We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Just another priggish busybody David Cameron thinks it is the role of politicians to opine on what sort of clothing parents purchase for their children. I wonder if Tory voters who dislike the fact Tony Blair feels there are no aspects of private life which should not be subjected to state regulation, nevertheless like the idea of the leader of their benighted party ‘taking on’ businesses which sell clothes he disapproves of.
When Cameron says “I’ve never believed that we can leave everything to market forces,” I would turn the question around and ask if there is in fact anything he would truly leave to ‘market forces’, or as I prefer to call it, ‘personal choice’. I have no view regarding the rights and wrongs of what sort of clothing people buy for themselves or their children and I have no idea what the discontinued line of BHS clothing were actually like… but the real ‘creepy’ thing here is that a politician feels such matters are any of his damn business.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
whats next, state issue boiler suits for all? maybe with id numbers on the chest. GPS? What a good idea!
Is nothing sacred ? is there nothing polititians wont do for a photo in the paper?
Were the clothes anything like Pimpfants ?
The infection is more widespread than we’d care to think. Read the rant in this week’s Private Eye about evil ‘deregulated’ bus companies providing services people want, thus depriving the Sheffield trams of passengers (how could they?).
Rest assured, though. This won’t happen in Nottingham, where the bus company is owned by the state.
Dave is a complete and utter gimp. What a pinhead. I doubt Phillip Green will be getting the chequebook out for the Conservatives come the next election.
No, wrong in this instance. The really creepy thing was the clothing. Fetishising efficient distribution – or personal choice, if you will – as a final end misses the point of it all. I’m sure there are all sorts of markets you wouldn’t want to see.
Unlike a normal person, when a politician opines on something, it usually means they think that it is somethinbg the force of law should be applied to. I really do not care if the clothing was ‘creepy’… if parents agree, they will not buy it for their pimple faced little horrors, if they disagree, perhaps they will. Are you serious that you want the state making such decisions for people?
And as for markets I would not want to see, sure there are lots I wish did not exist, but very few indeed I would want to prohibit with threats of violence just because I view them with distaste.
It could welll be that you are I have very different ideas what the ‘point of it all’ is.
Perry, you’re wrong.
For once Cameron is right. He’s a father as well and he can voice an opinion if he thinks there’s a need to. He has a duty to defend his kids, and mine too, considering his position of leadership.
Why shouldn’t he take a moral position on something ?
Dad, there is nothing wrong with Cameron or anyone else expressing their moral disapproval of something, but as Perry says, in this age of state meddling, one can reasonably wonder whether Cameron thinks that the power of the state should be used to ban those things that he things are wrong.
I don’t get Cameron at all. We have a bloated state, so big that even the most brilliant political leaders cannot deliver decent services, and much thought needs to be spent on how to cut things back to more manageable size. Yet this booby prefers to galivant around the Arctic Circle, or bemoan the evils of sexy clothes, or other trivia. Does he really think the UK public are going to think that this is really enough to justify sending him to 10 Downing Street?
Yes, the Tories are doing better in the polls, and maybe he has made the cynical calculation that what people want is the sort of dreck you get served up on daytime TV: lots of focus on issues like kiddies’ clothes, solar panels, cycle lanes and the like.
Maybe if the Tories are elected, a very different Cameron will emerge.
How so? Are you incapable of NOT buying ‘wicked’ clothing for your children unless the leader of the Tory party forces evil companies to remove any temptation from you to purchase such things? I find that a little hard to believe.
How exactly is he ‘defending’ his, and your, children, if some other parents are not allowed to make sartorial arrangement for their children that you (and Cameron) might not approve of?
In fact, why do you feel a need to be ‘lead’ by this person at all in such a matter? Is your own judgement not sufficient for the people you support?
Coming next: David Cameron instructs us on how to cut our toenails.
Perry, you can’t be serious.
If Mr Green thought the line of sexy underwear for seven year olds was worth cancelling and burning, what is your point exactly ?
Is it – how dare Cameron have an opinion ? How dare politicians try to stop sexy underwear for infants ? What ?
The question is, does wrapping your infant or preteen in certain clothing constitute child abuse?
There is a fad in the United States right now of highly sexualized clothing for pre-teen girls. It is a very common sight to see some 9-year old girl walking down the street wearing short shorts with the word “Juicy” priinted across the bottom.
At what point is there a reasonable case for intervention? If the parent was dressing their child in lingerie and sending them out to play, would that be a reason for the state to step in?
Frankly I am conflicted about it. I think that dressing children in that way does them actual harm, but I also know that the state will slide way down that slippery slope to something stupid and extreme, like banning shorts for anyone under the age of 16.
