Occupy! Why?

I'd just like to point out that I'm doing my own little bit for the Occupy protests that are sweeping the world. I'm occupying my kitchen table, writing on my laptop, with a film on in the background. Yeah, it's not a lot, but I'm pretty sure that by the end of the day I will have acheived just as much as those protesting today.

It's not that I'm utterly hostile to the case being made by some of these protestors. I do think that there is something very wrong with some of the relationships between governments and certain financial institutions/companies. I certainly think it is a terrible idea for any government to spend billions bailing out failed banks. But I have a simple solution to this - a minimal government that is neither empowered or able to afford such actions. Whereas those in these protests don't seem to have any other plan other than tax the banks more to fund the state.

Which, of course, is nonsense because, as should be clear to everyone other than the terminally retarded, the state is a big part of the problem here. It shouldn't be given more money, just as in the same way a crack addict shouldn't be given more crack. Any solution to the problems that have befallen us should not include funding a big part of those problems.

Plus, what precisely are these protests going to achieve? In fact, there is something faintly pathetic about those occupying financial districts, not least because it is a Saturday and these districts will be largely unoccupied by those that work there. It seems to me to be a splendid symbol of absolute impotence that these people are stood on the streets, making the sort of demands that those targetted will simply shrug off if they ever get around to noticing them in the first place. It is a bit like that angry toddler demanding candy from the disinterested parent. Only one side is going to win, and its the side with the power.

Of course, people should be allowed to protest if they so wish, and I hope that these people enjoy their time trying to make a difference. But take any claims that this is some sort of worldwide revolution with a pinch of salt. Come Monday, these people will be back at the work so they can pay the(ever-increasing) bills, or signing on so someone else can pay them. If change is going to come, then it will be more radical than the sort of ersatz change demanded by many of these protestors. Because not only we will have to deal with the bloated, corporatist organisations who suckle at the teat of big government, but also tackle the big government that so willing offers itself to its preferred clients. So when Westminster is being occupied at the same time as the City, people might finally be getting it...

More Murphy

Richard Murphy on some spending cuts:

But there’s more to it than that. The people who run these services – lowly paid by and large – want to work with the young, the old, in caring for fellow human beings. The private sector is not going to provide these people with those jobs – because the state is not going to pay them to provide them – and nor is The Big Society – let’s be realistic.

Where to begin? There are just so many problems in this hysterical bilge that I really do struggle to find a starting point. I guess we're just going to have to do this the old-fashioned way, and start at the beginning.

Firstly, those who work for the various services Murphy is chuntering about are often not paid well. But that really is the choice of those who employ these individuals. That's right - local and central government decide how much these people should be paid. Therefore, it is their fault if these people aren't paid particularly well.

Murphy would be on stronger ground if the pay in the public sector was roughly the same across that sector. Of course, it isn't. Those delivering frontline services may be paid poorly, but those in management positions or in office based work are often paid relatively well - a quick flick through The Guardian's job adverts shows this. And those who run councils - the Chief Executives etc - are often paid hundreds of thousands for the work they do. Of course, pay comes down to the particular worth an organisation places on its employees and you can argue that the pay scales in the public sector are counter-intuitive and warped. But that's an internal problem to the public sector - that sector that Murphy virtually worships.

It is also impossible to say what the motives are of such employees. Some will actively want to work with the vulnerable; others might do it because they have no choice. Murphy here is trying to do a crude trick - he's tugging on your heartstrings by talking about poorly paid caring people. The reality is that some carers will match that description - others really won't.

And where's his evidence that the private sector won't give these people jobs? The private sector may well give them jobs if there is a demand for their services and a chance that those services will turn in a profit for the employers. Employers aren't reliant on the state and state funding to employ people who are useful to them - in fact, a lot of employers would far rather that the government buggered off out of their hiring choices.

He's right that the Big Society won't pay for these people - but then again, given the Big Society is a largely empty concept rather than an actual institution, that's hardly surprising. Social Democracy won't pay to provide jobs for them either - again, it's a ideology, not an institution or individual with funds. However, society and its component communities may well pay for these people to have relevant jobs - particularly if the tax burden in this country is substantially reduced and people get to choose how they spend their money to a much, much greater extent. Which, of course, is something that Murphy passionately opposes.

At its heart, there is something very depressing about Murphy's view of human nature. He doesn't see people as basically willing to care about other people without the coercion of the state. In his worldview, people have to be forced to be nice to each other, and to care about the welfare of others. And in doing so, he fabricates an ersatz sense of caring. Many of us who don't share his unthinking reverence for the state believe that if we are given increased freedom, many of us will quite naturally use that freedom to make sure others are Ok. And I'd argue that this is far more optimistic that anything in the statist outlook of Murphy and his ilk.

Laurie Penny, Spending Cuts and Attempted Suicide

As part on my ongoing habit of being late on just about everything, I see that Laurie Penny is indulging in a jaw-dropping bit of hysteria (that manages to be in pretty bad taste at the same time):

It's 2am, and I'm sitting under a strip light in the emergency unit of my local hospital, waiting for the doctors to finish attending to a young friend of mine who attempted to end her life tonight. When the paramedics arrived, they told us she wasn't the first - for many Londoners, it seems, something about the news or the weather today gave the impression that a crisis point has been reached.

Timmy nicely fillets her assertions here, while DK turns in an excellent piece of splenetic rage against her here. But I'd just like to throw into the maelstrom my own thoughts on young Laurie's work.

First up, she's being pretty fucking assumptive. She doesn't specify why her friend tried to end her life (and in fairness, I don't want to know and nor should she tell us) and she clearly doesn't (and can't) know why other Londoners (all we know is that there is more than one) have attempted to end their lives either. It hardly seems surprising, though, that in a city the size of London that a certain number of people would try to end their lives each day. What would be surprising, though, is if they were doing it (as is strongly implied by Penny's article) because of the Comprehensive Spending Review. In fact, that would be fucking staggering - particularly if they were trying to commit said act over Labour's failure to counter the CSR to Penny's liking.

