Immigration and Choice

Recent attempts to push for greater restrictions on immigration present a dangerous direction of travel. The tension around this issue has been tightened by the approaching end of the transition period for the newest members of the European Union, Bulgaria and Romania. When the transition ends, the citizens of those countries will be free to move freely between member states.

There has been particular consternation in the UK, where hyperbolic screeching has claimed that the entire population of Eastern Europe is suddenly going to sign on to the British welfare system (Eaton, 2013). The more sober appraisals have been turned to the long term effects that loosening restrictions on movement will have on those new member countries. In particular is the problem faced by European nations with struggling economies, such as Ireland and Italy, where young people are emigrating to find opportunities for the chance of better life (Khaleeli et al, 2013; Davies, 2013).

The principle of free trade brings with it many benefits. Amongst them, the freedom of people to move to where they are most valuable to the economy - as the young and educated are to the nations of Western Europe with their ageing populations. The competition this movement brings tends to make employers very happy. But that is just one aspect of free trade. There are benefits that are often left unaddressed.

One such benefit is free trade's built in defence against corruption: competition. When businesses are able to acquire resources wherever they can and when capital and labour are able to move to where the best opportunities are, it stops power being concentrated too dangerously in any one pair of hands.

When we give in to the much hyped fears over the issue of immigration, it puts at risk important parts of the defences offered by free trade. Specifically, those aspects of free trade that act as a safeguard for the rights of workers. The freedom of people to move around and to seek work where they will is an essential defence against the power of capital. With the borders closed, the ability of workers to negotiate for better pay, better conditions and better rights is severely hampered.

However, stricter border controls also greatly increase the power of domestic business owners, by enhancing the control they wield over the domestic workforce. Since the workers are effectively cut off from other potential competing employers, their ability to negotiate is limited. With the borders closed, workers find themselves increasingly bound into a world shaped in the interests of employers.

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.' (John Stuart Mill, 1859)

John Stuart Mill argued that the 'vital power' - our ability to imagine and to innovate -  is dependent upon individuals having a choice. Without competition the protections capitalism offers against corruption are non-existent. Without choice, so too is our capacity to realise Mill's vital power. Attempts to restrict the free movement of people presents a real threat to both competition and choice. We must remain vigilant against these and other attempts to concentrate control into the hands of a few, and build safeguards against attempts to restrict our horizons and our right choose.

==========
References:
==========
+ George Eaton's 'How fears over Romanian and Bulgarian immigration have been exaggerated'; in the New Statesman; 22 April 2013.

+ Homa Khaleeli, David Smith & Helena Smith's' 'The great escape: European migrants fleeing the recession'; in The Guardian; 30 January 2013.

+ Lizzy Davies' 'Italy election: the 'forgotten generation' seeking opportunities abroad'; in The Guardian; 19 February 2013.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

Crime and Choice

A recent exposé about life inside the United States extra-territorial prison complex at Guantanamo (Adams, 2013) raises important questions about crime and punishment. As the unfortunate success of the torture glorification film Zero Dark Thirty shows (Greenwald, 2013), the catharsis to be found in reacting to crime with retribution remains an intoxicatingly popular idea. The problem is that there is no evidence that it works. There is a danger that real problems will go unresolved if legislators give in to the the popular, though unsubstantiated approach, in the name of giving the people what they demand. Further, doing so may only cause more suffering as problems are compounded by new blights created by the ineffective system.

In the UK, high reoffending rates, along with rising numbers of prisoners and a crime rate amongst the highest in Western Europe (Travis & Sparrow, 2010), suggests that a different approach needs to be found. Mr Ken Clarke, the 'liberal conservative' Secretary of State for Justice - before he was moved away from that office in the 2012 cabinet reshuffle - had been working to try and change Britain's prison and sentencing culture (Crook, 2012). The changes he sought to bring in included the improvement of rehabilitation in prisons. Through work and education, along with the tackling of drugs, drink and other social issues, he aimed at reducing the spiralling reoffending rates (Travis & Mulholland, 2010).

However, his departure from the position brought a halt to the UK's pursuit of prison reform.

There is plenty of reason to believe that the UK and other countries should get back on the path to prison reform. Norway is an example that shows us what we need to be working towards: it has amongst the lowest reoffending rates in the world, a small prison population, and all with humane prison conditions (Adams, 2010). Norway's system, a more humane system, while profoundly effective at reforming offenders, would also be less expensive than that employed presently in the UK or the US - where the high cost per inmate means that the high prison population is becoming a serious economic issue.