Johnathan Pearce writes:
“Yes, the Tories are doing better in the polls, and maybe he has made the cynical calculation that what people want is the sort of dreck you get served up on daytime TV: lots of focus on issues like kiddies’ clothes, solar panels, cycle lanes and the like.”
Oppositions don’t win elections. Governments lose them.
If the Tories are doing better, it’s not on account of Cameron, but the final collapse of faith in ZaNuLabour.
Cameron is just kicking his heels right now.
Playing populist cards and picking up tricks like he holds a grand slam at Bridge.
With the corner this Govt has painted itself into, he doesnt even have to try too hard.
I’d like to believe that things will seriously change when he inevitably gets to power.
But I just dont see it happening.
All politicians seem to have forgotten long ago, that they are our representatives— Not our masters.
My point is that is Mr. Green felt this line of gear was damaging his brand by outraging potential customers (and by the sound of it that was indeed the case), then he did the right thing… but it is a social issue not a political one.
Indeed, because David Cameron is not just another person, he is possibly (shudder) the next Prime Minister and thus in a position to use force to make people act according to his wishes. There is no such thing as an innocent opinion for such a person.
Yes, that is indeed my point. The notion that what clothes people buy for their children could be a political issue is horrifying. If you do not like children wearing certain clothing, well fine, don’t buy that kind of clothing for yours. Hell, I might even agree with you… but what makes you think this should be something politicians feel they can get involved in? Would you mind if Muslim politicians decided that only ‘modest’ clothing should be permittted for women when in public? Say, a burqua perhaps? Is it ok for them to try and work for that requirement to become a political issue?
You do not have to agree with me (i.e. you feel it is fine to use politics to impose regulations on what some people wear) but I am surprised you do not seem to see the point I am making.
Perry, I contend that what a parent does with their child is not entirely their own concern.
There are a whole range of harmful activities which are proscribed for parents.
Do you think that the manner in which children are dressed by their parents cannot ever be in this category of proscribed behaviors?
It seems to me that ‘market forces’ worked very well in this case.
What Cameron has done here, is dig through old news in search of a story he can be sure will offend virtually everyone. The fact that the manufacturer immediately and decisively corrected his negligent oversight assures Cameron that there is probably support available if he pushes the right buttons.
So he’s grandstanding to moral moderates and conservatives. But what is he really proposing? Islamic style government moral authority over what is or isn’t permissible for children to wear.
Just ask yourself, who is going to be more responsive to moral outrage from consumers? The ‘moral’ police? Or a manufacturer who faces bankruptcy in the face of a significant boycott?
Bombadil, this time, I think you are endorsing a governmentalizing of morality that assures that sooner or later it will be either burkas or birthday suits. Manufacturers will be able to claim compliance with an officially approved code of morals and avoid all responsibility for what they do or sell.
The way to develop and retain any strength, moral or otherwise, is not to delegate it. It’s to act on it.
Midwesterner,
Exactly! The strength of moral force comes from the fact that it is NOT backed up by the threat of state violence.
Bombadil, I agree with you that there are limits on how parents can treat their children. Children are not property, and it is important to spell that out. My problem is that state attempts to legislate the “right way” to bring up children are worse than the original cause for complaint. On the whole, we regard it as better for parents to raise kids since they tend to have an emotional vested interest in ensuring their offspring are raised right. Yes, there are exceptions, there are bad, neglectful, stupid parents, but then the state is not a substitute.
If parents insist on dressing their kids in clothes others’ consider inappropriate for children of a certain age, I can see why other people might take exception, name and shame the parents, etc; but I don’t see how the government of the day can possibly legislate this sort of detail of life.
And that is the problem with Cameron. Lacking a serious political philosophy, or at least lacking the guts to articulate one, he is doing what all centrist pols do: engaging in gesture politics, scratching around at superficial issues. But then he was chosen as leader precisely because he is superficial.
Joanthan,
I don’t get Cameron at all.
Evidently not. The clue is, he’s a politician. A politician gets power to do what he wants to do by persuading whoever is in a position to give him that power – whether the Praetorian Guard, the Supreme Leader and Council of Guardians, or the New British voter – that what they want is what he wants.
Cameron is not trying to appeal to you and me, even though his previous positions suggest he is the most libertarian party leader in a century. If even 50% of the population were rational individualists, the principal activity of all politicians would be writing earnest wonkish pieces about market reforms.