Given we don't know the motives of those who attempted to end their lives on that evening, I d0 have to say that it is pretty offensive - and an example of rather odious cheap political point scoring - for Penny to link those personal, troubled acts with the particular partisan argument she wishes to make. It is the sort of thing you see The Daily Mail doing all the time (albeit not normally from a leftist perspective) and, as most normal people know, aping that hate rag is not the way for any journalist to go.

But I don't think that Penny is stupid, even given the crass and offensive paragraph reproduced above. She can write well, knows how to frame an article, get the reader bought in to what she's saying and how to structure an argument (no matter how easily the logic of said argument can be refuted). She isn't dumb. Her big problem, rather, is that she is almost hopelessly naive. She is a living embodiment of the Entitlement Culture, and she lives in this strange bubble where the whole country should conform to her own, statist outlook on life. She's a idealist through and through. Don't get me wrong, I'm an idealist too - but it is mixed with both pragmatism and a healthy dose of cynicism. I know governments and political parties will do things of which I do not approve - however, I don't then link my disappointment in them to the attempted suicides of people I've never met.

It's tempting to round this post off with a terse phrase like "grow up", but I don't think that is what Penny actually needs to do. She needs to get a grip on reality, and the nasty world that is politics. The world isn't suddenly going to become compliant with what she wants and feels she is entitled to. Practical reality will always constrain what she demands. And in the case of spending cuts the practical reality is starkly simple - there's no money left, and all the parties (including Labour, deep down) know that cuts have to be made if the state is going to stay afloat.

Against Certainty

With the Panzer Pope heading home soon, it is perhaps good to reflect on what an extraordinary visit this has been for the religious leader. Sure, his pronouncements have been exactly what you might expect from a Pope - namely, that those who do not share his beliefs are wrong and evil (possibly even Nazis). The protests that arose as the result of his visit reassure me to some extent - they show that this is no longer a religious nation as such, or at least is a nation where religious beliefs are no longer privileged and have to fight for respect alongside other belief systems. This can only be a good thing for a modern democratic nation.

Yet what was striking to me was the sheer level of conviction of many of those who protested the Pope's visit. Don't get me wrong, I can't stomach the man and I think his views, and his actions over the paedophile scandal, are reprehensible and clearly not suitable for a man running a religious organisation of billions. Yet there's a distinction between protesting what the Pope says and arguing against his right to visit this country. I believe anyone with any sort of moral sense should protest what the Pope says; yet to demand that he should not even be allowed to visit his country is just as illiberal (given he is a key figure for Catholics in this country) as many of Ratzinger's pronouncements.

Which has been the striking thing about many of the secular protestors - their certainty that they are right has now reached a point where they seem to be demanding that the religious do not express their views. To me, this is clearly wrong. I believe religion is a lot of stuff and nonsense, and I have no compunction about sharing those views with both believers and non-believers. I believe I have a right to express my beliefs - however, I do not believe that I have a right to tell others what they should believe. The sort of aggressive secularism of some now seems to be reaching a point where it is telling people what they can and cannot believe in and say. And I see this as extremely dangerous.

As far as I can see, the demise of religion as the dominant force in this country has meant that religion has simply been substituted with other views that cannot be argued with. This is a true irony - many people have freed themselves from religious domination only to find other "truths" to dominate their thinking. This isn't just the case with militant atheists - we can see this certainty affecting many other beliefs throughout this country. The climate change campaigners are now so certain that they have discovered an indisputable truth that they are happy to deny the rights of sceptics to debate and question their conclusions. The same with socialists and other statists - their certainty in the benevolence of the state means they cannot contemplate the views of those who seek to reduce the size of the state. Likewise, flawed organisations and bodies created by flawed humans are now revered to such an extent that to talk of reforming or even abolishing them has become a form of sacrilege. Don't believe me? Try saying that you want to abolish the NHS and see what sort of a reaction you get.

Let me be clear here - I'm not calling for people to abandon their beliefs. I'm not putting forward a case for nihilism; positive or otherwise. What I am saying is that while people should have their belief systems, they should also take into account that other people may differ in their beliefs, and in this inherently uncertain world in which we all exist there must be the possibility that a belief, no matter how apparently logical, adamantly held and cherished, may be proved to be wrong in the future.

Certainty and rigidity in belief can be a comforting thing in an ever-changing world, but it can also be used to dominate others and strangle debate. It should go without saying that we must be very careful to prevent this from happening; but given the readiness of some to deny others their right to express their beliefs, it clearly does need to be said anyway.

So if you're like me, and you think the Pope is an appalling person and Catholicism is nothing more than archaic myth and superstition, by all means make your case and make your protests. But don't seek to deny others their right to hold their own beliefs, no matter how ignorant, ludicrous and downright stupid they may seem to you.

Left-Wing Semantics

Daniel Hannan clearly understands the semantics of modern politics. Or, to put it another way, the semantic distortions of the statist left:

Still, one has to admire the way in which Lefties have captured the word “fair”. Any reduction of state spending must, by definition, mainly affect those who draw income from the state, just as any tax-cut must, by definition, favour those who are paying tax. Therefore, by a brilliant semantic shift, it is “unfair” not to carry on expanding the state forever.

Abso-fucking-lutely. The same is true with the word progressive, as I seem to endlessly be banging on about. To be "progressive" and "fair" in the language of modern Britain seems to require a commitment to state-expansion. Even though there is nothing progressive or fair about that expansion; it simply leads to the slow strangulation of freedom and responsibility in this country.