Elizabeth Warren and The Non-Existent Social Contract

There's a video that has been doing the rounds recently to much adulation from my statist friends. It is of Elizabeth Warren, a would-be Senator campaigning for that bloated old fool Ted Kennedy's seat, talking about "the underlying social contract". Take a look, and then we'll start to dissect what Warren has to say:



I'm not particularly interested in her analysis of the economic woes of the US - yes, Bush Junior was a profligate wastrel when he was in power, but his replacement has done little to reduce the size of the deficit facing the US. In fact, he's made things worse. Rather, I want to look at this sort of underlying social contract argument that Warren uses.

First things first, on an initial listen/read, it is actually quite persuasive. On a surface level, she appears to be talking some sense. Yes, we are fundamentally and crucially individuals. But I know my life would be unpleasant and really rather short were I not part of a community. I'm not fantastically wealthy, and I never will be, but I do know the fact that I can live in relative comfort is not solely down to my own abilities. I need the interactions with others and the infrastructure of wider society in order to be able to attain and maintain my lifestyle. The super-rich are no different. But this acknowledgement of the essential inter-connectivity of modern life does not do the heavy lifting that Warren seems to think it does within her argument. Because it is all largely smoke and mirrors; drill down, and you start to see a lot of holes. So let's drill down.

Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

Perhaps nobody did get rich on their own. But a lot of rich people have done so because of talents and skills that, while not unique, are very much the exception rather than the rule. There are three main ways in which people get rich: having a great, marketable idea; being willing to take risks; and/or being willing to work really hard. Yes, they need other people, but it is also something within them that allows them to differentiate themselves from other people and create something that makes them very wealthy. As such, their relationship with those who assisted them in making them very wealthy is symbiotic. This is a crucial point: no-one got rich on their own, but equally no-one got rich purely because of the benefits of the wider society around them.

It is telling that Warren never actually demonstrates that we're not dealing with class warfare here. Sure, she goes on to argue for a social contract, but since she does not convincingly demonstrate the existence of that social contract, her case that it isn't class warfare is not even implicitly made.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for;

And, of course, the factory-owner himself almost certainly paid for, and owing to the fact that they earn more money, probably paid more for than the average worker in the US and maybe even a greater percentage of his/her income.

Furthermore, there is something a little naive (at best) in this idea that goods get out to market through a publicly funded infrastructure. This may well be true, but what choice does the entrepreneur have? They are expected, under threat of imprisonment, to pay tax to the state, which then goes out and builds roads etc. Now, it could well be that an entrepreneur may want to fund his/her own infrastructure, private to his business, that could work more efficiently for him/her. But they have no choice but to hand over the funds that could be used for such a project to the government. Thus, they have no choice but to use the publicly funded infrastructure. As such, Warren's argument becomes essentially circular - you give money to the state, therefore you can only afford to use the public infrastructure, therefore you should pay for that infrastructure. And that argument is predicated on the far too seldom challenged notion that there should be no opt-outs from the tax system for those who do not wish to avail themselves of certain public services. Even if our entrepreneur could still afford to fund his/her own transport network, they would still expected to pay for the public one. Their hand is almost forced; they may as well use the publicly funded roads as otherwise they're going to end up paying twice for the roads they use.

you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate;

A spurious assertion that assumes our rich person doesn't hire privately educated people and that public education is of a high enough standard to truly benefit our entrepreneur friend. And, once again, our entrepreneur is also paying for that system to educate his/her workforce through taxation.

you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Hmmm. Because, since the advent of publicly funded police and fire services, there has never been a burglary or a building burning to the ground, right? Of course not; that's yet more nonsense. But Warren here seems to be falling into the naive trap of thinking that if the state funds and runs something, it is going to make us safe. That is, of course, nonsense on stilts. As factories investing in security guards and fire prevention systems shows. And, again, that entrepreneur ends up paying twice - once for a public system that is often bloated, inefficient and unable to do what it is supposed to be doing. The second time for a private back-up system designed to compensate for the inefficiencies of the public system they are forced to contribute to.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

I love the "God bless". Wonderfully patronising. Wouldn't worry too much about approaching those wealthy, big-money donors any more, Elizabeth. On the flipside, hate the phrase "pay forward". Just doesn't work at all..

But at the heart of all this is a sweeping, intellectual and ideological power grab. Warren is arguing that there is a social contract that underpins all we do, and that we need to adhere to it because we are part of society. But she is trying to do something even more bold - she is trying to claim that not only is there an underlying social contract, but she is the one who understands it. Therefore, we all need to fall in line with her statist policies about the redistribution of wealth through tax. So we've gone from an apparently innocuous argument about fairness in society to a much broader, and more dangerous, argument that is predicated on the idea that Elizabeth Warren has found the real truth about our society.

The big problem is that social contracts - underlying or otherwise - actually don't exist in any practical way. They are theoretical constructs of political philosophers designed to either offer an alternative to the status quo or to explain the transition from some sort of state of nature to the status quo. They are illustrations rather than actually part of the reality of modern politics. Therefore, to claim one exists and should actually be the guide for how much the state intervenes financially in the lives of its citizens is problematic to say the least. In part because we never signed up to any such social contract. Nor did our parents, or their parents, and so on. In fact, the person who signs us up - whether we like it or not - is someone like Warren. And she decides how we should interact with each other within society through nothing other than her own spurious and contestable argument and her own arrogance.

