An Open Letter to Alex Salmond: Democracy & the "Will" of the People

Mr Salmond,

During the recent Scottish Independence Debate between yourself and Alistair Darling,you made the statement that for more than half of your life Scotland has been governed by parties that "we" (by which you mean the people of Scotland) didn't elect at Westminster and that these parties have given us the "Poll Tax" and the "Bedroom Tax" (by which you are referring to the under-occupancy penalty, which of course, you know as well as I do, is not a tax).

I would like to point out, that for my entire life I have been governed by parties that I didn't elect at either Westminster or Holyrood.  This is part of the nature of democracy - sometimes you get stuck with some politician or some party that you didn't vote for (most of the time if you happen to be a libertarian or a true liberal).  Your adversary Mr Darling observed as much when he quipped about not having voted for you.  This was more than a joke, he clearly understands this important truth concerning the nature of democracy.

Indeed, by your standards the UK has been governed by parties that "we" (by which I mean all of the people of the UK) didn't elect at Westminster for my, and indeed your, entire life.  Not for eighty-three years, since the 1931 UK General Election, has any single party won an absolute majority of votes.  That is to say, for every single one of the 19 UK General Elections held since 1931, the majority of voters in the UK have voted against whomever was in power at Westminster.

Furthermore, implicit in your statement that "we" the Scottish people didn't elect those parties in Westminster is the idea, to borrow Don Boudreaux's words, that a "multitudinous and extraordinarily complex and diverse group of individuals" (i.e. "the Scottish people") can have "anything reasonably called "a representative" or an agent or agency that carries out its 'will'."  I completely reject such a notion - "[g]roups of people have no 'will'.  It is mistaken anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise."

The distinction which you implicitly draw between "we" the Scottish people and "we" the British (and Northern Irish) people is completely arbitrary.  When politicians move political boundaries to their own advantage we call it gerrymandering.  This argument which you put forward during the debate is nothing more than an argument for gerrymandering on a national scale.

I assure you that I feel more kinship and national identity in common with my English wife and with many English friends, colleagues and acquaintances I have known throughout my life than with you or any of your nationalist party colleagues.

Sincerely,
Ally

On the Cost of Trident

During the Scottish Independence Debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling, Mr Salmond alluded to the Trident nuclear weapons at Faslane and stated that £100,000 million (i.e. £100 billion) is planned to be spent on them "over the next generation", of which £8 billion is "Scotland's money" (by which he of course means is the equivalent forcibly extracted in tax from individuals living & working in Scotland in order to pay for this expense).

He's not explicit about exactly what time frame is a generation.  Assuming a generation is say 30 years and taking these figures on face value, that means £3.33 billion per year, of which £270 million per year is coming from Scottish taxpayers.

The UK government budget 2014 estimates total expenditure of £732 billion in 2014-15 (ignore for now that they also estimate revenue to be only £648 billion - if you earned £648 per week would you think it a particularly sensible policy to spend £732 per week?)

Scotland represents approximately 8% of the UK in population terms, so assuming similar patterns of taxation and spending as in the UK as a whole (it's not going to be exactly the same, but it'll be close enough for my back-of-the-envelope estimate), total government spending in an independent Scotland would be circa. £59 billion.

£270 million is less than 0.05% of £59 billion - that's a rounding error!  It's about 50 quid per person per year.

To put this into perspective, the UK government is forecast to spend £222 billion on 'Social protection' this year alone (this includes state pensions, child benefit and jobseekers allowance) - that's billion with a b.  This works out at over £3400 per person.  That's 68 times larger (or two orders of magnitude larger) than spending on nuclear weapons.

Believing that Scotland should get rid of it's nuclear weapons on the basis that you don't agree with them on moral grounds or on other principles is one thing, but to argue for getting rid of them on the basis of cost is a very weak argument indeed when their cost is so much smaller than so many other things the government spends our money on.

The Bedroom Tax is not a Tax

Warning: This is a bit of a bugbear of mine, what follows is pretty much just a rant.

