Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Government is a pusher, not a killjoy
Before we start, a thought: how many of us change our opinions as a result of what we read on the Internet? Are you prepared to have an open mind for the few minutes it will take to read this?
1. We are conditioned to think that Prohibition in the USA was a government-imposed scheme that failed because of popular demand for alcohol, and thank goodness it ended because it meant no more dangerous concoctions and violent crime. Actually, it was a success (in terms of both health problems and crime statistics) and ended because the US government in 1933 was desperate for revenue. By the way, Prohibition was NOT a ban on making or consuming alcohol! If you want to follow up, here's a link to an economist (Don Boudreaux) who is generally of the free trade persuasion: Alcohol, Probition and the Revenuers
2. We also hear of the Gin Epidemic of the early to mid 18th century, but perhaps not so often why it happened. The government's motivation is made clear in the title of Queen Anne's 1703 Act "... for encouraging the Consumption of malted Corn, and for the better preventing the running of French and foreign Brandy." This Act (see p.389 here), and it seems a number of others, deregulated the sale of spirits:
Since the 1960s, the British government has progressively relaxed restrictions on access to alcohol, with predictable results. I cannot say to what extent MPs (and in what way) may have been persuaded by commercial lobbying. In 2003 a Labour government extended drinking hours.
3. Tobacco brings in a great deal of revenue (£12 billion a year). James I may have expressed his displeasure in 1604, and the health effects are now (though still disputed) generally better understood. The government makes various gestures, resented by smokers (and non-smokers: I now go inside the pub for fresh air), but it needs the money.
4. The same people-loving New Labour government that relaxed laws on drink, did the same for gambling, and now (e.g. Harriet Harman in the Mail today) is prepared to admit it was wrong. But last year, it earned £1.6 billion in government revenues.
5. A Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee has been hearing evidence bearing on drugs liberalisation this year, notably from comedian and uber-shagger Russell Brand, and there is some concern that the committee may be biased, or at least receiving biased and misleading information and terms of reference. Even if this effort (if it is an effort) fails, I expect it will be repeated: as the IRA told Margaret Thatcher, they only have to be lucky once.
I suspect that governments have learned how to serve their own wretched interests by couching the arguments for addictive products in terms that appeal to our illusions of liberty and personal self-control. Far from being killjoys, they are enablers battening on human weakness.
UPDATE:
Comments coming in on Orphans of Liberty offer me the chance to clarify and develop the argument:
Q: So, your argument is that nobody would choose to gamble/smoke/drink if the government didn’t push it on them and take their filthy revenue from the activities…?
Even though you say the reason for the ‘Gin Epidemic’ was “preventing the running of French and foreign Brandy.”
My answer:
No. But I refer you to what happened during Prohibition: it was permissible to brew and drink alcohol, but not to manufacture and distribute it on a commercial basis. So that cut out businesses and the government, who got together in 1933 to reverse not an Act, but a full-scale Constitutional Amendment.
Here’s the deal (but of course it will always be a fantasy): let the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and drugs be unregulated and untaxed, but also kept completely private and uncommercial. Grow your own, smoke your own, drink your own, share with friends in your own home or backyard – but not for money or money’s worth.
Libertarians (rightly, in my view) complain about the power and interference of government – but need to include commercial enterprises in their strictures. As I keep saying (but who listens in the world of the Internet?), Big MD/CEO is no better than Big Brother – especially when they combine, as in this case.
1. We are conditioned to think that Prohibition in the USA was a government-imposed scheme that failed because of popular demand for alcohol, and thank goodness it ended because it meant no more dangerous concoctions and violent crime. Actually, it was a success (in terms of both health problems and crime statistics) and ended because the US government in 1933 was desperate for revenue. By the way, Prohibition was NOT a ban on making or consuming alcohol! If you want to follow up, here's a link to an economist (Don Boudreaux) who is generally of the free trade persuasion: Alcohol, Probition and the Revenuers
2. We also hear of the Gin Epidemic of the early to mid 18th century, but perhaps not so often why it happened. The government's motivation is made clear in the title of Queen Anne's 1703 Act "... for encouraging the Consumption of malted Corn, and for the better preventing the running of French and foreign Brandy." This Act (see p.389 here), and it seems a number of others, deregulated the sale of spirits:
Since the 1960s, the British government has progressively relaxed restrictions on access to alcohol, with predictable results. I cannot say to what extent MPs (and in what way) may have been persuaded by commercial lobbying. In 2003 a Labour government extended drinking hours.
3. Tobacco brings in a great deal of revenue (£12 billion a year). James I may have expressed his displeasure in 1604, and the health effects are now (though still disputed) generally better understood. The government makes various gestures, resented by smokers (and non-smokers: I now go inside the pub for fresh air), but it needs the money.
4. The same people-loving New Labour government that relaxed laws on drink, did the same for gambling, and now (e.g. Harriet Harman in the Mail today) is prepared to admit it was wrong. But last year, it earned £1.6 billion in government revenues.
5. A Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee has been hearing evidence bearing on drugs liberalisation this year, notably from comedian and uber-shagger Russell Brand, and there is some concern that the committee may be biased, or at least receiving biased and misleading information and terms of reference. Even if this effort (if it is an effort) fails, I expect it will be repeated: as the IRA told Margaret Thatcher, they only have to be lucky once.
