The tradition of the wife taking the husband's last name

Patriarchal origins of the tradition

The tradition of the wife taking the husband's last name upon marriage stems mainly from long-standing patriarchal family values, where families' surnames reflected the male head of the family, and men were encouraged to marry and reproduce in order to carry the family name forward through the generations.  Girls were considered the property of their fathers until they got married, and then when they got married, they became the property of their husbands, and so took their last names to reflect this.

Legitimate reasons for following the tradition

I regard the patriarchal arguments to be somewhat dubious arguments for preserving and following this tradition and I hope that most readers will agree.  However, the wife taking the husband's last name is one of many legitimate ways of resolving the "family name" problem, where groups of close relatives (especially the traditional nuclear family) become known by a family name and have to choose what the family name is.  A wife can consider taking her husband's last name as a positive way of reflecting the fact that she is now part of a new nuclear family, and she may prefer his last name to her birth name.  Or, we can just say, if it's traditional, it's one of many legitimate options, and all parties are happy with it, why not?

Legitimate alternatives

However, note "one of many legitimate ways".  The husband can take the wife's name, they can agree to use a hyphenated/combined family name, or take on a different family name altogether which is not associated with the birth names of the husband or wife.  Another option is for the husband and wife to both keep their birth names and remain socially known by their birth names, but also have a family name which may be named after the husband, wife, both, or neither- this procedure is commonly used by homosexual couples and cohabiting unmarried heterosexual partners for example.

So what's my problem with the tradition?

In short, it is the way that society enforces it.  There are many women out there who would rather not take their husband's surnames upon marriage, but feel obliged to because "that's just the way it's done".  It is an example of where creative thought and individuality is suppressed on the basis that "rules are rules"- married couples are pressured into doing things in a narrow, traditional way, rather than in the way that works best for them.

Also, although we don't like to admit it, for many of us the patriarchal origins of the tradition still linger in our subconscious.  The wife taking her husband's surname is seen as a mark of respect for his authority and the fact that she is now married to him, so if she doesn't take his name, it can be perceived that she isn't fully honouring her marriage.  Men who do not mandate that their wives take their surnames, and especially those who take their wives' surnames, can be labelled with all the usual macho, homophobic slurs- queer, gay, cissy, etc- and told that they need to stop "trying to be too politically correct", "toughen up", and "just accept that traditions should be followed because they should be followed".

I would never argue that the tradition should be outlawed, for as I established earlier, it is one of many legitimate ways of resolving the "family name" problem, and as far as I'm concerned, if it has widespread legitimate uses, its legitimate uses should not be banned.  What we need to do, as a society, is be more questioning of why we expect everybody to follow it, especially as many of the reasons are, in reality, dubious.  There is no need for traditions to be imposed on everybody- there are many examples of traditions where groups of people happily follow them, but also happily tolerate others who choose to do things in a different but equally legitimate way.  The tradition of the wife taking the husband's surname should be applied on that sort of basis.

Traditional family values

The modern-day concept of "traditional family values" in the UK and America is based mainly on an idealised perception of the traditional family structure of the 1950s.

Some aspects of so-called "family values" are certainly beneficial to society.  According to the Wikipedia article on family values, in a 1998 Harris survey, two common "values" were perceived to be, "loving, taking care of, and supporting each other", and, "knowing right from wrong and having good values".  We could certainly do with more of those two values in our society.

But many people also associate "family values" with an idealised perception of the traditional family structure that dominated in the UK and USA in the 1950s.  Children were mainly brought up in traditional nuclear families where the father was the breadwinner and the mother stayed at home and raised the children, and there is a common myth that this family structure encouraged those sort of loving and caring "family values", and that the breakdown of that family structure is mainly responsible for the recent "loss" of those values.

But in reality, the majority of evidence suggests that those values were also deficient in the 1950s.  Instead of either embracing modern-day trends or trying to bring society back to how it was in the 1950s, we would be better off looking for ways of encouraging new modern trends that do a better job of encouraging these values than either present-day trends or the cultural norms of the 1950s.

History behind the 1950s family values

I have done a fair amount of research into this- you can find more detailed summaries of the history elsewhere, but I will outline what I see as being the most important points.

• The nuclear family has always been an important part of child-rearing, but in many past periods, children were often brought up within less narrowly-defined "family" structures, where extended family members, close friends who were treated as part of the family, servants and others contributed.  In the Victorian era, the narrowly-defined nuclear family consisting of a married couple and their children became more dominant.
• In World War II, there was a temporary breakdown in this structure, for many men served in the war and women were required to take up work in their native countries.
• After the war, there was a strong social backlash, and people were heavily encouraged to return back to traditional family/gender roles and heavily stigmatised if they did not.

Common misconceptions about the 1950s family values

"The 1950s family arrangement encouraged people to love and care for each other."

My experiences overwhelmingly suggest that it only encouraged people to apply these values to people that they considered to be "family", i.e. related to within a few generations.  People who were not considered family members were often not entitled to the same amount of respect (an issue that recurs in my articles on friendships, but was worse in the 1950s than it is today).  In addition you were only "loved and cared for" if you conformed to a narrow way of doing and thinking.  If you were left-handed, black, homosexual, a single person in your 40s, or a mother with a high-flying career, forget it.

I am all up for people loving and caring for each other, but it should be an all-inclusive thing, not something that is reserved only for limited groups of people and comes at the vast expense of others. 

"The 1950s family arrangement encouraged people to know right from wrong and have good values."

In the 1950s, most people generally "conformed" a lot more than they do today and were more likely to obey and accept authority without question.  This meant that people were less likely to disobey good rules, but it also meant that they were more likely to accept bad rules without question on the basis, "Because authority X said so", which, for example, made it easier to justify persecuting vulnerable/minority groups purely because they were considered different.

Since the 1950s we have progressively moved away from blind obedience of authority, and there are some areas where I feel there is considerable room to progress further.  For instance, customs like the wife taking her husband's surname upon marriage, and businesses working 9 till 5, Monday to Friday, are frequently imposed on people on the basis, "Because society says so", despite being unnecessarily limiting in many cases.   However, there are other areas where we have gone too far, i.e. people feel more able to disobey most rules, including rules that prohibit particular behaviours for good reasons.  What we need is an increased sense of rules being based on wider moral considerations, and respect for those considerations, rather than an acceptance that "rules are rules".

"The 1950s family arrangement, where fathers were the breadwinners, and mothers stayed at home and looked after the children, encouraged children to be cared and looked after properly."

This works as long as the family is affluent enough to get by easily on just one income, both parents are happy to conform to these roles, and the family gets on well.  

