It is a tough call but I'm with the mountain strippers

Such an interesting question for those of us who like our ethics defined by neat ideology. Should we disapprove or celebrate the British tourists who got their kit off on top of the sacred Malaysian mountain this week?

Well where do you stand? What was your instinctive reaction?

We detest rudeness. We would never ourselves offend a host nation's cultural sensibilities while abroad. Being polite is an underexplored ethical philosophy but one which pretty much takes you most of the way through leading a good life. I value it.

However, it was just a bit of fun by young people. No-one was really hurt and it brought a burst of exuberant joy into the total of the world's happiness.

And of course it's a bit funny because it involves boobs and bottoms.

Put simply we have a battle here between libertarians (who was actually harmed?) and romantics (doing something silly in the moment for the experience alone) versus conservatism (it is so because of convention alone) and faith (the spirits live on the mountain).

Versus irrational forces

A guide to form all views is often who the opposition is. You don't need to think for yourself if the Daily Mail hates something, it's probably an excellent idea. In this case we have a government minister who said the strippers' actions caused an earthquake. Yes, he actually did say that. That sort of terrifying irrationality from someone in charge of a country cannot be condoned. 

I have no truck with postmodern cultural relativism. That way lies FGM and Isis. There is the truth and there is untruth.

I'm British and so accept the cultural bias my views contain. It wasn't my temple that was offended. I accept I would always more likely side with the bottom-outers. To do so on gut feeling would be amiss, to do so based on considering strands of ethical philosophy if different. 

Who would you rather be friends with or indeed ask to run your country? The irrational and joyless or someone who literally climbs mountains wants to experience the romantic thrill of mild naughtiness?

But don't get your willy out in my house!

The politics of Marvellous

The enjoyable BBC TV film Marvellous could be claimed by various political ideologies.

If you haven't seen it, it's the uplifting story a man with learning difficulties, 'a bit slow on the uptake' as his mum says. He has an eventful time of it, jobs as a clown and kit man for Stoke City. He meets Ken Dodd and Tony Benn. A successful, friend filled life making people around him happy.

I think individualists would claim him for their own. Despite his barriers, he hitchhikes, talks to people, charms his way into jobs and makes things happen for himself. Triumph of personal responsibility, of Tebbit's get on your bike theory.

However none of this would be possible without the support of civil society. The church look out for him, when the circus abandons him in Scotland he just walks to the nearest church and asked for a lift back to Stoke. Stoke City provide meaning, employment, friendship and belonging. 

These institutions are not set up by the state, they don't exist for profit. These are the community organisations which fill the gaps and define a place (MK Dons hang your heads). 

The state isn't mentioned much apart from the NHS. Housing benefit probably doesn't fit in the narrative arc but it's hard to imagine how he'd've got by on purely community support. 

Ultimately family (his mum) does the lion's share.

While statists, communitarians, libertarians and mums might all lay claim to his success, he actually only thrives because all four of agencies are present in his life. One fills the gaps of the other. Society requires you to get off your own arse as well as properly organised and funded services. You also need people to look out for you and the social glue of voluntary institutions.

  

Innate religious skepticism in children

Unprompted, a four year old used an argument taught to first year philosophy students.

He's been learning about god and Jesus at school, it's that time of year. It seems he's skeptical. 

"If god made everything" he said, out of the blue "then what made god?".

It is the classic refutation to the first cause argument for god's existence. I didn't have an answer (nobody does) so I said that I'm sure his teachers would enjoy explaining it all to him and he should ask them, when the donkey and stable business comes up again.

Problem with this first cause thing is that it applied to physics too. Big bangs out of nowhere makes as little sense as sudden men in clouds.

The other arguments

The other arguments that philosophy of religion students are taught are the problem of evil and the watch maker. Here they are.

If god is all powerful, all knowing and good; then why is there evil? If he's not some of those things then he's not much of a god.

It takes a very clever man to make a watch. People are much more complicated than watches, in fact it's amazing that we can see, think and do whatever complex organs do. So whatever made people, walruses and onions must be pretty much god. 

The best refutation of this I read is from Richard Dawkins who points out that this is like saying a puddle is really smart for fitting exactly in the hole. We are complicated because we've adapted to survive. If we were rubbish we wouldn't be here, like the puddles that aren't.

Innate skepticism then; healthy, human.         

