For too long, the state has justified all sorts of intrusive and illiberal measures as necessary to protect their citizens from "harm". They've co-opted the harm principle. It is time we took it back.
1) Yes, the state gone too far in trying to protect its citizens from a nebulous concept of “harm”.
2) No the modern world is not too complicated for the use of such a simple concept as the harm principle.
A couple of observations:
Any legislation to prevent psychological harm is problematic as psychological harm is subjective i.e. dependent on the mental state of the recipient.
There are many that say Climate change is pressing but there are many others with a counter or dissenting view. So how does favouring taxes and regulations preserve choice? Also where is the direct physical harm which you refer to and which harmful behaviour that causes it needs to be discouraged?
An interesting point of view. The assumption that a Victorian theologian without the benefits of a modern society’s view and modern interpretations is in itself flawed. Whatever it was he wanted to express in little words was for then. We have hopefully by now, moved on from a poor state of affairs to one that is much more complicated and holistic for a modern society. Simplicity of view is too simple in my view. You can’t wrap up everything in a neat little sentence. I wish you could and harbouring that wish now in thinking it applies is deluding yourselves. There is nothing wrong with a big state. In fact it’s much more caring, free and serving if it is. A small state abdicates its responsibility to people. And to think people can be fair equitable and decent enough to make good decisions to go the right things is as wrong today as it was then. Some can, I’m sure you can. But a lot can’t. No, what has led you to wanting a small state is not about freedoms that are being infringed. Or speech that is being silenced. No, it’s all about cost. The idea that with freedoms gone small state snd less cost is, I suspect, the ideal for you. The motivator of your objection. My view is much more radical to this way. I believe we should have more! More money to begin with. More Spending of money that presently gets unspent each month. Make the economy work to pay for a government and services that actually work. We have free speech. And haven’t lost it. We are free to exist. But the democracy we choose is that the 49% have to accept and adhere to the 51%. That’s tough yes, but it’s freedom with consent. By consent and it works. It’s the best way to achieve freedom for all safely. I would put a spend by date on money to make it rotate. I would allow the people to earn more, spend more and enjoy more. Have more revenue for pensions. We should only need one! A bloody good one. I would have proper borders, paid for by extra tax revenue from a tsunami of SPENDING. I would have a well paid border force to turn the boats back to France. Make them have them back! I’d have ID cards, we have driving licences and bank cards no difference in my mind. I’d have everyone’s DNA on record. So we can catch the criminals easily. I’d have more cameras and more police. Not less. What we need is a decent leader. Not a leader who is just another fool or villain or doesn’t know right from wrong. We have the ability to prove our every move to prevent abuse. So modern improvements can and should protect abuse of the system. But we don’t have good leaders. That’s our problem of late. Future forward thinking is best. Not everything in the past is better. Old wise men snd women are great role models. But we have to do better. Every generation do better. Our monetary system is as old as money itself. Spend hoping it’ll come back again. We can make it come back using modern digital money. So why aren’t we using it? This is a classic example of ignorance through a wish for simplicity and a lack of forward thinking. Every old economist would have used it had it been available! That’s my evidence for looking in the right direction for salvation. Not backward. IMO.
I find quite a number of points you speak of problematic. A few initial questions:
Why is there nothing wrong with big state? What evidence would you point to that shows the state is more free and caring if it is big?
You say a small state abdicates responsibility to people. What responsibility does the state have to people and how does it or did it come to have this responsibility?
Doesn't money already have a spend by date? No one takes their money with them when they die.
