The Joint Committee on Human Rights has just launched their report on the case for a new British 'Bill of Rights'. I wholeheartedly support the idea of a formal constitutional document which is unambiguously British since I feel that a formal statement of the rights that citizens enjoy would better enable us to defend our rights against government intrusion. However, the Committee's proposed Bill is certainly not desirable. This is because in addition to the critical negative liberties (the right to free expression, the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings) the Committee's report also introduces vague positive 'rights' of equal status to the most fundamental liberties.
According to the report, among the rights that would be enshrined are a right to 'appropriate health care services, free at the point of use and within a reasonable time' and a right to 'an adequate standard of living'. These 'rights' require the active involvement of others: while I would enjoy all my negative liberties were I never to come into contact with another human being, these positive 'liberties' actually require somebody else (the taxpayer) to provide them for me. Hence while I enjoy a right, others have an obligation forced upon them. While with negative liberties, my enjoyment of them does not conflict at all with others enjoying them, for positive liberties (given limited resources) it certainly does.
It is not difficult to see the problems the courts would have in deciding what is 'appropriate health care'. This vastly increases the power of judges at the expense of our elected Parliament: in the future the magnitude and direction of health spending (and therefore the size of the tax burden) would not be determined by the voters but instead by unelected and unaccountable judges making the decision as to what services we have a 'right' to and hence to what extent the government must tax the citizenry.
The additional danger is that a Bill of Rights which includes these vague and poorly defined rights would not command the respect of the government or of the British people. If it became clear that certain rights could not feasibly be provided, those other rights which must at all costs be protected could be tarnished by association. It could actually be more difficult to defend a vital right (the right to freedom of expression for example) if this right sat between two 'rights' which could not practically be delivered.
Personally, my model for a British Bill of Rights would be based largely on the US Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution). We obviously don't need the Tenth Amendment (which is irrelevant in a non-federal system) and I would be extremely uneasy with the incorporation of the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) but with these minor changes, the US Bill of Rights would serve admirably as a statement of fundamental rights for the country which (unintentionally) inspired the formal protections of the American Bill of Rights.
Monday, 11 August 2008
Friday, 18 July 2008
EU must be joking Part Deux
The other thing of course is that the amount of funds (as well as being temporary) is also totally inadequate. Clearly, not all farmers can benefit from the fertilisers and seeds the EU will be providing. What's the betting that the farmers chosen to benefit from European largesse will be those with good political connections (i.e. the large, wealthy farmers) rather than those who need the most help? Even if this doesn't happen, it is a complete contradiction of market principles (to say nothing of basic equity) for a government to arbitrarily help some and not others who are equally deserving.
EU must be joking
Just when it seemed that the EU couldn't get any stupider, the BBC publish this. Yes, the EU is actually now planning to give subsidies to African farmers as well as to those in Europe. Apparently the EU has not been able to spend all the money allocated for the CAP this year, so it now wants to give approximately one billion euros to African farmers. Rather than doing the relatively sensible thing and holding the money over until next year, the EU is now doing the equivalent of betting on both red and black simultaneously (which any gambler will tell you is ludicrous). They must get the plan past the European Parliament, but this should merely be a formality given the level of most MEP's subservience to the Commission.
If the EU actually wants to help African farmers, rather than graciously giving them the gift of dependency on a remote and distant body, it should abolish all trade barriers (tariffs, subsidies to European farmers and quotas). This way, African farmers will be able to export the crops they produce to European consumers, stimulating their local economies. Rather than spending billions of taxpayers' money to stimulate growth while simultaneously using a protectionist policy to retard the growth of less developed countries (by stopping them selling to us what they are relatively good at producing), the EU should allow the market to operate more freely. European consumers benefit from more trade. African producers and their communities benefit from a larger market. The only ones who lose out are the European farm lobbies and the bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg who have made a career out of the subsidy programmes. It is quite simply immoral to pretend to be helping the poorer countries while in reality keeping them in their place for the benefit of a tiny, though influential minority of Europeans.
Even if for political reasons the EU is unwilling to open up markets to America (who of course subsidise their own farmers at least as heavily as the EU does) at the very least it should enable the poorest countries to increase exports in the areas they are most likely to have comparative advantage in. Personally, I think they should do the same with regards to American food, since the number of consumers who would benefit from lower prices is much greater than the number of farmers who lose out. If Uncle Sam is willing to subsidise my breakfast, who am I to complain?
If the EU actually wants to help African farmers, rather than graciously giving them the gift of dependency on a remote and distant body, it should abolish all trade barriers (tariffs, subsidies to European farmers and quotas). This way, African farmers will be able to export the crops they produce to European consumers, stimulating their local economies. Rather than spending billions of taxpayers' money to stimulate growth while simultaneously using a protectionist policy to retard the growth of less developed countries (by stopping them selling to us what they are relatively good at producing), the EU should allow the market to operate more freely. European consumers benefit from more trade. African producers and their communities benefit from a larger market. The only ones who lose out are the European farm lobbies and the bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg who have made a career out of the subsidy programmes. It is quite simply immoral to pretend to be helping the poorer countries while in reality keeping them in their place for the benefit of a tiny, though influential minority of Europeans.