But if the family is not affluent enough then it can be tough to feed the family, and fathers may end up pressurised into working long hours, meaning that they end up stressed and over-worked and don't get to spend much time with their children.  Mothers who want to have some independence can end up unhappy due to feeling trapped in domestic roles.  I often come across a view that parents should be prepared to sacrifice everything for their children, but the "100% sacrifice" model can result in unhappy parents, which detracts from the chances of their children being brought up in a loving, caring environment, and can result in sacrifices being made that hurt others, such as friends being dumped because they aren't considered part of the family and "family/children come first".

Today's problem is that the rise in working mothers has not been accompanied by measures to make it easier for fathers to spend less time at work and more time with the children, so we are left with a model where many households have both parents in full-time work.  Rather than promoting the 1950s family structure, we should be looking at a shift towards more flexible working hours, and more scope for parents to work shorter hours (say, 25-30 hours/week rather than 35-40) so that they can job/child-share, both having fulfilling careers but enabling at least one parent to be available for the children for most of the time.

"Traditional marriages should be encouraged and cohabiting discouraged.  Statistically, married people are happier on average than unmarried people."

I would argue that people in a long-term committed partnership are likely to be happier, on average, than people who are not, because they are guaranteed to have at least one emotionally-fulfilling and stable relationship in their lives.  The association with marriage stems from the fact that people in long-term committed partnerships are, statistically, more likely to get married.

The real problem is that too many people "take on" too much in their sexual partnerships before they are fully committed and know that they are really right for each other, resulting in repeated damaging break-ups, which is particularly problematic when couples have children before they are strongly committed.  Marriage is one way of trying to enforce commitment, but unlike in biblical times, when it was about a physical and emotional commitment, today it is a primarily legal commitment- couples sign legal documents and are discouraged from breaking up because of the legal repercussions of divorce.  I am uneasy about this, plus the marginalisation of unmarried couples who are more committed to each other than most married couples.  If we were to change the definition of marriage to something more similar to the biblical version, I might agree with encouraging more couples to get married.  But as our definitions currently stand, I suggest that it is "long-term commitment" rather than "marriage" that we really need to be encouraging.

"But maybe we can bring back the traditional 1950s family structure without bringing back the negatives associated with enforcement of it?"

My feeling is that this would be very difficult, if not impossible.  For example, how do we encourage women to stay at home and raise children without marginalising working mothers, and triggering knock-on effects that result in increased enforcement of conformity to traditional gender roles, and increased marginalisation of "sensitive" men, independent/career-minded women and homosexuals?   I cannot see a way out of that problem.  Too many people think idealistically about one parent always being there for the children, think of the most obvious way to get to that scenario, and don't think of the negative knock-on effects that it would most likely cause.

I will go back to the two sets of so-called "family values" that came up at the start of the article:  "loving, taking care of, and supporting each other", and, "knowing right from wrong and having good values".  That's what we need to be striving for, and I don't see how bringing us back to a more 1950s style society would help to bring us any closer to it.

Friendships in the "Western world"- Part 2- Cultural barriers facing friendships

The main cultural barriers facing friendships

There are various cultural barriers in the modern Western world that encourage people to pursue short-term acquaintances rather than long-term close friends, and to restrict close friendships to people who are related to within a few generations ("family"), thus restricting the range of people that we can potentially be close friends with.  I sense that these issues are stronger in the USA than here in the UK, but the same issues crop up to some extent in most "Western" type cultures.

Here is a list of some of the specific issues.

Many people subconsciously perceive bonds between friends to be disposable unless they are considered "family", i.e. related to within a few generations.

If I form close bonds with a branch of extended family, they will always be seen as my "family" because of the recognised blood ties, so if I move to a different part of the country, I do not face a social expectation to leave them behind.  But if I form similarly close bonds with a group of friends from Institution A, and then move over to Institution B, many people perceive those bonds to no longer be relevant to the present, because we no longer go to an institution together and we aren't considered "family".  Thus, a social expectation develops on me to leave those friends in the past and "move on".

The perception that "friendships are disposable but families are forever" is self-reinforcing.

The more widespread this perception is, the harder it is to find reliable, trustworthy friends outside of one's recognised "family" because there is a greater risk of them deciding, after a while, "You're not in my family so you're disposable", a problem that does not affect "family" relationships because, as the saying goes, "family is forever".  So, in cultures where this double standard is the norm, people learn through experience that you can trust "family" more than "friends".

Marriages and children tend to bring families together and prise friends apart.

One reason for this is the cultural perception that couples and children need to spend "family time" together, where they are expected to include people who are related to within a few generations, and exclude people who are not.

Another is the fact that when people have to juggle jobs, raising children and keeping their spouses happy, they generally have less time to spend on other relationships.  Since some relationships have to be sacrificed as a result of this, and it is relatively socially unacceptable to dispose of people who are related to within a few generations, because "they're your family so you can't just drop them", close friends are at risk of being dropped because they are not considered "family".

Close friendships, especially those involving men, are at risk of being stigmatised due to fear that they might become sexual.

While close friendships are typically of a "platonic" spiritual, affectionate, non-sexual nature, they are capable of generating a limited amount of unconscious intimate/physical attraction, which due to human hormones, can occasionally trigger involuntary sexual arousal.  This happens in most close relationships, including "family" ones, and is usually harmless and does not imply that the relationship is likely to turn sexual.

But in the Victorian era, tied in with a rampant paranoia over homosexuality, a myth evolved that the above issue was abnormal and implied a desire for sex, so men became afraid to become close to male friends for fear that if it triggered any involuntary sexual arousal, it probably meant that they were homosexual.  Shows of affection between male friends also became stigmatised as a sign of homosexuality because of the way that affection is seen as "sensitive" and inconsistent with the male gender role.  While this problem has declined in same-sex friendships since the 1950s due to the growing acceptance of homosexuality, sexual anxiety remains as strong as ever, highlighted by the fact that men's friendships with children are currently similarly stigmatised due to the modern-day paranoia over child sexual abuse.  

In societies where the genders are heavily segregated, male-female friendships typically suffer from the same problem, due to a perception that no "real" man would value a woman as a friend unless he secretly wanted to have sex with her, and the fear of adultery.  This problem has not completely gone away in the UK but, due to the dwindling enforcement of traditional gender roles, is far less than it was in the 1950s, and so male-female friendships are relatively common nowadays.  However, I do fear that if the media was to generate paranoia over male-on-female sexual abuse then male-female friendships would end up stigmatised again.

These problems typically exempt "family" because of a popular myth that taboos on incest make erotic desire impossible between known relatives.  As the unintended elements of erotic desire are primarily down to human hormones, this simply doesn't follow, while deliberate erotic desire, of the sort that can lead to sex abuse, can and does happen between parents/children and siblings.  But the myth has persisted for centuries in various cultures purely because not enough people question it.

Traditional gender roles are limiting

Traditionally, modern-day Western friendships between men involve only limited emotional bonding, due to anxiety over the possibility of the friendship turning sexual, so it can be hard for men to find male friends who will provide them with much emotional fulfilment.  Meanwhile, due to the perception that various hobbies and competitive activities are "unfeminine" and something that females "grow out of", women can find it hard to find female friends who will be interested in sharing those sort of interests.  As a result, men's friendships are limited emotionally and women's are limited socially.

