Last Man Standing

Tyler Cowen:

I've said it before, I'll say it again. No matter what your politics, contemporary northern Europe represents a high point in human civilization.

No matter what your politics? I give you Harry Lime:

"In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed — they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Okay, so Harry Lime is a rather unpleasant character, and one can quibble with his interpretation of history - but the point stands. Contemporary northern Europe is a high point in human civilization only if your standards are those of, well, contemporary northern Europe. Those standards are certainly defensible, and indeed I share some of them myself, but it's very easy to imagine all sorts of politics - ranging from Christian to Nietzschean, from Qutbian to Confucian - that would call the Nordic countries a low point, or at least a mediocrity, on the axis of human achievement.

Comments

Yeah, but Nietzsche's opposition relies on his belief that the type of easy living available in Scandinavia breeds mediocrity of achievement. It's not at all clear, now that these societies have been achieved, that this underpinning actually holds empirically. Their cellphones are awfully nice, after all=D.

Posted by Glenn | June 12, 2007 2:16 PM

I don't know who this Harry Lime character is but he sounds like Tom Friedman with the silly (and inaccurate) dig at Swiss accomplishments. Cuckoo clocks? What about the world's most advanced particle accelerator? Leading international companies like Nestle, UBS, Novartis, etc.?

Anyhow, why the dichotomy between Switzerland and Italy? Switzerland includes ethnic Italians, and Italian is one of the country's official languages.

For that matter, why compare Italy to the Nordic countries? Why not compare Western Europe to the rest of the world?

Posted by Fred | June 12, 2007 2:25 PM

"Their cellphones are awfully nice, after all"

Don't forget their cars, jets, vacuum cleaners, vodka, and of course their women.

Posted by Harry | June 12, 2007 2:28 PM

If IKEA is the pinnacle I'd hate to see the nadir. It is the triumph of collective mediocrity rather than individual achievement, of comfort over virtue, and so on and so forth. I'm not trying to assail prosperity, but future economic problems notwithstanding it is lacking in enduring architectural, literary and artistic achievement. If some horde of posthistorical barbarians was to raze Scandinavia to the ground for what would we remember its Golden Age? Where is its Cordoba? Its Hagia Sophia? Its Pyramids?

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 12, 2007 2:31 PM

I don't know who this Harry Lime character is but he sounds like Tom Friedman with the silly (and inaccurate) dig at Swiss accomplishments. Cuckoo clocks? What about the world's most advanced particle accelerator? Leading international companies like Nestle, UBS, Novartis, etc.?

Albert Einstein?

Posted by Dave White | June 12, 2007 2:38 PM

"Where is its Cordoba? Its Hagia Sophia? Its Pyramids?"

At least two of those built by societies that practiced widespread slavery. I know where I'd rather live.

Posted by Dan Miller | June 12, 2007 3:05 PM

"If IKEA is the pinnacle I'd hate to see the nadir..."

IKEA is a response (and an elegant one, at that) to high taxes and expensive real estate. When you have few after tax dollars or kroners to work with, and you need to furnish your studio apartment in Manhattan or Stockholm, IKEA is the place to go.

BTW, breakfast is a great deal there: $1.99 for scrambled eggs, hash browns, bacon, and Swedish pancakes with ligonberry jam.

Anyhow, why would you think that leaving gaudy monuments is the highest purpose of a civilization? Who wants to move to Egypt, or Turkey?

Posted by Fred | June 12, 2007 3:09 PM

I know where I'd rather live too, but that does not mean that we have reached the pinnacle of civilization.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 12, 2007 3:10 PM

The point is not that those particular snapshots in time were necessarily superior. Sure it was nice to be a free Athenian or Roman but I doubt the subject peoples were quite so positive. The point is that this ostensible high point of civilization is one essentially bereft of lasting cultural achievement.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 12, 2007 3:14 PM

"Albert Einstein?"

Yes, the Swiss can rightfully take pride in at least one of their crackerjack patent clerks ;-)

Posted by Fred | June 12, 2007 3:15 PM

It is worth noting that, at the time Orson was slandering Switzerland that fair country had, after all, produced people such as the Bernoullis, Leonhard Euler, Ludwig Schläfli, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Carl Jung, Ferdinand de Saussure,Jean-Paul Marat,Henri Dunant and Le Corbusier,to name a few,some of whom Welles must have at least heard of.

