[Closed] Role of the state / government in individual behaviour?

I've just asked my local MP. When he gets back to me I'll let you know what I think.

It's good question, but at this time of the morning I still have trouble doing my shoe laces up properly, so I'll leave righting the world to the poster below.

I work in local government and I've just been asked by TSY's MP to put together a report advising him what answer to give.

I concur.

Well apparently my habit of injecting heroin into my eyeballs, then sprinkling cocaine on my cornflakes, of a morning, is very frowned upon by my local MP.

But then I'm a northerner, and therefore have a poncey, namby-pamby, nanny-state-ish labour MP. I suspect if my MP was a free-thinking, social libertarian in the mould of say... oh I don't know... David Davis, then he'd likely be pouring me a pint, as requested, to wash down my breakfast

*hic*

There's a big debate going on in government circles at the moment.....

Well they've kept very quiet about their big debate. Personally whatever moral decisions this government takes is fine by me - they're all proper gentlemen what went to posh schools, and I'm sure that anyone [i]"practising consensual sado-masochistic group sex in private"[/i] has nothing to fear from the Bullingdon Boys.

Onzadog - great! That'll be several pages of waffle expressed in an assertive manner without actually coming to any conclusion then 🙂 I'll wait for it to filter through via TSY ...

I'd have thought that at least someone would have drunk a sufficiently strong coffee, read the daily mail and be ready for a rant by now 🙂

Oh... I've just asked DD and he says its all fine as long as I don't then drive or operate any heavy machinery, as this could then subsequently impact quite negatively on the rest of society

My local MP is Dave Cameron... he says it's got nowt to do with him and I should ask you lot what I think instead.

surely its up to thin people to bully fat people into costing the nhs less not the politicians... big society, us all working together and all that 😉

i dunno... maybe if the people telling us what we can and can't do set some good examples.. responsible spending, healthy diet, sensible transport choices, lots of charity and voluntary work in their free time.. that kinda thing.

The state should quite simply keep its nose out.

The state should quite simply keep its nose out.

Let people deal with anti-social behaviour themselves ? Sounds like a plan.

i predict that this govt.'s role will precipitate some very angry behaviour over the next 4 years

surely its up to thin people to bully fat people

*inflates cheeks*

They were prosecuted using a little know old law, which said that an individual cannot consent to allow someone else to harm them, even if they are adults fully capable of making that decision, and it would not have any wider 'costs' to society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/rvbrown1993/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner

My local MP 'was' David Chaytor.......

.....*rings prison*

Sorry apparently he's showering with Big Bob he'll get back to me later

Let people deal with anti-social behaviour themselves ? Sounds like a plan.

But they're only a problem because the state bans drugs. Legalise them and the problem goes away.

The country would be better with less state interference rather than more.

my.spacebar.is.still.broken.so.much.as.i'd.like.to.type.a.comprehensive.answer......I.can't.

The country would be better with less state interference rather than more

Yeah, stop fixing the roads! Oh, they have.

Yeah, stop fixing the roads! Oh, they have.

Lets see... [s]drugs are[/s]murder is an anti-social behaviour problem I believe.

But they're only a problem because the state bans [s]drugs[/s]murder. Legalise them and the problem goes away.

The country would be better with less state interference rather than more.

Lets see... [s]drugs are[/s] speeding is an anti-social behaviour problem I believe.

But they're only a problem because the state bans [s]drugs[/s] speeding. Legalise them and the problem goes away.

The country would be better with less state interference rather than more.

Lets see... [s]drugs are[/s] smoking in public is an anti-social behaviour problem I believe.

But they're only a problem because the state bans [s]drugs[/s] smoking in public. Legalise them and the problem goes away.

The country would be better with less state interference rather than more.

I see where you're going here. Sounds like plan.

Exactly. Remove pointless laws and the country would work just fine.

Remove pointless laws and the country would work just fine.

Gun laws. Don't need them either. So you'll be able to protect yourself...