In praise of specifics

On writing courses they will teach to you, that to make writing come alive, you should write for as specific an audience and subject as possible. Write for the one-legged Eskimo about the 10.37am tea break. 

This holds for other aspects of life too.

The music goes round on radio 2 (Desmond Carrington) might be an hour of German language pop (and nothing recent either) which entertains me so much more than Absolute's focus grouped generica.

Place a personal ad for moth enthusiasts in Bolton and you'll be stepping out with a lady on Friday night. Describe yourself tall with GSOH and no-one will reply. It's not about being wacky, it's about being specific.

No football fan will watch a champions league game full of superstars if a relegation scrap between AFC Wimbledon and MK Dons is on the other side.

Specific Jim

I think there's a strong case that specifics are more interesting. Yet, there's a cautious drive that tends us to be generic. 'Thanks for your copy Mr Socks, we'll just bland it for the everyman.'

Now normally I link my observations back to a proper philosopher but I don't know of any in this case ( do let me know if you know of any). So I'll name the idea myself. I'll call it Specific Jim after my nickname for my boy who knows very precisely how things ought to be. 

 

Never read signs

I've found another philosophical justification for one of my grumpy tendencies.

I've decided to not read signs. It is not just the bad grammar (that needless capital letter or that apostrophe). It is that I have found, on the whole, that they tell you nothing that you couldn't decide on your own using your own common sense or common courtesy.

Laminated diktat 

Would you run headlong towards the cliff edge if the sign hadn't warned me? Throwing a child off a slide head first with his arms tied to his side might be in your scheme of sensible behaviour but I suspect you'd make the right call regardless of the helpful bullet point list from the authorities. 

If you have ever taken a thermos flask and sarnies into a cafe and tucked in without buying any of their food, you are a bit odd, I wouldn't need that specified to me by laminated diktat.

You can make these calls yourself and save yourself the time of reading the sign.

Weber - the steel cage

Weber had spotted that modern life and its institutions had become rule bound. That bureaucracies formed around institutions and with them brought their own procedures. From a company's HR team to a state's tax regime. Sport need rules but its joy is suffocated by an ever expanding list of micro-rules.

You can't escape these structures. The interesting observation that came with it was that following procedures came to replace making personal moral judgements. Follow the rules and you don't need to make a choice. It's easier.

He called this the steel cage of bureaucracy (usually mistranslated as iron cage). 

I heard an old timer policeman on the radio bemoaning the young plods for being unable to exercise judgement, instead being bound to the rulebook. He might have given the biscuit thief a warning, the newbies will literally lay down the law.

Isn't it better to think through your own moral judgements? Unthinking morality is less valuable and slavish rule following always leads to the Somme and the gulag. 

Apologise after 

A brilliant rule of thumb is to just apologise afterwards. If your own common courtesy compass leads to conflict with parky, saying sorry once is still quicker than having to spend hours reading signs.

I can't find a thinker who has worked this up though. So this folk morality isn't the territory of this blog, even though it works.

Do I need to say don't ignore road signs? No because your own judgement will have concluded driving on the right hand side of the road (UK) is stupid. 

I trust that you are nice, do what you think is right in the park.

    

Muddy and most of all short

Trouble with me is that when I'm face down in the mud being shouted at by a man in camouflage; I think about Thomas Hobbes.

British Military Fitness is refreshingly untouchy-feely. No excuses, no gloves, no water and you do those press ups properly. Because it is blokey and bantery and the trainer knows what he's doing, it is great fun. We did it as a one off work thing, me and the Finance department had a lovely time.

Made me think Hobbes was on to something 

Hobbes says a strong all powerful leader is vital for a state. The alternative being the freedom which results in chaos and crime. Famously he said life in the state of nature is bloody, brutal and most of all short.

Better to submit to supreme authority and have the trains run on time.

Coats and hegemony

I've never had much truck with it. I'm a liberal who isn't writing in a civil war context. I don't undertand why there isn't a middle ground between obeying God's representitive on earth and starving to death. Liberal democracy? 

Sometimes though it works much better to just be told what to do, rather than tedious consultation that results in grey compromise.

I also read in the Economist that periods of one state hegemony tend to result in better conditions for free trade. Hegemony meaning sustained dominance, cultural, military and economically (USA recently). It's the same idea; things work better when you just do what the man says.

Hobbes also wore the same coat for 40 years. There's a theme with philosophers and coats, I'll return to it another time.  

