Environment Debate

This is what is taking place on The Daily Politics at this very moment. Although I have strong opinions on the subject, I have switched it off – it is too depressing. From the way the leftists (Labour, Lib/Dems and the Greens) talk, we are complete idiots on the subject – and I fear they may be right. Even the UKIP spokesman paid lip service to renewables.

What’s not to love about fracking? It is cheap energy with relatively low carbon emissions. It provides affordable heating for the old and infirm. By reducing industrial costs it encourages employment. It reduces our dependence upon nasty and unstable regimes. Fracking rocks. The bed-wetters (as Monckton calls them) would have us panic over seismic effects. The ‘tremors’ caused by fracking have variously been compared to what you would notice if you dropped a bag of sugar, or if a bus passed your front door. There are scare stories about ‘inflammable’ water. This phenomenon occasionally happens naturally. I have seen it with my own eyes. If it can be demonstrated that water supplies are contaminated by the fracturing process, then the perpetrators must be made either to desist or to pay compensation. We need no new legislation for this to happen.

Credible stories about deleterious effects on health are very rare. The solution is in place: stop or pay up.

The number of people killed in the process is still nil, making fracking far safer than pretty well any other source of energy.

Wind farms are staggeringly inefficient – which is why they only ever get constructed with massive subsidies. Many people find them ugly. Actually I rather like them (or would if they were not economically absurd). They slice birds and bats into pieces. For me, this would be a price worth paying, if the damned things actually produced affordable energy.

Is there ever a case for subsidising industries? I suppose there might be; but the presumption should be against it.

Burt Folsom is very good on the subject: The Myth of the Robber Barons

We are stupid. The logic (and the history) of government interference are plain. It is bad news. This whole campaign is about what the government can and should do about education, health, welfare, industry and practically everything that affects the individual. The news about healthcare and education standards is never good. You know me to be a fan of Tesco. Actually, there aren’t any supermarkets I don’t like. Any which failed to please me would forfeit my patronage. People don’t complain about supermarkets. Would that Tesco or Waitrose were in the healthcare and/or education business.

The most hateful bleat of all is: People before Profits. This is an incandescently stupid thought. When is a profit incurred? When people make an exchange. They only ever do when both parties perceive themselves to be better off. I get my fish fingers, Tesco gets a pound. What’s not to rejoice about? Tesco (and they have been going through a rough patch of late) have to stay on their toes to make their profits. When a supermarket fails, the executives and management have occasion to tremble. When a school or hospital fails, money is injected. Bureaucrats are routinely rewarded for failure. Those who squeal about fairness should ponder this dismal indictment of our system. Many bureaucrats in the NHS are paid huge salaries. If Mr Leahy gets millions, it is because he is worth it. Tesco shareholders cheerfully pay his salary. Are taxpayers cheerful about inflated bureaucratic salaries? Are they fish?

Will the tide turn? I think it probably will, in a generation or two. But it will take a revolution in moral and economic thought. The BBC never challenges the candidates on basic principles: Why do you think that government should have anything to do with energy policy, with education, with healthcare?

The Duellists

There was a time when I thought that if you’d seen a film, you’d seen it. Pretty dumb, huh? Who would say that about a book? Film 4 showed The Duellists tonight. I have it on DVD. I’ve seen it a dozen times, the first time in Saudi in about 1980. It is one of my favourite movies.

It is, I think, based upon a story by Joseph Conrad. It concerns two officers in Napoleon’s army: Armand du Barre (Keith Carradine) and Gabriel Feraud (Harvey Keitel). The latter chooses to be offended when the former obeys an order to convey a message to him. The upshot is a series of duels between the two. Keitel brilliantly portrays a psychopath, obsessed with ‘honour’. Carradine’s character is compelled to submit to the other’s notions.

It is a very beautiful film with a haunting soundtrack. The cast includes: Diana Quick, Tom Conti, Albert Finney and Edward Fox. No member of the cast puts a foot wrong.

The first time I saw it, I concluded that Keitel was as great an actor as his generation had produced. Time has not changed my mind. His subsequent performances in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs have confirmed my opinion.

A few years ago I persuaded my sister to watch it with me. She didn’t like it. She thought that the ‘honour’ theme was stupid. The stupidity of the ‘honour’ system was the theme of the movie.

Watch it. Is a great movie.

What we are getting wrong about Islam?

Which of these is a religion?

Buddhism? It seems that Buddhism is not theistic. Buddhists do not believe in a personal God. They have much to say about ethics. Compassion is important to Buddhists. So, although Christianity has some important things in common with Buddhism, they are very different world views. My answer would have to be: Not really.

Taoism? Similarly.

Judaism? A resounding, ‘Yes’. We Christians regard the Jews as our elder brothers in faith. We reject nothing of Judaism. Some writers (and I agree) hold that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism. For this reason (if for no other), Christian anti-Semitism is, and always has been, a scandal and a disgrace.

