Liberal Vision

No national DNA database here thanks

Labour MP Kerry McCarthy recently called for all men in Bristol to have their DNA screened in the hope of discovering the murderer of Jo Yeates. Fortunately, it seems that the police have more sense than McCarthy does, and her proposal will not be implemented. Given the costs and practical difficulties of testing thousands of people for the purpose of solving just one criminal case, such a suggestion is clearly unrealistic in practical terms.

However, some argue that if a compulsory national DNA database of every UK citizen was established, far more cases where DNA evidence is left at the scene of the crime could be solved, as the DNA from the crime scene could be matched to the database. This would probably not work as smoothly in practice, and the potential benefits are usually over-stated: DNA evidence has sometimes resulted in wrongful convictions, and multiple matches on DNA databases are often returned. Compiling the database would also be very expensive. But regardless of the effectiveness of a compulsory national DNA database, it should be opposed as a matter of principle by anyone who believes that the state should pay any attention at all to respecting our privacy.

Our DNA is perhaps the ultimate symbol of our individual identity. It can reveal information about us which even we ourselves are not aware of – such as our susceptibility to certain diseases. If we have no right to restrict the state from holding our genetic information (assuming that we have not committed a crime), then we cannot logically be seen as having a right to any privacy at all, and any principled case for upholding our civil liberties must be abandoned. A fundamental liberal value is that the state is the servant, rather than the master of the individual; the creation of a compulsory national DNA database would imply a complete reversal of this notion.

Furthermore, a national DNA database could potentially be turned into a tool of vast oppression. While catching criminals is the standard justification, there is no guarantee that its use would remain limited to this (illegitimate, but not in itself critically threatening) function. Historians such as Jon Agar have noted a tendency of ‘function creep’ in the use of identification technologies; personal information often ends up being used in ways markedly different from those for which it was originally intended. Over the next few decades, scientists look set to make enormous progress in determining which specific genes contribute to various human traits. If the genetic associations of psychopathy or paedophilia (or a number of other characteristics) are determined, I imagine that the majority of people, without fully considering the implications for liberty, would support the state revealing to the general public who has such genes. I also imagine popular support for taking pre-emptive action against people with certain genes; for example, those with a gene associated with paedophilia might be banned from working with children. Once you accept such a principle, the power of the state is effectively unrestricted. Any future government that wished to control which people should and should not reproduce would certainly find a national DNA database very useful indeed.

I was opposed to Labour’s plans for ID cards for many reasons, but one significant reason why I felt it was such an important issue is that I feared that a national DNA database could soon follow. Thankfully, the coalition government have abandoned the ID cards scheme and have also recognised that the state has no right to store the DNA of those who have not been convicted of any crime. But McCarthy’s recent call should remind us that such illiberal principles are still supported, and we must remain vigilant against the potential threat posed by DNA databases and other technologies of identification.

Post by Simon Rigelsford

A chance to wake up to liberalism

Nick Clegg is worried about ‘alarm clock Britain‘: those people who get up early, worry about their standard of living and are on low to middle incomes. He has asked David Laws to look at a range of policy options that will address the needs of this group.

As Deputy Prime Minister, Clegg faces many challenges. He has to keep the coalition going, keep his party onside, implement government policy and find the time to carve out a policy space for the party that is attractive enough to gain electoral support come 2015. Needless to say, Liberal Vision has a few ideas about what those policies might look like. But it is clear from Clegg’s speeches, and actions, that he is not pursuing a classical liberal path. He might be closer to classical liberalism than other recent leaders but the last few years have seen him weave a modern liberal narrative that combines classical, economic and social liberalism.

With Laws overseeing the policy development we are likely to see innovative and radical ideas emerge that focus on not only helping people but making sure they have more control over their lives.

One area that Clegg has flagged is renting accommodation in the private sector. We have seen a lot of attempts by government to improve the housing system. Clearly, there are many challenges in terms of affordability and availability of housing stock. If classical liberals aren’t going to get all their own way over the policy, it would be nice if Laws and Clegg pondered the suggestion by Jock Coats and applied some ‘rigorous liberalism‘. This involves stepping back and asking what government rules and regulations further complicate the problem and then removing them instead of sticking another set on top. The aim is to free people so that they can voluntarily work together and find solutions that sometimes are out of the reach of government.

