Category Archives: philosophy

Many conservative thinkers talk about ‘wealth creation’ as a way of reducing poverty. I’m not so sure- to my mind, wealth is a result of distribution of resources, rather than something which is ‘created’ from nothing. I also think that poverty is a prerequisite of wealth, and vice versa.

Having said that, I recently studied (as part of my philosophy course) a good critique of economic redistribution from Robert Nozick. He makes the point that a just redistribution of wealth is not the same as an equal distribution of wealth, in his Wilt Chamberlain example.

I think that Nozick’s argument that redistributing wealth impinges on people’s rights to their ‘just entitlement’ is very compelling. It appeals to the feeling that people shouldn’t be taxed just for being wealthy. But it does rest on the assumption that the distribution of wealth was fair in the first place (!)

I’m a bit undecided on the whole tax question. I can see real value in doing things collectively (hospitals, schools, public transport…) but I also think that the state should interfere as little as possible. Perhaps that means I’m a typical voter, wanting less taxes but more services!

“Few people think more than two or three times a year; I have made an international reputation for myself by thinking once or twice a week.”

George Bernard Shaw(thanks Dad!)

Apologies for the obvious headline 😉

So it looks like Ian Paisley will go into government with the people he said he’d never talk to- no wonder Gerry Adams looks so pleased. I think this is a really positive development, and a major step for both parties. When the DUP and Sinn Féin surged ahead of moderate parties in succesive elections, many people felt that the peace process might stall indefinitely.

Although the development is historic and should be cheered, it’s still shot through with irony. Paisley has made most of his electoral gains on the basis that he would refuse to sit alongside Republicans for much longer than anyone else. Equally, most of the concessions Adams has obtained through the peace process have come because it’s taken unionists of all flavours so long to grit their teeth and sit down with the Sinners.

Another ironic aspect- what was the burning issue which brought the great statesmen together? The prospect of NI voters being hit with a water tax!

I suppose it shows that, for all their tribalism, NI politicians are ‘grown up’ political operators underneath- they might be reluctant to be seen sitting next to their respective bogeymen, but they’re even more reluctant to be linked to a new tax…

A friend wanted to know what I thought of the incident in the Gulf, where 15 British sailors were captured by Iranian forces.

I should begin by saying that being a blogger doesn’t and shouldn’t make me an expert on foreign affairs!

It’s interesting to note that something very similar happened in 2004, and also that several senior Iranian officers have recently been captured in Iraq, leading to Iranian threats to ‘retaliate’. So in one sense, it’s hardly a sensational development. Iranian forces are well used to the strategy of using hostages to gain leverage.

(I’ll assume at this point that the British sailors were in fact in Iraqi waters, and so ‘in the right’).

The fact that the media love a ‘hostage crisis’, with its extended denoument, plays into Iranian hands- the ability of the media to run images and simulateously ‘deplore’ them is very useful to Iran. TV pictures of uneasy hostages tap a rich vein of public anxiety.

The US and UK are in a terribly awkward position- they’ve painted themselves into a moral corner by labelling Iran as a ‘rogue state’, not to be bargained with, never mind conceded to. On the other hand, Iran is a much tougher nut than Iraq, from a military point of view.

The real diplomacy seems to be happening within the European and UN dimensions, behind closed doors (where real diplomacy should be). I’m hoping there’ll be a deal bashed out there, which the US and UK will try to dress up as something minor, while the Iranians celebrate it as a great coup.

Good comment here from Channel 4’s Jonathan Rugman.

The whole incidents highlights the fact that securing Iraq is not the same thing as invading it, but that could be another post…

In a comment piece in the Daily Telegraph, AC Grayling* says that the reason he has a problem with faith is because:

“…faiths are mutually exclusive and indeed mutually blaspheming, and that the
history of their relationship is one of bloodshed…”

I think Grayling’s blanket condemnation is wide of the mark. Quakers (myself included) have certainly never advocated bloodshed towards anyone, and indeed are highly unlikely to accuse other faiths of ‘blaspheming’. In fact, Advices & Queries 6 and 7 are pretty clear on the benefits of learning from other faiths. (See here for background to Quaker Advices & Queries).

The problem is that the ‘faith’ which makes it into the media these days is ‘faith’ which impels people towards extreme views, and, even worse, extreme actions. Faith which doesn’t intrude on others probably falls into the category of ‘mostly harmless’ and so of no interest to the public. I’d rather be harmless than sensational though.

*Interestingly, AC Grayling is a Professor at Birkbeck. His philosophy lectures are really good.

We keep hearing how our appetite for information has changed. Some say the web has reduced us to consuming it in bite-sized chunks. We read about more but understand less.

Is this really a new development? I read somewhere (link coming soon!) about how 17th century thinkers kept ‘common notebooks’, collecting diverse ideas together. They also skimmed each others’ works, perhaps in the way that you’re skimming this post.

I’ll try to use this blog as a compendium, jotting down ideas and reflections as they come. I’ll try to find links of interest, and hopefully something new to say…

Watch out too for college notes- I don’t know if putting them here will help my studies, but it’s worth a try!