New
Living Diary
Index

New  participatory democracy

Taming the Corporations

My Welsh socialism

My New Socialist Settlement

Globalise the left!

Bevan  re-visited

754   7July 2003   

Use your grey cells..

I am a self-confessed, practising intellectual.  That is, I have absolutely no doubt about the simple power of ideas and the originality of the intellect.  And I am keenly aware of the intellectual poverty of current politics. There is no intellectual challenge in the humdrum meat-and-drink of everyday political life - monetary management, tax strategy, improving our schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports.

But key intellectual challenges nevertheless abound, just beneath the surface of the political agenda. There are FIVE abstract themes on my current worry-bead list, and I invite you to follow them through, and share my agonies with me -

1. What is the continuing significance of "territoriality", both between and with nation-states?

2. How are cities and their related territories best to be organised, accommodated within constitutional structures?

3. How can the world's "artificial personalities" be effectively contained and managed?

4. What are the proper limits of the power flowing from private property?

5. What are the proper limits of state coercive power, both against persons and other states?

These themes all interact.  And I never have time to make real progress with any of them...

• What about you?

755  7 July 2003  

We should investigate much more sophisticated institutional solutions.  The "burden of proof" lies with the banning lobby: it is after all the smoker's "freedom" that it is proposed to restrict, in pursuit of some higher interest. Let me explain what I mean.

• Public places in the open air, parks and open spaces - there should be no question of a ban.  The enhanced risks of damaging inhalation, even by children, is too small to justify State intervention.

• Enclosed public spaces (municipal public-access buildings, leisure-centres, hospitals and health-centres, educational facilities, also cinemas and theatres), a statutory ban is justified.

• "Public Houses" - this should be a matter of publicans' choice - nobody is ever "required" to enter a public house, and neither the "public interest" nor the interests of potential "victims" are strong enough to justify State intervention.

• Public places where food is served (including all "private" restaurants used by the public), a ban is appropriate.  This is, I accept, a difficult call: there will be those who would argue for the "public house" test above.  But given the short period of time ordinarily required to consume a meal, and the widespread objection to "smoking over food", I consider that smokers should be subject to statutory restraint in this context.

• Coaches and buses - an outright ban is appropriate: as a regular coach-rider, I know that coach-travel is for many a no-option facility, and that smoking constitutes an unavoidable health risk which non-smokers can simply not avoid.

• But trains (where separate carriages can be easily assigned to smokers) should not be subject to an outright ban. Last year, First Great Western banned all smoking on their trains (removing the single smoking carriage which still remained).  I would prevent that happening, and insist that smokers' rights should be respected, certainly on major trains.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as its source, namely: www.warrenevans.net - is that a deal?  Roger WE