Disclaimer: Just to get it out in the open before I get any complaints about defending this unpopular policy: I am not a fan of the under-occupancy penalty, I think it is unfair to large numbers of people, many of whom will be among the most vulnerable members of our society (minorities, the poor, the sick and the disabled).  This post should not be taken as a defence of the policy, which I oppose.  This post is merely about the term "bedroom tax" which is an inaccurate and misleading way to describe this policy.  I think it may also be counter-productive for opponents of the policy to label it such, in much the same way as calling anyone who disagrees with your political leanings a communist, a Nazi or (most commonly) a fascist.

[Begin Rant]

Let me state explicitly and to avoid any ambiguity: the "bedroom tax" is NOT A TAX!

I'm talking about the under-occupancy penalty - to give it it's proper name - which is part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

So, if it's not a tax, what is it?  It is a reduction in benefits paid out to people living in council housing deemed to have "spare" or "unoccupied" rooms.  Some people may read this and think to themselves "what's the difference?"  I suspect that that's how the colloquialism "bedroom tax" came about in the first place.  Someone has equated a withdrawal of benefits to a tax.  And taxes are bad, right?  So, the bedroom tax must be bad!

Whilst I agree with the conclusion, it is not because of this argument.  The problem here lies in the first premise, that equating of a withdrawal of benefits to a tax.

From the perspective of an individual, a reduction in benefits and the levying of a tax may look the same and may have exactly the same consequences for the individual concerned.  For example, imagine Dave currently works part-time in a low wage job, he doesn't earn enough to pay Income Tax or National Insurance (Social Security) contributions.  He also receives some money paid to him by the government in benefits of some sort (e.g. Child Benefit, Working Tax Credits, Carer's Allowance, etc.).  Now, imagine the government alters the tax rules, so that Dave now has an annual tax bill of £200, but his benefit payments remain unchanged.  The effect of this is obvious: Dave is £200 per year worse off, he's going to have to cut back on £200 per year of consumption (or saving) or draw into any savings he may have.

Now, lets imagine an alternate scenario where Dave's tax bill (from Income Tax + NI) remains zero, but in this alternative universe the government reduces Dave's benefits payments by £200 per year.  What is the effect on Dave and his consumption?  The answer of course is exactly the same as in the previous scenario where Dave's benefit payments were untouched, but he was taxed more heavily: Dave is again £200 per year worse off and he's going to have to cut back on £200 per year of consumption.

This is, I suspect, where shallow thinking has led some to conclude that:

Reduction in Benefits = Tax

Therefore,

Under-Occupancy Penalty = Bedroom Tax

The problem with this equivocation is that taxes and benefits are not morally equivalent.  This becomes apparent if, instead of looking at it from the perspective of a single individual affected by the changes, we look at it from the much wider perspective of society as a whole:

If the government reduces the benefits it pays out to Dave, it must also reduce the amount it taxes Nick (all other spending remaining equal), since all benefits payments are someone else's taxes.  The government has no money of it's own, it merely shuffles money around between individuals.  This offsetting benefit to Nick exactly cancels out the harm done to Dave (in strict monetary terms).  Whether or not this is good or bad policy depends on the specific circumstances of Dave and Nick and crucially it requires a value judgement.  A similar story can of course be told regarding taxes, albeit the opposite way around.  If the government increases the taxes it charges Nick then it can increase the benefits it pays out to Dave.  Again, a value judgement is required to judge the merits of such a policy change.

The key difference is that a tax is the government taking money by force (or the threat of force - if you don't pay your taxes you can go to jail) from an individual who has rightfully earned that money.  A benefit is the government giving out money which it did not rightfully earn (whoever paid the tax to fund that benefit did).

Viewed in these terms then a reduction in benefit is seen to correspond to a reduction in tax, or in other words a reduction (however minor) in the coercive power of the state.

An increase in tax is precisely the opposite - an increase in the coercive power of the state.

From the libertarian perspective the former is unambiguously a good thing and the latter a bad thing.  However, that being said, policy changes that reduce the coercive power of the state still have to be weighed up against the harm that they inflict upon individuals.  In my opinion there is a long list of more desirable policy changes which could be made to reduce the coercive power of the state which I'd rather see implemented (e.g. university tuition fees and prescription fees in Scotland) and the under-occupancy penalty scrapped.

