions and decided that the risk of prison was worth less than the pleasure of satisfying his murderous lusts?

Here, Garry seems to be missing the point of the work Brady is doing in my argument. The point is not that Brady may have thought that prison was worth the risk of child rape and murder; it is that he committed child rape and murder when the threat was not just of prison, but of prison and the noose. This is what is fatal to Garry's argument that the death penalty is a deterrent; Brady committed those crimes when he was running the risk of the death penalty. It would be good if Garry was actually engaging with the argument rather than another straw man representation of it. Again.

And let me respond to Garry's turgid attempts at pedantry with a turgid example of my own. Garry asserts that I cite Brady as "a reason for abolishing the death penalty". Now, there are two ways to interpret this - either that Garry thinks that I believe Brady to be a reason why the death penalty was abolished, which is just blatantly untrue, or that he forms part of my case for abolishing the death penalty. Of course, I don't need to make a case for the death penalty to be abolished as, well, it has been abolished. Rather, I am using Brady as an example to refute the essential predicate of Garry's case; that the fear of the noose will stop the likes of Brady. Put simply, it didn't.

But let's pretend for the moment that we are dealing with an eloquent, reasonable and persuasive person, and that Garry's post is 100% spot on. Yeah, I know, we're heading into the realms for fantasy here, but bear with me. Even if this had happened, it misses a salient point. Early on in his "argument", Garry writes that the extent to which murderers think about the potential consequences of their crime is central to my argument. This is not true. It may be important for the point I was trying to make about Garry's deterrence argument, but it is not my central point against the death penalty. And that point is the moral argument against state-sanctioned murder - a point which Garry, for all of his semantic pedantry, has spectacularly failed to address. No doubt Garry's response, should he make one, would centre on how the moral argument was not necessarily the point he wished to pursue. And that's fine. But it is also why, alongside his faulty logic and his straw man arguments, he is still failing to make the case for the death penalty.

*I'm linking to his post despite the fact, in breach of much blogging etiquette, he did not link to mind. What an ill-mannered young man!

I do sometimes wonder why the ongoing (and increasingly tedious) occupy protests garner such anger from those not involved. It isn't so much the inconvenience (after all, unless you live or work next to one of the sites, it can't really be impacting too much on the way you live) or the fact that these demos are fundamentally incoherent - scratch the surface of any supposedly reputable political party and you will find disparate people with very different motivations, views and objectives. No, I think there are other more fundamental reasons why people object so much to these protests.

The first is the naivete of them. As soon as we hear someone like Laurie Penny banging on about the soundtrack for a revolution, it becomes very difficult to take this sort of thing seriously. This isn't a revolution. Do you know how I can tell? Because no-one is seriously trying to take power or control away from the government here. Camping in the City of London could just be classed as civil disobedience if you really push it; revolutionary, it ain't.

Of course, it is a bit harsh to kick the young for being naive; it is pretty common when you're young to think that you're going to change the world. Then you grow up.

However, there is a second reason why I think these protests may be deriving such scorn from many people. It is the arrogance of those involved to claim that they speak on behalf of the 99%. Put simply, you don't. You don't speak on behalf of me, and I am neither a banker nor a politician - ergo, I am one of the supposed 99% you claim to represent. And I would guess that you don't speak for at least 85% of those including in your spurious figure of 99%. From what I can gather, the vast majority of people don't want radical change; they want to be allowed to get on with their lives - preferably with the bills (tax 'n' all) being considerably lower. They don't want to take to the streets to occupy financial districts, and even if they did then they couldn't as they have jobs to go to and families to provide for. They just want life to a be a bit easier. And to have urban campers claiming their voice to back up a shambolic act of civil disobedience is bound to stick in their throats a bit.

Now I fully realise that I can't claim to speak on the behalf of those 99% any more than Stinky and Son: Urban Protesters can. That may be true; the important difference is, though, that I'm not wallowing in media attention through making the claim about representing that 99%. I don't speak for anyone other than me; but I'm not camping in a financial district somewhere claiming otherwise.

Don't get me wrong; people have the right to protest and any claim that everything is not OK here in Britain today has some basic relevance to reality. But to believe that this is the start of a revolution is naive, and to claim to represent the vast majority of people in this country and elsewhere is simultaneously arrogant and utterly unconvincing

Sarah Palin: Not Running For President

The phrase "thank fuck" prings to mind. Now she can get back to doing what she does best - pontificating about politics, rather than actually engaging with it. Or whatever it is the slack-jawed lackwit.

