Showing posts with label talk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label talk. Show all posts

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Whiteman’s Dream

October 2011 Dinner - The Australian Adam Smith Club

Prof Gary Johns
on
Aboriginal Self-Determination:
The Whiteman’s Dream


The Adam Smith Club will host a dinner meeting on Wednesday the 5th of October 2011, at the Curry Club, 396 Bridge Rd, Richmond 3141.

The Hon Dr Gary Johns is Associate Professor in Public Policy in the PPI. He served in the House of Representatives from 1987-1996 and was Special Minister of State and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations from 1993-1996 and as an Associate Commissioner of the Commonwealth Productivity Commission 2002-2004. He was for 10 years, Senior Fellow Institute of Public Affairs, Australia, and a senior consultant with ACIL Tasman economic consultants from 2006-2009. He is a member of the editorial board of Agenda (ANU) and President of the Bennelong Society.

Gary Johns will outline the thesis of his book, Aboriginal Self-Determination: the Whiteman’s Dream. Land rights, welfare and culture have locked aborigines out of the good life. Land has become a burden, welfare has become disabling, and bad behaviour is mistaken for culture. There is a way out. Aborigines must abide by the same rules as every other Australian -- seek out opportunities, study hard, and free themselves from a culture of bad behaviour. This is in contrast to the white man’s dream of Aboriginal self-determination. This grand experiment has failed. Aborigines, especially those in remote Australia, need an exit strategy from the dream. The exit strategy outlined in this book destroys the rallying cry for culture. Instead, it shows that the way to self-determination is through individual dignity.

Attendance is open to both members and non-members. Those desiring to attend should complete the pdf (link below) and return it to the Club no later than Tuesday the 4th of October 2011. Tickets will not be sent. Those attending should arrive at 6:30pm for dinner at 7:00pm. The cost is $40.00 per head for members and $45.00 per head for non-members

download the invitation and newsletter at
www.adamsmithclub.org/LF100.pdf
(the file is ~200k acrobat file)

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Legal Eagle speaks!

In Melbourne on this coming Tuesday evening, details via here.

UPDATE: It was a fine talk, downloadable from here (pdf).

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Dark Age fun

My talk on the Dark Ages went well, with some good questions. The most striking question was:
Do you think the Romans were rather statist and the Goths and Huns libertarian?
My response: I do not believe the Goths and Huns were noted for their respect for property rights.

The questioner thought that was fair comment.

The talk was fun to do. I used data on shipwrecks in the Mediterranean, average skeleton heights, lead in Greenland ice cores and temperature as measured by Greenland ice cores to make the point that there was a serious economic and population collapse in Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire which well pre-dated the beginning of the Muslim conquest of half the Mediterranean in 639.

The Dark Age after the Bronze Age collapse made a useful comparison point.

A reminder that a list of useful texts is here.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Texts on Dark Ages

My talk on Dark Ages critiquing the Pirenne thesis, and modern variations thereon, went well, with about 30 or so people attending and lots of good questions.

A request was put that I provide details on the books I mentioned. These follow.

The obvious starting point is Henri Pirenne's posthumous work Mohammed and Charlemagne (1937, English language version 1954) followed by Hodges and Whitehouse's examination of the thesis in the light of the archaeological evidence Mohammed, Charlemagne & the Origins of Europe (1983). I review both books here.

Relevant to the notion of ‘barbarians’ is Christopher I. Beckwith’s Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present (2009) whose analysis of modernism I discuss here.

Peter Heather teaches at Worcester College, University of Oxford. He has written a very thoughtful and informative account of the fall of Rome, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians (2006) which I review here.

Ramsay MacMullen’s book on the Christianisation of the Empire Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (1999) includes some very useful analysis of its internal workings, which I review here.

Bryan Ward-Perkins, fellow of Trinity College, Oxford wrote The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilisation (2005) which I review here.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Shedding light on Dark Ages

For those readers in Melbourne, on Monday 24th at the Hollywood Palace, Bridge Rd, Richmond, I will giving a talk (starting at 7.30) on Shedding light on Dark Ages, where I will be looking at the Dark Age in Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476 – 1050) and comparing it to the Dark Age in the Eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Bronze Age (1210 BC – 800 BC).

The “blurb” for the talk is:

Dark Ages! Barbarians raging around looting and pillaging. Chroniclers wailing about death and destruction. Violence, mayhem, murder and the collapse of civilisation as they knew it.

For centuries, the received historical wisdom was the collapse of the Western Roman Empire under the barbarian invasions was a disaster that ushered in a Dark Age that Europe took centuries to recover from.