This is partly why some find male-female friendships very rewarding, as people can feel more comfortable behaving inconsistently with their gender roles with opposite-sex friends than with same-sex friends.  However, this can result in their friendships being regarded with suspicion by bystanders.  This problem is declining as enforcement of traditional sex roles continues to decline, but there is still a fair way to go, and we need to keep making progress.

Solutions

As well as the solution that I identified in part 1 (respecting relationships according to how close/dependent they are, rather than blood/partnership ties to within a few generations) we need to clear up a few of these myths about sexual arousal in non-sexual relationships, as they generate unnecessary fears over the possibility of a non-sexual friendship turning sexual, which is a particularly big problem for men's friendships.  And, friendships will also be helped significantly by a continued reduction in segregation into traditional sex roles.

Friendships in the "Western world"- Part 3- Truths and myths about friendships

The belief that "you can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family" is too simplistic

There is some truth in it regarding the immediate nuclear family, e.g. we can't choose who our parents and siblings are, and as children we often have a very limited ability to choose whether or not to stay in significant relationships with them.

But other than that, the distinction is largely arbitrary.  The idea is, if I am related to someone to within a few generations, I cannot choose to opt out of having a relationship with the person, even if it is toxic or abusive, whereas if I am not, then I am free to dispose of that relationship whenever I like, and if the other person doesn't like it, tough.  OK, it isn't generally quite as black-and-white as that, but strong elements of this often creep into how many of us view "family" and "friends".

No type of relationship is indestructible- and that includes "true" friendships

While some relationships fail because one or both parties screwed each other over, sometimes relationships can be lost or damaged without either party doing much wrong.  Relationships can drift apart over time, or incompatibilities can develop as a result of changed circumstances, or sometimes, people make mistakes and inadvertently hurt each other.  In tragic cases, relationships can be lost as a result of relational aggression.  When we realise that the other party may not have done a lot wrong, it helps to prevent the development of hard feelings, and improves our chances of saving those relationships, or at least avoiding messy splits.

But in friendships (read: between people who are not related to within a few generations), there is a popular myth that "a true friend would stand by you no matter what".  It enables us to believe that "true" friendships are indestructible, and so when we lose friends, we soothe our pain by arguing, "No 'true' friendship could possibly be lost, so therefore, he or she wasn't worth having as a friend anyway", a stark example of the No true Scotsman fallacy.  This belief is destructive as it means that when friendships are lost or damaged, we tend to assume that we have been screwed over, and end up permanently holding grudges against past friends for things that they haven't done, resulting in friendships being permanently lost where, in some cases, they could have been saved, or dropped for a while and resurrected later on.

Repairing damaged friendships- truths and myths

When relationships start malfunctioning, it can be for reasons that we can address, in which case it is often best to address them, so that we can continue the relationships.  Sometimes, though, the reasons can be more fundamental, in which case it is often best to let the relationships go.  Also, typically, the more meaningful the relationship is, the more it is worth erring on the side of persevering with it.  But in the case of friendships, there is a popular mentality of, "If you're having to fight to keep a friendship, don't bother, just drop it and move on, you can always make new friends", which relates to the idea that friendships are disposable.

Resurrecting past friendships- truths and myths

Sometimes past relationships are worth resurrecting, and sometimes they are not.  It all depends on how meaningful they were in the first place, why they were previously lost, and whether or not circumstances have changed sufficiently to make it unlikely that they will fail for the same reasons as they did previously.  Objectively, moving on is always about adapting to present-day circumstances.

But in friendships there is a popular myth that "moving on" means "cutting 'old' friends out of your life"- the argument goes, "I'm not associating with X ever again, because we were previously friends and then ceased being friends, and X is now part of a past chapter of my life."  Many of us feel justified in giving our "old" friends the "silent treatment" and leaving it up to them to "get the hint", rather than telling them that we no longer want to be their friends.  All of this relates to the perception that friendships are disposable.  Objectively, it is not moving on, it is a way of holding grudges, as we never move forward from the point at which we stopped being friends with them.  There can be good reasons for not resurrecting a past friendship, but "Friendships are disposable" is not one of them.

It is a particularly big issue in cases of relational aggression because, when perpetrators succeed in isolating an individual from a social group, the group may then perceive keeping the individual permanently shut out of the group as "moving on".

Making "new" friends to replace "old" ones is often much easier said than done

Making meaningful friendships that feature genuine feelings of mutual affection often takes a lot of time- sometimes years rather than months.  So, when I build up a network of close friends at Institution A, and then move over to Institution B, I cannot just abandon the friends that I made at A, and expect to be able to walk into similarly close friendships at Institution B.  At best, there is likely to be an interim period where I suffer the loss of friends from A, and am still in the process of building up similarly good friendships at B.  At worst, I may not be able to make similarly good friends at B.  After all, close friends who are dependable can be hard to find and not all social groups necessarily contain them.

The "You can always make new friends" idea is essentially a myth- it works if we're talking moving from one set of acquaintances to another, but then they aren't really "friends", they are acquaintances.

Friendships in the "Western world" part 4- Relational aggression

What is relational aggression?

One of the biggest challenges that a friendship can face is relational aggression, which typically involves one or more of the following techniques, which serve to damage the recipient's friendships and reputation.  Some of the most common techniques include:

• Encouraging members of a social group to ignore and/or exclude a recipient, e.g. threatening them that they will be isolated from the group unless they withdraw from friendships with the recipient.
• Spreading negative rumours about the recipient, to damage the recipient's reputation within the group.  For example, spotting a man hugging a female friend, and then spreading rumours accusing him of having ulterior sexual motives for doing so, or making out that he groped her.
• Giving recipients the "silent treatment", i.e. treating them as if they don't exist, giving them a sense of being in trouble but keeping them guessing as to why, and how much.
• Isolating recipients from participation in social groups, e.g. arranging events where everybody else is invited but the recipient is excluded.

The negative impacts of this type of aggression are "invisible" and thus are harder to spot than with physical and verbal forms of abuse, and are easily overlooked.  Another problem is that people sometimes apply these techniques inadvertently, with neutral or positive intentions, and don't realise how damaging they are.  For example, some use the "silent treatment" on the basis, "I'd rather not hurt X's feelings by giving X bad news, so I'll say nothing", or see giving "old" friends the "silent treatment" as part of "moving on" from the "old" to the "new".  Social groups may isolate recipients without realising that they are doing so.  Someone may express legitimate concerns about the possibility of a non-sexual friendship turning sexual, and inadvertently trigger a series of damaging rumours that circulate around associated social groups.

