Culpable Ignorance/Stupidity

 A theological question which must be faced by Catholics is: What is the status of people ignorant of Christ’s sacrifice: damned, saved or limbo? The consensus, I dare to assert is: God’s Grace and Mercy are limitless – God loves all of his creation and wishes to share himself with every part of it. Their ignorance is not culpable.

A medical question which I, for one, believe has been answered is: is bleeding, appropriate for lots and lots of conditions? The consensus is “No!” Do we therefore condemn all who have ever recommended it? No. Their ignorance was not culpable.

An economic question, the answer to which History has revealed the answer is: do free markets or state control increase prosperity (particularly for the poor)? It is manifestly the former. Should we therefore condemn statists? I think so. Particularly when we observe that statists in power are characteristically forced to resort to violence and murder on a huge scale in order to maintain the Nazi/Socialist state. I think too that their apologists are culpable.

This goes somewhat against the formulation that Leftists think Rightists are evil; whereas Rightists think Leftists are stupid. My view is that, in view of the evidence, Leftist/Statist apologetics are culpably stupid.

You know,
At least you ought to know,
For I have often told you so...

Miserable, grinding poverty has been the lot of humanity (except for a tiny minority of powerful people) since forever. A horrible proportion of children died in infancy. Bad harvests and wars meant that the next meal was in doubt – and bad harvests and wars had always been on the horizon for most of human history. Even in good times disease killed thousands. Our ancestors for thousands of years suffered poverty which for most of us now in developed countries seems intolerable.

It is inconceivable that an eleventh century peasant would have even dreamt of “an end to poverty”. He knew that poverty was the lot of most of humanity.

Astonishingly, though, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Western Europe and North America began to “develop”. Sophisticated financial institutions made possible sophisticated means of production. Over a short period of time the poverty of our ancestors was replaced by societal wealth previously undreamed of. No, I would not like to work in a nineteenth century factory; but my ancestors chose to leave the land and move to the cities – because they believed that they and their children would live better. It turned out that their children lived much better and their grandchildren much much better. Specialisation, trade and industrialisation increased production. More production meant more wealth in society. More wealth meant a higher standard of living for nearly everybody. Child mortality began to fall. Societies imbued with better understanding of the causes of disease were able to provide ever cleaner air, ever cleaner water and ever more effective waste disposal.

During the early period of the industrial revolution government monopolies declined and craft guilds withered away. The entrepreneurs who succeeded made themselves rich, their products better and cheaper and their fellow citizens better off – the ones who failed simply failed.

Some entrepreneurs became extraordinarily rich. Some of them chose to found schools and hospitals.

The eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were the period in which the poor became less poor, in which luxuries previously enjoyed only by the rich became the birthright of ordinary people. In centuries gone by even the aristocracy did not enjoy the benefits ordinary people now began to expect. For most of history a very very small proportion of people rode in coaches and the poor walked. Since the mid-twentieth century the rich drive luxury cars and a poor man is someone who can only afford a second-hand Toyota.

State interference in, and control of, the economy have been conclusively demonstrated to produce stagnation and shortages. Which is the country you would least like to live in? North Korea? Yes, North Korea! The poorest people in South Korea would be envied by practically everyone in North Korea – except of course North Korea’s ruling elite. Socialist North Korea is probably the most extreme example of statism now in existence. And yet, there are millions of people in the West who proudly call themselves socialists. Millionaire filmmakers praise the tyranny and poverty of Cuba.

How is this to be explained? Statists, in spite of the evidence, cling to their wishful thinking fantasy of a man-made blueprint for heaven on earth. Maximum personal liberty within the rule of law comes much closer.

Anyone who cares at all about the welfare of the least advantaged should face the facts. Truly it has been said, “There’s none so blind as he that will not see!”

Culpable stupidity!

Sister Wendy

 I am a Catholic. I would very much like everyone to be a Catholic. My enchanting daughter-in-law is not a Catholic; but, of course, I would like her to be. I have refrained from bombarding her with links to my Catholic heroes: Fr Robert Barron and Peter Kreeft, to name but two outstanding examples. It’s not that their writings and speeches are too densely theological, but rather, that, being highly subjective myself, I can’t imagine that I would have been wrestled to the floor by these titans and captured for Catholicism. My route to the Church of Rome was not three theological falls or a submission. I sought these guys out, having already become a Catholic; and I am very glad I did.

