So true

Milton Friedman described 4 classes of spending
1. You spend money on yourself. You care about price, but also about value.
2. You spend money on a present for someone else. You care about price, but not so much about value.
3. You spend money on yourself, from an expense account. You really care a lot about value, but not so much about price.
4. You spend government money on someone else. You don't care about value, and don't care about price either.

Moral: If you get "market failure" with type 1 spending, you can only fail more spectacularly with type 2,3 or 4 spending.

Government screw ups

One of the more boring reasons why I don't like a DNA database is I don't trust the government not to screw it up. Geeklawyer seems to agree as does Charon.

Actually, this is a small aspect of a wider question that I have. One of the reasons I am suspicious of government intervention is that I don't trust the government to act in a better manner than any other group of people. I trust governments to run a country in the best way possible as much as I would trust a company (GB PLC?), the woman's institute or a bunch of debaters. I have heard many times words to the effect that 'multi-national/big companies can't be trusted as all they want to do is make a profit'. Assuming companies are solely profit motivated in the short run (which I don't), I still wonder why a company- whose stated aim is to get money from people- is less trustworthy than a bunch of people who self-selected themselves to run a country (no ego or power issues there!). All groups of people are, on average, equally prone to mistakes, selfishness and short-sightedness.

The irony is that governments would, certainly in the SR, appear to be less accountable than companies. We choose a government once every five years from a very small selection of people. We interact with companies every day of the week and can virtually always choose an alternative if we don't like the behaviour of one. Whatever your views on the war on Iraq, a huge number of people protested against it and nothing happened. At a similar time, Mars announced that Mars Bars would not be vegetarian. Within a week it had reversed this as people wrote and complained.

THW invade/assassinate/sanction...

I think it was Durham who ran the motion "TTHW invade [insert name of oppressive regime here]".

That probably sums up how common motions are that require you to invade somewhere (or, to a lesser extent, 'sanction', 'assassinate' or 'support regime change').

So, how does a first proposition team go about invading somewhere in debate world?

1. You firstly need to decide, if it is not specified, who is the invader and who is the invadee. It'll usually be the USA or the UN. Both have positives and negatives. If you want to invade somewhere quickly and with the element of surprise, unilateral action is probably best. If you want your invasion to have legitimacy, go through the UN. THW invade Iran is, IMHO, best done as the US. THW intervene in Darfur would be better as the UN. The reason is that in Darfur there are already AU peacekeepers on the ground, all the UN needs to do to legally intervene is declared that what is happening there at the moment amounts to genocide. In the case of Iran, however, there is not currently a UN mechanism to support such an invasion and it is very likely that one or more of the P5 would veto such a measure.

2. You much discuss why alternatives to war aren't going to work or haven't worked in the past. War should be a last resort. Sanctions etc should always be tried first. However, there is little wrong in the first prop team standing up and saying 'Ladies and Gentlemen, we support regime change in Iran. We will, obviously, initially try sanctions to change the regime, but as we think that they are unlikely to work as they have not done so in the past and will entrench support for the regime as it defies the 'great Satans', we're going to skip straight to the war part..."

3. So, you've decided you 'this house' is, you've picked a victim and you've run through why there aren't alternatives. Unfortunately, it's not enough just to say that the country you wish to invade 'isn't nice'. Most wars have to follow, more or less, along the lines of just war theory. Traditional just war can be summed up in two statements: Jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum is that you have a just cause for going to war. Jus in bello is that once the war has started, you act in an ethical way. In the modern world, one should also consider whether the invader is a just authority.

4. Jus ad bellum: "To invade Iran is just as Iran aspires to hold nuclear weapons. Not only is this in contravention of the NPT which it signed freely and of its own accord and has benefited from, by creating nuclear weapons it destabilises an already fragile region. Furthermore, Iran represses women, homosexuals and religious minorities. Iran is also sponsoring terrorism both in Iraq and in Israel." etc etc etc

Other things which constitute jus ad bellum include your country being attacked, an ally being attacked, a different country being invaded (eg: Kuwait) and genocide.

5. Jus ad bello: You can't just nuke Iran. The nature of JWT is that taking a human life is always terrible. What JWT says, however, is that sometimes this terrible act is the lesser of two evils. When one wages war, therefore, you must try to avoid killing anybody as far as it is possible but you must try especially hard to avoid killing civilians.

Every action that you take must have a direct aim of winning the war. Bombing a hospital because the dictator is storing his weapons in there may be just. Bombing the hospital just to kill the people inside will not be just. What is also crucial is proportionality. Bombing the hospital to get rid of the missiles stored there is probably proportionate. Bombing the hospital to get the machetes stored there probably isn't.

6. So, you've chosen where to invade, have just cause and intend to act in a proportionate and ethical manner. You also have to consider the impact of your war internally in the long run (we assume the short run is pretty bad), externally in the short run and externally in the long run. By externally, I mean the impact the war would have on other neighbouring countries or countries which are connected in some other way to the invaded country.