Even if for political reasons the EU is unwilling to open up markets to America (who of course subsidise their own farmers at least as heavily as the EU does) at the very least it should enable the poorest countries to increase exports in the areas they are most likely to have comparative advantage in. Personally, I think they should do the same with regards to American food, since the number of consumers who would benefit from lower prices is much greater than the number of farmers who lose out. If Uncle Sam is willing to subsidise my breakfast, who am I to complain?
Sunday, 13 July 2008
A riposte to the head of the BBC
Mark Thompson, the Director-General of the BBC wrote a piece in the Daily Telegraph today attempting to respond to Antony Jay's recent paper for the Centre for Policy Studies on the future of the BBC. This was his plan at least. He actually failed to address any of the issues raised by Jay, or the other problems many liberals have with the BBC.
Thompson begins by stating that 95% of the population have used BBC services in the last year before asking if 'the British public really want the corporation to shrink back to the size it was in the early 1950s'. The mere fact that people use BBC services certainly does not refute any argument against its present monopoly position. A member of the Soviet Union's Politburo could apply the same logic to infer from the fact that everyone uses some consumer good provided by the state the Soviet Union should have maintained the same planned economic structure. People did not watch the men's final of Wimbledon on BBC 1 because they feel the BBC is an institution which should be supported or to express satisfaction with the BBC. They watched it because if they were tennis fans (or, as one of my friends admitted, a fan of Rafael Nadal's biceps), they had no other choice.
The assumption implicit in this argument is that if the BBC did not provide a particular product or service, the product would not be provided by anyone. This is foolish, since it assumes itself that all or most of the BBC's activities could only happen with the existence of the BBC, while simultaneously arguing that the BBC's programming and other activity is highly popular. In fact, much of the BBC's output would be provided by private sector rivals should the BBC be broken up. Much of the BBC's programming attracts higher ratings than that of ITV and Channel 4: it is inconceivable that a profit minded broadcaster would overlook this and stop showing similar programmes. Thompson asks us to consider the size of the void if the BBC did not exist. Since he talks of a world without the Proms, British children's programming and The Office it is quite clear that actually he is asking us to consider a world where nothing which the BBC does was done (which is of course a totally different question). He suggests that without the BBC, some of the classical musicians currently employed by the BBC would be 'busking on the street' while teenagers would be deprived of BBC Bitesize ( a largely Internet based service devoted to aiding revision for exams). If these are public goods which would not be provided privately (and I certainly do not concede this, as it is clear many parents are willing to pay for extra tuition and revision guides) why should they be provided by the BBC? Surely the Department of Education would be better placed to provide revision aids? If for some reason we need more musicians than would be employed in a free market, why must the BBC do this rather than the Arts Council?
A low point in the argument is reached when Thompson states 'the public wouldn't have ever experienced Steve Coogan's Alan Partridge or Tommy Saxondale, nor Ricky Gervais's David Brent'. I find it extremely difficult to imagine a situation where no private television network would choose to produce a series as splendid as The Office (unless of course there is some magical quality inherent to BBC executives making them much more qualified than other executives to judge what will be popular). Look at the situation in America where Home Box Office produces extremely high class dramas such as The Sopranos, while the major networks also produce high quality programming like ER and The West Wing. These are produced simply because people are willing to pay to watch quality, or because advertising space can be sold. The argument that Sky News would have a monopoly is equally invalid since in the USA, there are no less than ten cable news networks with very different editorial stlyes, showing that it is almost certain this product would be provided by a more competitive market structure.
Having eventually moved on from this point, Thompson talks about the licence fee and how internal BBC research shows (conveniently for future negotiations with the government) that many people are willing to pay a higher licence fee than currently. This completely (and almost certainly deliberately) misses the liberal objection to the licence fee. There are people who would not be willing to pay the fee, who do not value BBC output at £139.50 per year. Nevertheless, these people must do so if they wish to watch any other TV channel. The licence is as unjustified as any government injunction that in order to be permitted to purchase FHM magazine, The Guardian must also be purchased. The fact that a certain proportion of the population are willing to impose a higher tax on themselves to fund the BBC does not give them the right to do so on everybody else.
The article completely ignores any distorting effects that the BBC has in those markets when it operates. Because of the vast scope and array of its activities, the BBC is particularly able to distort competition and privilege its own activities even when it must directly compete. An advertisement for Radio 5 may be played at the end of a BBC show completely free of charge; if Talksport want to do the same after an ITV programme they must pay handsomely for the privilege. A BBC reduced, as Jay wants, to just one radio and one television channel would not be able to do this, instantly making media markets more competitive. Also, the BBC frequently uses its massive income to engage in a bidding battle for sports events and foreign dramas. How can the BBC justify using the licence fee not to provide a unique service but merely to prevent the private sector providing the same service?