Soft skills or hard cash? Blair, determinism and the misplaced ego

Tony Blair recently said that he was so good as an international peace summit mediator because had had empathy.

He understood the pain of one party and was able to convey those emotions to their enemies. We all, at root, have human feelings and children to protect.

I won't dismiss these soft skills entirely. Experience at work tell me that the talent, determination and people skills of individuals are ultimately the key the getting stuff done. I think there's more to it though.

It's all about the cold hard cash?

Blair also said that this modest recognition of his superior empathetic qualities was a hard thing to accept as he'd been brought up in the Marxist school of economic determinism.

This states that the world evolves though economic states inevitably and there's nothing the individual does that affects that. Feudalism, capitalism and finally socialism will happen due to factors inherent in those system. For example the competition for finite resources and markets must lead to conflict within capitalism and to it's decline. The world rolls over us, we don't really make a difference.

As a liberal I'm a champion of an individual's impact on the world. Not least as it's depressing to be subject to external forces. But there's something in this underlying forces argument.

Individuals are just the icing on the cakes

The soft skills argument oversells itself. The waring parties wouldn't be at the table if the threat of US military wasn't lurking. I wouldn't be at the table being all caring with Tony because I'm not the prime Minister of a G8 country with a massive army, a predilection for invasion and a say in the movement of E.U. cash. Tony's Princess Di eyes are just the icing on the cake.

The X Factor winner is Christmas number 1 every year because the machine behind it provides 20 weeks of prime time advertising. The pretty singer can sing, the tune might be ok but if they had all that when they still worked in Greggs and no-one bought their records then. Icing on the cake.

Finally to Orwell: 'Pacifism is the preserve of people who live in a country with a large navy'. His point being that if you are overrun by goths, you would grab your pitchfork. Only in the Home Counties, over a glass of Chianti can you afford the luxury of such values because the Royal Navy sits in the channel sinking Vikings.

Larger forces are at work than the emotional intelligence of men who have honed their soft skills.         

Walkie Scorcer and schadenfreude

There's a new glass skyscraper in London nicknamed the Walkie Talkie and it's gone a bit wrong.

Its concave shape is channeling the unusual 2013 summer sunlight back into the street in a 'death ray' (no-one has died but that's what they are calling it for headline purposes) of ultra violet. It is now nicknamed the Walkie Socrcer.

I find this very funny. It's a really big problem (to make a whole London street unusable) on a really big scale. And it's cost billions.

It is satisfying when really big things mess up, why is that? We do enjoy a tall poppy with egg on its face (we also do enjoy a mixed metaphor).

For me it is because I earn very much less than these people who make really big mess-ups and yet I rarely mess up in my job. Well I do mess up, let's be honest but not often and only on a small scale. 

The architect in this case is cheerfully blaming other people for all this. Maybe it's just chutzpah that separates high earning fallible humans from low earning fallible humans? Someone clever than me will solve this problem though, don't ask a non-quaified schmuck like me to.

Thinkers on schadenfreude

Schopenhauer thought our delight in others' mishaps was 'the worst trait in human nature'. Kant said it was a 'devilish wickedness'. Now i'm starting to feel bad.

Phycologists put the need to enjoy poppy wilting down to low self esteem. So now I feel guilty and worthless.

There's hope though. John Portman of Virginia University is my savour (2004). He thinks we do it because of our sense of justice. We think somehow others are deserving of their banana skin. Whether they actually are deserving is less important than the fact that society works better when we have a sense of justice. A sense of consequences for bad behaviour and reward for harmonious traits. 

Phew, I can laugh at balls-ups afterall.

       

Marx, the Pet Shop Boys and matters of the trouser

The song 'Love is a Bourgeois construct' (Pet Shop Boys) came on the radio the other day and my companion asked what they were on about.

The DJ of course made a proud boast of his ignorance. We do in Britain, we hate clever. 

This is what it means:

Marx thought the monogamous relationship and the family were just ways of perpetuating the class system. Capital flows to the heir, the rich stay rich and the class system wins.

Communal living and free love were much preferred.

Romantic old devil wasn't he?

It seems a bit silly but the Victorian family was a pretty easy thing to dislike. The hypocrisy of men enjoying the female servants, the clear subordination of women and the shoving of children up chimneys.

Much easier to fault that than our current view of cuddles (say, that of Kendal and Briers in The Good Life).  

Marx also disliked things which made poor people a bit happier and distracted them from their condition. This prevented revolution. Snogging and football (religion famously) keep you off the baracades. 