So, my contribution to Catholic evangelisation has been feeble (at best) or non-existent (at worst). I like theology! But, I should have thought more about being a saint. Barron and Kreeft, I am sure, would agree. Saints, it turns out, are mightier warriors for the Faith than theologians, important though theologians are. The categories are not mutually exclusive.

It was atheistic Geoff who first drew my attention to Sister Wendy. He is a big fan. I was aware of her work (hat-tip to Newman and Baddiel). But she is an art critic and she has buck teeth (may I be forgiven)! It turns out that she is much much more.

I was astonished to receive an e-mail message from the daughter-in-law expressing her profound admiration and “enchantment” with Sr Wendy. I am sure that wise words on the subject of Art contributed to her admiration but I have every reason to believe that Sr Wendy’s manifest “goodness” was the source of the enchantment.

I am very grateful to Geoff and Carrie for having introduced me to a new heroine.

What Makes a Nation Civilised?

 Here is a point raised by Geoff:

Unlike other, more civilized countries, they (the US) don’t see a responsibility for helping the truly needy and sick and I greatly emphasise the word “truly”.

The constitutions and laws of countries are often simply window-dressing. Can you think of any country which does not celebrate (in law) Democracy? There are something like 200 members of the UN – every one claims to be a democracy.

Actually there is one which does not in its founding documents: the USA. The founding fathers were not dressing their windows. They were attempting to create an unbreakable guarantee against tyranny. Benjamin Franklin said that their objective was a Republic. Democracy is a word unused by the fathers. Indeed, some of them would have been revolted by the idea. Unhappily, brilliant though they were, the US constitution left wormholes through which some in succeeding generations have undermined it. “The Commerce Clause” and “The General Welfare Clause” are notorious. So too is the concept of “A Living Constitution” (not the fault of the framers), whereby activists have essentially declared that what we now perceive to be desirable trumps the intentions of the framers.

Abraham Lincoln, whose legacy and reputation have come under critical scrutiny of late (by Thomas DiLorenzo et al) memorably claimed that the Civil War had been fought (at the cost of over 600,000 lives) in defence of “Government of the People, for the People and by the People”. It was a fantastic speech and has been a rallying cry for Democracy ever since. Indeed, to be suspicious of Democracy is enough to invite comparison with anti-democratic ideologies: Nazism, Communism and, latterly, Islamism. The fathers were as anxious about the tyranny of the majority as of monarchy. Hence the famous system of “checks and balances”.

The political thinkers of the eighteenth century include some pretty impressive minds. More later, perhaps.

Early Americans were overwhelmingly religious. Many went to the New World for the freedom to practise their religion. Morality loomed large in their thinking. They did not place their faith in political institutions. When they came to devise a better government than the world had previously known they beset the Presidency and the Congress with limits to their powers. Most Americans knew that a virtuous citizenry was the essential foundation for a prosperous and happy nation. The Constitution was a bulwark against the encroachment of the state on the citizenry. They insisted, in the Second Amendment, that citizens should retain the means physically to resist the state. I think that this argues for the supremacy of individual conscience over political institutions. Swiss citizens have comparable rights and Switzerland has a noble tradition of Liberty.

Slavery

The existence of slavery is a blot upon humanity. It persisted for too long in the Anglosphere. Some Christians, disgracefully, defended it. However, it was the Christian Anglosphere which first declared war on it. Regrettably, in spite of the efforts and writings of many abolitionists, slavery persisted in the US for far too long. The Civil War was a war to preserve the Union against secessionists and only incidentally to abolish slavery. Lincoln’s writings are clear on this. He cared less about slavery than about the Union and was prepared to provoke war with the Confederacy. He may not have expected 600,000 deaths; but that is what it took to defeat the South.

So, religious and moral Americans did some bad things in the past. Religious and moral Americans today are almost unanimous in condemning slavery and the subsequent oppression of black Americans after the war. We cannot close our eyes to the hideous phenomenon of lynching.

“Progressive” Americans did bad stuff too. They enacted “union-friendly” legislation to exclude blacks from labour markets in the North. “Progressive” entitlement programmes (regrettably supported by black political leaders) have done much to undermine the integrity of black American families and to ensure the immiseration of millions of blacks. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams (two towering black American intellects) have much to say on the subject.

American Exceptionalism

What society is innocent of corruption and cruelty? None! The British Empire, more benevolent than any comparable empire, did bad things. From the Greeks we derive the idea of Democracy, and yet, they accepted slavery. We have inherited much from Roman administration and law, and yet, crucifixion was their standard form of execution.