This behaviour tends to escalate into a form of bullying, even when it starts off well-intentioned, and it is often very damaging regardless of the intentions behind it, and sometimes even a one-off incident can cause a lot of damage, and so recipients need help.

The perception that friendships are disposable contributes to relational aggression not being taken seriously enough

When people suffer from relational aggression, and it threatens their relationships with "family" (people who are related to within a few generations) it is often taken very seriously, but in my experience, it is often dismissed if the recipients are "only" in danger of being isolated from friends.  Here are some responses that I am used to coming across:

"If you're suffering from relational aggression, just walk away."

The problem with this type of aggression is that it is often hard for recipients to walk away from the perpetrators without also withdrawing from the social groups that they are in danger of being isolated from, thus effectively surrendering to the problem.

"So what's the big deal?  Friendships come and go anyway, and you can always make new friends.  If you're having to fight to keep friendships, they aren't worth persevering with- just leave them in the past, move on, focus on making new friends."

"Once you have been isolated from a group and had your reputation ruined, you have to just accept, that's it, they don't want to associate with you any more.  People 'move on' from 'old' friends, and if you try too hard to repair the damage to your social status and reputation, you could get done for harassment, for repeated unwanted attempts to re-connect with past friends who have decided to permanently leave you in the past."

Ouch.  So, not only do the recipients not get help with the relational aggression, they are told that if they try too hard to take a stand against it, they will get into trouble.  And, pairs of friends are encouraged to blame each other for the pain that the perpetrators of relational aggression are inflicting upon them, which plays perfectly into the hands of the perpetrators.

"Just accept, some friendships don't work out, and that's life."

Some friendships do fail for reasons that can't be helped, but others fail for reasons that can be.  A friendship failing because it was targeted by relational aggression, and the recipients were unable to get help because too many people just stood there saying "That's life", is an extremely painful experience.

"A true friend would stand by you no matter what, regardless of outside pressure.  Therefore if you lose a friend as a result of outside pressure, he/she wasn't a true friend anyway."

This unrealistic definition of a "true friend" (a classic example of the No true Scotsman fallacy) serves to blind people to the amount of damage that relational aggression can cause.  The argument goes, relational aggression can't really cause much damage, for either the recipient is not under threat of social isolation or reputation damage, or the people that the recipient is in danger of being isolated from are not "true" friends.

In reality, "true" friendships can be associated with the most damaging break-ups, especially if the friends make a strong effort to stand by each other, but the friendship then cracks, leaving them with a strong sense of having let each other down in a big way despite their best efforts.  In the worst cases, people can go abruptly from being close friends to being enemies, which can be far worse than bereavement (for rather than merely losing a relationship, a good relationship is replaced with a bad one).  Recipients in these situations generally find that others refuse to acknowledge their predicament, arguing, "No, this cannot possibly happen to anybody- if you are isolated from friends, it means that they weren't true friends."

Relational aggression can and should be addressed

As I know from experience, experiences of suffering from relational aggression can damage our confidence in making and keeping friendships- after having had experiences of "old" friends being lost, where relational aggression was a significant factor, and was allowed to go ahead without opposition, there is a tendency to fear that any "new" friendships that we make will be vulnerable to being lost in the same way.  This can trigger a vicious cycle of social and emotional isolation.

I am not necessarily suggesting that perpetrators should be dealt with harshly, because while sometimes relational aggression occurs as part of ongoing bullying, sometimes the perpetrators have neutral or positive intentions and genuinely don't realise how much harm they are causing.  But regardless of the intent, recipients need to be able to get help, rather than having their predicament dismissed, as the impacts can be significantly worse than those of physical and verbal abuse.  And, since we do often deal effectively with relational aggression when it is directed against "family" relationships (between people who are related to within a few generations) there is no reason why we can't with "non-family" friendships.

Friendships in the "Western world"- Part 1- Introduction

Introduction

Friendships are a very important but often somewhat under-rated aspect of human life.  In modern Western societies, many people have problems making and keeping meaningful friendships.  For example, the Wikipedia article on friendships points to a decline in the quality and quantity of friendships among adults since at least 1985, and while I feel that my generation in the UK has done a better job of making and keeping friends than the past few generations, there are still studies out there in the UK suggesting, for example, that adults have an average of only two close friends.

Thus, I feel that it is important to identify the main challenges that face friendships in the Western world, and, having identified them, take steps to address them, so that friendships can flourish more widely.  Some of the challenges are unavoidable to some extent, but others, particularly the cultural norms that date from the Victorian period, are largely unnecessary and survive purely because "this is the way that we've always done things since the late 1800s or maybe the 1950s".

What friendships are, and why they are important

A friendship is typically a non-sexual relationship characterised by mutual affection.  It often features common interests, similar outlooks on life, mutual trust and understanding, sympathy and empathy, among other factors that contribute to the formation of strong bonds.

Humans generally have a fundamental need for social interaction and emotional bonding, and for a sense of "belonging", and are likely to feel lonely and unhappy if they do not have relationships that are both meaningful and stable.  Having numerous friendships helps substantially with these needs.  It presents opportunities to spend time with a wide range of like-minded individuals, and reduces the risk of becoming heavily dependent on particular individuals- if individual friendships are lost or damaged, there is more chance of being able to fall back upon other friendships for support.   It also increases our chances of feeling that we "belong" to multiple social groups and communities, which tends to increase self-esteem and general happiness.

Don't confuse acquaintances with friends

It is useful to have numerous acquaintances, whose relationships are characterised by social bonding and shared interests, or just shared company, but have little or no shared affection, but acquaintances cannot make up for having no friends- people who rely only on having acquaintances tend to end up emotionally stunted as they lack relationships where they can share affection with others.

Myths relating to contemporary definitions of "family" and "friends"

"Family" often refers to the nuclear family, typically consisting of a couple and children, and can also refer to the extended family, who are "people that we consider ourselves to be related to", typically connected via blood and/or partnership ties to within a few generations.

There is a popular misconception that family are related to us and friends are not, but in fact, we are almost certainly all related to each other.  The catch is that we tend not to recognise people as being "relatives" unless they are related to within a few generations, so to find blood and/or partnership ties between people who are recognised as "friends", we typically have to go back numerous generations.

There is often a significant difference between friendships and relationships within a nuclear family, as sexual partnerships and parent-child relationships tend to contain additional bonds and dependencies.  But when comparing the extended family with friends, the difference is often largely or entirely arbitrary.  I can love a close friend just as I love my own sister, with the only difference being, my sister is related to me to within a few generations, whereas my friend is not.

Friendships are vulnerable to being perceived as disposable because the friends are not recognised as being "family"

Unfortunately, one of the biggest cultural barriers that faces friendships is the perception that relationships between people who are not related to within a few generations are disposable.  Even if I love a close friend exactly as I love my own sister, there are various social situations in which others will treat my friendship with far less respect than they will treat my relationship with my sister, purely because she is related to within a few generations whereas the friend is not.  This perception can also contribute to difficulties in finding trustworthy people who are not recognised as "family", as even people who appear to be "real" friends can be tempted to think, "You're not in my family, so you're disposable", when complications arise in the friendship.