Now, just for Perry. And Bachmann. And... so on.

Labour: Still Not Getting It On Spending

A new Labour sound bite (apparently):

Indeed, the Labour leadership have come up with a sound bite of their own on spending - "Building schools and hospitals did not create the deficit."

If it is a soundbite, then it is quite simply a terrible one. Firstly, from a tactical point of view, it doesn't work as it is entirely defensive. It is highlighting one of the areas in which Labour is most vulnerable, and then defensively claiming that parts of their operation while in government where not responsible for it.

Secondly, it wilfully ignores that fact that it wasn't just spending on the NHS and the education system that fucked the British economy. What about bailing out failed banks? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? They weren't exactly cheap, you know. And the Millennium Dome - that notorious, enormous breast built on the south bank of the Thames that once symbolised New Labour profilgacy - was actually the tip of an iceberg when it came to a government determined to spend as much as possible without it having any meaningful result.

Which is the third problem. Yeah, Labour spent a lot of money on education and health. Well fuck-a-doodle-doo. Such boasts would be far more impressive if that spending hadn't large been a waste of fucking money. The NHS remains largely fucked - a vast bureaucracy floundering under unthinking mangerialism that is capable of swallowing pretty much any amount of money thrown at it. The education system turns out school leavers unable to write a coherent sentence and utterly unprepared for adult life. Spending should only be championed if it has done something good; Labour should not be boasting about their spending in these areas since it was, with very few exceptions, utterly ineffective. Ok, so they are technically talking about building schools and hospitals. But what about those existing hospitals filled with overworked and underpaid medical professionals struggling to keep their heads above water? What about the fact that so many hospitals were so dirty that they actually became lethal for some patients? And what about the education system, which was focussed so much on hitting meaningless targets that it ceased to be effective at, well, educating? Yeah, you built new hospitals and new schools to throw into two failing systems. Well fucking done.

So this soundbite doesn't work on any number of levels, but there's a final problem that it is worth considering. The very fact that Labour remains unashamedly proud of its spending ways shows that it remains, as a party, utterly unfit for office. Labour needs to show that it understands the damage it did to this country while in power, and that it understands that the citizens of this country - and the majority of them never voted for Labour - are still paying for their idiotic spending in a number of different ways.

Garry: Still failing to defend the death penalty

Over at the curiously named Politics on Toast, James Garry takes exception to one of my posts on the death penalty. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is this post that provokes his article; the one that takes him to task. There is a lot in his article, and the vast majority of it I do not care about. However, there are some points that demand rebuttal and clarification. This first is Garry’s attempt to overcome my objection that some criminals commit their crimes without really considering the potential consequences on the grounds that they do not expect to be caught. He writes in response to this assertion:

Nonsense. TNL seems to suggest that criminals can only know the consequences of their actions after they are caught.

Nope. I suggest that criminals are not thinking about the consequences of their actions because they do not expect to be caught – a position that is intuitively plausible given how many people commit crimes that carry hefty sentences.

I think very few criminals are so boundlessly optimistic or boundlessly stupid not to impute the legal consequences of their illegal actions. We are all potential criminals. I am a potential criminal.

Yes, Garry, you are a potential criminal. We all are. But there are degrees of potential criminality, aren’t there? And there are degrees of the potentiality of all of us to actually commit crimes. Just as there are differences in the extent to which any one of us believe we will be caught for any crime that we might commit, and there are varying degrees to which we all understand the consequences of any potential crime. To argue otherwise is to deny the nature of the individual. Which, surely, Garry does not wish to do. Oh, wait:

I know the possible consequences of any given criminal action. I don’t see how actual criminals are any different.

Yeah, Garry. You are representative of all actual criminals. They all think in the same way you do. They all know the consequences of their actions. Except there is no-one quite like James Garry, and different individuals will have different motivations and perceptions.

For TNL’s argument to have a kernel of credibility then every single murderer would have to be completely blank about the consequences of his actions. If that were the case then we could agree that capital punishment is worthless because the criminal is impervious to its threat. Plainly this isn’t so. Some murderers may be so far removed from reality that they are oblivious to the promise of the noose, but most murderers are rational and aware of the law and of the consequences of their actions.

