Randomly Selected Article or Link

You know who you are. Those liberals (in particular) who always claim that "libertarian free markets" will result in a corporate plutocracy, or that the current turmoil in world financial markets (yes, it's still going on you know!) is a result of "libertarian free markets". Here, especially for you (but of interest to others I hope too), is a brilliant explanation of how this mutualist understands that free markets benefit people, not corporations.

CORPORATIONS VERSUS THE MARKET; OR, WHIP CONFLATION NOW

by RODERICK LONG - LEAD ESSAY - November 10th, 2008

Defenders of the free market are often accused of being apologists for big business and shills for the corporate elite. Is this a fair charge? No and yes. Emphatically no—because corporate power and the free market are actually antithetical; genuine competition is big business’s worst nightmare. But also, in all too many cases, yes —because although liberty and plutocracy cannot coexist, simultaneous advocacy of both is all too possible.

Read the rest...

...or "we should shackle the permanent secretary of the Treasury along with a clutch of Treasury ministers to the derelict barge in the stinking Hackney cut. And throw away the key."

In today's Observer Will Hutton comes out for Land Value Tax to fund the potential gap in capital funding for the Olympics. Okay, he doesn't actually understand it - why should you issue bonds when you can instruct the money to be created and then retired as the tax comes in but hey - it's a step.

"Tickets, television rights, sponsorship, the lottery and even an Olympic surcharge on London ratepayers have all been stretched to the limit. More is needed. The Treasury refuses additional help. Without some imagination, the Olympic vision will be the casualty. The answer is obvious. If the games go as planned, there will be a huge increase in land values and property prices throughout east London. If the government could capture just a fraction of the increase in those land and property prices, then it could more than repay any bonds it issued today to pay for the games.

"The Chancellor praises entrepreneurs; now is the moment for Treasury officials to practise what they preach. What they have to do is invent a way the government can capture some of the wider gain that its own development is creating. We could copy the Americans and tax the incremental gain. We could insist that private developers form public-private partnerships, with the development gains earmarked to repay Olympic bonds. What we cannot do is to penny-pinch and roll back the ambition.

"It is a pivotal moment. We have to find a way of breaking out of the self-defeating logic that all Britain can afford in any public development is what the taxpayer stumps up, while private developers pocket the benefit. That way, we always build small. You only have to smell the sewage at Old Ford locks and gaze at the desolation to see the results.

"The Olympics must be funded as imaginatively as the project has been devised and the precedent then used across the country. If not, we should shackle the permanent secretary of the Treasury along with a clutch of Treasury ministers to the derelict barge in the stinking Hackney cut. And throw away the key."

...on the other hand, the one good thing about the smoking ban is that it brings starkly into the open the fact that the "state" acting in the "best interests" of its citizens can decide and enforce with legislation and criminal penalties what you can and cannot do with your own property. Of course it always has in all sorts of different ways, but at least it's out in the open now.

So we can proceed to Land Value Tax unopposed by those who think it is not right for the state to take some of "your" property wealth yet okay to tell a landlord what he can and cannot allow in his own property...:)

Technorati Tags: land value tax, smoking ban

How gallant of them!

Tories advocate watchdog to monitor aid impact

Larry Elliott
Monday June 4, 2007
The Guardian

The Conservatives last night called for this week's G8 summit in Germany to create a new international body to measure the effectiveness of aid spending as they warned that much of the west's development budget was being badly used.

Andrew Mitchell, the shadow international development secretary said Tony Blair should used Britain's position as the most effective aid spender in the G8 to put pressure on other rich countries to make better use of the resources earmarked for tackling global poverty.
...
The Conservatives have already announced plans for an independent aid watchdog to scrutinise British aid, and Mr Mitchell believes that, if successful, it could be used as the template for an international monitoring body.

He added that there would be a built-in international dimension to his new body for assessing UK spending, since so much of British aid went through multilateral channels such as the World Bank, or was used in partnership with other bilateral donors.

All those trips to aid recipient nations - wouldn't they just love it!

We should be grateful to Lord Justice Sedley for one thing - re-igniting the debate about the national DNA database. His prescription, however, is completely wrong, and unjustifiable. He is right when he says that:

...the current database, which holds DNA from crime suspects and scenes, was "indefensible" because it was unfair and inconsistent.

but we should be very wary of his suggested fix for that, that...

...whole population and every UK visitor should be added to the national DNA database.

He is of course correct that the current situation is indefensible, Black men are more than twice as likely to be on the database than white, just because of the disproportionate way in which the police target black men for stop and search operations. But his prescription that:

"Going forwards has very serious but manageable implications. It means that everybody guilty or innocent should expect their DNA to be on file for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention."

So, we are to be scared from committing any crimes because we know they already have our DNA and when they find that at the scene it'll be an easy next step to "pull" anyone whose DNA is found for questioning. With no other probable cause than that their DNA was at the scene - Paul Walter's Liberal Burblings puts this much better than I have, describing it as "presumed guilt", overturning what must probably be, after Habeas Corpus perhaps, the key principle of English law.

One could imagine a situation where, for example, a victim of crime in the hours before being raped or murdered or whatever was in a place with lots of other people - perhaps a bar or a club. He or she brushed up against countless innocent bystanders, some of whom left a hair on the victim's clothes or sneezed over them or somehow transferred DNA to them or to another item of evidence. The police could just pull all of those people for questioning. Or perhaps that the crime scene was quite a publicly frequented place, and countless innocent samples are collected and the owners of that DNA pulled for questioning.

And as if that weren't enough, what sort of access would the defense have to be given to make this fair? Someday one could imagine the argument succeeding that with evidence disclosure rules, the defense could subpoena anyone whose DNA sample was found to try to create reasonable doubt for their client.

And in future, when the purpose of individual genes are steadily discovered, a witness statement might describe someone that may or may not be involved at the scene and based on that physical description the police could pull all blond men with blue eyes and the obesity gene in the local area to question?

The judge talks also about how many "cold cases" have been solved using DNA evidence. Yes, that may be one of the advances that has been made possible with DNA technology. But I wonder how many of them have actually been solved simply by matching up with the database. I rather suspect very few. That most have probably been a case of arresting the person first suspected many years ago and then checking them up against the DNA. Ie that DNA is used merely to corroborate existing evidence that somehow proved insufficient at the time to convict. That's a very different proposition from having a pro-active database from which to go and pull every person that brushed past the victim twenty years ago and happened to leave DNA that was subsequently collected.

No, storing our DNA is storing a little part of each and every one of us. As I said last week, our DNA should be subject to habeas corpus. It's like putting us all on bail for further questioning, sometime, about any other matter they feel we might be able to help with. The implications even now, let alone in some future time when we may have a seriously authoritarian regime in power or where the technology is available to extrapolate from descriptions what the suspect's DNA might look like, are horrendous.

In an accompanying article, the BBC puts the other side of the case. We already hold proportionally more DNA samples than any other country. Since it was first allowed in 1995 it has been steadily extended. The evidence of "mission creep" is clear already. We cannot trust any government with this sort off information. One only has to have seen the film Gattaca to know why. We must go back to the 1995 regulations, and strengthen them indeed so that people have rights to know and control whether their DNA is held if they are not currently in the criminal justice system for a good reason.