Adopting this approach might mean that people find that when their alarm clock shakes them from their slumber, they wake up to liberalism.

The decline of Liberty

The fantastic Google Ngram Viewer enables one to see how prevelant words have been over a period of time.

Hat tip to Tyler Cowen for this comparrison of the use of Liberty and of Freedom in English over the past three centuries.

Use of Liberty in English writing since 1720

Use of Freedom in English writing since 1720

“The State is the ultimate expression of society”

Regular readers of Liberal Vision will be surprised to see the above title as this site doesn’t tend to promote the State. Do not fear, there has been no sudden change of heart.

At the weekend, I was out with a Labour voting friend and inevitably we discussed the tuition fee row/debacle/progressive policy (delete as appropriate).

His justification for why university education should be entirely funded from general taxation was based on his view that “the State is the ultimate expression of society”.

Two things struck me about that phrase.

The first was that this view underpins a lot of debates in Britain. This view is no doubt widely held by many people even if they don’t think about the issues exactly like that.

The other thing that struck me was that it sounded vaguely familiar. When I got home I did a quick search of quotes by Benito Mussolini and found this: “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

If my friend is right about the State then society is within the State, not outside it and will not be against it.

I should say he is not a fascist. He would be horrified at the thought.  In fact, he stands for everything that isn’t fascism.  At least as far as he understands what fascism is.

George Orwell and A.F. Hayek both wrote about the closeness between State socialism and fascism.  In his recent book, Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg argues that Fabian socialism admired Mussolini and supported many of his policies.

If everything is to be within the State then everyone has to accept that the State should do everything, or at least be involved in everything.

If Mussolini’s view has become part and parcel of how many people think about government policy, then liberals and non-Statists in all three political parties (because there are non-Statists in the other two) have a lot of work to change that perception.

That doesn’t mean one has to be anti all State activity. But if one believes that people are best placed to make decisions about their lives then scepticism about authority, especially State authority, naturally follows.

Perhaps liberals need to make the argument that voluntary association between individuals who use co-operative means like free and open markets, contracts and natural rights is the ultimate expression of society.

“Chocolate Orange Dave” strikes again…

 You will recall that Chocolate Orange Dave has oft grumbled about supermarkets alcohol pricing policies . You remember his  “20 tins of Stella for a fiver” line surely. Now it looks like he is going to do something about it  – planning to introduce a ban on supermarkets  selling wine, beer and spirits below a national “minimum price“.

If true , one has to start to question seriously the philosophy – or lack of it – of this man and his government. Far from rectifying the mistakes of the previous regime. They seem intent on a repeating them. We are already being told that government is actively considering banning branding on cigarette packs – providing an open door to counterfeiters to increase their market share of sales, damaging the activities of legitimate business and doubtless losing tax revenue into the bargain.

Now we are told that they wish to further “fiddle” with business by telling those most able to sell a product at the lowest price – that they can’t. So much for stripping away legislation that hinders growth. Government policy seems to be all about the new controls it wishes to impose. In case Dave hasn’t realised it yet, its not the supermarkets or the alcohol producers that are responsible for so-called binge-drinking – that’s the responsibility of those individuals who choose to drink to excess. No-one elses. 

What is especially concerning is that a government appears to be emerging that is happy – nay determined  – to interfere in areas of life where it has no right to be..whether that’s poking and prying into our “levels of happiness” or determining how we should spend our hard earned cash. 

This all smacks of a government running around trying to put out small individual fires and “be seen to be tackling” social problems without any underlying principles to guide them.

You can’t bang on about social responsibility and individual responsibility and the big society and localism and goodness knows what – and in the same breath seek to impose national rules that will penalise the responsible and the poor because of the actions of the irresponsible few. 

In case you care: Happiness Index DOWN