You don't own anything...

It's official, the state owns everything you have and will do whatever it pleases with it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8495412.stm

Gucci little piggy...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8440193.stm

Ugh. If you don't want to read the whole thing, and I wouldn't blame you for not, then just skip to the final quote:

"We have far too many children eating far too much and piling on the pounds, causing future problems not only for themselves but also for the NHS."

Paraphrased, this means that we would all like to just let idiots get orca-fat, but we can't... Because we all pick up the bill. So, instead, we're going to monitor everyone's eating habits - down to the speed at which they chew food - so that they don't individually cost everyone billions for their own gluttony (/ glandular problem)...

Misdirection

I'm quite easily distracted. Clearly, I'm not alone in having some sort of attention deficit, although it's not generally considered a disorder. In order to inspire or enable political change, people have to act and that takes effort and time: resources which are in short supply for most.


There are myriad examples of political misdirection which all vie for our attention on a daily basis. All of these distractions yield wasted time and effort and, at best, a pyrrhic victory. Whether it is lobbying for a tax break in your chosen industry, fighting for equality, venting your spleen at the haves/have-nots divide, petitioning for the removal of an unelected demagogue or debating the minutiae of statist policy, your efforts are futile when compared to the enduring elephant in the room. That the state exists, and extends exponentially, is the only motivation that should be required, and its subsequent total abolition is the only desirable end. Anything else maintains the mass delusion that the state is, in any way, shape or form, legitimate.


I am convinced that anyone, outside of the ruling class, would turn on the state if its destructive influence was elucidated in terms they could relate to. Returning to the aforementioned examples, each one of them becomes moot absent the state. They are all examples of seeking special privileges from the ruling class, underlining how gargantuan state power has become and how the people now live to serve the state, rather than vice-versa.

Governmental Waste

In my local area, there is currently a refuse collection strike. Whereas our bins are usually collected every Monday, they are now collected roughly fortnightly by a private contractor. I wrote to the Chief Environmental Services Officer about the possibility of privatising the refuse collection industry. I'm not sure whether there are any barriers to entry in place - whether the local authority would shut down any entrepreneur that tried to provide a private refuse collection service. The only downside to this would be a lack of corresponding rebate in local council taxes for not using their flaky service. 


This is the email that I sent:

Dear Mr. X,


I live in the ______ area of Leeds and I read with interest your letter regarding the continuing strike action affecting refuse collection and street cleaning services.


First of all, I wish you well in your discussions with the Trade Unions and hope that the matter is resolved amicably as soon as possible – preferably without increase in council tax. I would also like to pose a question to you that I hope you can answer: Why not open up the business of refuse collection and street cleaning to free enterprise?


Personally, I can see no negatives to such an action and a plethora of positive effects. I would be extremely grateful if you could posit any counter-argument that I may not have considered, and also to bear in mind this course of action as a very real, practical and mutually beneficial course of action. I have outlined below some thoughts on how everyone can benefit:


As a local council, by divesting yourselves of responsibility for refuse collection and street cleaning, you would free up resources to concentrate on other local issues. You would not have to worry about strike action nor be held to a ransom by unions. The overall burden on your department in particular would surely diminish. The council itself would have less responsibility and I can only imagine that this would be welcomed by yourself and your colleagues.


The general public would primarily benefit from a reduced tax bill – assuming, of course, the council’s savings were passed on to the public. I cannot think why anyone would argue against this proposition amongst the tax-paying populace. However, they would benefit in other ways. By allowing competition within the sector, the consumer would be given extra choice. I can imagine that the collection day would not be so rigid – nor would the limitation to one collection per week, providing the customer pays. It is not inconceivable to think that Company A would provide a budget service, perhaps collecting only once every fortnight in order to keep costs down, whereas Company B may allow the customer to dictate the collection day. Company C may specialise in compostable garden waste and offer no charge to the customer whatsoever, as they would recover more than enough through selling the resultant fertiliser.


Furthermore, the companies who compete will benefit as they have the opportunity to create profits. Whenever there is the incentive to generate a profit, innovation follows. You mention in your letter that the council plans to modernise the collection service. This is a laudable aim that I am sure is intended to cut costs in the future, but such capital investment is much more appropriate to private firms that realise they need to remain competitive – having to ensure that losses are met by revenue incentivises innovation. As a result of privatisation, the wages of the workers within the industry would reflect their true market value, rather than being set by council decree, albeit coerced by unions. Perhaps the workers themselves would see a pay increase due to the competition, especially if they are particularly productive. It appears from your letter that the current employees have little motivation to even turn up to work, such is the protection afforded to them by the unions. A free-market solution would turn the whole service into a meritocracy, as opposed to the current cartel.


The final benefits are to the environment. Presently, the waste collected is disposed of on landfills if it cannot be recycled. Privatising the waste disposal industry would see an increased incentive to recycle for everybody involved. A waste disposal company must either find ways to recycle its collected trash or else purchase land to dispose of the trash. Knowing that land is not cheap and that recycled waste could be sold back to companies, I think the incentive would be to recycle as much as is possible. If it could not be recycled, a further charge would be levied by the company to the customer. This would have instant positive effects on the environment. As a relevant example, the full cost of a plastic bag would be known to everyone. As it stands, I am aware of the manufacturing cost of a single plastic bag – it is generally negligible to the point where I can use six or seven of them in one trip to a supermarket chain without charge. Recently, it has become de rigueur to charge a nominal amount for a plastic bag, usually around five pence, as a ‘deterrent’ against using one if you already have other means of carrying the item or items purchased. While this is another laudable effort, it is still flawed: the full cost of the plastic bag, inclusive of disposal, is still an unknown, because the disposal price is taken out of the equation by socialised waste management.


It is highly likely that the ubiquity of the plastic bag – perhaps even all plastic containers which are not biodegradable – would be consigned to history if the true price of disposal could be known. The prior hypothetical companies A, B and C would either have to pass on the price of disposal to the customer or outright refuse to collect such items. In either scenario, the customer’s monthly waste disposal bill would accurately reflect the contents of their bins and this would incentivise them to generate less waste, certainly, but also generate a more affordable kind of waste. Consider what you would do if every single plastic bag you took from the supermarket cost you £5 to dispose of. The vast majority of people would vote with their wallets in the supermarkets and refuse to accept plastic bags and other non-biodegradable containers, thus changing the attitudes of the producers of these items to offer a more affordable and, concomitantly, more environmentally friendly, alternative.


I do hope you have persisted with this letter and I thank you kindly for doing so. I hope to hear from you in the near future with regard to this matter.

Yours Sincerely,
Gary Hall

Surely a better idea than Tory recycling 'carrots'?