Monthly Archives: January 2013

The Profits of Blame

At the New English Review, Dalrymple explores the moral and utilitarian arguments surrounding debt default: Who is to blame? Who should bear the costs? How do we avoid moral hazard? There are no easy answers:
[I]t is better on the whole for humanity to force creditors to accept losses than to allow those same creditors to inhibit overall economic activity, and thus the prosperity of millions, in pursuit of their right to be repaid in full. We cannot let the heavens fall so that their debts might be repaid.
I think we can all see the force of this. None of us would be prepared to undergo very much hardship for the sake of turning someone else’s bad debt into a performing debt.
On the other hand – there is always another hand – it is obvious that allowing people to borrow large sums of money and then write them off is not altogether an incentive to prudence or probity. If everybody could renounce his debts the moment he found it too inconvenient to repay them, the person who repays rather than defaults comes to seem naïve or foolish rather than upright. It would become normal practice to borrow without the slightest intention ever of repaying or meeting obligations. This too would constrict credit.

The Policeman and the Brothel

In this BMJ column Dalrymple critiques an interesting book – his own – having noticed an omission in his description of the behavior of a 19th Century murderer on the island of Jersey in The Policemen and the Brothel:
Nicolle was sentenced to death, but his advocate went to London to obtain a reprieve from the home secretary, who granted it on the grounds that Nicolle had in the past been mad. I quote now what I wrote about some of the evidence at his trial:
According to [his landlady], his behaviour appeared strange and completely inexplicable on a number of occasions. For example she had seen him beating the walls with his fists until they bled . . . One night he slept in a box in his room instead of on his bed. [She] had never seen him drunk, and said that he was known . . . as Mad Nicolle.
At the time of his madness he was learning his trade, which was that of—a hatter. Obviously, he was a mad hatter, but astonishingly and mortifyingly I missed this in my book. His symptoms, which fit no commonly seen pattern nowadays, were those of erethism caused by mercury poisoning. H A Waldron, in an article on the Mad Hatter in the BMJ in 1983 (BMJ 1983;287:1961, doi:10.1136/bmj.287.6409.1961), said the psychotic symptoms of erethism were excessive timidity, diffidence, increasing shyness, a desire to remain unobserved, and an explosive loss of temper when criticised.
….
How could I possibly have overlooked so obvious a diagnosis? But of course kind readers will point out that I have overlooked something in this article too.

Doctor Jekyll and Mister Assad

In the BMJ (subscription required) Dalrymple sees a literary parallel in the transformation of Bashar Assad from meek ophthalmologist to mass murdering dictator:

It was very much to Dr Assad’s credit, I think, that he became a member of the finest profession rather than a gilded youth, as his elder brother did. When he arrived in London to pursue his training and career in ophthalmology, the young Dr Assad behaved with commendable modesty, and was liked by his bosses, his colleagues, and his patients, to whose welfare he was devoted. His only ambition appeared to be ophthalmological; there was nothing in his conduct, timid rather than overbearing, that indicated he was the son of a dictator, much less that he was himself an aspiring dictator (which he wasn’t).

His fate was affected, if not sealed exactly, by the death of his elder brother Bassel, hitherto the heir-apparent to the dictatorship, in a car crash. Bashar became the heir, and returned to Damascus. His father died in 2000. Dr Assad was thrust into a role that he had not at first sought to play.

From then on, however, by the logic of the situation, he was transformed, from nice Dr Jekyll into nasty Mr Hyde; and what changed him was not Jekyll’s potion, “of reddish hue,” but power.

Organised squirmings

Psychologist John B. Watson, father of behaviourism, considered humans mindless, plastic things. Dalrymple says his views were sectarian and dogmatic – and ultimately inhuman (subscription required):

There was something sinister about Watson and his acolytes. Watson himself believed that baby farms might be desirable, and regarded babies and children as infinitely plastic. He thought he could turn them into anything he wanted. For him human beings were but the sum total of their conditioning, and he ends The Ways of Behaviorism by answering the question of whether an adult can change his personality. The answer is maybe, though it would be onerous:

Possibly if we had absolute control over food, sex, shelter, if we had some great reconditioning laboratory where the individual could be brought for a year for rigorous study and experimentation, we might be able to undo for him in a year what home nurture had done for him in thirty years.

Among the evils of “home nurture” is mother love, every reference to which in this book is negative, being equated with smothering, stifling, and infantilising. Much better for babies to be in nice hygienic laboratories, where psychologists can blow air at their corneas and make sure that they develop no irrational fear of snakes.

Consciousness held no mystery for Watson, in part because he denied that it existed. All that mattered was behaviour, not what went on in minds (whose existence he also denied), though he does not explain why anything at all should matter if there is no consciousness and there are no minds.

“Justice” Comes to Islington

An interesting experiment is about to be conducted in London. A public-housing authority has constructed exact replicas of elegant early-Victorian townhouses on one side of Union Square in Islington, of the kind much coveted by bankers and lawyers in the nearby financial center, the famed (or ill-famed) City. The authority will rent these houses to relatively poor families at a steep discount. The scheme is revealing from at least three points of view: architectural, social, and politico-economic…

Read the rest at City Journal

Equality of Opportunity: The Perpetual Alibi of Bureaucracy

At the Library of Law and Liberty, Dalrymple argues against the idea of equality of opportunity, provided it means more than just equality under the law. Any serious attempt to achieve such a goal, he notes, would soon lead to A Brave New World. But he also notes a corresponding lack of interest in concrete steps that could be taken to improve opportunity, such as better schooling:

Why? Why a fixation on an impossible chimera, equality of opportunity, and a complete disregard of a perfectly achievable end conducing to more opportunity for millions of actual people, namely teaching them to read and reckon with facility? The answer, I think, is that chasing chimeras is a source of endless job opportunities and bureaucratic expansion; trying to achieve limited, but achievable and invaluable, goals would demand painful change (and possibly even admissions of guilt). There is every reason why a child born to ignorant parents of degraded habits should not have the same life chances as a child born to wealthy and cultivated parents; but there is no reason why he should not learn – that is to say, be taught – to read and write.

Blacks Only?

Libération recently called Barack Obama “the first Black in the White House”. Just who, exactly, is focused on race around here?

There is no subject on which people so quickly lose their heads and contradict themselves as race. People who vehemently deny the scientific validity of the concept defend with equal vehemence the necessity for positive discrimination in favour of certain races which, presumably, they are able to distinguish one from another. Anti-racists collect statistics about race with a celerity and obsessional intrusiveness that would have put the apartheid regime to shame. The opposite of a racist is not an anti-racist but someone who does not think in racial categories at all.

The Worldwide Evolution of Life Expectancy

In contrast to the prevailing view that all news is bad news, Dalrymple looks at the big picture and sees dramatic human progress:
Worldwide life expectancy between 1970 and 2010 rose at a rate of 3-4 years per decade, except for the 1990s, when the rate of improvement was considerably lower. In Asia and Latin America, the average age at death rose by 1 year every 2 years, a startling rate of improvement. But the greatest improvement in recent years has been in sub-Saharan Africa: life expectancy in Angola, Ethiopia, Niger and Rwanda has increased by 10 – 15 years since 1990…
Of course, it is easier to produce dramatic improvements starting from a low base; where infant mortality rates are high, it is relatively easy to extend life expectancy. And in fact the worldwide death rate of children under the age of 9 has fallen by nearly two thirds since 1970. This is in complete contradiction to the gloomy prognostications of that time, when many so-called savants predicted perpetual mass famine. If freedom from mortal disease is part of the good life, the world has been improving at an unprecedented rate.

Merry Evolution and a Happy New Species

Dalrymple the atheist has no problem saying Merry Christmas. So what’s with all this Happy Holidays nonsense?

Whose intolerance, exactly, is being appeased by the wretched locution? Not that of the religious: in the town in which I live, the Moslem-owned Indian restaurants are festooned with Christmas decorations, and the staff hand round little presents to the regular customers and wish them a Merry Christmas. The notion that every person with the slightest religious faith is a fanatic waiting to explode with rage at the first  indication that someone else has a different tradition or believes something different from him is absurd.

Read the rest at The Hilarious Pessimist, courtesy of The Salisbury Review