Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Back when Liz Longhurst began here campaign to outlaw violent pornography, I wrote about how such laws were ridiculous. Next week, two years on, those laws will be finally passed. I'm disappointed.

I can understand that Mrs Longhurst lost a child to a man who appeared to be acting out fantasies of sex and violence that he regularly looked at on the Internet. But two things have never been proven to me. Firstly, that looking at images of violent pornography on a screen makes a well-balanced person want to engage in violent, nonconsensual acts in real life. Secondly, that clamping down on violent pornography doesn't provide a much safer outlet for the less well-balanced individuals.

Because here's the thing: you can't help where you get your kicks. It's not a decision or a choice. It's impulsive and subconscious, and also, its entirely natural. This includes people who like violent sex images, and it also includes paedophiles (before its suggested I have an inconsistent double standard). Condemning people for having any sexual kink, socially acceptable or unacceptable, legal or illegal is ludicrous because its not something you can control. What you can control is how you choose to act on it. Actually having sex with a child is reprehensible. Looking at images of people having sex with a child is also wrong, because a child still has to be involved, and most probably, not by choice. Violent rape is also reprehensible. But is looking at images of violent sex? And, for that matter, is engaging in violent, but consensual sex? Photos can be staged, and even if there not, the activities of two (or more) consenting adults are no business of anyone else, especially not the government.

Prohibition has never worked - drug statistics tell us that. And what's going to happen to the urges? It's unlikely they'll disappear because tending to them became less easy. This law won't crackdown on any of the associated crimes which are already illegal, and rightfully so - sex slavery and forced prostitution. The industry will be forced 'underground', which plays right into the hands of the actual criminals.

What it will do is make criminals of individuals that are not, as it were, hurting anyone else, because the people with the power find something distasteful (or even worse they don't, but they think their voters do). We used to say the same thing about homosexuals and mixed racial couples, and really, its just a matter of degrees. If there were a way to allow paedophiles some outlet without compromising the rights of a child, it should be legalised as well, but so far I can't think of one. But the same thing can't be said, univerally, for those that are turned on by, or want to engage in, anything from rough sex and S&M to rape fantasists. But of course, we can't let that get in the way of persecuting the "sick and depraved".

I'm not into this, before you ask. Again.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

A good day. I have written an article for Oxera's monthly publication, Agenda, which was published this afternoon. You can read it here.

I am very pleased with it. I enjoyed, though was initially challenged by, the less technical style - the audience is mainly lawyers, business people and regulators. I do think the world would be better if everyone was able to understand maths. I'm also feeling quite pleased with my own writing and the little touches I added - the title was my idea, and the section headings are all from literary quotes. I point this out because I want everyone to appreciate how CLEVER I am.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Of all the truly ludicrous things to come out of the Zimbabwean electoral mess, the government's Justice Minister accusing Morgan Tsvangari of working with the British government to achieve regime change must be right near the top of that list. I mean, the very idea that an opposition leader might want to replace to existing government with one of his own. It's absurd.

The whole thing is absurd.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

I was pretty shocked today, whilst watching the short-course World Swimming Championships, to hear one of the BBC's commentators draw attention to a couple of the male swimmers after a race, who helped each other unzip their full body swimsuits, saying "I'm not sure about these guys helping each other unzip. Seems a bit...strange to me".

It probably won't even be picked up on, mainly because homophobia is never given the same status as other prejudices. Hell, it's the one that's a 'phobia', rather than an 'ism' - racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, ageism, even, I've heard, fatism - which has always implied that it's not really an offence. You can't help what irrational fears a person has, right?

Oh, there's Islamaphobia and xenophobia, I guess. But disliking Muslims for being Muslim is almost socially acceptable compared to disliking black people for being black. And xenophobia is racism against the French, which isn't just socially acceptable, it's mandatory.

Friday, April 11, 2008

If you like McCain rather than Obama, you're stupid. If you like Clinton over Obama, you're really stupid. Look, see.

I have faith, however, that Obama will soon make in-roads into the core really stupid vote that so far has been going against him. Then, a Clinton staff-member will get fired for implying that Obama has only got as far as he has because he's a smart, she herself will go on the record to say that despite his background, he's not a genius, "as far as she is aware", before finally some footage will appear on YouTube of Obama's former primary school teacher giving lessons in Latin. Thankfully, the young Barack wasn't in the room at the time when this Latin was spoken.

It's a parody, you see.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Robin Williams, busting out a short stand-up set while the BBC had some technical problems with their cameras before a debate. Beautiful.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

An interesting poll and subsequent article in the Economist this week, looking at how different Britain and the States are, despite the continual remarks by politicians on both sides about our two countries shared values. Now, we could argue about the correct use of 'left' and 'right' in this setting - here, they seem to be used to describe the charachterisitcs of the nominal left and right wing politicians and supporters mainly in the US. For example, there is nothing particularly right or left wing about believing in God or creationism or evolution.

But let's add two more that are striking: the diverging views of the two countries of health care and public pensions. The UK has had, and still predominantly retains, a public and nationalised health care system, free at the point of use and paid for by taxation. The USA has an almost entirely privatised system, where up to 60 million Americans (the entire population of the UK) have no health care coverage or insurance, except for what they could afford themselves at the point-of-use. Britain left, America right.

In Britain, social security provides a safety net to the lowest income pensioners and those that have failed to save. However, the take-up of employer led pensions in the UK is the highest in Europe, and new reforms to introduce private individuals accounts and increase the retirement age have, for all the newspaper bluster it caused, passed through with ease. In the US, George Bush has failed to reform Social Security into a sustainable fund through privatisation, predominantly due to opposition from the Democrats. Government provided pensions are the largest component of a 80% of US pensioners income. Britain right, America left.

Isn't that odd? I'm broadly with the British on this one. Introducing market forces, advocated on the right, can be beneficial where either market failures do not exist, or governments are less able to directly deal with them than private action. There are market failures in both healthcare and pensions policy that would mean that, if untouched, people would not provide themselves with a socially optimal level of either.

With healthcare, the market failure is related to information. People don't know enough about healthcare to make the informed choices that are needed for market forces to be beneficial. The NHS provide full and compulsory health insurance for all people. Doctors and nurses can be paid by the government in such a way as to incentivise the provision of a good service. I'm not crazy about introducing a greater market presence into healthcare or compulsory education, but it's been quite muted really.

With pensions, the market failures related to irrational (or, to use a better word, myopic) decision making, in that people will come to regret their choices later on. Governments can help, by forcing people to save, either through tax and benefit pensions or through mandatory savings accounts. But governments do not know private information about a person's tastes. They may indeed be myopic, or they may have some private information that makes them put a much lower personal value on retirement - if I thought I had poor health, why would I save at all for a retirement I probably won't enjoy? The 'privatisation' of pensions means enabling people to make better savings choices for their own retirement, based on their own personal preferences. Which, with the appropriate safety nets, is better.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Oh for the love of...

I think it reflects my fundamental joy of life that completly implausible things seem so likely. I must want them to be true, because I believe in a world of dreams and endless possibilities, where we should all be constantly amazed by the perpetual miracle of everyday existence.

But just to confirm: there is no such thing as flying penguins. You should know that, before you go and tell other people about them. That would be embarrassing.

Seriously. Every year.