Thinking out loud

Brain farts, mental hickups and other moments of clarity
About Me

Skier, geek, thinker & dad. I also like beer.

My Other Sites
TwitterFacebook
Tags
Archive
2010 (15)
2009 (12)
Filed under

Politics

See all posts on posterous with this tag ยป
 

Plain packaging, terrorism and flawed logic

Every time I see the ad, I have a chuckle.  You know the one, where small businesses owners talk about the futility of plain packaging on cigarettes.  The campaign is being funded by big tobacco, not retailers and their arguments against plain packaging would make any crooked politician blush.

First up, illicit trade. Phillip Morris & co claim that plain packaging will fund terrorist groups and organised crime. The argument here seems to be that plain packaging will be easier to counterfeit, leading to illicit importation of ciggies, the proceeds of which will go to criminal or terrorist groups.  Ignoring for a moment the sheer absurdity of this rubbish, the claim is built on the premise that current colourful packets are harder to counterfeit than plain ones. Well, simply put a hologram or other anti-counterfeit device on the plain packet and the problem is solved. It doesn't have to stop counterfeiting (remember, Big Tobacco isn't saying that current ciggies are not counterfeited), it just has to be harder to counterfeit than current packaging and the problem is solved.

Next, they claim that plain packaging violates their right to use trademarks. This is their strongest argument but it is still terribly weak. Trademark law does not provide a right to plaster your branding anywhere you want. We already have plenty of restrictions on commercial communication - think advertising in sports, schools and other places. Plain packaging does not stop them from using trademarks on their products, just on the outside packages. If Big Tobacco is so concerned about using their trademarks, the are still able to put a logo on every individual cigarette and inside the packet. Problem solved.

My favourite claim however, is that there is no evidence it will work. This is an exemplar self defeating argument. If there is no evidence that plain packaging will reduce cigarette sales, why is Phillip Morris spending so much money fighting it? The very fact that they are fighting this law is because they believe it will hurt their bottom line. Not due to increased costs, but due to reduced sales and consumption. 

I'm not saying that plain packaging will work - there doesn't seem to be much evidence either way. But a law that doesn't cost taxpayers anything, that could have a strong positive effect on community health (and therefore lower the taxes we pay), and seems to frighten the pants off Big Tobacco, is one that I am happy to support.

Filed under  //  Logic   Politics  
Posted
 

Has Joe Hockey Missed the Point on Human Rights?

In a recent speech to the Grattan Institute in Melbourne, Federal Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey argues why he's a true believer in individual rights but wont support a Bill of Human Rights in Australia (extract from the Australian here). What struck me most upon reading this was the inherent contradiction in his position, a contradiction echoed by many who call themselves Libertarians. 

On the one hand, Hockey claims to be inspired by the work of Mill, most notably his argument that collective power should only be used against the individual to prevent harm to others.  Interestingly, he cautions against the growth in state power and argues that the subversion of individual rights that occurred under the Howard government of which he was a minister should be rescinded as quickly as possible.

Yet on the other hand, Hockey rallies against a Bill of Human Rights for Australia, arguing that it will imbue the Judiciary with too much power and undermine the independence of the courts.  Judges, he argues, will be making political, not legal decisions and this is undemocratic.

This position is contradictory on a number of counts however. The Judiciary exists in part to provide a check against the power of the Legislature.  They are the safety value that helps ensure the Libertarian ideals of Mill are not consumed by an overreaching State. They have always interpreted laws and made decisions on contestable issues that some in the legislature disagree with.  Far from being undemocratic, a Judiciary that is able to declare laws passed by Parliament unconstitutional lies at the very heart of our democracy.

Contrary to what some may think, the Judiciary do not make laws - that power is limited to Parliament.  If Hockey is concerned about Judges making contestable decisions about conflicting human rights, then the issue lies in the contents of a Bill of Rights, not in the existence of a Bill itself. As a Member of Parliament, this problem is wholly within Hockey's power to solve. Individual rights can only be protected by the law. They must be made explicit if their protection is to be enforced. 

A Bill of Human Rights, one that explicitly documents our fundamental rights and freedoms, only serves to enhance the Libertarian ideals that Hockey espouses. The individual freedoms and rights that he holds so dear will only be strengthened by a formal Bill of Human Rights explicitly stating what they are and a strong Judiciary that can enforce them.

Filed under  //  Hockey   Human Rights   Libertarianism   Philosophy   Politics  
Posted