Nope, this is toss, I'm afraid. For my argument to “have a kernel of credibility” there has to be just one killer who does not take into account the potential consequences of their actions. Which, as the example of Ian Brady in my original post, demonstrates is possible. But Garry sort of acknowledges in his article, before going on to write:

There are no doubt others still who would not be deterred by the death penalty from murdering. I am not a Utopian. I do not believe in a perfect world of perfect solutions. If we did not use human systems because they were imperfect, we’d never use any of them. TNL, and people like him, do not understand this point:
We do not use deterrents against people who cannot be deterred. We use deterrents against those who can be deterred. To abandon the use of capital punishment because it does not deter the Ian Bradys of this world is as bit like not fitting your car with airbags because airbags are not 100% effective. I wonder, with the use of this easy-to-understand analogy, TNL might grasp this very simple point.

Oh, how I do love to be condescended and patronised by someone who thinks that they know better than me with no real evidence as to why they might actually do so bar their own stridently expressed opinions. I do understand that we have to use imperfect systems – not being a total fucking idiot makes understanding this point really rather easy. But it is one thing not to use an imperfect system and quite another to endow an imperfect political system with the right to take the lives of innocent citizens after going through the imperfect system of a jury trial. I’ll try to resist the cheap jibe that this sort of simple argument seems to be beyond Garry and his ilk.

Unfortunately, the analogy does not work as there is no real connection between airbags and an innocent person being hanged. It is a classic straw man argument, and deserves to be treated largely with contempt.

I don’t see how it is nonsense. It does make me angry when people say that capital punishment is wrong because it involves the State murdering its own citizens. It makes me angry because TNL – probably without much thought – gives parity to the murderer and the murderer’s victim.

No I don’t. This completely misrepresents my opinion and what I have repeatedly said. I give parity to the innocent killed by a murderer and an innocent killed by the state on the grounds that both are, well, innocent. The central point is the innocence, and until someone can provide a system whereby innocent people won’t face the noose, then this remains an essential point and a highly convincing rebuttal to those who favour the return of the death penalty.
And, for the record, I have given a lot of fucking thought to all aspects of the death penalty while researching and debating it across decades. This sort of cheap gibe from Garry really pisses me off. It is exactly the same as when he says that people have not read what he has written or not understood it. It is the fascinating arrogance of a man who assumes that he is right and that others cannot have an equally valid position. It runs the risk of making debating with him compellingly pointless.

The Nameless Libertarian’s ultimate objection to State execution is a libertarian one – that the State should not be vested with the power to murder.

No, my ultimate objection to state murder is a moral one – as explained here. But as an add-on, yeah, I don’t think we should give the state the right to murder their citizens.

I do not understand libertarians. They automatically think the powers of the State must be limited.

Nope. We argue that the state should be limited based on the fact that it has been historically shown that the state is more often than not inept, bureaucratic and inhuman.

Well, I believe that the State should be limited but I also accept that the State must have some power to do certain things some of the time. As much as I hated nannying New Labour, I think the only good thing they did was to implement the smoking ban. Of course, this is a State intrusion and many, including Claire Porthouse, think it is a horrendous act of State intrusion. Maybe it is. But I wonder if the ban extends into the future, that we might realise the goodness of this act of State intrusion in a hundred year’s time or so.

Of course, it is completely inappropriate to compare the potential state murder of an innocent person with the smoking ban. As for that ban itself, it is possible that in the future people do look back on the smoking ban as a great step forward, especially if biased history books present it as such. That won’t change the reality of the situation – that people are told that they cannot choose, despite being responsible adults, to smoke in certain places. It won’t change the fact that this policy seems to be almost intentionally trying to make the people of this country more bovine than ever. And there is a terrible irony in someone advocating the potential prolonging of the lives of some through the smoking ban at the same time as embracing the concept of the noose for some innocent people is good.

Giving the State the power to execute criminals who ruin the lives of innocent people is good.

But that is not the point, as surely Garry knows. The point is that innocent people as well as criminals will be executed. Is that OK? Of course it isn’t. But it is a fundamental point that Garry's sweeping statement ignores.

Why assume that all State power is bad?

State power is, for most libertarians, a necessary evil. Therefore, as an evil, it needs to be restricted as much as possible. And it certainly does not need to be extended to give the state the right to potentially kill innocent people if the right legal loopholes have been jumped through.

If that is so, why bother voting?

Err, to support the party offering the least state intervention in our lives?

Why bother supporting the political parties who become and organise the State.

I don’t support any party, but I’d imagine it is for the reason mentioned immediately above.

Why even bother pretending to be a “libertarian”? Just become an anarchist instead.

