Tube Party

Where one's own freedom of action needs to be controlled in order to avoid negative consequences for other people I presume you would prescribe law and the existence of the state. I would argue that that achieves a downward spiral of authoritarian reaction which in the end can do no other than destroy autonomy in any meaningful sense. One way in which it does this is by enshrining as a right the individual ownership of the means of production and both economic and extra-economic appropriation in the interests of the ruling class. From this "right" spring exploitation, cultural and ecological destruction and genocide. A side-effect of a state (which by the way I would not characterise as a "structure of society" but as something fundamentally antithetical to civil society) is that people often do not develop the solidarity and responsibility which I believe would arise from a genuine citizenship. In other words, if nanny is still around people have a licence to act like children. You may respect the right of people to get drunk or shag animals but I do not respect your right or anyone else's to impose on me a state or governance of any kind. It is not your state that makes me respect people, no more than it is some fictitious sky-god which stops me from murdering my neighbours. It is only the creation or recreation of a truly free, democratic and egalitarian society which can offer any of us the best chance of living without suffering the gross effects of other people's inconsiderate behaviour. Now, if I could live in a world without imperialist wars, global capitalism and profit-driven eco-cide I'd put up with a little drunken revelry on the tube. I realise I despise puritans and social democrats pretty much to the same degree - buttoning up your shirt all the way to the top and banging on about drink or fags is no more than the oft-assumed public face of tyranny.

"One very well-spoken young man said ‘It’s my right to get intoxicated when I want and where I want’. Is this a spokesman for generation Y?" Well, I think it's the world view of a large proportion of 'Thatcher's Children'. One of the major side-effects of the rampant individualistic philosophy promoted by the Thatcher/Major/Blair governments is that if you teach people that's it's not only ok but morally right to be solely devoted to furthering the interests of yourself and your family in an economic sense, it's difficult to persuade those same people to have an interest in 'the greater good' on a personal level. Having said, though, I'm sure in many cases people just enjoy drinking and want to do it on the tube but the only obvious answer to the 'it my right' point is 'no it isn't'. I'm sure it would take some time find 'the right to intoxication on public transport' in the UN declaration on human rights.

Call me naive (OK, don't) but I would be willing to bet that the video footage was edited to show: a) 20-30 year old 'revellers' b) the well-lubricated. I hope - no, believe - there were people who care about individual freedoms enough to have a drink on the tube without vomiting on commuters. It was Saturday, I bet the tourists were fascinated. How many commuters were there? How many drinkers would have been sober-suited strap hangers one day earlier? Were you on the tube yesterday,Jude? Was any ABCer? It's just that I'd trust an eye-witness account more than any TV/VIDEO/MP4 Phone rendition of what happened, do you see?

After personally witnessing the carnage caused by the Ranger's fans in Manchester (some of us had to enter the charnel pit formally known as the City Centre on business), I now have a VERY low opinion who believes that they have a "God given right" to get drunk in public and force their idea of "freedom" on everyone through the artistic method of the technicolour yawn and synchronised public urination. It may be your right to smoke, but I also have I right to clean air. You can choose to smoke, I cannot choose to not passive-smoke (since I enjoy this oddly human quirk known as breathing). It may be your right to consume alcohol, but that right stops when your inebriated state becomes a danger to others (whether through violence or your own drunken stupidity) Your right to freedom of expression ends when you through the first punch/missile. Dammit, living in this country is turning me into a right-wing nut. When's the next spaceship leaving for Mars? :-)

individualistic economic in me out me social educational philosophy aside...it was pathetic. ~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~

'I now have a VERY low opinion who believes that they have a "God given right" to get drunk in public and force their idea of "freedom" on everyone through the artistic method of the technicolour yawn and synchronised public urination.' And so you should. However do you feel that no-one should be allowed to drink in public? This would of course include yourself. Perhaps you feel willing to forego this personal freedom for the greater good. How very utilitarian, but don't forget that the great flaw in Bentham's theories is that you can justify everything with them.

On a related point - the problem obviously isn't booze. I recently took my boy to a football match here in France and was amazed to see people bringing beer to their seats - if you try to do that at an English stadium they treat you like you're bringing in a molotov cocktail. The good atmosphere survived the drinking and a good time was had by all, of course it was helped by the home team winning and avoiding relegation. It is also not a problem of the English - I went to see a 20/20 match at Lords the other year and had a great time. By the end of the evening I was drunk enough that the cricket had become something of a blur and I wasn't alone.... a jolly time was had by all even though Surrey took Middlesex to the cleaners! A serious problem arises when the authorities use heavy handed regulation which impinges upon the vast majority for whom a drink is not the precursor to violent or anti-social behaviour. Believe it or not that can also include good natured drunks in the park - they're not all psychos waiting to finish the next can of special brew before they molest someone.

There's one major thing about all this that I just don't get and every time I say it people look at me blankly (which leads me to believe I may be missing something obvious which perhaps one of you will point out to me...). The law prevents drinking on the tube, but it doesn't prevent anyone getting on the tube drunk which seems to me to make the entire thing a bit redundant. If someone is inclined to drunken, loutish behaviour it isn't because they're carrying a can of Fosters, it's because they're drunken louts. Since they can still get on the train drunk and I presume won't miraculously sober up and reform as they stand on the escalator, surely they will still be as inclined to yobbish behaviour?? Am I being thick? Am I? What have I missed about this law? As it happens I don't think it's a good idea regardless. I don't think 'laws' prevent unethical or anti social behaviour whether it's mugging or being intimidating. I don't like the endless, growing encroachment on my civil liberties either. Soon I won't be able to choose to do or not do anything as that decision will have been made for me. To me it just seems like another propaganda riven move to appeal to a popular consciousness which rashly often believes that laws solve problems when the real causes of the problems are left largely unaddressed. And AGAIN how does it actually mean I won't be or am even less likely to be intimidated or harrassed by a drunk on the tube if we can all still travel drunk as long as we're not 'tooled up with booze'? Please will someone explain...