Does this new social libertarian bent mean I'll be able to smoke in the pub again soon? I hope so

Now that there are only 7 pubs left open in the country. As its become fairly obvious that all the people who moaned about smokey pubs were all the people who never ever ever went to pub anyway. And never would. Probably on account of having no friends as they spent all their time writing letters to their MP. And being scared to leave their houses as its a nasty howwible scary world out there. The Daily Mail said so, so it must be true

This could catch on, I like.

disagreed with the charges brought what grown ups do in the privacy of their own home that has no impact on me is none of my business...suppose there would be a line around killing and then being eaten [ was there not a crazy german on the internet who did this?]but it seems reasonable that you can be tortured for sexual gratification in private if you all consent.

Re the state it is a complicated one we could perhaps all agree about seatbelts but then when we get to speeding or drugs we all have different views, I assume the states role is to try and draw a rule that most folk will agree with whilst allwong individual freedoma nd responsibility to other to be in some sort of balance

I assume the states role is to try and draw a rule that most folk will agree with whilst allowing individual freedom and responsibility to other to be in some sort of balance

we could perhaps all agree about seatbelts

The only argument for compulsion I can see if that the NHS picks up the bill. The simple solution is for the state to not get involved. Smash yourself up by not wearing a helmet, or not wearing a seatbelt or if you have a smoking related disease and it's your problem.

Giving people back the responsibility for their own actions will make people behave normally. State interference makes people behave abnormally and obeys the law of unintended consequences.

what like being allowed to ride bridleways bit still using paths that sort of thing

Ride where you like. But be polite as everyone will have guns.

Why can't I shoot people who displease me? If they're riding their bloody bicycles on my land, its only reasonable

Its no wonder the country is going to the dogs, We're going to hell in a handcart etc etc

Scrap the health service and education too.

The later has clearly failed some forum users so let's just get rid of it.

Why can't I shoot people who displease me?

Sadly 8 laws may be required, but the Castle Doctrine would apply. That works well.

Giving people back the responsibility for their own actions will make people behave normally. State interference makes people behave abnormally and obeys the law of unintended consequences

binners - Member
Does this new social libertarian bent mean I'll be able to smoke in the pub again soon? I hope so

Now that there are only 7 pubs left open in the country. As its become fairly obvious that all the people who moaned about smokey pubs were all the people who never ever ever went to pub anyway. And never would. Probably on account of having no friends as they spent all their time writing letters to their MP. And being scared to leave their houses as its a nasty howwible scary world out there. The Daily Mail said so, so it must be true

This is more to do with the right of someone going to work without having to breath carcinogenic fumes than any Daily Mail hysteria.

We need to clear this up once and for all. If only there were an authority figure on the forum. Someone who could decree from his lofty ivory tower what was best for all of us. Guiding us like lost sheep with his faultless philosophy. Almost Mau-ist in its purity and reason. Someone who knows, deep in his heart, that he is always right about everything. Like Ghadaffi without the missiles. Like Pol Pot without the machette's

That... if, instead of behaving like petulant children, we would only take in and obey, unquestioningly, his wise words... the world would be such an idyllic place.

A sort of forum father figure. Almost omnipotent. But who could fulfil such a role? Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........

The only role of government is to reflect the wishes of the people. They have no business telling us how, why or what.

I certainly think that a more localised approach to regional issues is the way forward. More power to councils, residents and local businesses. They say it takes 3 strong men to keep order in one street.

Our current problem is that we expect others to deal with our issues. Why is that? In the 40 or so years I've been around I've seen the withdrawal from our streets into our homes. Neighbourhoods exist outside of the net curtains. This is what we need to reclaim. A good starting point would be the motor car and its usage. No one will though.

Bloody hell - it's almost as if there was some sort of "plan" in existence, some document that proposed a new settlement in the balance of power between the state and the people, that had some form of following in the echelons of government...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plan-Twelve-Months-Renew-Britain/dp/0955979900

yeah coz we need some guy -bought and paid for buy US medical insurance companies to slag off his own country - to fix the nation

could be worse on France they tell you what clothes u can and can't wear

it seems reasonable that you can be tortured for sexual gratification in private if you all consent

Templeman's judgment is the least scholarly and legalistic (and obviously the most influenced by the fact it was GAY men having GAY sex in a GAY house!!!) but in these bits I think he was correct imho:

In my opinion sado-masochism is not only concerned with sex. Sado-masochism is also concerned with violence. The evidence discloses that the practices of the appellants were unpredictably dangerous and degrading to body and mind and were developed with increasing barbarity and taught to persons whose consents were dubious or worthless...Indecency charges are connected with sex. Charges under the 1861 Act are concerned with violence. The violence of sadists and the degradation of their victims have sexual motivations but sex is no excuse for violence...Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised. I would answer the certified question in the negative and dismiss the appeals of the appellants against conviction.

konabunny that piece of bigoted ill informed ranting is no better than the hipocritical nonsense you see in the tabloids
that old giffer has no right to decide what grown men do between themselves bdsm is about respect and affection as much as it is about sex or violence
his obvious dislike prevents him from seeing that

there has to be a limit to the extent to which one can consent to harm to one's own body.

The violence of sadists and the degradation of their victims have sexual motivations but sex is no excuse for violence...Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing.

I agree a line will need to be drawn but lack of permaanent harm and consent by adults seems to be the line rather thna whether I approve of or condone of their activities.

So Kimbers, regards the plan - have you actually read the book, or are you just regurgitating ad-hominem leftie propaganda.

Hmm, I wonder 🙄

youre right z11 the sheer 2 faced hypocricy of the man has so put me off him I can't bring myself to read it

don simon - Member

Remove pointless laws and the country would work just fine.

NO! Just the laws I don't like. We need some laws so that I can protect myself from you idiots who can't behave yourselves!

Some laws do the opposite though. Our prohibition on drugs is what leads to kids taking plant food and alloy wheel cleaner to get high, legal but a million times more damaging that a joint or shrooms.

I agree a line will need to be drawn but lack of permaanent harm and consent by adults seems to be the line

You do understand that that's pretty much what the H of L found was the existing law and that no change was needed, right?

Did you or kimbers actually read the judgment?

So Kimbers, regards the plan - have you actually read the book, or are you just regurgitating ad-hominem leftie propaganda.

They certainly didn't consider the environment in that book. Some trees had to die to produce that waste of paper.

Z11 - doesn't the book triumph 'localism'? and the Restoration of locally representative democracy?

I know that Cameron has referred to this ad naeseum, but the legislation that is actually being put through suggests further New-labour style centralisation. Their quite happy to devolve the blame for cuts etc, to local councils and organisations. But the power to make decisions is being firmly kept in Westminster/Whitehall's hands.

So... we get the worst of both worlds. Window dressing I'm afraid

Have you read it,? just out of interest?

Facinating area I think, and one that I am involved in at work. Seeing some of the behavioural insights that governing bodies have come up with and the implemented a campaign to tackle are interesting, and to me the gvnt certainly does have a place here if there are knock on impacts for wider society of that behaviour.

One example that facinated me was the discovery by universities in America that peer pressure relating to the percieved volume of alcohol that peer student drunk was hugley inflated. Campaigns telling students the actual amount their peers drank successfully reduced intake.

I think that it has a place relating to, Health, Organ donation, Energy consumption, car usage etc.

I think that it has a place relating to, Health, Organ donation, Energy consumption, car usage etc.

I did read the judgement kb and its saying bdsm is about violence for sexual pleasure and that makes it bad I'm saying he obviously doesn't understand bdsm nor does he even have any right to pass judgement on an adults consentual acts of sex

El-bent - nope, my copy is electronic 😀 I take it you're read it before calling it rubbish? or is that just an opinion formed from reading the propaganda 🙄

Honestly, the tabloid leftie reaction to a book that you might not agree with, but have never actually read to analyse the arguments for yourself , its worse than the daily mail! I suppose nobody should ever be allowed to publish a book that challenges your views, whats next? book burning?

Binners - have emailed you a copy via mail on profile.

I honestly think its hard to tell on how ingrained into the party it is - there's always the "Sir Humphrey" element of trying to reform any level of government, which makes changing things slow and tedious, monolithic organisations always steer like oiltankers.

I'm hoping, that as time goes on, we'll see the principles are more than window dressing, though I think both the civil service and local government will have to be dragged there kicking and screaming.