Which is the big problem I have with Warren, or at least the way in which she depicts herself in this video. Once you get beyond the folksy presentation of the case for redistributive taxation to the actual meat of what she is saying, you get a level of arrogance that I find very troubling. She's found the underlying contract. She knows best; about what is good for society, her supporters and for you. It is only a small step from finding that social contract to what Rousseau termed being forced to be free. On the basis of a contract you never signed up to because it has just been created as a rhetorical device for a campaigning politician, the state can demand more from you. And I know I can't be alone in finding that deeply concerning.

Christanity, Conformity and Freedom

Over at the Orphans of Liberty, luikkerland seems to be proposing something really rather illiberal - conformity to Christanity. While the bulk of the article is a long and not especially interesting story of his/her encounter with the sort of unthinking moron we're all aware of but try to avoid contact with, the first paragraph is alarming in its implications. Let's take a look:

I was interested to see Mr Higham’s piece on writing a constitution as a task in a process to right the country. I don’t disagree, but having a constitution by itself is not enough. A constitution becomes unstuck if the people are too corrupt, distracted or fearful to uphold it. What is required in the first instance is the instruction of the people (and I actually feel that people have gone short of being preached to) so that they can tell the difference between what is natural and what is the constructed elaborate fake. A constitution should be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but too many Britons don’t know what the obvious is. Look at this example of confusion, for instance: some people believe that the death penalty is barbaric, and that abortion is civilised. Look at how many do not understand that Liberty comes from the prohibition of corruption and vice – the means by which society is undermined and manipulated by those encouraging and introducing it – applied equally across all parts of society.

First up, constitutions. I can see the appeal, and think they do represent a potential tool in the fight for liberty. But they are also open to interpretation at the same time as being very much snapshots of the period in which they were created (a point that further broadens the potential for biased interpretations). Furthermore constitutions can just be shams whatever the rhetoric contained in it, such as the 1936 constitution of the Soviet Union.

So, in a sense, luikkerland is right - constitutions need the backing and proactive support of the people. And that people needs to be intelligent, engaged, committed to liberty and to tolerating those who do not share their viewpoints. Which is where luikkerland falls short in his analysis. The only real tolerance (s)he allows for is a tolerance contained within their own Christian prejuidices. Which is almost by definition illiberal.

But let's unpack this a bit - let's look at why luikkerland's ideas are illiberal. First up, there seems to be the suggestions that we should be preached at. This seems extraordinary to me given we're only just getting over 13 years of Nu Labour rule where we constantly preached by the son of a priest and by a Christian Prime Minister. But, no doubt, that won't count for luikkerland - even though Blair has now converted to Catholicism. What's the reason behind this need for preaching? The fact that people need to understand the "bleeding obvious" rather than the "constructed elaborate fake". Unfortunately, the bleeding obvious seems to be predicated on the deeply divisive and not at all credible idea that we are "the ultimate creation of God". Which is, of course, a "constructed elaborate fake" for many people in this country.

It is pointless to ask Christians for proof of their beliefs - quite rightly, they point to the notion that their religion is based on faith, so if proof was forthcoming then faith would be fatally undermined. But they also need to understand that fate is not something you can turn on and off. I cannot choose to have faith in God; on balance, using my faculties of reason and critical thinking, I see no way in which God can exist. So to expect me to subscribe to the notion that liberty is about the "prohibtion of corruption and vice" is deeply troubling, especially if the concepts of corruption and vice are seen through an explicitly Christian lens - since Christianity is far from tolerant.

A Christian viewpoint might see homosexuality, sex outside of wedlock and blasphemy as examples of corruption and vice, yet for me there is nothing wrong with any of those concepts. Furthermore, even on issues where there might be a wider consensus of what constitutes vice outside of the Christian faith - such as the use of prostitutes or people having extra-marital affairs - what right does anyone have to suppress actions between consenting adults based on the long, contradictory teachings of a book written millenia ago? True tolerance, true liberalism should allow people to conduct themselves in whatever way they like as long as that behaviour dies not fall foul of the Harm Principle.

Luikkerland cites the "confusion" people have over the death penalty being a "barbaric" and abortion "civilised". This is quite a common Christian fundamentalist simplication of these two highly complex moral issues. As someone who is pro-choice, I believe that in certain early stages of the pregnancy a woman should have the right to choose whether or not they terminate that pregnancy. This does not make me pro-abortion or into a believer that abortion is civilised - rather, it subscribes me to the thoroughly liberal view that the state should be restricted as much as possible when it comes to our bodies and what happens to them. Which is why I am also opposed to the death penalty, which is perhaps the ultimate example in states physically intervening in the lives of their citizens. There is no confusion here, there is consistency - it is about limiting the state's right to interfere in the lives and choices of its citizens. You might argue that the state should interfere in these circumstances and control both whether a woman has a baby and whether a criminal is murdered by the state - that's fine, but such arguments have little to do with liberalism.

And there is a splendid irony in luikkerland decrying the perceived manipulation of others at the same time as advocating preaching to spread the word of his/her own chosen dogma. The whole concept reminds me of the notorious assertion by Rousseau that people should be forced to be free. Luikkerland is fine with you being free, but just to clarify - freedom means conforming to what (s)he believes in.

Liberty is about tolerance. It is about finding ways in which differing conceptions of the good can live in peaceful co-existence with each other. It isn't about conformity, whether that conformity be to a socialist or Christian dogma. Don't get me wrong, I think that luikkerland should be able to write what they want where they want, and I don't see any problem with such illiberal bilge being on a website at least nominally committed to liberty. But I do think that those of us genuinely committed to the cause of liberty should not be afraid to call this for what it is - social conservatism drifting toward the reactionary, with a healthy dose of Christian fundamentalism thrown into the mix. Freedom it most certainly is not.

