EU Debate

TimesSundayTimesDebate

FarageHannan-etal

Daniel Hannan speaks first; he says it all. He is an unparalleled orator. I mean that absolutely literally – who else in the English speaking world understands and uses rhetoric as well? When we joined the Common Market, which has (without a shred of democratic agreement) morphed into the EEC then into the EC and then into the EU, we were in a bad way, three-day week, double digit inflation, strikes, prices-and-income policies. ‘Europe’ seemed to be doing better. But, as Hannan notes, we could not have done so at a worse time. We cut our links to the Commonwealth, with which we have so much in common. The Commonwealth has grown and prospered. He cites Norway and Switzerland, both members of the European Free Trade Association (enjoying the benefits of free trade with the EU) but free from the political and bureaucratic ties of EU membership. They have all the benefits and none of the drawbacks.

Katinka Barysch (very pretty girl) starts by telling us that being in the EU gives us access to a market of half a billion people. She neglects to mention that being in the EU specifically forbids us from making a bilateral agreement with China (over one billion people and growing) or with India (over one billion people and growing), not to mention multiple other nation states.

Nigel Farage gives a welcome history lesson on how the issue has been presented to the British electorate.

Leon Brittan asks why our ‘partners’ would agree to continue to trade freely with us if we left the EU. The question answers itself. They want to continue to sell French wine and German cars to us. He admits that Harold Macmillan had conceded that the Common Market was about much more than trade. When Nigel reminded the audience that argument had been presented as being only about trade, Brittan said, ‘Not true’. Edward Heath lied and Leon Brittan is lying.

The final vote gave me hope. The swing was massively towards the motion, with the gain coming largely from the ‘don’t knows’.

The first link above is to a debate which features Nick Clegg.

As to the second debate featured here, I venture to say that the historical and factual positions put forward by Hannan and Farage were not answered by their opponents and, I think, cannot be.

What I want to claim for myself is what everyone wants to claim: that my opinions are based upon facts and logic. Rhetoric depends upon the orator’s use of both. For the Greeks, Rhetoric, was one of subjects of a proper education. Would that we gave the same respect that they did. I think that academicians in ancient Athens would have dismissed Katinka’s arguments as emotional wishful thinking and Leon Brittan’s as dyspeptic and counterfactual.

Copenhagen/Paris

In 2009 my heart was gladdened by the complete failure of the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. Nothing of any substance was agreed. However, a great deal of money was wasted.

About a week ago its successor was alleged to have come up with a meaningful agreement. It did not. The final communique had two parts. The first part declared that the nations of the world were resolved that the global mean temperature would not be allowed to rise by more than 2^oC (preferably 1.5^oC) by the end of the century. Well done, you statesmen of the world! You have outdone King Canute! He forbade the tide to wet his feet. You have told the entire climate of the world how it must henceforth behave. Bravo! We will all sleep more easily.

The second part was vaporising about carbon dioxide emissions; but no one was prepared to commit to binding targets.

Odd, really, when you think that the whole substance of the Climate Change hysteria is that the climate is warming dangerously and that the cause is manmade emission of carbon dioxide. Perhaps it would have been a bit more convincing to say something like the following: If we keep emissions below a certain arbitrary level (and we will), the threat of warming will go away Hurrah! It wouldn’t have convinced me; but it would have been less transparently absurd.

China and India are among the greatest emitters of CO₂. They are not going to stop any time soon. Or rather, they are not going to stop vastly increasing their emissions any time soon. Good luck to them! Energy is the sine qua non of economic development and rising living standards. Fossil fuels (so called[1]) provide something like 98% of the world’s energy. To achieve development, we are going to have to use a lot more of it – and we will.

The most under reported (and most cheerful) fact of our time is that since 1970 the number of people living in abject poverty (ie the number of people who do not know where they will get their next meal and who expect to see their children die of malnutrition or disease) has fallen by 80% - EIGHTY PERCENT. Globalisation and freer markets account for this; but abundant and affordable energy are also necessary for industrialisation. Industrialisation has made us in the west spectacularly rich. To deny abundant and affordable energy (and therefore industrialisation) to poor countries is wicked.

Incidentally, the use of agricultural land to produce biofuels (to replace ‘fossil fuels) is also wicked because it raises the price of food. Slightly higher food prices for western nations may be acceptable but higher food prices hurt the poorest in the world disproportionately. And there are still too many poor people in the word. And too many of the world’s population are still poor. I corrected myself because I do not subscribe to the idea that we should get rid of people. Some ‘environmentalists’ have opined that malaria has an upside – it reduces populations. Banning of DDT has killed millions of children.

I rejoice that Paris has been almost as great a failure as Copenhagen, while deploring the vast sums spent on the summit and deploring the smugness of the delegates who congratulate themselves on having ‘saved the plant’.