What stands in the way is the 'ideological criminal'. Most ideologies come pre-packed with perceptions of human beings and their relationships to each other. A problematic part of these dogmas are their inflexible attitudes towards human behaviour - categorising people without regard for individual circumstances: the poor are poor and the rich are rich because that is how that particular societal outlook says that things are (Hickson, 2009). The 'criminal classes' is an old idea. But it is a stigma that has - as crime has been studied more closely - been weakened, with a greater awareness being developed about the complex causes behind individual crimes (Emsley, 2002).

Unfortunately those stigmas can be reinforced by zealous vigilantism. These campaigns start with ordinary people in ordinary communities who want cathartic retribution on those who have caused them fear. But they are turned into something else as they are exploited, used and directed to whip up public pressure behind a particular course or legislative direction - becoming the 'loud voices' in society, demanding more punitive responses and less tolerance (Hancock, 2004).

The failures of extra-judicial terror to stop terrorism, the failure of retribution to stop crime and reoffending, should be telling us that part of the task of overcoming the blight of crime is to start tackling those stigmas that exist in public opinion towards criminals. We must understand and deal with, in an intelligent way, the social aspects to crime - the worlds that offenders come from, the situations, the opportunities - and make our response to crime more than just reaction.

Choice, is an essential aspect of human freedom. It is through the making of choices that we shape and learn our capacity to think reasonably and rationally about the world. So we must be ever vigilant for threats that limit choice. The conditions in which crime proliferates - poverty and squalidness - are a serious threat to choice. If we are to deal with those threats, then we must do more than punish or rehabilitate offenders; we must address the stigmas and falsehoods, and tackle the problems in the worlds that they come from.

==========
References:
==========
+ Tim Adams' 'The General: The Ordinary Man Who Challenged Guantánamo by Ahmed Errachidi – review'; in The Guardian; 7 April 2013.

+ Glenn Greenwald's 'Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA and film critics have a very bad evening'; in The Guardian; 25 February 2013.

+ Alan Travis & Andrew Sparrow's 'Kenneth Clarke hints at prison sentencing reform with attack on 'bang 'em' up culture'; 30 June 2010;

+ Frances Crook's 'We'll miss Ken Clarke as justice secretary - he's saved money and lives'; in the New Statesman; 4 September 2012.

+ Alan Travis & Hélène Mulholland's 'Prison system failing to tackle reoffending, says Ken Clarke'; 7 December 2010;

Halt on prison reform references:
Nicholas Watt's 'New migrants will have to wait a year for legal aid';
Press Association's 'Prisoners may lose legal aid for jail complaints';
Sarah Vine's 'Our justice system is being turned into Profit & Growth plc';
Nicholas Watt's 'Kenneth Clarke defends European court of human rights after Tory attacks';

+ William Lee Adams' 'Sentenced to Serving the Good Life in Norway'; in Time; 12 July 2010.

+ Kevin Hickson's 'Conservatism and the poor: Conservative party attitudes to poverty and inequality since the 1970s'; in British Politics; Palgrave; 2009.

+ Clive Emsley's 'The History of Crime and Crime Control Institutions'; in The Oxford Handbook of Criminology; Oxford University Press; 2002.

+ Lynn Hancock's 'Criminal Justice, Public Opinion, Fear and Popular Politics'; in Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology; Cavendish; 2004.

-For more on Crime & Rehabilitation
Prison Reform Trust submission to the Ministry of Justice 'Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment,  Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders';
Ministry of Justice 'Compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis';

National Service and Choice

The United Nations was set up in 1945 with an idea, that relations between peoples might be governed by diplomacy rather than war, conflict and violence. Sadly, the United Nations has not managed to bring an end to war. And as war continues, so too does the recruitment of soldiers.

The issue of how the military find their recruits was in the spotlight once more this month, as a refuser of compulsory military service in Israel faced, and received, imprisonment for the 8th time (Sherwood, 2013). Groups such as Amnesty International have protested on the grounds that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right to object to military service on the grounds of conscience (Amnesty International, 2013).

This issue is nothing new. Conscription and conscientious objection are age old companions. And for just as long there have been lazy means of waving down those objections. The most sinister being the accusation of cowardice.

'There is one thing that nobody can deny them: and that is courage. The most difficult form of courage in the world. The courage of the individual against the crowd.' (Capt Stephen Gwynn MP, on Conscientious Objectors)

The refusal to fight has never been cowardly. But those myths have always served as a powerful means to manipulate and cajole people into the ranks. And where that will not suffice, there are other words. Words like patriotism, and duty.

It has to be acknowledged as a reality that the military exists, and further that it is considered a political necessity for the completion of certain tasks: the protection of civilians from psychotic warlords not least amongst them. While many nations have reformed their military over time into volunteer-professional forces, many nations still cling to conscription.