Update: Longrider says something similar over at the Orphans of Liberty; unsurprisingly, I agree with what he says - especially this:

Liberty does not need religion to survive. Religion does tend to rely on liberty though.

Blue Labour: Reactionary, Unrealistic and Illiberal

Chuku Umunna on Blue Labour:

At the root of this is a belief in our innate mutual dependence. We believe individuals should be given the freedom to flourish, thrive and prosper, not just economically but in spirit and heart too. This can only be achieved in the context of a strong, cohesive society supporting each of us and our families in that endeavour, promoting the common good.

What sounds like the sort of typical blandishments and empty cant that you might expect from a politician from any one of the main parties is actually a front for a more controlling and dangerous ideology.

First up, the use of the word “dependence” is concerning. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that we are mutually interdependent. But the point is that it is interdependency. I may be dependent to some extent on the people around me but in other, no less important, ways they were dependent on me. The problem with phrasing the debate in terms of dependence is dependence automatically sets up a hierarchical power relation. If we are dependent on others with that dependence being in some reciprocal, then they have power over us. And that is the sort of mindset that has created a culture of welfare dependency among many people in our country.

Also, I get very uncomfortable when people – especially politicians – talk about the common good. Because, in short, it doesn’t exist. In a modern, plural, diverse and multi-cultural society the common good is a nonsense. A community as wide as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be able to find no consensus on what constitutes the common good. Hell, you’d struggle to find such a consensus on the common good in most families and friendship groups. And such diversity is fine; it allows people to have choice about the different ways in which they can live their lives.

But when a politician talks about the common good, you want to be asking them who decides on the common good. Because the answer will be them. And this is exactly what is happening here. There is no common good; we are simply seeing another politician saying what they think is good should be the conception of the good that everyone has to live under. What makes it worse is there is no pitch, no attempt to sell a common good to the people to create a consensus around it. No, this is what parties of all shapes, sizes, colours and creeds do – they try to force their conceptions of the common good on everyone else without really debating it. So this isn’t a politician explaining what he thinks we have in common with each other, it is a politician arrogantly assuming that his conception of the good life is one that everyone else should comply with.

And his whole mindset is accurately portrayed in the first line when he talks about people should be given freedom. The arrogance is so strong that it is almost audacious – you can only have freedom if someone Umunna decides to give it to you.

But this isn’t that surprising for a Labour politician – after all, they spent a large proportion of their time in power telling you how to live your life. What is surprising, though, is reading that a Labour party member like Umunna is actually a conservative at heart:

Glasman has been accused of indulging in nostalgia, which some cite as the “blue” in Blue Labour. This misses the point. When the case is made for the conservation of certain cherished national institutions such as our forests, the post office, Dover Port or, in London, the Billingsgate fish market porters, it is not made for tradition’s sake but because these institutions are part of the social fabric of our country that bind us together – they institutionalise our social democracy for future generations, something we failed to do sufficiently enough in government.

This has little to do with the Labour movement, and little to do with socialism. This could almost be the voice of the father of British conservatism, Edmund Burke, talking. Except it is arguably more reactionary than anything the deeply conservative Burke had to offer. Because this seems to be calling for the preservation of aspects of British life that have actually, in some cases, had their time and ended. Umunna is basically calling for certain, cherry-picked aspects to life to be preserved even in the face of overwhelming change. That is more than conservative. It is, as I’ve already mentioned, reactionary.

Of course, a case can be made for preserving, say, the forests. But it is a case that needs a more compelling logic than “it’s good because I happen to have deemed it a cherished national institution”. Again, there’s the problem of who chooses what is a cherished national institution. For some people, it might be the Church of England. Yet for others that might be the opposite of an institution that is cherished. Others still might not care in the slightest about that institution. The point is that the classification is based on subjective judgements and far from the sort of beliefs that everyone holds. The classification is very much in the eyes of the beholder, which leads us to question exactly why Umunna’s perception of a cherished national institution should be allowed to dominate over other opposing views.

Furthermore, the idea that these institutions “bind us together” is also problematic. Partly because, say, the fish porters do precisely nothing to bind me to anyone else in this country or beyond, but also because negative parts of life can bind people together just as surely as positive ones. The Blitz, for example, helped to bind many people together. Does that mean that we should recreate the circumstances when, on a nightly basis, death fell from the skies? Of course it doesn’t. But it does mean that Umunna’s arguments needs to be a little stronger that spurious, contestable claims about his own cherry-picked institutions creating a sense of community.

For me, “flag” talks to a sense of nationhood and togetherness. I was roundly condemned by some (on the Left) on twitter for attending street parties to celebrate the Royal Wedding in my constituency. I make no apology for doing so and am proud of the events that took place in my area. Thousands attended and what I witnessed was not some doe-eyed, adulatory worship of the Royal couple but a sense of pride in our country and a delight in the excuse to coalesce, relate, mingle and share some time with neighbours one often only sees in passing.

It strikes me that this is very much a pitch for typical conservative voters; it is all about national pride and preserving stuff associated with rural and/or disappearing parts to British life. Unfortunately, this doesn’t quite work, mainly because Umunna is having to project his own interpretations of events in order to make his arguments work. There is simply no evidence that the people who celebrated the Royal Wedding in street parties did so through some sort of sense of national pride. Some may have done it for exactly that reason, to be sure, but others might have done simply because they had the day off. Others still may have done it to follow a trend. Yet more people may have held a party to express republican sentiments. In order to make a shaky case for a nostalgic, self-serving pseudo-conservatism, Umunna is giving himself some sort of omniscience that he clearly does not, and cannot, have.