This problem is primarily a legacy of traditional Victorian/1950s family values.  I have heard very depressing arguments from people raised on those values, such as, "You don't need friends, all you need is family.  A man can't have a close female friend unless she's his girlfriend and can't have a close male friend because then people might think he's gay, but it doesn't matter because your family are your friends."  I go into more detail on the reasons why these sort of beliefs persist in Part 2, but it suffices to say for now that these mentalities encourage people to restrict close friendships only to people who are considered to be relatives, thus severely limiting the range of people that they can potentially be close friends.

I think, though, that there is quite a straightforward solution.  It will be easier said than done, as it requires a cultural shift in attitudes, but it runs as follows:

Relationships should be respected according to how close and rewarding/positive they are, and how dependent the individuals are upon each other, rather than according to whether or not the individuals concerned are related to within a few generations.

Transport part 5- Urban planning

Why I don't agree with the model of everybody living in densely-packed cities

In recent years I have seen a growing consensus that the "best" way is for urban areas to be very densely-packed, with very little green space and emphasis on terraced housing and "high rise".  This is to promote a minimum of travel and promote walking, cycling and public transport over the private car, as opposed to suburban sprawl which often encourages relatively long-distance travelling.

To this, I would say, "Everything in moderation.", as there are many social downsides to having densely-packed urban areas.  Traffic congestion is often a major problem even when car use is significantly reduced, because of the significantly reduced road space, and this affects bus as well as car journeys.  Greater reliance on public transport, combined with a high population density, leads to problems with crowding on buses and trains (e.g. the stories about train guards in Tokyo having to push passengers onto packed trains).  A high local population density also puts high demand on local services such as water and electricity.  Many people like to have green space around where they live, and so densely-packed urban areas make urban, as opposed to rural, living less attractive for these people.

Traditionally, proponents of densely-packed urban areas suggest that we can get around these problems by implementing rationing, such as banning certain letters of the alphabet from driving on particular days, restricting non-essential water and electricity use (where, by "non-essential", they mean not work or family-related, lumping fruitful recreational activities together with wasteful ones).  But this implies restrictions on people's freedoms which is another significant social cost.

Suburban sprawl is also worth avoiding

Many UK towns and cities have fallen into this trap.  A city centre is built and then suburban developments gradually sprawl out from the town/city centre, which are not planned in advance but are put down to address local demand for housing.  As a result, we end up with situations where most of the attractions and employment are based in the town or city centre, but most people live in suburbs, some of which are a considerable distance away, and due to lack of adequate provisions for public transport and cycling, most people end up commuting into work by car every day.

My preferred model for urban planning

My utopian conurbation would have one main central "hub", and instead of random suburban sprawl extending from it, we would have "mini-centres", each with their own set of attractions and workplaces.  

One advantage of the third model is that instead of everybody being crammed into the centre, they are more spread out into various centres, but unlike with the random suburban sprawl, people are more able to head for the nearest "sub-centre" for attractions and/or work, instead of everybody having to commute into the city centre.  The "sub-centres" can be connected via high-speed roads, rail systems, and a cycle network, giving cyclists the choice whether to use the roads or the cycle network (particularly useful in the case of high-speed roads where most cyclists really do need an alternative).  As there are numerous sub-centres rather than one large centre, it is more feasible to use just moderately dense (rather than excessively dense) residential areas without creating large travelling distances from the outskirts to the centre.

This model may remind some people of Milton Keynes, which has failed from an environmental perspective because the planners who devised it focused too much on accommodating the private car at the expense of public transport (although cyclists did get the Redway system), but on the other hand, it has succeeded at achieving many other objectives such as avoiding suburban sprawl and leaving plentiful green space.  But I think this model can be tweaked quite easily to make it very accommodating for public transport as well, such as by having regular buses connecting the main "sub-centres", and we can provide cyclists with cycle networks similar to those offered in various parts of Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands.

Ultimately most urban parts of the UK have already been developed and so there are many practical limits on how far we can take this model.  But for me, when we try to make new developments, or redevelop old towns and cities, this is the sort of model that we should be striving for, and not the "cram everybody into very densely packed urban zones" model.

Transport part 4- Cycle facilities

Cycle facilities

I am in favour of establishing a segregated and integrated cycle network.

I know that this proposal is somewhat controversial, for there is a widespread fear among cyclists that it may be a way of removing them from the roads so that motorists can have the roads to themselves.  No, that's not the intention, the intention is to give cyclists an additional choice, so that they can choose to use the roads or rely on the segregated cycle facilities.  The Highway Code's stance on this, i.e. cyclists are encouraged, but not mandated, to use segregated facilities where they are provided, appears reasonable enough.  I am a frustrated ex-cyclist who quite enjoys cycling where cycle paths are available but has significant problems cycling on roads, and would certainly cycle a lot more if I lived somewhere with an extensive cycle network and there will be others in a similar position, who would cycle more if they were not required, by law, to cycle on the roads.  

The main problem with the UK's "cycle networks" is that, for the most part, they are poorly-maintained, and not integrated- where's the benefit in providing a cycle network if it is only partial and so there are various points where the cycle path/lane just disappears?  Indeed, such "segregated cycle facilities" are often used, in my experience, as a way of restricting car use by taking away road space, rather than to encourage cycling.

Having researched around the subject, it appears that segragated cycle networks in which pedestrians and cyclists share facilities are often associated with a statistically significant, though often small, increase in the number of accidents, this being due to clashes between cyclists and pedestrians as well as cyclists not dealing well with situations where they have to cross roads.  However, if the cyclists are also segregated from pedestrians, as is common in Amsterdam for example, then the impact on accident rates tends to be near-neutral.   There is often the question, "While places with segregated cycle facilities tend to feature more frequent bicycle journeys, do people cycle more because of these facilities, or is it that the facilities are provided because people cycle more and demand them in greater numbers?", but I think it is most likely a positive feedback mechanism- more facilities, if integrated and well-maintained, encourages more cycling which in turn results in more demand for more of them.

In the UK, where we have a high population density, sometimes we simply don't have enough land to be able to create fully segregated cycle networks without narrowing the roads and/or pavements, so some of the facilities will have to consist of shared cycle/pedestrian routes and/or cycle lanes on the side of the roads. However, even if there is a marginal increase in accidents, if it does succeed in encouraging more people to cycle more (which is likely to produce considerable social, recreational and health benefits, as many cyclists enjoy the physical process of cycling and it helps them to get exercise, as well as getting them from A to B) then the benefits will most likely be sufficient to outweigh the downsides associated with accident rates and reduced space for drivers and pedestrians.