The Genius of Catholicism (at least insofar as it relates to the polis) is the concept of Original Sin. We do not have it in our power to create The Kingdom of God on Earth. History is unequivocal: try it and you will find that you have built a Hell. The Anglosphere, imperfect though it is, incorporates ideas of Liberty and personal responsibility. Improvements will only ever be incremental and practical. Morality, not ideology, is the way forward. On these grounds, I propose the USA as the most civilised country ever – in spite of the missteps of her past and her present.

She has given the vast majority of her citizens the opportunity to improve their living standards to an extant never before witnessed. Free Enterprise, moderated by personal morality, has created philanthropic institutions on a scale never before even imagined. Free Enterprise rewards initiative, creativity, hard work, thrift, service to one’s fellows and honesty. Socialism does not! Oppressed people from all over the world have endorsed what I am not ashamed to call the American Dream. They endorsed it by choosing to live it.

Americans, particularly conservative Americans, take their personal responsibility to help the needy and the sick very seriously. They give and they give and they give. If some do not see this as a political programme but as a moral imperative, God bless them. If you think that putting a gun to their heads is morally superior, more civilised, I can’t agree.

Geoff & Guns

Geoff has strong and cogent opinions about America, the NRA and gun laws. Below is his email to me in blue. I comment intermittently in red.

The NRA and their stupid stance, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" just highlights the fact that the USA is a lost cause. Nothing at all will change. Americans care more than you do about senseless violence and crime. They spend a lot of money on studying it. The aggregate conclusion seems to be that when there is likely to be an armed citizen with a concealed gun on the premises (a situation prohibited in many states) madmen wanting to die and take as many as possible will avoid such locations. If my grandchildren had been threatened (at Dunblaine, for example) would I have been more or less alarmed if I knew that the caretaker had a Glock 9mm.

In America, even a cretin, and I use that term in its truest and psychiatric sense, can buy a gun, and, if they are so minded, shoot someone. Are you telling us that this is the law?

My dear and very wise old Dad always said that if you want to examine the case for or against anything you should look at the extremes. So, let's suppose that pocket size nuclear bombs were available in Walmart for $25 each. Would it be reasonable for our cretin to be allowed to buy one? Would it be reasonable for even a non-cretin to be able to buy one? Would the NRA, or maybe the NNBA (as it would have become), really say, “"nuclear bombs don’t kill people, people kill people". Somehow I doubt it.

Sadly, because of the massive political lobby that the NRA carries and the fact that it is simply a PR stunt of behalf of US weapons manufacturers, which the deluded population swallow, nothing will change and 80 people a day will be killed by gun violence.

It is worth remembering that over one million people have died from gun violence since Martin Luther King was assassinated. I can’t quite see how NRA members sleep peacefully at night but maybe the pistol under their pillow and the AK47 hanging in the kitchen help.

On another aspect of American life, Obama (and I am more of an Obama fan than you) stated yesterday (again!), “This is the greatest nation on earth”. Really! I was heating up a nice pan of spinach soup when I heard this and nearly puked.

For me, after visiting the US over 40 times, it doesn’t even make my top 50. Let’s have a look:

1. They think they are the greatest nation on earth and are therefore clearly, by definition, all deluded. This is a syllogism with a premise left out. George thinks he is the fattest person in his household and is clearly, by definition, deluded. “Fat” and “great” are undefined. Weighing scales and body mass index are not appealed to. GDP, social mobility and Nobel Prizes are ignored. Anorexics die because they think they are fat – couldn’t resist that.

2 Their total arrogance does not let them imagine why foreigners might not want to live there. People do want to live there: Vietnamese, Cubans and Mexicans, for a start. As Obamisation takes root and flourishes, they may well become less keen.

3. They still execute people (can you believe that?!) This doesn’t even pretend to be an argument.

4. Unlike other, more civilized countries, they don’t see a responsibility for helping the truly needy and sick and I greatly emphasis the word “truly”. American philanthropy, particularly from conservatives, puts the rest of us to shame. The so-called “robber barons” created schools, hospitals and myriad charities dedicated to the needy and sick, in their homeland and abroad. They gave billions and billions. If Democrats gave blood to the extent that Republicans do there would be 40% more blood.

5. Their only foreign policy is to bomb countries they take exception to. I can’t support every US foreign policy. But I must point out one (which I deplore): underwriting the defence of Western Europe, partly by stationing 10s of thousands of troops in Germany (for example) can’t be described as bombing anyone.

