Epicurus and the pleasant life

From the Vatican documents on Epicureanism

VS. 5. It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.

 

The plight of British civility.

In the American imagination, Britain is an old-fashioned country, where the rules of chivalry, courtesy, civility and general politeness are rigorously enforced. The myth of a kind Britain is sometimes believed by the British, who contrast our manners with the boisterous, rude and unnecessarily outspoken personalities of our American cousins. This is certainly the myth Britain’s cultural elite would have you believe, as they export period dramas of a wealthy elite adhering to Victorian values.

However, both the humble Americans and snobby Brits are wrong: Britain, like America, is a mean country. And nowhere is this clearer than in the realm of British politics. If public discussions were ever polite and measured, they certainly aren’t now. This is because of two waves of political correctness.

The first wave took place during the Blair years. Now Blair came to power because people were sick of the Conservatives, who were not only ridden by scandal, but held some highly anachronistic attitudes regarding the EU, devolution, sexuality and constitutional reform. For many, Blair was a breath of fresh air, bringing in a new age of liberalism. But there was a darker side to New Labour. In popular culture and polite society, questioning the liberalism of the age became taboo. You couldn’t question the merits of devolving so much power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. You couldn’t question the historically high levels of immigration, nor the extension of the EU into Eastern Europe that had contributed to it. Those who pined for tradition and a return to the old way of things were sidelined. Working class communities were told they were being listened to, even as many were left behind, however unintentionally.

The second wave of political correctness was essentially an overreaction to the first wave. After the 2015 election, the advent of majority Conservative government gave the hard-right a new voice, unshackled by the limits of coalition. Emboldened by the referendum on EU membership to be held the following year, the hard-right contextualised the EU as part of the broader malaise that was social liberalism. They used the political correctness of the Blair years to demonstrate that the British people were being oppressed by a metropolitan elite, intolerant of the working class and their natural patriotism. They appropriated the language of class warfare, promising to fight for the poor against the indulgence and complacency of a privileged few. At the same time, they lied about sharing the same economic interests as their constituents, espousing a populist agenda of an increasingly generous NHS and welfare state, despite having voted consistently to diminish both.

But it was not until after the referendum won, that the mantra of the Eurosceptic Right became political correctness. Overnight, the likes of Iain Duncan Smith and Nigel Farage became the new establishment. The relatively liberal PM, David Cameron resigned, to be replaced by the opportunistic Theresa May, who promised to deliver the ‘hard’ Brexit demanded by the hard-right. All of a sudden, right wing populism became the ‘will of the people’, with opponents of Brexit or even a ‘soft’ Brexit, branded ‘traitors’, ‘enemies of the people,’ or part of the metropolitan elite. Prominent members of the Leave campaign, which was deceitfully ambiguous about what sort of Brexit it wanted,  now demanded withdrawal from all aspects of European policy. Emboldened by the apparent continuity of British economic performance from prior the referendum, Brexiters became overconfident, accusing their opponents of being scared. ‘You’re afraid of losing’, they insisted, believing that Brexit will be a  near-certain success disregarding the overwhelming evidence and opinion of economists to the contrary.

Now, the atmosphere is toxic. The tabloid press spew out an uncompromising dichotomy: either support the hardest Brexit possible, or have your patriotism and basic decency brought into question. When not engaged in fascistic gloating, Leave leaders hurl vitriol and abuse at anyone who espouses an alternative point of view. Arwa Mahdawi quite right labels this phenomenon ‘populist correctness’, where supporters of liberalism are deemed the establishment.  (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/19/populist-correctness-new-pc-culture-trump-america-brexit-britain) However, the political establishment is whoever holds power. During the New Labour period, and perhaps even during the Coalition, the establishment was liberal. But now, that establishment is gone. Instead, we have a conservative-nationalist establishment, backed up by a powerful press. They are resolutely committed to exit from the Single Market and Customs Union, preferring to trade on WTO terms until new agreements can be sought.

For the overwhelming majority of economists, such a strategy is economic ruin. So the hard-right has a plan: turn Britain into a tax haven, which is what they’ve always wanted to do anyway. Allow the oligarchs and despots of the world to park their ill-gotten gains in the UK. Never mind the decimation of public services and infrastructure as a result of falling revenues. Never mind the fact that 70% of British GDP is services, which will suffer immeasurably from leaving the Single Market, and won’t be compensated for by trade deals because they typically don’t include services. And never mind the fact that this wasn’t what the people in Leave-voting working class strongholds such as Stoke or Sunderland voted for. This is the end product of the new political correctness. And  accompanying the resulting collapse of economic equity and social solidarity, will be the decline of any sort of public civility. The myth of small-c conservative Britain will be definitively exposed. Even the Americans will see it.

Next week, civility in the American polity.