---

[1] The term ‘fossil fuels’ come from the idea that coal and crude oil and methane are the products of decaying biological material. Astronomers have detected hydrocarbons in comets. Coal, crude oil and methane are hydrocarbons. This fact undermines the idea that all hydrocarbons are fossil fuels.

Fantasy

Innumerable commentators attempt to give credence to the idea that Islam is ‘peaceful’ and perhaps on the verge of reformation, that thereafter ‘moderate’ Muslims will join forces with ‘moderates’ in other religions and secular ‘moderates’ to create a world of universal mutual tolerance.

Regrettably, these commentators belong to the ‘wouldn’t it be nice if’ school of ‘thought’.

Maybe it would be nice if the Islamic world abandoned the idea of converting the rest of the world to ‘God’s religion’, by force if necessary; but there are at least two good reasons for rejecting this hope as fantasy.

Firstly, fundamentalist (some say radical) Islam is growing, both in numbers and in ferocity. In other words, much as we would like to see a growing majority of ‘moderates’, we observe exactly the opposite. Once upon a time there were was the Muslim Brotherhood, a very intolerant political movement within Islam. Hardly anybody in the west had heard of them. In the last half century we have seen the increasing influence of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia – very fundamentalist and very rich. Wahabists have funded mullahs with extreme views all over the world. More recently we have experienced the fun and games of Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab and ISIS. Everybody has heard of them. They are all closely allied to the Muslim Brotherhood, whose founders would be mightily impressed and encouraged by their emergence.

Allegedly, Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. There seems to be no doubt that the most violent and intolerant groups within it are proliferating alarmingly and disproportionally. Complacency is less and less justified. Pious hope of the kind of reform we would like to see is not encouraged by the evidence.

Secondly, despite the supposed importance of the five pillars of Islam: Shahada (profession of faith), Salah (prayer), Sakhat (alms giving), Haj (pilgrimage) and Ramadan (fasting), the real foundations of Islam are the prophet Mohammed, the revelations he claimed to have received (the Koran) and the accounts of his doings and those of his companions (the Hadith).

The five pillars, apart from the first, are not a problem for most non-Muslims. Mohammed is a very big problem. By my standards, by the standards of the Catholic Church, by the standards of most secular westerners, Mohammed was a very bad man, a warlord, a paedophile, a murderer. And yet, he is exalted by Muslims as being the ‘excellent example’.

The Koran is another very big problem. Muslims regard the Koran as a miracle, perfect in every respect. By pretty well every objective standard the Koran is risible. It is without organisation, self-contradictory and full of nonsense, including nonsense about the physical world. It is derivative, ahistorical and absurd. Some Christians have been converted to their faith simply by reading the Bible (not my position). It is difficult to imagine a non-Muslim being startled into Islam simply by reading the Koran.

The Hadith texts are Muslim accounts of Mohammed’s behaviour. Some portray him in what we might regard as a favourable light. Many do not.

The point is this: All the vicious, violent Muslim groups causing mayhem around the world can, quite correctly, point to texts in the Koran and the Hadith which justify their activities – and they do! They cite the example of Mohammed. When someone like Robert Spencer quotes them, he is accused of hate speech.

The melancholy truth is that Islam, unlike any other faith, defines itself by hatred and contempt for other religions. An extraordinary proportion of the Koran is devoted to Allah’s hatred of non-Muslims. Moreover, and this is my opinion, the theology of Islam is surprisingly thin. Granted, Islam is fiercely monotheistic. Christianity and Judaism are also monotheistic. Christianity, I cannot speak for Judaism, is remarkably rich and textured. God’s nature is taught to be Love. Our central prayer commands us to address the Deity as Father. Central to Christianity is the doctrine of Free Will. Muslims cannot speak of the future without saying ‘inshallah’ (God willing).

Much as I would like to share the hope that Islam will be reformed and that we shall be able to leave in peace and tolerance with Muslims, some of whom are, indeed, people of good will and tolerance, I regret that, for the above reasons, the hope appears forlorn.

The Koran is divided into the Medinan suras, which contain much which is irenic, and the Meccan suras, which are alarmingly bloodthirsty. Sadly for those who urge that Islam is ‘a religion of peace’, the Meccan suras are later revelations than the Medinan and therefore, according to Muslim authorities, may abrogate them. The Koran is a miracle of perfection; but the later passages are more perfect than the earlier ones!

Production vs Everything Else

I am not an economist – no apologies. Quantum Mechanics takes us well out of the range of common sense. In QM the equations work but nobody understands Quantum Mechanics – nobody! When it comes to Economics, we have to understand the theory because we have to make economic policy. Shall I take out this mortgage? The repayment is £1000 per month and my income is £1000 per month. Logic informs me that this is not going to work. What am I going to eat?

Every human on the planet understands that unless I increase my income, I cannot commit myself to a £1000 per month mortgage.