[End Rant]

Caplan & Boudreaux on Nationalism

Bryan Caplan has written an open letter to nationalism, which is posted here.

Don Boudreaux reflects on this at Cafe Hayek.  A slice from Don's post (do read the whole thing, it is full of Don's characteristic wisdom and insight):

"I reject also the superstition that that particular political institution... is a faithful representative of that multitudinous and extraordinarily complex and diverse group of individuals commonly called “the American people.”  Indeed, I go further and reject even the possibility that such a group of people can possibly ever have anything reasonably called “a representative” or an agent or agency that carries out its ‘will.’  (Groups of people have no ‘will.’  It is mistaken anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise.)"

"I feel no, I owe no, and I will never give any allegiance to any nation or any government as such.  My allegiance is to whatever peoples and institutions promote human freedom, flourishing, and peace."

Well said.  It is heartening to know that we share this world with such clear thinkers as Boudreaux and Caplan.

One Man and His Bike

Who is the victim of this alleged "crime"?

"A man caught trying to have sex with his bicycle has been sentenced to three years on probation."

"Mr Stewart was caught in the act with his bicycle by cleaners in his bedroom at the Aberley House Hostel in Ayr."

"They used a master key to unlock the door..."

"The accused was holding the bike and moving his hips back and forth as if to simulate sex.  Both cleaners, who were "extremely shocked", told the hostel manager who called police."

"Stewart had denied the offence, claiming it was caused by a misunderstanding after he had too much to drink."

So, this guy has a bit too much to drink, goes home and decides to get it on with his bicycle* in the privacy of his own room.  A couple of cleaners use their master key to unwittingly enter his room whilst this is going on and rather than everyone simply being extremely embarrassed, the police are called and the guy ends up in court, sentenced to 3 years probation and with even more embarrassment as this story is publicised in the national media.

I utterly fail to see what crime has been committed or who exactly is the victim here?  All sex acts are morally okay so long as they are taking place between consenting adults.  Since no other people were involved, just one man and his bike, there's no crime being committed here, however weird an act it may be.

I cannot understand the mental processes of the cleaners here.  Who, if they were to walk into someone's bedroom and accidentally catch them in the middle of any sort of individual sexual act, would think that calling the police is the best, or even an appropriate, response?  The appropriate response is to quickly apologise to the person whose privacy you have intruded on and promptly leave.

The bizarreness of the act in this case does not change the situation in any substantive way.  However unorthodox, weird, terrifying or disgusting you may find someone else's sexual preferences and habits as long as they are not agressing against another person (or animal) there is nothing morally wrong and we should simply live and let live.

* Quite how the mechanics of this would work I'm not entirely sure.  I refuse to Google it, there are some things which I am happy to remain ignorant of.

Tyler Cowen on Scottish Independence

The ever thoughtful, insightful and wise Tyler Cowen has posted some thoughts on Scottish Independence over on Marginal Revolution.  A slice:

"[The Union of 1707] truly was a cornerstone of the modern world"

"For all its flaws, the UK remains one of the very best and most successful countries the world has seen, ever."

"If a significant segment of the British partnership wishes to leave, and for no really good practical reason, it is a sign that something is deeply wrong with contemporary politics and with our standards for loyalties."

Needless to say I shall be voting no in September.

If you don't vote you can't complain!

I was inspired to write this post after turning on my TV this morning to be greeted by the image of Ian McMillan (who I had no idea who he was until today) on BBC Breakfast talking about the Newark by-election.  Quite apart from the fact that he also seemed to believe (erroneously) that a single voter could make a difference (even in a closely contested by-election, how often does it come down to a single vote?), he also made the following declaration:

"If you don't vote, don't complain.  If you don't vote it's nowt [sic] to do with you."

This seems to be a ubiquitous sentiment amongst people of various political leanings.  It is also something with which I happen to completely disagree.

Firstly, the fact that a person has (correctly) concluded that their vote has a negligible chance of making any difference whatsoever and therefore (rationally) decided that there are better uses of their time* than reading through flyers, manifestos, propaganda and other policy documents does not in any way make their opinions and preferences carry any less weight than someone who has made the alternative choice to vote.  Every single person is equally entitled to their opinion and equally entitled to complain, campaign, support or protest in whatever (peaceful) way they see fit, this extends to those who either could not or chose not to vote.

