Politicians fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the economy. As a result one sees that they often do not take action to address the aspects of the economic sphere which are under their control (structure). On the other hand one does often see politicians trying vainly to control aspects of the economy completely outside their control. Here they resemble king Cnut commanding the tide not to come in and get them wet.
In which I indulge my passion for criticising everything, especially things everyone else likes or believes in.
Friday, 30 March 2012
Economics vs politics in the crisis
Labels:
economics,
Euro crisis,
financial crisis,
government,
Greece,
Italy,
politics
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
The freedom not to wear clothes
There is apparently an Englishman who has been imprisoned in Scotland for 6 years for refusing to wear clothes (every time he is released, he is promptly re-arrested in the prison car park for being naked). It is apparently a 'breach of the peace' - conduct which does, or could, cause the lieges [public] to be placed in a state of fear, alarm or annoyance - to appear in public without clothes.
First, does public nudity really cause 'fear, alarm or annoyance' in this modern age? Or, rather, does it cause such things any more than people on buses sharing their hideous taste in music with you, or picking their nose opposite you on the train, behaviour that is apparently still legal. Perhaps such behaviour is permissible because it breaches other people's peace in merely conventional ways, in the same way that having money stolen from you by a privatised utility with monopoly pricing power is OK. It's something you should expect to be outraged by, and therefore not a real outrage. If that is the case, then the criminalisation of public nudity follows from it surprising people, rather than it being outrageous or offensive in itself. What a strange thing to keep a man in prison for.
First, does public nudity really cause 'fear, alarm or annoyance' in this modern age? Or, rather, does it cause such things any more than people on buses sharing their hideous taste in music with you, or picking their nose opposite you on the train, behaviour that is apparently still legal. Perhaps such behaviour is permissible because it breaches other people's peace in merely conventional ways, in the same way that having money stolen from you by a privatised utility with monopoly pricing power is OK. It's something you should expect to be outraged by, and therefore not a real outrage. If that is the case, then the criminalisation of public nudity follows from it surprising people, rather than it being outrageous or offensive in itself. What a strange thing to keep a man in prison for.
Labels:
burkha,
free country,
liberalism,
liberty,
naturalism,
nudity,
religion,
Scotland,
UK
Sunday, 4 March 2012
Three models of toleration
Liberal toleration is supposed to begin from respect for other
individuals: although we judge other people's behaviour offensive, we
put up with it (up to the point it harms others) because of our
foundational respect for the principle of individual autonomy. But
tolerance in practice seems to work quite differently in different
societies and I'm not sure that any of them really fulfil the liberal
definition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)