Nannying

There's something else special about the Commonwealth. It doesn't include the United States. There are very few forums left where the views of the Superpower don't tend to dominate debate. The Commonwealth is one. It's useful and by no means anti-American to have such an arrangement, even if no-one really listens to what member states agree upon. Supposing they do agree upon anything. But they do like a good old sports jamborree.

I surprise myself a little whenever I agree with the views of The Ecomomist. Ostensibly a free-enterprise, pro-globalisation rag, I find the writing so erudite and the views so reasonably argued that, well, it is often hard to disagree. Of course I can and do differ over the Iraqi invasion, global warming and much besides, especially where a purist rationalist logic is relentlessly applied.

But I do like the manner in which its writers apply the principle of liberty to both the economic and the personal sphere of human activity. The latter has suffered an intermidable invasion from both the left and right of politics, with moralising conservatives and nanny-state social democrats seemingly in cahoots. Whether its drugs, alcohol, child-rearing, working, leisure or whatever, there is some wretched politician or social-botherer with a warning, injunction, ammendment or tedious unwanted lecture. Have they nothing better to do? Such as getting their own houses in order.

Yes, political leaders should lead, but the state should avoid, as much as possible, interfering with and in the personal lives of its citizens. There are places to educate and inform (otherwise known as schools) and if the state fails there, then there's very little chance of succeeding later.

Please leave the sermons for religious leaders.