The purpose of morality is to teach you,
not to suffer and die, but
to enjoy yourself and live.

NB: this guest post is by Sophie Hirt, my Parliamentary Intern and the views expressed are her own.

Security is the key issue at the heart of the Government’s energy outlook and will impact on all the decisions made by the Department of Energy and Climate Change for the foreseeable future. Security, it must be pointed out, is not just meant in the traditional, physical sense, though of course, this is a top priority. Security in this sense must be taken to incorporate sustainability, affordability and efficiency.

The Coalition inherited a broken situation on energy from the previous Government. There was no coherent plan in place to ensure that future generations enjoy the same freedom to use electricity as we do, rendering the task ahead even more difficult.

Towards the end of the decade, demand will overtake supply – there will be a capacity gap that must be filled. In order to meet the rising electricity demand, the Government will need to spend £110 billion on infrastructure. In addition to this, the combination of methods of energy production must be decided upon.

Looking ahead, it is clear that new methods will have to be pursued. One third of coal generation will be lost by 2015 and most nuclear plants will close by 2023. Managing demand will require the Government to work in tandem with energy companies, in order to ensure both are working in the same direction. The Government has always had a rather strange relationship with energy companies – it needs them for energy production and supply but it also has a duty to regulate the industry and act on the behalf of consumers.

Among the anticipated spectrum of sources of energy will be solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, each to be pursued to a different extent. The Government must achieve the correct balance in order to maintain security and a plurality of recourses is thus necessary. An important aspect of Government policy will be local involvement and input into decisions. It is extremely important that sources of energy are not only appropriate to the local area but is also desired by the communities it affects.

It must not be assumed that there will no longer be a role for traditional sources of energy, particularly gas and oil. In fact, there may be a significant role for the use of gas as a capacity mechanism which will enable the UK to meet electricity demand, even when supplies fall short. The mechanism will be enabled by a permanent storage of energy kept back for use in exceptional times of demand.

Challenges ahead for the Department of Energy and Climate Change will be numerous. Such strategic changes to our energy supply will require delicate and at times very difficult manoeuvring around carbon reduction targets. Cost-benefit assessments will have to be made in order to achieve this much needed energy balance.

In preparation for an article to be published in the Autumn, I just reread The Open Society and Its Enemies – Volume 1: The Spell of Plato. The book traces mankind’s opposition to change and the consequent rise of the myth of destiny, technically, historicism: the belief that history unfolds according to laws which can be discovered.

Popper argues that the strain of civilisation causes us to seek to return to a supposed harmonious state of nature, a heroic age of tribalism, rather than face the burden of personal responsibility. This is, he argues, what gives rise to totalitarianism.

In chapter 6, Totalitarian Justice, Popper presents an argument about the use of the words individualism and collectivism in combination with egoism (selfishness) and altruism. He explains that “individualism” is used in two senses: in opposition to collectivism and as a synonym for selfishness. But Popper explains that collectivism is not opposed to egoism: class egoism is a common thing. However, someone who is anti-collectivist — an individualist — can also be an altruist, one ready to make sacrifices for another individual.

Plato makes the mistake of thinking society faces a choice between collectivism or selfishness. In fact, altruistic individualism is possible, without individuals living constantly in a state of subjection and sacrifice for some group. In our time, as in Plato’s, this error provides a defence of collectivism which is unjustified.

Society is the cooperation of individuals. In my view, one great advantage of a society based on equality before the law, freedom, peace and property is that it can bear selfish individuals without harming the whole of society. More than that, perhaps such an order is the only one which exploits the selfish individual to the benefit of other people.

These are ideas to be developed another time. Meanwhile, I am struck that many contemporary complaints against individualism fall into Plato’s trap and that some of the deeper green ideologues seek a return to a long-lost harmonious state of nature. I wonder if they realise where their ideas may lead?

Via Suboptimal Planet, a commentary on Karl Hess’ 1969 Playboy article “The Death of Politics”, reproduced by mises.org:

At its limits, the libertarian ideal will no doubt face practical problems of its own. But it will be a long time before we need to worry that our government is too small, and our people too free.

While Hess was optimistic, writing:

A laissez-faire world would liberate men. And it is in that sort of liberation that the most profound revolution of all may be just beginning to stir. It will not happen overnight, just as the lamps of rationalism were not quickly lighted and have not yet burned brightly. But it will happen — because it must happen.

The author is less so, finding it “hard to see a path to Hess’s utopia” and suggesting we are heading in the other direction, but I see a path. No doubt the contemporary Conservative Party still contains many well-intentioned authoritarians, many interventionists, but David Cameron is clear that we are heading towards a “post-bureaucratic age” in which people have more authority over their own lives and more responsibility too.

His recent conference speech repays close reading. Consider for example:

Don’t they see? It is more government that got us into this mess.

Why is our economy broken? Not just because Labour wrongly thought they’d abolished boom and bust. But because government got too big, spent too much and doubled the national debt.

Why is our society broken? Because government got too big, did too much and undermined responsibility.

Why are our politics broken? Because government got too big, promised too much and pretended it had all the answers.

…

But this idea that for every problem there’s a government solution for every issue an initiative, for every situation a czar….

It ends with them making you register with the government to help out your child’s football team. With police officers punished for babysitting each other’s children. With laws so bureaucratic and complicated even their own Attorney General can’t obey them.

Do you know the worst thing about their big government? It’s not the cost, though that’s bad enough. It is the steady erosion of responsibility. Our task is to lead Britain in a completely different direction.

So, I am more optimistic. Look at Conservative Party policy today and you find a central commitment to opportunity, responsibility and security, to “freedom from” and the space to make your own way. As Cameron said:

In Britain today, there are entrepreneurs everywhere – they just don’t know it yet. Success stories everywhere – they just haven’t been written yet. We must be the people who release that potential.

Yes, we are subject to failed institutions and, yes, we do have a maze of bureaucracy and wrong-headed ideas to defeat and sweep away, but we can build a society of free and responsible people cooperating to achieve mutually-beneficial ends. David Cameron plans to do it: we should help.

The Telegraph reports:

The details of up to 50,000 serving and ex-service personnel are at risk after three USB portable hard disc drives were stolen from an RAF station, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.

Also in The Times.

So that’s personal details of me, my wife and many of my friends in the hands of criminals. Surpassed by the child benefit fiasco, I am sure, but it won’t help people be glad to serve.

read more | digg story

More from Schneier, a leader in cryptography and other areas of security:

Terrorism is a real threat, and one that needs to be addressed by appropriate means. But allowing ourselves to be terrorized by wannabe terrorists and unrealistic plots — and worse, allowing our essential freedoms to be lost by using them as an excuse — is wrong.

read more | digg story