Pedestrian/cycle-friendly areas in residential zones and town/city centres

In part 2 I argued that there is a strong case for selective use of traffic restrictions in residential areas, to create "home zones", and in town/city centres, and provision of relatively unrestricted routes for traffic nearby, so as to encourage traffic to stay out of the pedestrian/cycle-friendly zones.

These areas, with use of policies such as cobbled streets, shared space and filtered permeability, are generally cyclist-friendly as well as pedestrian-friendly, and the idea is that segregated cycle facilities should aim to connect these zones so as to give cyclists an alternative to riding along busy roads, hence producing an integrated cycle network.

I have doubts about the law against cycling on the pavement, except where segregated cycle facilities are present

When I have questioned the UK law against cycling on the pavement, by far the most popular response has been the circular argument, "Cycling on the pavement is illegal.  People shouldn't break the law.  Therefore people shouldn't cycle on the pavement.  Therefore cycling on the pavement should be illegal."  There are usually references to the dangers that "pavement cyclists" can pose to pedestrians, but this argument is undermined by the fact that most of the same people don't complain at cyclists riding along pavements that have been designated as shared pedestrian/cycle routes by the local council.  Why not?  "Because they aren't breaking the law/they are obeying the Highway Code".  So, basically, the main argument runs, cycling on the pavement is wrong because it's illegal... and it's illegal because it's wrong.

However, I have little doubt that if I managed to get past this "the law is the law" argument I would only run into the "the minority have to spoil it for everybody else" line (i.e. a minority of people cycle recklessly on the pavement and it is thus deemed necessary to ban all pavement cyclists, rather than just the irresponsible minority, on the basis, "That's life.").  I have often wondered whether, in the absence of an integrated cycle network, it would be better to criminalize, and clamp down against, just irresponsible cycling on the pavement, rather than all cyclists who ride on pavements, though I agree with fully prohibiting cycling on pavements in areas where fully-segragated cycle routes are always available.  Having walked down many shared pedestrian/cycle routes myself as a pedestrian, such as those in certain parts of Norwich and Exeter, I find that the majority of "pavement cyclists" are pretty considerate and that it is just a small minority that endangers pedestrians.

 My default stance on pavement cycling is that, in the absence of segragated facilities, we should only clamp down against people who ride irresponsibly on the pavement, rather than all "pavement cyclists".  I am certainly prepared to be shifted from my position if presented with compelling counter-evidence, I'm looking for things like reliable statistics pointing towards an association between "pavement cyclists" and significantly-increased likelihood of accidents and suggesting that it is more than just a small irresponsible minority, but what I normally get is circular reasoning like the above.

Transport part 2- Traffic restrictions

Downsides of the conventional approaches to attempting to reduce car use

Many road safety/environmental policies that involve tightening traffic restrictions are designed to make driving more of a chore in the hope of boring and frustrating drivers into using their cars less.  The theory runs that if people think of driving as a chore, then they will cut out their recreational car journeys, and drive only when they feel that they absolutely have to in order to get from A to B.  It is tied in with the belief that all recreational car use as "unnecessary" because "we need to work but we don't need to enjoy ourselves".

As this agenda is very unpopular with most of the general public (as John Prescott and his associates found out the hard way near the end of the 1990s) most pressure groups try to hide this particular agenda and refer to more popular agendas such as creating a more pleasant living environment for people in residential areas.  But the agenda is still very much there, it is just that campaign groups tend to try to disguise it, rather than being up-front about it like the UK Labour government was back in the John Prescott era.

This is also designed to improve safety through restricting everybody to legislate for the reckless minority, a policy which is inefficient, but will most likely succeed in improving safety significantly if taken to enough of an extreme, so it is one of those where we risk sleepwalking into larger-scale restrictions than we originally bargained for.  It is quite popular with road safety groups because as I have noted in other blogs, punishing innocent people by association with offenders is often perceived as being "hard", even though it is "hard" primarily against the wrong people.

This approach will cause far greater social costs than "merely" stopping car enthusiasts from enjoying driving.  It will threaten the custom of recreational outlets that depend on customers who travel to them as part of spontaneous car trips, especially in rural areas.  It will threaten various aspects of the car industry, particularly those which relate to making cars good to drive, and these changes risk negatively affecting the economy.  Frustrated and bored drivers may end up more prone to lapses in concentration and road rage incidents, while when traffic is heavily restricted, and the onus is placed more on drivers to allow for inconsiderate behaviour of other road users, this may lead to more risk-taking from cyclists and pedestrians, thereby offsetting safety gains.  With many people still likely to feel that they "have" to drive under these policies, quality of life will reduce if most people find travelling from A to B to be a stressful chore.  I also don't foresee it being particularly effective at reducing congestion and pollution.  In many cases, reduced car use is at least offset by increased congestion per unit amount of car use.

Beneficial use of traffic restrictions

I am convinced, though, that traffic restrictions can be beneficial to society as a whole if used selectively and in the right places for case-specific reasons, rather than as a blanket means of trying to discourage car use.

I often read that a reduction of urban speed limits to 20mph and associated traffic calming will "create a more pleasant living environment and improve quality of life for everyone".  If the speed limit cuts are carried out selectively, i.e. we get a network of residential zones with speed limits of 20mph, and a network of nearby roads with speed limits of 30 or 40mph, then it may well work that way.  In that case, traffic is encouraged to use the relatively unrestricted routes and stay out of the residential zones, and so the residential zones benefit from less traffic generally.  Some types of traffic calming relating to road design, such as cobbled streets, "shared space" (where pedestrians, drivers and cyclists share the same routes) and "filtered permeability" (where we create a wider density of pedestrian/cycle routes than routes for vehicles) can be effective at encouraging drivers to give pedestrians and cyclists higher priority within these zones.

Similar measures are also very useful in town and city centres.  Generally speaking, towns and cities tend to, by default, have large traffic densities near the centre, because that is where most attractions and job locations are held, so it is desirable to keep traffic out of some areas in order to prevent the central parts of towns and cities from becoming a large mass of gridlocked traffic.  For example, going for a leisurely shop in a city centre is generally more attractive to pedestrians if large areas of the shopping area are pedestrianised rather than adjacent to busy roads with queues of cars and buses galore.

Non-beneficial use of traffic restrictions

But, quite often, the agenda is more, by stealth, to try to get speed limits on most, or even all, urban roads reduced to 20mph or less.  Indeed, I quite often see major routes cut to 20mph, with speed bumps at regular intervals, often as a knee-jerk reaction to an incident where someone got killed by a boy racer doing 60mph in a stolen car, while the neighbouring residential zones still have 30mph limits.  In that case, saying that it will "improve quality of life for everyone" is nothing more than lies and propaganda.  If there is not a widespread network of 30mph/40mph zones nearby, there is far less of an incentive for motorists to use those roads instead of taking short-cuts through the 20mph home zones, and so while traffic speeds may reduce, traffic levels will probably not.  Too strong a blanket 20mph policy will also result in increased bus journey times outside of the busiest times of the day.