It's pleasing to summarise swathes of political history

Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun, on Sunday, I was asked to describe the relationship between the political parties and business. No really.

Seeing as I'm always pleased with concise summary, I'll share what I said.

The Tories in the C19th were the party of the landed aristocracy. It was the Whigs who represented the emerging new money of business spawned by the industrial revolution. The whigs were for free trade against the vested interests of an old order which inhibited business.

By the turn of the C20th the Conservatives had bolted on nationalism while keeping their Burkean opposition of change. The Liberals had emerged from the Whigs to now champion the beginnings of a welfare state. Labour had appeared and was the party of the working man.

By the late C20th the Conservatives had embraced a free market ideal more akin to the old Whigs. When Labour dropped it's fourth clause (which stated business should be nationally owned) all three main parties ended in pretty much the same place with regard to the market. Give or take a penny on capital gains tax here or there.

While Liberals had various other core principles it could be a lack of clear representation of either business or worker hindered it's electoral chances through the C20th.

My listener seemed quite happy with that.

The Germans have a word for being alone in the woods

The Germans have a word for being alone in a forest. I've been alone in a German forest and I think, frankly, they need to go further and be more specific.

Waldeinsamkeit a sort of wooded-loneliness, is one of those words we don't have in English (there are lists of these pleasures on the thingyweb).

Years ago I walked down the Rhine south of Koblenz, alone. I loved it.

Walkers and follow-your-nose runners will know if you don't know an area then certain things help you not get lost: hills, landmarks, clear lines of sight.

Woods can be very disorientating. A lost path with no reference points is confusing.

I found on my Huensruck ramblings that pine forest is worse. It's quieter. There are fewer things living there than in English broadleaf so no comforting chirp and scamper. The needles or their acidic drop undergrowth inhibitors also muffle.

Yes, I did just write acid drop undergrowth inhibitors and shame on you, you are still reading.

So a German forest is altogether worse for getting lost in, when you are alone. And everyone knows some sort of Grimm hag or goblin oven fate awaits you in the Teutonic arboreal.

Just saying they need to beef their word up a bit.

Augurs well that ends well

The phrase 'it augurs well' comes from the Roman augurs who predicted things. They told the future by watching the flight of birds (amongst other things) and so this phrase and the word eagle are linked in their origin.

So there's me having a run around Ickworth National Trust grounds in Suffolk and having to make a decision. There was a shorter 6km route or a longer 11km route and I was approaching the junction at which I'd have to make the call.

Fortunately a little egret (a white bird like a small heron) was on hand (on wing) at the junction to clearly point me left by flying and facing that way. Remembering my Romans I did as advised but did actually say out loud that I'd hold him responsible if he'd led me to boggy fiendishness.

It chose the longer route, the eejit egret.

All this is amusing if not entirely rational though there are sound principles at work here. Running experts will tell you that you can break up a hill or a long slog by distracting yourself. Checking clever timing devices, aiming for a certain point, speeding up, all take your mind off the breathlessness and joint throb. I'd used my augur for that purpose.

Sense of IT and my silly old sensibilities

During a meeting this week a man from IT said that he wasn't interested in the look, the words or the usability of a product, just the functionality. If A led to B led to C then engaging copy and the right shade of pink could go hang. And if people were confused at how to use it that was their problem.

When I disagreed with this I continued a debate that's been going on for centuries: science versus art, reason versus emotion.

I'll take you through the years with four big hitters.

Plato thought we appreciate music because we get the maths (the patterns, the intervals in harmonies and so on) rather than because as individuals we just happened to dig it. Ratio versus sensus in his terms.

Austen in sense and sensibility gives us two sisters, one who suppresses her her emotions for greater responsibilities and another who is a whimsical old loved up dreamer.

The book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Pirsig 1974) says everything comes down to classic versus romantic. These terms are more commonly known for music and architectural periods. You knew what would happen when in Mozart's classical structures but Wagner might lead you up an odd sounding horny helmeted path for hours breaking lots of musical rules.

To build a symmetrical columned building, with correct (Fibonacci) proportions, in the Roman and Greek style was classical. Later to be frilly and turreted (think Disney castles or The Palace of Westminster) was romantic.

In 1959 C.P. Snow argued that Two Cultures existed. The divide between science and humanities was a barrier to our progress.