Furthermore, the line about spending “some time with neighbours one often only sees in passing” just doesn’t work. You may see your neighbours all the time; you may seldom see them. But the fact that you may or may not have spent some time with them when the Royal couple dominated the TV screens for a day means next to nothing, since we choose the relationships we have to a large extent. You choose your own community of friends. If that includes your neighbours, then that’s ‘cause you’ve chosen it. If it doesn’t, then the same logic applies. We don’t need an event like the Royal Wedding to create a sense of community among neighbours; that happens if we want it to happen.

There’s a sense in which Unumma wants to foist a sense of community on people regardless of whether they want it or not. In that sense, I suppose, his project is very socialist – it wants to remake community and society in the image of what he believes is good, and what he believes is right. What is unpleasant, illiberal and dangerous about his logic is the extent to which it removes your right to choose the way in which you life your life. This Blue Labour nonsense – itself a dull rip-off of the equally odious Red Tory conception of Philip Blond – has little to do with freedom. Instead, it has everything to do with a state led by nostalgic idealists like Umunna nudging, cajoling, rebuking and even forcing you into doing what they think is right. As such, it is very much a continuation of what has gone before – business as usual for modern politics – on the grounds that you are treated like an infant by paternalistic politicians who have the arrogance to think they know better than you on the absolutely fundamental question of how you live your life. The fact that it is presented in a soft way with nice, nostalgic images should not disguise the fact that this is very different to any meaningful manifestation of liberty.

On Laurie Penny

The fact that Laurie Penny has managed to make a complete hash of searching for an admin assistant to help with her book should not come as a surprise to anyone who has read her writings on a regular basis; of course she was going to be sexist and hypocritical about it – that’s what she does. I’ve not great desire to rehash the arguments about how idiotic she’s been. I do, however, have two questions:

1. Laurie, if you can’t afford to pay someone a living wage in order to do your grunt work, then why can’t you just do it for yourself?

2. Who the hell would pay good money to get Laurie Penny to put a book together?

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...

On Socialism

Jackart has an excellent post up on the subject of socialism; safe to say, he is not a fan of it:

I DON'T want to kill you if you disagree with me. Socialists do. Don't believe me? Go and talk to a true believer.

Whatever comments a socialist might make about Jackart's post, he certainly can't be accused of being ambiguous.

His starting point is the idea that socialism hasn't been tried before - a predictable line trotted out with tedious regularity by those on the left. Of course, socialism has been tried before, but what a lot of these socialist types mean is that a socialist utopia has never been achieved. Which is true, but also not surprising when you consider why such a supposed heaven on earth has never been realised - quite simply, it can't be.

You could argue that this is down to human nature - that humans aren't capable of sharing, and so socialism is not possible. I'd dispute this. I'd argue that humans aren't capable of being consistently forced to share at the behest of others without considerable protest, but that is a very different proposition to the first negative view of human nature outlined above. However, there is something within human nature that does damage the chances of ever realising a socialist utopia - namely, the reluctance of humans to give up power once it has been achieved.

This is an especially big problem within Marxism. See, Marx built a dictatorship into his plans to realise a socialist/communist utopia. And, in different parts of the world, a dictatorship did happen, designed to facilitate the move towards socialism. The problem is that the dictatorship proves to be anything other than transient - the Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat lasted for over eight decades. The longevity of such dictatorships has nothing to do with the failure to have a worldwide socialist revolution. There have been stable socialist countries in the past where the state has resolutely failed to "wither away". The reason is, in part, that once people have got some power, they become very reluctant to lose it. Furthermore, there are always those dissenters who wish to pervert the country from achieving its socialist dystopian nightmare dream.

The problem is simple - socialism has access to a supposed "truth". A "truth" that will make things better for everyone. Yet it is clear that truth is relative, and very much at the mercy of the individualistic tendencies of humanity - individualistic tendencies that show no sign of going away, and indeed seem to be becoming more pronounced. So a socialist movement can win power promising to implement changes to make life better for everyone. But once they are in power, the problems start. Because not everyone is going to agree with them on the methods of achieving utopia, and not everyone is going to agree on what that utopia should look like. So the government needs to stay in power, and needs to protect itself from the non-believer. And that is when those of use who have issues with the economics and politics of socialism start to be stigmatised by the very state promising a better future for all.

To a large extent, there is little difference between socialism and religion, barring where they decide to locate their paradises (earth and the afterlife, respectively). The fanaticism shown by both socialists and religious people is because they think they have answer to that great "truth"; the reality is, such a truth - if it exists - is never going to be accepted by everyone. Which leaves both socialists and the religious with a big problem - what they are going to do with those who don't conform. With those who refuse to fall in with what is supposed to be a better way for all humanity. And takes us full circle, to where we started, since socialism all too often falls into the trap of suppressing freedom of choice and speech at the very least, and far too often ends in the gulag and the death camp.

A verbatim quote from an advert* for a "Socialist Society" seen on a university notice board:

"Where is your free market now?"

Erm, buried underneath a great big fat mount of your pointless state intervention, mate. And even before the economy crashed, there was no such thing as a free market. In this country, and in other Western democracies, the market is not free; we have a mixed economy. And the state intervention inherent in that mixed economy did nothing to prevent the crash; in fact, you could argue that it did a great deal to exacerbate the crash when it came.

Still, don't let little things like facts fuck up your mindless, cliched slogan, eh?

*Handwritten in felt-tip pen. No, really. And there was another advert proclaiming "Whose driving climate change?" Who ever said socialists were stupid?

Punch Your Way to Mental Health!