His arctic trip, and his outbursts against meretricious children’s clothes and chocolate oranges make no rational sense. But they all dramatise in concrete fashion the notion that Dave cares about the same things an important slice of voters do. Probably two slices, actually: women who switched to Labour in the 90s and LibDem voters in general. It is the same psychographic group that delivered 5% of the UK vote in response to a single election broadcast by the Greens in the 1989 European election.
I was gonna comment, but Midwestener said all that needs to be said far better.
I know perfectly well what Cameron is, thanks. (No need to start channelling Euan Gray). I was making the point that this man demonstrates perfectly what sort of trivia certain types of politicians spout if they are terrified of appearing to be “uncaring” or whatever, and eschew clear ideas.
I’d like to see you give some examples to back up that sweeping statement. I have not come across a single case where he has urged a rollback of the state. About the only thing I can think of is ID cards, but he’s been useless on stuff like the Contingencies Act, the various assaults on the Common Law, etc.
What Cameron is implicitly ignoring is that the problem sorted itself out, between the retailer and the parents, without the need for state intervention, legislation etc.
Guy Herbert wrote: “His arctic trip, and his outbursts against meretricious children’s clothes and chocolate oranges make no rational sense. But they all dramatise in concrete fashion the notion that Dave cares about the same things an important slice of voters do.”
This makes a most excellent and important point; true too, so I believe.
However, it is also appalling. [And, separately, it reminds me of the election of 1997.]
Is it wrong to want poliitical leaders who actually lead the people in judging more correctly, what is right and what is wrong; also what can be effectively improved and what cannot; also what are the things that government should undertake and what are not?
Every populist distraction that is pursued by government and/or opposition means that something more important is not being done. [For example, there is the current (pathetic) defence of the Security Service (MI5) that it was under-resourced in detection on terrorist plans. My view: they (the government and/or MI5) got their priorities wrong, so they were wrong!]
Best regards
The notion that a politician, a person who is a leading part of a kleptocratic system that abridges people’s rights on a daily basis , is a suitable person to LEAD others in making moral judgements is a little hard for me to accept.
Getting a lecture about morality from a politician is not unlike getting a lecture about chastity from a whore.
@Perry
By selectively quoting me, I think you have somewhat diverted my intended meaning.
The fuller quote is: Is it wrong to want poliitical leaders who actually lead the people in judging more correctly, what is right and what is wrong; also what can be effectively improved and what cannot; also what are the things that government should undertake and what are not?
Though I agree my wording was not the best, in what is right and what is wrong, I was thinking more of analysis of the facts as known, to come to conclusions, rather than on issues of morality. Also, in the bit you left out, I think I was constraining politicians to also consider (first) those circumstance requiring government decision.
Concerning your view against politicians, a politician is surely a person involved in government. If you judge anyone involved in government as (by that very involvement) unfit to be involved in government, we seem to be lost (we the people that is; not just Samizdata).
Best regards
I agree completely wiht everything Perry has said, and that doesn’t happen often.
T
Does anyone have David Camerons phone number? I’m heading out shortly and I want to check if the jeans and blue polo shirt I’m wearing are acceptable.
Wonder what Cameron would think of this lot of baby/child clothes. I personally like I wanna Rock.
I think Cameron ranted on about baby clothes he didn’t like so he could get some headlines.
That is indeed not too far from my position… which is why I favour a very small state on the notion that as anyone who wants to be a politician is pretty much a thug by definition, it would be best to have as few of them as we can get by with. Or to use another analogue, if government is strong medicine, more than a very weak dose is invariably poison.
@Perry: so it was a bit of hyperbole. Well, it seems we are (still) on the same side of the net, if not guaranteed to be in exactly the same quarter of the court. So far, so good.
The problem I have with this (political presentation, not you) is, however, the same one as I have with Guy on NO2ID (or so he says from time to time). That is of taking an extreme position (but not one that is obviously implausible, as others do hold it), seemingly for the sake of persuading the ignorant demos by making things simple for them.
Sadly (or perhaps happily), I do not think the demos are a totally lost cause to careful thought. They are largely just too busy getting on with their lives to spend too much time differentiating two or more sets of dissembling weasels.
Now, if one of the sets of weasels was seen to be significantly less dissembing, and significantly less disrespectful of the intellect of the people, … And that set of weasels had policies that could be seen as self-consistent and so be understood (even if not to one’s liking in totality) … Wot??!! Less weasels.
Best regards
Johnathan Pearce wrote:
Wonder what you might think of the CRE [link] deciding that three year old children are racist, and that children should learn to play together from Day One?
Coming soon – intrauterine political correctness indoctrination classes anyone?
Would that be pronounced ‘Lord Weasel-y’?