Really, take some time to inform yourself before you go about dismissing foreign countries.No, watching the Simpsons doesn't count.

Posted by Jussi Hämäläinen | June 12, 2007 3:20 PM

"Who wants to move to Egypt, or Turkey?"

Nobody. The idea is that cultural efflourescence usually leaves behind something of transcendent beauty for future admiration, even if it is surrounded by the drab monoculture of a conqueror's descendants.

Posted by Matt | June 12, 2007 3:22 PM

Matt,

The descendants of the ancient Egyptians still live in Egypt today; they aren't "a conqueror's descendants" for the most part. The reason we don't want to move to Egypt today isn't because of its "drab monoculture" (It's probably quite colorful there) but because it's a crappy society: no civil rights, shitty government services, mass poverty, corruption, intolerance, etc.

Creating a society with virtually no corruption or poverty; clean, well-run cities; and respect for human rights is a more impressive achievement than building a big monument.

Posted by Fred | June 12, 2007 3:41 PM

On that Harry Lime character:

http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/592079/

Mr. Lime puts the mis in misanthrope.

Posted by David | June 12, 2007 3:44 PM

Fred
So you believe in the primacy of materialism?

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 12, 2007 4:34 PM

"So you believe in the primacy of materialism?"

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I do believe that nations that been able to create decent societies are worthy of admiration, since there are relatively few of them.

Posted by Fred | June 12, 2007 4:46 PM

Jussi Hämäläinen,

It is also worth noting that your list contains a proto-totalitarian philosopher, a leading exemplar of revolutionary terror, and the designer of the ugliest buildings it is possible to construct without using actual excrement in the facade. And that is off the top of my head, without having to “inform myself.”

MH

Posted by MH | June 12, 2007 4:46 PM

Fred:
You're totally correct that I was unfairly tarring Egypt with the same brush as Turkey.
But regarding Ross's point, your normative standards are much the same as Tyler's, and in large measure the same as my own. But we together represent a certain political perspective that is far less universal than Tyler's "no matter what your politics" would imply.

Posted by Matt | June 12, 2007 4:50 PM

Fred
The Scandinavian model is notable for its ability to provide a baseline level of comfort to all (though much of it bought at the cost of the comfort of future generations). The emphasis on virtue, in a religious or merely a moral sense, is conspicuously lacking. The emphasis on permanence of cultural achievement is also absent. So what you're left with is material comfort.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 12, 2007 5:01 PM

Anonymous Conservative, what kind of virtue in a moral sense did you have in mind? I'm a Swede.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | June 12, 2007 5:38 PM

"Philanthropy" if you can call it that is compulsory in the form of high tax rates. This dilutes the nobility of moral choice. The ebb of religion in Europe removes a teleological set of virtues from the calculations of non-believers.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 12, 2007 5:43 PM

To vote for social security systems and such is a moral choice.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | June 12, 2007 5:52 PM

Matt:

"But we together represent a certain political perspective that is far less universal than Tyler's "no matter what your politics" would imply."

I'm not so sure about that. I think the average Egyptian or Turk would share our preference to live in a Western Democracy, if he got the chance.

Anonymous Conservative:

I think you're missing something. The generous welfare state works in Nordic countries because of their moral culture. Giving welfare to single mothers in Sweden didn't have the same behavioral effects on Swedes that a similar policy had when applied to low income African American women.

Posted by Fred | June 12, 2007 5:57 PM

...and the designer of the ugliest buildings it is possible to construct without using actual excrement in the facade...

...he says, frantically consulting his copy of Tom Wolfe's From Bauhaus to Our House for all his aesthetic cues about modern architecture.

Posted by Immoralist | June 12, 2007 6:07 PM

...and the designer of the ugliest buildings it is possible to construct without using actual excrement in the facade...

...he says, frantically consulting his copy of Tom Wolfe's From Bauhaus to Our House for all his aesthetic cues about modern architecture.

Posted by Immoralist | June 12, 2007 6:07 PM

Bengt
It is a moral choice made by 50%+1 of voters at a given point in time, one foisted on their children and their children's children. In a manner of speaking, not terribly moral at all.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 12, 2007 6:07 PM

These are laws that are decided democratically. As for 50%+1, where do you think ordinary laws come from?