Then the great Belgian medievalist Henri Pirenne's (1862-1935) Mohammad and Charlemagne (1937) claimed that the new barbarian rulers changed little, that it was actually the Arab conquests of half the Mediterranean that so disrupted the Mediterranean world as to create the true collapse.

This thesis was extended so that, particularly as the European project (and mass migration to--rather than merely within--the West) took off, historians, began to dispute that one could talk of the "Fall" of Rome or a "Dark Age".

Was there a Dark Age in Western Europe? Did the Muslims do it really? Lorenzo will explain the concept of a "Dark Age" and look at the evidence.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Talk by (Rev. Dr.) Mark Durie

Recently went to a talk by the Rev. Dr. Mark Durie on his book The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom.

Mark Durie began by saying he sought to have a conversation and setting out his background. The son of an Anglican (Americans would say Episcopalian) minister, he grew up in an Australia where one could sense some hostility to people of faith. He was aware of how religious ideas can shape us in profound ways and of the power of faith. He feels it is urgently important to engage with Islam: to identity what are the key ideas, what are their implications.

Dr Durie has a Ph.D in linguistics (specifically, the grammar of Aceh). Became an academic at Melbourne Uni. Then felt the call, left and studied theology. He understood the Islamic theology of jihad pretty thoroughly, as it was a big part of Aceh culture.

Then 9/11 happened. He was particularly struck that the same Quranic verses were in the backpacks of 9/11 hijackers as was used a century earlier in Aceh struggle against Dutch. His reaction to 9/11 was to study. He read the Qur’an, volumes of hadith, biographies of the life of Muhammad. 15-16 volumes in all that he had out of Baillieu library for 6 months—this told him no one else was wanting to read them.

What the volumes displayed was a very disturbing vision of the world. The experience left him with a “soul sickness” for some months. He went to the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV), to see what they had. Was sold a couple of books by an elderly gentleman who was a former Australian ambassador to Saudi Arabia in Pakistan who had converted.

One, written in the 1930s, advocated jihad and toppling democracies. The book is still in print. Durie found it to be a very powerful book and it was deeply disturbing that the ICV sold it. The other book, the best-selling Islamic textbook for US, written by a convert from University of Michigan, was similar. There are also decades of journals preparing for the creation of an Islamic state. On the internet, one can see similar book lists all over Australia.

We don’t get it. The question is: why don’t we get?

The publications he read describe in detail why to deceive people on the way to establish the Islamic state. Durie holds that people are afraid of difficult truth until one can show them a solution.

Informed and energised by what he had read, Durie began to write and preach. In his reading, he was struck by the psychological depth, amount of intellectual power and strength of emotion in the Islamic texts.
Read More...
The reaction to the Regensburg speech of Pope Benedict was revealing. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia—a very serious figure—issued a press release where his response was the convert or die was not the only option, the third option of submission was available: he clearly believed this is a reasonable defence of Islam.

Durie’s book is about that third choice.

He is struck by how people are making small choices to surrender all over world. The third way is based on the dhimma: the pact of surrender (literally: ‘pact of liability’). It is based on the fundamental idea that the destiny of Islam is to rule.

The policy for rule of non-Muslims is the dhimma covenant determined by shar’ia. These are not negotiable: you have to accept terms offered, which come straight from Muhammad.

The subject is steeped in denial. Durie has been struck by the lengths people go to deny the reality, including scholars.

Durie himself is aware of the structures of denial from pastoral care: such as battered women, victims of abuse. Denial is a very powerful force: it is protective, enables you to build a coherent world you can live with. In dealing with denial, have to ask, in deep and patient way, what is the horror they are afraid of.

Under the dhimma, a tax is levied as a payment for your head: a compensation for not being slain. This is the jiyza as a “satisfaction for their blood”. The tax is for the benefit of Muslims: compensating Muslims for not killing them, then taking their wives, children, and their property.

In early years, people would have the front of their head shaved or wear head seals. A physical sign of the “Compensation received for being permitted to wear their heads that year”. Other marks include, at time of payment, ritual of blow on neck, or rope, or gesture of throttling. The tax was not light, it was often extremely heavy.

One C18th Morroccan Islamic writer wrote about how a dhimmi must load his soul down with submission. A C19th Iranian Islamic writer wrote about how the dhimma pact was about taking away his soul. The dhimmi was expected to adopt an attitude of gratitude and inferiority.

This attitude is being manifested in the West. It is creeping into public discourse. Such as the notion that the West was rescued from the Dark Ages by Islam: but Greek learning did not have to be rescued by conquest, while the Renaissance was sparked by Greek scholars and books fleeing Constantinople from the Turkish conquest. There is also a historical argument that the shutting down of Mediterranean trade by the Muslim conquest caused Dark Ages.