… just to follow on. An example of a small state is the ‘middle ages’ not much help or care. Simple small state non intervention in day to day decisions. Unstructured day for taxes. A large state is what we have now. It doesent work but we are all hoping it does! It doesent work because it’s underfunded. Because too much money isn’t in it! To be honest, there is a lack of real evidence of one over the other. But if you get the economy working. Firing on all cylinders not one, then I think the big state with all its people helping us get prosperous will work wonders! We have never had any state that has worked at its optimum. So sorry a lack of evidence as we can’t see one them at works… yet! But I think you can see the prix and cons of a small or a large state. You just have to think them through, don’t be told either way until you think and realise nothing has worked before or now. Not properly funded. Not with ell money being spent every day. Think in that scenario. And don’t use arguments of today’s economy be the defining choices of a possible economy with full involvement of all and every penny being circulated and not sidelined.
Once again a number of points that I find problematic.
You're suggesting the state is underfunded and needs more money. What is the evidence that it is underfunded? How has level of state funding changed over the last say 150 years?
What do you mean by every penny being circulated and not sidelined?
Well look around you Jilan. Schools crumbling, roads with potholes we can’t mend, HS2, housing, hospitals, the NHS Trains, armed forces, no planes for an aircraft carrier and no power stations. You name it and nothing has had full funding. As ever since money was introduced you have had the few rich and the majority poor. Unfair and undemocratic. Not really any change. And albeit that budgets may be up it’s overall still insufficient to do everything needed. My view is it’s so depleted of money it can’t sustain its status quo each year and has gone backwards. And those who propose a small state because it’s cheaper think cuts are the answer. They are deluded. How will less make more? We have a basic money exchange for work. So when you spend your earnings it’s exchanged for your needs and the cycle happens again like Groundhog Day. But unless you have a fair exchange it’s going to be harder and harder to exchange in the future. Let me explain. We earn money and most of us. The poor and now they are middle class family’s Spending 100% of their monthly income. So they live hand to mouth. Where’s there are a group of those who get so much they do not SPEND 100%. They may not spend a little or a lot! So it’s that unspent money that triggers no tax. None. And the other problem is it is kept outside of the system for years on end. Now that pot of unspent unused money is growing. It’s so large it’s causing us to borrow it back with interest and full capital repayment. We now have a situation where we borrow to pay the interest. As that pot grows the pot which we all expect to rotate gets smaller. Making earning difficult and tax revenue insufficient for the needs of state. This has been happening for at least 25 years or more. So the very basic need of any economy of money and spending is shuddering to a halt. That’s what I mean by underfunding. If you hold money for too long in such a weight outside of the economy only one thing happens. Bust!
Hi Jilan. I was replying to the piece written so it was with that in mind I wrote what I did. Big state or large governance is the opposite to small state and least governance. So I was putting my view that small state is hoping the people make the right choices based on their perceived freedoms. Juxtapose big state and lots of rules and regulations and a large state of managers etc and tax inspectors and the like. I was opposing the common view of the right that they think the small state is best. Leave freedoms to the people. But my view is that won’t work as well as a large state with lots of guidance and care. I believe the small state is propagated by those who advocate it as a cost cutting excuse. Whereas I think the big state with lots of costs gives us a better society. It’s our monetary system that needs overhauling to meet the costs of a large state. We all spend snd expect the money to return for us all to go and do it again. It’s a simple notion. Basic even. But it’s become clear to me that the money isn’t returning. That businesses close, our government is underfunded as a result of reduced tax revenue. And the facts of mathematics…. There is apparently, up to £19 trillion pounds out in the aether. Now I don’t know if that’s correct but it’s a good estimate. And we know our tax take in the uk is about £1 trillion pounds. Which equates to roughly 5% of tax take. So that easy snd simple equation tells me that NOT all of our money is in our pot that pays taxes. So very simply, we are not putting all £19 trillion to you’d use. Most of it is idle or unspent it unused or hoarded in some way. If that money was flowing through our hands via SPENDING then a lot more tax would be collected to not have to borrow at all. Not just that, we would earn higher wages, business would flourish and tax can be got from vat making all other taxes redundant. It would have the affect if streamlining money by digital use. Maybe a spend by date making all or part of income must be moved on via SPENDING. It’s all doable. There are many good snd bad points of a small snd big state. But on balance an ordered snd structured well oiled and funded machine is best in my view.