A world of ever-increasing complexity

There was an article in The Guardian Weekly  in early January pointing out that our lives are more scrambled and complicated than they have ever been.  The writer, John Harris, called modernity “a mess: multiple user accounts, endless password filling in, smartphone contracts, computer and internet problems that so few of us really understand” and the “generalised insanity of consumerism”.  Our lives are lived in ever-increasing speed and complexity, and all it offers longterm are diminishing returns. And what for?  Epicurus would deem us all crazy.

One of the diminishing returns is peace of mind, or Epicurean ataraxia.  I was  reminded of John Harris’s article owing to a just-completed and particularly fraught period inducting a new computer, a new modem, a new range extender and downloading a massive piece of software (7 tries).  Various helpful people from India kept me on the phone for what seemed like several days. While wrestling with the downloads there was a sudden drop in  internet strength to 1.3 Mbps and increase of the ping rate to 1046 when it ought to be under 100.  Result: the downloads failed after all-night sessions. It might sound as if I know what I’m talking about, but actually I haven’t a clue.  All I know is that a computer controls the internet speed of millions who deal with Verizon, and if it encounters a problem it automatically reduces the internet speed to that of a sleepy snail.  Problem: it omits to tell the customer it is slowing his computer to a crawl.  We are no longer in control.

Initially, complicated systems  deliver big economic benefits.  But in due course the average man in the street ends up frustrated and angry because his time and his pitifully short life is being eaten up by useless complications, and he starts to think the whole thing is unrewarding and ridiculous (any takers?). He feels he has no influence or control over his life.  Some people think that the collapse of the Roman, Mayans,  Minoan, Hittite, and the Chinese Zhou dynasty all succumbed, in part, to the fact that ever-increasing burdens were not matched by material rewards, leading to revolts and breakaways.

One cannot blame complexity for everything going on today, but I can attest to the fact, as an elderly gent, that I cannot keep up and that I get frustrated and anxious about what is supposed to be “progress”, couched in incomprehensible technical language devised to exclude most of us, so-called educated or not.  Ataraxia seems to be ever more elusive as we toil for our hi-tech masters who think it all should come naturally, without the need for instructions in plain English.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snouts in the trough: how Congress makes fools of us all

Warren Buffet, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:  “I could end the deficit in five minutes.  “You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election”.  He quotes the emoluments of Congressmen as follows:
Salary of retired US Presidents .. . . . .. . . . . .. . $180,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate members .. . . . .. . . .   $174,000 FOR LIFE This is stupid
Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . .      $223,500 FOR LIFE This is really stupid
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE Ditto last line
Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. ..  $40,065
Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . ..  $38,000
In addition he has suggested the following legislation.  he calls it The Congressional Reform Act of 2017
1. No Tenure/ No Pension.  A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they’re out of office.
2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses its current health care system and members participate in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 12/1/16. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.    Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work.  If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Don’t you think it’s time?
I think we can all agree with this!  Epicurus would be delighted with it, but might well express some scepticism aboyut it bearing fruit.

 

 

Israeli demolition of Arab properties reach a record

Al Jazeera reports that demolitions of Palestinian homes soared in 2016, with the Israeli authorities demolishing or seizing 1,089 Palestinian-owned structures throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem, displacing 1,593 Palestinians. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has stated that these are the highest demolition and displacement figures since they began recording in 2009.

The Israelis say that the homes were built without Israeli-issued building permits. However, OCHA’s figures demonstrate that Israeli authorities approved less than 2% of all requests submitted for building permits by Palestinians between 2010 and 2014.   In recent weeks, Israeli authorities have continued this trend. The number of Palestinian buildings demolished in the first week of January was almost four times as high, 67 structures, as the weekly average for 2016: 20 structures. In 2015, the average was 10 structures a week, according to the records of OCHA.

It is not clear whether any or all Palestinians were occupying their own houses, built generations ago on their own land, or whether they were homeless to start with and settled on empty plots, building illegally.   But in any case, the dispossessed people  have little or no access to health services or to schools, and end up in refugee camps. (Adapted from a report from Medical Aid for Palestinians, a British charity).

International humanitarian law prohibits demolitions of civilian properties unless rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. Epicurus would (moderately) call for humane and decent treatment for all the people of Israel and the occupied territories, an immediate halt to the demolitions of Palestinian homes, and the protection of Palestinian health and dignity.

To add insult to injury, just the other day the Israeli parliament approved a bill to retroactively “legalise”Jewish outposts built on privately owned Palestinian land. Since Trump became President the government has approved the building of some 6000 new Jewish settlement homes in the occupied Palestinian territories.  It has to be said that there are centrist and liberal Jews both within Israel and abroad who strongly oppose the law, which could even lead to Israel being tried at the international criminal court.  All this activity to satisfy a small group of extreme settlers.