It is hard not to be struck by how often the British state threatens its subjects. You can hardly turn on the television without being confronted by direct unambiguous threats that say ‘obey-or-else’, as mention here on Samizdata before recently. Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute wrote about this in an article titled Watch out, the Gestapo are about.
The latest one I have noticed is a threat to car owners. If they do not pay their car tax, they will have their cars seized and crushed (cheers to Andy H for the link to the advert).
Imagine hearing this on your television, set to ominous music:
We are the MasterCard Credit card Company and we have lent you money…
If you don’t pay it back, we will send the bailiffs around and seize your property!
Of course MasterCard only lend money to people who are willing to take that money in the first place, yet can you imagine the howls of outrage if a company publicly threatened people if they do not comply with the terms and conditions of a loan? Of course no company in their right mind would actually do that.
Yet do you hear any outrage from the Conservative Party or the LibDems when the state uses tax money to run advertisements threatening to use the Boys in Blue against people who do not cough up the money the state wants? Not that I have heard.
Well I am not outraged either, in fact I am delighted. Every time I see the TV Licensing adverts or the Car Tax adverts, I am struck by their educational value. States are self-perpetuating institutions through which the means of collective coercion are applied, nothing more or less, and having the state be completely upfront about its true nature is very useful indeed. One of Samizdata’s tag lines is ‘The State is not your friend’, so I can hardly complain when the state starts running advertisements saying much the same thing.
Here in the US, I was trying to articulate to a disillusioned republican friend why it is desirable to reduce the sway and reach of our federal government, and leave most of state power in the hands of your local state government. This story reminds me that, at least with state government, I can drive to where my state representatives are and have a chat with them if I dont like something.
so I can hardly complain when the state starts running advertisements saying much the same thing.
I don’t know about that.
People have a fair capacity for self deception, if John Q. Public sees these ads what’s to stop him thinking, “excellent my benevolent masters in government are ensuring that everyone pays their fair share [tm], so I don’t get stuck with more than mine” or words to that effect.
For me the threating ads have become a bit of a joke. Far worse are the nanny state nagging ads that point out the consequences of enjoying yourself.
One of the worst is the guy walking happily up to the bar to order himself a pint and the barman acts out a whole scenario of him getting picked up by the police, fined, losing his licence, job and car, then asks threatingly, “What’s it going to be?”
“A fucking pint mate, this is a fucking pub ain’t it?”
Car crush ad.(Link)
The british government sounds like my condominium association. Give a few people power over others and they immediately lose the ability to recognize abuse of power and become petty tyrants. What is the solution?
Even more insidious, is what .gov.uk has decided to do, regarding their charging for car tax (OK, strictly “road fund duty”, but we all know what it is, really).
They decided, this year, to dramatically raise road fund duty for highly-polluting cars, and backdate the change to 2002.
I hadn’t even bought my current car, back then.
While my 4-wheeled pride and joy had at least been built by then – but only just – I didn’t know about either event, at the time.
Now, here’s the twist. My car was built in Bloxham, Oxfordshire, by British craftsmen. The majority stake for my car’s constructors is now back in British majority ownership, thanks to Prodrive.
Successor models to my car are now built in Gaydon, by British craftsmen – probably the same craftsmen who built my car.
So, does Gordon want do destroy the British automotive industry, all over again?
What has always fascinated me, in the way anything utterly incomprehensible is somehow fascinating, is the schizophrenia required of the modern, western, progressive statist.
On the one hand, the government is the epitome of evil, capable of any number of nefarious plots and conspiracies, repressive and duplicitous. The “ruling circles” are responsible for AIDS, the drug epidemic, pollution, wars for monetary gain, racism, sexism, famines, and on and on down a list of lunacy from genocide to concealing evidence of alien visitation.
Any and all of these terrible state evils can be expressed and discussed with sympathetic fellow collectivists and revolutionaries at any number of college campuses, barrooms, and blog sites. Similar to the conspiracy theories of Rev Wright here in the states, no claim is too outlandish for the “reality based community”.
At the very same time, the one and only policy prescription given by these same statist types to any question of public concern is—increased state power, increased state funding, increased state programs.
For all the claims of nuance and subtlety, statism is a one-trick pony. The only answer is more power to the state and its organs and cadres.