Because being a libertarian is different to being an anarchist. In fact, I’ve written about this in detail here. But put simply a libertarian sees minimal state intervention as a necessary evil. An anarchist sees the state as an unnecessary evil. This really is basic political theory. And to conflate a refusal to support the right of the state to execute innocent people with anarchism is a crude and ultimately unconvincing rhetorical position.

But that’s enough on Garry and the death penalty. It should be clear where Garry and I stand with regard to this issue, and I personally have better things to do moving forward than rehashing the arguments in my posts on the death penalty thus far. The death penalty is wrong and any attempts to bring it back should be rigorously fought.

Why Is Rick Perry So Terrifying?

The news that Rick Perry has joined the race for the Republican nomination for President sends a shiver down my spine. He is exactly the sort of politician that the US does not need – a bellicose God-botherer who is perfectly happy to send the mentally retarded to the execution chamber despite commandments in his religion like “thou shalt not kill”. He’s for freedom, just so long as it is economic – if you’re gay and you want to marry someone of the same gender, your freedom should be curtailed in the strange worldview of this Christian fundamentalist. And while I’m pretty liberal when it comes to gun laws, I can’t help but feel doing something like this makes you look like a total dickhead:



But Perry is not alone in many of these opinions; increasingly, these represent the sort of stances that a Republican candidate must take if they want to have any chance of being successful. So why is Perry particularly terrifying?

I think it is the fact that he is George W. Bush but Bush Junior turned up to 11. From what I’ve seen and heard of Perry, he makes Bush Junior – the worst President of the United States in living memory – look like a subtle and nuanced thinker in whom you could have complete confidence. And that is what makes Perry such a dangerous option for the Republicans and, if nominated, the US as a whole. After all, we know how it ended for George W. Bush. Why on earth would anyone want to replicate the sorry farrago that was Bush Junior’s presidency? Or, even worse, risk an even more extreme version of it?

And it is this sort of candidate who makes Obama look like the best option. Obama is a weak, compromised president but he does at least come across as far saner than many of his Republican rivals. And this may well be the factor that gets him a second term – not that he’s any good, but just that he’s less mental than those he fights elections against.

So to any Republicans reading this and preparing to vote in next year’s primaries – Rick Perry: just say no.

The War on Drugs and Political Cowardice

The phrase “no shit Sherlock” springs to mind.

Rather like the War on Terror (which is a war on a tactic rather than an actual enemy), the War on Drugs was always a nonsense. The drugs trade is a vast, complicated network that it is almost impossible to fight – particularly when one of the main tools in the Western world to control drugs is to lock up addicts and dealers together in institutions rife with drugs. Put simply, you can’t fight the heroin or cocaine trade. It is like trying to fight international logistics; it isn’t going to happen. For every victory - for every dealer locked up - there are thousands of others out there. And for every poppy field burned, there are thousands of other farmers who depend on the revenue from the drugs trade in order to feed their families.

However defeat in the war on drugs is not the only reason for legalising them – there are more positive reasons for legalisation as well. Put simply, adults should be treated as adults. They should be allowed to choose whether they use narcotics or not – just as they should be able to choose whether they drink alcohol and eat rich, fatty foods. Sure, some people will become drug addicts – just as people become drunks and obese. But that’s the point of being an adult; that’s the point of having choice and therefore how adults can have personal responsibility.

But that is one of the reasons why the governments of the Western World won’t legalise – it involves treating adults like adults, and our governments increasingly believe that we are wayward children who need constant control. Of course the White House has rejected this report; accepting it would involve relinquishing some of its control over its people.

It will also be a courageous politician who advocates drug legalisation, if only because of the hysterical anti-drug rhetoric that has accompanied the ridiculous war on drugs. And, let’s be honest, courage is not something that can be associated with the modern politician…

So drug legalisation is the right and common sense thing to do; ending this pointless failure of a war on inanimate narcotics is the logical thing to do. Unfortunately, the one thing that will guarantee that it won’t happen is the political class.

Ooo, guess who's back? It's Harold Camping, the Preacher with a hard-on for the Rapture, here to explain what happened - or, rather, why what he predicted didn't happen. Apparently he got his calculations wrong. I don't think many people would dispute that right now. But he does seem remarkably indifferent to those who spent their life-savings advertising his idiotic predictions for him. From the BBC:

Asked if he had any advice to offer those who had given away their material wealth in the belief the world was about to end, Mr Camping said they would cope.

"We just had a great recession. There's lots of people who lost their jobs, lots of people who lost their houses... and somehow they all survived," he said.

"We're not in the business of giving any financial advice," he added.

Well, I'm not in the business of offering financial advice either. Instead, I'll offer a little bit of common sense advice to all those who wasted their time and money on this delusional, fundamentalist idiot: don't listen to him, or anyone like him, ever again.

On the subject of the Rapture...

...I've got some questions. Assuming that this is the second coming of Christ and not the delusional rantings of an old man who has already failed to accurately predict the Rapture once before, I'd like some clarity around the etiquette of the whole thing. So my questions are:

(1) Is there a strict timetable that needs to be adhered to? For the Royal Wedding (another big event with religious overtones) there very much was a timetable, and that way anyone interested in what was going on could more or less know exactly what was happening and when. I know there's supposed to be a big earthquake today, but what happens after that? And all unbelievers are due to be dead by 21st October - do we get to choose when we go to hell? If so, I'd like to book as later a slot for that as possible.

(2) Is there a dress code? I'd hate to be condemned to internal damnation because I wasn't wearing a suit.

(3) I know Jesus is meant to be all-knowing, but frankly he doesn't offer any proof of that. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, I'd like the chance to pitch to Jesus about my worthiness before he decides whether I burn for all eternity or not. Surely not too much to ask...

(4) Is Jesus going to factor in that some of us aren't going to be ready because the conduit to communicate the coming of the Rapture was a daft old man with zero credibility? Had the Pope said it then we might all be taking it a little more seriously; as it stands, I rather think a lot of us aren't going to be ready.

(5) Bearing in mind it has been a longtime since the world last saw Christ, is he going to do something to make him clearly recognisable? The reason why I ask is because there are a couple of people in every neighbourhood who wondered around cursing people and chuntering on about the end of the world all the time. I just want to make sure that Christ differentiates himself from them. Otherwise, all manner of farcical merriment could ensue.

I hope someone comes back to me with answers to my questions soon. After all, there's not long left. Or so I heard...

Charlie Sheen Live!

The fan response to the recent Charlie Sheen live show:

Fans walked out chanting "Refund!" and were quick to express their disappointment outside.

Sorry, but precisely what were you all expecting from an addict in meltdown? Witty erudition? Sublime eloquence? An evening with Peter Ustinov? It's a bit like going to see Shane MacGowan live, and then expressing dismay that he was slurring his words.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'd have been disappointed if I'd paid to see that show. But I avoid that disappointment by not going to see that show. And anyone who did otherwise is either naive or stupid as far as I am concerned.

You wanted to see someone in meltdown; you did see someone in meltdown. Just 'cause you found out that it wasn't as entertaining as Withnail and I...

Cut Protestors and Their Idiocy

As up to a quarter of a million people descend on London to protest against unavoidable spending cuts, I sit in Leeds shaking my head in mild despair.

These people truly are economic dullards. To bring London to a standstill on a Saturday afternoon is an immensely economically damaging plan. Businesses will face reduced custom - if not having to close - on their busiest day of the week. Which will lead to less revenue for businesses, which in turn will lead to less tax for the government. Which in turn will lead to what? More spending cuts. So in order to protest about spending cuts, the protestors could risk future spending cuts. Meaning they truly are absolute lackwits.

Fortunately, some muppet from Unite is on hand to clarify what they want to achieve:

"Our alternative is to concentrate on economic growth through tax fairness so, for example, if the government was brave enough, it would tackle the tax avoidance that robs the British taxpayer of a minimum of £25bn a year."

Where to start? Ok, let's concede that this is a marginally more sophisticated position that simply picketing businesses because they (completely legally) avoid taxes since it instead focusses on the government who, after all, allow them to avoid taxes. Of course, having the demonstration on a Saturday when most of that government have buggered off elsewhere to avoid the inconvenience seems to be a stupid position. But nevermind, eh?

I do like the conflation of bravery with agreeing with a personal opinion. There is nothing intrinsically brave about challenging banking tax avoidance, just as there is nothing intrinsically brave in people following my personal opinion that people should ignore Unite. Bravery is about a bit more than complying with the prejudices of another.

Now, it is true that I don't see a lot of bravery in David Cameron. In fact, it looks to me like he has all the backbone of wilted spinach. Which makes his refusal to truly jump on the bash-the-banker bandwagon (at least to the same extent of Labour and the anti-cut protestors, because he and his government still have their anti-banking moments) is a rare example of mild courage from our Prime Minister. It is arguably more brave, see, to stand against the current anti-banker mindset so prevalent in this country at the moment.

