Mum’s the Word

We live in increasingly intolerant times. Signs proliferate demanding no smoking, no spitting, no parking, even no walking. "No blacks" signs have
thankfully disappeared-but elsewhere the imperative of denial seems to be ubiquitous. Smoking, once prohibited only in a few train carriages or sections
of aircraft, is now banned totally in many offices, on most public transport and even in many bars. Posh clubs and restaurants have long had "no jeans"
rules, but these days you can be too smart. Environmentalists have long demanded all sorts of bans on cars. Mobile telephones are the latest target:
some trains, airline lounges, restaurants and even golf courses are being designated "no phone" areas.

If intolerance really has to be the spirit of this age, this writer would like to suggest restrictions on another source of noise pollution: children. Lest you
dismiss this as mere prejudice, he can even produce a good economic argument for it. Smoking, driving and mobile phones all cause what economists
call "negative externalities". That is, the costs of these activities to other people tend to exceed the costs to the individuals of their proclivities. The
invisible hand of the market fumbles, leading resources astray. Thus, because a driver's private motoring costs do not reflect the costs he imposes on
others in the form of pollution and congestion, he uses the car more than is socially desirable. Likewise, it is argued, smokers take too little care to ensure
that their acrid fumes do not damage other people around them.

Governments typically respond to such market failures in two ways. One is higher taxes, to make polluters pay the full cost of their anti-social behaviour.
The other is regulation, such as emission standards or bans on smoking in public places. Both approaches might work for children.

For children, just like cigarettes or mobile phones, clearly impose a negative externality on people who are near them. Anybody who has suffered a
12-hour flight with a bawling baby in the row immediately ahead or a bored youngster viciously kicking their seat from behind, will grasp this as quickly
as they would love to grasp the youngster?s neck. Here is a clear case of market failure: parents do not bear the full costs (indeed young babies travel
free), so they are too ready to take their noisy brats with them. Where is the invisible hand when it is needed to administer a good smack?

Child-free zones


The solution is obvious. All airlines, trains and restaurants should create child-free zones. Put all those children at the back of the plane and parents
might make more effort to minimise their noise pollution. And instead of letting children pay less and babies go free, they should be charged (or taxed)
more than adults, with the revenues used to subsidise seats immediately in front of the war-zone.

Passengers could then request a no-children seat, just as they now ask for a no-smoking one. As more women choose not to have children and the
number of older people without young children increases, the demand for child-free travel will expand. Well, yes, it is a bit intolerant-but why shouldn?t
parents be treated as badly as smokers? And at least there is an obvious airline to pioneer the scheme: Virgin.