Posted by Bengt Larsson | June 12, 2007 6:18 PM

Bengt
Without a tangential argument about the desirability of majoritarianism as opposed to republican governance, the mere fact that it was democratically decided upon does not render it "moral." My point was that said majority was not even necessarily making a "moral choice" but was binding subsequent generations to afford it a particular standard of living through those generations' exertions.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 12, 2007 6:31 PM

Anonymous Conservative, I don't think there is a point in going further, unless we are talking specific policies. You seem to label your preferences "moral" and "virtue". But such a specific debate would be quite a bit more combative, and I will crush conservatism another day :-)

Posted by Bengt Larsson | June 12, 2007 6:57 PM

60% of first Born Children in Scandanavia are born outside of marriage.

Posted by Fitz | June 12, 2007 7:29 PM

60% of first Born Children in Scandanavia are born outside of marriage.

Posted by Fitz | June 12, 2007 7:29 PM

Fitz, So what, they are born to 2 parents who live together and stay together at a much higher rate than married couples in the US.

Posted by Eric | June 12, 2007 7:50 PM

Bengt
While I am frequently guilty of doing so, in this case I don't think anything I said venerated my own epistemology. It is indisputable that voters approving retirement pensions, what we call Social Security, are drafting a promissory note for which later wageearners will pay. This is compounded when those drafting said promissory note have one child or no children at all; by declining to shoulder the cost of raising the wageearners that will fund that retirement. Voters who fit that profile were voting for a program that would explicitly transfer wealth from its generators to them.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 12, 2007 9:46 PM

Anonymous C:

Depends on how the social security system is set-up. If it's a pay-as-you-go/take-as-you-go system like ours, then yes: you are paying for your parents and taking from your children. But some systems are asset-based, e.g., Chile's, and I think Norway's (Norway does also have a huge oil-funded investment fund).

Posted by Fred | June 12, 2007 11:51 PM

Jussi Hämäläinen,
Aside from the mathematicians, the rest of your list pretty much backs up the Harry Lime analysis.

Immoralist,
LeCorbusier is one of the most loathed architects and urban planners who ever existed. If you think Tom Wolfe hated him, you should read Jane Jacobs.

Posted by Thursday | June 12, 2007 11:52 PM

I think from Cowen's perspective, it's not the egalitarianism or welfare state per se that makes the Nordic countries so admirable, but rather the way that such systems "liberate" their citizens from all sorts of necessity. And I think that if liberation is your measure of things, those countries probably do come out pretty well.

One of the interesting things that doesn't get talked about much was in Inglehart and Norris's book _Sacred and Secular_, where not only were the folks in Scandinavia among the most secular in the world, they were also the least interested in thinking about life's meaning. If that's true, then I wonder what it says about "civilization"?

Posted by Michael Simpson | June 13, 2007 8:02 AM

Immoralist,

My copy of Bauhaus to Our House is at home and I posted from the office. I know it well enough that I don’t need to consult it.

Posted by MH | June 13, 2007 9:14 AM

LeCorbusier is one of the most loathed architects and urban planners who ever existed. If you think Tom Wolfe hated him, you should read Jane Jacobs.

(?) Yeah, because no one thinks the Villa Savoye or the Notre Dame du Haut are, like, great buildings or anything...

Posted by Immoralist | June 13, 2007 9:15 AM

Immoralist,

I don't know about great. I would use the term "interesting" if I felt the need to be polite. According to Wikipedia, the roof leaked on the Villa Savoye before it was ten years old. That might tend to support Tom Wolfe's argument. If we aren't supposed to build with bricks and wood, why are trees and mud so common.

Posted by MH | June 13, 2007 11:05 AM

”Fitz, So what, they are born to 2 parents who live together and stay together at a much higher rate than married couples in the US.

Well, I'm happy to see that the parents of children living together and staying together is considered a positive good.

While American divorce rates are high compared to Europe, our overall marriage rates are higher also.

We also know that co-habiting couples are more likely to split-up than married couples. (even given the U.S. greater overall divorce rate)

I suppose my overall point is commensurate with your statement. I hope that the percentage of intact natural families is one measure of the health of a civilization.