But even if we do agree that standing up to banking tax avoidance is brave, we should also acknowledge that bravery can also be stupidity. And we can then argue that penalising banks through the tax system may be a brave but also stupid thing to do in this day and age. Because we live in a global economy, and if banks feel they are being shat on they will upsticks and fuck off elsewhere. So the end result of tackling (perfectly legal) tax avoidance is pretty stupid. And counter-productive. And deeply naive.

Still, naive is probably the best word for those who are protesting these cuts. At least, it is the best possible non-profane word.

Tax Reform

Now, I'm all for combining income tax and national insurance. The latter is a tax, pure and simple, so it should firstly be called a tax and secondly incorporated into that other direct tax on our income. Simplify the system; make it more transparent. And yeah, the rate of income tax would go up if NI was incorporated into it. But that is also a good thing. Not because I want to pay more tax, mind, but because the plainer we make it to everyone just how much money we end up being forced to give to the government, the more likely people are to start protesting about it.

But, of course, not everyone agrees. However I do have to say that this is a pretty dumb reservation:

Chas Roy-Chowdhury, head of taxation at the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, described the mechanics of the income tax and National Insurance merger as a "minefield".

"It is a lot easier said than done," he said.

As an aside, let's just take a moment to note that this is a tax accountant complaining about taxes being made simpler. Hmmm, wonder whether he might have a vested interest in a complicated tax system?

But let's look at the substance, if we can call it that, of what this chap is saying. Of course, changing a system is often difficult, and fraught with problems. So what do we do? Overcome those problems. Anything else is a manifesto for the worst sort of political conservatism. It is basically saying it is broke, but we can't be arsed to fix it.

Just imagine if humans throughout history had the same mindset. "This divine right of kings business seems a bit problematic to me". "Yeah, but the transition to another system is going to be tough though". "Ok, let's not bother". Apply this mindset to the American War of Independence, or to World War Two, or the Space Race. Nothing even remotely challenging has ever got done or will ever get done with this sort of defeatist mindset.

Of course, there may be many reasons why projects shouldn't be undertaken. Morality is key, as is the practicality of the overall project - the Marxist utopia might sound grand, but the transition to it involves dictatorship, and it is underpinned by certain unlikely assumptions about human nature, so let's not bother after all. But if the sole objections to a plan are that it might be problematic to make it happen, it is probably a sign that you should start trying to solve those problems rather than bleating about them. Particularly if, like incorporation of NI into income tax, short term complication will lead to long term transparency and ease of use.

UK Uncut Cretins

From UK Uncut - a group that seems determined to make student politics seem credible and forward thinking by comparison - I give you the concept of a bail-in. What is a bail-in, you might ask. You really don't want to know, I'd reply. But I'll tell you anyway:

Our next wave of actions will be even more exciting. A Bail-In means marching into our broken banks and building something better. Make your silent, sterile Barclays branch sing, dance, explode with life! Reclaim the space and make it into something thrilling, something that shows how much creativity the anti-cuts movement has. Let’s smash austerity with a smile on our faces. We are Cameron’s nightmare, a real big society with the vision and bravery to transform the institutions at the rotten heart of our system.

Right. So... a broken bank is what, then? One with a leaky roof or a run-down cash machine outside? Or is it one that we had to bail out? Because if it is, then you shouldn't be heading to Barclays because, as Jackart points out, they found other ways to keep going. I guess we're back at the idiot's equation when it comes to banks. The (il)logic runs something like this: I don't like bankers therefore bankers must be bad and therefore banks must be broken. It is audacious in its breathtaking stupidity.

This idea of making banks thrilling through singing and dancing also seems curious. To me, banks aren't cold and sterile - they are trying to project an image of being professional places where you can do business and where you can safely store your money. There is a reason why they don't normally have singing and dancing, my people. It's because it would be a fucking stupid idea for a bank.

And while we're on the subject, the talk of "reclaiming" a bank is also pretty stupid - at least until you realise that what we're talking about here is people invading the private property of others. Then it becomes downright malign. Think about how you would feel, Mr and Mrs UK Uncut, if I came round to your house and invaded your front room because I happen to think you are total dickheads disagree with you on this one. Wouldn't be fun, would it? But that's exactly what your bail-ins are about.