The aim was to build up a clear and compelling picture of Islam from fundamental principles, one drawn from a wide range of sources. Durie went through every major commentary so as to be sure was not cherry-picking, but examining mainstream Islam.

Around the world, Islam is the biggest problem in persecution of Christian. The liabilities being imposed on non-Muslims in Islamic countries match shar’ia requirements on dhimmis. The underlying themes of gratitude and inferiority are creeping into Western popular culture. It is a live issue.

Why did he write the book? Not to improve personal safety but to understand and explain. The intention is to challenge people’s worldview and to make it intolerable to continue to live with denial.

Q&A
There was then a Q&A session.

Q: What is it that is so compelling in book on Islam you mentioned?
A: Plays on desire to be connected to God, surrender to God as source of meaning, building on life of Muhammad. Build a structure of how to live one’s life. Anticipates how people’s hearts will move. Islam is anti-reason, hates reason yet great minds have sacrificed themselves to Islam.

Q: How do you talk to friends, acquaintances, family about this and what is their reaction?
A: Stopped just chatting, because it is quite a depressing subject. Need to be clear himself, hence wrote book. People have a lot to lose if abandon lazy good-naturedness. Need to equip people with skills to do that. To know the questions to ask.

Q: On Dark Ages, was the book you used From Muhammad to Charlemagne by Henri Pirenne?
A: Yes, he advances thesis that Islamic conquest shut down Mediterranean. Explains why Northern Europe became more important—so far away from Islam.

Q: Please talk about the despair you felt from studying Islam.
A: Had soul-sickness for six months: gained hopefulness from faith and truth. Had a framework to fit things in. It became hard to read the Old Testament when thinking Qur’an example. One reads the story of Jericho quite differently. In the book, wrote a chapter on how Muhammad responded to rejection. Did all result in him falling in love with Jesus again. The example of Christ became deeply compelling in a new way.

Q: Regarding jiyza, how was level set, did people rebel?
A: Understood to be the inheritance of Muslim, as the whole world belongs to Allah. His people are the Muslims. So taking resources is liberating resources to the people of Allah. In tribal Arabia, one would kill an enemy, take his property, extend your lineage from his wives and children. The jiyza was compensation for foregoing that right. Imposed on every male who had reached puberty and older: the same list of people who can be killed in conquest as paid the tax. Taxed roughly according to capacity to pay.

Study of records show it was 3-4 months salary of an ordinary labourer in C8th Egypt. Would also lay tribute on cities, lands have to pay to avoid tax. Over time people were impoverished. If could not pay, had to hide (even selling children into slavery).

There were public conversions to Islam while keeping secret belief. In the Ottoman Empire, had a tax of children taken to the service of the Sultan.

James Reilly, an American who was shipwrecked and enslaved in Morocco in C19th, wrote of how, if people could not pay, they were gaoled and beaten until died. The tax continued to 1950s in Afghanistan. The mentality still exists: non-Muslims owe Muslims, non-Muslims become strangers in own land.

Q: Please talk more about the example of Christ?
A: Both Muhammad and Christ suffered very similar and intense rejection. Responses were very different. He came to see jihad as catharsis for rejection. He works with people who suffer deep rejection: some of them display self-destructive, hateful responses.

Q: You mentioned the use of the same verses in Aceh and 9/11: could you please talk about the context in Aceh?
A: The people of Aceh fought against others a lot, they were also pirates and slavers. Dutch attempted to clean up the Malacca Straits. Led to 30 years of insurgency. Eventually, a Dutch analyst who had lived secretly in Mecca convinced the Dutch authorities that they were fighting a religious war, religious insurgency. The Dutch changed their strategy and suppressed the insurgency. The people of Aceh are proud of their jihad against the Dutch.

Q: What about the notion of Andalusia, al-Andalus as golden age.
A: The dhimmis lived under system of dhimma. He does challenge the golden age in his book. Finds it an interesting mythology: a poisonous myth that does not do Muslims any favours.

Q: Islamic Forum for Europe are using entryism. Anything similar operating in Australia?
A: One is dealing with different types of groups, those overtly extremist and moderate persona people. People take a long time frame with this worldview. When one looks, all significant organised leadership had some radical connections. They had a free run until 9/11. Only in recent years have they come under scrutiny or pressure.

Q: Muslim conquest caused Dark Ages?
A: Muslim conquered much of Mediterranean, terrorised trade. Northern Europe became isolated from intellectual and mercantile networks.