By doing so, they also cling to a fundamental infringement of personal freedom: the restriction of choice. Doing so makes it all the more difficult to achieve peace, the very thing that those military forces are used to defend .

'It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.' (Eleanor Roosevelt, 1951)

The only real and stable means of bringing about peace is trust. Trust in diplomacy; trust in freedom; and trust in human beings to pursue the best in themselves. And that means discarding the systems that coerce, manipulate or otherwise take advantage of people - or force them by legal obligation - into paths that they would not otherwise find conscionable.

==========
References:
==========
+ Harriet Sherwood's 'Israel set to jail teenage conscientious objector for eighth time'; in The Guardian; 1 April 2013.

+ Amnesty International's 'Conscript facing jail again for refusing to go against his conscience'; from amnesty.org; 25 March 2013.

+ Ian Hislop's 'Not Forgotten: The Men who Wouldn't Fight'; on Channel 4; 10 November 2008.

+ Eleanor Roosevelt, quote taken from Wikiquote, referenced as Voice of America broadcast; 11 November 1951.

Margaret Thatcher: Demonisation, Empathy and Compassion

The passing of Mrs Margaret Thatcher today, loathed or adored for bringing Rand-esque 'libertarian' conservatism to the British political mainstream, has provoked sharp responses. The former Prime Minister encouraged a small state, limited welfare government which was often accused of a lack of compassion due to its aversion to state intervention.

As such, the outpourings of hate and good riddance can be understood. But, it can be argued, that those outpourings should not be condoned, as argued on Twitter by Johann Hari: 

Thatcherism had contempt for the weak. Now Thatcher is weak & ill, the best rebuttal of her philosophy is not cruel jeering but compassion
— Johann Hari (@johannhari101) December 28, 2012

Fellow lefties! Please don't gloat. Our objection to Thatcher was her horrible lack of compassion; we shouldn't show same lack of compassion
— Johann Hari (@johannhari101) April 8, 2013

Joy at the death of even the deadliest foe is a very dangerous road down which to travel. As the glorification of the death of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden provoked some concerned reaction, and the cinematic glorifying of the (inaccurate) role of torture used to discover his location, the British political left should be very wary before getting over excited about the passing of their most symbolic enemy.

It would be easy for opponents of Mrs Thatcher to turn to 'cruel jeering'. But if compassion is something you reserve only for those you call your friends or allies, you are embracing, not rejecting, the selfish ideologies you oppose.

Welfare and Choice

April 1st saw the passing into force of the Conservative welfare cuts. The Guardian met this date with an outpouring of effort - largely unmatched across the British press - into alerting its readers to the imminent impact (Toynbee, 2013). If left unchallenged, that impact is likely to be further reaching and longer lasting than its immediate detrimental impact upon the lives of those presently dependant upon welfare.

Welfare, in its basic form, was established in the UK as part of the Liberal welfare reforms - where a limited form of unemployment insurance was introduced. While still following this basic premise - that those employed pay a contribution, a kind of mandatory insurance, that covers them in times of unemployment - welfare has expanded to offer support against a range of problems that prevent people from working. But it comes with a proviso: support is given to get those who can back to supporting themselves.

Since the welfare cuts were announced by the government, the coalition junior partner Liberal Democrats have have been trying to stress the positives (Clegg, 2010). They have been trying to convince the world that the reductions and restructuring are designed to turn welfare from a safety net into a springboard - launching those in need back to something productive, and there-in, back to control over their own lives.

But behind this positive message, the liberal carrot, is a rather brutal conservative stick. The changes to welfare introduce yet more strict limits on the amount of aid people can receive and in what situation they can count on it; stricter limits for housing support; and stricter limits on their right to refuse work placements regardless of their suitability (BBC, 2013) - and even when they are unpaid (Malik, 2013).

Those controls reveal a cynical attitude. They suggest the presence of a deep mistrust of the poor. A mistrust of those who need help and especially those who ask for it. That cynicism is reshaping the welfare system into a means to corral the needy, at arms length, back to the self-interested, self-motivated, pursuit of wealth.

But, more than just that cynicism, the changes let slip something odd about the ideology behind it. If the self-interested pursuit of wealth is, in and of itself, a positive and liberating course, why would you need coercion to set people onto that path? Why not just champion its benefits?

It seems that the ideology driving the changes possesses a fundamental lack of belief; either in the possibility of self-emancipation through effort earned wealth (Ariely, 2009), or in the ability of people to change and become capable of pursuing those aims.

Such a fundamental disbelief in people is dangerous. Firstly, using fear to socially engineer society and control people towards a particular working attitude also has alternative effects.