Jay's thesis that one television and one radio channel (similar to the existing Radio 4) should be provided assumes that there is a small part of BBC output which is a public good and should be provided by the state. Whether or not this is true (arguments have been made previously that Radio 4 could be funded by voluntary donations on the PBS model), Jay's paper is well reasoned, and deserves far better than Thompson's 'response'.
Thompson begins by stating that 95% of the population have used BBC services in the last year before asking if 'the British public really want the corporation to shrink back to the size it was in the early 1950s'. The mere fact that people use BBC services certainly does not refute any argument against its present monopoly position. A member of the Soviet Union's Politburo could apply the same logic to infer from the fact that everyone uses some consumer good provided by the state the Soviet Union should have maintained the same planned economic structure. People did not watch the men's final of Wimbledon on BBC 1 because they feel the BBC is an institution which should be supported or to express satisfaction with the BBC. They watched it because if they were tennis fans (or, as one of my friends admitted, a fan of Rafael Nadal's biceps), they had no other choice.
The assumption implicit in this argument is that if the BBC did not provide a particular product or service, the product would not be provided by anyone. This is foolish, since it assumes itself that all or most of the BBC's activities could only happen with the existence of the BBC, while simultaneously arguing that the BBC's programming and other activity is highly popular. In fact, much of the BBC's output would be provided by private sector rivals should the BBC be broken up. Much of the BBC's programming attracts higher ratings than that of ITV and Channel 4: it is inconceivable that a profit minded broadcaster would overlook this and stop showing similar programmes. Thompson asks us to consider the size of the void if the BBC did not exist. Since he talks of a world without the Proms, British children's programming and The Office it is quite clear that actually he is asking us to consider a world where nothing which the BBC does was done (which is of course a totally different question). He suggests that without the BBC, some of the classical musicians currently employed by the BBC would be 'busking on the street' while teenagers would be deprived of BBC Bitesize ( a largely Internet based service devoted to aiding revision for exams). If these are public goods which would not be provided privately (and I certainly do not concede this, as it is clear many parents are willing to pay for extra tuition and revision guides) why should they be provided by the BBC? Surely the Department of Education would be better placed to provide revision aids? If for some reason we need more musicians than would be employed in a free market, why must the BBC do this rather than the Arts Council?
A low point in the argument is reached when Thompson states 'the public wouldn't have ever experienced Steve Coogan's Alan Partridge or Tommy Saxondale, nor Ricky Gervais's David Brent'. I find it extremely difficult to imagine a situation where no private television network would choose to produce a series as splendid as The Office (unless of course there is some magical quality inherent to BBC executives making them much more qualified than other executives to judge what will be popular). Look at the situation in America where Home Box Office produces extremely high class dramas such as The Sopranos, while the major networks also produce high quality programming like ER and The West Wing. These are produced simply because people are willing to pay to watch quality, or because advertising space can be sold. The argument that Sky News would have a monopoly is equally invalid since in the USA, there are no less than ten cable news networks with very different editorial stlyes, showing that it is almost certain this product would be provided by a more competitive market structure.
Having eventually moved on from this point, Thompson talks about the licence fee and how internal BBC research shows (conveniently for future negotiations with the government) that many people are willing to pay a higher licence fee than currently. This completely (and almost certainly deliberately) misses the liberal objection to the licence fee. There are people who would not be willing to pay the fee, who do not value BBC output at £139.50 per year. Nevertheless, these people must do so if they wish to watch any other TV channel. The licence is as unjustified as any government injunction that in order to be permitted to purchase FHM magazine, The Guardian must also be purchased. The fact that a certain proportion of the population are willing to impose a higher tax on themselves to fund the BBC does not give them the right to do so on everybody else.
The article completely ignores any distorting effects that the BBC has in those markets when it operates. Because of the vast scope and array of its activities, the BBC is particularly able to distort competition and privilege its own activities even when it must directly compete. An advertisement for Radio 5 may be played at the end of a BBC show completely free of charge; if Talksport want to do the same after an ITV programme they must pay handsomely for the privilege. A BBC reduced, as Jay wants, to just one radio and one television channel would not be able to do this, instantly making media markets more competitive. Also, the BBC frequently uses its massive income to engage in a bidding battle for sports events and foreign dramas. How can the BBC justify using the licence fee not to provide a unique service but merely to prevent the private sector providing the same service?
Jay's thesis that one television and one radio channel (similar to the existing Radio 4) should be provided assumes that there is a small part of BBC output which is a public good and should be provided by the state. Whether or not this is true (arguments have been made previously that Radio 4 could be funded by voluntary donations on the PBS model), Jay's paper is well reasoned, and deserves far better than Thompson's 'response'.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)