Of course, it is very well known that the internet generates all sorts of freaks. And sometimes, I wonder whether some people on the internet can possibly be real. It appears that Neil Harding is an actual person, despite being a shameless Labourite cheerleader. And Councillor Terry Kelly proves the limitations of democracy by being not only a total moron, but also an elected official. By rights he should be a cliche of a Militant Tendency style Labour party member of the 1980's. Instead, he's an elected Labour politician in the 21st Century who seems impossible to unseat. As for Dirty European Socialist, well, I'm still pretty sure that he/she/it is a piece of obscure performance art rather than a real person.

Via Speak Your Branes, here's another person who, like the three people listed above, I'm not sure can be real. Red Rose Andy isn't just a socialist, he is also an environmentalist and a self-proclaimed psychotherapist. And that's where the fun starts. See, Red Rose Andy has invented the Kadir-Buxton Method, that he feels sure will revolutionise mental health. Let's take a look at what this method involves:

The cure, which I term the Kadir-Buxton Method, has been used on a wide variety of mental health problems. The procedure stuns and resets the brain of the patient, so that the patient returns to a normal condition. The Kadir-Buxton Method is done by making a fist of both hands, and striking both ears of the patient at exactly the same time and pressure with the soft part of the inner hand which is where the thumb joins the hand.

Right. Riiiigggghhht. So the miracle cure for mental illness is slapping someone in the head. Boxing their ears. That's going to overcome decades of psychiatry and psychotherapy, now, isn't it? Fuck me, this is real innovation. A procedure that makes ECT look sophisticated and lobotomy look like the future. Can't think why Red Rose Andy is struggling to get his innovative method accepted by the medical authorities in this country. Just as well he is on hand to explain why:

I am having a hard time getting the Kadir-Buxton Method used in the UK because it would cut down the number of professionals that are needed at present, and of course, cut the amount of expensive drugs that drug companies sell at present.

Ah, that would be the reason. The fears of pharmaceutical industry and health professionals are strangling this innovation. Nothing to do with it being one of the most ridiculous ideas in the history of crank medicine, then. Still, if you truly believe in this groundbreaking innovation, then you can sign up here to support it at the Number 10 petition site. Along side such luminaries as C. Nile, hardon spazjacket and the bassplayer from The Levellers.

But it gets even better. See, Kadir-Buxton has a blog. Well, a sort of blog. It seems to be a list of faintly right-on pronouncements that vary from the deeply dull through to the outrageous. A particular favourite of mine is the demand that fascism be treated as a mental illness. Mainly because the author doesn't agree with fascists. Now, as regular readers of this blog will know, I'm not a big fan of fascists myself, but do think that those who would suppress the free speech of fascists run the risk of being of being classed as a fascist themselves. Besides, those who would declaim their political opponents by classifying them as mentally ill remind me a lot of the leaders of the former Soviet Union, who created the condition of sluggishly progressing schizophrenia to act as a tool to imprison political dissidents.

Perhaps that's another reason why the medical elite in this country don't want to back Kadir-Buxton. He wants to classify those who don't agree with him as mentally ill. And then wants to punch them in the side of the head to "cure" them.

So is Andy Kadir-Buxton real or not? That's up to the individual reader to decide. However, I'm not sure which would be worse - the idea that someone can make up a person as ridiculous as Kadir-Buxton, or whether such a delusional person could actually exist.

Pay Equality

Via Tom Harris, a staggering quote that could almost been spoken by one of the antagonists in Atlas Shrugged:

"The crisis we find ourselves in is one significantly caused by greed. The salaries of those at the top raced away while the median wage stagnated. Inequality grew, and an economic crisis ensued. The unjust rewards of a few hundred 'masters of the universe' exacerbated the risks we were all exposed to many times over. Banking and executive remuneration packages have reached excessive levels. We believe now is the time for government to take decisive action."

Read the whole article. It is insane. The ideological redundancy of the left is brought into sharp relief by this outmoded, out of date pile of toss. The recession - a perfectly natural downturn in the economic cycle - was not created by greed. And it won't be aided by the government dictating what privately owned companies can and can't pay their employees.

Tom Harris - a Labour MP - is against this. The incumbent Chancellor of the Exchequer - a man who has done a vast amount to alter the balance of our mixed economy in favour of the government - is against this. Quite rightly so as well. Because as soon as people start embracing this sort of rhetoric, they start on the terrible descent towards a Stalinist style command economy. That creates equality not through enabling people to achieve all they can with their lives, but by slowly yet remorselessly dragging everyone down to the same level. Oh, and by creating an utterly stagnant economy at the same time. 

Many moons ago, political debate used to focus on the relationship between the Church and the state. Now the debate must centre on the relationship between the state and the economy, and the state and the private individual. The sort of policies espoused by Compass in this instance are an alarming call for more state intervention in both the lives of its citizens and the economy at a time when government should just be moving in the opposite direction. And these policies represent the politics of financial jealousy. The angry, petulant sulking of those who want to earn the same as a CEO or business executive, but aren't prepared to do the work to earn it fairly. 

The government should take decisive action. It should ignore Compass when it talks utter rubbish like this. 

The Left-Wing James Purnell... Just So Nu Labour

James Purnell seems to be having something of a meltdown. Having quit the Cabinet, he is now trying to lurch to the left like Tony Benn in the 1970's. He's written an article on LabourList detailing his beliefs and explaining what he believes. The problem is that article not only fails to make the case for left-wing beliefs, but it ends up not only revealing just how right-wing Purnell is and and therefore how opportunistic his "conversion" to the left is. 

I'm not going to fisk the whole thing; instead, let's take a look at some of the "highlights" of the piece. 

Purnell on Labour Success

Britain is a fundamentally better place than it was in 1997 and Labour has lots to be proud of over the last 12 years.