For those seeking economic growth, taking away the cost of a safety net might seem attractive. But that safety net - which kicks in when times get hard and employment is limited - helps to stave off more than hunger. It also counteracts fear. Specifically, it is the assurance against hard times that allows people freedom to spend and lend rather than save.

Secondly, that fundamental disbelief is dangerous because it threatens choice. People do not react to fear by becoming innovators. They learn the exploitative tricks of those around them or seek out the solidarity and strength of the group. You can bludgeon people into the workplace, but all you will get is a subjugated or compliant workforce - and in the process you risk destroying any positive image of the value of work.

At the core of innovation is choice. Innovation requires experience of making choices, and a life controlled by fear, of adhering to orders and authorities, limits that experience - and makes it difficult to make sound decisions.

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.' (John Stuart Mill, 1859)

Without choice, without support for their autonomy, the ability of people to motivate themselves and innovate is severely hindered. Choice means individuals standing on their own two feet, something that cannot be achieved through fear and coercion; but instead requires education, encouragement, support, compassion and, yes, an effective safety net.

==========
References:
==========
+ Polly Toynbee's 'Benefit cuts: Monday will be the day that defines this government'; in The Guardian; 28 March 2013.

+ 'Major reforms to welfare system announced'; Nick Clegg at dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk; 11 November 2010.

+ BBC's 'Benefit changes: Who will be affected?'; 27 March 2013.

+ Shiv Malik's 'Judgement expected on government's unpaid work schemes'; in The Guardian; 12 February 2013.

+ Dan Ariely's 'The Trouble with Cold Hard Cash'; in Technology Review, 5 August 2009.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

A Culture of Heroism and Violence

The first installment of The Hobbit film series, An Unexpected Journey, presented us with the Peter Jackson/Guillermo del Toro interpretation of Tolkien's classic adventure. But it was much more than that. It also represented an important example of the cultural crisis affecting American society. Along with other reboots such as JJ Abrams' Star Trek, An Unexpected Journey offers us an opportunity to see a narrative reworked for the values and audience of a different era.

When making The Hobbit, a decision was made to expand the story, bringing into the film things that were only hinted at in the book. In the process, new extra enemies were also introduced. In abstract, this is an understandable measure - one designed to make tangible the fears of the Dwarves and Bilbo, giving them common focus in a common enemy and add an element of coherent threat to two films that would serve largely as the journey to the third film's setpiece event.

However, that move also transformed certain contrasts: the contrast between the things that the Dwarves value and the things Bilbo values; and the contrast between the deep kindness of Bilbo and the harshness of life in the world. Instead of seeing Bilbo growing as a person through his kindness and pity, and those characteristics earning him the respect of others due to his willingness to help, Bilbo instead wins respect through an act of suicidal bravery and violence.

This stands in quite stark opposition to Tolkien's work, where Bilbo's bravest acts were nothing to do with violence - being instead epitomised by his choosing to pity Gollum, rather than take vengeance.

A similar kind of criticism has been levelled at JJ Abrams' reboot of Star Trek. Abrams sought inspiration in Star Wars, as writers and executive producers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (2009) explain:

'what can we learn from Star Wars here? ...the key is that a modern audience is already going to be attuned to a much faster pace of movie - and Trek in its best form was always submarine warfare. ...I always think of ...Star Trek as beautiful classical music and Star Wars as rock n' roll, and felt like Star Trek needed a little bit more rock n' roll to connect to a modern audience'

The original Star Trek was a champion of heroic diplomacy rather than heroic violence. Yet the reboot ditches much of the philosophy for a faster pace. Long - and admittedly sometimes didactic - discussions on ideology, politics, science and ethics were dropped for exchange of witty barbs on the move.

The changes, to both of these franchises, play right to the heart of the cultural crisis that the United States is right now clawing its way through. Violence, as the literal manifestation of the heroic, is the definitive American trope. In isolation it acts merely as an effective metaphor, making extant the conflicts we face. But it comes with an unfortunate side effect: equating murderous competition with the struggle to gain the respect of others, and build respect for yourself.

Our culture represents only the beginning and end of a cycle through which our values and our behaviour are shaped. It represents the means by which a society expresses itself - but also acts as a mirror: reflecting back a condensed, often decontextualised, and romanticised version of itself.

An Unexpected Journey and Star Trek are mirrors that tell us something about the culture that shaped them. Amongst those things that we can see is an impatience for the long, slow, often complicated, process that comes with peaceful diplomatic resolutions, and a preference for the fast, simple and final catharsis offered by 'heroic' violence.

==========
References:
==========
+ JJ Abram's 'Star Trek'; Paramount, 2009. Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci quote taken from the Star Trek extra features: 'A New Vision', 2009.