”...Women’s Studies as a distinct undergraduate discipline will disappear this October.”

This pamphlet by Axel Davies (see here for original PDF) is one of my absolute favourites.  Coming at a time when political correctness (can someone think of a better term?) was at is height it was a breath of fresh air, doing exactly what it said on the tin. Is that a mixed metaphor?

THE INEVITABILITY OF PREJUDICE

AXEL DAVIES

You see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess, that we are generally men of untaught feelings; that instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree ... we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted, and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. ... Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, sceptical, puzzled, and unresolved.1

— Edmund Burke

This article continues...

Chris Dillow asks why it is that it is so difficult to shrink the state.  He goes through the usual public choice arguments before examining the argument that free marketeers simply haven’t made the case very well.  And, he thinks he knows why:

My theory is that they’ve failed to address the case for egalitarianism. Rather than show that small government is consistent with equality - because it allows tax cuts or higher benefits - they have preferred to rubbish the notion of equality. In doing so, they have given the impression - which is wholly incorrect - that limited government is merely the self-interest of the rich.

One of the main reasons I believe in freedom is because I believe it leads to equality.  One of the real world observations that sustains me in this belief is the comparison between some cleaners I know and any member of the upper-middle class.  The cleaners are well-fed and well-clothed.  They own lots of modern gadgets.  They jet off to exotic destinations and they drive a new car.  All things provided by the market.  The areas in which they don’t do so well are things like education and housing things either provided by the state or heavily influenced by it.

Having mentioned cars, I thought I’d mention the thrust of an article (sorry, can’t remember where) I read some time ago.  The article was making the point that being rich doesn’t make you that better off.  Compare, say, a £100,000 car with a £10,000 car.  A Mercedes S-Class is only marginally better than a Ford Focus and in some ways, such as fuel bills, considerably worse.

Beijing not Peking; Newcassell not Newcastle; Me-hi-co not Mexico.

But…

Paris not Paree; Vienna not Wien; Dublin not Baile Ath Cliath.

Why asks Don Boudreaux.

Brian Micklethwait thinks that the government’s new committee on school discipline won’t work.  He contrasts the “all must attend” ethos of state schools with what happens in shops:

I mean, shops who are subjected to customers whom they take against just get a couple of extremely big men in uniforms to escort them to the door. They do not waste their time blaming the parents or setting up committees – sorry, task forces – to make detailed recommendations, or for that matter demanding for themselves any new and draconian powers. They have all the powers they need.

Which is exactly what the Bluewater shopping centre decided to do this week and as DumbJon points out it has already seen a 25% increase in the number of customers.

Who says social exclusion is a bad thing?

Natalie:

We could do worse than try the strategy for racial harmony that has worked comparatively well for Britain before, and has worked in other countries too. Strict equality before the law

Indeed.

Equal rights = unequal pay