"'Give us this day our daily bread', and cakes, lots of cakes, and puddings and fine foods of all kinds from all over" So say the customers in the Tavern's fine dining rooms. Our chef works hard but does not have a sense of humour to write about. So I invited someone to teach him a thing or two, and I am happy to show him and his wares here.
Italian chef Matteo Strucchi. For a young fellow he is certainly making his mark. And he does have a sense of humour.
The pastry chef from Lecco in northern Italy has been featuring his intricate pieces on Instagram through his account I dolci di Gulliver, which has garnered around 67,000 followers.
“I wanted to present my desserts differently from others."
"There are lots of artists who create miniatures using food, but I focus on desserts. I try to use my imagination as much as possible in order to surprise people."
Imagine a world made of pastry... chocolate rivers, gingerbread houses and buildings made of dough. That's exactly what he does. Strucchi has been working as a pastry chef in Lecco, northern Italy, for two years, but since this summer, he's also been working on a passion project: a food photography account on Instagram which transforms his delicious desserts into a landscape for tiny people.
The account, I Dolci di Gulliver, takes its name from the book Gulliver's Travels which sees an ordinary man travel to Lilliput, a nation of miniature people. Using models of people and vehicle, Strucchi creates scenes showing the people of Lilliput living in a world of pastry. From sailing down a chocolate river to building complex desserts using trucks and cranes, Strucchi's characters have clearly captured people's imagination, and scores a visiting chefship in the Tavern.
As for how he comes up with the unique ideas, Strucchi says he first focuses on making a beautiful pastry, and then tries to look at it from a new perspective. "Then, I think about how I can make my characters interact with it," he explained. The proof is in the pudding. I will show a few more here but then, for more, you will have to go and find him yourselves. Eat up.
Just how much tolerance can we tolerate? And why has 'tolerance' suddenly become so over-ridingly important? OK, I know, I tolerate all sorts in the Tavern but even I have my standards. And whatever happened to Standards, for goodness sake? It used to be that we looked to 'Virtues', of the predominantly Christian sort, but in our modern, all-singing, all-dancing, modern, relatavistic secular world these have been replaced by 'values'. To have standards these days is to be a bigot. But just how do we measure Tolerance?
For the engineer, tolerance can be measured by size, distance, degree or some other physical property, but in our society, I think, Tolerance is measured by time. The time it take for the average person to throw up.
Tolerance, for me, is measured by the Time it takes for my Bouncer to be thoroughly pissed off by a customer's bad behaviour.
Intolerable behaviour.
I say 'thoroughly' as I am the first to lay down the rules and oblige him to take care not to fly off the handle at the drop of a hat, if you will excuse the mix of metaphors. He knows my limits. But, putting the Bouncer aside, the terminology of the engineer's instrument, the Micrometre, is telling: he has the Anvil, upon which our society has been laid: the ratchet knob, and we have all too many knobs ratcheting their 'values' up on us, 'progressively'; the lock which seems to have stopped any movement toward sense; and the Frame, of course, with the PTB and the wreckers forging the frame of reference that we are all obliged to work in, and which puts so many ordinary law abiding folk 'in the frame'. Tolerance, for the ordinary chap, is a dimension, with zero at one end and everything goes at the other.
Just where you are on any matter is your unique, and often erroneous, take on things.
And we have many 'things' to have an erroneous take on.
There's the Religious thing: the Race thing; the 'Whiteness' thing: the Homosexual thing; the Marriage thing; the Muslim thing; the Nationalist thing; the Neo-nazi thing; even the friggin' Gluten thing and the Obesity thing. To top all there is the 'you must accept me as I am' thing. In fact 'me, me, me' is the thing of things, no matter that the me doing the demanding is a total half-wit. And such people take advantage.
We are to be excoriated for our errors.
The rubbish and evil, and even the banal, we are told to tolerate is overwhelming us. We are bullied by half-wits daily in the media and politics if we as much as hint at 'standards'. We must learn to discern. We must learn the limits of tolerance, for even a virtue can become a vice when taken to the extreme.
How long will it take you to throw up?
The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. He defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance,
the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. But that does not mean abandoning discenment and the use of calm judgment.
