The Tribune

Another fascinating debate being aired during my wife’s and my extended summer visit to England was about the balance between civil liberties and state intervention in people’s lives.

In Britain, personal liberty is increasingly under assault by those who believe in a form of coercive paternalism. This involves official finger-wagging by a busybody government and often self-appointed pressure groups telling people what to do. They claim that dictating how people should conduct their lives - and forcibly restricting their daily activities in the process - is justified for the public’s own welfare and for the greater good of society as whole.

Termed in Britain the “nanny state”, this is roughly defined as over protectionism by central authorities that interfere unduly and fussily with personal choice and responsibility.

Believing as I do in personal liberty, to me not only is individual choice, responsibility and accountability important but people should also be able to go about their own business without hindrance by the state or by pressure groups as long as their activities do not harm others. This is the basis of the libertarian approach.

Such issues were famously addressed and debated by English philosophers John Locke (1632-1704) and (much later in the 19th century) John Stuart Mill who in his work “On Liberty” contended people should be both “autonomous” and free as well as self-creating and self-assertive in order to be happy.

This also raises questions about the doctrine of the tyranny of the majority when a democratically elected government can make decisions – often in accordance with what is determined to be public opinion - benefitting the interests of the majority without regard for the rights or the welfare of the rest and which might also override the interests of the minority.

However, in a democracy, the rulers and the ruled are essentially the same people so that, while fulfilling their role of good governance, the extent of the rulers’ authority over ordinary people is always subject to debate.

To some, notions of liberty are idealistic and unrealisable in a world of human frailty and man’s reprehensible capacity for wrongdoing and evil. For society to function properly there has to be law and order together with rules and regulations, personal discipline and constraints on human action. Reckless or dangerous behaviour must be curbed because of its effect on innocent people. The alternative is anarchy, which even the anarchists themselves do not like in practice.

According to a recent study, the UK is apparently one of the worst nanny states in terms of the extent of its controls. But restrictions like compulsory seat belts in vehicles and protective helmets when using motor bikes have become accepted over the years because they are so obviously in the interests of the wearers themselves.

Similarly, the smoking ban works since few want to breathe in smoke-filled air in confined spaces like restaurants. Curbs on excessive alcohol consumption are nothing new since restricted opening hours in pubs have been in place for many years – the famous “last orders please” at the end of the evening that only encourages people to slurp down that extra beer to beat the clock!

But the paternalist lobby is never satisfied. One result is plain packaging for cigarettes and a ban on tobacco advertising. Then there is the new so-called sugar tax designed to force drinks manufacturers to lower the sugar content of their products on the grounds that too much sugar is bad for the health and causes obesity.

Reportedly, it is hard to assess how that is working, but what about other so-called “sin taxes” involving, for example, too much salt or fat. The question now is where does all this lead to? While it is the function of the state to prevent people from harming others, should this really be extended to stopping them harming themselves (leaving aside issues like suicide and euthanasia)? How far should the state seek to narrow individual freedom and responsibility?

In the UK, people have become dependent on the state in many ways; for example, the old age pension and free medical treatment and, of course, the government is responsible for their and the nation’s security. Those who advocate paternalistic central authority claim it is reasonable to use the government’s power to persuade people to make better choices about their health and safety, not least because they may become a charge on the taxpayer through use of the National Health Service.

The do-gooders, however, are going further and delving into corners of everyday life. So, nowadays train passengers on reaching their destination are instructed by a disembodied voice in the carriage to step off the train carefully and be sure to take all their personal belongings with them, as if one would not do that of one’s own accord. Similarly, while on a platform awaiting a train, one is told over a loudspeaker that because of the hot weather one must be sure to drink sufficient water to remain hydrated. Has it come to the point that people do not know when they are thirsty?

If adults are treated like children, they will start acting like them. But, in order to survive in a tough and unforgiving world, adults need to be self-reliant rather than depend too much on a well-meaning but over protective state.

Where does it all end, indeed? The answer surely lies in creating a sensible balance between necessary rules and guidance for the benefit of all and unacceptable levels of intrusion. In the words of the 17th century English author, John Donne, “no man is an island”. No one is entirely self-sufficient and can survive on their own without the help of others. So there is a limited role for the nanny state. But there is growing evidence that people in Britain are becoming fed up with being told how to lead their lives.

Kashmir spells trouble

It is also interesting to watch developments in another current international hotspot that could even lead to war between the two nuclear-armed nations of India and Pakistan. This is the disputed territory of Kashmir which both claimed at the time of India’s independence in 1947. It was partitioned without testing public opinion through a plebiscite with the result that each now only rules part of it.

Earlier this month, India revoked the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir in its constitution. This means the removal of guaranteed special rights of autonomy enjoyed by the Muslim-majority state. Hindu-majority India regards it both as a state of India itself and part of the larger region of Kashmir.

India’s action has been described as the most far-reaching political move in relation to the disputed region during the last 70 years, with the practical absorption of this part of Kashmir by India. That is unacceptable to Pakistan.

This dispute has bedevilled the relationship between the two countries since 1947 and they have already gone to war three times over the issue. It has become explosive once again and this has attracted widespread attention because both are nuclear powers and the danger of a new armed conflict that could escalate out of control and affect the rest of the world is that much greater.

What times we live in.

Hong Kong on the brink

The continuing demonstrations in record numbers in the former British territory of Hong Kong are now into their eleventh consecutive weekend, and the situation has captured the attention of the world’s media.

What started as a peaceful and popular protest movement against the Hong Kong government’s proposed law allowing extradition of criminal suspects to mainland China has developed into a full blown violent confrontation. There are now demands for greater democratic freedoms, including electoral reform, for the territory’s seven million residents and to preserve the freedom to live without control by the mainland.

The escalating violence of the protesters, many of whom seem to be young people who will be most affected as Chinese encroachment grows, led to occupation of the international airport and the temporary forced closure of one of Asia’s most important transport hubs. The protestors also surrounded mainland China’s office and its flag was desecrated. The local police have been criticised for their vigorous reaction and alleged strong-arm tactics and, predictably, the Beijing government has reacted aggressively by calling the demonstrators terrorists and condemning their violent activities as vandalism. As a show of force, troop carriers and paramilitary forces have been ostentatiously brought up to the Hong Kong border.

Since its independence from Britain in 1997, Hong Kong has been technically part of China but operates as a semi-autonomous region – one country, two systems. Under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, the treaty guaranteeing for 50 years Hong Kong’s freedoms and way of life, Britain is committed to monitoring implementation of its terms. But, in practice, there is little it can do in face of China’s increasingly aggressive stance, with the Foreign Ministry in Beijing recently condemning UK efforts to bring pressure on the territory’s Chief Executive as unacceptable interference since it no longer had jurisdiction or any right of supervision over Hong Kong.

Moreover, China has accused the West of orchestrating events there which it sees as a serious challenge to its authority. So fears are growing of direct Chinese military intervention and a possible repeat of the disastrous and bloody events of Tiananmen Square in 1989 that left many dead. Occupation of Hong Kong and likely bloodshed would provoke a strong international reaction and would inevitably damage Chinese companies’ access to the outside world as well as affecting the trade talks with the US. But the chances of China’s intervention are increasing.