I have often railed against the behaviour of “the left” when it comes to confusing intentions with outcome. I have on occasion even said that I really don’t care how heartless or cruel the motive is, as long as the outcome is good.

It seems to me that “the left” will adopt any stupid, dangerous, illiberal or nasty idea as long as the intent behind it is a good one. The latest stupidity is that journalists should be licensed and belong to a regulatory body, so that they can be struck off and barred from their chosen career. This is presumably in response to the nastiness of the Evil Murdoch Empire and blatantly ignores two things: 1) politicians of all stripes have been cosying up to Murdoch forever and 2) he wouldn’t care less if his journalists got struck off and he’d just buy more.

But worse than that, it is a profoundly dangerous mechanism that would place a lot of power in the hands of the regulator for less powerful media interests, who would be cowed into printing only things that made the regulator happy. And yet, there will be hundreds of grassroots Labour supporters who will cheer and applaud this authoritarian suggestion as eagerly as they would further human rights legislation.

So my questions are: why are people on the “the left” so entirely uncritical of the consequences of their policies, simply because they have noble intentions?

And why is Labour, ostensibly the party of human rights, always so keen to grasp at unpleasant, authoritarian measures?

Peter Melia September 27, 2011 at 20:33

Iain’s comment is interesting but his geometric thinking stuff, in the
example given, is very very weak, a bit fishy (‘scuse the pun!). I have
hundreds of fish in my garden pond, they do not frighten. But boy can they
accelerate from being stopped in the water to near warp speed practically
instantly. Frightened creatures don’t move like that, they freeze. Btw fish
only freeze in really, really cold weather. The fish’s acceleration thing is
the reason why stones don’t hit fish. It might hit a frog on a leaf, that is,
out of the water, but submerged, no. Why? Well the stone displaces water equal
to it’s volume, and this wall of water pushes small animals away. Anyway,
frogs swim really fast underwater also. I must confess I have no idea what a
newt would do, but I guess that as newts are sort of, little, the water wall
will work for them also. Oh, by the way, the density of the water reduces the
stones velocity, which will further work in the critters favour.
As for
stirring up the bottom, fishes and other pond denizens are always stirring up
the bottoms of pools, it’s technical name for foraging for food.
However
the arithmetical stuff, the pretty ripples, is spot on, especially when
certain angles of light exist.

Peter Melia September 27, 2011 at 19:55

Let us imagine that journalists licensing becomes a fact.
What will be
the result(s)?
First, journalists will cease to be, just become
observers
and bloggers.Their non-existant “news items” will make their own
way outside the country to a place where free journalists can live and
work.
And there the news items will suddenly, surprise, exist and be
printed,
and get back to UK. But no journalist will be fingered, for lack
of proof.
Blogs will proliferate and bloggers will be licensed in their
turn.
The we’ll be back to coffee houses and wall posters, I even have a
name for them. Samizdata.

alan September 27, 2011 at 19:02

I see it rather differently. Real journalism is a rare as rocking horse
poo.

The press in this country stinks (not just the recent hacking). Even the
broadsheets produce poor quality, badly researched articles. Look how Tim
Worstall rips economic/tax articles to pieces on a daily basis. Or Anna’s
insightful legal articles.

The press by and large gives central government a free pass, and almost
completely ignores local government. The press get the occasional gift handed
to them (expenses), but normally just blindly repeat government stories. Iraq
WMD’s was a prime example, the UN inspectors said no WMD were present, the UN
Inspectors had significant assistance from Mossad, the CIA turned their back
on the UN inspection team (why the UN team turned to Mossad for help). It was
rarely reported, the best the Beeb could do was mention the report once in the
middle of the night, but repeated ad nauseum the Bush/Blair WMD tails without
question.

Stories in the press are largely negative and feed on peoples fear. There
is far more good, than bad, happening on in the world but the media
disproportionally focuses on the bad. Perceptions become distorted and the
fear people feel does not match the real risks.

The odd thing is the majority of the British public dont see (or dont want
to see) how truly awful the press is. However the hacking scandal has been
very negative for the image of the press. The last thing the politicians want
is a press that produces insightful reports (ie want to keep the status quo)
and the press need to repair their false image.

So now we have a masterful example of mass manipulation, the government
look to be doing something, by suggesting radical reform. The press unify
together and rant on how important it is to maintain the status quo to protect
democracy. The bloggo sphere unify with the press about how hallowed our press
is. The government will end up backing down and kicking the can down to the
PCC and the status quo will remain the same. Everyone feels very happy that
“democracy” has been saved and conveniently forget/ignore how poor journalism
really is. Superb example of NLP 101.

The recent attempt by the police to use the official secrets act to get the
Guardian to give up its sources, again had the same rallying cry of protect
democracy. Doesn’t anyone find it at least sightly curious that the police try
such a huge end run around the legal system that the idea was doomed from the
start.