And that discernment will, more often than not, show just who the intolerant are that we should not tolerate. The Same-sex marriage brigade have car-bombed the Australian Christian Lobby, and 'powder' has been sent to the organisation in the mail. It is they, the homosexuals who are intolerant, while simultaneously whineing in a fit of emotional blackmail that any debate at all will bring intolerable angst to homosexuals such that they may harm themselves. Someone has their back, and they have a car bomb too. And will post white powder. Hello? Muslims in Canada are claiming that horrid people are discriminating against them and 'hate' them.
Canada: Hate crimes against Muslims increase by 60%
TRENTON, Ont. (AA): Hate crimes against Muslims have increased 60 percent, according to the latest figures released Tuesday by Statistics Canada.
There were 159 incidents in 2015, a significant jump from 99 the previous year, the agency said on its website.
The numbers have been steadily increasing and are up 253 percent since 2012, although overall instances of police-recorded hate crimes were down 3.8 percent in 2015 to 1,362 from 1,424 in 2012.
Khalid Elgazzar, board vice chairman of the National Council of Canadian Muslims and an Ottawa-based lawyer, termed 2015 as a “difficult year.”
No detailed mention of what these 'hate' incidents were, mind you. The ordinary Canadian simply being worried when people threaten to behead him for being an 'Infidel', is considered a 'hateful' worry, it seems. Your Canadian has to 'tolerate' moslems carrying threatening signs in the streets and cutting heads off where they can.
A man with a sausage is a rapist
Oz Universities are terrified of the 'Rape Culture' when in fact barely any rape to speak loudly about occurs in Oz at all outside of our small indiginous and moslem 'communities' and even fewer in our Universities. But what is one to expect when a 'look' by someone in a pub is considered 'rape' by hysterical feminists. Grilling a sausage is prima faci evidence. And we are to tolerate such outrageous slurs against the ordinary Australian male in our Universities, where he is becoming an endangered minority. We are to 'tolerate' feminazis riding roughshod over sense and sensibility. One could go on, but I shall have a customer have the last word.
It is up to you. When are you going to be sick and tired enough of being bullied by the intoleratti, in order to stop them. How much are you willing to take before you call an end to their thuggery? When are you going to call time? Pax
I have driven a Morgan only once. I was reminded by a fellow driving up the mountain to the Tavern this morning. It was to and from the Reception after a wedding, at which I was the Groom. (Not the chap's this morning !) Unfortunately the beautiful little ride belonged to a friend and I had to give it back. What an honest little car it was. Unlike the Bride. I should have taken the car for swaps. Perhaps I can talk this fellow into a ride.
Quintessentially British from chassis to badge, the Morgan is not only a hark back to a golden age of 'motoring' but one of those few truely 'Hand-made' vehicles left, and were you to pass by the factory you could go in and have a guided tour. The Morgan Motor Company is a family-owned British motor car manufacturer that was founded in 1910 by Henry Frederick Stanley Morgan. Here, take a short tour.
Morgan is based in Malvern Link, an area of Malvern, Worcestershire and employs 177 people. Morgan has stated that they produce "in excess of 1300" cars per year, all assembled by hand. The waiting list for a car is approximately six months, although it has been as long as ten years in the past.
H.F.S. Morgan's first car design was a single-seat three-wheeled runabout, which was fabricated for his personal use in 1908, with help from William Stephenson-Peach, the father of friends, and the engineering master at Malvern College. Powered by a 7 hp (5.2 kW; 7.1 PS) Peugeot twin cylinder engine (from an abandoned motorcycle project) cycle, the car had a backbone chassis, an idea retained for all following Morgan three-wheelers, and used as little material and labour as Morgan could manage.
A single-seat three-wheeler with coil-spring independent front suspension, unusual at the time, the driveshaft ran through the backbone tube to a two-speed transmission (with no reverse), and chain drive to each of the rear wheels. The steering was by tiller, and it had band brakes. It also had no body.
With financial help from his father and his wife, the car was put into production at premises in Pickersleigh Road, Malvern Link, and three single-seaters exhibited at the 1910 Motor Show at Olympia in London. In spite of great interest being shown, only a few orders were taken, and Morgan decided a two-seater was needed to meet market demand.
This was built in 1911, adding a bonnet, windscreen, wheel steering, and crank starting; it was displayed at the 1911 Motor Cycle Show. An agency was taken up by the Harrod's department store in London, with a selling price of £65. The Morgan became the only car ever to appear in a shop window at Harrods Every Morgan is expertly hand crafted using three core elements: ash, aluminium and leather. By pushing the boundaries of how long-established techniques can be applied, each Morgan car celebrates traditional manufacture while embracing modern design. In spite of their traditional design, Morgans have always had sporting or "sports car" performance, due to their extremely low weight. Among their enthusiasts, Morgans are affectionately known as "Moggies". OK, you want a test drive.
Morgan cars can be found in many areas of motorsport, from club and historic racing to more prominent examples, including the Le Mans 24hr race. A notable Morgan racecar was the Aero 8 GT car that campaigned in 2008 Britcar races and the 2008 Britcar 24hrs at Silverstone, prepared and run by Mark Bailey Racing.
Having celebrated its Centenary in 2009, the Morgan Motor Company continues its proud tradition of building fine English sports cars for discerning enthusiasts. The mainstay of the company is the Classic Morgan range. The Morgan Motor Company has been building the Classic range for over seven decades. Although the classic and timeless appearance of the Morgan is retained, ‘under the skin’ the Classic Morgans now offer the performance, efficiency and safety enhancements required today. The Classic range is available in four models, two 4-cylinder models, the 4/4 and Plus 4, a V6-engined Roadster and the recently introduced V8-engined Plus 8. In 2001 Morgan added an innovative Aero 8 as the flagship of the model range. This was succeeded by the limited edition AeroMax.
In 2009 Morgan launched the current ‘head-turning’ Aero SuperSports followed by the Aero Coupe in 2012. These models feature a lightweight race proven aluminium chassis and coachwork, powered by a 4.8 V8 engine. The unique styling of the Aero Coupe and SuperSports, coupled with outstanding performance and handling combine to showcase the pinnacle of Morgan's 100+ years of driving passion. Morgan continues to provide unique driving experiences with the return to the roots in 2011 of the car that started the company in 1909, the Morgan 3 Wheeler. Just right for open-top driving on Tasmania's similarly hark-back roads. Drink up, but after a drive, not before. Pax
"Should we bring back the Death Penalty, especially for terrorists?", someone asked in the Tavern the other day. I hummed and haared and pulled pints like a busy Tavern Keeper. But later came back to a spirited, if a tad gory, conversation going on. I gave it some thought. Should I really say what I thought, to my pleasant customers. My thoughts are far from pleasant in this matter. Dark.
Most modern nations have had the death penalty at some time and most have abandoned it. Indeed one difference between the current Muslim scourge and our own 'western' practices in handing out 'Judicial' death sentences can be seen largely as one of Time. One only has to go back 150 years in Britain, for instance and we could see people hanged at Tyburn or Coventry's Gibbet Hill infront of huge crowd of jeerers. Before that the French were quite adept with the Guillotine and the Anglos were even more gory with the 'hang, draw and quarter' practice. Occasions were funfairs.
But we are past all that now, aren't we? America still has some vestige still operating. Should the rest of the West follow suit and bring back the rope? I do not think we should bring back torture or the more gruesome punishments but what are the arguments pro and con and what does a christian - a Catholic - have to say? The debate wandered around with the occasional quite nasty utterances which needed a stern look and even a call to the Bouncer. But several points could sum up. I shall give my view later but you can gauge for yourselves here >>>
If the penalty is not severe, the act is bound to be repeated more frequently. The penalties for any crime are only a deterrent, there is no way to stop it 100%; but effective curtailment is crucial, so the consequence of breaking any law (secular/moral/religious) must be relative to the desired impact(in this case these highest)
Its simple, yes of course.
If they are willing to kill hundreds or thousands of people, to the point they'd give up their own life to do so, surely we can't be blamed for wanting to rid ourselves of such dangers? Terrorism is like smallpox, we just don't need it and it does nothing but bad, i say if you want to be a terrorist, fine, but you give up all your human rights and if caught i say we should be able to do whatever we want with you, what about your human rights i hear you ask? Well what about ours?
No they should not.
No one deserves the death penalty, even terrible people who wish to only do us harm. We all have our beliefs and way of living and even though theirs is not right and causes problems and hurts others, it is not right to stoop to their level than turn around and say we are better than them when we just did the same thing.
No, not all terrorists should get the death penalty.
There are many lower level terrorists that commit terrorist crimes that are not extreme. It is for this reason that I do not believe that all terrorists should get the death penalty. Only those terrorists that commit crimes deserving of the death penalty should be executed for their crimes, not all of them.
The warrior at war, even the footsoldier, may - indeed is encouraged to - kill the enemy. But what if the enemy is captured and can no longer act against you? To that I would hazard that in the field Rule 303 has been implemented on more than just the one occasion of Lt 'Breaker' Morant. What of the sentences given for captured terrorists? Is jailing for ten years enough? Should they hang? Guantanamo Bay went down like a lead balloon after a decade of whining and accusation and politicing.
What of the 'low-level' not-quite but wannabe terrorist who does not (yet) go blowing up folk or running them down in the street with a car or truck, but just limits himself to, say, raping dozens of young girls as part of a grooming and rape gang (as per Rotherham) that sees 'infidel' girls as 'meat'? Should they get suspended from a rope instead of suspended sentences? What for those who covered it up, lied, excused, enabled it? What of the policies for having people who have left one's own shores to fight for and with a Terrorist organisation and now wants to come home? Should they be kept out, never to darken our doorsteps again or allowed home and hanged?
Is there a Moral Injunction against Capital punishment?
I turned to a Priest who was supping a pint: Fr. C. John McCloskey III
The Traditional Case for Capital Punishment
A group of Catholic publishers recently issued a joint statement urging an end to capital punishment. I have great respect for all of them – I have written for all of them at one point or another. I disagree with them on this issue, however. And it may be good to give some background about why I and many others disagree.
Most importantly, the Catholic Church’s Magisterium does not and never has advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty.
The U.S. bishops have conceded that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime. Even the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin – hardly a conservative – never stated that every criminal has a right to continue living, nor did he deny that the state has the right in some cases to execute the guilty.
St. John Paul II, although opposed to most applications of the death penalty, thought the same.
Let’s hear what St. Augustine had to say on this topic:
“ . . . there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual.
And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals.
And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, You shall not kill.”
(City of God, Bk I, 21)
Augustine also said that capital punishment protects those who are undergoing it from further sinning, which might continue if their life went on.
If this is not enough, consider the thoughts of the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, on this topic. Citing Exodus 22, which specifies that certain categories of wrongdoers shall not be permitted to live, Aquinas unequivocally states that civil rulers can execute justly to protect the peace of the state.
St. Thomas finds frivolous the argument that murderers should be allowed to live in hopes of their repentance, questioning how many innocent people should have to suffer death while waiting for the guilty to repent.
While capital punishment is not justifiable as an act of vengeance,.....
according to Aquinas it is justifiable to help secure the safety of the community by removing a dangerous wrongdoer and deterring others from his example; in addition, it is an act of justice, allowing expiation for the wrongdoer’s sin.
St. Paul in his hearing before Festus says, “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death.” (Acts 25:11)
Very clearly this constitutes an acknowledgment on the part of the apostle to the gentiles that the state continues to have the power of life and death in the administration of justice. And of course when we first encounter Paul (Saul at that point), he is cooperating in the stoning to death of St. Stephen for the crime of blasphemy.
Pope Pius XII said, “In the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed under the supervision of St. Charles Borromeo, stated: “Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thou shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.”
None of the figures mentioned above were bloodthirsty individuals. All probably would have agreed with several modern popes that great care be used in modern conditions in applying the death penalty. But it’s doubtful they would have supported abolishing it.
Indeed, for any son or daughter of God, it is a great grace to know the time of one’s death, as it gives us the opportunity to get right with the Lord who will judge us at our death.
Perhaps many people have been saved in this way by the death penalty. Who knows what would have happened if they had been allowed to linger in this life, one day possibly killing other people?
And there are other, utterly unexpected effects. The great Catholic convert and evangelist Frank Sheed wrote a book called The Map of Life. In one edition of the book, he tells of a man sentenced to death for murder. After reading Sheed’s book, the man wrote Sheed that, if what he had put down in that book about heaven and forgiveness was true, though he was offered clemency by the State, he decided to allow the execution, because he would be going to heaven now as a Catholic convert.
Now as a (possibly, trying to be) Good Catholic Knight, I take the Magisterium quite seriously. It is the basis of what in secular terms became English Common Law. Like that law system, based upon precedent and argument over ages, it may differ in some respect from Canon Law, or as in secular terms, Statute Law. But in all event is it based upon 'Authority.