Q: UK has made so many concessions. Any sign of any stemming of this?
A: The tide is turning in Holland, Italy and France. UK has a long tradition of appeasing Islam. British intelligence deliberately hosted most radical Islamists, for example. Don’t know what will happen. In Australia, a lot Christians are speaking out at various levels. Not so in the UK. Muslim connections have white-anted Christian leaders for years. Sabotaging publication. Those who are aware of the issues are often too combative, not good at building alliances.

It is better to be confrontational about ideas, rather than denying the issue until people are fighting for real.

Q: How long has Australia got?
A: The public culture is very different here: things are discussed much more openly. Some evidence of deliberate suppressing of Muslim immigration and Australia has other sources of migrants.
Muslims can be schooled into a place.

Q: Was the jizya only on men?
A: Yes, but there were other taxes as well.

Q: The Story of O—all about submission: submission as seductive sexually. Submission as joyful or blissful state: is this part of the appeal?
A: Submission does indeed have an appeal in its own right.

Q: What about notion of Islam as transmitter of Aristotle and Greek ideas.
A: Come across idea, there were some translation from Arabic. So what?

Q: Is multiculturalism the greatest gift to Islam?
A: It is very subvertable to Islam. But so are other things in contemporary Western mindset. Islam is a kind of booty civilisation, good at taking things and using it for own purposes. It would get renewed from first few generations of conquered people who had not yet fully absorbed its worldview.

Q: Any comments about rape rates from Muslim men in Western societies?
A: The issue is covered in book. That rape is permitted under Islam leads to a rape culture.

Q: Many Muslims do realise harshness of own religion, have had those conversations with Muslims about this?
A: Have not had those conversations. There does seem to be elements of shame among some Muslims about aspects of Islam.

Q: Why did some cultures resist longer than other?
A: Complex question including historical accident. Copts tattoo cross on their wrist. Sometimes had support from outside Muslim rule. Muslim rule varied in harshness.

Q: Any comments about proper response by the US to 9/11?
A: Start with not saying Islam is a religion of peace, not leaving up to volunteers to ferret out truth in these matters. Noted the role of Grover Norquist pushing engagement with Islam to Republicans. As a result, conservatives not united in US on the matter.

Q: What about the responses of Anglicans, particularly in Britain?
A: Christians in Middle East play a role in serving dhimma system pouring out poison about Israel. Anglicans can also be somewhat arrogant and want to be nice.

Q: In my reading, dhimmitude was an adaptation and expansion of the Eastern Roman laws and Church decrees oppressing Jews.
A: Yes, indeed. It is a great moral parable since the ways that Christians oppressed Jews were then applied by Muslims to Christians. Normans adapted the Muslim system when conquered Sicily and applied it to Muslims as tributo.

Q: How do you deal with deliberate obstructionism?
A: Prayer is a great help. It is a big ask to destroy someone else’s world view for their own good. What one does is wait for an opportunity of glaring inconsistency and work on that. It is important not to bury people in too much information too quickly.

Q: What about the Anglican Archbishop hosting President Khatami?
A: The Archbishop made use of opportunity: the meeting included and Anglican pastor who is a convert from Islam who gave the Iranians a copy of the gospels in Iranian.

Comments
Found the presentation powerful and effective. I do not agree with the Pirenne Thesis, but that is hardly central to his argument. On the jiyza tax being often very heavy, a tax that cannot be negotiated, which is levied on people excluded from the political community for the direct benefit of the conquering group is a tax which clearly will tend to be as heavy as is profitable. Or even more, since driving people to convert is a worthy act.

What particularly struck me is how much reading one has to do to really “get” the logic at the centre of Islam. I have read a fair bit on Islam, and some of the above was new to me (or put what I had already read in perspective). A central problem is that the operating assumptions, at the most basic level, are so fundamentally different it can be quite difficult to see how different and what their implications are.

The notion that one should love God and treat others as you would be treated pervades our culture in all sorts of ways and forms. The latter, for example, involves a profound sense of moral reciprocity, the same-rules-for-everyone and morality as a general, even absolute, set of principles. The former treats people are choosing agents, whose emotions and judgements have a certain inherent, implicit authority. The preaching of Jesus is all about choice, love and compassion and its presumptions pervade even our secular philosophies.

Conversely, the notion that one must submit to God, and that the goal to which all moral concern is subordinated is universal submission to Allah conceived as a legislating sovereign have profoundly different implications. A system of submission is also a system of domination where one gives up judgement except as continuing submission and if, as is the case, the level of submission varies then it becomes a system of a hierarchy of domination: believing men dominating women, believers dominating non-believers.