Plus, in residential areas and even on major routes, authorities are often liberal in their use of speed bumps and chicanes to calm traffic, rather than the cobbled streets/shared space type approaches that are commonly used in town and city centres.  These are not effective at improving local quality of life, as they quite often add to traffic congestion and the increased "stop-start" nature to car journeys that results tends to reduce fuel efficiency and thus increase local pollution levels.  They are often an inconvenience to cyclists as well as car drivers.  Their primary intention is not to improve local quality of life, it is to discourage car use and improve safety by restricting everybody to legislate for the minority.

While I see a case for "shared space" design in designated pedestrian/cycle-friendly zones, in which road traffic levels are typically low, I am against its use outside of those zones.  Its main advantages are that it can improve safety and encourage greater priority for cyclists and pedestrians by creating uncertainty over who has right of way, and thus reducing "risk compensation" (people are more careful because the perceived risk is higher) but the downsides are that the uncertainty can make travelling down those streets more stressful for users of all forms of transport, especially for the blind and partially sighted, and that if applied too widely (as it is effectively a way of restricting car use) they bring the usual disadvantages associated with curbing the beneficial aspects of car use as well as the negative aspects.  On relatively busy and/or high-speed routes the social downsides of "shared space" soon begin to heavily offset the benefits.

The image of children playing out in the streets

The reduction in children playing out in the streets is a problem but it is wrong to blame this squarely on traffic speeds.  Many parents are afraid of their children being mugged by child-molesters nowadays, and are afraid that if their children are allowed to slip through their fingers, they will be done for child neglect.  Back in the 1970s, traffic speeds through urban areas were not generally slower than they are today (indeed, traffic speeds have generally reduced in the past decade thanks to tightening traffic restrictions and enforcement of speed limits).  The key was that there were fewer cars around and there was less paranoia over the possibility of children being run over and/or kidnapped and abused by sexual predators.  I suggest in any case that a selective "home zones" policy would help to promote communal semi-pedestrianised residential areas that would encourage more children to play outside and would be more effective than en-masse traffic calming and 20mph zones.

Country lanes

In the UK, there is a safety problem where accident rates on country lanes have not dropped as significantly as they have in urban areas.  There is therefore a strong temptation for a "stealth" reduction of all 60mph zones from 60mph to 50mph, and then from 50mph to 40mph.  It is not uncommon to see 60mph limits cut to 40mph to legislate for idiots who race down them at 90mph in stolen cars and killed people, or to legislate for those who drive at a safe and legal 50-60mph down them but then continue at 50-60mph through nearby villages.  In some cases we have nearby minor country routes that could far more easily justify a 40mph limit, but are still at 60mph.  In a large majority of such cases, I think stronger enforcement of the existing speed limits would have been more effective at saving lives, and would have avoided penalising innocent people, but again we have the problem that punishing innocent people by association with offenders is often perceived as "hard" and failing to do so is often seen as "soft".

Country lanes are the type of roads where people traditionally get the greatest enjoyment out of driving in a safe and legal manner, and are also the lanes that often serve recreational and tourist outlets in rural areas.  I can see a widespread 40mph limit policy heavily eroding the ability for people to enjoy driving on those roads without breaking the law, and with an emphasis on longer journeys that are more of a chore, there is a risk that many motorists would skip those journeys and thus erode the custom that these tourist places need in order to justify continuing as businesses, especially in tough economic times.

I have often heard people say, "Wouldn't we all be happier if people allowed more time for their journeys and weren't always in a rush?"  There is a strong case for that argument in itself, but it is wrong to infer that this scenario will be achieved by lower speed limits.  If anything, where lower speed limits lead to increased journey times, it may well increase the extent to which people, particularly those who lead busy lives, feel pushed for time and thus stressed and in a rush.

Immigration

Introduction

This can be seen as like a follow-up to my article on freedom of speech and expression, since immigration-related issues are a stark example of where speech and expression are frequently abused by bigots, and where as part of clamping down against the bigots, we stifle the ability of responsible people to have a reasoned discussion on the subject.

Problems relating to mixing between natives and immigrants- a UK case study

I have found that in some circles, groups of immigrants in the UK, for whatever reasons, mostly refuse to associate with the British nationals, but it is often taboo to point this out because it is seen as "racist".  This, in turn, actually hinders our efforts to curb racism against said groups because it stops us from having an objective discussion regarding the question, "Why do so many of them keep themselves to themselves?".  Here are just three of many possible reasons for it, none of which have anything to do with skin colour:

• They come from a culture which discourages mixing from people from other cultures.
• Many of them don't speak English very well and so suffer from a language barrier.
• Powerful members of the immigrant group are "bitten" by cases of being screwed over by racist/xenophobic British natives and so tell the rest of the group not to bother mixing with Brits, tarnishing all Brits by association with the racist minority.

In each case, the social norm within the immigrant group becomes, "Don't mix with the British natives", which means that individuals who make an effort to mix with Brits put themselves at risk of being ostracised by their fellow immigrants for being different.  This is a very powerful threat- if you go to a foreign country, you have trouble mixing with the natives, and you are ostracised by the fellow foreigners who come across with you, then you really are on your own.  So, the temptation is just to act "normal" and avoid mixing with the natives.

Unfortunately, some British natives contribute to this problem by, well, being racist.  Sweeping statements like, "This immigrant group doesn't generally mix with the British natives.  Individual X comes from that group.  Therefore, don't associate with X", do a huge disservice to the individuals who make a genuine effort to mix with the British natives, or would like to do so but need help addressing cultural and/or language barriers before they can feel comfortable doing so.  Those of us who try to flag up these issues are then tarnished by association with racists, making it harder for us to give the immigrants the help that they need.

Respect for cultural differences should not take precedence over higher moral considerations

I'm all up for diversity and mixing of different cultures, and preservation of cultural traditions, up to a point, i.e. as long as they can be followed harmlessly and are not imposed on everybody.  For instance, if an immigrant group likes to go to church on a Friday rather than a Sunday, why not?  But if a group has a cultural view that it is OK for husbands to beat up their wives just because their wives were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were unable to defend themselves, then no, I don't think we should "respect" those sort of values.  Saying that cultural rules should always be respected is like saying, "It's normal as far as that culture is concerned, so therefore it's OK".

On the other side of the coin, sometimes we, the country's nationals, can also be guilty of enforcing unreasonable cultural norms (e.g. the unwritten rule that if a man has a close friendship with a child, it probably means he wants to molest the child, in spite of overwhelming evidence on the contrary) or imposing our values on everybody and marginalizing those who deviate (e.g. the traditions saying that you shake with the right hand, and the wife takes her husband's last name, are often enforced in this way).  Thus, it is wrong to blame cultural clashes entirely on immigrants coming in with different cultures- in some cases they might be exposing problems with our cultures- and the problems relating to culture apply regardless of people's ethnic backgrounds.

