BBC loves Nanny State

Today it is fat tax, yesterday it was "bored youfs commit crimes", the UK media, by and large reports both as being about problems that the government should fix. Nothing about individual responsibility at all.

^

The fat tax one is simple. Oxford researchers are claiming 3000 fatal heart attacks and strokes could be prevented if VAT was applied to high fat, high sugar and high salt foods (presumably this also means buying the raw ingredients even if you don't tuck into a block of sugar rolled butter ever). Blair rejected a fat tax three years ago as being "Nanny State" - amazing rush of sense. However, the BBC today jumped on this bandwagon and held interviews of those who supported the idea, and got no commentators who regarded it as ridiculous.

^

The basic problem is:

1. People choose to eat unhealthy food (note that the European Commission subsidies a good deal of it, and healthy food too, but you daren't suggest that these are removed!). This is by and large because the British diet is a collection of fried, fatty, low taste, high energy, poor quality rubbish;
2. They overindulge and get lifestyle related diseases;
3. Their healthcare is taxpayer funded and there are no penalties or rewards for looking after yourself;
4. Government worries about paying for it all.

People are either stupid or reckless when it comes to their health, and so the government can do nothing about this - except by tackling the problem of the NHS. Imagine if people DID pay a monthly amount to the NHS (or maybe it could be competitive) and that varied according to your blood pressure, smoking/drug habits, cholesterol and other factors that indicate objectively health risk factors. OH NO, the statists would cry - it would be SO unfair to make people who live unhealthy lifestyles PAY for the health care costs they create (and conversely reward those who present little risk). Apparently far fairer to make everyone who indulges in less healthy foods, occasional and regular eaters, pay more.

The second one was about "bored youff" (because they never existed before). The charity "4Children" said that young people get bored over the school holidays and it is EVERYONE's problem. It wants everyone to be forced to pay for government funded youth centres to fix this. The poor babies are bored. Apparently because they are bored this CAUSES them to commit crimes and be anti-social. Don't you remember being in your teens and thinking "I'm bored, I think I'll go mug someone, or burgle, or steal a car". That's right, the excuse for any teenagers committing crimes is because the government didn't make everyone else pay for a youth centre for them. 4Children also called for us all to be forced to pay for free public transport and "leisure" for under 18 year olds. Sure, let's make public transport less appealling for those who pay for it, but free leisure??

I have some suggestions:

1. Young people today have a wide array of technology to entertain themselves. Use it. Play games, watch videos, listen to music, go online.
2. Meet friends, socialise. Apparently young people "hanging out" is a problem, well by and large it isn't. Most don't hang out looking to mug you.
3. Get a ball, use it. Look at what African kids do in villages with next to nothing. Why aren't they bored?
4. When all is lost, go into your room and masturbate, or better yet, get a special friend to do that with. It doesn't spread disease or pregnancy, and it is even a form of exercise. If you don't understand what I mean, go online or see a doctor.

The BBC reported that ex loony leftwing MP Oona King said "Growing up can be tough and we are simply not doing enough to help the next generation to flourish," . Who's this "we"? My parents helped me, and both worked when I was in my mid teens - I didn't go round harassing people.

So the answer is twofold:

1. Bored? Take responsibility for yourself. Use your brain, and that of your friends and enjoy this free leisure time. You will NEVER have so much free time in your life.
2. Being obnoxious and criminal? Let the criminal justice system lock you up. Nobody needs you screwing up their lives and property just because you are a loser. If you're excuse for being violent to others is because you are bored, I am sure there are a nice group of people in prison who will keep you occupied or keep occupied with you.

The BIG picture lesson is - in Britain, the solution to so many problems is presented as "the government should do something". Yes it should, it should tell people to take responsibility and stop pandering to those who don't.

Bureaucratic fascist agenda?

This document is very telling about the agenda of some government departments. Some of the suggestions for the Youth Parliament to debate are unsurprising (like I said before a lot are statist, because bureaucracies have a natural tendency to want to do more), but some are downright disturbing. Some are just stupid, possibly because some departments think the Youth Parliamentarians need patronising (hopefully, because if they are part of a real agenda they are ridiculous) Take the following:

*

The Childrens' Commissioner suggested "Abolition of any voting age, giving New Zealanders of any age the right to enrol to vote". Great, take the whole family along and make sure you bully your kids to vote the way you want.