Yeah. Like rapidly diminishing civil liberties. Like a ruined economy, and near bankrupt government. Or how about the War in Afghanistan, where troops are dying because the government won’t give them decent equipment? And what about the political class – corpulent, corrupt and odious? Yes, yes there’s lots to be proud of, Purnell. You twat. 

But even if you are proud of the shitty and shameful legacy of the first 12 years of Nu Labour rule, why the hell did you resign from the Cabinet? Yeah, I know that Purnell had issues with Brown, but if you are going to credit Nu Labour with anything other than failure then you have to give Brown some of the glory. So if Labour has so much to be proud of, why did Purnell resign from the Cabinet and nearly sink the premiership of someone who has been at the heart of the Nu Labour project for so long?

Purnell names his contributors

You can read the views of a number of high profile left wing figures, including Jon Cruddas, Billy Bragg, Polly Toynbee and Peter Hyman

Why on earth would you want to announce a lurch to the left using those faux class warriors and champagne socialists? I mean, Polly Toynbee? Polly fucking Toynbee? Someone who has jumped on the bandwagon of every half-baked Social Democratic leader since David Owen? The fangirl of Gordon Brown and David Miliband? You want her to help to launch your lurch to the left? Good God, man. You're fucked from the start. 

Purnell on the first distinction between right and left

First, the Right tolerates inequalities that the Left hates. I’m on the Left because I worry about inequalities of capability - some people have it very easy in our society, others far too hard. The goal of policy should be to correct these inequalities in power. This is partly but not only about redistribution of income.

Ahhh, and there we have it. Good, old-fashioned socialism. Redistribution of income. Equality of outcome (which is what “inequalities of capability” actually seems to mean). Exactly the sort of views that strangle society, and create equality through dragging everyone down with punitive taxation and a culture of dependence on the government. The Right doesn’t "tolerate inequality" – rather, it sees it as part of a free society.

Purnell on the second distinction between right and left

Second, I believe that governments succeed more often than they fail. People on the Right are more sceptical of government’s effectiveness. The Right also worry that more government crowds out society, whereas we think that government helps communities be more active and individuals more powerful.

Government – when it is being interventionist and trying to graft concepts of community and equality on to the people – seizes power from the citizens. It suffocates community and emasculates individuals. Government has to be minimal, in order to maximize freedom. It is only then that they are truly effective.

Purnell on the third distinction between right and left

Third, I’m utopian. People on the Left tend to have a vision of what society could be like, and believe it’s the role of democracy to try to make that a reality. People on the Right are more likely to value the status quo, believing it represents the tested wisdom of previous generations.

Well, the point of democracy if to reflect the views of the citizens in that democracy. So, democracy can only make that blueprint a reality if the voters want it. And I hate to point this out, but they have consistently rejected socialism since 1979.

And if people on the Right do reject utopias, it may not be for the classically conservative reasons detailed by Purnell. It could be that some people just don’t think it is possible to build a utopian society. And such people can point to the Soviet Union and the attempts to build an agrarian utopia in Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge as proof of just how badly utopia building can go.

Purnell on education 1

So, I would be in favour of having profit-making companies running state schools – as long as it increased equality of capability

Amazing. Actually amazing. Purnell's pitch for a lurch to the left includes a policy that would be to the right of the incumbent Tory leadership. The effective privatisation of the schools? That is the start of your lurch to the left, James Purnell? Jesus Christ, you'll be lucky if you don't end with genuine left-wingers burning you in effigy over that gem. 

Purnell in education 2

What makes me most angry about Britain today is that some children’s chances in life are restricted by their circumstances of birth. That’s why I would say the change that would do most to transform our society for the better would be ending child poverty and every child being well taught.

What makes me most angry about Labour today is when they belly-ache about the problems of this country despite the fact that they have had 12 fucking years to sort those fucking problems out! Honest to God, if you haven’t sorted those problems by now then the chances are you never fucking will.

Purnell on his inspirations

When I consider the future of the British Left I think we should take inspiration from the Swedish social democrats. They combined pragmatism and idealism over a long period to shift the political reality in their country, entrenching social democracy as both morally right and electorally irreversible.

I worry about some of those phrases. How can you make something "morally right" other than to subvert existing morals? It sounds a lot like trying to control the moral codes of private citizens. Which is a lot like trying to control their thoughts. And “electorally irreversible”? That isn’t democratic. It may be that people reject policies that have gone before. By making something “electorally irreversible”, you take away their democratic right to reject something that has gone before. Which leads me to conclude that when Purnell calls earlier in the article for “effective democracy” what he actually means a limited democracy that rubber stamps what he deems to be right...

Anyhow, Purnell's bid to be the leader of the new left is undermined by a few key points:

1. He doesn't understand what it means to be left-wing. All he can do is spout a few easy to refute platitudes.
2. He is actually far too right-wing for his own party, let alone the left of it. Privatising schools? Jesus. Even the Tories at the height of their privatisation lust stopped short of that!
3. There is nothing other than naked opportunism in his lurch to the left. He thinks that if Labour moves to the left, then it will be more popular. And he thinks that if he positions himself on the left, then he'll set himself out as a future leader for his party. There is no genuine belief in his article, mere naked lust for power. It is the pathetic political positioning of someone who regrets leaving Cabinet. 

The irony is that Purnell would have more luck in becoming an influential politician if he lurched to the right rather than the left. His article - a desperate attempt to suck up to left of his party - is going to convince precisely no-one. He would do better being honest and pushing himself to the right of Gordon Brown. Or swallowing his pride, and crossing the floor of the Commons and joining the Tories. 