Shintoism? Are there any devout Shintoists? Is it possible to distinguish it from Japanese militarism? The Emperor is a ‘god’. I don’t think that Shinto/Christian ‘inter-faith dialogue’ is going to be a long conversation.

I don’t want to list all the possible candidates for religion status – but one is very vocal: Islam. It demands to be heard. It forces itself upon our attention. Every day, almost every hour, we get news of people whose adherence to Islam is very clear doing things which compel our attention. The list is long of Islamic (some would say Islamicist) groups grabbing the headlines. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabat, Anjem Choudray, the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, the Islamic Republic of Iran…

It is simultaneously true that ‘Muslim Girl Qualifies as Pharmacist’ does not make the six o’clock news – nor does ‘Abdul and Aisha Celebrate Fifty Years of Marriage’.

Is it their piety or their compassion which makes us pay attention? It is not. Day by day, hour by hour, they dominate the airwaves with political/military initiatives: kidnapping Nigerian schoolgirls, beheading Coptic Christians, demanding anti-blasphemy laws in all countries, murdering Muslims of a different stripe and so on and on. Is it a good strategy for encouraging inter-faith dialogue? I don’t think so. Really and truly, I don’t think they are interested in putting themselves forward as a competing religion. Islam, in their view (and mine) is a political/social system with an admixture of theism. They are utopians. Islam (in the form of Shari’ah) is a perfect plan for human wellbeing – and God approves of it.

This being so, they are less like Taoists and Mormons and much more like Communists and Nazis. I am not here using the terms ‘Communist’ and ‘Nazi’ as shorthand for evil ideologies – though we can discuss these ideologies from a moral perspective. Communists believe that the perfect society can only exist when their ideology prevails. Muslims believe this too.

Islam does not have a well-developed doctrine of Original Sin. Interestingly, neither do Communism or Nazism. Without it, you are stuffed. Your political philosophy is going to lead you to commit endless atrocities with a view to bringing about ‘heaven on earth’. Some Christians (with deficient theology) have been guilty of the same.

Hitler’s vision of society, Marxism/Leninism and Islam have occasioned the slaughter of millions over the centuries.

We fought Hitler and resisted Marxism/Leninism until it collapsed. Did we have the wit to perceive that it was their utopianism which led to the atrocities? Probably not, which is why we do not perceive the self-same danger from an ideology which we fail to categorise properly.

Buddhists, God bless them, may not qualify (by my rigorous standards) to have a ‘religion’. They do not, however, preach a political blueprint for heaven on earth. Salvation, in the Buddhist view (Nirvana), is attained by personal development. We have little to fear from them. There is everything to fear from political blueprints in The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf or in the Koran.

The Brilliant Jay Richards

I keep returning to this guy. He is very clever – and very winsome. I think this is one of his best presentations. In it he presents a strategy for defending theism.

In short, he takes the position that there are some things that we all know and accept, either intuitively or from scientific discovery. He then asks the question: Do these truths make better sense from a theistic or an atheistic perspective? It is not a logical proof of theism. Proof is only to be found in Mathematics. For me, the strategy is very persuasive. How about you?

Jay Richards

Dambisa Moyo

I said in a recent post that there is an argument that foreign aid is actually harmful to third world countries.

The argument is made clearly and forcefully by Dambisa Moyo in her book Dead Aid. You should listen to her. She is from Zambia, has a doctorate from Oxford and is frighteningly articulate. 

Incidentally, the Hoover Institution, which made the video, is a favourite resource of mine. Peter Robinson, who conducts the interviews, is intelligent and urbane. He always educates himself on the subject of the interview – characteristically a book by his interlocutor. Other interviews have been with Thomas Sowell (a major hero of mine), Jonah Goldberg (ditto) and a host of others.

Enjoy!

Dambisa Moyo

What Can We Expect from This Election?

I confess that I am terrified. Not for myself personally – I have a modest income from the state (my pension). This is not as lavish as it would have been had I invested my National Insurance ‘contributions’ in the stock market since the day I got my NI number. I have a small ‘private’ pension and I am lucky enough to own three houses which are competently managed by agents. The rents I receive exceed the mortgages on these properties. I am very lucky. When I die, I will leave a modest inheritance to my sons and their children. It is for the United Kingdom that I worry – the United Kingdom that the major parties fought so hard to save from break-up when the Scots were given the opportunity to vote on independence.

At the time, I hoped that the Scots would vote themselves independence. I love the country and the people; but the Scottish electorate is considerably more left wing than the English. I wanted a ‘Yes’ vote because it seemed to me that we would then have permanent right of centre governments in England. There is, I think, one Tory MP representing a Scottish constituency and about 40 Labour MPs. Most of these are likely to lose their seats in May – to SNP candidates. The SNP is well to the left of Labour. So, the likelihood is that although the Tories may win more seats in Parliament than Labour, Labour will, with SNP support, form the next government. More English money will siphoned off to Scotland. The Scots, who have a great deal of autonomy in Scotland, will continue to have a vote on major issues that affect only England, Wales and Northern Ireland, whereas English MPs will have no say on Scottish Education or Scottish Healthcare. This is, and will continue to be, unjust and bad for England.