Assassinations to follow later.

Sanctions are boring, don't use them unless the motion explicitly tells you to.

$80,000 a year to stop smoking?

Aparently the true 'cost' of a pack of cigarettes is US$222. Accordingly, it'd be cheaper to pay a person $80,000 to stop smoking.

More on the Freakonomics Blog

Why is religion different from, say, a political party?

An argument frequently comes up in debates which can be boiled down to "Why should religion be treated differently to a political party?". I think it's easy to make that point, but I think articulating the op argument is much harder to make. I frequently attempt it, I'm not sure how successful I am, but here goes!

1. In politics, people decide what they believe and then find the party which matches their view most closely. The holding of certain fundamental tenets, for example, a belief that equality should generally take precedence over liberty, would probably make someone more likely to vote for Labour. However, holding that fundamental tenet, voting for that party and joining that party does not mean that the party requires its member to hold any more of its views (for example, the person may disagree about tuition fees).

Religion is different. I would argue most people decide what their basic belief is (say, that they believe there is only one God and that the teachings of Jesus make sense too) and then join a church on that basis, in this case, Christianity. On the basis of this basic belief AND their membership/self identification with a church, they are then required, as part of their continuing membership of the church, to hold other beliefs (the Bible being the word of God, a belief in the Trinity etc). Their failure to hold these further beliefs would exclude them from true membership of that church.

Therefore, politics is where a person internally holds feelings and then expresses those beliefs through the party. Religion is where a person holds internal feelings and then that person's church requires them to hold further beliefs on that basis.

2. Whilst accepting that people do change their religious beliefs, I would say that when a person does this it is not a voluntary act. The outwards manifestation of their beliefs is voluntary, but what they believe in their heart is not. I can no more choose to be an atheist than an atheist can choose to be a Christian. Religions are outwards manifestations of internal belief, a belief which cannot be chosen. Religious belief may change (for example, a massive upset in a person's life may lead to them saying 'God would not let this happen, therefore there can be no God') but again, that is not a choice to change, the change is imposed from an altering of the internal beliefs of the person which lie outside the remit of their ability to consciously change.

3. I think that there is a difference between people's external beliefs and the outwards manifestations of those beliefs. The law and society should never be concerned with the former. Instructing a person to genuinely change the former is as pointless as instructing them to spontaneously grow a new kidney- it simply cannot be done.

Requiring a person to change the external manifestations of their faith is something different. Where there is a clear harm (human sacrifice, for instance) then the state should clearly ban that manifestation. The issue is where the line is crossed. Most people would agree that even if FGM is an intringic aspect of some African-Tribal religions, the practice should be banned in the UK. But what about MGM? Surely the same arguments can apply?

4. What does concern me somewhat is the subconscious way in which religions are 'ranked' and treated differently. Regardless of your belief at the moment, it is more than likely that if you were brought up in Britain, there was a broad Christian ethos when religion was discussed. The nature of Christianity is, at the basic level, that faith is generally sufficient and that very few outward manifestations of faith are required. This is highly unusual when compared to other religions. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism all hold that certain actions are also required. Unlike Christianity (where a person practices their religion by holding their faith), in these other religions, the required actions are often as inherent to the religion as faith is to Christianity. Because we often see other religions from a Christian perspective (regardless of whether a person actually hold Christian beliefs at this time), it can lead to a devaluing of the the actions that are required in other religions.

In other words, it is reasonably easy to 'banish' Christianity from the public sphere. 'Render unto Caesar' means Christianity itself does not explicitly require a position in the public sphere, only one in the private. Where a religion has a less separation between the spheres of public action and private devotion, it is much more difficult for such a banishment to take place.

5. I'm not sure how valid this example will be, I would like someone to explain if they think it is in-valid though. If we accept what I believe to be current scientific theories which are that a person is either born gay or not, whilst conveniently ignoring the idea that it is not a binary choice between gay and straight but more like a spectrum. A person who is born gay cannot become straight though sheer force of will any more than the opposite can occur. If a person is gay, a direct consequence of that 'internal status' will be that he likes to have sex with people of the same gender. It is possible for a person to be gay and never have gay sex, but the person in question probably wouldn't like that situation. Where am I going with this? Well, the analogy in my mind is that just as being gay is an internal state that cannot be chosen but having gay sex is an external choice, the situation of having faith is the same. In both situations, the believer and the gay person, the internal status/belief cannot be deliberately changed by external factors, the behaviour manifesting from the internal status/belief can be changed, stopped or encouraged.

Maybe it is possible to take the parallel further? If we say that gay sex is an intringic aspect of a gay person, so some basic religious practices are also so inherent. However, most people would say that going to gay clubs or being camp is an optional part of being gay. These are minor manifestations whereas the gay sex is a major manifestation. The parallel in Christianity would be that praying (formally or informally) is a major manifestation whereas fasting during Lent is a minor manifestation. Minor manifestations are made more likely by the person's internal status and banning them or restricting would upset the people involved but it wouldn't fundamentally undermine the person's identity. Banning gay sex or banning people from praying would undermine the fundamental identities of people belonging in these groups.

