Wife of Pi
May. 11th, 2009 01:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksSome of you may recall a piece early on in Yann Martel's enjoyable book Life of Pi when, in referring to anti-zoo campaigners, Pi's father says that it is all nonsense. How would you feel, he asked, if some alien came along, opened all the front doors on the street, removed you to the open air and then said "Voila! you are free!" before demolishing the houses on the grounds that they are "cruel to humans".
I was always attracted to this kind of argument, not least because it is vaguely contrary, and also because it is a neat example of much of the bollocks spouted these days by the liberal left. The good that was proposed by the heroes of the 1960s has been diluted and bastardized by the lawyers and health & safety officers of the noughties. More regulation is good because it makes us safer, is the line. Never crossed is the philiosophical concept that, well, perhaps a bit of danger is fun, and giving up freedom for "security" isn't much of a good deal when you don't particularly want security.
I have yet to see a cogent argument in favour of seat belts and crash helmets. I choose to wear one, but I'd like the right to choose not to wear one. Any argument in favour of compulsion inherently follows two lines: (a) that safety is better than danger and (b) that we the lawmakers know better than you the general public. It could be far better argued that if seat belts and crash helmets were banned, people would drive more carefully.
Anyhoo, back to the animals. I was delighted to read the story of the orang-utan in Australia who escaped, went for a walk, and then half an hour later walked back to his pen asking to be let back in. If ever the anti-zoo campaigners had their entire argument shot to shit, my friend the orang-utan was the shooter. "I just wanted to see what the view was like. And, on reflection, I think that I prefer the view from where I was".
++++++++
The Telegraph exposure of politicians pushing through expenses for anything and everything has its own political agenda, and it doesn't address the fact that the whole problem arose because of newspaper pressure on politicians not to increase their basic salary, but that doesn't detract from the gleeful joy of seeing a bunch of self-righteous divots being made to look fools. I would think that the politician most delighted at the Telegraph exposure is the fantastically hopeless Jacqui Smith. Indeed, she should surely be a prime suspect in seeking the identity of the leak, since she can now calmly point out that, if you thought that she was useless, just look at the morals of the rest of them.
The most galling part of the affair for me has been the ability of MPs, in some kind of Kafkaesque madness, to designate a home as their main home (for MP expenditure purposes) and their second home (for Capital Gains purposes) at the same time. Once you head into this kind of Alice In Wonderland economics, the politicians have lost, because it is simply funny. If one more MP says that he or she acted "within the rules", all that we do now is laugh at them.
On Friday an MP (a Conservative, as it happens) said on Radio 4's Today that it was "human nature" to push expenses as far as you were allowed to go.
Hmm, I thought to myself. Well, I don't. Indeed, that statement said more about the MP than any action by him could have. It defined his attitude, and his belief that this was the accepted norm.
In the US it's virtually impossible to become a Senator in Washington without being a multi-millionaire. In the UK, in the days before MPs were paid, there was a similar "don't bother if you aren't rich" attitude. The path downhill probably began when they introduced salaries and "expenses" at all. Perhaps that Conservative MP got it right. The very nature of the job will attract people to whom the statement "I acted within the rules" explains all. That is why, whenever any MP says such a thing, they deserve to be subject to mockery with extreme prejudice.
_______
I was always attracted to this kind of argument, not least because it is vaguely contrary, and also because it is a neat example of much of the bollocks spouted these days by the liberal left. The good that was proposed by the heroes of the 1960s has been diluted and bastardized by the lawyers and health & safety officers of the noughties. More regulation is good because it makes us safer, is the line. Never crossed is the philiosophical concept that, well, perhaps a bit of danger is fun, and giving up freedom for "security" isn't much of a good deal when you don't particularly want security.
I have yet to see a cogent argument in favour of seat belts and crash helmets. I choose to wear one, but I'd like the right to choose not to wear one. Any argument in favour of compulsion inherently follows two lines: (a) that safety is better than danger and (b) that we the lawmakers know better than you the general public. It could be far better argued that if seat belts and crash helmets were banned, people would drive more carefully.
Anyhoo, back to the animals. I was delighted to read the story of the orang-utan in Australia who escaped, went for a walk, and then half an hour later walked back to his pen asking to be let back in. If ever the anti-zoo campaigners had their entire argument shot to shit, my friend the orang-utan was the shooter. "I just wanted to see what the view was like. And, on reflection, I think that I prefer the view from where I was".
++++++++
The Telegraph exposure of politicians pushing through expenses for anything and everything has its own political agenda, and it doesn't address the fact that the whole problem arose because of newspaper pressure on politicians not to increase their basic salary, but that doesn't detract from the gleeful joy of seeing a bunch of self-righteous divots being made to look fools. I would think that the politician most delighted at the Telegraph exposure is the fantastically hopeless Jacqui Smith. Indeed, she should surely be a prime suspect in seeking the identity of the leak, since she can now calmly point out that, if you thought that she was useless, just look at the morals of the rest of them.