This divide will be familiar to all teens being asked to choose three science or three humanity A-levels. To the engineer student unable to get off with the floaty-minded girls who do drama. To me trying to make web content that doesn't baffle.

I don't think you can lump things or people into one of other category. Everything is a bit of both. People are complicated individuals and most things are more nuanced. I fall into both camps.

But it does keep coming up doesn't it?

The certainty of youth is best for spouting

In a debate by letters in C18th baroque Germany, Heinrich Bokemeyer suddenly realised that his views on the musical form canon, were complete bollocks:

'When I look at my old ideas, I am filled with the greatest disgust'.

I'd been discussing a similar notion earlier in the day with a colleague. We'd been wondering if she'd be better off writing opinion columns (or 'blogs' as we the call great-unread call them) now or in a few years when she'd seen a bit more life and had more to inform her barbed pen.

While you would have thought experience would benefit knowledge and so inform your opinions, there can though be an adverse effect on your spoutings. As Bokemeyer found there is certainty in youth.

The more you know the less certain you are. Plato knew this and was fond of saying philosophers knew they knew nothing and were always trying to find more out.

There's usually another side to a story and if you've read a bit and lived a bit you can probably sympathise with it.

Politicians tend to be very certain. It's been argued this is because they aren't as clever as some.

So if you want to proclaim with zest, do so in youthful ignorance. If you want to be balanced and correct, wait a bit.

'As mad as I am but no madder' or why J.S Mill would like my new hat

There's a Fry and Laurie sketch where a man goes to the doctor because he's a little bit mad. Not very much, just a tad. His only eccentricity is putting toast in his shoe.

'I'm as mad as I am but no madder' he declares.

I am boring. In fact i'd go as far as saying I'm balanced and rational. However I have just got new hat which gives me a tiny flicker of eccentricity.

OK so it's the equivalent of the accountant who wears a Homer Simpson tie but it's a start.

TRILBY

J.S Mill would approve.

He thought conformity curtailed our freedom as much as any laws. It was tyranny. A culture is stultified and constrained by everyone just fitting in and not rocking the boat.

Because of this tyranny he finds a genuine good in being different. In being eccentric, within the limits of not harming others.

The person who is different might be right. They might create life enhancing art or make a discovery.

Progress in society depends (amongst other things) on me wearing a Trilby in public.

Scrambled egg and alienation

I've noticed if you let a child help with the cooking they are more likely to eat their dinner.

Marx would be pleased as this confirms his theory of alienation.

EGG

It would be quicker, less effort and certainly less messy to scramble eggs myself.

This is in line with Model T Ford manufacture that taught us that division of labour increases output. Division of labour (you turn the screw, another sprays the paint) gets more stuff done.

What Marx saw however was that this process is dehumanising for workers. They are alienated which basically means they are bored. Profit is maximised but we are all a bit more miserable.

The tale of the egg showed me that the slower and messier process leads to a happy worker who ate his tea. He was part of the whole process not just a cog in the wheel.

Everyone wins for a bit more effort and collaboration. Fewer dinners were made but so what?

BUT

I had to wash up on my own.

Giving blood and Darwin

I gave blood this week and feel very smug about it on two counts. What follows is an exploration of where those feeling fit in our biological makeup.

I was pleased that I was allowed for starters. It's incredible anyone manages to donate, the criteria are so strict. Too small, been on holiday somewhere nice, recently ill, gay, dodgy NHS admin. The list excludes most.

My iron levels were fine and that's with me being a weak vegetarian! I didn't faint or throw up!

I felt very manly.

I'm tempting fate of course, next time I'll probably be flopped on the floor like a Galapogan seal.

I also feel morally righteous without caveat. This is a very rare feeling and. I intend to enjoy it. Especially as it has taken me years to get round to bothering.

Finches and the Beagle

What's going on here in terms of the history of human thought?

The first response (the manly one) is Darwin's survival of the fittest simplified. We are conditioned to want to physically exceed the other animals.

This interpretation led to the social Darwinism of letting the poor go to the wall and the attempted eradication of whole races.

Seeing if that's a bit of a palaver we had better find another way to explain it all.

Altruism is dominant

The morally righteous justification feeds into a more sophisticated interpretation of Darwinism. That being that we are programmed to assist the whole pack in surviving not just individual.

Cooperation helps my family of monkeys or monkeys in general to prosper. Meerkats, as everyone knows, babysit other Meerkats.

Our altruism is our driving force.

This is much nicer isn't it?