Its just a clever version of repeat a lie enough times until people believe
it. “We need to keep the status quo to protect democracy” is wonderful because
its half true.

For a functional democracy we need a functional media, but the reality is
we have a dysfunctional media, and we wonder why our government is so
dysfunctional……

Woodsy42 September
27, 2011 at 18:27

They only understand one way to solve a situation. More bureaucratic
controls.

ivan September 27, 2011 at 18:12

Oh for a political party that would dismantle all the rules, regulations,
laws and garbage back to those of about 1950 as well as cutting the public
service by about 75%. We might then be able to build up a decent society
again.

As things stand there is no centre or right parties they are all on the
left – some are further to the left than the others, not a very good outlook
for the way the country is going.

John Pickworth
September 27, 2011 at 19:45

That’s sadly very true.

Dave September 27, 2011 at 17:07

The left have world wide form for wanting to intrude and control, witness
also the last labour government which was well on the way to introducing
systems of monitoring that the Stasi could only dream about. Sadly the present
government doesn’t seem to be doing much to dismantle the apparatus.

John Pickworth
September 27, 2011 at 16:45

Its not just this hypothetical attack upon journalists… They’re actually
speaking today about bad businesses (in their opinion naturally) that don’t
“do the right thing” (again, in their opinion).

“And why is Labour, ostensibly the party of human rights…”

But they’re not though are they… its just a lie. Freedom and liberty are
properly the domain of the centre right of politics. The left simply ‘created’
a vehicle they call ‘human rights’ which they could claim for themselves. In
reality, these so called rights are parcelled out only as the powers deem fit
and are often two-edged swords used to give minorities a larger stake than
they deserve or have earned. True human rights shouldn’t really even have a
political dimension; they should be unspoken, unwritten, universal and
native.

Woman on a Raft
September 28, 2011 at 11:10

Freedom and liberty are properly the domain of the centre right of
politics.

Agree. I eagerly await the day our centre right remembers this.

pagar September 27, 2011 at 15:44

I think it is too easy to say that the left cannot think through the
unintended consequences of their actions.

Some, certainly, are knee jerk responses designed to make political capital
out of high profile, media fuelled, events (cute child bitten by goldfish
followed by immediate goldfish ban etc).

However they are not as stupid as they believe most of us to be-
ultimately, they want to control every aspect of our lives because they
believe that is what is required to make us happier. To paraphrase C S Lewis,
they tyrannise us with the “approval of their own consciences”.

If that means curbing the freedom of speech of their “evil” opponents it
seems, to them, a small price to be paid.

Andrew September 27, 2011 at 16:57

“However they are not as stupid as they believe most of us to be-
ultimately, they want to control every aspect of our lives because they
believe that is what is required to make us happier.”

Yes, a point I’ve made several times.

I don’t believe, not for one second, that the people who come up with
this stuff don’t know exactly what it’ll do.

I think it’s very seldom that unintended consequences are actually
unintended. Real unintended consequences would be putting power back in the
hands of the people, and that doesn’t seem to happen very often at all.

Fabian the
Fabulous September 27, 2011 at 15:33

Just what we need – government deciding who can or cannot be a journalist;
which, to work , would have to mean defining just what constitutes a
journalist.
Think about it .

Engineer September 27, 2011 at 14:47

There seems to be a general theme developing in the comments, and it’s one
with which I’d concur. Very often, politicians (of all stripes) don’t think
their policies through. This tends to be more a problem with the left of
politics rather than the right; we’re recently seen the current government
ammend or abandon proposals after public debate because they were flawed, but
the left has a tendency to ram it down people’s throats despite overwhelming
negative public reaction.

So far as the press is concerned, better a rude and rampant press holding
the political establishment to account than a supine government PR arm
ignoring blatant corruption and lying. To any politician who claims that the
political class would uphold high standards if not scrutinised, I’d just say
this – you lot try to tell lies when you are scrutinised; look at nations with
controlled media and ask if you’d like to live in them.

Earthtracer September 27, 2011 at 14:13

The current ‘Labour’ party are mostly Fabians. Check out the aims, objects
and methods of the Fabian Society and the answer is obvious – and extremely
nasty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc-OxtJYJ9g

Sres September 27, 2011 at 14:06

This is already happening, take a look at Guido’s latest on Tom Watson…

Ed P September 27, 2011 at 14:00

“…why are people on “the left” so entirely uncritical of the consequences
of their policies…”
If they understood the consequences, they would not be
on “the left”, as that would be paradoxical.

Spiral Architect
September 27, 2011 at 13:54

http://order-order.com/2011/09/27/ivant-your-licence/

I also seem to remember Neil Kinnock broaching the same subject during his
fit of faux outrage in July.