Oh, and by the way, you are not Cameron's nightmare. You are a minor irritant - like a mosquito bite on the butt cheek. If Cameron ignores you for long enough, you'll vanish. You're not going to change any institutions, rotten or otherwise, with your bland, anodyne and pathetic protests. All that will happen is that you'll look like cocks on Saturdays until you find something better to do at the weekend.

Which is rather the point. Far be it from me to champion Cameron's Big Society, but I dare say his response to this sort of guff would be "if you genuinely want to make a difference, stop interrupting businesses and do some constructive, voluntary work in your spare time". But that would be too difficult, wouldn't it? To do something that might actually be constructive. But that wouldn't get the media's attention.

Anyway targeting businesses like Barclays - which has done nothing more than trying to avoid (not evade) tax - is targeting the wrong people. Any tax bill has to be agreed with HMRC - if you don't agree with that tax bill, go bellyache to them. Furthermore, by damaging the trade of banks such as Barclays through these tedious sit-ins, you will potentially damage their future revenue and therefore decrease the amounts they will have to pay in tax in future. Which is the final irony - with behaviour like this, UK Uncut may actually be making future cuts more likely.

Absolute wankers.

Since I'm lacking both the time and the inspiration to write anything worth reading, I'll instead direct you to the Liberty Cabal where Chris Snowdon is looking at the curious case of a philosopher who wants to make us free by restricting both what businesses can do and consequently what we can see and interact with. Well worth reading. And it is also persuaded me that I need to read the book Nudge, since my understanding of it is clearly at odds with what the authors intended (no doubt my view has been corrupted by paternalist politicians trying to nudge us in crude and illiberal ways...)

Richard Murphy on Neoliberalism

Via Bobski, I see that Richard Murphy is being utterly hypocritical again, this time on the subject of neoliberalism:

Neoliberals to the core, all of them, and utterly indifferent to a) reasoning b) rationality c) the reality of the economy d) the needs of real people e) the reality of democratic politics.

As Bobski points out, the descriptions in that sentence might remind one of someone other than "neoliberals":

I thought that a-e were a bit rich considering the source, I'd consider them most apt descriptions of Mr. Murphy.

Which is spot on, frankly.

But it is worth pausing for a further moment on Murphy's words. First up, there is something slightly bigoted in what Richard Murphy is saying. Somehow - and don't ask me how - he knows every neoliberal and also knows what they think and how they act. Short of divine omniscience - which I am pretty damned sure Murphy does not possess - I'm guessing that he is using the bigot methodology of using personal prejudices to make sweeping generalisations. Hardly the sort of thing a progressive should be doing, surely?

Still, I think you can argue the claim that there some neoliberals who warrant some of Murphy's insults. But they are the dogmatic neoliberals, who have turned neoliberalism into some sort of blueprint for all people at all times. Those who treat neoliberalism almost as a secular religion, or as a form of absolute truth that will broach no criticism and that those who do not adhere to this credo are in some way stupid, and perhaps even need to be silenced.

Of course, the problem with Murphy making this point is he behaves in exactly the same way about his own political beliefs. He is just as dogmatic as many neoliberals, just about different ideas.

And here's the nub of the matter - Murphy hasn't just revealed himself as a hypocrite, but as a dogmatic bigot. Good going, for just one sentence in one blogpost...

On Andy Gray

I don’t do sports. Seriously, I have no interest in sport whatsoever. Sky Sports means nothing to me, other than when I see a pub has Sky Sports I end up thinking that I should go elsewhere. Therefore, the name Andy Gray meant nothing to me, and I had to get someone to explain what all the palaver was about.

The furore has already been well documented and commented on; indeed, this is one of those times where further comment does, at least at first, appear to be superfluous. Personally, Gray comes across as a boorish, sexist oaf and to see him take a bit of a kicking for his attitudes is something I’m pretty comfortable with.

But I do think that there is something naïve about the way in which Gray has been singled out, because if anyone thinks that he is some sort of strange aberration – a unique specimen of Neanderthal misogynist man – then they’re mistaken. It is probably an exaggeration to say that sexism remains the norm rather than the exception in British workplaces, but Gray’s behaviour will be recognisable to many people. So this sort of ritual blood-letting – this hanging out of one (admittedly very culpable) man to dry – may make us feel better, but we shouldn’t deceive ourselves by thinking that sexism and misogyny (as well as general discrimination, which even "feminists" such as Laurie Penny buy into) are uncommon in the UK today. Gray’s an oaf; but he’s not alone in his oafishness.