Posted by Fitz | June 13, 2007 11:46 AM

To quote an old Usenet post of mine:

"No doubt Welles' was one of the great lines in movie history (it was
Welles' own idea, according to Graham Greene) but historically it was
totally untrue. Switzerland knew plenty of turbulence and war until the
national reconciliation of 1848, after the Sonderbund War and the adoption
of a new federal constitution (prior to which, Switzerland had been an
alliance so loose, it could hardly even be considered a confederation).
And Rousseau, Klee and Hesse certainly amount to *some* contribution to
European culture, and as for the cuckoo clock, the Germans invented it
anyway."

Posted by Daivd T | June 13, 2007 2:28 PM

Re: It is a moral choice made by 50%+1 of voters at a given point in time, one foisted on their children and their children's children.

Those children and children's children are always free to undo that vote. That they haven't suggests that they agree with it.

Re: the desirability of majoritarianism as opposed to republican governance,

!!??!
The correct opposite of majoritarian governance would be oligarchial governance, a form of rule that has not been well thought since the days of Plato and Aristotle.

Re: 60% of first Born Children in Scandanavia are born outside of marriage.

But not outside two-parent families. Single parent families are less common in Scandinavia than in the US.

Re: This is compounded when those drafting said promissory note have one child or no children at all; by declining to shoulder the cost of raising the wageearners that will fund that retirement.

Last I checked we are all bearing the cost of providing for children, whether directly or indirectly. A major effort to reform property taxes in my state is currently stalling due to concerns that it will short-change schools. And your crticisnm ultimatyely applies to any form of retirment, 401ks and IRAs too. Anyone who is not working, no matter what his means of support, is ultimately being supported by all those who are working.

Posted by JonF | June 13, 2007 2:36 PM

According to Wikipedia, the roof leaked on the Villa Savoye before it was ten years old. That might tend to support Tom Wolfe's argument.

It might tend to support the argument that someone did a bad roofing or drainage job, or that 1920-30s engineering couldn't solve the problem of protecting flat roofs from the elements. I don't know, I'll be honest. But we have flat roofs now that don't leak, and we have pitched roofs that do leak, so it's not like the idea of putting a flat roof on a residence was inherently flawed from a functional point of view even back in the 1920s.

I'll stand by the test of time. Le Corbu's architecture has been enormously influential, though his urban planning has come under justified criticism. Modern architecture is here to stay, and Corbu played a huge role in its development. Dismissing his buildings as experiments in feces construction will not erase him from the architectural canon.

Posted by Immoralist | June 13, 2007 5:47 PM

JonF
When the recipients constitute an ever-increasing share of the vote it is very difficult to overturn legislation.
While the diametric opposite of majoritarian rule would the rule of the one or, failing that, the rule of the few, my point was simply that we are not a mere majoritarian democracy. We are a republic, with differentiated election patterns so that the government at the federal level is not overturned in an instant but over time.
While the cost of child-rearing is born in part by the taxpayer the vast majority of it is born by the parents, who feed, house and shod their children. While an abler economic mind than myself has no doubt crunched the numbers, per pupil spending over the course of mandatory education probably totals 120-200K. That child will contribute on average far more in his/her own tax payments and social security contributions.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 13, 2007 11:52 PM

Immoralist,

I'm well aware that your last paragraph is correct. Simply looking out my window is evidence. Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

Posted by MH | June 14, 2007 10:03 AM

Re: While the cost of child-rearing is born in part by the taxpayer the vast majority of it is born by the parents, who feed, house and shod their children.

True, but irrelevant, because all of us (at least all of us who engage in productive labor) are ultimately preparing the future for those who will inhabit it. Sorry, but I simply cannot see anything immoral about not having children-- to take that view you would have condemn quite a list of notable human beings: Plato, Elizabeth I, George Washington, Beethoven, Jane Austen, Gandhi, a whole calendar of Christian saints, and all celibate clergy and monastics. (To be fair, a couple of horrors are on the list too, like Hitler and Nero).

Posted by JonF | June 14, 2007 12:20 PM

Declining to have a child is not immoral. But declining to have a child when your retirement is contingent on the efforts of that generation undermines the idea that voting for that retirement program as an intrinsically moral act.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | June 14, 2007 3:45 PM

nebaliidae sensomobile upway harrovian antipneumococcic defalcation teddy alcaaba
http://vulcandampers-joints.com >Vulcan Dampers and Expansion Joints
http://www.brysons.net/

Posted by Alonzo Pitts | December 21, 2007 11:02 PM