Regrettably, when we move into public policy (as opposed to personal policy) common sense flies out of the window. The most famous economist of the 20^th century (JMK) has taught politicians (no-one else would have been stupid enough to listen) that deficit spending is OK – as a long term policy. All of us understand that an emergency loan may be necessary. All of us know that debt as a way of life leads to disaster. We are all more intelligent than Keynes and governments.

All of us know that the answer is to increase production. Get a better job, improve your skills or work longer hours. Billions of people do this every day.

All human beings are smarter than Keynes. It is true; but most of us live in societies governed by Keynesians.

Digression
The First World War (an incomparable disaster and folly) was foisted upon the people of Europe by idiotic politicians. Millions died. The consequences included WWII and the Soviet Union. For all our vaunted democracies, we were taken into a catastrophe none of us wanted.

The biggest division between right and left is: shall we increase production or shall we concern ourselves with equitable distribution? The good news is that since 1970 production has increased dramatically. A huge number of people (more than ever in history) have been raised out of desperate poverty. Some governments (China, India and many countries in Asia) have reduced regulation and have enabled their peoples to exploit their talents, thereby vastly increasing production, in the process enriching themselves and providing work for their countrymen. The leftist preoccupation with distribution has been shown to be absurd. We know how to defeat poverty – by increasing wealth. To defeat disease, increase health. What would the left recommend, redistribute health?

Economics is not normative. It doesn’t tell you what you should do. It only tells you what will happen if you act in a certain way. The central question is: and then what will happen? My favourite economists, the Austrian School, believe that the answers to this question do not depend upon collecting vast amounts of data and distilling from the data a set of laws. The Austrians do economics the way mathematicians do geometry. Mathematicians do not measure the angles of an equilateral triangle and then announce that each of them is equal to 60^o. They may demonstrate the validity of their conclusions by inviting you to confirm them by measurement. You can waste the next thousand years trying to disprove them; but it isn’t going to happen. Geometrical truths are axiomatic. For Austrians, economic truths are likewise axiomatic. Therefore, all other things being equal, if supply increases, prices will fall – axiomatic!

Production is the key. A poor farmer knows this: if he produces more, his children will be better fed. He may increase production by working harder, by using fertilisers or by investing in a donkey – or better still, a tractor.

Mrs Thatcher was our greatest Prime Minister of the twentieth century. She brought to politics the common sense of a housewife, of a grocer's daughter.

Fairness – Social Justice

Here are two terms which encapsulate political divisions. The left bangs on about fairness without defining it. Obama and Corbyn and the other intellectual pigmies have a manufactured conception of ‘fairness’. What it boils down to in political terms is that if John has more and Jim has less, that is unfair and the situation needs to be redressed. This does not arise from any underlying principle. It is simply conjured out of fresh air. It bears no relation to our intuitions about the real world.

The Real World

John and Jim play tennis. When they compete against each other, John always (or usually) prevails. There may be many reasons for this. We may note that John is taller (which augments his serve). We may note that John’s mother was a formidable player in her youth and introduced the boy to the game when he was very young and did her best to pass on skills. Perhaps his dad had some success in another field but passed on a singular, but general, determination to succeed. With these advantages John has a better than average chance of becoming a club, a county, a national or even an international champion. John happens to be a Czech or a Swede. What do our intuitions tell us about the morality of John’s acquisition of silverware? Not a lot.

There was a case a few years ago of a successful female skater being physically assaulted by a rival and prevented from competing. We were all outraged. It was a moral issue. Our intuition told us so. It is unfair to resort to violence, unless, of course, the arena of competition is violence (as in boxing). Even boxers, though, don’t get to sneak up upon their rivals with a cosh.

We are talking fairness. It’s unfair for Jim to cosh John or for Jill to break Jane’s leg in pursuit of sporting success.

If John has superior skills, a better coach or trains more energetically it is not unfair that he should beat Jim. I would rather be John.

Karl’s dad ran a successful small business. Karl grew up to believe that, with hard work and initiative, he could emulate or surpass his father. His Aunty Gladys died and left Karl a few quid. He used the funds and became a billionaire.

Kevin’s father was a drunk. Young Kevin had no useful role model. He lived in slum, went to a crappy school and failed his exams. Yes, I would rather be Karl. Indeed, I would wish there to more Karls than Kevins.

John had advantages and made the most of them; so did Karl. The essence of fairness is that it is OK to make the most of what you have, provided that you do not sabotage others in making the most of what they have.

This happens all the time. Suppose that Karl’s business was a taxi firm. Suppose that Karl’s uncle was the mayor and Karl persuaded him that anyone wanting to start a new taxi firm should be obliged to get a government license, costing £100,000. Kevin is stuffed. This would be the essence of unfairness, the equivalent of breaking Kevin’s legs.