Really good article. To your questions:
1) Yes, the state gone too far in trying to protect its citizens from a nebulous concept of “harm”.
2) No the modern world is not too complicated for the use of such a simple concept as the harm principle.
A couple of observations:
Any legislation to prevent psychological harm is problematic as psychological harm is subjective i.e. dependent on the mental state of the recipient.
There are many that say Climate change is pressing but there are many others with a counter or dissenting view. So how does favouring taxes and regulations preserve choice? Also where is the direct physical harm which you refer to and which harmful behaviour that causes it needs to be discouraged?
An interesting point of view. The assumption that a Victorian theologian without the benefits of a modern society’s view and modern interpretations is in itself flawed. Whatever it was he wanted to express in little words was for then. We have hopefully by now, moved on from a poor state of affairs to one that is much more complicated and holistic for a modern society. Simplicity of view is too simple in my view. You can’t wrap up everything in a neat little sentence. I wish you could and harbouring that wish now in thinking it applies is deluding yourselves. There is nothing wrong with a big state. In fact it’s much more caring, free and serving if it is. A small state abdicates its responsibility to people. And to think people can be fair equitable and decent enough to make good decisions to go the right things is as wrong today as it was then. Some can, I’m sure you can. But a lot can’t. No, what has led you to wanting a small state is not about freedoms that are being infringed. Or speech that is being silenced. No, it’s all about cost. The idea that with freedoms gone small state snd less cost is, I suspect, the ideal for you. The motivator of your objection. My view is much more radical to this way. I believe we should have more! More money to begin with. More Spending of money that presently gets unspent each month. Make the economy work to pay for a government and services that actually work. We have free speech. And haven’t lost it. We are free to exist. But the democracy we choose is that the 49% have to accept and adhere to the 51%. That’s tough yes, but it’s freedom with consent. By consent and it works. It’s the best way to achieve freedom for all safely. I would put a spend by date on money to make it rotate. I would allow the people to earn more, spend more and enjoy more. Have more revenue for pensions. We should only need one! A bloody good one. I would have proper borders, paid for by extra tax revenue from a tsunami of SPENDING. I would have a well paid border force to turn the boats back to France. Make them have them back! I’d have ID cards, we have driving licences and bank cards no difference in my mind. I’d have everyone’s DNA on record. So we can catch the criminals easily. I’d have more cameras and more police. Not less. What we need is a decent leader. Not a leader who is just another fool or villain or doesn’t know right from wrong. We have the ability to prove our every move to prevent abuse. So modern improvements can and should protect abuse of the system. But we don’t have good leaders. That’s our problem of late. Future forward thinking is best. Not everything in the past is better. Old wise men snd women are great role models. But we have to do better. Every generation do better. Our monetary system is as old as money itself. Spend hoping it’ll come back again. We can make it come back using modern digital money. So why aren’t we using it? This is a classic example of ignorance through a wish for simplicity and a lack of forward thinking. Every old economist would have used it had it been available! That’s my evidence for looking in the right direction for salvation. Not backward. IMO.
I find quite a number of points you speak of problematic. A few initial questions:
Why is there nothing wrong with big state? What evidence would you point to that shows the state is more free and caring if it is big?
You say a small state abdicates responsibility to people. What responsibility does the state have to people and how does it or did it come to have this responsibility?
Doesn't money already have a spend by date? No one takes their money with them when they die.
… just to follow on. An example of a small state is the ‘middle ages’ not much help or care. Simple small state non intervention in day to day decisions. Unstructured day for taxes. A large state is what we have now. It doesent work but we are all hoping it does! It doesent work because it’s underfunded. Because too much money isn’t in it! To be honest, there is a lack of real evidence of one over the other. But if you get the economy working. Firing on all cylinders not one, then I think the big state with all its people helping us get prosperous will work wonders! We have never had any state that has worked at its optimum. So sorry a lack of evidence as we can’t see one them at works… yet! But I think you can see the prix and cons of a small or a large state. You just have to think them through, don’t be told either way until you think and realise nothing has worked before or now. Not properly funded. Not with ell money being spent every day. Think in that scenario. And don’t use arguments of today’s economy be the defining choices of a possible economy with full involvement of all and every penny being circulated and not sidelined.