Issues relating to net immigration/migration

It is very hard to have an objective discussion relating to immigration because a lot of people hold views on the subject that, although they don't like to admit it, are highly racist (e.g. "We don't want those evil foreigners invading our country, we want everybody to be British natives"), and those of us who express reasonable views are frightened of being tarnished by association and marginalized for being "racist".

Immigration, like so many things, is positive in moderation but harmful when it becomes excessive.  The overall economic impacts of net immigration are usually positive, but when population densities become high, there are usually negative social impacts, such as traffic congestion, crowding on public transport, and high demand for local resources which forces everybody to make do with less per head in order to keep the resource use sustainable.  

A significant associated problem, tied in with cultural values and poverty in some developing countries, is that some groups are associated with high birth rates, so even though the net immigration may not be high, population may swell considerably as a result of families having 5-10 children each.  This is, of course, connected to much wider global problems, including world poverty and the issue that population is remaining steady in developed countries while typically rising dramatically in countries that suffer widely from poverty, meaning that most of the world's population now lives in a state of deprivation.  

I see both sides of the issue as I generally don't like areas with a very high population density, and think the UK as a whole is more crowded than I would like, but on the other hand, in recent years, I have had many positive experiences interacting with immigrants from central and eastern parts of Europe.  How do we curb the excesses without significantly impinging on the benefits that we get from immigration, and how much immigration is too much?  Depending on the weights of importance that we apply to various factors, I can see there being literally hundreds of possible "right" answers to this question, so it is an issue that certainly needs to be discussed objectively and seriously.

Unfortunately, because there are so many racists out there, and our standard reaction is to clamp down against everybody to legislate for them, it is often the case that the people who are most able to have a discussion on these topics are the ones with the most racist views.  This is something that, not just in the UK, but in many similar "Western" countries, needs to change if we are to make major inroads against issues like racism, without making everybody frightened to express themselves for fear of being punished by association with racists.

Legislating for idiots

Legislating for idiots- a dangerous modern-day cultural norm

In my opening piece on the fundamentals of freedom and responsibility, I argued that we need rules to strike a balance, to discourage irresponsible behaviour, but to not be so strict that they also discourage some responsible behaviours, resulting in freedoms being under-utilised as per the tragedy of the anticommons.

In the UK a cultural norm has evolved where, when a minority abuse a freedom that many people perceive as non-essential (i.e. not work or family-related) we deem is necessary to legislate for the minority through "collective punishment/punishment by association" policies, curbing the freedoms of everybody.  It has always been an especially common policy in schools, e.g. banning snowball fights because a few idiots might throw snowballs with stones in, and banning physical contact (exempting physical contact with family members because "family is different") because rapists might pretend to be friendly with the ulterior motive of "grooming" victims with the long-term aim of molesting them.

It is favoured because it is perceived as a hard-line way of "doing something" about a safety threat- by punishing innocent people by association with offenders, we show that we are prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of improving safety.  Unfortunately, this is only "hard" against innocent people- it does not necessarily translate to being "hard" against the actual offenders.

The almost imperceptible erosion of freedom AND responsibility

There is quite a famous quote out there, which is attributed to Adolf Hitler in his infamous book Mein Kampf, though due to translation issues, it is unclear whether he ever actually said it.  Regardless, there is a lot of truth in it.

The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.

We are in danger of following that route, because a typical process goes:  

A minority abuse freedom A, so we restrict or ban A.  Then, the minority go underground, so we impose more restrictions in relation to A, to try and tackle the underground outlaw cultures that result, and drive their abuse even further underground, and the process repeats.  Then, we find that some of the minority have started abusing B so we ban B, and then they abuse C so we ban C, and so on.

By this process we can end up phasing in unpopular measures that nobody actually wanted, via a series of tiny, almost imperceptible, reductions to responsible people's freedoms.

Another problem with this process is that it erodes the need for people to learn how to be responsible.  If we get used to authorities wrapping us up in cotton wool as part of legislating for individuals' stupidity, and we know that if we take calculated risks in a responsible manner we are likely to be punished by association with those who irresponsibly take unreasonably high risks, why bother being responsible?  We end up moving towards a society where most of us either join forces with the offenders in taking irresponsible risks, or don't bother taking risks at all, and we have too little of that healthy middle ground where society progresses forward through people being prepared to take calculated risks, where it is a case of relatively low risk for relatively high reward.

Objective considerations- the (rare) occasions when it is desirable to legislate for the minority

But there are certain circumstances where it is desirable to legislate for the minority, where it is a case of high risk for low reward, e.g. we don't allow the public to own grenades and the primary reason is that if a minority abuse them, the consequences will most likely be catastrophic, while the beneficial uses of grenades outside of war zones are small.

To accept such policies as a necessary evil in a particular situation, I would need to see evidence that:

(a) they will be significantly more effective at improving safety than a regulation-based policy (i.e. allowing responsible use, but prohibiting misuse and clamping down against misuse),

(b) this will be likely to offset the downside of punishing innocent people by association with offenders and the prohibition of responsible calculated risk-taking,

(c) the reasons for employing the measure are case-specific and are thus unlikely to be extended to argue for a series of prohibitions on related things.

Unfortunately, as a society we tend not to be very objective- we tend to dismiss regulation-based policies because they are not flawless (e.g. you can't always tell if people are breaking the regulations) and because they "compromise on safety" by trying to protect innocent people from being unfairly punished (even if they are actually far more effective at improving safety than blanket prohibition).  The injustice of punishing innocent people is routinely dismissed on the basis that "the minority have to spoil it for everybody else" because "that's life".

I can understand why we get knee-jerk reactions when our safety, or our loved ones' safety, is put under threat.  There is an automatic desire to "do something" which shows a hard-line approach, to bring the perpetrators of the threat to justice, and if it means punishing thousands of innocent people in the process, so be it.  When people suffer traumatic experiences, often they cannot reasonably be expected to think objectively.  But that doesn't mean that we should carry out policies that reflect these knee-jerk reactions.  By all means let people react that way, but let's ensure that our policies are based on logical thought and weighing up the pros and cons of different options.

When we pander to the "hang 'em and flog 'em" knee-jerk responses, we quite often carry out measures in response to an incident which do little or nothing to reduce the chances of such an incident recurring in the future, but are effective at punishing innocent people by association with offenders.  For example, I am yet to see compelling evidence that banning physical contact between non-family members is particularly effective at protecting children against being molested, or that it is any more effective than increasing the enforcement of previously-existing regulations against touching of a sexual nature.  But it is effective at punishing innocent people by association with offenders, and that's why we accept such measures as a necessary evil (yes, it's because they are effective at punishing innocent people).  This really needs to change.