Should Al Gore tell the American people that they need to be vegans?

A morning talk show, I think on Fox News, had a report on the debate about Burger King's ad campaign pitting the Whopper against the Big Mac with people who have never eaten a hamburger. The anti-Burger King spokesperson argued that Whoppers were the "Hummer" of the food industry.

In reality her argument was not against Burger King's ad campaign but in favour of veganism. Her real attack was against anyone who eats meat and dairy products. She correctly pointed out the extreme inefficiency of producing animal protein as opposed to plant protein. By using resources for raising cattle, pigs and chickens for their meat, farmers generate far more greenhouse gas, not to mention gas from the animals themselves, than would be necessary to generate an equivalent amount of plant protein.

However, Burger King did not create the market for animal protein; it merely provides a product that meets the demand for meat. Instead, the woman should attack Al Gore for not having the intellectual honesty to tell the American people that they need to give up meat as well as their SUVs. Undoubtedly, if he did so, Al would still eat steak as well as drive SUVs even as he lectures the American people to do otherwise.

Fars proudly reports Hajj pilgrims shouting "Death to America"

Gateway Pundit cites a report by Fars, the official Iranian news service about pilgrims on the annual haj to Mecca:

"God is Great", "There is no Deity but Allah", "Death to Israel", and "Death to America" were among the slogans chanted by the masses in unison as they gathered in the Desert of Arafat, 20 km (12 miles) from Mecca, for a day of prayer and meditation, the Islamic republic news agency reported.

One cannot even imagine Christian pilgrims to Bethlehem at Christmas shouting "Death to Saudi Arabia" and "Death to Iran." If such bizarre behavior occurred, Western media would rightly condemn such behavior. Yet Fars proudly proclaims such disgusting conduct as though it brought honour to Islam rather than further exemplifying the barbarism inherent in the religion.

Two points must be remembered. First, the Hajj is not some political demonstration on the streets of Tehran, but a pillar of the Islamic religion. Second, the slogans were not the words of a small minority of haters, but "slogans chanted by the masses in unison." To inject such hatred against other people in a central act of the Islamic religion raises serious questions as to the very nature of Islam itself.

Does the nature of the religion lead to such hatred? This conduct as reported by Fars suggests that hatred of other faiths and the unending attacks on non-Muslims may result from the Islamic religion itself, rather than being aberrant behavior by a minority of Muslims.

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

Politico says that "Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices." It's awfully early in the Obama administration for his constituents to be mad at the savior of the world. Let's see, he's been in office now for how long? Oh, wait. He hasn't been inaugurated yet.

Is the honeymoon already over? Has buyers remorse set in even among the true believers? Just wondering.

Early London Coffee Houses

Coffee houses began to open in London sometime in the middle of the 17th century. Coffee became a popular drink soon after its introduction. People quickly learned that coffee enhanced their senses rather than dulled them. This led to a use of coffee houses as offices and meeting places. Coffee houses provided copies of early newsletters and newspapers for their patrons, much as free wi-fi in the modern coffee house.

Various coffee houses soon developed particular clientele. Some attracted political customers, becoming known as a Tory or Whig coffee house. Will's Coffee House attracted a literary clientele as John Dryden, Samuel Pepys and Alexander Pope frequented it. Other coffee houses developed a business clientele.

Many ship's captains and owners frequented Edward Lloyd's Coffee House, bringing the latest intelligence about the shipping industry with them. Discussion frequently turned to the issue of insuring the risks of shipping. The customers entered into insurance arrangements over coffee. This led ultimately to Lloyd's of London.

The English Civil War

Much has been written and much can be written about the English Civil War. Great debate exists as to its causes and the bases for the division of the country into supporters of the King and those of the Parliament. Some see the war as a revolution of the bourgeoisie and gentry against the King and feudal class to permit the development of capitalism. Marxists describe it as a class war that allowed for the transition between feudalism and capitalism.