If Allah is the universal legislator, then one is committed to a divine command ethics that pervades life. The divine becomes a crushing presence in one’s life. The objection of John Stuart Mill to divine command ethics—that one is still required to develop a notion of the good since the divine commands do not answer every question—does not apply. But consider what a constriction on intellectual life that is. One ends up with a moral “occasionalism” to go with the causal “occasionalism”. No wonder Islam tends to have a deadening effect on intellectual life and creativity over time. (Much of the “intellectual glories” of Islam were either the product of dhimmis, of recent converts or of transmitting what had been created in other civilisations: in other words, of people not yet fully, generationally, absorbed into the mental map of Islam—one could argue the stagnation of Islam followed from “using up” the intellectual resources of the conquered.)

Then there is the notion that the morally trumping goal is the submission of all to the sovereignty of Allah. Not only does this subvert any notion of morality-as-reciprocity but it also subverts morality-as-constraint. As long as an act serves the goal of spreading submission to the sovereignty of Allah, it is a worthy act constrained only by what submission to the sovereignty of Allah may otherwise entail. One can see how jihadi terrorism, including homicide-bombing, can seem to be a thoroughly worthy act even though it does evade other elements in submission to the sovereignty of Allah. But the mere act of misleading or lying to unbelievers is clearly worthy if it advances the spread of submission to Allah, since the Prophet himself endorsed deception. Consider how subversive and poisonous that is to elementary discourse between believer and non-believer. One simply cannot trust that Muslims will be honest about their religion. A reality that seems so offensive to our base assumptions that it seems outrageous to hold to it: alas, there is so much evidence that this is a real problem.

Hence the importance of studying the original documents: the Qur’an, hadith and life of Muhammad. They are the root sources of Islam and set out its basic logic.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Talk by a visitor to Sudan

Recently, went to a talk on Sudan by an Australian woman who has visited the country three times in the last few years.

She likes—often admires—many of the Muslims she has met, there and elsewhere. She has a much lower opinion of Islam. I liked her description of ‘Islamophobia’:
A made-up word to put critics of Islam on the back foot.
She found that the manners of the people to be beautiful, that they move and live with a great sense of dignity, that the children are very polite. They like visitors particularly if, as she was, you are self-financed and not there for your career.

British rule is remembered very positively, as a sort of golden age. (Given the murder and mayhem since, not so surprising.)

She was struck by how much ignorance there was, including of Islam itself.

North and South Sudan are very different places with very different attitudes. For example, Northerners generally like Obama, Southerners generally do not—not despite being black African, but to a significant degree precisely because they are: they read him much more sceptically.

The northern media had a daily drip-feed of anti-Americanism. Southerners tended to be pro-American and strongly pro-Israel. (American Christian groups and Israelis do a lot of aid work in the South.)

Northern women have education levels comparable to the men. When she was in the military hospital (the best hospital) for her arthritis, the doctors were women and the nurses were men. Leading Sudanese Islamist Hasan al Turabi has been in favour of educating women and allowing to be employed. Her take was this was, in part, calculation—a way of getting women “in” so that they are a path for spreading Islam.

In the few years she has been visiting, she could see that romantic marriage is increasing, arranged marriage is decreasing. She met a very feisty teenaged wife who hated the restrictions she was under as a Muslim woman. At one stage, when the teenager was holding the Australian woman’s hand, she said of some others:
They are jealous of you and of me because I am holding the hand of free woman.
The Australian woman found, talking to Sudanese men undergoing religious training, that it clearly made them much more bothered by the bodily presence of a woman. (Centuries of having only men interpret religious law, coupled with monotheism’s inherently problematic interaction with eros, will do that: particularly when that law is inherently somewhat misogynist.)
Read More...
She also noted that Sudanese women had a way of walking very suggestively under all that covering.

The speaker explained that, if you wanted to reject Islamic strictures, atheism was not an option because there was no support structure. (By which, it became clear, she meant support for escape.) One of her female acquaintances said, quite matter-of-factly that:
Any man who leaves Islam is found in the streets with his throat cut.
She talked to a man who was in hospital because he was a convert to Christianity and a Bible had been found in his luggage at the airport. The airport security guards beat him savagely, then castrated him.

Christian conversion essentially requires movement to a safe place, which Christian groups try to facilitate. Talking to Christian missionaries and aid workers working in Sudan, she said they pitied Muslims, seeing them as being caught in a horrible trap.

In Europe, she met a Pakistani man who had spent years dodging assassins sent by his family because he converted from Islam.

When back in Australia, she attended a wedding of Australian residents who were Muslims from Khartoum who had entered Australia as refugees, which rather surprised her. She stated flatly that there was no such thing as a Muslim from Khartoum who was a genuine refugee. She attributed the success in such Muslims coming to Australia as refugees to probably showing naivety about circumstances in Sudan by the Australian embassy in Cairo.