Regardless of what you think about Purnell's views, he's the consummate Nu Labour politician. He will literally say anything to win power, and his bitter cynicism means that political beliefs are just a stepping stone for his own personal gain. 

Hell Hath No Fury...

...like a left-winger scorned. 

Penny Red has an interesting post up today. It reads like a howl of impotent - and slightly petulant - rage at the sudden realisation that the world doesn't owe her or her friends a living. It is a heartbreaking read, and you would have to have a hard heart to mock the post. Which, to be honest, was my original intention. It is so ripe with naivete and a surly disappointment in a world that hasn't matched a hopelessly utopian ideal that it is just crying out for a good verbal kicking. 

Yet it actually isn't the fault of the likes of Penny Red for their strangely needy relationships with the state. It actually comes down to the political class. They make the promises that everything will be ok, but they don't have the power nor the impetus to actually do what they promise to do. The classic is Brown claiming that he has ended boom and bust. He hadn't and he can't, but still he promised it. And when the recession hits, everyone is disappointed in him. Because he created an expectation that he couldn't possibly live up to. 

The Welfare State is another great example. DK would describe it as a massive ponzi scheme and I'd agree. You put in money - under duress and the threat of prison - and might expect something back when you get old/are made unemployed. Fat fucking chance, but the expectation is there. Politicians of all different creeds and colours make the promise that the Welfare State will look after you from cradle to grave, so is it really a surprise that people expect so much from it? And is it really a surprise that so many people become dependent on it? 

Likewise, a university degree has become the pinnacle of educational achievement, and a sure-fire way of getting both a job and a career. Politicians made the promise, and ended up pushing unsuitable people into unsuitable courses. And, of course, it doesn't end up with a happy ending. Three years done, and nothing to show for it other than the dole queue and some hefty debts. By all means, go to university, study what you want and have a great time. But don't expect a job at the end of it. Because that isn't the way the real world works. A degree doesn't mean you're owed a job. Pretty much nothing means you're owed a job...

If you go just about anywhere outside of politics, you learn pretty quickly that life isn't fair. In the workplace, at school, even on the street - things aren't fair. Yet the government propagates this myth that it will create a utopian world where, no matter what happens, it will be ok. The government will come through. It will create a utopia where you're not going to lose your home, and where you'll still have an income even if you aren't in employment. They are the used car salesman with the cheesy grin - they're selling you an old banger that is going to be much more trouble than it is worth. It is down to you to see through it. 

We have generations raised on the idea that the government is a benign creation that will help you in your hour of need. And the government has consistently let people down. Perhaps we do get what we deserve from our politicians. However, we need to be more cynical about the claims made by our politicians. I'd argue that the politician you can trust is the one who stands up and says "no, sorry, there's nothing we can do about that." And that is probably the one you should vote for.

Penny Red's article is sadly typical of yet another wasted generation of people who venerate government as the answer to every problem they face, and then get disappointed when government let's them down. It is time for everyone to grow up, and see the government for what it is - a limited concept with limited power, a necessary evil. And if you get your head round this and actually understand it, then guess what? You've freed yourself from the expectation of a happy ending from the government, and can get on living real life. Where you are dependent on yourself, rather the supposedly benign but utterly unrealistic and unfulfillable promises of the Welfare State.

Nationalising the Railways (Again)

So, the Labour government took a while to get back into the swing of "state ownership" being the answer to just about every problem that trundles along. However, the news about the East Coast Service falling back under state control shows that the basic socialist instinct shines through even now. 

Not that I can be that sorry for National Express. Their time in charge of this particular franchise has been a shining example of failure in a field where failure is the norm rather than the exception. Whenever I have had the gross misfortune to use their service up to Durham or Newcastle, the tickets have been so expensive as to make me want to weep with anguish and the service has been pretty abysmal. Not least because the train always seems to break down just outside Peterborough. 

This news will be taken by some as evidence that rail privatisation has failed in this country. Now, I wouldn't use such absolute terms, but I will admit that the rail system in this country is over-priced (despite large government subsidies) and deeply flawed. Yet the process of actually privatising the rail network in this country is a crucial part of the problem. Yes, the ownership of the rail network passed from the public into the private sector, but many of the other benefits of the private sector did not come into play, especially for the consumers. There is competition for the government, but only when they come to choose between those vying for rail franchises. For the consumer, there is no choice. If you want to get from London to Durham on the train relatively quickly, then realistically there is one choice. And it is shit.

Rail privatisation failed to deal with the fundamental monoply that is inherent within the rail network. As a result, the system is still a mess, and still fails the consumer. But before anyone gets too excited about it returning to the public sector, let's remember that it will be falling under government control. The same government who are staring bankruptcy in the face. That same government who seem, time and time again, to achieve reverse alchemy and turn gold into base metals. They won't be able to run the East Coast Line, just as they haven't been able to run pretty much anything for years. 

Besides, we shouldn't forget why the railways were privatised in the first place. The state run British Rail was shit. So whilst I'm not sure how to deal with the problems of the railways in this country, I am sure that the government's course of action is going to hinder rather than help. 

Summing up Stalinism

From an article in The Independent:

"Legend has it that the institute, which opened in 1927, was born of a secret Soviet plan to create a man-ape hybrid that would become a Soviet superman and propel the Soviet Union ahead of the West. The Soviet elite, goes the apocryphal tale that has appeared widely in Russian media, wanted to create a prototype worker that would be inhumanly strong and mentally dulled, to carry out the gruelling work of industrialising the vast expanses of newly Sovietised territory."

Legend or not, it neatly sets out the Stalinist mindset. If I was feeling unkind, I'd say the the creation of a dull but strong worker is pretty much the mindset of any socialist.

