Hm.... wonder if you will get a response from Polly Pot. That would be a laugh :)

At least they're listening. I think there's a point where PR, spin and plain b/s has to stop and reality takes over. It's the usual problem, you can spin problems away in the media, but you can't change the actuality.

Rather like the NHS ; you can spin statistics in the media all day, but eventually the population notices that Doctors and Nurses are getting sacked and they're not getting any treatment.

I think maybe your central thesis is too much for your average Grauniad reader to take in ; it pushes all those "I MUSTNT LISTEN TO THIS MAN" buttons.

Your problem is not simply that they disagree with you but that your views challenge their whole worldview ; this is the reason they try to spin your views as something like "this man says poor people should have no hospitals or schools and be left to rot in the streets".

But it might start to knock in their heads the notion that the state does a poor job in providing decent services at a sensible cost.

Posted by: Paul at May 17, 2006 10:00 AM

It's actually quite difficult to prove how hopeless government is at solving social problems. As I think you probably realize, relying on narrow statistics, like the number of cancer survivors, or impressions of exam standards, is not enough. Perhaps we are simply better at diagnosing cancer than other countries? Perhaps exam results would be much worse in the absence of government? More impressive would be broad data on poverty, or some broad health indicators, such as quality-adjusted longevity, but these also have difficulties. In my work on this sort of thing I conclude that perverse subsidies - their size and persistence - are the most compelling evidence that government is inefficient and corrupt. Perverse subsidies are economically nonsense, socially inequitable and environmentally disastrous. Taxpayers subdidise the richest landowners and corporations in the country and have been doing it for decades after the stupidity of it was exposed. That's significant in itself (these subsidies are large), but also as an indication that the rest of government spending is similarly mismanaged.

Posted by: Ronnie Horesh at May 17, 2006 03:58 PM

"...the rise in divorces and multiplication of births outside marriage."

There is a risk here, unless fully explained, of conflating the problem of lack of responsibility and the growth of alternative lifestyles. From a libertarian perspective, I find the implicit condemnation of births outside of marriage (a state controlled institution) troubling. Now diversity of lifestyles is something to be encouraged because it demonstrates greater social freedom. All these lifestyles must have one essential quality, however, of taking individual responsibility for one's way of living. Currently, the welfare state has a way of equalising such lifestyles with those that do not take responsibility and this is the problem.

When talking to the Guardian reader, however, it might be worth emphasising that the anti-welfare state thesis does not entail an authoritarian social view on alternative lifestyles. Instead, I contend that all ways of living should be respected in so far as they allow for individual responsiblity. That does not entail marriage in and of itself.

Posted by: nic at May 21, 2006 09:59 PM

I couldn't agree more with Nic.

Whilst personally, I have quite conservative social views, I have a liberal outlook and see no reason to impose my views on others or moralise about them - let people make their own decisions. I don't want some lifestyles to be discriminated against (for example in the tax/benefits system) and for others to be favoured - I want a neutral environment where individual liberty is encouraged and individual responsibility is expected.

I have heard James on the radio several times and courteous and thoughtful though he is, he sometimes comes across as a conservative authoritarian and this allows those arguing in favour of state welfare an opportunity to attack him and his motives. It is probably true (as he says) that it is better for children to be bought up in stable two parent families , but this doesn't mean that the state should actively discriminate in favour of such arrangements and against others. If it is the best arrangement for most people and other arrangements are less economically viable without state subsidy (almost certainly true), a neutral stance by the state will naturally encourage the best and most economically efficient arrangements. His argument should be solely about the state removing discrimination against 'traditional' arrangements in favour of subsidising others. Similarly, we should defend the rights of others (whose lifestyles may not be to our personal taste) to not be discriminated against, provided we are not asked to subsidise them.

A neutral non-moralising stance by the state should be the aim - individuals do not exist for the benefit of the state, it should be the other way around, therefore there is no moral case for the state trying to influence lifestyles.

Posted by: HJHJ at May 24, 2006 10:38 AM