6. They seem to accept that having a gun and shooting people is the norm. If I were a member of the NRA, I might accept that having a gun should be (and is, under the Constitution) my right, and perhaps even my duty. I’m sure that I would accept that I should only ever shoot someone who is threatening an innocent victim.

7. Apart from the obvious exceptions such as the Metropolitan Opera and the Guggenheim, they have very little in the way of serious culture given the size of the country and population. Oh dear! The number of cultural institutions and the private money spent on them put the rest of the world to shame. Are you going to claim that the Turner Prize makes us superior? What about their novelists, their theatre. On a slightly different note, the US has hundreds of privately financed economic and political think-tanks, churning out innovative ideas on an unprecedented scale. Fortunately, these institutions are being copied by people in many other countries. And, for example, the Mises Institute invites these creative foreigners, (eg Hans Herman Hoppe and Jesus Huerta de Souto) to feed back into American political thinking.

8. Their TV is truly atrocious (OK we’re getting down the list now). Have you ever watched, “The International World News” on any of the awful channels? A typical headline might be about a strike by Central Park gardeners or the Boston Mass Transit having leaves on the track. OK. US TV may be ghastly. Ours is too. Ours depends hugely on theirs. Most of the decent films come from Hollywood, as well as lots of crap. We have virtually no variety in current affairs. BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are homogenised political correctness. They have Fox News. They have talk radio (some head-bangers there, perhaps); we have nothing comparable. I have been prompted to blog, when on a rare occasion a current affairs programme in the UK actually illuminated the subject “under discussion”.

BTW, since you didn’t ask, my favourite country (and sadly I’ve only been to 54 of them), is Italy. Even though you didn’t ask, The United States of America is, unquestionably (and despite its faults), my favourite. Its wholesome political instincts are severely threatened; its institutions and civic culture are oppressed by “democracy” itself (the ultimate irony). Italians make the best coffee in the world. The guy who guides you to your coach at Venice airport is dressed more elegantly than your average UK cabinet minister. An example to the nations?

Retraction

 Blogging is my hobby. I love it. But hobbies can hurt you. If my hobby had been cabinet-making, I can expect to have hit my thumb with a hammer more than once – fell running, the occasional sprained ankle. In a recent rant I accused anti-frackists of being diabolical. This turns out to include someone I love and know not to be diabolical. So, I withdraw the epithet unequivocally, with apologies. I shall be more circumspect in future.

This is not to say that I have changed my opinion on fracking. I'm for it because I am for cheap energy (for industry), cheap heat (especially for poor people) and jobs for people in NW England and Pennsylvania.

But fracking is not a new or unique phenomenon. Milton Friedman and Walter Block bang on about externalities. They know what they are talking about. In a society in which the rule of law prevails, if you pollute my water, dirty my shirt or keep my baby awake, I have the moral right (and almost certainly the legal right) to demand that the authorities intervene and make you desist or compensate me.

Incidentally, I expect soon to see court cases in which wind farms are prosecuted. On the one hand there are allegations that wind farms have bad effects on health and bad effects on property prices, on the other that wind farms slaughter thousands of birds and bats. Birds and bats can’t sue; but we have many instances of individuals and companies being sued for damage to the environment. In principle, I think that if the moral and legal case can be made, wind farmers and frackers should be made to desist or to pay compensation.

It baffles me that “greens” take opposite points of view on these technologies. Wind farms contribute next to nothing to our energy needs. They require the back-up of other technologies. They are fabulously expensive to construct. They could not exist without subsidies. They take money from ordinary people and pay rich landowners – like Cameron’s father-in-law (£1000 per day). The opponents of fracking allege that the fact that lighting your water has been possible for centuries is “irrelevant”. In the mountains of Taiwan, I remember a tourist spot where water and gas emerged from subterranean systems simultaneously. The gas burned and the water bubbled. A restaurant was built around the spot, at least sixty years ago, probably much more.

It seems to me that forensic science is well placed to identify those cases where your fracking is polluting my water or where your fracking is causing tremors which damage my property. If it is proved, you are going to have to stop, or at least to compensate me.

Check out Fracknation on YouTube – Gasland too, if you want the antifracking view.

I blog because I enjoy the thinking, the research and just the writing. I have promoted it to a tiny group of people, some of whom turn out to be on the “other side” of every question I address. I am going to have to think again. I had one comment on my Lewontin post which compensated (a bit) for some very harsh words on my Fracking post.