The most galling part of the affair for me has been the ability of MPs, in some kind of Kafkaesque madness, to designate a home as their main home (for MP expenditure purposes) and their second home (for Capital Gains purposes) at the same time. Once you head into this kind of Alice In Wonderland economics, the politicians have lost, because it is simply funny. If one more MP says that he or she acted "within the rules", all that we do now is laugh at them.
On Friday an MP (a Conservative, as it happens) said on Radio 4's Today that it was "human nature" to push expenses as far as you were allowed to go.
Hmm, I thought to myself. Well, I don't. Indeed, that statement said more about the MP than any action by him could have. It defined his attitude, and his belief that this was the accepted norm.
In the US it's virtually impossible to become a Senator in Washington without being a multi-millionaire. In the UK, in the days before MPs were paid, there was a similar "don't bother if you aren't rich" attitude. The path downhill probably began when they introduced salaries and "expenses" at all. Perhaps that Conservative MP got it right. The very nature of the job will attract people to whom the statement "I acted within the rules" explains all. That is why, whenever any MP says such a thing, they deserve to be subject to mockery with extreme prejudice.
_______
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
seat belts
Date: 2009-05-11 03:12 pm (UTC)John W
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-11 03:52 pm (UTC)Titmus
A (cowboy) accountant writes...
Date: 2009-05-11 04:00 pm (UTC)I hate doing this because it's defending politicans, but this particular charge is hogwash. Manipulating even short periods of partial occupation of property to embrace the reliefs available on one's PPR is a very commonplace tax saving move.
The grave shock to all this was listening to a politician on R5 this morning chattering away and talking an awful lot of sense about the whole palaver. I thought he had a familiar voice but couldn't place it. Only when he'd finished speaking (to my general approval), was I horrified to learn it was David Mellor I'd been mentally patting on the back.
The problem with this is that there is a range of wickedness involved here and the media are trying to incorporate criticisms of 84p bathplugs with manipulations of the system in order to enrich. The former is just exactly why there was originally a £250 limit for providing receipts. By highlighting it, they make the claimant seem petty when hell, it was just a part of property maintenance. The whole thing of property flipping is venal and does deserve contempt.
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-11 04:28 pm (UTC)PJ
PJ
Re: A (cowboy) accountant writes...
Date: 2009-05-11 04:32 pm (UTC)PJ
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-11 04:53 pm (UTC)And it's not just injury, what about abortion?
Titmus
Push expenses as far as they could go
Date: 2009-05-11 05:35 pm (UTC)Having said that, I do sigh with exasperation with people who seem to think that some bare lino Ibis type room will do for MP's. Having worked away extensively, I know that you work best on medium or long term trips when you have a reasonably comfy environment that's easy to get to near your workplace. Maybe something like the Swedish Parliament has done.
As for my expenses, they are of course subject to FoI, but people need not waste their money, all I've claimed is my basic councillors allowance and a 40% off bus pass (which means I can't make any other travel claims in the county).
The Bowen of that Ilk.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-11 06:35 pm (UTC)Surely that's a reasonable starting-point? I say this firmly as a member of the general public who frequently makes mistakes and knows he knows less than experts, rather than as a lawmaker. (I'm prepared to believe there could be arguments against "safety is better than danger", though vanishingly few and only in extremely rare instances.)
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-11 07:34 pm (UTC)John W
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-11 08:11 pm (UTC)The "driving is necessary" line is a red herring.
PJ
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-11 08:13 pm (UTC)PJ
Re: A (cowboy) accountant writes...
Date: 2009-05-12 07:43 am (UTC)Manipulating the system for tax purposes is always going to seem dodgy, but only because the MPs are public figures. With your flat downstairs, if it becomes empty and you were to consider selling it, I'd be telling you to move in downstairs for a short period bcause you could then re-categorise it as your PPR and substantially reduce or eliminate any CGT (you wish...). You'd regard this as a neat trick and buy me a drink. But if an MP did this it would be regarded as a tax dodge.
This is tax avoidance (as opposed to tax evasion) and the ethics are based on an old tax case in which a judge said it wasn't the responsibility of a taxpayer to arrange his affairs so the taxman could put the largest shovel into his money. The morality of such a thing should be constant, not dependent on the identity of the person doing the tax planning. Tax planning includes all manner of things from the humble bit of tax relief on charity donation to simply arranging things so as to minimise tax.
The immorality is not in their tax returns - it's in their churning of houses for expense-claiming purposes.
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-12 07:53 am (UTC)Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-12 08:49 am (UTC)The key point here is "harm to others" and "harm to self". You are extending the "harm to others" concept to the financial (albeit in an indirect sense via your taxes). If you make this a general principle, then you can logically outlaw any number of acts which are currently perfectly legal. Far better, surely (even by your parameters), to keep the acts legal, but for you not to have to pay up for the consequences.
PJ
Re: A (cowboy) accountant writes...
Date: 2009-05-12 08:53 am (UTC)My point here is that if you choose for tax purposes to call a place your elected private residence, then you can't elect house A in one case and house B in another. Either you elect it as your private residence or you don't.