Sudan is a stronghold of Sufism, which is pervasive in Islamic Sudan. She described some of their prayer rituals and practices, and passed around photographs of the same. (One could see why Herodotus thought “Ethiopians” to be “the most beautiful people in the world”.) She pointed out Sufism is still very much part of Islam—once you join Sufism, you are not allowed to leave Islam.

She noted that a longstanding pattern—blacks converting to Islam then being oppressed by Arabised Muslims—clearly continued. In Moscow, she knew a black Sudanese Muslim who was very proud of his religion and that his family had converted lots of the local people to Islam. Yet he lives in Russia, being careful not to incite the strong anti-black racism among Russian men, because he is a second-class citizen back in Sudan.

She described the “creeping Islamisation” that was occurring in the South. Some of it was a simple as providing food in return for conversion to Islam. (She mentioned the “rice Christians” of Asia: the difference is that Christianity does not have a death penalty for apostasy.) Some was more subtle, such as having certain university courses offered on in the South, so Northern (Muslim) students would come South. Or encouraging Northern (Muslim) traders to set up operations in the South. The view was that, after so much bloodshed, open jihad was not seen as effective. Instead, there was the “stealth jihad” of the creeping Islamisation of migration, trade, education, conditional food aid, etc.

While, in broad, there was nothing in her talk which was surprising—if one has been paying attention—nevertheless, it brought issues alive, making them more vivid, more “real” because they had a very human dimension.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

The moral case for free commerce: Speech at the Launch of Richard Morgan’s book Lessons From The Global Financial Crisis

On Wednesday 6 December, I was one of the two launchers of Richard Morgan’s book Lessons From The Global Financial Crisis: The Relevance Of Adam Smith On Morality And Free Markets. The following is the speech I gave, except that the section in [] was not delivered at the event to save time.

The moral case for free commerce
We are here today to launch Richard Morgan’s book, a book that applies C18th wisdom to current circumstances.

One of the great virtues of knowledge of past ideas, is that it forces present thinkers to work harder. Not always an agreeable prospect. Hence the push to define the past as a realm of Stygian moral and intellectual darkness that our present knowing moral splendour has utterly superseded. Thus is current fashionable opinion both elevated and protected.

Yet much that has been paraded in recent decades as allegedly cutting edge thought is little more than ideas from as long ago as the C5th BC re-packaged. Indeterminacy of meaning, for example—which the post-modernists make so much of—was a hot topic for Socrates and the boys. While the politics of Plato’s Republic—with its Platonic Guardians, and their necessary supporting Platonic myths—seems to get endlessly recycled. Judges and international bureaucrats—some of them scientific—are notable current offerings as Platonic Guardians: with supporting Platonic myths from which dissent is, apparently, not to be permitted in polite society.

Against this recycling of the C5th BC, it would be quite an advance if we could get rather more academics and other intellectuals to advance to the standard of some good C18th thinking.
Read More...
Consider the famous passage by Voltaire in his Letters on the English, first published in 1734.
Take a view of the Royal Exchange in London, a place more venerable than many courts of justice, where the representatives of all nations meet for the benefit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian transact together, as though they all professed the same religion, and give the name of infidel to none but bankrupts. There thee Presbyterian confides in the Anabaptist, and the Churchman depends on the Quaker’s word. At the breaking up of this pacific and free assembly, some withdraw to the synagogue, and others to take a glass. This man goes and is baptized in a great tub, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: that man has his son’s foreskin cut off, whilst a set of Hebrew words (quite unintelligible to him) are mumbled over his child. Others retire to their churches, and there wait for the inspiration of heaven with their hats on, and all are satisfied.
Let us consider for a moment how much turgid academic ranting on the allegedly intimate connection between capitalism and bigotry is rendered otiose by this simple observation of what commerce actually means. Commerce does not care for the colour of your skin, your religion, your sex, your sexuality, your ethnicity: what it cares about is the colour of your money. And the worth of your word.

It is politics, with its conjunction of coercion and category – often coercion-by-category – that makes the colour of your skin, your religion, your sex, your sexuality, your ethnicity important, even fatally important. Commerce wants your money and so must, perforce, attend to what you want. Commerce-as-commerce is not interested in any of the vile wars waged by believers—both secular and religious—against human nature-as-it-is in the name of human nature as-it-is-supposed to be. Commerce just wants your money. Preferably again and again. “It is better for me if you are happy with what I do” is practical commerce.