I suspect that governments have learned how to serve their own wretched interests by couching the arguments for addictive products in terms that appeal to our illusions of liberty and personal self-control. Far from being killjoys, they are enablers battening on human weakness.
UPDATE:
Comments coming in on Orphans of Liberty offer me the chance to clarify and develop the argument:
Q: So, your argument is that nobody would choose to gamble/smoke/drink if the government didn’t push it on them and take their filthy revenue from the activities…?
Even though you say the reason for the ‘Gin Epidemic’ was “preventing the running of French and foreign Brandy.”
My answer:
No. But I refer you to what happened during Prohibition: it was permissible to brew and drink alcohol, but not to manufacture and distribute it on a commercial basis. So that cut out businesses and the government, who got together in 1933 to reverse not an Act, but a full-scale Constitutional Amendment.
Here’s the deal (but of course it will always be a fantasy): let the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and drugs be unregulated and untaxed, but also kept completely private and uncommercial. Grow your own, smoke your own, drink your own, share with friends in your own home or backyard – but not for money or money’s worth.
Libertarians (rightly, in my view) complain about the power and interference of government – but need to include commercial enterprises in their strictures. As I keep saying (but who listens in the world of the Internet?), Big MD/CEO is no better than Big Brother – especially when they combine, as in this case.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Fantastic news for the drug-addled libertarian!
Mexico has caved in. No more fighting against drugs.
The tidal wave moves up the shore. Soon, in the first self-inflicted global pandemic, we will all discover just how strong our will is; Damian Thompson knows already.
And now I must prepare to be verbally flayed by those who just know that they can handle it, and whose philosophy is atomised freedom: the solitary individual, totally disconnected from all others, making his choices in a moral and cultural vacuum and unaffected by his physiology or subconscious compulsions.
I think the fundamental issue of our age may turn out to be the Four Noble Truths.
The tidal wave moves up the shore. Soon, in the first self-inflicted global pandemic, we will all discover just how strong our will is; Damian Thompson knows already.
And now I must prepare to be verbally flayed by those who just know that they can handle it, and whose philosophy is atomised freedom: the solitary individual, totally disconnected from all others, making his choices in a moral and cultural vacuum and unaffected by his physiology or subconscious compulsions.
I think the fundamental issue of our age may turn out to be the Four Noble Truths.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Hope for America
I've just been reading The Economic Collapse Blog, and I'm awestruck by how the writer (and so many others on the Internet) is able to produce so much and of such quality.
But I think he and others need to distinguish between a crisis and a disaster.
I'm told that the Chinese ideogram for "crisis" is a combination of two others, "threat" and "opportunity". America is in crisis - though not, perhaps, so much as we in the UK - yet I believe that the US has everything in its toolbox and larder to be a great society.
As I submitted to the piece linked above:
The US is still the world’s leader in per capita GDP when you exclude the tax havens and oil producers.
Speaking as someone who encouraged his brother to take American citizenship, I say you have a great future.
The problem you have – the source of many you list here – is excessive inequality, founded on unfair practices. But when America has cleaned out the pigsty of high-level corruption and mutual favouritism, she will find that she has an entrepreneurial population, abundant natural resources (e.g. an excellent population-arable land ratio), and a Constitution that will work just fine when you get back to it.
But I think he and others need to distinguish between a crisis and a disaster.
I'm told that the Chinese ideogram for "crisis" is a combination of two others, "threat" and "opportunity". America is in crisis - though not, perhaps, so much as we in the UK - yet I believe that the US has everything in its toolbox and larder to be a great society.
As I submitted to the piece linked above:
The US is still the world’s leader in per capita GDP when you exclude the tax havens and oil producers.
Speaking as someone who encouraged his brother to take American citizenship, I say you have a great future.
The problem you have – the source of many you list here – is excessive inequality, founded on unfair practices. But when America has cleaned out the pigsty of high-level corruption and mutual favouritism, she will find that she has an entrepreneurial population, abundant natural resources (e.g. an excellent population-arable land ratio), and a Constitution that will work just fine when you get back to it.
Monday, July 30, 2012
UK M4 shows continuing decline
Figures released today by the Bank of England show that M4 lending (quarterly, annualised) shrank again in the second quarter of 2012 - slightly up from Q1, but still lower than before. Where will it end?
Playing the chartist game, I connected the last two pairs of highs and lows, expecting to see the lines cross somewhere and give us an indication of the bottom. Instead, the channel not only trends downward but is widening.
Join your own dots, but despite all the QE I don't see a terminus. Will the next inflection - the next "top" - be in negative territory?
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.
UK M4 shows continuing decline
Figures released today by the Bank of England show that M4 lending (quarterly, annualised) shrank again in the second quarter of 2012 - slightly up from Q1, but still lower than before. Where will it end?
Playing the chartist game, I connected the last two pairs of highs and lows, expecting to see the lines cross somewhere and give us an indication of the bottom. Instead, the channel not only trends downward but is widening.
Join your own dots, but despite all the QE I don't see a terminus. Will the next inflection - the next "top" - be in negative territory?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)