On Snow

Regardless of what you think of our imperial past (and I'm not the world's biggest fan of it), Britain used to be great. It had an empire that spanned the globe and a navy that was feared by every other nation. How time has changed things. Now pretty much the whole of the sodding British Isles can be brought to a shuddering halt by a bit of icy water settling on the ground.

But this post isn't whining about how crap we are at coping with even the most minimal amount of adversity. That much is obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells. No, what really strikes me is how just a smattering of the white stuff can reduce otherwise sensible adults into the state of jibbering, over-excited children. "Ooo look!" the cry goes out with the sort of excitement you might expect from someone who has just won the lottery "it's snowing!" Facebook and Twatter become rolling commentary on exactly what the weather is doing, and anyone who isn't jubilant over the fact that it is snowing is regarded as some sort of weird, misanthropic shit.

Of course, I understand that the snow looks nice - that is until someone walks in it or pisses in it or it starts to melt into that repugnant black slush. But there is also something strikingly beautiful about the desert - that doesn't mean that I suddenly want the frickin' Sahara to materialise at the bottom of my road. I'd happily look at a picture of a snowy scene and note its beauty; when it's actually outside the front door and I'm going to have to waddle through it to get to work it isn't so much beautiful as an absolute arsing inconvenience.

Which is the point - snow is actually cold, unpleasant, massively disruptive and actually quite dangerous (what with it being slippy and all). Those who coo at the first flakes that settle on the ground are actually cooing over something we could all do without; the very fact that they don't realise this makes me suspect that they aren't reduced to the state of gibbering idiots by the snow after all. Rather, the snow gives them the perfect excuse to show that all they actually are is deeply, deeply stupid.

The Pope: You Can Rubber Up After All

And are we supposed to be impressed by this?

Pope Benedict XVI has said the use of condoms is acceptable "in certain cases", according to a new book.

That's big of him. Nice to see that he is slowly taking into account the well-being of those who follow his persistent little cult.

He said condoms could reduce the risk of infection with HIV, such as for a prostitute, in a series of interviews he gave to a German journalist.

No shit Sherlock! I'm amazed - I am absolutely staggered - that his Popiness has only just worked out that there is a link between HIV and unprotected sex. He's stating what almost everyone with half a brain cell has known for decades.

I think we're supposed to see this as a real step forward for the Catholic Church, but the reality is that they are only slowly catching up with the rest of the modern world. And it is pretty repugnant to think of how many lives have been blighted by the Papal stance on contraceptives (and on child rape by priests, of course) over the years - any current half-hearted endorsement of condoms does not make up for the damage inflicted by the previous Papal position on this. This sort of thing only highlights how unrealistic and cruel the Catholic Church often is with its worship of dogmatism and a leadership detached from the rest of the world in a collection of palaces in Vatican City.

Liberalism is not socialism

Laurie Penny asks “Why do liberals hate Margaret Thatcher?” The simple answer is, of course, that they don’t. Some might like her, some might love her, some might despise her. They aren’t the homogenous bunch implied by Penny’s question. But acknowledging that would undermine Penny’s hyperbole, which in turn would destroy her whole writing style.

But what is startling about Penny’s question is the implication that she is liberal. Anyone who has ever read pretty much any of her work will know that she is a socialist through and through. And even if you think socialism is the best thing in the world ever (and it very clearly isn’t, but that's for another day) you should still be aware that socialism is not liberalism – and the two are often in conflict.

Of course, you could argue that Penny is liberal in the sense that she is towards the liberal side of the liberal/authoritarian spectrum. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work either. Socialism requires an authoritarian side to it in order to function (redistribution, for example, clearly requires coercion in practice). Furthermore, Penny’s awful whining about spending cuts shows that she is a statist through and through; she can't cope with the reduction in the size, scope and influence of the state.

I want to be clear here – I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with a socialist like Penny expressing their opinions. Indeed, she is paid by a largely socialist magazine to write socialist articles. But the word liberal has been much maligned, and it doesn’t need to be further maligned through misuse by socialist types such as Laurie Penny.

Ultimately, her question should have read "why do socialists hate Margaret Thatcher?" Then again, I don't suppose that said question would have had the same capacity to bring about paragraph after paragraph of bile against "Thatcher as an icon". It is pretty obvious why socialists would hate Thatcher, as she did a lot to break down the (failing) consensus politics that had so dominated in this country since the war...