There is that famous scene in “Atlas” when Galt is about to be paraded on TV as if he was supporting Mr Thompson’s new programs to solve all the problems the statists had already caused, and he leans aside at just the right moment to expose the gun held to his back by the anonymous thug assigned to guard him.
And, of course, this is the task of those committed to individual rights and liberties—expose the gun at every opportunity. It’s always there, hidden behind the rhetoric and slogans and expressions of compassion and concern.
Lean aside. Pull open the curtain and expose the wizard. It’s all smoke and mirrors anyway, turn on some lights and let people see the thug and his gun.
They’re too clumsy, and arrogant, to hide it very well.
We have something similar here in Toronto, Canada. The print and radio ads (I don’t have a TV, so I can’t comment on those) come right out and say “You could be breaking the law and not know it!” They even use the example of a sweet old lady who uses (gasp!) pesticides on her lawn and then *ominous voice* ends up on the wrong side of the law!
It would be ridiculous if they weren’t so serious about it.
What’s particularly interesting about the current crop of government adverts, which reveal them to be nothing more than an over-large Mafia, is why Gordon Brown is continuing to let them appear despite being so low in the polls. I reckon it’s a symptom that he really has lost control, because for any particular gang within the government to reveal its true nature like this, is generally a sign of complete arrogance, without caring for any consequences. David Milliband would have cut these “We Are The Mafia – What You Going To Do About It, Peasant?” adverts the moment New Labour lost its 10% lead.
slwjg92ytg9w at 9.24pm makes a good point.
Almost everybody, if they have any power over others, will abuse it sooner or later.
I’ve done it myself.
Reduce the power that anyone has by imposing rules of ‘Thou shalt not…’ on the government at every level.
Diffuse power as much as possible.
And talking of abuse of power none moreso that the UK TVLA, whose letters now automatically presume that you are not going to pay the BBC tax so they therefore start out by threatening you with criminal action. Of course if you do try to do anything about it we all know what happens …
I agree with Perry. It’s a Good Thing that the state’s iron fist is being advertised in this way – in the past, though it was every bit as real, it didn’t intrude into the general consciousness so blatantly.
Click it or ticket(Link)
Over the limit, under arrest.(Link)
Sorry Sunfish, you’ll have to do better than that. Not nearly as ominous as the British ones, and besides, I do want drunk drivers arrested.
There’s nothing altruistic about it! This is just complying with the Truth-In-Advertising Laws! You wait till they get an exemption, or a new law passed!
I just got a drunk driver last night[1], which is what made me think of it. I’m all about landing on drunk drivers with both feet and golf shoes.
I actually thought the seat belt thing was the ominous one. But then, seat belt enforcement actually works against my interests: you see, everyone who doesn’t wear a seat belt is a likely organ donor. And I may need a liver some day. So, on the one hand I can “crack down” by writing $25/no-points citations that will cost more to process than the city will get, and on the other hand I can have a new liver or new lungs as long as people continue to be too damn dumb to wear their seat belts.
(Says a guy who doesn’t always wear a helmet while boarding, and who mows the lawn in shorts and barefoot, so don’t take my safety lectures too seriously.)
[1] Attention cop-haters: If I get four more by Independence Day, I get a new microwave. Just so you know, since I’m tired of burnt Pop Secret(tm)
Well yes, it was, by American standards:-)
Well all this shows is the mindset of the people who created the Ad.
Basically they are saying, you can run but you cant hide cos we know where you live!
Yes very Mafia like, but us Brits just ignore them.
They’ve been banging out fatuous nonsense like this for years. Ever since the BBC has existed in fact.
Lemmi see now, there was Arthur Lowe telling us how not to overload and drive a caravan,
Another telling us not to try to cross the Atlantic on an inflatable lilo.
Yet another on how not to incinerate your entire family by leaving a fag lit or not pulling the plugs out of all the sockets in case of electrical short outs (that one is due a revival in view of AGW but for save the planet reasons rather than safety this time).
Yes we were up to our arses in ones about seatbelts and excessive speed Sunfish…
It never stops.
But we Brits just ignore them.
See we live here. We know how crap the place is, and we dont believe their threats because we know they are bluffing and blustering.
I said on a previous post, the said TVLA sent me a letter a while back that said they did nor have a record of me having a TV Licence , despite having lived in the same house for 29 years and pay by direct debit.
I repeat. How fuckin smart is that database again??
I think the heading is wrong. The state does NOT like to threaten people- it just can’t think of anything else to do with the standing army and all those weapons!
Perry:
A good post – your points are true and well made.
RAB: People may ignore government, but it has a way of making its existance known – by acting on its threats.
The “use of violence” thing.
Veryretired asked why leftists who (for example) believe that the United States government created AIDS (in order to commit genocide against black people) or that the British government promoted hatred between Hindus and Muslims in India (who, supposedly, loved each other before the evil Bristish came), should also be in favour of these same governments having ever more of the taxpayer’s money and ever more regulation powers to boss people about.
There is a solution to the problem that veryretired poses.
When conservatives control government it is is evil, but when progressives control government it is good.
Mr M. Moore in the United States is a fairly typical leftist and he blames all government failure (Katrina or anything else) on “Bush and the Republicans”. Conservatives either do not want to do good, or their conservatism prevents them from doing good – government, as a way of doing things, can not be to blame for creating any problem or for making any existing problem worse.
More in next comment – I am having computer problems.
“But what about when the Labour party is in office in Britain, or the Democrats are in office in the United States – and government still fails in so many ways?”.
There are various ways leftists can deal with this problem.
One way is to deny failure – “education is getting better and better” and so on.
Another way is to deny that being in office really means that one is in charge (“in office but not in power” to steal a line from Norman Lamont) – the rich special interests are wreaking all one’s noble plans.
Take the example of a possible future President Obama: Just because he was taught many Marxist notions at college and in his “community activist” politics (such as at his Liberation Theology church) does not mean that he and the class of 1968 (for that is what Nancy P. and a lot of the Democrat leadership are) in Congress will deliver a Marxist utopia overnight.
But “the wicked greed of big business” can be blamed for any economic and social decline – and, indeed, plenty of super rich (indeed billionaire) people will trot out to blame any problems on the wiked greed of the rich (and demand yet higher taxes, yet more entitlement programs and yet more regulations and controls).
But the existance of these super rich “progressives” (from Wall Street to Silicon Valley) gives an opening to the last faction of leftists.
The faction that will deny that President Obama, Speaker Nancy P. and the rest are progressives at all.
After all their links with very rich people can be presented as showing that “the capitalists” are really still in charge.
Can we have a little less of the conspiracy theories please and more of the forthright condemnation of state idiocy contained in the original post? The simplistic equation of left with statist doesn’t stand up, but then neither does the left-right dichotomy. If it did you would never find me agreeing with Perry – and I do on this one, which is both disturbing and stupid. Surely, if the state is going to seize your assets it is better to put them to some use by selling them rather than destroying them? Or do they have some bizarre variation on the broken windows fallacy behind it?
I think though that simple arrogance is the reason behind it – just don’t expect Cameron or Clegg to behave any differently. All of them are quite willing to get into the pocket of ‘big business’ (which does not want a free market Paul) to stay in power – BAe being a prime example, but Berlusconi in Italy is another. Why do you think he and Blair are such buddies?
Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the relevant quango just decided that such an ad (about binge drinking) was unsuitable for kids.
I’ve long wondered whether government welfare schemes shouldn’t have the same health warnings that the usual suspects want to put on alcohol, tobacco, and the like. After all, people on government welfare generally have lower standards of health than the general population.
The sure sign of a conspiracy is when people deny there is such a thing. Ian must be one of these conspirators! He’s trying to get us interested in ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’, and to stop speculating about conspiracies! We’re on to something!
Conspiracy my dear Ian?
I am just reporting – after all the Blair government was called “Conservative” or even “Thatcherite” by many leftists day after day.
No amount of extra taxes or welfare state spending – or politically correct legislation could alter the “fact” that “New Labour is the tool of the rich” (and so on) – and indeed Labour has always had many rich supporters, and Mr Blair brought in many more.
I also have heard John Kerry (and co) described as “representing the capitialist class” (by John Pilger and other leftist fruit bats) – and indeed Senator Kerry is very rich and was supported by many billionaries in 2004.
This did not stop his policy positions being very leftist – but the left will not accept that.
“There you go again – left does not mean statist”.
Quite so Ian – after all Bastiat sat on the left hand side of the French Parliament.
Of course Bastiat did die in 1850….