For requiring their consent is a great encourager of good behaviour towards others. As Adam Smith observed:
The real and effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman is that of his customers. It is the fear of losing their employment which restrains his frauds and corrects his negligence.
Down the ages, there has been much railing against commerce as undermining the moral order, how amoral the “vulgar merchants” are. Yet—when one bothers to look at the historical record—it is the commercial societies that have, again and again, pioneered social advances. The Serene Republic of Venice with equality before the law and sophisticated capital markets; the Dutch Republic being the first society to abolish the spectre of famine; England pioneering state action to assist the poor. No nations have been so morally tender about just about everything as are modern liberal capitalist societies.

The marginal in society are frequently rather better treated by commerce than by politics. A Fortune 500 company is much more likely to acknowledge same-sex relationships than a US State is. The former cares about getting and keeping good staff, and reaching customers. While political and religious entrepreneurs often seek to sell effortless virtue: to sell a sense of unearned self-satisfaction from simply being different to some other group—whites feeling terribly virtuous for not being black, gentiles feeling terribly virtuous for not being Jewish, straights for not being gay, those born and raised Protestant for not being Catholic, or vice versa. And so on.

If one is selling effortless virtue based on denigration of others, then one is selling bigotry. Something politics, and religion, are sadly rife with. Commerce, not so much. One attends in a different way to those you want to do business with, as Voltaire famously observed.

Long before people talked of the “pink dollar”, there was the Jewish ducat. While women could scale the heights of commerce when they were still formally barred from even the foothills of politics. The first African-American woman to become a millionaire was not Oprah Winfrey, but Madame C. J. Walker, who became a millionaire by 1910: and if you were a millionaire in 1910, you were really a millionaire. She achieved this by selling hair-care products, employing many African-American women in the process, quite deliberately so: no doubt a grave offence against the Equal Opportunity Act—don’t tell Rob Hulls.

When one looks at the denunciations of vulgar merchants and “immoral” commerce, again and again one sees the real complaint is that they attend to what people want, not what the critic thinks people ought to want. That they attend to what people are like, not what people allegedly ought to be like.

To any supporter of a static social order, the restless energy of commerce is a threat. And what social order is more static than one that seeks equality of outcome? The societies that have most raged against commerce have also created some of the most appalling horrors in history, struggling mightily and brutally against what people want.

Indeed, if one wants to establish any bigoted social order, one of the first things one has to do is to restrain commerce. As Thomas Sowell points out, part of the impetus for the Jim Crow laws in the American South was to ensure that a white person buying a first class train ticket did not find themselves sitting next to a black person. For, left to themselves, the railroad companies only cared if you could pay.

The apartheid regime in South Africa restricted commerce in all sorts of ways, as it had to in order to make race matter so much. Hence, when Helen Suzman was the only Opposition member of the South African Parliament, she represented the Cape Town equivalent of Kooyong. The commanding heights of South African commerce was where white opposition to apartheid was electorally strongest.

One of the great disasters of indigenous policy in our country was the law restricting consensual commercial relations between Aboriginal stockmen and pastoralists, by imposing full-time employment as the only acceptable form of contract. This, as was predicted at the time, devastated outback Aboriginal employment. Arrangements that had evolved to suit the people involved in them were abolished by coercive action by central authority because people, not involved in those interactions, had a theory. A theory that did not have pay any attention to what people on the ground actually wanted, and so what would actually work. A theory that classed itself as profoundly moral while it proceeded to stop people attending to what each other wanted.

Adam Smith had something to say about such “Men of System”, who attended to their own theories of government and not to people and circumstances. Such a person
… does not consider that in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it.
In Richard Trudgen’s Why Warriors Lie Down and Die—a necessary book to understand the serial disasters of indigenous policy in this country—there is a particularly appalling passage about “benevolent” government bureaucrats being frustrated when the locals continued to use their canoes to fish rather than the shiny new trawler the taxpayers had bought for them. But the locals knew about canoes and operated them within family and clan groups. The trawler involved new skills and its operation would upset agreed alliances and arrangements among those families and clans. But the bureaucrats knew nought of such matters, so they deliberately burnt the canoes to force the locals to use the trawler.

Needless to say, this wanton vandalism had no such effect. Indigenous Australians have suffered mightily from the coercive benevolence of the state.

For attending to what other people want is not a simple matter of selfishness versus benevolence. As C. S. Lewis noted:
“... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”
As will those who torment others in the name of the general good. The truly terrible thing about a Nazi gauleiter or Soviet commissar was not that they lacked a conscience, but precisely that they had them: consciences that burned to “purify” society. Attending to others is a great restraint on oppression of all kinds: both those motivated by moral claims, and those not.