Part of me is concerned that the above example may be offensive. I can't work out how, but if it is do please tell me (unless it's just 'oh, it's offensive because gay people are bad and their being mentioned in the same place as religion' type feedback) as it'll probably explain why the parallel doesn't stand.

I can't help but feel the above is still rather confused. Maybe I'll try and edit it at some point.

xx

African Union fact sheet

(This is, on the whole, a edited version of the old wikipedia page)

AU

What is it?

The African Union (AU) is an organisation consisting of fifty-three African states. Established in 2001, the AU was formed as a successor to the amalgamated African Economic Community (AEC) and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). Eventually, the AU aims to have a single currency and a single integrated defence force, as well as other institutions of state, including a cabinet for the AU Head of State. The purpose of the union is to help secure Africa's democracy, human rights, and a sustainable economy, especially by bringing an end to intra-African conflict and creating an effective common market.

Who’s in it?

All African nations except Morocco (who withdrew itself) and Mauritius (after a coup d’etat)

How does it work and what does it do?

Overview

The AU is governed by the AU Assembly of Heads of State and the Pan-African Parliament, which are both assisted by the AU Commission which constitutes one of the secretariats of the Pan African Parliament.

The AU's first military intervention in a member state was the May 2003 deployment of a peacekeeping force of soldiers from South Africa, Ethiopia, and Mozambique to Burundi to oversee the implementation of the various agreements. AU troops are also deployed in Sudan for peacekeeping in the Darfur conflict. In 1994 the OAU wasn't aware of the situation of the country and only provided some humanitarian help to the conflict.

History of the African Union

The historical foundations of the African Union originated in the Union of African States. Critics argued that the OAU in particular did little to protect the rights and liberties of African citizens from their own political leaders, often dubbing it the "Dictators' Club".

The idea of creating the AU was revived in the mid-1990s as a result of the efforts of the African Unification Front. At Lomé in 2000, the Constitutive Act of the African Union was adopted, and at Lusaka in 2001, the plan for the implementation of the African Union was adopted.

The African Union was launched in Durban on July 9, 2002.

Its Constitutive Act declares that it shall "invite and encourage the full participation of the African diaspora as an important part of our Continent, in the building of the African Union". The African Union Government has defined the African diaspora as "[consisting] of people of African origin living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union".

Current issues

The AU faces many challenges, including health issues such as combating malaria and the AIDS/HIV epidemic; political issues such as confronting undemocratic regimes and mediating in the many civil wars; economic issues such as improving the standard of living of millions of impoverished, uneducated Africans; ecological issues such as dealing with recurring famines, desertification, and lack of ecological sustainability; as well as the legal issue of the still-unfinished decolonization of Western Sahara.

Sudan

See: here

AIDS

The HIV/AIDS epidemic has affected over 25% of the population of southern Africa, with South Africa, Botswana, Kenya, Namibia, and Zimbabwe all expected to have a decrease in life expectancy by an average of 6.5 years. The effects on South Africa, which composes 30% of the AU's economy, threatens to significantly stunt GDP growth, and thus internal and external trade for the continent.

Zimbabwe

The political crisis in Zimbabwe has been debated both by the African Union and in particular by the Southern African Development Community. At African Union level, the situation in Zimbabwe has been a controversial focus of discussions in the Executive Council of the activity reports of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in which human rights abuses in Zimbabwe have been a leading subject since the early 2000s.

The Mace motion

The Mace has a pre-released motion each year. This year it is:

"This House would introduce punitive damages to civil law in England and Wales"

Whilst I like the motion, as I'm sure a lot of law students do, I'm not sure it's especially fair on non law students. Sure, this is mitigated to some degree by the fact that it's pre-released, but it requires a fair amount of knowledge about the English legal system that is the sort of knowledge which just accumulates gradually rather being something you specifically look up.

Because of the influence of America in films, TV and books, quite often people in the UK don't realise when UK and US law is different. A lot of the time it doesn't matter as the law is similar enough in both but damages in tort is a good example of where they are different.

In English law, exemplary damages are unusual. In American law, they are much more common. Just look at Erin Brockovich or many of the books by authors such as John Grisham. Under English law, damages are supposed to put the claimant back in the position they would have been in had the tort (the wrongful act being complained of) never happened. In American law, damages are awarded to cover this, but damages are awarded on top of this to punish the defendant for having been negligent in the first place (and so, one assumes, in order to deter others from acting in a similar way).

To my mind, this debate seems to create a sub-debate about class action law suits. Again, these are reasonably usual under US law whereas in the UK they are very rare. I must confess, I haven't spent overly long thinking about this motion in any detail but to me it would seem difficult (impossible?) to have one without the other. Class action lawsuits, on the basis of it being run at Cambridge 2006, is a debate in its own right.

I'm not going to the Mace but it'll be interesting to see how people deal with it.

xx