The Cameron government, shackled to the left leaning Lib/Dems for the last five years, has made modest inroads into the state’s annual deficit – though, so far, not into our total indebtedness. We are still borrowing – the hole is growing deeper.

Deep gloom is the appropriate state of mind.

I used to be a Tory, though not an enthusiastic one after the passing of Mrs T. But a Tory majority would be much less bad than a Labour/SNP one.

Janet Daley wrote an interesting and perceptive piece in the Telegraph a year or so ago. She said that at more or less the same time that the Socialist experiment collapsed in most countries and free market arguments won the day, the western world moved towards a lukewarm form of Socialism, paid for by a cowed private sector. Europe is visibly failing economically. Its GDP is shrinking. The Eurozone has been a catastrophe for Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. And this at a time when much of the world, notably in Asia, is booming.

Here is my favourite statistic of all time: SINCE 1970 THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD LIVING IN ABJECT POVERTY HAS SHRUNK BY EIGHTY PERCENT.

That has come about not as a result of foreign aid (which arguably hurts poor countries) but by increasingly free markets. Vietnam, now governed by Socialists (allegedly) is now prospering.

We invented Capitalism and then castrated it. Asia adopted it and thrives. The lesson is very clear – let them who have eyes to see, see. We are deaf and blind.

Eventually, I am sure, there will be an awakening. I hope it is not too late. If we wait too long, Europe may be so far islamicised that Shari’ah economics will prevail – not a happy prospect.

On that cheerful note…

Political Principles (continued)

This is the political season. I hate it although I am a political junkie. It puts me in mind of the later Roman Empire: Bread and Circuses. Vote for me and I will make people like you better off – and I will amuse you with gladiatorial contests.

Democracy is very problematical. To work properly it requires a thinking, moral electorate. Is this what we are? Not if the politicians’ analysis is correct. Give them bread; give them circuses and the stupid bastards will give us power.

Perhaps I am hopelessly ‘idealistic’. I want politicians to appeal to my political principles. My political principles are not necessarily exactly congruent with my material wants.

These are some indicators of my principles:

Government should be responsible for as little as possible: protection from foreign and domestic aggressors. That’s pretty well it.

Education? We were better educated when the state had no involvement.

Health? The improvement in our health has very little to do with state involvement and much to do with technology. We drive better, safer cars. The state had nothing to do with them.

Equality? What does it mean? Everybody should be the same height, have the same IQ, and enjoy the same income?

No politician ever asks me to match my principles to his/hers. Perhaps I am being too sweeping; maybe there are some who would. But, in what passes for political debate in the media, we get punch-ups between the parties over who would manage the NHS ‘best’ – whatever that might mean. Perhaps there are some with aspirations to political office who would campaign on a promise to privatise the NHS; but they do not get their heads above the parapet.

Nobody (almost nobody) would want to see the government making cars again – once the state divested itself of British Leyland, it took less than a generation for idea to become unthinkable.

The Labour party is bleating this week about ‘non-doms’, rich foreigners who live in Britain but do not pay British taxes on the incomes they earn from abroad. The Labour party wants to ‘reform’ the situation. They are blatant about the fact they do not care whether their reform actually raises more money for the Exchequer. All that matters is that the rich should get less. There are two reasons for attacking this egregiously stupid, evil policy.

The first is that it hurts the economy and makes growth less likely. What do rich people do with their money? The same as we all do. They spend it on themselves. This helps other businesses to thrive and provide employment. What they do not spend they save or invest. This provides the capital for entrepreneurs to start or to grow enterprises which provide employment. What is not to like?

The second reason is that so-called progressive taxation, by which the better off pay not only more but a higher proportion than the less well off, is simply theft.

One of the buzz words of this election season is ‘austerity’. In a sane world, each time this absurd word is used, it ought to mean that the Labour party loses a million votes. Why is austerity even mentioned? We are in dire financial straits occasioned by the Labour government squandering our resources on projects which they thought would buy them votes. Milliband and company should cringe when they hear the word.

Political Principles

This is the political season. I hate it although I am a political junkie. It puts me in mind of the later Roman Empire: Bread and Circuses. Vote for me and I will make people like you better off – and I will amuse you with gladiatorial contests.

Democracy is very problematical. To work properly it requires a thinking, moral electorate. Is this what we are? Not if the politicians’ analysis is correct. Give them bread; give them circuses and the stupid bastards will give us power.

Perhaps I am hopelessly ‘idealistic’. I want politicians to appeal to my political principles. My political principles are not necessarily congruent with my material wants.

These are my principles:

Government should be responsible for as little as possible: protection from foreign and domestic aggressors. That’s it.

Education? We were better educated when the state had no involvement.

Health? The improvement in our health has very little to do with state involvement and much to do with technology. We drive better, safer cars. The state had nothing to do with them.

Equality? What does it mean? Everybody should be the same height, have the same IQ, have the same income?

No politician ever asks me to match my principles to his/hers.