Very good points Doeslittle. Maybe they're going to have Sobering Up Attendants at the entrances to tube stations - they'll thrust a black coffee into your hands, throw cold water in your face and, if that fails, slap you good and hard on the cheek; then you'll be able to get back to Ealing Common where you'll go through the whole thing again to ensure that you re-enter the world above well on the road to recovery from your excessive boozing! After reading your comments I had almost come to the conclusion that historians should run the world - Historiocracy? - but then I remembered that knob Starkey and decided that I'd stick to anarchism.

Nah, give em a handful of Valium! I blame the parents.

"The law prevents drinking on the tube, but it doesn't prevent anyone getting on the tube drunk which seems to me to make the entire thing a bit redundant." While I agree that drunkeness is more of a problem for me as tube user, actually banning drunk people from the tube would be a nightmare - for tube staff, cab drivers and vulnerable drunk people. "As it happens I don't think it's a good idea regardless. I don't think 'laws' prevent unethical or anti social behaviour whether it's mugging or being intimidating." I agree with Jude on the cultural shift thing. Obviously, in a democratic society, that only really works if there's some accordance between the law and public opinion.

You misunderstand me then. I don't want drunken travellers to be barred. I am disgusted at the thought of another law in a largely fruitless attempt to 'guide' our behaviour. I was just saying that this law achieves very little if drunks are still allowed to get on the train so why bother passing it. A cultural shift...I doubt that. Do the laws of a society shift the culture of that society? I think laws reflect the culture and in this instance I think it reflects the middle class panic about yob behaviour and perhaps 'binge drink Britain'. I hardly drink and am never drunk on the tube. I don't wish to be hassled by drunks on the tube. However, I don't like pointless, in my opinion, laws either.

No, I got that. I was just suggesting why they've gone for banning drink rather than drunkeness. I think it's fairly symbolic rather than practical. I think laws can both reflect a society and, over time, shape it. The extent to which its one or the other depends on the laws and the society. "I don't wish to be hassled by drunks on the tube. However, I don't like pointless, in my opinion, laws either." Well, if the law achieved its intention, it would give you what you want and therefore wouldn't be pointless. On the practical question of whether it's likely to do so, I agree with you.

The debate here is interesting. It reflects many things that are much more fundamental to our society than regulating a bunch of drunks on a subway. At what level of exercise does our ability to enjoy basic freedoms (liberty) intrude on the rights of others and become oppressive license? These are fundamental questions long debated in courts throughout the world. It usually boils down to “who is interpreting” the levels of freedoms involved. Restrictions cover all facets of socioeconomic activity among us. “What can we do and when can we do it ?” are questions asked since society was first formed in the caves. Then, the determining rule was enforced with a large stone axe. Today, in most countries, “the rule of law” is interpreted by the courts and enforced by a jail sentence or fine. Still, noted objectors like Mahatma Ghandi, have proven that even the courts can be wrong and alternative opinions upheld if you really want to push the point. I think age bears heavily upon the issue as well. The younger you are, the more freedoms you insist upon. The older you get, the more freedoms you are willing to sacrifice for greater security and peace of mind. At the risk of being labeled a heretic, I think that there are no “god given freedoms” unless an individual society says so. All else is arguable rhetoric subject to question by others who ask “who says so and who told you what god wants?” Several dozen deadly wars have already been fought over this question. Some are still going on. It is the nature of the human dynamic. If you get into Hobbes vs. Locke, fundamental questions of good and evil, the concepts gets even muddier. The “rule of reason” always appeals to me, but then who defines what is “reasonable?” Perhaps it is a circular argument. Maybe we should just do our best and work things out as best we can as we go along. To be trite, where “you may say potatto” I may say “potatoe.” In many places a “society,” through the democratic process of elections and appointment of court magistrates, has established a process of determining “who can do what and when they can do it.” Like most things, it can become dated and need rethinking as society changes and evolves. But then that's the best part. It is up to us, people who care enough to inquire, to work for change if we don’t like something. However frail our systems are, they are relatively fair to most of us. Everything else is a work in progress. Joseph Xavier Martin

She says: "It'd be a very big jump for us. We drive so much more in Australia than people do in the UK, so alcohol isn't as ingrained in our culture." I don't know if that's true of Australians in Australia, it's certainly not true of Australians in the UK.

Although public transport is rare and rarely used most places in the US, I can't think of any city that allows people drink or smoke on the subway or on a bus. The primary reasons have to do with fire hazzards and the cost of cleaning up the mess people will inevitably make by spilling their drinks and throwing empty cans and bottles on the floor. No one could possibly argue that they have an inalienable right to break glass bottles on the floor of a subway car or to pour a quart of beer on the seats. The discussion looks very different when framed that way. I am somewhat nonplused by a discussion of this kind because what I remember most from my three years living in London are the nearly daily deportment lectures I either received from Londoners or witnessed them delivering to someone else. It was always some trivial nonsense that some busybody used to justify sticking his or her nose where it did not belong. This never-ending fingerpointing and lecturing, especially when combined with the constant sarcasm (seemingly a national sport), became extremely tiresome very quickly. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall."