Essays in Idleness

There are arguments to be made against “AI” (artificial intelligence). They are not true economic arguments, however. According to one of several rare intelligent economists (Mario Loyola by name), the great chain of being runs in this way: 1. technology increases the productivity of labour; 2. which increases the amount of investment and wages; 3. which increases demand; 4. which increases employment. This has borne fruit repeatedly in actual statistics, where statisticians are allowed to collect them. But hardly anyone believes it, unless of course they are using their brains.

Most people believe, rather, in what is plausible; for instance, socialism.

What is plausible is normally wrong. Socialism, for instance, never works, and leads invariably to disaster; but it appeals to a large majority of the unintelligent and inexperienced (as well as to the vicious); for examples to the young, and to the residents of large cities. It is why big cities are “leftist,” politically, and why things like universities, and big cities, should be depopulated. It is why, paradoxically, we should try to avoid extreme wealth, and instead focus upon living beautiful lives.

In distant antiquity — way back in the 1970s — I was supporting myself as an “economic journalist.” As is habitual in my case, I had no qualifications whatever. This gave me an inestimable advantage as a predictor of trends. I did not follow the idiots, and indeed, I hardly knew, from day to day, what they were saying. Just not being an idiot would put me on top. Curiously, although I found “development economics” interesting, and useful because it could help the poor, I did not even slightly want to get rich. This was although I was quite well-acquainted with how it was done. I simply liked many rich people, whom I found more honest and candid than many poor people. So, for a while, I hung out with the rich, until I began to find them boring.

And I read Austrian School economics, chiefly von Hayek and von Mises. I soon realized that they were almost always right, even the minor ones, whereas everyone established was almost always wrong. The media, then as now, were routinely reporting the opposite of the truth, so that “the voting masses” were routinely on the side of the idiots.

I, personally, am opposed to “AI,” because it is ugly, and will not become prettier after countless trillions have been invested in it, by the idiots. Curiously, it is flourishing because it is, indisputably, monstrously ugly. But the investments of so many idiots will soon make it crash.

“What an idiot I have been!”

This is something one perhaps thinks, increasingly, as one grows past the age when any of one’s mistakes are retrievable. It certainly is the case with moi. At first, one became acquainted with the “face-grabber.” This was something spontaneous, and could not be concealed, though with practice one learnt to disguise the indications. Much worse than moral lapses, or the commission of actual sins, were the mistakes that we found humiliating, but not exceptionally evil. Of course, it was not possible to humiliate oneself without committing some sort of sin, but witnesses were not inclined to condemn, if they had the option of laughing. This is how one should greet slippage on a banana peel. The trick is to laugh oneself, first, though a concussion might make this difficult.

More commonly, however, one tried to hide what one had done, because it was more significant, morally, than mere clumsiness. One prefers to display one’s idiocy over something that doesn’t matter. There need be no risible scandal as when, perhaps, more information is disclosed.

But humiliation can generally be avoided if a person is instinctively honest. Honesty requires humility, along with other painful virtues, which become less painful the more they are practiced. Too, when experience is obtained, or perhaps has been acquired by reading the instructions, one may actually reduce the number of one’s silly mistakes, or failures of charity. A child would be lucky to have a parent or other guardian who teaches him how to do this: to “fess up” easily, and voluntarily.

The larger category of stupid, dishonest, and habitual mistakes, though very costly to ourselves and to others, are not such as we are apt to confess. They are things that “everyone was doing,” and only now has been exposed as a wicked thing to do. For instance, one has voted for a Communist, a Nazi, or a central bank governor.

It does not seem an appropriate day to dwell on one, or on any, of my old “U.E.L.” themes. I might have made the subject the omnipresent, and not very well-meaning, “bullshit” that filled the Declaration of Independence. We might have examined it phrase by phrase, while asking of each: “Is, or was this, entirely true?” Or was it rather recklessly exaggerated?

