As happens quite often, George Washington said it best: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; ….”. Government is set up to use force, not persuasion; it is integral to its nature. It doesn’t matter if persuasion would be more effective, it certainly doesn’t matter if persuasion is economically more efficient. Government will always choose to use force when it offers a plausible solution; when that doesn’t work, the next solution will be to use more force. Only when force is evidently impractical will other solutions receive real consideration – and even then any government is likely to find someway to make force part of the equation.

David Easlea, Philadelphia, USA

The best reason for banning smoking in public places is that it stinks.

Talking of risk, of course the best way to protect your children from drowning is to ensure that they don't learn to swim. If they can't swim, they won't go into the water and will not be at risk. The chances of falling into deep water accidentally are much less than the chances of overestimating one's swimming ability.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

There is nothing particularly surprising in saying that a law that restricts an activity (ie smoking in bars) simply redistributes the activity elsewhere (ie smoking at home). A double yellow line simply ensures a driver parks somewhere else. Persuasion is of course the key to actually reducing the activity. However what is also obvious is that laws that restrict are often inherently persuasive simply by making the activity less convenient, more expensive, less socially acceptable or a combination of all three. Enough double yellow lines and the driver ends up taking the bus. Daniel glosses quickly over the smokers who may smoke less or not at all once they are unable to do so with pint in hand in a pub but, leaving aside the civil liberties arguments, this effect of the law should not be sniffed (or coughed?) at.

Geoff, London,

You only have to look at speed limits to see there is some truth in this concept. It's clearly illegal to speed but most people consider it par for the course to some extent or another.

Even a massive industry devoted to the apprehension and punishment of offenders has failed to prevent this - why, because most people don't feel guilty about it, simple as that.

Wearing a seatbelt/crash helmet is seen by most to be in their best interest and not too much of an imposition and is therefore accepted.

QED

Geoff Munt, South Croydon,

Getting away with infringements of minor (or petty) rules is considered by many to be part of the game of life, but no-one wants to incur the disapproval of his friends. Ask any school child about peer pressure. As Mr. Finkelstein well knows, one of the adult forms of social pressure is through articles such as his own; perhaps through social pressure we can encourage responsibility. Laws can help; they can also hinder. It depends on the care and vision of those who frame them.

Gordon Cardew, Norwich, Norfolk

Article of the Year. No doubt about it.

Excellent stuff, Daniel.

Could you now turn your piercing attention to these Absent Fathers, please? How many are the media's favourite degenerate layabouts deserving of social antipathy and how many are excluded from their children's lives by paternity fraud, jealous and bitter mothers, unrealistic child support demands etc.? Will ratcheting up the social or legal anathema help or hinder their children's condition?

Rob Wilard, Reading,

That's just not accurate.

Personal responsibility is important, but we have a section of any population, whether because of poor parenting or some other reason, who do not have it.

We also have a known population of psychopaths or near-paychopaths, again in any population.

Then we have those who abuse various drugs, often resulting in thjeir not behaving with any sense of personal responsibility.

Laws also serve importantly as statements of a society's ideals and intentions.

John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

Nice piece Danny but on smoking you're stretching a point. Public opinion is largely with the ban. In fact the government's original proposals didn't go far enough for parliament/ the public and became the total smokefree workplace law which starts on July 1.

Tony Ellis, Birkenhead, Merseyside

I agree with the notion of persuasion, but in this day and age
would merely advocate that the funding that goes behind it is
channeled wisely into accountable, and responsible mechanisms
with genuine ROI measures.

So yes, let's have no more 'fine first, figure out a solution later' social
divisions created, but equally let's not see all useful funding poured
into black-hole govt. and quango (same paymaster, different branding
empires and immense comms budgets that serve only to keep ad
agencies, media buying houses and the guys they are hired by
entertained.

Peter 'Junkkdotcom' Martin, Ross on Wye, UK

I agree with ANS from Wallasey that laws often have unintended consequences, which often start lobby groups demanding another law, and then another, with each one encroaching slightly further on our personal freedoms.

RTS, Worcester,

After a successful day buying trinkets and other important things for my mother a sister, I came across your article.

You are around the twist and up the bend if you belive all that mumbo jumbo.

Weaver, Hong Kong,

An interesting article, but I think it underestimates the impact law can have in changing opinions and helping to make behaviour socially unacceptable. Drink driving is one example. Another is the Race Relations Act 1973 - this did not change behaviour overnight, but did have a contribution to making discrimination on the grounds of race socially unacceptable. Most of the time, people see law as having a certain moral force, and this can change opinions over time.

I also wonder whether Daniel is conflating the ineffectiveness of law when it is not backed up by popular opinion with the potential of all laws to have unintended consequences. These are not the same thing.

Ben, London,

If you are seriously crediting Jimmy Savile with your road safety, I am not sure how you expect any government to know how to be persuasive - at least, as far as you are concerned - and you are thus actually making a very good case for law rather than mere persuasion, since it was the seat belt that saved your life, not Jimmy Savile. I think you are identifying the fact that there necessarily exists a causal environment that will precede any legislation; but that causal environment, it’s real nature and degree, wont necessarily be known to many people, and thus those people will inevitably complain at what seems to be an infringement of their liberty. I think it is more a matter of your confidence in authority. Does the government have a genuine concern for the general welfare or is everything they do governed by it’s beneficial effect, or otherwise, on a particular minority? Casinos are a current case in this context.

Henry Percy, London, UK

What about governments role in incentivising pro-social behaviour in order to encourage personal and social responsibility? Is not part of our problem that Parliament is constituted to make laws that inevitably have penalities of one sort or another attached for transgression. Do we need a moritorium of sorts on new law making?

RJH, London, UK

What bold statements from Daniel!
Bold but very true.
The Smoking ban was sold on very selective 'evidence' with no thought of social or environmental consequences.
Even the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment that concentrated on economic benefits was amazingly flawed and unquestioned.
- £ minimal for alterations to premises but businesses are putting vast amounts of cash into providing outdoor areas.
- £1 million for Education yet £12.5 million was spent on adverts such as the distasteful 'hook' advert. and those wrongly suggesting dangerous quantities of everyday chemicals in smoke.
- Between £5 million and £13 million for Enforcement but we have just seen that £29.5 million is to be provided.

The suffering of smokers was considered to be 'trivial' and there simply wasn't any downside to this great social engineering scheme simply because everything was stage-managed and 'peer-reviewed' by activist groups.
MPs and the public were misled!

ChrisB, Cornwall,

As usual Finklestein is too clever by a half. By all means be as persuasive as possible but if there is a law in force it has to be upheld. At the moment the authorities are very eclectic; enforce smoking bans, ignore the law on underage sex are examples. This ruins any chance of getting a grip.

Dr J Findlater, Carnforth,

Is it any wonder that evidence of the dangers of passive smoking is thin on the ground? It is always the single issue pressure groups that appear to get their way today. And their campaigns seem inevitably to result in the removal of yet another personal freedom.

Whether it is fox-hunting, smoking or even anonymity (ID cards), the power of state intrusion into our lives rises inexorably.

Edwin Thornber, Bucharest, Romania

I agree. There is overwhelming evidence that social pressure is more effective than laws in encouraging positive behaviour and also that most laws aimed at regulating behaviour have unintended consequences.

Unfortunately evidence rarely wins an argument but I hope that this excellent contribution helps to steer opinion away from placing responsibilty for personal behaviour on Government and onto the individual where, at least I believe, it belongs.

ANS, Wallasey, UK