D'accord!

How about, I rather like africans and I thought taking down trade barriers would be a nice way to stop them from starving to death and letting their economies grow and whatnot...

Matthew Hallex - how about, David Carr is articulate and literate and expresses what he wishes to say with precision unedited, because he is a Samizdata and you're not, by unqualified people?

Actually Verity, I agree with both of them. David Carr in Principle, and Matthew Hallex because, eloquent or not, the statement he made is more likely to change the minds of those on the protectionist side of the argument.

We know that Free Trade is essential in principle, but a bleeding heart liberal needs to be shown a little suffering by a underprivileged group to understand.

The Invisible Hand at work. What hurts human rights in a given country also hurts trade with other nations. All nations have a financial stake in the removal of world thugocracy.

because he is a Samizdata and you're not, by unqualified people?

"How I feel about Africans is not relevant. Even if I hate them, it is not relevant."

Nonsense, it is extremely relevant - in deciding how they ought to feel about you. If you rant and rave against voluntary efforts by private individuals to help out in Africa, then Africans have every right to despise you and the likes of dumb bigots like "Verity" who uncritically applaud what you have to say.

It is mere cant to pretend that looking at the motivations of people when they make statements about the world is "irrelevant"; if you truly believed it were so, you oughtn't be half as exercised as you are about Islamists who preach "death to the infidels" and "PC" columnists in the Guardian. If I see someone spewing malice and scorn for blacks in his commentary, why on earth should I believe for a second that anything he has to say is will be in their best interests?

David Carr has distinctively style that has been well-established. If you don't like his writing, don't bloody read it...faily simple innit?

Abiola Lapite seems to believe that Africans base their decisions on feelings rather than on other factors.

Whether the person acting does so out of hate and scorn or out of love, the objective effect of the action is what matters.

If, for example, Abiola Lapite came to me and said, "I hate you, I wish I could put you into the grave", and then gave me a million pounds, I might decide that I just adore Abiola Lapite.

And vice versa.

Carr's point is that actions mean something, feelings don't.

The modern therapeutic culture and academic left have beaten the drum of feelings and motives matter more than anything so long that millions believe it.

What staghound said.

David's like or dislike of, or indifference to, Africans is of absolutely no consequence. What matters is his desire to do something about their plight - as far as world trade goes - by opening up the EU (home of the CAP) to their traders.

The insistence above, including that by the increasingly shrill Abiola Lapite, whose writing I used to admire for its incisiveness and cool logic, that we sing Kumbaya while opening up our continents for trade is infantile.

So, Abiola, is constantly shrieking the last resort of the bully - "Racist". If I am the closest thing to a racist you have ever encountered, you are a lucky man indeed.

M410 - Read it slowly, with due regard to the clause. Or, if you are not used to reading sentences of more than six or seven words, and get confused trying to remember the main thread of a sentence when you encounter a clause within it, try this: "David Carr is articulate and literate and expresses what he wishes to say with precision, unedited by unqualified people". Then you can add: "As David is on the Samizdata team and you are not, he does not need your permission to publish his thoughts as he sees fit on the Samizdata site." Now can you follow it?

EU Serf - Hmmm. Don't agree with you, because the bleeding hearts do not need any convincing. There is therefore no need to make any concessions to their emotions.

Abiola seems to be the type, like much of the UN, that feels that 1st world countries should give their tax-payers money to the third and then s.t.f.u. about how it is spent. I think many here believe that it is entirely justified for a donor to decide where its money goes.

David's biting prose offends some but makes a very good point. What amuses me is that fat bastard Michael Moore does a really nasty bit a satire (or so he claims now) and he is lauded. Carr does a much less nasty bit of satire, if one bothers to read it closely, and he gets villified.

Give a man a fish: feed him for a day, teach a man how to fish: feed him for a lifetime. I would add that we should let him trade any excess freely and he will get wealthier.

Verity - Ahh... in my part of the world we'd use a parenthesis.

David Carr is articulate and literate and expresses what he wishes to say with precision unedited (because he is a Samizdata and you're not) by unqualified people.

