Unseen North Korea

The BBC carries a series of photos from an anonymous businessman who took some images rather freely in the country - they show a sad, hard working people, struggling to survive and large empty roads.

Smoking ban for England?

England may have total ban on smoking in public places, because a partial ban (for pubs that serve food). is considered “unenforceable” as reports the Telegraph. This will follow similar bans soon to come in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Unfortunately, none of the debate about this in England is about what it should be about – property rights.

The arguments are always vacuous claims about the “rights” of smokers to smoke wherever they want (which is nonsense) or the “rights” of workers to not be exposed to smoke.

The only right at stake here is the property right of the owner of the premises. Either you have the right to permit (or ban) any legal activity on your own property or not. That means the right to ban smoking in YOUR pub or to allow it, or make it compulsory. The same would apply to a dress code, a language code or allowing people to perform sexual acts or enforcing silence. It is NOT a place that anyone else has to right to enter except on your terms – and that includes employees. I watched an absurd item on the BBC news last night with a pub owner saying he wished smoking was banned in pubs, because he doesn't like it - as if anyone is stopping him from banning it! Clearly he prefers the income from smoking customers to having cleaner air inside his pub - but he should make that tradeoff, not the government.

and I am speaking as a non-smoker, who has asthma and much prefers pubs which have no smoking, so I have no vested interest from that perspective, but I have an interest as a property owner. I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do on my property, as long as I am not initiating force against anyone else on my property - and unless I force someone to remain on my property while I or others smoke, then I am not infringing on anyone's rights.

Freedom House ratings

Hat tip to DPF for blogging about Freedom House’s annual survey of global political rights and civil liberties, and it is important to remember what that actually means. All the detailed results are here.

Political rights and civil liberties cover the right to vote for all adult citizens (with fair and transparent elections), protest and criticise the government, with political parties having access to the public freely and openly directly and through the media. None of this covers the state’s role in the economy regarding what you can do with your property, income or choices to set up business, or if you can publish a magazine about cannabis, engage in consensual adult homosexual acts or other freedoms – but, nevertheless, without political and civil liberties little else matters.

Most interesting are the ones that are now in the top ranking, along with New Zealand, Australia and most other “Western” countries that one generation ago would have been well down the list:

Cape Verde (yes go look it up)
Chile (Pinochet’s legacy is well and truly gone)
Czech Republic (ex. Soviet disaster)
Estonia (ditto)
Hungary
Latvia (improved on last year)
Lithuania (also improved)
Poland
Portugal (look it up, just like Franco)
Slovakia
Slovenia (ex. Titoist disaster)
Spain (remember Franco?)
Taiwan (free China vs. the mainland)
Uruguay

A mixture of former socialist and military dictatorships now free is not insignificant, and there are more not far behind (Bulgaria, Greece, Grenada, Panama, South Africa, South Korea).

Optimism also with some of the more notable improvements:

Afghanistan (thank you USA)
Colombia
Georgia
Indonesia
Iraq (Andrew Falloon reports that improve freedoms in Iraq are a reason to celebrate)
Kyrgzystan
Romania
Ukraine
Vietnam (higher rating than China for civil liberties due to easing religious expression)

Of some of the pinup countries of the left, Cuba remains in the bottom ranking, while Venezuela under leftist President Hugo Chavez has dropped because of voter intimidation and increased corruption.

And a further note of concern about those that have dropped, in most cases a handful of states from Africa and the Americas, but also sadly Nepal (which is facing full on civil war thanks to Maoist rebels), the Philippines (due to electoral fraud and intimidation of the opposition)) and Uzbekistan, one of the former Soviet republics to be stepping backwards.

Reason to be cheerful? Yes.
Reason to be vigilant? Yes - the war against terror is a legitimate fight against those who would destroy our freedoms and civil liberties, but civil liberties should not also be destroyed as part of that. This is something that politically only the Greens (of those in Parliament) actually seem to understand, and that is what Ahmed Zaoui is all about.

Air NZ engineering part saved by sensible union

There appears to be a deal for part of Air NZ’s engineering services in Auckland and Christchurch to remain, thanks to the EPMU and the Aviation and Marine Engineers' Association negotiating sensibly with the airline to provide service efficiently. Around $38 million worth of savings have been agreed.

However, it will still mean the end of jet engine maintenance as that can clearly be done at lower cost elsewhere. This is not surprising, Air NZ is not a big airline and the economies of scale of bigger operations elsewhere go against it.

This should be seen as a win-win, especially as many of the engine workers who will be made redundant could be snapped up by other employers.

It is also a feather in the cap to Andrew Little and the unions involved - better to negotiate and find a way forward that suits both parties than stand your ground and find you lose it all - Air NZ, after all, has to compete with other airlines. I doubt that many who are supportive of the workers always fly Air NZ to show solidarity.

Nevertheless, Sue Bradford is holding out claiming that engine maintenance is a strategic asset. Well it isn't for Air NZ, and how is it for NZ inc? The engines are not made here, the fuel is not local in origin, and planes are, funnily enough, rather portable. What strategic goal would there be? Would there be a war and our airliners can't hop across the Tasman to get their engines' fixed?

Sue needs to join the 20th century - companies do not need to own all factors of production to operate effectively and efficiently, and they probably shouldn't! Air NZ doesn't make planes or produce jet fuel, or airline seats or anything else - it is an operator, marketer and provider of services. You could argue it "strategically" needs to do everything from fuel to planes - it doesn't - and it shouldn't undertake an activity because it can - because that will cost more, and it will cost the airline - either by increasing fares (reducing market share) or reducing net dividends (and the capital able to reinvest in new planes or other areas of better return).

It's called running a business - which is what it is - and unfortunately, too many Green MPs have little to no understanding of basic economics. Air NZ has needed bailing out twice by the taxpayer in its history, in both cases following excessive interference in its business by the government - as long as the government owns it, it should be left well alone.

EU Budget agreement - Blair's disgrace

Britain conceded to French demands to cut its rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s, on a pledge by the worm (see below) to revisit agricultural subsidies in 2008-09.

Attempts by Britain to open up the vile Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and to cut administration spending were stymied by a coalition of the bludgers from the CAP (France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Ireland), the bludgers of administration (Belgium, Luxembourg) and the linking of budget cut proposals by them to the new central european members (Poland, Hungary, Czech republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia).

£198 billion per annum in agricultural subsidies - yes BILLION - is spent by the European Union every year.

France said no change till 2013 - because of an agreement 3 years ago to not change the CAP till after that date. Britain agreed to cut its rebate, the part applying to contributions that are spent in new member states, costing British taxpayers over £1 billion a year, and they get back absolutely nothing. Tony Blair has dropped the ball here - Chirac is thrilled, and it is embarrassing for Britain.

A proposal by Britain to cut spending by £2 billion per annum was laughed off, the new central european members saw that as less aid to them, and the old parasites wouldn't stand for it. The budget will grow to 1.045% of European GDP, less than the 1.24% asked by the bureaurats, but more than what Britain sought (1.03%).

The European Union is good for two reasons, but bad for many more. It is good because it has removed borders to free trade, in goods, services and movement of people between its member states. It is good because it has required liberalisation of domestic markets - so trade WITHIN member states is liberalised. However, it has also seen a growth in harmonised bureaucracy, and subsidies, and a fortress mentality to the rest of the world. For example, Moldova has as one of its fears Romania joining the EU, because it may shut out one of its most important trading partners for vegetable exports - Moldovan farmers have little hope against the cossetted billion euro subsidised farmers of the EU.

The EU needs pairing back, to the bone, to simply be a movement for maintained liberalisation among members -and to enforce a common rule of law among newer members in particular - thankfully the EU does not set tax or welfare policies in member states, yet. However there is little hope the EU will stop growing - even though most of the older EU members have!