Once again a number of points that I find problematic.
You're suggesting the state is underfunded and needs more money. What is the evidence that it is underfunded? How has level of state funding changed over the last say 150 years?
What do you mean by every penny being circulated and not sidelined?
Well look around you Jilan. Schools crumbling, roads with potholes we can’t mend, HS2, housing, hospitals, the NHS Trains, armed forces, no planes for an aircraft carrier and no power stations. You name it and nothing has had full funding. As ever since money was introduced you have had the few rich and the majority poor. Unfair and undemocratic. Not really any change. And albeit that budgets may be up it’s overall still insufficient to do everything needed. My view is it’s so depleted of money it can’t sustain its status quo each year and has gone backwards. And those who propose a small state because it’s cheaper think cuts are the answer. They are deluded. How will less make more? We have a basic money exchange for work. So when you spend your earnings it’s exchanged for your needs and the cycle happens again like Groundhog Day. But unless you have a fair exchange it’s going to be harder and harder to exchange in the future. Let me explain. We earn money and most of us. The poor and now they are middle class family’s Spending 100% of their monthly income. So they live hand to mouth. Where’s there are a group of those who get so much they do not SPEND 100%. They may not spend a little or a lot! So it’s that unspent money that triggers no tax. None. And the other problem is it is kept outside of the system for years on end. Now that pot of unspent unused money is growing. It’s so large it’s causing us to borrow it back with interest and full capital repayment. We now have a situation where we borrow to pay the interest. As that pot grows the pot which we all expect to rotate gets smaller. Making earning difficult and tax revenue insufficient for the needs of state. This has been happening for at least 25 years or more. So the very basic need of any economy of money and spending is shuddering to a halt. That’s what I mean by underfunding. If you hold money for too long in such a weight outside of the economy only one thing happens. Bust!
Hi Jilan. I was replying to the piece written so it was with that in mind I wrote what I did. Big state or large governance is the opposite to small state and least governance. So I was putting my view that small state is hoping the people make the right choices based on their perceived freedoms. Juxtapose big state and lots of rules and regulations and a large state of managers etc and tax inspectors and the like. I was opposing the common view of the right that they think the small state is best. Leave freedoms to the people. But my view is that won’t work as well as a large state with lots of guidance and care. I believe the small state is propagated by those who advocate it as a cost cutting excuse. Whereas I think the big state with lots of costs gives us a better society. It’s our monetary system that needs overhauling to meet the costs of a large state. We all spend snd expect the money to return for us all to go and do it again. It’s a simple notion. Basic even. But it’s become clear to me that the money isn’t returning. That businesses close, our government is underfunded as a result of reduced tax revenue. And the facts of mathematics…. There is apparently, up to £19 trillion pounds out in the aether. Now I don’t know if that’s correct but it’s a good estimate. And we know our tax take in the uk is about £1 trillion pounds. Which equates to roughly 5% of tax take. So that easy snd simple equation tells me that NOT all of our money is in our pot that pays taxes. So very simply, we are not putting all £19 trillion to you’d use. Most of it is idle or unspent it unused or hoarded in some way. If that money was flowing through our hands via SPENDING then a lot more tax would be collected to not have to borrow at all. Not just that, we would earn higher wages, business would flourish and tax can be got from vat making all other taxes redundant. It would have the affect if streamlining money by digital use. Maybe a spend by date making all or part of income must be moved on via SPENDING. It’s all doable. There are many good snd bad points of a small snd big state. But on balance an ordered snd structured well oiled and funded machine is best in my view.