Unfortunately for the Marxists, as occurs with their many theories, the facts do not support this simplistic assessment. As many historians have pointed out, many members of all "classes" fought on both sides of the English Civil War. Many issues contributed to the conflicts that gave rise to the Civil War, but the fundamental source of conflict between the King and his subjects arose out of the inadequacy of the Crown's traditional sources of income to support the military and civil government needs of 17th century England.

The feudal king and nobility provided for civil government and peacetime defense from their personal properties and traditional feudal taxes. That system proved adequate to support medieval armies in which the armoured knight ruled the battlefield. As warfare changed to the pike and shot formations, the requirements to support the military changed substantially. Rather than supporting a limited number of well armed and trained knights, the country had to support large numbers of pikemen and musketeers or hire mercenaries who trained in the complicated movements year round.

This greatly increased the cost of the military for the King. No longer could he support the army and civil government from his own properties and traditional sources of revenue. This led to attempts to increase his revenues through means that citizens saw as violating the King's obligations under traditions. In hindsight the solution to the conflict appears obvious to all; however, in the event, arriving at that answer required a civil war and the murder of the King.

Pilgrims - Communal or Private Property

Tom Bethell at the Hoover Institute provides some interesting information about the Pilgrims' experience in the early years of the Plymouth Colony. Initially, the community held everything in common and almost starved to death. In desperation, they parcelled land out to the various families to operate as private property. At that point the colony began to prosper. Bethell shows that

"Bradford’s history of the colony records the decision:

'At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of
the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his
own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to
go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of
land, according to the proportion of their number.'

So the land they worked was converted into private property, which brought 'very good success.' The colonists immediately became responsible for their own actions (and those of their immediate families), not for the actions of the whole community. Bradford also suggests in his history that more than land was privatized.

The system became self-policing. Knowing that the fruits of his labor
would benefit his own family and dependents, the head of each household was
given an incentive to work harder. He could know that his additional efforts
would help specific people who depended on him. In short, the division of
property established a proportion or 'ratio' between act and consequence. Human
action is deprived of rationality without it, and work will decline sharply as a
result."

Thanks to Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy.

As in so much of history, communism failed while recognition of private property rights led to greater production. The same people worked (failed to work) under the communal system who actually worked under a system of private property. When allowed to benefit from the fruits of their labour, the Pilgrims became very productive workers. Benjamin Powell points out that the change to private property "made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability."

Despite its universal failure, many people advocate the imposition of communal systems in the place of our very productive economic system. They seem to assume that communism will continue to produce at the same level as the present private enterprise system but with a more equal distribution of benefits. In this they simply ignore the clear teaching of history. The Pilgrims almost starved to death under the communal system before turning to private ownership that led the colony to prosperity.

We ignore the lessons of history at our peril.

The Shock Doctrine - Naomi Klein

One would expect that any serious author would challenge the economic theories of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics on their merits and the results of the application of those theories in the real world. Unfortunately, Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine attempts to discredit Friedman and the Chicago School by pointing to their supposed connection to the human rights abuses of Augusto Pinochet and the military juntas of Argentina, Brasil and Uruguay.

Rather than a reasoned analysis of economic theories, Ms. Klein marshals invective, innuendo, guilt by association and simple misrepresentation of the evidence to libel Friedman and his theories. Perhaps most bizarrely, Ms. Klein suggests that the mere description of attempts to reform and transform failing economies as “shock therapy” somehow equates to electroshock therapy of the 1950s and subsequent torture by authoritarian regimes in Chile and elsewhere. According to Ms. Klein, Friedman's economic theories can only be enacted in the context of extreme shock that overcomes the natural opposition to it.

For Ms. Klein the decision by Pinochet to accept advice from Friedman and the Chilean economists trained by the University of Chicago forever tarnishes free market economics without the need to provide any evidence or arguments as to its failure as an economic theory. To fit with her description of the application of free market economic theories only in circumstances of extreme shock, Ms. Klein represents the Chilean coup as being undertaken primarily to impose those theories on Chile. As with other hard leftists, she assumes that Allende bears no responsibility for the destruction of the Chilean economy.