I've had cold fingers and toes since though, might go and have a lie down.

Have I just had Plato's perfect day? Leaves and lunch.

Having learnt some leaf types from the wonderful Memrise website, I managed to get a bracing run in and enjoyed a nice lunch.

Unremarkable. Though adding parsley to the lentil and carrot soup was a masterstroke.

For Plato though this is as good as it gets. For all I know he had no interest in leaves or jogging but what he did like was dividing things into threes.

You had to cater for your mind, body and soul. So learning things, exercise and enjoying yourself would tick his Hellenic beardy boxes.

It's 'all work and no play' really but I like the balance in it, I like the justification for pleasure.

Also applied to the state

He also extrapolated this idea to society as a whole. It needed three types of people. Philosopher (mind), soldiers (body) and those who produce things (ok it falls down here but it's still three things).

So take heart! When you are pulling on a nice pint with the paper in a comfy chair, Plato would approve. As long as you've schlepped up a hill first and written your blog having read up on the subject first.

Your author may be excused the last bit!

A flaw in Mill's happiness principle based on observations of the office heating arrangements

You read on after that headline? Well done.

I'm too warm in the office, others feel the cold and turn the heating up. 'Put a jumper on, have a cup of tea' I implore Marilyn, never to any avail. I'd rather be outside in cold weather, others hunker down and some people, would you believe it, don't like 70s progressive rock music!

The point being what we dig is subjective personal thing. What grates on me (playing music after a goal) others derive felicity from. Each to their own.

To stop harm, not for your own good

J.S Mill saw this an concluded if we want people to be happy there's no point in imposing your view of what's best for them. He was talking about government paternalism and moral coercion of the majority. He didn't believe you should have to have a beard, get married to be allowed in a B&B, always wear a poppy, not shop on a Sunday or not go to school if you are a girl for your own good. The only reason others can compel you is if you harm others, never for your own good.

Take drugs and gamble yourself to death. Who am I to say that doesn't make you happy anymore than they are to tell me I shouldn't go for a run in the rain (which people do). I can't know what makes you content.

Now the flaw!

It's a big deal for me to find flaws in Mill. I fundamentally believe the world would be better if personal choices were accepted more readily rather than us all telling each other what to do all the time. He argues that dissent sharpens the arguments and catalyses truth, so here we go.

There's a glaring problem though with the idea that happiness can't be imposed. The flaw being that you get used to things. The temperature, the tune you are humming or the food you like. To a massive extent they are influenced by what you are exposed to.

Aquire the taste

Me and the current Mrs Socks have exposed each other to football and baroque choral music to the point of mutual appreciation. You can acquire the taste for beer.

I bet you never used to like tomatoes?

So maybe there are things we can derive pleasure from if just forced to experience them. If that is the case then why shouldn't a wise government or moral society impose on us long country walks, yoga and reading the works of J.R.R Tolkein?

You don't like it because you haven't tried it?

Folk music is the only credible argument against capitalism

I like folk music for lots of reasons. I added another reason this week when I realised folk music is the only working example of an alternative to capitalism.

It's appealing to have some politics behind music.

This perhaps needs a little explanation.

Inequality in capitalism arises because of private property

If you can own property you can own more than someone else. If you own it you control one of the means of production (labour and capital being the others) so you are ahead in the stakes of the have and have nots.

This inequality and its associated poverty led Marx to his ideas of common ownership. This ideology led to the state controlled states that crumbled in 1989.

And that was that. A sea of Trabants voted with their wheels, headed west to through the Brandenburg gate and the world settled for the one system which lets us all own our own iPads and access a variety of maize based snacks. The end of history. Which suits most people it seems.

Some grumbled but the alternatives reminded them too much of their parent's excruciating commune stories. Apart from folk music.

Lau not Lenin

Folk isn't owned. It doesn't have intellectual copyright. Fairport Convention are more likely to sing She Moved Through The Fair because it's free. Everyone brings something new to traditional tunes, the songs live on and people with tankards clipped to belts love it.

It works better because no-one owns it.

This is an enormous insight. You crisp collection (crisp collection?) enjoys market competition driving deeper ridges and lobster flavours in search of your coin. Most things do. The innovation in folk however comes directly from the opportunity to use music that isn't private (nor come to that, state owned) property.

Not much else can boast that. But don't tell Radio 2 or they'll witch hunt Mike Harding.

So have real ale and sandals triumphed where vodka and snow boots failed?