Is the modern, i.e. revolutionary, “democratic” government of the United States not more oppressive than that of George Third? Are the taxes now more onerous, and the regulations more comprehensive? Is inflation now substantially higher, and has government lying become more and more the rule?

But this approach would be unfair. Essentially all political expostulations are bullshit, and in honesty, ought to be withdrawn.

That, indeed, was the message of the Loyalists, who at the time were also making the same rude points, against the British Crown. But “liberty” and “independence” are rhetorical instruments, after all, and often morally worthless. A few more words would be necessary to make them mean anything.

What I found most impressive about the American Revolution was the relative humility of the Founders. Washington and John Adams were especially fine examples. In addition to pledging their lives for the cause — and now we are approaching sincerity — most of these leaders were not blowhards. Madison, for instance, or Ben Franklin, hoped, but did not really expect the Revolution to last, even if it was at first successful. They were thus not proper “Enlightenment” characters (such as soon came to France with their guillotines and other “humane and egalitarian” equipment). They had read something in history and political philosophy, and were, in the main, reasonably sane.

Too, they were fortunately up against the most sane and reasonable Empire that, perhaps, the world had ever seen; unless the comparison is to the Mauryan Dynasty of Chandragupta and Ashoka. But that charming history is mostly bullshit, too.

If you were to consult my “Late Loyalist” ancestor, Stetson Holmes (1753–1824), driven out of Massachusetts first, and then out of the Republic of Vermont, the Revolutionists could be pretty rough and nasty — even though he had fought in the Continental Army. He had to cross Maine on foot with his family (lots of trees and untamed animals), then find a fishing boat that would take them to Nova Scotia. …

Why?

He just wouldn’t be “politically correct” when he was arguing with his neighbours. He was just too American.

I learn from the Internet that it will be the 250th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, on July 4th, which is tomorrow. It was incamminated by Thomas Jefferson — not a man I would trust, then or now, although my own mother was a fan of his. The Continental Congress adopted this resolution, which I think was an error, for it split the British Empire. I would have been holding out for an “inner union” of, say, England, Wales, Scotland, and Eire, with the American and Canadian  provinces, plus Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and a grand affiliation of protectorates, including a united India. The French and Spanish could have been seen off, ever thereafter.

Of course this Empire wouldn’t be a democracy, for it is a very wicked idea. I don’t think even Mr Jefferson was silly enough to buy into democracy. I am with Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Saint Thomas, and the many other “enemies of the people” who are radically opposed. Even the revolutionary United States kept its distance from this horrible idea, and was rather intended as a nation under God. Founded by practising Christians, firmly within the traditions of Judaeo-Christianity, she would be a Republic rather than the Monarchy she was leaving. But a Republic consisting of many “diverse” states, individually represented in its Senate.

The Holy Roman Empire had seven Electors, most of the time, which was perhaps too many. Now the United States has a few hundred million, which is, proportionally, an even greater mistake. I agree with Glenn Reynolds and others that they should give serious thought to abrogating their Seventeenth Amendment, by which they surrendered their Senate to the mob. It was meant by the Founding Fathers to represent the States, not the people, who get to individually vote in the House of Representatives, and then can be ignored. (The Electoral College was meant to prevent popular voting for a President.)

But “less is more” — i.e. the flip side of voting is more peace and freedom. The violent chaos that accompanies most political developments should be omitted. It is only Christ who needs to be consulted, and not Crucified; or poisoned, as the democrats did with Socrates.

In an Idlepost entitled “Proudly unCanadian,” published on the 4th of July last year, I expressed my shame in our national existence. This year, as well as repeating it, let me add my very low opinion of Charles III, our reigning monarch. He has proclaimed himself the defender of our multiple faiths. This includes those “faiths” which violently oppose Christianity. I think Gavin Ashenden, Chaplain to our beloved Late Majesty the Queen, has adequately expressed the truth about this little man. The breach of his Coronation Oath leaves us with no alternative but to despise him. I think even the Muslims, and other multi-culturals he thinks that he is serving, understand this.

Hence, my slight revision of last year’s commination: