April 2008 - Posts
Puritan Britain
"A bill outlawing the possession of "extreme pornography" is set to become law next week. But many fear it has been rushed through and will criminalise innocent people with a harmless taste for unconventional sex."
BBC article
Britain is running along the path to serfdom. CCTVs everywhere, a DNA database, all kinds of new anti-terrorist laws, you name it. And now they want to ban 'extreme pornography'. Someone in Britain must have mistook 1984 for a blueprint of government.
I for one would like to know how they plan on implementing this law. Is this law going to be enforced actively? With internet traffic surveillance and home searches and everything? Or is it going to be one of those mostly forgotten laws that is only drudged up when the police/politicians feel a need to get back at someone?
Clearly the law will wipe out pretty much all BDSM related material. But if the law considers recordings of violence and sex between consensual partners to be illegal (but apparently the act itself isn't?), how can you allow recordings of these things separately? Why would these things be ok on their own, but together form some horrific monster that the public psyche needs to be protected from?
Also, if someone decides to put on a BDSM show in front of those CCTV cameras, can the state be prosecuted for possession of extreme pornography?
A kinder, gentler capitalism
It is not always easy to understand the thinking behind calls for a more 'humane' form of capitalism. These calls seem to arise mainly from the left and from corporate leaders who wish to seem compassionate. For example, recently the CEO of a large Finnish insurance company called for 'responsible ownership' and that companies shouldn't seek out only profits. What this exactly means wasn't specified.
A more recent example is a survey commissioned by the SAK (Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions), according to which 77 percent of Finns think state-owned (but not directly run by the state) companies should prioritize 'humane factors' over profitability. Again, what this means is left unclear. Which highlights a problem with public perception of the free market (or the corporatism they confuse to be the free market). Most people don't want socialism, but their perception of capitalism is too perverted to fully embrace it. The media offers the people a chimera of capitalism and Marx's theory of exploitation. The idea of mutual benefit is quite foreign to those listening to this message and they have to resort to muddled ideas of general niceness to find solace.
The real world manifestation of this desire for a kinder, gentler capitalism is almost always a call for perpetual job security. The greatest evil the capitalist can do is downsize. This is never done out of necessity in the eyes of the media, but out of 'short-term profit', as if maintaining the jobs would be always profitable in the long run. So it is not unusual for casual viewers to deduct malice on the part of the capitalist; that the capitalist is a shadowy, vampiric character that thrives on the suffering of others.
The end result of all this is rather pleasant for the state. They avoid being blamed for their meddling and they are seen as the hero that rides in and saves the day by slaying or at least reigning in the evil capitalist monster. As to how this results in a more humane capitalism is not clearly evident to me. I guess autarkic primitivism offers job security.
Finnish health care hilarity
It turns out that state-run health care tends to lead to all kinds of queues and delays. Now, I know that must be quite a shock, so feel free to let it sink in before continuing to read.
What is the Finnish solution to these persistent queues? Fines on the local health care districts. So the idea is that poorly funded state-run services will run more efficiently with even less funding? I stand in awe of the robust logic of the central planner...