Saying that, it would be highly interesting to see the likes of Hari,
Toynbee, Alibhai-Brown, Hutton, Monbiot and Milne pass a ‘fit & proper’
person test for a journalistic licence.

Spiral
Architect September 27, 2011 at 13:57

Not forgetting our friends at the British Bullshit Corporation –
including one Andrew Marr who tried to silence the press when his
philanderings were about to be exposed.

Hmmmm, how would that sit – Andrew Marr conducts all his interviews,
questioning politicians on matters of integrity………when his own is at the
bottom of the bed intertwined with his floosie’s feet.

What a prize c***t.

Wigner’s Friend
September 27, 2011 at 17:12

All of which is dependent on the stripe of the perso/organisation
deciding who is “fit & proper”. The left, of course, assume that it will
be one of theirs and, as only they would consider implementing such a
notion, the wold be right.

Iain September 27, 2011 at 13:48

I very much agree with the thrust of the post and I think it comes down to
the fact that most people think arithmetically rather than geometrically and
it is easier to explain arithmetic thinking as geometric thinking requires the
consideration of what ifs and uncertain consequences.

This is probably best considered by examples:

The first is a very old one of a stone being thrown in a pond:

Arithmetic thinking – what pretty ripples.
Geometric thinking – pretty
ripples; disruption under the water – frightened fish; has the stone hit a
fish, a frog, a newt; the bottom has been stirred up, has this caused any
harm.

None of the above can be usually be seen bar the pretty ripples so are easy
to ignore or even to deny they exist.

Now a more practical left wing example:

A man is out of work, poor and can not feed his children. Others have more
money and can feed their children. We’ll take some money from those that have
and give it to the poor man. I am a good person. If I give some of my money as
well I am a really good person. If you oppose this you want children to starve
and are an evil person.

Possible consequences, all hypothetical until they happen:
– The man no
longer needs to work and therefore does not seek to work.
– Failure to work
leads to a loss of self worth and a cycle of decline.
– The children lose
the example of work.
– Having children results in more money so is
incentivised.
– Those who had money now have less so are unable to invest
it to create work.
– The relative rewards of working are reduced leading to
reduced effort.
– Etc. etc. etc.

Most of the consequences are complex and come to light over time. Given the
propensity for many of us to prefer simple arguments (or indeed arguably the
inability of many to understand complex and theoretical arguments) the simple
arithmetic approach in many cases wins out especially due to the presentation
that I am good you are evil. This makes it difficult to put forward more
nuanced policies that provide incentives to action rather than simple hand
outs.

Clearly many left wing people do understand the above at least at a
superficial level. It is far easier in the current media environment, however,
to simply portray your opponent as evil particularly if people are already
predisposed to think of them in this way. This is why it is far easier for
Labour to reform the welfare system and the NHS. Unfortunately as they do not
often have a sophisticated understanding of how large organisations and
incentives work plus how people as individuals actually think, their solutions
often fail.

Patrick Harris
September 27, 2011 at 13:16

It would seem that England is about 4 years behind America, the media,
there is firmly in the hands of the left. liberal, progressives.

Daz Pearce September 27, 2011 at 13:15

Positive freedoms of course need an arbiter or referee, whereas negative
ones involve essentially being left the hell alone.

Statists will always champion causes that offer positive freedoms and a bit
more of their own interference as the solution. A list of state-approved
journalists is of course terrifying, but then how many people are there unable
to grasp entirely what this means?

Michael
Fowke September 27, 2011 at 13:09

Sounds like a wonderful idea! It would make blogs more powerful.

dak September 27, 2011 at 13:41

Until they start requiring blog licences.

Then Internet licences.

Then computer permits.

Michael
Fowke September 27, 2011 at
13:48

Yeah.

Surreptitious
Evil September 27, 2011 at 14:33

Remember Marianne Mikko?

Jeremy
Poynton September 27, 2011 at 18:21

Then you take it elsewhere, and fuck the regulators

JuliaM September
27, 2011 at 13:08

“But worse than that, it is a profoundly dangerous mechanism that would
place a lot of power in the hands of the regulator for less powerful media
interests, who would be cowed into printing only things that made the
regulator happy.”

That’s not an unforeseen consequence. That’s the whole point.

They are gambling that, once they control the media, they’ll never get
voted out by the voters who must surely be hoodwinked into voting against them
in the first place!

Bob September 27, 2011 at 14:12

Exactly.
That’s the whole point of them wanting to regulate the media,
and then making sure that they become that self same regulator.
Proof of
this is clear as crystal with one look at the BBC. -Carefully regulated to
ensure it spouts constant left wing propaganda.

Woman on a Raft
September 27, 2011 at 12:53

Because, lacking proper religious instruction, they are entirely unware of
what the road to hell is paved with.

GildasTheMonk
September 27, 2011 at 12:55

Nice one