For great harms are often created when capitalist acts between consenting adults are banned. The high minimum wages, and grave difficulties in sacking people, of French law do much to explain the social disasters of the banlieu, the French housing estates. The harder it is to sever a working relationship, the riskier it becomes to begin it. The more productive someone has to be to make starting a working relationship worthwhile, the less such relationships will be engaged in. Instead, people retreat to ways of reducing the risk: they insist on more certification; they use networks so people they know can, in effect, vouch for any new person; they minimise risks in communication by hiring people most like themself, and so on. Consequently, if you are a young Muslim male from those French housing estates, your chances of getting a job are greatly reduced. Living lives of idle resentment, burning a few cars provides cathartic excitement.

Thus does state-imposed “morality” divide society by stopping commerce from bringing people together. Social disaster created by a whole set of “moral” theories that stop people attending, one-on-one, to what other people want.

Yet Voltaire, over two and a half centuries ago, could see what encourages people to live together amiably and productively and what divides them. We really could do with a great deal more such eighteenth century wisdom: a sentiment that can turn up in all sorts of places. When he was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the People’s Republic, Hu Yaobang was reported to have observed that it was the ideas of Montesquieu, rather than “outdated” ones of Marx, that China needed.

[There is much to be said for the brute realism of commerce. The ivory towers of academe generate more than their fair share of nonsense. Adam Smith famously described certain universities as having:
… chosen to remain, for a long time, the sanctuaries in which exploded systems and obsolete prejudices found shelter and protection after they had been hunted out of every other corner of the world.
But academics can peddle ideas whose consequences they do not have to deal with. Consider the fairly appalling state of modern pedagogical theory. Academics come up with pedagogical theories to be imbued in educators of teachers, who then teach student teachers, who then go and teach students, the ones who actually bear the consequences of those ideas. Few milieus in our society are more isolated from the consequences of their ideas than the peddlers of pedagogical theory and few groups produce so much arrant nonsense—and often grandly big-noting nonsense at that.

Not, I suggest, a coincidence. There are all sorts of good features to commerce’s attention to what other people want: to having to deal, often on a daily basis, with the consequences of what you do.]

It is a grave mistake to think that politics has any inherent tendency to better behaviour than commercial life. In his recent book on the Irish housing boom and bust, Irish journalist Fintan O’Toole refers to:
… certain landowners [who] had accumulated large landbanks at the outskirts of urban areas which they then released in dribs and drabs in order to manipulate the market and artificially to maintain high land prices.
In Australia we have a name for such people. We call them ‘State Governments’. If Australians were as free to buy and sell land as Texans—a State that has a bigger population than Australia, faster population growth, higher average income and a bigger proportion of its population in its five largest cities—our houses would cost half to a third (or even less) their current prices. Instead, a country with one of the world’s lowest population densities has the most expensive metropolitan housing in the Anglosphere. A true regulatory achievement.

As Adam Smith observed:
The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would no-where be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.
In the light of recent tragic events, we might consider the way regulations controlling removal of trees and bushes retarded people’s ability to manage the fire risk of their properties. We might further consider the failures in management of public lands—notably the failure to reduce fire loads along roads, and in government lands generally.

We might consider the failure to invest in dams to match the increase in Victoria’s population. The last being a particularly egregious failure to live up to Adam Smith’s third duty of government:
… the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain, because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.
But “global warming” provides useful cover for the failure to match new water infrastructure to the increase in Victoria’s population. A 30% increase in Victoria’s population without a significant new dam is so obviously the fault of the climate—one of those useful Platonic myths I referred to earlier.

The failures of regulation, and of government management, are so numerous, that to presume that they have some strong demand on our support—rather than requiring very careful justification—is a triumph of faith over experience.

By contrast, the economic benefits of free commerce are well attested, something Richard Morgan provides an excellent short survey of in his book. But it is a great mistake to think that those economic benefits are somehow separate, or even opposed, to the moral benefits of free commerce.

Not a mistake that Adam Smith himself was at all inclined to make. As Richard Morgan reminds us, Smith was a moral philosopher who produced The Theory of the Moral Sentiments years before he published The Wealth of Nations. To start with a short discussion of elements of The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, as Richard Morgan does, is entirely appropriate. The right way to frame the practical and moral advantages of free commerce, illuminated by the observations and wisdom of Adam Smith. Wisdom that, as Richard Morgan sets out, is entirely relevant to our own time.

The case for freedom of commerce is very much a moral case. I commend Richard Morgan’s short, and highly readable, book to you as an excellent primer to the continuing relevance of Adam Smith’s C18th wisdom. Perhaps more of our academics—and even a few of our politicians—might catch up to the C18th, so we can better cope with the challenges of the C21st. Especially as Richard Morgan has kindly made it so easy for them to do so.

Thank you

ADDENDA In his post of 3 December 2009, Adam Smith Scholar Gavin Kennedy has some nice things to say about my speech.