I do not wholly agree with some outmoded 'Authority' edicts. Ceasars are long gone and we do not have any obligation to render unto them. The State is no longer overseen by a King who might wish to claim a 'Divine Right', a dubious enough concept. Most modern western States are democratic in some manner, and it follows that God did not appoint any MPs or Congressmen:
I did and you did.
I may sometimes make foolish choices and I know full well that you do.
They answer to us. Now it may be that for some of us, God's hand may have nudged us to vote for a Good person, but that is more Hope than Known.
I have mentioned before my own view that God allows much of which He disapproves. I cannot for the life of me (now and in the Hereafter) accept that God appointed Pol Pot. I see no need whatsoever to go by any Authority that takes away my own. I answer and will answer, personally to God. He will hold me accountable, not some MP in New South Wales or Arkansas. So whether we hang terrorists is MY decision, and yours. We shall agree or disagree. But we shall be accountable.
"So, Sir Knight", asked one customer.
"Just what IS your view?"
Yes. Terrorists should be hanged. Or dispatched by some means, with finality. It should be done and seen to be done, but not as a spectacle. But that is not all. I do not like the death penalty, as most reasonable people do not either. But there are necessities of society and of the Spirit. These need to be considered. The death penalty, as with all penalties, is to punish and deter others It punishes for a crime, in this case so heinous, one of such emormity that it calls for not just loss of freedom but being removed from life altogether. Seeing a miscreant punished may deter others from miscreance too. Many lesser penalties also seek redemption - or in civil terms, rehabilitation - a chance to become a useful and reasonable citizen. This latter aspect must be available, for a time at least, even for a terrorist.
And the miscreant, in this instance a murderous Muslim, intent of being the best Muslim he can be, terrorising with killing, deeply imbued with a creed so horrific and wicked, who cares nought for his own life and even less for innocent victims, needs to be punished severely. He or she should be locked away for five years, in a man-made purgatory. Then hanged. One does not need to emulate the abject cruelty and physical mutilations that he would give to his victims. But his purgatory should be punitive. Isolation. Never to speak with a human being again. At least not for a long time.
Sent to Coventry.
This in fact was a punishment handed to Some Englishmen of yore. One hypothesis as to the origin of this phrase is based upon The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon. In this work, Clarendon recounts how Royalist troops that were captured in Birmingham were taken as prisoners to Coventry, which was a Parliamentarian stronghold. Indeed, the dungeons under St Mary's Hall saw many men locked into darkness and left to die of starvation. His living conditions should be sparse. He should be hosed down in pig fat on arrival so he knows he must abandon any thought of going to meet Allah. His diet should be non-Muslim. He should be subjected to 24/7 Bible readings from just the New Testament. Christian hymns too. These should be piped into his cell and he have no way of stopping them. (they can be at a whisper while he sleeps). Films should be projected onto his cell wall. The Passion of the Christ would be a good start of a long list. He should be given a Bible when he asks for it, after one year. After a year of isolation and mindbatheing he may be offered a chance to convert from Muslim to Christian.
Then he can be hanged.
The sooner he converts the sooner he gets hanged. It is something for him to look forward to. (Of course, the conversion must be sincere). And his family? What of them? No Muslim stands much of a chance of avoiding becoming a psychopath, being born into an evil, psychotic society, totally immersed in hatred and violence. It is there from birth in his family. He does not act his terrorism as a rebellion against his parents but in accord with their deeply held and lived beliefs in the destruction of 'Infidels'. His entire extended family should be deported. Immediately. His mosque should be closed down and any objectors deported. Immediately. That might be a deterrant too, and at least it will thin-out the numbers of possible future wicked next-door neighbours. People who stride the streets holding signs like those above, making threats and calling for wicked punishments should be arrested and deported. IMMEDIATELY. I did say you might not like my dark thoughts. But what of your own? What say you? I shall pour your drink while you think. I shall await comments. Pax
Money cannot buy happiness, the old saw goes, but neither does grinding poverty or even being poor. For most of human existence most people, the vast majority, have been poor. Of those who were not 'poor' there were far more in grinding poverty than living high on the hog. There was little in the way of 'abundance' about.