David Carr is articulate and literate and expresses what he wishes to say with precision, unedited by unqualified people, because he is a Samizdata and you're not.

m410 - I don't know what your part of the world is, but if it's the US, read your James Michener if you want to see adjectival sub-clauses that go on for an entire page. I seem to remember that SJ Perelman was familiar with the uses of the comma, as were Mark Twain, Tennessee Williams and Truman Capote, and as are Tom Wolfe (especially Tom Wolfe), Peter de Vries, John Updyke, the ghastly Susan Sonntag, William Buckley, Gore Vidal, William Raspberry, Larry Elder, Michelle Malkin, among hundreds of other literate Americans. All these writers know that clauses are separated by commas, not parentheses.

"Ahh... in my part of the world we'd use a parenthesis." I highly recommend the use of two.

Seems to me that Carrs statement is a bit meaningless.

"Trade barriers are relevant" to what? To you?
"and removing them is crucial." to what? To whom, the EU?

Without knowing what Carrs motivation, the purpose of the "removing" them is not defined. All arguments in favor of free trade since Ricardo have addressed the welfare of both parties i.e. one of whom is the Africans -so in leaving out this crucial step is Carr trying to be a radical iconoclast or just plain dim. The slogan is not a statement of the Free Trade Principle but rather some meaningless studenty slogan meant to be followed blindly by the idiots. And thats dangerous, even with free trade.

We (the West) need to tie the flippin' rope to our wagon before throwing it to the rescue AGAIN of the dark continent - more than 50 years (in some cases) of independence from our guidance i.e. 3 generations (reckoning in Africa-time) should be enough time to have realisation dawn on even the most boneheaded that perhaps the chosen path of our cradle-of civilisation cousins might be just a tad off target (for those who wonder what a tad is, see the movie Airplane 2 where it is defined (to a questioning passenger) by the space shuttle's trolly dolly as "'bout a half billion miles")

I am quite happy on fully justified occasions to provide genuine samaritan-style help others in distress at my sole personal discretion but not sure the current tendency of the self-justifiying bandwagonners at UK Charity plc to give the drowning man bars of gold is helping much - now remind me, just how many billions does the (pretty normal for the continent) Robert Mugabe have stashed in Switzerland - and just how much of that was untimely ripped from the UK taxpayer?

p.s. am I right in recalling thath no-one in sub-saharan Afric had even got round to even inventing the wheel which was finally introduced by Johnny European around the mid-18thC?

Verity: the ghastly Gore Vidal.

Alisa - I wouldn't argue with you - although he is a very good essayist.

Ah Giles, dependably wrong as usual and a reminder that a compass that always points south is just as valuable as one that points north, just so long as it does so consistently. The point is that you do not have to give a shit about Africa to see the value of free trade with Africa.

But you do need to in order to understand the value of free trade.

So this is more a blind faith statement than a reasoned argument - more significantly, as some have pointed out its a bit obnoxious and not likely to pursuade anyone.

I didn't find the statement obnoxious in the least. I find cloying professions of love for all of humanity obnoxious. Because they are patently insincere, and insincerity is obnoxious.

I also find attempts to dictate how other people feel and how they express themselves obnoxious.

I didn't find the statement obnoxious in the least.
I'm sure you dont Verity because you agree with the ideas underlying the statement.

What I meant was that, as some people have pointed out, people who ambivalentabout /anti free trade are not likely to be pursuaded by such a slogan. They're more likely to find it heartless and obnoxious.

So I'm still not clear what the purpose of the statement is.

i agree with Carr's statement, but, observing the world around me it seems that people make their decisions with feelings and their pocketbook. Seems to be a big mountain to climb and especially in a political system where those governed have a voice (I still want my subsidy says the cotton farmer!!) where to begin, where to begin.

Richard Cook - If people made decisions with their pocketbooks, they would insist that there be free trade throughout the world by nine o'clock tomorrow morning. (Although I think the only pocketbooks we are talking about, realistically, are those of the lawmakers and the payola they can sock away from the protectionist lobbies.)

The Kumbaya set doesn't believe in free trade, but "fair trade", which means selling crappy produce at three times the price of higher quality commercial produce - their coffee tastes like stewed sandals and duffle jackets, which may be why the left loves it so. To them, 'free trade' means capitalist oppression. They prefer to keep Africans and others dependent on the "good works" of cliques of do-gooders.

In other words, 'feelings' are irrelevant either way. Appeals to selfishness - cheaper products for everyone (once the monstrous CAP is abolished), with the added fallout of more people with the freedom to set out their stalls and compete - is what makes the commercial world go round. In fact, I think 'feelings' are counterproductive - except to the left who I believe wants to perpetuate a dependency situation.