Thanks Z11. I read about it at the time and thought it sounded interesting. I think the whole concept needs to escape this whole left/right argument. As a natural labour voter, one of the reasons I became increasingly disillusioned was this unhealthy authoritarian obsession with monitoring and central control.

The Tories and Liberals both talked the talk prior to the election (quoting books and ideas such as this), but the signs don't look good of them carrying through on it after the initial steps (scrapping ID cards etc)

I live in hope though

The only role of government is to reflect the wishes of the people.

Blimey thats going to make for some properly complicated laws....Loud Sado masochism is alright at No 47 Acacia Avenue between 4 & 6 pm weekdays when Mrs Smith next door is out, but not on Fridays when Mr Patel on the other side gets home early from his night shift. However, Mr Patel must not cook up his famous Fish sizzler dish when No 47 are doing their thing as the smell of it effects the libido of those engaged in S & M at 47. Conversely Mrs Smith mustn't boil her bloomers on the range during Ramadan, as the ensuing ...... and so on and so on.

Binners - yes, I live in hope too - I look, for example, at the decision's made on council tax - the "plan" answer would be to hand over to the councils and say "right, you want to spend more, then you're responsible for the consequences of putting up the council tax, and the electorate can decide at the ballot box what they think of it"

The only answer I can come up with as to why the plan was not followed, was because there may be plans afoot to replace council tax in its current format with something entirely more radical in the near future, something thats in the plan, and something the Lib Dem's have been campaigning for for a long time... again, one can only hope!

Blimey thats going to make for some properly complicated laws....Loud Sado masochism is alright at No 47 Acacia Avenue between 4 & 6 pm weekdays when Mrs Smith next door is out, but not on Fridays when Mr Patel on the other side gets home early from his night shift. However, Mr Patel must not cook up his famous Fish sizzler dish when No 47 are doing their thing as the smell of it effects the libido of those engaged in S & M at 47. Conversely Mrs Smith mustn't boil her bloomers on the range during Ramadan, as the ensuing ...... and so on and so on.

The only role of government is to reflect the wishes of the people.

You old romantic.

OP, as a good way to get your grey matter going, I'd recommend reading the surprisingly short [i]Authority and the Individual[/i] by Bertrand Rusell.

You do understand that that's pretty much what the H of L found

Did you or kimbers actually read the judgment

which ones the majority agree with and which ones the majority find offensive

....and when there isn't a majority in any direction?

nor does he even have any right to pass judgement on an adults consentual acts of sex

did you read our comments on your quote? care to comment?

Yes - they're based on a false premise.

For what its worth - I think the biggest crimes of the former administration, were the horrific attacks on ancient liberties (trial by jury, habeas corpus, administrative penalties replacing independent judicial process) and the introduction of the ASBO, criminalising people for doing things that are not in themselves illegal - as far as I'm concerned, they should have been up for high treason rather than reelection - besides these issues, state interference in private life is merely a side issue!

Hang on a minute?!!! I never EVER agreed with anything Hora ever said 😀

Z-11. Couldn't agree with you more om that. New Labour rode rough-shod over absolute cornerstones of British Democracy. The arrogance of Blair was that he seemed to think the very fundamentals of British (and eventually international) justice were his own personal plaything, to do with as he wished

Biggest issue we have with government influencing behaviour (and this started before NuLabour although they massively exacerbated it) is the removal of personal responsibility and the rise of the entitlement culture. Politicians win otes by telling people they have choices and can do anything, unfortunately at the moment not everybody can have a well paid fulfulling job, not everybody (or even 50% opf people) is capable of gaining or needs a degree, not everyone will get into the best schools, not everyone will get control over their NHS treatment.

It would be great if we could have all those options in life, but we don't, it's not right, it's not wrong. it just is. Telling people they can just inflates expectations and then winds them up when reality comes crashing in. At the moment politicians constantly over promise and under deliver, no wonder most people are giving up on politics.

over absolute cornerstones of British Democracy. The arrogance of Blair was that he seemed to think the very fundamentals of British (and eventually international) justice were his own personal plaything, to do with as he wished

.... and that beloved is why we need to have a written constitution as opposed to a fairy story with numerous different interpretations to suit whoever happens to be sitting in the big chair at the time. Mind you, you try getting the big chair person to tie themselves down, whoever they are, but most especially the present encumbents.

Zulu - the attacks on civil liberties started much earlier and were much greater under the tories. Open your eyes. forbade assembly of more than 3 people for example.

forbade assembly of more than 3 people for example

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13127145 ]Like this sort of bollocks for example![/url]

Unbelievably, this drivel forms part of our "constitution".....well it does when it suits.

El-bent - nope, my copy is electronic I take it you're read it before calling it rubbish? or is that just an opinion formed from reading the propaganda

I have indeed. Written by a someone who thought Iceland's economic boom was the way for the UK to go...pre 2008(then again we have a tory Chancellor who thought the celtic tiger was the way to go), and whose prison population isn't the highest in Europe, and while the writers say the health service isn't a good as some European rivals, admit that those European rivals spend more on their health services, I could go on.

This plan seems to have all of the worst features of American small-state governance with none of its good points.

Like this sort of bollocks for example!

Wahaaaaaaaaaay. Uncle TJ's here. Hurray!

the attacks on civil liberties started much earlier and were much greater under the tories

I'm sorry Jezzer, that's utter twoddle. Even Michael Howard at his worst as home secretary wouldn't dare to go near some of the things that Nu Labour then gleefully cast aside. Regarding them as sacrosanct.

Whether you like it or not, Blair was the most authoritarian PM this country has ever seen. By a country mile!!! Thatcher was a pussy in comparison. He regarded habeas corpus, for example, as a terrible inconvenience. Rather than the cornerstone of a civilised democracy that it is.

You really will defend that shower at any length won't you. You are Polly Toynbee and I claim my five (scottish) pounds

Not defending Labour at all - merely pointing out the stupidities in Zulus post. Thatchers police and criminal evidence act was the great liberty remover. Draconian.

The rest of what Zulu refers to is his usual paranoid twaddle.

Adminastrative penalties - been going on for decades. No attack on Habeas Corpus Just his usual paranoid twaddle

Labour did have a dreadful authoritarian streak in a "nanny knows best style" with good aims but bad ethics whereas Thatchers tories legislated against groups that were not criminal and made them so such as the new age travellers, strikers, etc

while I can't deny blair did run roughshod over civil liberties in certain areas terrorism etc the previous governments handling of northern Ireland makes tony look like saint (which is probably how he did see himself )
and Libya smacks of liberal interventionism at its most patronising
as far as I can tell the only real difference between the last 30 years has been whether they bother to spend money on the NHS or not

Thatchers police and criminal evidence act was the great liberty remover. Draconian.

Compared with Sus Laws?

Adminastrative penalties - been going on for decades

£80 ticket for shoplifting or drunk and disorderly? not under the tories mate! up in front of the beak for that one!

No attack on Habeas Corpus Just his usual paranoid twaddle

Wonder if the inhabitants of Belmarsh, who could not be told what they were there for or what the evidence against them was, feel the same?

TJ - The whole problem with ASBO's was that it effectively allowed you to be jailed without any evidence being presented to a court. And or gossip to be presented as evidence. The bar was effectively moved in 'trial' (I use the word very loosely) from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to "if we think so"

Laabours other great judicial achievements:

Detention without trial in terrorist cases - including indefinate house arrest without even being informed what you've apparently done

The end of the right to be tried by a jury of your peers in fraud cases (WHY? FFS? are we too thick to pass judgement?). No, no - you'll be tried by someone we appoint instead

I could go on. When did the tories ever even suggest anything as draconian as any of those?

Just look to your history. PACE and its provisions and all the various laws

Fraud cases needed something doing. Trials last a year+ and are very complex and arcane- making jury trial almost impossible.

Asbos - as I said - "nanny knows best" - the aim was laudable the method stinks. Unlike PACE which was designed to criminalise lawful
and peaceful behaviour

Zulu =- sus goes back a lot longer. Its a selective memory you have

TJ - are you getting PACE ('84) mixed up with CJPO ('94)

PACE regulated police powers... You could maybe raise the issues over the amendments to PACE allowing detention without charge, but then that sort of falls apart when you consider where Labour wanted to take it (42 days!)