The past couple of hundred years has seen a transformation of this seemingly natural order of things. Where before there was not much to go around and the very powerful kept most of it to themselves, today there is plenty and it is held by many. This is undeniable. Robin Hood apparantly did some work on the side redistributing what he could lay his hands upon. An exception to the rule. Mind you, again, the seriously rich robbed mainly amongst themselves, where the wealth was. There was just one Robin Hood but many robbing hoods in high places. When King Richard was captured in Europe on his way home from the Crusades, his captor demanded as ransom the equivalent of the entire GDP of Britain. But the attitudes of the hoi poloi remain very much the same. The poor envy the rich, and where they may have had some 'cause' to be envious through much of history, today that vice is more difficult to sustain. But effort is made !
Today some carp and complain about the 1%, failing to understand or even acknowledge that to be in the 1% of humanity today is to have the average wage of an Australian sheet metal worker or a plumber. Even our Oz leader in waiting reckons that earning just a bit less each year than Au$180,000 makes you 'Rich' and you should be excoriated. Not that he counts himself amongst those he rubbishes: him with his millions. He does not like it shouted about.
Talking heads continually carp about the high pay of CEOs who might make several millions a year running businesses employing several thousand people - and paying them - but few such 'commentators' point the finger at people like 'talk-show' hosts who take home US$50 million and employ only personal housemaids, or 'pop divas' who manage to tuck vast millions in their skimpy stage attire. The real poor are not found in the Western world. Most are in the third world. But they are getting fewer by the day. Marian Tupy came by to give some good oil in exchange for good grace.
The Most Important Graph in the World
There has been a massive increase in wealth throughout the world in the last two centuries.
Jonathan Haidt, the well-known psychologist from New York University, started as a "typical" liberal intellectual, but came to appreciate the awesome ability of free markets to improve the lives of the poor.
Earlier this year, he penned an essay in which he pointed to what he called "the most important graph in the world."
The graph reflected Angus Maddison's data showing a massive increase in wealth throughout the world over the last two centuries and which is reproduced, courtesy of Human Progress, below.
The "great enrichment" (Deirdre McCloskey's phrase) elicits different responses in different parts of the world, Haidt noted. "When I show this graph in Asia," Haidt writes, "the audiences love it, and seem to take it as an aspirational road map…
But when I show this graph in Europe and North America, I often receive more ambivalent reactions. 'We can't just keep growing forever!' some say. 'We'll destroy the planet!' say others.
These objections seem to come entirely from the political left, which has a history, stretching back centuries, of ambivalence or outright hostility to capitalism."
Haidt's experience mirrors my own. When giving talks about the benefits of free markets, audiences in Europe and America invariably note the supposedly finite nature of growth and express worry about the environmental state of the planet.
Why?
In Haidt's view, capitalist prosperity changes human conscience.
In pre-industrial societies, people care about survival. "As societies get wealthier, life generally gets safer, not just due to reductions in disease, starvation, and vulnerability to natural disasters, but also due to reductions in political brutalization.
People get rights."
This more prosperous generation, then, starts caring about such things as women's rights, animal rights, gay rights, human rights, and environmental degradation.
"They start expecting more out of life than their parents did."
All that is fine, of course, so long as the pampered youth in the West and newly empowered youth in the Far East remember that roughly 800 million people in the world, many of them in Africa, still live in absolute poverty and experience the kinds of existential challenges that only free markets can solve.
Denying dirt-poor people access to cheap fossil fuel energy, for example, can mean a death sentence to a newborn child on life support in an electric-powered incubator in rural Africa.
Let me conclude with two final thoughts. First, there is no obvious reason why growth should not continue indefinitely—although future growth will likely be more dependent on technological change than in the past.
In the West, for example, we cannot replicate the growth boost that resulted from the entry of large number of women (50 percent of the population) into the labor force.
Second, let's not fall into the trap of thinking that, because the initial stage of industrialization was bad for the environment, pre-industrial society saw man and nature coexist in harmony.
Part of the reason why the Industrial Revolution started in England was that the country had to switch from almost depleted wood to coal as a source of energy.
Industrialization, and subsequent enrichment, saved European forests, and it can do so in Africa as well.
This old Tavern Keeper used to be quite well off. I am now poor. Poor by western standards that is. I can attest from just my own personal experience, that I am quite happy, thank you. I am pretty sure I could be just as happy rich. A rich man can help more people than a poor man. If he so chooses.
He /she can do more damage too. Drink up now. Pax.