*

SPARC said "a bill to ban all television broadcasting for one day a week in order to increase physical activity levels and encourage community-based activities)"!

*

the one that scared me the most is the single suggestion from the Ministry of Statistics:

*

"Should New Zealanders have a compulsory unique identifier number?"

*

There is only one appropriate response to that question, it goes along the lines of

*

FUCK OFF AND GET A REAL JOB YOU NAZI!

Youth Parliament tells us a little about government

Can anyone tell me why observers came from a military dictatorship - Myanmar - to observe this rather peculiar activity? What could they learn that they could even talk about in Myanmar?

*

Why is there a Ministry of Youth Development, and how did almost everyone I know cope, grow up to be happy, healthy, productive, non-criminal adults without our parents being forced to pay for it? Maybe because our parents gave a damn, didn't get paid to give a damn, and (by and large) got things right?

*

What is positive about encouraging young people to think government can solve problems? Did anyone teach them that the fundamental question of government is between doing nothing and doing something, and almost everyone involved in this never asks the question "should the government back off?".

*

Maybe the list of topics their "select committees" considered will enlighten one as to the politics of this exercise?

1. Are we the Pacific scrooge? Why have we not met the 0.7% target for ODA? Well, it COULD have said, should the government reduce aid in favour of tax cuts and letting the private sector assist foreign countries? So this is a leftwing proposition.

2. Has the student loan system created an unfair burden for a new generation of New Zealanders? Could have said, is it fair that the general public continues to be forced to pay over 75% of the cost of university education, whether they received such an education or not, and students only pay 25%, when the average university student typically goes on to earn above the average wage? So this AGAIN is a leftwing proposition.

3. How can we keep more young people in upper secondary school, including should there be a higher leaving age and/or a minimum achievement level for leaving school? Could have been, WHY should we keep more young people in upper secondary education, when there is a substrata of around 20% who are barely literate? How could the education system better deliver outcomes tailored towards the needs of students? Not so much leftwing, but assumes the proposition is a good one.

4.How can we prevent young people joining gangs and reduce violent offending? Could simply be, how can we reduce violent offending, the notion that you can prevent gang joining is almost absurd. Not really political, only the insane could argue against violent offending.

5. Is it fair to tax under 18 year olds at the same rate as over 18 year olds? Could have said, is taxation theft (but that would be seen as "right wing" and we can't have right wing propositions can we, although we have left wing ones). Arguably left wing, as it promotes progressive taxation to some degree.

6. New Zealand roads are the leading killer of young people, what can be done? Could be, New Zealand roads are the safest they have ever been on a per vehicle km basis, what responsibilities do young people have to be accountable for the accidents they cause. Slight statist bias (not left or right wing) and feeds the road toll obsession.

7. What should the focus of our youth justice system be? Finally a truly neutral question!

8 . Should New Zealand allow the therapeutic cloning of stem cells? Also a neutral question!

9.Should Party Pills (BZP) be illegal? Again, neutral.

10. Was the National Certificate in Educational Achievement a good idea? Banal, it could be more clever as to "what would be the best way for schools to recognise educational achievement"

*

So all in all, the Youth Parliament had a somewhat leftwing, statist bias - why should you be surprised, it is organised by bureaucrats from a Ministry that didn't exist a few years ago (hear that John Key?)

*

However, check out the list of questions bureaucracies sent in for select committes. All in all, you can say the following about them (my criteria was whether the questions assumed more government intervention or whether the government had a role in the issue concerned):

ACC: balanced

ALAC: Statist (assumes state should define role of alcohol for private citizens)

Children's Commissioner: Highly Statist

Creative New Zealand: Totally Statist

Department of Corrections: Somewhat Statist (but it is a core government function)

Department of Internal Affairs: Somewhat Statist

Department of Labour: Meaningless

Families Commission: Totally Statist

Health and Disability Commissioner: Highly Statist

Health Research Council of New Zealand: Balanced

Human Rights Commission (HRC): Totally Statist, leftwing and possibly racist (Why are "Asian Immigrants" a topic?)

Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH): Highly Statist and nationalistic

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF): Somewhat statist, slightly leftwing

MED: Slightly statist.
Ministry of Health (MoH): Slightly statist
Ministry of Transport: Slightly statist
Ministry of Women’s Affairs: Totally statist

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise: Totally statist

SPARC: Totally statist

Te Puni Kokiri: Unclear

Transit New Zealand: Somewhat statist.

^

The priorities of the Greens

Given my earlier post about Camp 22 in North Korea, I was heartened to see the Green Party is keen on protesting to foreign embassies.

*

However, it is telling that the Green Party has not written to the North Korean embassy in Canberra (which also covers New Zealand) to protest the children imprisoned in Camp 22, working dawn to dusk and beyond hours of slavery (you'd think they'd care). No, it is to protest Australian federal government treatment of Aborigines, which includes forced immunisations (which I disagree with), compulsory health checks under threat of welfare cuts (which I agree with, if you are accepting other people's money they it should be conditional) and "market rents" (horrors!).

*

When will the Greens start campaigning for political freedom in North Korea? Unlikely, given they link (bottom of page) to a website of one of New Zealand's "friends" of North Korea (who doesn't rock the boat by talking about difficult issues like child slavery). It would be nice if the left universally condemned this and called for action - but all they call for is nuclear disarmament and for China and the US to do the same (because you can North Korea to not keep any, given how transparent a society it is!!!).

Guilt merchants of the 21st century

Few things infuriate me more than musicians getting onto a political bandwagon that most of them know little about, with the primary goals of:

• 
  
  Assuaging their consciences for their self imposed guilt of being very wealthy;


• 
  
  Attention seeking, because it wouldn't look cool to not seem like you give a damn, raising sales of their albums as a result;


• 
  
  Telling people off for living their lives the way they choose, whilst themselves making token gestures in that direction.

Most of those doing this are either in the politically naive bracket (also known as stupid), or simply like telling others what to do. They believe that instead of simply being musicians, they have a duty to "change the world" through their messages.

It can't always be wrong. Music has a place in political dissent, when it is about fighting genuine oppression, as with totalitarian government and free speech. However, it is a fact of globalisation that it costs so little to produce music and distribute it, and audiences can be so large that musicians can make a fortune out of one album. Those musicians who performed at Live Earth are wealthy because of property rights, contracts, independent judiciaries and capitalism. They are not grateful for that. I can only assume they either feel (notice they feel more than think):

- Very lucky to be wealthy and successful (in which case if others are less lucky they might want to share their luck); or

- Know they've worked hard to be successful, but think they better support causes to encourage people to change behaviour to make the "world a better place.

Madonna's personal wealth is more than the GDP of about five countries - but for all of the socialist pontificating she's not going to give hardly any of it away. She's far too career obsessed to be a true socialist.

Most of the criticism of Live Earth has been because it was boring or the carbon footprint created by the concert. Frankly, I don't give a damn about either of those things. I didn't go, and the obsession with carbon footprints is becoming almost a religious crusade. I know someone who will give a telling off for flying instead of going by train.

The sort of guilt passed out by climate change evangelists is akin to a sort of Catholic/Protestant judgmentalism. The new sins are now:

- Flying;

- Driving;

- Leaving appliances on standby;

- Using incandescent lightbulbs;

- Not recycling all you can.

In the past you might have been pilloried for:

- Swearing;

- Having sex before marriage;

- Masturbating;

- Not going to church;

- Not standing up for elderly people on the bus;

- Getting divorced;

- Being single at age 25 for women (unless a nun), 45 for men (unless a cad or entertainer, because we all know, you know!);

- Criticising the Royal Family.

I don't know what element of humanity has this overwhelming need to judge others, to set rules and humiliate those who don't follow them. There are others of course, the obsession with judging people's lifestyle related to health is the other one. Smokers, people who eat "the wrong foods", people who don't exercise are all subject to the judgment machine.

Why isn't it a sin to tell others how to live their lives?