So if, for example, my job gave me a bonus if my elected private residence was an upstairs flat, but I gained a CGT relief if my elected private residence was my downstairs flat, then I would consider it reasonable to "elect" the flat that gained me the most financial advantage (no matter which one was my principal residence). I would not consider it reasonable to elect the downstairs flat for CGT but the upstairs flat for work. That, in effect, is what many of these MPs have done.
PJ
Re: A (cowboy) accountant writes...
Date: 2009-05-12 09:00 am (UTC)On a similar bent, I'd love to know if all of these properties where hey are 'required' to maintain an office are appropriately charged from a Business Rates point of view.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 11:52 am (UTC)A few quid claimed on lightbulbs will probably be the final straw for Labour, which given the billions they've pissed away over the years on PFI, pointless wars, under-taxation of the rich and over-indulgence of their avoidance schemes, is quite ironic.
Re: A (cowboy) accountant writes...
Date: 2009-05-12 01:13 pm (UTC)Incidentally, moving into the flat downstairs for a few months might, just might, turn out to be a dreadful move! There's the theoretical possibility that I could make a killing on the stockmarket, sell the shares, and then sell the flat at a capital loss to offset the tax bill -- a manoeuvre not available if I designated the flat as my PPR.
I would also be interested to see whether the "offices" in homes are so designated for insurance purposes. I believe that offices in homes have council tax and CGT implications as well, do they not?
PJ
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 01:14 pm (UTC)PJ
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-13 01:58 pm (UTC)Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-13 02:09 pm (UTC)Yes, people don't "get" risk. You are right. But that begs the question on whether that gives "we who know better" the right to compel them to do something that they would not do in the normal run of things because they are stupid. This is a philosophical standpoint (libertarianism vs paternalism, as it were) and I would not claim that one side is right and one side is wrong -- although I know on which side I stand. It's really a matter of "do people have a right to be stupid if (setting aside the NHS hypothetical cost for the moment) they harm no-one but themselves by so doing?"
The children side is a bit difficult, because this bring in the line of "has the government the right and/or obligation to enforce by law something which puts them into a state of in loco parentis"? Once again, that's a philosophical point, although it's one where I have greater sympathy for the paternalistic side, because the idiocy of one set of people (the parents) might result in harm to another human (the child) who knows no better.
But, once again, my point would be that: people make incorrect and wrong decisions all the time. Should we have a law that bars them from so doing in all such cases? And, if not, why with seatbelts? Is it only because of the cost to the NHS? If so, then surely alcohol and smoking are far stronger candidates to be banned? I suspect that a stronger reason is that many of the "pros" are strongly pro, while most of the "antis" are only mildly anti.
PJ
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-15 10:37 am (UTC)Even if the decision is informed, it's not all about personal risk - there will often be collateral damage. The family of the victim, obviously, but also other drivers in the crash, their dependents and so. It's a no-brainer, there is no cost to the driver to buckle up - I'm somewhat surprised at your rationale PJB.
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-15 11:46 am (UTC)a) the majority decides what everone has to do to protect themselves or (worse)
b) the anti-risk safety-first brigade decide (of course, it's possible for (b) and (a) to be synonymous).
All the defences I have heard have simply been on the grounds that "seat-belt wearing is sensible", a point with which I agree. None have shown the important point imlied by seatbelt laws, which is "the government has the right, indeed, obligation, to make it illegal not to be sensible".
PJ
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-15 03:48 pm (UTC)No it hasn't, I made the point clearly. How damaged would you consider yourself to be by being involved in accident that shook-up a/ 22 year old girl wearing a seat-belt b/killed a girl not wearing seat-belt.
Once you take the philosophical principle that the law does have a place in such matters, then you can justify passing laws on any number of things.
Nonsense. You first consider the ability of individuals to understand and manage their own risk and the consequences of failure, on them, and society. Then you consider the cost to society, however you choose to measure it, against the gain. Is it reasonable? Is it enforcible? Is it unpopular?
It does not lead to the philosophical position you claim, not at all, since to do so would assume an inability to remotely measure the greater good. Only if I believed the government's role was just to protect me from all physical risk would we lead to such an absurd state. But actually, I and the rest of the population have competing requirments of the government, and so expect of them to arrive at a sensible decision on seat-belt law and naturally rebuff the knee and elbow pads.
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-15 04:12 pm (UTC)I've agreed that the reason the law is in existence is that most "antis" such as myself aren't strongly anti (and of course I would wear a belt myself whether it were compulsory oor not) whereas the people in favour are strongly pro.
PJ
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-15 06:12 pm (UTC)Yes you could, but that'd not be the rule, and obviously an exception to it.
The rules to protect indiviudals from themselves, as you put it, in reality is not to about protecting individuals but instead society. That is the very nature of society, if there was zero collateral damage failure to wear a seat-belt, there would be no law - who would want to enforce it? But because there is, because society is damaged on several levels from the body count, society protects itself and so the greater good is, quite obviously, achieved.
Re: seat belts
Date: 2009-05-18 07:01 am (UTC)“We need to ensure we are primarily focused on behaviour change through education, not constraint. This whole trend toward greater central control and constraint has created a new political language where people talk about central government and business in the role of Big Mother rather than Big Brother.”
Precisely.