Secondly, refraining from voting can itself be a form of protest.  Admittedly, the problem with protesting in this way is it isn't possible from voting turnout figures to distinguish those who didn't vote out of protest from those who were apathetic, lazy or indeed simply had better things to do*.

One could argue that those who don't vote out of principal or in protest actually have more of a right to complain that those of us who do.  If you happen to have voted in favour of the candidate/party/policy which wins an election/referendum you have implicitly given your consent to be governed/represented/constrained by said candidate/party/policy and legitimised the use of certain powers and constraints over you and those you care about.  Even if you vote against the eventual winner, by participating in the election/referendum process you accept that process as legitimate and therefore implicitly accept the outcome of that process.

Say that you voted for the Libertarian Party at the last General Election.  Since the Libertarian Party have no MPs you would feel that your views have little to no representation in Parliament.  Chances are high that your representative in the House of Commons is either a Conservative or Labour party member (possibly a Liberal Democrat).  Whichever of the major parties they represent, you didn't vote for them.  You think that this therefore gives you the right to complain about them, their party and everything they do and stand for.  However, you still participated in the process which saw them elected.  You just don't like the outcome in this particular instance, in other words you don't like the choices that most other people have made.  But, you agreed to participate in the process which resulted in that outcome!

I say free speech to all.  This means it doesn't matter whether you vote or not you still have every right to express your opinions in whatever peaceful ways you see fit.  Let the non-voters complain if they've got something they think is worth complaining about!


* Some examples of better uses of ones time than voting include: spending time with ones family / friends / loved ones, working to provide for oneself and ones family, spending time at a hobby, doing some DIY/redecorating to improve ones home, enjoying a good meal, enjoying a music concert, etc.

Public Health and the Regulatory State

That's the title of a recent post by Eric Crampton over on Offsetting Behaviour and also of the paper he discusses therein, by Pierre Lemieux.

A slice:

 "Contemporary public health cannot be pursued without lifestyle controls, and lifestyle controls cannot be imposed without harming some real individuals."

and:

 "The vast majority of the costs tallied in these studies, when not simply fabrications of double-counting, are costs smokers, or drinkers, or the obese, impose on themselves. But they're presented to the public as "costs to the country" rather than "costs incurred by the obese, smokers, and heavy drinkers.""

(Emphasis added)

If you don't already read Offsetting Behaviour you really should.  I've been following it for several years now and it remains one of my favourite blogs.

Bad Infographic of the Day

Whilst browsing the MoneySavingExpert website over lunch today I came across this good example of a bad infographic:

It appears on the page about cheaper fuel and is intended to illustrate how the cost of a typical litre of unleaded petrol breaks down.

There are two problems with the above graph.  Firstly, most of the percentages shown in brackets are wrong.  For example, a very quick and simple bit of mental arithmetic will tell you that 5p is not 6% of £1.30, but less than 4%.  However, this is not the main problem with the graph.  The main problem is that the areas of the graph are all wrong; it significantly under-represents the portion of the petrol price attributable to fuel duty and to the manufacturer, slightly over-represents VAT and massively over-represents the retailers cut.

I've produced a corrected version of the infographic, which is shown below.  See if you can spot the difference:

MoneySavingExpert claims the data for the infographic comes from PetrolPrices.com; I can't find the infographic there, so I'm guessing that's MoneySavingExpert's own work.  There are a couple of graphics on this page that aren't any better, although they just appear to show the cost breakdown numerically, with the larger numbers written in a larger font to give them more prominence - they aren't quite as potentially misleading.

Liberal = Not Liberal ?

Belinda Luscombe, writing in Time describes George Akerlof as "more liberal than his wife [Janet Yellen]" and then goes on to quote Akerlof as saying "Our lone disagreement is that she is a bit more supportive of free trade than I."

Methinks that would make Yellen more liberal than Akerlof.

How have we come to the point where the less liberal position is described as the more liberal position?  That the word 'liberal' has become so corrupted that it is now used to mean the very opposite of liberal?