Social Justice

I hate this phrase. Justice is justice. We have looked at various instances of it. The concept of a level playing field is a commonplace. And we understand it. It is part of our intuition. To qualify ‘justice’ is obscene.

A popular use of qualified justice is ‘climate justice’. To somewhat simplify the situation, there are those who maintain that developed countries use more than their share of the earth’s resources. If you could, indeed, show that this was so (a big ‘if’), you might have a case for saying that underdeveloped countries could use natural resources (as we have done) but that we should use correspondingly less. Have you ever heard this recommended?

Be magnanimous! Rejoice in success. If you are successful, share you good fortune.

The Duellists

I may have mentioned this in a previous post, at least in passing.

Is there a greatest poem, a greatest novel, a greatest painting? There will never be consensus; but there will always be contenders.

I think that Ridley Scott’s The Duellists is a contender for the greatest movie. I can think of others.

The film is based on a story by Joseph Conrad, a Polish contender for the title of greatest novelist writing in the English language.  Apocalypse Now is also based upon a work by Conrad.

I have just watched The Duellists for, possibly, the tenth time. It didn’t disappoint. It is stunningly beautiful. The French countryside is beautiful. Keith Carradine is beautiful. Diana Quick is beautiful.

The acting is impeccable. Harvey Keitel is better than impeccable. When I first encountered him, in this movie, in the 1980s, I was sure that he was a contender for ‘best actor of his generation’. Aside from Keitel, there are masterpieces from James Fox, Albert Finney, Tom Conti and half a dozen others. Nobody puts a foot wrong. Scott must have thought he had died and gone to heaven, to have a cast like this.

I once showed this film to someone I hoped would like it. She didn’t. She thought that the ‘honour code’, which obliged DuBarre to submit to Ferraud’s notion of honour, was stupid. Duh? That is what the film is about.

I hope you will watch it, if you haven’t already. Perhaps you will contend for another movie. Pulp Fiction (for me another contender) happens to feature Harvey Keitel.

Inequality

Obama has described this as the defining issue of our age. I thought the chattering classes believed it was anthropogenic global warming.

Suppose you were to inform me about some major problem in the world, say Malaria. You give me statistics about incidence of the disease, about mortality rates, about the nastiness of Malaria and I shrug and smirk, “I don’t care”. You would have reason to think that you were dealing with a pretty unpleasant person. You would be right. Likewise, if you were telling me about suicide bombings or beheadings or about people whose diet was life-threateningly bad. Your contempt for me would be entirely justified.

This isn’t going to happen – because I do care about these things.

OK, start again. Suppose you had written a best-selling book about the iniquity of inequality or even won a Nobel Prize for researching the pernicious effects of income inequality. I shrug and smirk and say, “I don’t care.” You tell me that some bosses earn more than 100 times as much as people they employ. “Don’t care.”

If you tell me that A does not earn enough to keep body and soul together, I will want to know if he is to blame, if he is too indolent to look after himself. If not, I will care. I will want a state safety net or private charity to provide for him or to help him get on his feet.

Another example: walking down Deansgate, I encounter a stunningly beautiful young woman. A few yards later I encounter another young woman; she is decidedly plain. Do I start hyperventilating about the injustice? Do I throw battery acid in the face of the beauty? Of course not. I wouldn’t do anything. I might approve of the plain girl losing some weight or being given some tips about skincare.

In other words, provided B has not robbed C, it is never right to disadvantage B simply to reduce the inequality between him and C.

Joseph Stiglitz has written a book about inequality and has won a Nobel Prize for his ‘thinking’. Wilkinson and Pickett have written a really nasty book, The Spirit Level purporting to show that more ‘equal’ societies are ‘better’ in every way than less ‘equal’ societies. And there is Thomas Picketty who also obsesses on this theme.

X and Y are unequal in some way. X is better, luckier, prettier, richer, brighter, happier, more talented than Y. It is almost always more difficult to bring Y up to X’s level than to bring X down: battery acid, a bang on the head, progressive taxation, which is always what the ‘equalists’ choose.

I am ugly and you are handsome. I am poor and you are rich. Let’s tax and mutilate you. Voila!

Leftists bang on incessantly about fairness. They have a definition of fairness which I do not understand.

In most democracies we have ‘progressive’ income tax. For me all taxes are iffy. But a tax which takes proportionately more from one group than from another is, by definition, unfair. 10% from everyone might be justified (it has scriptural support); but 10% from poor people and 40% from rich people is self-evidently wicked. Even more wicked was the ancient regime whereby the poor paid all the tax.

Income tax is bad enough but many leftists want ‘wealth’ taxes, which simply siphon money from those who have.

These nasty equalists base their political economy upon flouting the commandment against covetousness. If I have sufficient (and let’s face it, most English people have more than a sufficiency) why should it matter that my neighbour has more, even much more?