Next up, as the media has it, Geoff’s response to my Newtown, Connecticut post.

Lewontin

I thought I should do the man the courtesy of listening to him in his own words. So, I sought him out on YouTube. There is an extended video of Richard Lewontin being interviewed by Harry Kreisler (Conversations with History). This is a series which has introduced me to many great thinkers.

To my surprise, I liked him. I liked him for demonstrating against police brutality. I liked him for his deep suspicion of government intervention in Science. I liked him for being quite witty. Harry Kreisler, though, did not task him with his most extraordinary pronouncement:

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

OK. Have you just sold the pass? Are you admitting that your commitment to Materialism and therefore to Darwinism is purely metaphysical? I had come to this conclusion before I even knew of your existence. But you express it so eloquently, so innocently. May your sins be forgiven (see below).

The dispute then is not scientific. It is metaphysical. You can’t put metaphysics under the microscope. Is belief in a Creator reasonable? I think so; but you have ruled my belief “inadmissible”. That’s a way of winning the argument without having an argument. You are like a defence lawyer who starts with the premise that there is no such thing as “guilt”. You haven’t ruled me as inadmissible. You have resigned from the case.

Me and my lot have a lot invested in metaphysics; and we are not (even a little bit) embarrassed. You come along with your dogmatic a priori adherence to material causes (pure metaphysics) and allege that your metaphysics trumps ours – No argument. Er....

Horror in Connecticut

 There is a tiny tiny number, in absolute terms, let alone in percentage terms of human beings who express admiration for Ian Brady’s “work”. There have been some, at least one. Some people will explain his behaviour in terms of neuroscience. Some will say that it is simply diabolical. Both groups weep in each others’ arms at what he and Myra Hindley did (likewise Fred and Rosemary West). As a race, we are appalled and disgusted. As a race, we pity the victims and condemn the perpetrators. We regard IB and MH as less than human. My guess is that a majority of humans would accept that these deeds were so wicked that the criminals should be exterminated with as little compunction as we would express over the eradication of smallpox. The Christian position is a little more complex. IB and MH were made in the image of God – and God loves His creation. I, and many other Christians, don’t believe that this means that we should allow these monsters to go on living.

Then we get Newtown, Connecticut; and we are faced with evil behaviour on a par with the Norwegian monster, almost with IB (though it is not just the numbers which count). This is evil so manifest that it surprises me that it doesn’t convert more to theism – not my point here.

Needless to say, what happened in Connecticut has unleashed a torrent of anti-Americanism, of sneering contempt for the NRA and the Second Amendment.

Is American culture to blame for what happened? It’s difficult to say so when 999,999.99 Americans in every million are as revolted as you and I. This kind of thing happens more in America than it does elsewhere – OK. Who would have thought it would happen in Norway? Norwegians don’t get beaten up for what that madman did. Norwegian culture is not to blame.

Social pathology exists around the world. I hope that I have succeeded in showing that what happened in Newtown is that individual wickedness (pathology, if you like) is not confined to any race or culture.

Where it is manifest is not in Norway or the USA. It is to be found in societies where the monsters have defenders in the wider society – not Norway and the USA. A Pakistani who throws acid in the face of a girl who rejects his advances will have defenders. A Pakistani father who stuffs a plastic bag into his daughter’s mouth will have defenders. A Somali grandmother who holds a little girl down while she is mutilated will have defenders. Ian Brady has no defenders. Adam Lanza has no defenders. A “Palestinian” suicide bomber will be glorified.

You know that I do not regard modern European culture as the ideal paradigm. I am as critical of it as the most fervent Muslim. There is, nevertheless, a residue of European decency that has not yet been lost.

There are intelligent people on both sides of the “gun lobby” debate. Obama is not one of them. He has surrendered his moral intelligence over fiscal and social issues over and over again. But he will make political capital over Newtown. His political intelligence is still pretty bloody lively. He will use this ghastly event to smear Republicans.

Americans have, traditionally, applied the principle of subsidiarity to domestic affairs – if it is a local issue, we should deal with it locally. Many communities will, in the near future, demand that at least one member of staff in every school is armed and trained. Use the moral sense you take with you to every 007 movie you see. Adam Lanza probably wanted to die. Don’t you wish he had been taken out as he un-holstered his weapon, before he shot his second victim?