Jeez.

Sarkozy wins the election, giving him a mandate to desperately try to turnaround the stagnant, failing economy. To offer a practical, rational response to France's problems for the first time in years. He wins both rounds of the election, having led the polls throughout the contest. And how does the defeated left respond?

Rioting.

And who said socialists were undemocratic, violent, bad losers?

It is not a beauty contest...

...which is just as well for Sarkozy otherwise he would lose - badly:

Now French Politics is not of massive interest to me. There is enough going on in US and UK politics to keep me occupied. When I was studying politics at uni, French politics was one of my least favourite subjects (or "modules", as the fashionable term was back then). I always lose track of which republic they are on (I think it is fifth but it could be sixth). But from the research I have been doing and the conversations I have had, it does seem like France is at a critical turning point. It stretches credibility slightly, but there are links between France today and Britain in 1979.

And, just as they did with Merkel in Germany, people are looking for the Thatcherite figure to come to power and turn the country around. And they seem to have found that figure in Royal. But when you actually cut through all the bullshit, the honest truth is the only way you could call Royal Thatcherite is because of her sex. But Thatcher was successful because of her policies and determination to see those policies through, not because of her gender. And whilst Royal has paid lip service to some radical reform in France (such as attacking the 35 hour working week) she remains, fundamentally, a socialist. And that is proper, old school socialist - no the Nu Labour socilaist lite model we have in this country. All a socialist President will do is further increase the problems of France, and further cripple an already stagnant country.

Which is why Sarkozy - for all his flaws and headline grabbing comments - is the best option for France. If he acts on his electoral rhetoric (always difficult for our elected politicians but you never know) then he could do a great deal of good for France. France needs to move away from the stagnant leadership of Chirac, but not into the arms of an utterly discredited political ideology. Sarkozy will have a lot to prove if he makes it into office, but I think the chances of him making a difference are far greater than Royal make a positive difference.

*Pretty* Polly

As advertised on the Kitchen, last night saw the frankly farcical sight of Polly Toynbee addressing the Conservative Bow Group. Yep, that’s right – the arch Social Democrat (or socialist, if you will), the Brown lover, the pie in the sky leftie that is Polly Toynbee addressed a Conservative meeting last night. It would be surreal, if it wasn’t so tragic.

I was there, along with DK, Trixy and Jackart. Sat in the corner of Committee Room Six in the Commons. To say there was more than a little hostility from our corner towards the *esteemed* speaker would be an understatement. But that’s not to say that it was simply anger we were directing at her. There was also quite a bit of pointing and laughing.

I was going to do a detailed analysis and critique of what Toynbee had to say, and her answers to the questions put to her, but I won’t. Simply because that would take too long, because, frankly, everything she said was wrong. Instead, I’ll just make a couple of points about some of the more egregiously crappy things that she said.

Firstly, Polly talked about redistribution of wealth and evening out the differences in society. She cited the Scandinavian example(s), where the consultant in a hospital earns a similar amount to the person cleaning the floors. Hmmmm…. Well, I don’t support redistribution of wealth, I think it is wrong to punish people for being successful and prosperous. But actually it is more fundamental than that. The consultant in the hospital who is going to operate on someone’s brain frankly should earn a hell of a lot more than the person wiping up shit in the corridor. He has more specialist skills and he has a far higher pressure job than the cleaner mopping up outside the operating theatre. What is wrong with rewarding people for doing a technical, specialist jobs? Can you really, really claim that the work done by the cleaner is as challenging and difficult as the work done by the consultant? And worth as much? Because if you can, you are a total twat.

Also, Polly claimed that people’s fear of tax rises was based around a fear of losing CEOs, as has occurred in her beloved Scandinavia. Erm, no, Polly. I couldn’t give a flying fuck where CEOs live. They can reside on the arsing moon for all I care. My dislike of tax rises is more based on my fear of the government wasting even more of my hard earned money on crap policies and crap schemes. And I don’t think I am alone in this – witness the Tory victory in 1992 General Election after the Labour party revealed their tax and spend plans. If the government cannot efficiently use the tax revenue they currently raise, then why on earth would anyone want to give them more money to waste?

And there is something very interesting about the way in which Polly views society and the success of individuals within that society. It seems to be purely based on earnings. The problem seems to be that the highest earners net so much more than the lowest earners. Success is based on how much money you earn. Well, personally, I rate success in life on more than just salary. Sure, I earn more than the median salary quoted by Pol last night. But not massive amounts more – and I certainly don’t earn anywhere near as much as those CEOs who seem to cause Polly such consternation. And you know what? I don’t care. Frankly those who act as CEOs deserve the money they earn. They pretty much give their lives to their jobs, and work exceptionally hard in high pressure roles that I know I could not cope with and have no interest in. They earn their money, Pol, and good luck to them.

Polly’s argument is not even based on class envy anymore – it is greed, it is based on jealously of salaries. Personally I am not greedy and vacuous enough to see money as the route of all happiness and success in their life. And I pity those who, as Polly seems to do, worship money above all else.

The end result of Toynbee’s ideas and policies is equality – everyone is equally miserable. Because as far as I can see she is not a Social Democrat, but rather a good ol’ table thumping, Red Flag waving, socialist. She proposes the great levelling – the government intervenes until everyone is earning the same. End any aspirations for individuals – no matter how hard you try, you will end up the same as the waster sat next to you on the train because, no matter what happens, no-one can be left behind.

Ultimately, as Jackart controversially noted last night, the socialist/social democratic countries may outstrip the UK in many of the parameters that Polly finds important, but they also beat us in another, unarguably bad, category.

They are better at suicide.