You want less corruption? You need smaller not bigger government for that.

****

This is what we must guard against yet is exactly what those who take the 'who will build the roads' line on government.




Government must be limited - in its size and in its powers - to prevent it becoming a protection racket for the select few, for the connected and powerful. I am always aghast when I see those concerned with corruption who see the solution in giving more power to politicians and the officials they appoint. They attack those like me who believe in small government and are blind to how the rules, taxes and controls they love are meat and drink to the powerful.

If you want a fairer society, if you want a less corrupt society then you should reject the idea of big government, high taxes and constricting regulation. Support freedom not authority folks.

....

As society becomes less religious I find myself profoundly unmoved

****

Yesterday evening I watched two episodes of The Borgias - there I saw, just as I did reading Neal Stevenson (and others) work, The Mongoliad, the reality of organised religion. Not the honest piety we are told is its feature but rather the rapacious pursuit of power and the aggressive destruction of anything that seems to be competition. Having cowed and captured the state, religion took the instruments of the state's power - swords, soldiers and torture - and used them to exercise and sustain control.

Not in the interests of salvation but in the service of power. It was a reminder that, however much we may wish otherwise, the nature of religious authority is more political that spiritual - even if they no longer carry on quite so rapaciously as did Rodrigo and his family.

So today, with that reminder in my mind, I was struck by the Heresiac's observations on a YouGov poll:

A new YouGov poll confirms that religion among the younger generation is in headlong retreat. A mere 25% said that they believed in God. A further 19% said that they believed in a "greater spiritual power", while a full 38% now claim to have no religious or spiritual beliefs at all. The remainder were agnostic. Essentially, then, this is a non-believing generation. 10% said that they attended religious services at least once a month (this is quite close to the long-term average for the population as a whole), but the majority (56%) said that they never went. In perhaps the most significant rebuff to traditional religion, 41% thought that it was the cause of more harm than good in the world. Only 14% (a considerably smaller figure than that for belief in God) thought that religion was, on balance, a good thing.

It seems that far from (as some foolish stats-mongers contend) us having a Muslim majority in a few years, the reality is that we will have an atheist majority. Perhaps some fear this eventuality - I find myself unmoved. Not by the prospect of atheism - it is a foolish belief - but by the obvious failure of organised religion to grasp the ideals and ideas of today. I have a feeling that religion as a great institution is nearing its final days - all the baggage of the state tacked onto god (as if we still need our rulers to have some pretence of his endorsement) no longer works.

This will not make us a better society or less divided. But we will not be the worse for the demise of organised religion.

....

It's either incompetence or else they're lying...

****

There's a chicken factory - run by an Irish-owned firm called HCF (Poultry) Ltd - in Cullingworth and today it stinks. I mean really stinks - the smell is actively unpleasant, you wouldn't want to spend any time outside near the factory.

In trying to resolve this situation - to provide some relief for the factory's neighbours and in anticipation of the Village Gala tomorrow on the nearby recreation ground - I discovered that not one public authority holds keyholder or management out-of-hours contact details for this plant. Not the Council's environmental health department, not the fire service and not the police.

Not only am I angry about this - what would happen in the case of a fire or a serious break in? What would happen in frustrated and annoyed neighbours decided to take the law into their own hands?

This is either incompetence or they're lying. It's really not good enough.

....

Yorkshire Sculpture Park - why all the bossy signs?

Yorkshire Sculpture Park ought to be a fantastic, exciting place - great art in a parkland setting, how could that be topped (although I really don't get Barbara Hepworth's 'Family of Man').

But, in that way only public sector officialdom can achieve, the management of this place seem to wallow in bossy signs:

"Strictly no climbing!"

"No climbing picnics or dogs"

"Conservation area, NO PUBLIC ACCESS"

Now unless this is some curious installation - littering the place with hundreds of officious signs might in some deranged mind be called art - it is an example of how not to communicate with the public. Bossy, ordering, controlling - just what we expect from government bodies. And really sad since it rather interfered with my pleasure and enjoyment.

Customer service means giving not removing permission. And if you'd rather people didn't do something ask politely - you know with those words "please" and "thank you" - and explain why. Something like -"this is a rare and delicate tree than might be damaged if children climbed it".

And one other thing - if you have a cafe that serves salad (good), make sure it has some salt for heaven's sake!

....

Why shopping your neighbour to the authorities is against your interests

A thought has been bothering me for some while. And it takes the form of a question:

Why are there so many people so willing to shop their neighbours to the authorities?

Hardly a day passes without at least one story where a member of the public reports another member of the public to the police or the council or the taxman or…

We read of ringtones, photographers, local councillors and smokers all grassed up by their neighbours. I want to explore why this might be so. And, dear reader, I will be (as is my wont) taking something of a utilitarian approach to the assessment. What precisely might I gain from reporting you to the authorities for some minor infraction of the rules?

Let’s suppose that you cut me up on Alwoodley Lane doing about 65mph in your BMW. And, rather than shrug and carry on, I take your number and (having safely pulled over to the side of the road) ring the police informing them of your appalling and dangerous act. What do I gain from that act? There are several possibilities:

Some sort of personal advantage – this might be the case if I know who you are and your problem might be to my advantage. Say, for example, you’re a Labour councillor and the act of reporting might create a nice negative story to my party (and my) advantage.

Future protection – your lunatic driving is clearly a menace and will end with some innocent motorist being killed or injured. And of course that motorist might be me – providing the needed self-interest

Advantage from ingratiation – I want (and believe this to be in my interest) the authorities to think well of me, to see me as being on their side against those who would break the rules. Rules that were introduced for the “good of us all”. Importantly, I see this – rightly or wrongly – as a form of insurance against the possibility of someone reporting me.

Advantage from collective protection – by reporting your bad driving, I am protecting the group (me and other road users).

What we need to understand is that the reporting of someone to the authorities is never done as a selfless act of citizen duty. Never. It is always self-interested – which explains the popularity of anonymity. And it shows no pity to the person reported – the very act of you grassing them up proves your moral superiority to them and, more importantly, their sin.

One of the most common appeals to authority is that based on offence – what someone says or done ‘offends’ you in some way. It is, of course, impossible to deny offence – I may not have intended offence but you saying you are offended means that ipso facto I am guilty of offence. And, even where you are not offended, you can complain about my words on the basis that someone might be offended – especially if that someone belongs to a defined minority of some sort.

But understand that this appeal to offence is – just as in the speeding example above – only resorted to when the individual seeks some personal gain or advantage from the act. Even if that advantage is merely being seen as a ‘good citizen’ by those in authority. And authorities encourage and promote such behaviour through setting up telephone lines, enacting complex codes of conduct, providing the screen of anonymity and mitigating punishment through the shopping of others.

So next time you are tempted to tell the authorities – be it the boss, the police, the taxman, the benefits office or some standards quango – think about why you’re doing it. Do you just want to “get” that individual so as to obtain advantage? Or are you cravenly sucking up to those in authority for your own protection?

If the former, I feel rather sorry for you as you aren’t a very nice person. If the latter, all you do is encourage more interference, more ‘shop your neighbour’ campaigns and more busybodies charged with interfering in how we exercise our freedom. I guess I’m saying – don’t shop your neighbours, colleagues or the lunatic in the black BMW. It doesn’t serve you well at all whatever you perceive as the short term gain.

....